Ecclesiastical History

XVI. ^A How the emperor Constantine enlarged the ancient city of Byzantium, and named it Constantinople.

XVII. How the emperor’s mother, Helena, having arrived at Jerusalem, sought out and found the cross of Christ, and built a church.

XVIII. How the emperor Constantine also destroyed the superstitions of the pagans, and erected many churches in various places.

XIX. How, in the times of Constantine, the inner nations of the Indians embraced the faith of Christ.

XX. In what manner the Iberians became Christians.

XXI. Concerning Antony the monk.

XXII. Concerning Manes, the author of the Manichaean heresy, and whence he had his origin.

XXIII. How Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, having taken fresh courage, attempted to subvert the Nicaean faith by hatching plots against Athanasius.

XXIV. Concerning the Synod of Antioch, in which Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, was deposed: on account of whom a sedition arose, and the city was nearly overturned.

XXV. Concerning the presbyter who took pains that Arius might be recalled.

XXVI. How Arius, being recalled, having presented a book of repentance to the emperor, feigned the Nicaean faith.

XXVII. How, upon Arius returning to Alexandria by the emperor’s will, and not being received by Athanasius, those around Eusebius hatched various calumnies against Athanasius before the emperor.

XXVIII. How, on account of the accusations that had been made against Athanasius, the emperor ordered a synod of bishops to be assembled at Tyre.

XXIX. Concerning Arsenius, and the hand of his that was said to have been cut off.

XXX. How, after the first accusation, when Athanasius was found innocent, the accusers resorted to flight.

XXXI. How Athanasius fled to the emperor, when the bishops had not admitted his defenses during the second accusation.

XXXII. How, Athanasius having departed, those of the synod voted for his deposition.

XXXIII. How the synod proceeded from Tyre to Jerusalem, and having celebrated the dedication of the New Jerusalem, received those around Arius into communion.

XXXIV. That the emperor called the synod to himself by letter, in order that the case of Athanasius might be more precisely examined before him.

XXXV. That when the synod had not come to the emperor, those around Eusebius slandered Athanasius, as though he had threatened to divert the grain which was supplied from Alexandria to the city of Constantinople; moves by which, the emperor sent Athanasius into exile, commanding him to dwell in the Gauls.

XXXVI. Concerning Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the sophist.

XXXVII. How Arius, after the exile of Athanasius from Alexandria, having been summoned by the emperor, stirred up disturbances against Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople.

XXXVIII. Concerning the death of Arius.

XXXIX. How the emperor, having fallen into sickness, came to the end of his life.

XL. Concerning the funeral of the emperor Constantine.

VOLUME I. CHAPTER I. The Proem of the Book.

Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, having set forth the ecclesiastical history in ten books in total, ^A brought it to a close at the times of the Emperor Constantine, during which the persecution stirred up by Diocletian against the Christians [(1)] also ceased. But the same author, in writing the life of Constantine, made mention of the matters concerning Arius only partially, [(2)] being more concerned, as is wont to occur in encomia, with the praises of the Emperor and a panegyric elevation of his words than with accurately recounting the events that took place. We, however, having set out to write an account of what has happened in the churches from that time down to the present, shall take the beginning of our subject from where he left off, [(3)] not concerning ourselves with a bombastic style, but rather with as much as we have found in documents, or have heard from those who were present and recounting the history. [(4)] And since it contributes greatly to our proposed task to mention in what manner the Emperor Constantine came to embrace Christianity, we shall mention a little about this, as best we can, taking our beginning from ^B such a starting point.

CHAPTER II. In what manner the Emperor Constantine came to embrace Christianity.

When [(5)] Diocletian and Maximian, surnamed Herculius, [*] had, by compact, laid down the imperial power and retired to a private life, Maximian, who was surnamed Galerius, having been a co-emperor with them, set out for Italy and appointed two Caesars: Maximin in the regions of the East, and Severus in the regions of Italy; but in Britain, [(6)] Constantine was proclaimed Emperor, in the place of his father...

who had died in the first year of the two hundred and seventy-first Olympiad ^A, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of July. In Rome, Maxentius, the son of Maximian, also called Herculius, was raised by the praetorian soldiers—more as a tyrant than an emperor. Upon this occasion, Herculius, inflamed by the desire to recover the empire, attempted to destroy his son Maxentius. But he was prevented from doing this by the soldiers. Afterwards, he ended his life at Tarsus in Cilicia. Severus, the Caesar, having been sent by Galerius Maximian to Rome to arrest Maxentius, was killed, having been betrayed by his own soldiers. Finally, Galerius Maximian, holding the helm of the entire empire, departed from life, having first appointed Licinius as emperor; he was an old friend and companion in arms of his, originally from Dacia. Meanwhile, Maxentius oppressed the Romans most severely, behaving toward them more as a tyrant than an emperor. For he most shamelessly defiled the wives of free-born men, slaughtered many of the citizens, and committed other crimes of this nature. When the Emperor Constantine learned of these things, he was eager to free the Romans from the yoke of his tyrannical service; and immediately he began to inquire anxiously by what means he might overthrow the tyrant. Distressed by such anxiety, he pondered in his mind which God he should invoke as an assistant for this war. And it came into his mind that, while Diocletian, who had zealously ^B inclined toward the gods of the gentiles, had been able...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

...to have begun in the same year that Diocletian and Maximian Herculius had laid aside the purple. The author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum was of this opinion, as were certain others, who attribute the years of Constantius' reign to his son Constantine. And from this it arose that Constantine the Great is said by some to have reigned for thirty-two years, when in reality he reigned only thirty years and ten months. Socrates repeats the same at the end of the seventh book, where, concluding his history, he says it begins from the first year of the CCLXXI Olympiad, in which Constantine was proclaimed emperor. This Olympiad begins from the solstice of the year three hundred and five, which was the first year after the abdication of Diocletian. However, Constantius did not die in this year, but in the following, in which he himself had been consul for the sixth time, with Galerius Augustus, as is read in the Fasti of Idatius. Therefore, the death of Constantius must be ascribed to the second year of the aforementioned Olympiad.

(8) *At Tarsus in Cilicia he ended his life.* This is an error of Socrates. For Maximian the Elder, who was also Herculius, was killed by the order of Constantine in Gaul in the year 310. But Maximin Caesar, defeated by Licinius two years later, died at Tarsus, as Aurelius Victor, Eusebius in the Chronicle, and others write. This is a common error of the Greeks, who confuse Maximian and Maximin.

(9) *Galerius Maximian. [This text] should be written simply as Maximin, as is correctly written infra.* But these names, as I have said, are accustomed to be confused by the Greeks. Thus at the beginning of this chapter, where it is read in the Sfortian codex that it is written...

(10-11) *All things Galerius Maximian was handling.* These things must be understood charitably. For Galerius did not in reality hold the helm of the entire empire, since there were two other Augusti at the same time: Constantine in the Gauls, and Maxentius in Rome. But he is said to have administered the height of the empire, because he was the senior Augustus, and was honored by the junior Augusti as a father.

VARIOUS NOTES.

b *Flavius Valerius Severus, a nephew of the Emperor Maximian Armentarius by his sister, was declared Caesar by his uncle, along with Maximin, and looked after the affairs of Italy and Africa. Diocletian called him a dancer, a drunkard, a sot, to whom the night was day and the day was night. When Maxentius had invaded the empire at Rome on November 28, in the year 306, Severus, in order to crush him, approached the walls of the city in arms. But immediately the soldiers deserted him and handed themselves over to Maxentius, against whom they had come. What remained for him, deserted, but flight? He fled to Ravenna, and there shut himself up with a few soldiers. But when he saw that it would turn out such that he would be handed over to Maximian Herculius, who was pressing him with an army, he gave himself up; ^C and he obtained nothing else except a good death: for with his veins opened, he was forced to die gently. See Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, ch. 18 and 26.*

*Eusebius in the Chronicle, translated into Latin by St. Jerome, agrees with Idatius, where, relative to the second year of the CCLXXI Olympiad, these things are noted: Constantius died in Britain, at Eboracum, in the sixteenth year of his reign. After him, his son Constantine, born of the concubine Helena, invades the kingdom. Moreover, Constantine began to reign in the fourth year of the persecution. Furthermore, that Constantine invaded the empire on July 25, in the year 306, is most clearly proven from his own death: on which see Socrates, last ch. of this book, and Eusebius in his Life, bk. iv, ch. 64, with the years of his reign calculated as 30, and 10 months.* ^D

^A and found that his father, Constantius, had turned away from the religions of the Greeks and led a much happier life. While he was in such a state of uncertainty, and was perhaps journeying with his soldiers, it occurred that he beheld a marvelous sight, and one beyond the power of speech. For about the midday hours of the sun, when the day was already declining, he saw in the heavens a column of light in the shape of a cross, on which were inscribed these words: In this conquer. Struck with amazement at this sign, the emperor, not trusting his own eyes, asked those present if they too saw the same vision. When they agreed that they did, he was confirmed in his conviction by this divine and marvelous sight. When night came on, he saw Christ in his sleep, commanding him to make a sign according to the pattern of that which had appeared, and to use it as a sure trophy against his enemies. Persuaded by this oracle, he constructed the cross-shaped trophy, which is preserved in the palace to this day. He proceeded with greater eagerness to his tasks. Engaging the enemy before Rome near the so-called Milvian bridge, he was victorious, Maxentius having been drowned in the river. This was the seventh year of his reign ^B when he won the victory over Maxentius. After this, while Licinius—who was his colleague in the empire and his son-in-law, having married his sister Constantia—was staying in the East, he himself, having received such great benefits from God, offered thanks to the Benefactor. These were, to release the Christians from persecution, to recall those in exile, to set free those in prison, and to restore their confiscated property to them. He also repaired the churches and did everything with great zeal. At this same time Diocletianus, who had resigned the empire, died in Salona in Dalmatia. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(12) *The seventh year of his reign*. Constantine won the victory over Maxentius in the year of Christ 312, when he and Licinius were serving their second consulship. This was the sixth year of Constantine's reign. For the beginning of his reign arises from the eighth day before the Kalends of August, in the year of Christ 306. But if we say that Maxentius was defeated on the eighth day before the Kalends of October, as Onuphrius and Sigonius place it in their books *On the Western Empire*, then it could be true what Socrates says, that Constantine won the victory over Maxentius in the seventh year of his reign. Indeed, the seventh year of his reign had begun on the eighth day before the Kalends of August, in the year 312. It troubles me, however, not a little that Maxentius is said in the Panegyric of Nazarius to have been killed at the end of the year of his reign, the day before he began his seventh. And yet Maxentius had begun to reign a few days after Constantine. If he was killed on the eighth day before the Kalends of October, it must necessarily be said that he began to reign on the seventh day before the Kalends of October. And thus Constantine would have arrived at the empire two months before Maxentius. This indeed seems less probable to me. But Socrates is consistent with himself here. For since the reign of Constantine began from the year of Christ 306, he rightly reports this victory in the seventh year of the same reign.

(15) *At this same time Diocletianus*. He died at Salona on the third day before the Nones of December, in the year of Christ 316, as Idatius correctly writes in the *Fasti*. The author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum* writes the same, except that the name of Galerius Maximianus was wrongly substituted for Diocletianus. Zosimus confirms the same in the second book of his *History*, where he writes that Diocletianus died three years after the third consulship of Constantine and Licinius. For after he said that 110 years had passed from the consulship of Chilo and Libo, in which the secular games had been celebrated, to the third consulship of Constantine and Licinius, he adds that which is entirely true. But Joseph Scaliger in his *Animadversions on Eusebius* misunderstood this passage of Zosimus, as if Zosimus were saying that Diocletianus died three years after his abdication of the empire, or after his ninth consulship.

VARIA.

*He who was his son-in-law*. To be rendered: *whom he had also taken to himself as a kinsman*, or *had joined to himself by kinship*. Thus the Scholiast on Homer explains the word: *"Gambros,"* he says, *is called the one who marries, by the relatives of the woman married.* W. LOWTH

^A

CAP. III. How, while Constantine was increasing the affairs of the Christians, Licinius, his colleague, persecuted the Christians.

Constantine the Emperor, for his part, holding the opinions of Christ, acted in all things as a Christian: he built churches and adorned them with magnificent offerings; furthermore, he closed the temples of the Greeks, pulled them down, and made the statues within them public property. Licinius, however, his colleague in the empire, being entangled in the errors of the Greeks, hated the Christians. He was restrained from inciting an open persecution against them by fear of the Emperor Constantine. Nevertheless, he secretly laid many snares for them. Proceeding further, he attempted to harm them openly. For this persecution was local. It occurred only where Licinius was. Since he was committing these and other tyrannical acts, he by no means escaped the notice of Constantine. When he perceived that the latter was incensed on this account, he turned to making excuses for himself. To soothe him, he entered into a feigned friendship, swearing many oaths that he would never harbor any tyrannical intentions; yet even while he was swearing, he was committing perjury. For he did not cease from his tyrannical schemes against Constantine, nor from his persecution of the Christians. Indeed, by enacted law, he forbade bishops to visit the houses of the Greeks, lest the religion of the Christians be propagated under such a pretext. The persecution was thus at once rumored and secret. It was hidden by his words, yet manifest in his deeds. For those who were persecuted suffered irreparable harm, both in their possessions and in their bodies. ^B

CAP. IV. That a war arose between Constantine and Licinius on account of the Christians.

For these reasons, the Emperor Constantine was inflamed with the greatest indignation against Licinius. Having broken the treaty of feigned friendship, they became enemies to one another. Not long afterward, they turned to warring against each other. And after many engagements on both land and sea, finally, at Chrysopolis in Bithynia—a port of Chalcedon—Licinius was defeated and surrendered himself. Constantine treated his captive with great humanity; he inflicted no punishment upon him, but ordered him to live quietly and peacefully in Thessalonica. But he, having kept quiet for a short while, later gathered some barbarians and attempted to recover from his defeat and renew the war. Having learned of this, the Emperor ordered him to be put to death. And at his command, he was executed. Constantine, therefore, having become master of all, declared as supreme Emperor and Augustus (14), applied himself once more to increasing the affairs of the Christians. He did this in various ways; and because of him, the cause of Christianity was in profound peace. But this peace was soon disturbed by a civil war among the Christians. ^D

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(14) *Autokrator and Basileus.* In the Royal and Florentine codices the particle *kai* is missing, which Christophorsonus supplied. To me, it does not seem entirely necessary. But if we wish to retain it, then it will signify Augustus, not king, as Christophorsonus translates. Socrates is alluding to the acclamations of the soldiers, who, after a signal victory, were accustomed to call their prince Emperor and Augustus. The citizens did the same when a victorious prince entered the city.

^A In sum, they were in peace and security. But a war of internal strife among the Christians immediately followed this peace. What that war was, and how it had its beginning, I shall now explain to the best of my ability.

CHAPTER V.

Of the contention of Arius against Bishop Alexander.

After Peter, who was bishop of Alexandria and who suffered martyrdom during the reign of Diocletian, ^B Achillas succeeded to the bishopric. After Achillas came Alexander, during the peace already mentioned. Living more securely, he governed his Church. One day, when his presbyters and the rest of the clergy were present, he was discussing the mystery of the holy Trinity with more than usual zeal, teaching that there was a unity in the Trinity. Arius, one of the presbyters serving under him—a man not ignorant of dialectical discourse—supposing that the bishop was introducing the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan, out of a spirit of contention inclined toward the opposite view, and, as it seemed, opposed himself ^C more sharply to what had been said by the bishop, stating: "If the Father begat the Son, he who is begotten has a beginning of existence; and from this it is manifest that there was when the Son was not; and it follows necessarily that he has his subsistence from things that are not."

CHAPTER VI.

How from this contention the Church received the beginning of division; and how Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, deposed Arius and his followers.

Having reasoned thus with these new and unheard-of assertions, he excited many to the controversy. And a great fire was suddenly kindled from a small spark. The evil, having started in the Church of Alexandria, spread throughout all Egypt and Libya, and the upper Thebaid; and it soon began to seize other provinces and cities as well. Many others, and especially Eusebius—not the one of Caesarea, but the one ^D who formerly...

had been bishop of the Berytians, but at that time had crept into the episcopacy of Nicomedia, which is in Bithynia. When Alexander heard and saw these things happening, he was kindled with indignation, and having convened a council of many bishops, he deposed Arius and those who embraced his opinion. He also wrote to those in every city as follows:

Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria

To the beloved and most honored fellow-ministers ^A of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greetings in the Lord.

Since the Catholic Church is one body, and there is a command in the holy Scriptures to maintain the bond of unity and peace, it is fitting that we should write and inform one another of the things that are occurring in each place, so that whether one member suffers or rejoices, we may either suffer or rejoice with one another. In our own diocese, therefore, there have now stepped forth lawless men and enemies of Christ, teaching an apostasy which one might naturally call the forerunner and precursor of Antichrist. I had wished indeed to consign this matter to silence, so that the evil might be extinguished within the apostates themselves, and not, by spreading to other places, contaminate the ears of the simpler-minded. But since Eusebius—he who is now in Nicomedia—thinking that ecclesiastical affairs depend upon his own whim, because he left Berytus and coveted the Church of the Nicomedians, and has not been punished for it ^B by anyone, now presides over these apostates, and has set out to write everywhere in their favor...

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

(15) “Hearing and seeing.” These words are transposed; I restore them as “hearing and seeing things happening,” or, as it is read in the Sfortian codex, “things that are happening.”

(16) “Since the Catholic Church is one body.” Lucas Holstenius, a most learned man, once wrote a dissertation on this epistle of Alexander, which indeed, shortly before his death, he sent to me together with other minor works. In that dissertation, he first observes that translators had wrongly rendered ^C these words of Alexander as: *Cum unum catholicæ corpus Ecclesiæ*. He himself contends that the passage should rather have been translated: *Cum Ecclesia catholica unum sit corpus*, etc., or *uno constet corpore*. For the learned man wants Alexander to allude to the Epistles of Paul, in which the Church is more often called the body of Christ. But, with the scholarly man’s permission, if Alexander had intended what Holstenius wishes, he would certainly have said so. Since he did not say it, it is apparent that the meaning of these words is no different from what the translators provided. Furthermore, if Alexander had wished to say the Church was the body of Christ, he would not have said "one body," but rather "the body of Christ."

(17) “Precursor.” In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Gelasius of Cyzicus, it is read as *procursor*.

(18) “Has not been punished for it.” In the codex of Leo Allatius, it is read as “against him.” In Gelasius of Cyzicus, it is read as “against his own.” But the vulgate reading pleases more, which is also confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus, who translates it thus: *Non est in eum ultio subsecuta*.

VARIOUS NOTES

...Arian faction ^D and standard-bearer he became, the author of all the evils which were being plotted by the Arians, the only disturber. Hence the followers of Arius are commonly called Eusebians, and those around Eusebius. (Guil. Cave, ann. Christi 524.)

“And having convened a council of many bishops, he deposed Arius and those who embraced his opinion.” First, it seems, he gathered the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria and Mareotis, and demanded their consent in the deposition of Arius and his followers. The address of Alexander himself to his clergy was published by Cotelerius in his notes to book VII of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, chap. 28. W. LOWTH.

“Epistle of Alexander.” The most learned Benedictine monks published this epistle in the *Works of St. Athanasius*, volume one, page 396, where they observe that this exemplar which Socrates provided is sprinkled with many errors; and that the subscriptions of the Alexandrian clergy are missing here, which they appended to the end of their own edition.

^A And he has attempted to write everywhere, protecting them, in case he might undermine 19 some who are ignorant, [leading them] into the extreme and Christ-fighting heresy. I felt a necessity, knowing what is written in the law, no longer to remain silent, but to announce [it] to you all, so that you may know both those who have become apostates and the wretched phrases of their heresy; and if Eusebius writes, do not pay heed [to him]. For his long-standing malice, which had been consigned to oblivion and silence by time, he is now anxious to renew through these [men]. He pretends indeed to be writing on their behalf, but in deed he shows that he is doing this while laboring in his own cause. Now, those who have become apostates are: Arius, Achillas, Aithales, and Carpones, and another Arius, and Sarmates, and Euzoius, and Lucius, and Julianus, and Menas, and Helladius, and Gaius, ^B and with them Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops. And the things which they have invented, speaking contrary to the Scriptures, are these 20: God was not always Father; but there was when God was not Father. The Word of God was not always, but came into being out of nothing. For the God who is, has made him who was not, out of that which is not. Therefore, there was a time when he was not. For the Son is a creature and a work. And he is neither like in essence to the Father, nor is he the true and natural Word of the Father, nor is he his true wisdom 21; but he is one of the things made and created. And he is called Word and Wisdom abusively, being himself also made by the proper Word of God, and by the wisdom in God, in which God made both all things and him. Therefore he is also mutable and alterable in nature, just as are all rational beings. And he is foreign and alien and de-

^Atached from the substance of God. The Father is invisible and ineffable to the Son: for the Son neither knows the Father perfectly and exactly, nor is he able to see him perfectly. For the Son does not even know his own substance, as to what kind it is. Since he was made for our sake, in order that God might create us through him as through some instrument. And he would not even have existed, had God not wished to create us. And when someone asked them whether the Word of God could be changed just as the devil was changed, they were not afraid to answer: Certainly he can. For he is mutable by nature, being one who can be begotten and created. ^B Accordingly, we, together with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, numbering nearly a hundred, gathered together and anathematized Arius, who said these things and affirmed them with the greatest impudence, both him and those who adhered to him. But Eusebius received them, striving to mingle falsehood with truth, and impiety with piety. But they shall by no means prevail. For truth conquers; and there is no communion of light with darkness, nor agreement of Christ with Belial. For who has ever heard such things? Or who, hearing them now, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears, so that the filth of such words may not touch his hearing? Who, hearing John say, *In the beginning was the Word* (John 1:1), does not condemn those who say, "There was a time when he was not"? Or who, hearing in the Gospel, *The only-begotten Son* (John 1:18), and, *Through him all things were made* (John 1:3), will not hate those who utter such things, that the Son is one of the created things? But how can he be equal to those who were made through him? Or how can he be ^C the only-begotten, who, according to their opinion, is numbered with all the rest in the order of creatures? Or by what reasoning could he have arisen from non-existence, when the Father says, *My heart has poured forth a good word* (Ps. 45:1), and elsewhere, *From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you* (Ps. 110:3)? Or how is his substance dissimilar to the Father, when he is the perfect image and splendor of the Father, and when he himself says, *He who has seen me has seen the Father* (John 14:9)? But if the Son is the reason and wisdom of God, how was there a time when he was not? For it is the same as for them to say that God was once without reason and without wisdom. But how is he mutable or alterable, he who says through himself, *I am in the Father, and the Father is in me* (John 14:10); and, *I and the Father are one* (John 10:30); and through the prophet, *See me, that I am, and I have not changed* (Mal. 3:6)? But if anyone were to refer even the Father to the

VALESII ANNOTATIONS (23) *And ineffable is*. In the codex of Leo Allatius which contains the Tripartite History, which Theodorus Lector composed in Greek from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, "invisible" is read. And so Epiphanius Scholasticus reads, as appears from his version. (24) *Of mutable nature*. The codex of Allatius has this, as Epiphanius also reads. (25) *Begotten*. I think it should be "created," as it is read in the codex of Gelasius of Cyzicus. Epiphanius reads no differently. For he translates: "But he is made and mutable." But what follows is read better in Gelasius than the text I followed in my version. (26) *And of Libya*. In the codex of Leo Allatius and the codex of Gelasius, "and of Libya" is read. But in the codex of Gelasius, that which pleases more is read. For Libya is twofold. Furthermore, this number of one hundred bishops in Egypt is to be noted. I also remember reading the same number in Athanasius in the *Apology against the Arians*, page 788: "There are bishops in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, nearly a hundred." (27) *How can he be equal*. In the Florentine and Sfortian codices, "equal" is read. Truly in the codex of Leo Allatius, and in Gelasius of Cyzicus, this passage is written much more correctly in this way: "How can he be one of those who were made through him?" Nor does Epiphanius Scholasticus read otherwise.

^A For it is just as if they were to say that God was at some time devoid of reason and wisdom. How can he be subject to change and alteration, when he himself says, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," and elsewhere, "I and the Father are one"? And through the prophets he long before proclaimed: "Consider me, that I am, and I do not change." And although one might refer this statement to the Father himself, it is more fitting to accept it now as spoken of the Son: because although he became man, he is in no way changed, but, as the Apostle says, "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same is also forever."

What, then, impelled them to say that he was made for our sake, when Paul, however, says, "For whom are all things, and through whom are all things"? But regarding that blasphemy of theirs, namely that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, it ought to seem strange to no one. For since they have once declared war on Christ, they also scorn the very words of the Lord, who says: "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father." Therefore, if the Father knows the Son only in part, it is evident that the Son also knows the Father only in part. But if it is impious to say this, and if the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is clear that just as the Father knows his own Word, so also the Son knows his own Father, whose Word he is. ^B And as we say these things, and unfold the divine Scriptures, we have often refuted them. But again, like chameleons, they kept changing, contending to claim for themselves that which is written: "When the impious man arrives at the depths of evils, he scorns."

Many heresies indeed have arisen before them, which, having dared more than they ought, have fallen into madness. But these men, through all their own sayings, attempting the destruction of the divinity of the Word, have justified those former heresies out of their own deeds, as if they were nearer to the Antichrist. For this reason, they were cast out from the Church and were anathematized. We are indeed grieved at the perdition of these men, and especially because, having once learned the things of the Church, they have now jumped away from it. But we are not surprised. For this is what happened to Hymenaeus and Philetus; ^C and before them to Judas, who, having followed the Savior, later became his betrayer and an apostate. And we have not remained uninstructed concerning these very people. For the Lord himself predicted: "See that no one deceives you; for many will come in my name saying, 'I am he, and the time is near.' Do not go after them." And Paul, having learned these things from the Savior, wrote ^D that "In the latter times some shall depart from the wholesome faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, who turn away from the truth." Therefore, since our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ both warned us through himself and signaled through the Apostle concerning such persons, we, having become hearers of their impiety, have consistently anathematized them as we previously mentioned.

^A We have also made this known to your piety, beloved and most honored fellow-ministers, so that you might neither receive any of them, should they have the audacity to come to you, nor be persuaded by Eusebius or any other person writing to you on their behalf. For it is fitting that we, as Christians, should turn away from all those who speak and think against Christ as enemies of God and corrupters of souls, and that we should not even bid such persons greetings, ^B lest we at any time become partakers in their sins, as the blessed John has enjoined. Greet the brothers who are with you. Those who are with me greet you."

When Alexander had written such things to the bishops in every city, the evil grew worse, as those to whom the letters were made known were stirred up to contention. Some, agreeing with what was written, added their own subscriptions. Others did the opposite. ^C Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was especially stirred up to opposition, because Alexander had made mention of him by name in his letters in a negative way. At that time, Eusebius had very great influence, because the emperor was then residing in Nicomedia. For Diocletian had built a palace there a short time before. For this reason, many of the bishops obeyed Eusebius. And he sent frequent letters, at one time to Alexander, admonishing him to suppress the question which had been moved among them and to receive Arius into communion, ^D and at another time to the bishops of the individual cities, persuading them not to give their consent to Alexander. Whence all things were full of tumult and disturbance. For it was possible to see not only the presidents of the churches contending with words among themselves, but also the multitudes of the people being divided: some siding with these, others with those. Finally, the matter proceeded to such a point of indignity that the Christian religion was mocked publicly, even in the very theaters. Those, therefore, who were at Alexandria contended stubbornly over the highest dogmas of the faith, and they sent embassies to the bishops of the provinces. Those others, divided into one or the other party, joined in their similar faction. The Meletians, who had separated from the Church a little earlier, joined themselves to those who held with Arius. Who these are must be told. By Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, who during the time of Diocletian...

^A suffered martyrdom, a certain Melitius, a bishop of one of the cities in Egypt, was deposed, both for many other reasons and especially because, having denied the faith during the persecution, he had offered sacrifice. Having been deposed, and having had many who followed him, he became the ringleader of a heresy of those who down to the present day are called Melitians after him in Egypt. Having no reasonable justification for having separated himself from the Church, he simply kept saying that he had been treated unjustly. He also kept slandering and abusing Peter. But Peter, having suffered martyrdom during the persecution, passed away. Melitius transferred his slanders to Achillas, who was bishop after Peter, and again to Alexander, who had become bishop after Achillas. While they were fixed in these things, the controversy concerning Arius arose; and Melitius, together with his own followers, joined with Arius, conspiring with him against the bishop. As for those to whom the opinion of Arius seemed absurd, they approved of the judgment rendered by Alexander against Arius, and (considered) that the vote against those who thought in that way was just. ^B Those around Eusebius of Nicomedia, and as many as were pleased with the opinion of Arius, also wrote, so as to dissolve the excommunication that had already occurred, and to bring back into the Church those who had been excommunicated; for they claimed they did not think wrongly. In this way, as contrary letters were sent to the bishop of Alexandria, collections of these letters were made, Arius making them for those on his side, and Alexander for those on the contrary side; and this became a pretext for an apology for the heresies that now prevail—those of the Arians, the Eunomians, and those who have their name from Macedonius—for each side used these letters as witnesses for their own heresy.

CAP. VII. How the Emperor Constantine, being grieved at the disturbance of the churches, sent Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the bishop and Arius to concord.

When the emperor heard these things, and was deeply pained in his heart, ^C regarding this matter as his own personal calamity, he immediately strove to extinguish the evil that had been kindled, and sent letters to Alexander ^D and...

Arius through a man of proven faith, whose name was Hosius, ^A a bishop of one of the cities in Spain named Corduba; whom the emperor both loved and honored greatly. I have deemed it appropriate to insert a portion of these letters here. The entire letter exists in the books of Eusebius concerning the Life of Constantine.

Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus, to Alexander and Arius.

I discover that the origin of the present controversy arose from this: when you, Alexander, were inquiring of your presbyters what each of them might think regarding a certain passage of the law, or rather, were questioning them regarding a part of a futile investigation; and when you, Arius, had imprudently brought forward that which you ought either never to have considered, or, having considered it, to have committed to silence; discord was stirred up between you, communion was denied, and the most holy people, cut into two factions, departed from the unity of the whole body. Therefore, let each of you, granting pardon to the other by turns, embrace that which your fellow-servant justly advises you. And what is that? It was not proper, from the beginning, to interrogate on such matters, nor for the interrogated to reply. For questions of this sort, which the necessity of no law prescribes, but which the altercation of useless leisure proposes, even if they are instituted for the sake of exercising the intellect, yet we ought to confine within the inner chambers of the mind, and not easily bring them forth into public assemblies, nor entrust them inconsiderately to the ears of the multitude. For who is there who is sufficient to comprehend accurately, or to explain according to their dignity, the force and nature of such great and very difficult matters? And if it were thought that any man could easily accomplish this, what portion of the multitude would he convince? Or who, in such a subtle and accurate disputation of questions, could stand without the danger of a most grave fall? Therefore, loquacity must be checked in such questions, ^B lest perhaps, either because we ourselves are unable to explain the matter proposed due to the infirmity of our nature, or because the hearers, on account of the slowness of their wit, do not in the least attain to what is being said; from one of these two causes, the people might fall into the necessity of either blasphemy or schism. Therefore, both an incautious interrogation and an inconsiderate reply, in the case of both ^{C D}

^A granting mutual pardon to one another; for neither has any contention arisen among you regarding the chief and highest of the commandments in the law, nor has any new dogma concerning the worship of God been introduced by you, but you both hold one and the same opinion, and thus you may easily come together into the fellowship of communion. For it is not fitting that, while you are perversely contending with one another over small and very trivial matters, such a numerous people of God should be governed by your judgments, especially in such a great dissension of spirits; nor is it only considered indecorous, but entirely wicked. And, that I may admonish your prudence with a smaller example, I will say: You know that even the philosophers themselves, although they all agree in the profession of one sect, yet often, when they disagree in some part of their assertions, even if they are divided by the excellence of their knowledge, they nevertheless breathe together again in the unity of the body. If this is so, how much more just would it be that you, who are the ministers of the great God, should remain unanimous in the profession of the same religion? But if it pleases you, let us weigh more accurately and attentively what I have just said: is it right that, because of contentions over light and empty words among you, brothers should stand against brothers as though in the line of battle, and that a venerable assembly should suffer from an impious dissension because of you who squabble over things so trivial and by no means necessary? These are plebeian matters, and things that accord more with childish folly than with the wisdom of priests and prudent men. Let us ^B withdraw of our own accord from the temptations of the devil. Our great God and Savior of all has extended a light common to all. Under whose auspices and providence, I beseech you, grant to me, his servant and worshipper, that I may bring this work to an end, so that his people, by my address and effort, and by the urgency of my admonitions, may be recalled to the unity of the assembly. For since, as I said, there is one faith among you, and one understanding of our religion, and the commandment of the law binds all in both its parts into one agreement of wills: that which has raised a contention among you, since it does not pertain to the sum of the whole religion, is no reason for any dissension and sedition to exist among you. And I do not say these things so that I may force you to agree entirely on that foolish, whatever it may be, question. For the gravity of the assembly can ^C be preserved whole among you, and one and the same communion can be maintained among all, even though you may disagree with one another regarding some matter of the slightest moment. Since we do not all desire the same things in all things, nor is the nature or opinion of all one and the same. Therefore, regarding divine providence, let there be one faith among you, one understanding, one covenant of the divine power. But those things which concern these trivial matters, ^D that it is not fitting for the people of God to be governed by your judgment [in such a way that they] disagree, nor is it at all credible that it is right.

Indeed, although you may not agree in one opinion, you ought to keep it within the secrets of your own minds, stored in the depths of your hearts. Let the prerogative of common friendship, the faith of truth, and the observance of God and the law remain firm among you; return to mutual love and charity, and restore to the whole people their embraces. Do you yourselves, having cleansed your minds (so to speak), recognize one another. For often, after enmities have been laid aside, reconciled grace makes friendship even more delightful. Restore to me, therefore, quiet days and nights free from cares, so that for me too the pleasure of pure light and the joy of a peaceful life may be preserved for the future. For if I do not obtain this, I must necessarily groan, and be entirely bathed in tears, nor shall I spend the remainder of my life peacefully. For as long as the people of God—my fellow servants, I mean—are torn apart by iniquitous and pernicious contention, how can I remain composed in my mind hereafter? And that you may understand the magnitude of my grief in this matter, listen for a moment. Recently, when I had come to Nicomedia, I had decided to proceed immediately to the East. But as I was pressing on with my journey and was already ^B for the most part with you, the report of this matter turned my plan back, lest I should be compelled to behold with my own eyes what I thought I could not endure even to hear of. Henceforth, therefore, by your consent, open for me the way to the East, which you have blocked for me with your mutual contentions. Grant me this, that I may see both you and all the other peoples joyful and cheerful as soon as possible, and that I may be able, with unanimous harmony of praise, to render the thanks due to God for the common concord and liberty of all.

CAP. VIII. Of the synod which was held at Nicaea in Bithynia, and of the faith which was promulgated there.

^C And these things, indeed, the emperor, gifted with admirable wisdom, urged by letter. But the evil had prevailed to such an extent that neither the diligence of the emperor nor the authority of the man who had brought the letters had accomplished anything; for neither Alexander nor Arius were softened by these letters, and in the populace itself a huge tumult and contention was raging. But another local disease also lay beneath the surface, which was disturbing the churches not insignificantly: namely, the dissension concerning the day of the feast of Easter; which was indeed confined to the regions of the East, for while some were anxious to celebrate the feast day after the manner of the Jews, others were eager to imitate in this all the rest of the Christians of the whole world. But although they dissented among themselves in this way concerning the feast day, they did not for that reason abstain from mutual communion. But the joy of the feast day was ^D made sadder by this dissension. For both…

^A the emperor, seeing the Church troubled, convened an oecumenical synod, summoning the bishops from everywhere by letters to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. Bishops from many provinces and cities arrived, concerning whom Eusebius of Pamphilus, in the third book of his Life of Constantine, writes this word for word:

"The choicest of God's ministers, from all the churches that filled all of Europe, Libya, and Asia, were brought together into one place. And one house of prayer, as if expanded by the will of God, contained within its compass both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians, as well as Palestinians, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from the middle of the rivers. A bishop from Persia also was present at the council, nor was a Scythian missing from the choir. Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, also provided the most select of their own. Furthermore, Thracians and Macedonians, Achaeans and Epirotes, and those who dwelled even further beyond them, came nonetheless. And that man from Spain, who was so celebrated by all, took his seat with the rest. As to the royal city, its presiding bishop was absent due to age, but his presbyters were present, filling his place.

Constantine, the only emperor from all time, bound together by the bond of peace such a crown, dedicating it to Christ his Savior as a divine monument of gratitude for the victory which he had achieved over his enemies and foes, having established this in our time as an image of the apostolic choir. For even in the times of the apostles, it is said that religious men from every nation under heaven were gathered into one, among whom were Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and those who inhabit Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya that are near Cyrene; and sojourning Romans, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians (Act. II, 9-11). Yet, among those, this was less than the present case, because not all who were gathered were ministers of God. But in the present choir, the number of bishops was more than three hundred, while the number of ^C presbyters, deacons, acolytes, and a great many others who accompanied them, could hardly be calculated.

^D Now, some of these ministers of God were distinguished by the word of wisdom; others by the steadfastness of their life and the endurance of their patience; and others were adorned with modesty and the gentleness of their character. Some among them were honored for their advanced age, some shone with the youthful vigor of both body and soul, and some had only just entered upon the course of their ministry. For all of these, the emperor had ordered that provisions be generously supplied each day."

Thus far Eusebius concerning those who were gathered there.

Chapter IX

Nicaea. ^A Prominent among the bishops were Paphnutius from the Upper Thebaid and Spyridon from Cyprus. Why I have made mention of these, I shall say after this. There were also present many laymen skilled in the dialectical art, ready to take up the defense of their own side. Furthermore, the opinion of Arius was upheld by Eusebius of Nicomedia, as I have said before, as well as by Theognis and Maris; of whom the former was bishop of Nicaea, and the latter of Chalcedon in Bithynia. Against these, Athanasius, who was then serving as a deacon of the Alexandrian Church, fought stoutly. He was held in high honor by Bishop Alexander, which is why the envy of grudge flared against him, as I shall relate later.

A little while before the bishops were gathered into one place, the dialecticians were engaging in preliminary verbal skirmishes with some of the others. ^B And as many were drawn in by the sweetness of their words, a certain layman from the number of the confessors, endowed with a right and simple sense, engaged with the dialecticians and addressed them with these words: "Christ and the apostles did not hand down to us a dialectical art, nor empty cunning, but an open and simple understanding, which is guarded by faith and good works." When he had said this, all who were present were struck with admiration and agreed with him; and the dialecticians, having heard the simple language of truth, were quiet from then on with a more balanced mind. In this way, that tumult which dialectic had excited was entirely suppressed.

On the following day, all the bishops assembled in one place. After them, the emperor also arrived. ^C When he had entered, he stood in the middle, and did not deign to sit down until the bishops had signaled by a nod. Such respect and reverence for the men held the emperor. Then, when silence was made as was proper, the emperor began to speak from his chair, exhorting them to consensus and concord, and admonished them that individuals should put aside private grievances. For many of them were accusing one another; many of them had even presented petitionary libels to the emperor the day before.

But he, urging them rather to press on with the proposed business for which they had gathered, ordered all the libels to be burned, adding only this remark: "Christ commands that he who wishes to receive forgiveness should himself grant forgiveness to his brother." Then, therefore, ^D when he had spoken at length about peace and concord, he permitted them to inquire more carefully about the doctrines according to their own judgment. Concerning what Eusebius says about these things in the same third book of his *Life of Constantine*, [the reader may hear…].

for he speaks thus: ^A “Many things having been proposed in this manner by both parties, and a great controversy having been stirred up at the very beginning, the emperor listened with the greatest patience, received the questions proposed with attentive mind, and, confirming and supporting what was said by each side in turn, gradually reconciled those who were most stubbornly contending. And since he addressed everyone placidly and used the Greek language—for he was not even ignorant of this tongue—he was most sweet and pleasing, while he drew some to his own opinion by the force of arguments, entreated and persuaded others, bestowed praise upon those who had spoken correctly, and encouraged all toward concord. Until at last he made them concordant in all matters about which they were previously contending, and unanimous: so that not only did the consensus of one faith prevail among all, but even one and the same time for the celebration of the saving feast was confirmed by all. Furthermore, those things which pleased the common assembly were committed to writing and strengthened by the subscription of each individual.” ^B And these things, indeed, Eusebius left to us written word for word concerning these matters. We, however, have not thought it irrelevant to bring these forward in this place; but, using their testimony, we have deliberately inserted them into this our *History*, so that if anyone should chance to wish to condemn the Nicene Council as having lapsed in the cause of the faith, we may pay no attention to them, nor believe Sabinus the Macedonian, who calls those who gathered in that council unskilled and simple. For this Sabinus, the bishop of the Macedonians at the city of Heraclea in Thrace, who collected the acts of various synods into one body, mocks the priests of the Nicene Council as if they were boorish and simple; nor does he notice that he himself is also accusing of being unskilled Eusebius, who embraced that faith after the examination of a long inquiry. And he indeed deliberately passed over some things, but some he perverted and changed. He takes everything ^C rather for his own purpose. And he praises Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, as a trustworthy witness, and he praises the emperor, as one able to define the doctrines of the Christians; but he finds fault with the faith set forth at Nicaea, as having been issued by individuals who were unskilled and knew nothing at all; and while he calls the man a wise and truthful witness, he willingly disregards his words. For Eusebius says that of the ministers of God present at Nicaea, some excelled in the power of wisdom, while others in the steadfastness of their life; and that the emperor, being present, led everyone to concord, and made them of the same mind and the same opinion on all the points being contested. But Sabinus— [if someone should judge the Nicene Council as having erred concerning the faith, we would not hold to them, nor would we believe Sabinus the Macedonian, calling those who gathered there unskilled and simple.] ^D

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (42) *Sabinus the Macedonian*. Sabinus was bishop of the Macedonians in the Thracian city of Heraclea, who had composed a collection of synodal acts, a very useful work, the testimony of which Socrates uses often in these books. Socrates does, however, rebuke him in most places, both because he had shown himself always hostile to the orthodox bishops, and because he had acted in bad faith in collecting those acts; studiously reporting those things which might serve to bolster his own heresy, but omitting the contrary. Of this sort is that which Socrates reports in this place, that the Fathers of the Nicene Council were ignorant and simple men. But it is standard for heretics to rail against the most holy Fathers and doctors of the Church.

VARIORUM. Not without indignation, and even a certain horror, do I recall the stupendous ignorance, or rather the impious madness, of those who have not feared to rave openly against the venerable Nicene Fathers, as if they had, either maliciously or certainly through ignorance and rashly, corrupted the catholic doctrine concerning the person of Jesus Christ—which was handed down by the Apostles and preserved in the Church through the first three centuries—and had foisted a new faith upon the Christian world. On this account (not to mention the ancient Arians) Sabinus, an adherent of the Macedonian faction, was long infamous. (Cf. Bull, at the beginning of his *Defense of the Nicene Faith*.)

^A He brought all to agreement and established them as being of one mind and one opinion. But of Sabinus, if need shall arise, we shall make mention. The faith, however, which was proclaimed by the great council at Nicaea with a loud voice is this:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true

God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

^A And those, on the other hand, who say, "There was when He was not," and "Before He was begotten He was not," and that He came into existence from nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or that He is created or subject to change or alteration, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

^B Such are the things written by Eusebius, word for word. He continued, however, to explain the reasons for his hesitation and his eventual subscription to the formula, so that no one might entertain any sinister suspicion regarding his motives for initially pausing. But we shall defer further discussion of these events in order to maintain the sequence of our narrative. Eventually, those who had been deposed ^C and condemned by the council, seeing the severity of the Emperor's decree—for he had ordered them into exile—and fearing the consequences, yielded to necessity. They presented a written recantation, professing their agreement with the term "consubstantial," though later, as we shall see, they reverted to their former opinions and sought to stir up fresh disturbances in the Church.

^A believing each to be and to exist truly as Father, and the Son truly as Son, and the Holy Spirit truly as Holy Spirit; just as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Concerning these things, we also affirm that we so hold and so think, and that we have long held this, and will hold it until death, and will remain constant in this faith, anathematizing every godless heresy. We testify before Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ that we have thought these things from the heart and soul, from the time we first knew ourselves, and that we both think and speak thus out of truth; having proofs to demonstrate and to persuade you ^B that in times past also we believed and preached in this like manner. When this faith had been set forth by us, there was no room for contradiction. But our emperor himself, most dear to God, was the first of all to testify that it was most correctly conceived; and he declared that he himself so thought, and exhorted all to assent to it and to subscribe to these dogmas, and to agree to these same points, one single term having been added, that of "consubstantial" (47). And he himself interpreted this term, saying that he did not speak of "consubstantial" according to the affections of bodies, nor that the Son subsisted from the Father by any division or by any cutting off; for it was impossible that an immaterial, intellectual, and ^C incorporeal nature should suffer any corporeal affection, but that such things were to be understood in divine and unspeakable terms. Thus did our most wise and pious emperor philosophize. But they, on the occasion of that term "consubstantial," have drawn up this formula:

SYMBOLS

^A one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens; he is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. And those who say, "There was a time when he was not," or "He was not before he was begotten," or "He was made out of nothing," or who maintain that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or essence, or that he is created, or changeable, or mutable, these the catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.

And when this document had been dictated by them, we did not leave that which was stated by them, "of the essence of the Father," and "consubstantial with the Father," without examination. Hence, therefore, various questions and answers were stirred up, and our discussion examined the sense of these words. And indeed it was acknowledged by them that the term "of the essence" was indicative of being from the Father, but not, however, as though the Son were a part of the Father. This meaning it seemed altogether right for us to embrace, since pious doctrine proclaims that the Son is from the Father, but is not, ^C however, a part of his essence. Therefore, we too give our assent to this notion, not rejecting the very word "consubstantial," with an eye to peace, and that we might not fall away from the correct understanding. In the same way, we have accepted "begotten, not made," because they said that "made" was a term common to all the other creatures which were made through the Son, to which the Son has no likeness; wherefore he is not a creature, being unlike those things made through him; but he is of an essence far superior to every creature, which the divine Oracles teach to have been begotten from the Father, the manner of...

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS. (49) [Notes omitted as per instructions.]

VARIORUM. 1 "There was not before he was begotten." The sense of this statement, which Arius acknowledges as his own in his Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia (see Theodoret, lib. 1, cap. 5), was that the Son had his origin from the Father by generation, which the Catholics also confessed; but that he had it in such a way that some ^D time could be assigned in which he had not been begotten. He was not before, and afterward came to exist: and: a space of time preceded, in which they say the Son did not exist from the Father, just as Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, recites the Arian dogmas to his namesake of Constantinople (see Theodoret, lib. 1, cap. 4). When, on the contrary, the Catholics asserted that the Father is always Father, with the Son always present, as the same Alexander says ibid., that the Son is, which terms, as used by the Catholics regarding the Son, Arius and his followers incriminate in the Epistle to Alexander (see Athanasius, de synod. Arimin. et Seleuc.). The Fathers of the synod of Antioch express the same sense in other words, when they subject to anathema those who assert [that the Son did not exist]... (see Socrates lib. 2, cap. 10). The authors of the Faith hold the same when they deny [that the Son was made] ibid., cap. 19. Indeed, the celebrated Bull explains this Arian statement otherwise in *Defens. fid. Nic.*, sect. 3, cap. 9, whom consult. W. Lowth.

which can neither be expressed in words nor grasped by the intelligence of any creature. Thus, also, when the matter concerning the Son being consubstantial with the Father was discussed, it was agreed that it should not be understood according to the manner of bodies, nor in the way of mortal living creatures; for it cannot consist in the division of substance, nor in cutting off, nor in any alteration of the Father’s essence and power; seeing that the unbegotten nature of the Father is alien to all these things. ^A But we understand the term *consubstantial* as signifying that the Son of God has no likeness to the creatures made by Him; but that He is in all respects like only to the Father who begat Him, and that He is not from another hypostasis or substance, but from the Father. When this was explained in this way, it seemed right to us to consent; ^B especially since we have learned that some learned and eminent bishops and authors among the ancients used the term *consubstantial* in their theology concerning the Father and the Son. These things, then, were said concerning the faith which was set forth at Nicæa, to which we all consented, not lightly and without consideration, but according to the meanings presented, which were discussed before the most religious emperor himself, and for the reasons set forth above were approved by all. And the anathema which was promulgated by them after the formula of faith, we in no way took amiss, ^C because it prohibits the use of foreign words and those alien to sacred Scripture, from which almost all dissension and confusion of the churches has arisen. Since, therefore, no divinely inspired Scripture has ever used these words: "from things that are not," and "there was a time when He was not," and the others which follow, it seemed not reasonable to say or teach these things; to which decision we also agreed, since even before this time we were not accustomed to use these terms. We have sent these things necessarily to you, beloved, in order to make manifest the result of our examination and consent; and how reasonably ^D we refused to use the word *consubstantial* on account of [the argument that it is not used in Scripture, and therefore] acceptable. [alt-version omitted]

our examination and consent; and how reasonably we refused to use the word consubstantial on account of the fact that it is not to be found in the divine Scriptures, we nevertheless did not stubbornly dispute it when we saw that those who were examining the meaning of our words with good judgment, found that our views coincided with those which we ourselves had confessed in the creed previously set forth. Such was the letter which Eusebius of Pamphilus sent to Caesarea in Palestine. And to the Church of the Alexandrians, and to those in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, the synod wrote in these terms by common consent:

CAP. IX. The letter of the synod, concerning those things which were determined by it, and how Arius and those who agreed with him were deposed.

^BBy the grace of God and the great Church of the Alexandrians, and to the beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, the bishops who have been gathered together at Nicaea and have constituted the great and holy synod, send greeting in the Lord.

Since, by the grace of God and through the initiative of our most God-beloved emperor Constantine, who gathered us together from various cities and provinces, a great and holy synod was convened at Nicaea, it appeared to the whole holy council ^C that it was absolutely necessary that letters be sent to you, so that you might know what things have been agitated and examined, and what things have been decreed and established. First of all, the matter concerning the impiety and perversity of Arius and his associates was examined in the presence of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine; and it was voted by all that his impious opinion, and the blasphemous expressions and names which he has been using, saying that the Son of God was made from nothing, and that there was a time when He was not, and declaring that the Son of God is subject to change and of a nature capable of ^D vice and virtue, and calling Him a creature and a product, should be anathematized. The holy synod condemned all these things, not even patiently enduring the hearing of such impious doctrine, madness, and blasphemous expressions. And as for what has happened to him, you have heard or will shortly hear, so that we may not seem to be trampling upon a man who has received the just reward for his own wickedness. Yet such power had his impiety that it drew Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais into destruction with him. For they have suffered the same sentence that was passed upon him. But since the grace of Almighty God has now delivered you from the depravity of that opinion, its impiety, and its blasphemy, and from those men who had dared to stir up unrest and divisions among a people previously at peace; it remained for…

^A Meletius and those ordained by him—and regarding this matter, too, we inform you, beloved brethren, what the synod decided. It seemed good to the synod that Meletius, though treated with greater clemency by the synod (for by strict right he deserved no pardon), should remain in his own city, and have no authority either to lay on hands or to nominate, and not to appear in the countryside or in any other city for this purpose; he is to retain only the naked name of the honor. But those who have been appointed by him, 54 having been confirmed by a more sacred ordination, 55 are to be admitted to communion on this condition: that they hold their honor and ministry, but that they shall in every case be second to all those who are examined in each ^B parish and Church, who have been appointed by our most honorable colleague Alexander.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(53) *Κατὰ γὰρ τὸν ἀκριβῆ λόγον.* Christophorson wrongly translates this passage: “For if a strict inquiry had been made into him, he would certainly have deserved no pardon.” *Ακριβὴς λόγος* is strict law, to which equity is opposed, or clemency. Therefore, the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea indicate that they acted with regard to Meletius not by strict or ultimate law, nor according to exact rule and discipline, but dispensatively, that is, leniently. For by strict law Meletius deserved no pardon, inasmuch as he had claimed for himself ordinations that in no way pertained to him, and had caused a schism in Egypt. These words of the epistle openly signify this: “For this temerity and insolence, Meletius deserved to be deposed and excommunicated.” Yet the most holy Fathers wished to deal with him more gently, taking away all power from him, but leaving only the name of bishop. Many reasons can be offered for why they acted more benignly with Meletius. The first is the one the most holy Fathers intimate in this epistle: that they had already directed the force of their censure and severity against Arius and his associates. It was right that after a grim and severe sentence had been passed upon them, a place should subsequently be left for clemency—especially since Meletius was not convicted of any heresy, but was accused only of having caused a schism. There were also many good men among the Meletians, conspicuous for the holiness of their lives. Of such a kind was that anchorite Paphnutius, and John the bishop, of whom Epiphanius speaks in his heresy of the Meletians. Finally, for the sake of peace, as it is commonly said, so that the members of the Church previously torn apart might coalesce into one, the Nicene Fathers received the Meletians into communion. And this is a most illustrious example of ecclesiastical dispensation.

(54) *Τοὺς δὲ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κατασταθέντας.* I do not approve of the interpretation of Christophorson, who takes these words to refer to the presbyters ordained by Meletius. For Meletius ordained not only presbyters and deacons, but also bishops throughout Egypt, as Epiphanius testifies. Indeed, he ordained far more bishops than presbyters, as can be gathered from the register which Alexander is said to have requested from him after the Council of Nicaea. In that short list, twenty-eight bishops of the Meletian faction are enumerated; but there are five presbyters and three deacons. This register exists in Athanasius’s Second Apology against the Arians. Since therefore Meletius had ordained so many bishops, as I said, if the Fathers of the Nicene synod had decreed nothing concerning the bishops ordained by him, their decision would have been imperfect; having decreed what was to be done concerning the presbyters constituted by Meletius, but remaining silent regarding the bishops. Therefore I think these words should be taken as referring to both, as much to bishops as to presbyters.

(55) *Μυστικωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ βεβαιωθέντας.* The synod first rules that the bishops and clergy who had been ordained by Meletius be confirmed by a more sacred ordination, that is, that they receive the imposition of hands from the Alexandrian bishop. For since they had been ordained without his consent, the synod wishes them, above all, to be ordained by the Alexandrian bishop according to ancient custom, by which it was accepted that all bishops of the Egyptian diocese were subject to the Alexandrian pontiff. But the synod does not require this of Meletius himself, because, of course, Meletius himself had been legitimately ordained.

VARIORUM.

* *Ψιλὸν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς τιμῆς κεκτῆσθαι.* Meletius, beyond the crime mentioned above, had violated the ancient and almost everywhere received custom of ordaining bishops. For it was the custom that all the bishops of a province should convene at a vacant see and, with the people present, elect and ordain a successor. But Meletius, in whatever place or region he traveled, had installed bishops, presbyters, and deacons there by his own authority, as Epiphanius writes, *Haer.* 68, and Theodoret, *Haeret. fab.* lib. IV, cap. 7. Since Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, had signified to the Nicene synod that these things had been done by him iniquitously, he was the author, if I am not mistaken, of the fourth canon of that same synod being framed; by which, indeed, it is determined that whenever a bishop is to be ordained, all the bishops of the province shall convene, or at least deliver their votes by letter, and thus perform the ordination together: and whatever is done by them shall be confirmed by the metropolitan of each province. (Guil. Beveregius, *Annotations on the aforementioned canon*, where he cites this passage of Socrates.)

* *Τοὺς δὲ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κατασταθέντας …* Concerning the Cathari, also known as the Novatians, the Fathers of the Council decreed similar things in the canon of this synod: [index: entries preserved]

^A previously ordained by our most esteemed colleague Alexander: so that no power is granted to them to choose whom they deem fit, or to suggest any man's name, or in any way to act without the consent of the bishop of the Catholic Church who is subject to Alexander. But as for those who, with the help of God’s grace and your prayers, have never been found in any schism, but have remained without any stain within the Catholic and Apostolic Church, they should have the power to elect and propose the names of those who are worthy to be enrolled in the clergy; they should also be empowered to do all things according to the law and ordinance of the Church. Should it happen that any of those within the Church pass away, then those recently accepted should be promoted to the honor of the deceased, provided they appear worthy, and the people choose them, with the bishop of the city of Alexandria nonetheless concurring and confirming the judgment of the people. This was granted to all others. But in the case of Melitius’s person, it seemed otherwise, because of his long-standing disorderliness and because of the rash and headlong nature of the man, so that no ^B power or authority might be given to him, a man capable of inciting the same disturbances again. These are the things which pertain specifically to Egypt and to the most holy Church of the Alexandrians. If anything else was regulated or decreed in the presence of our lord and most esteemed colleague and brother Alexander, he himself, being present, will report it to you more accurately, as he is the author and participant in what was done. We also announce to you regarding the harmony of the most holy Pasch, that this matter, with the help of your prayers, has been happily concluded.

^A Thus, all the brethren in the East who formerly kept the Pasch with the Jews, will hereafter keep it in harmony with the Romans and with us, and with all those who from the beginning have kept the Pasch with us. Therefore, rejoicing in these successful results, in the concord of peace, and in the fact that all heresy has been extirpated, do you receive with greater honor and deeper affection our fellow-minister and your bishop, Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence and, at his advanced age, has endured so much labor so that peace might be established among you. Pray also for all of us, that what has been rightly decided may remain firm, through God our almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Spirit; to whom be glory for all ages. Amen.

From this synodal epistle it clearly appears that they not only anathematized Arius and his adherents, but also the very words of his opinion. And because they were of one mind regarding the Paschal festival, they received the heresiarch Melitius; they allowed him to retain the dignity of the episcopate, but they totally stripped him of the power to act as a bishop. ^B For this reason, I believe that even now the Melitians in Egypt remain separated from the Church, because the synod took away all power from Melitius.

It should be known that Arius composed a book on his own opinion, which he entitled *Thalia*. The style of this book is loose and unstrung, not unlike the Sotadean poems—or, in other words, similar meters—which the synod at that time also condemned. Nor did the synod alone take care to write letters about the restored peace of the Church; for the Emperor Constantine himself sent the following letter to the Church of Alexandria:

The Letter of the Emperor

Constantine Augustus to the Catholic Church of the Alexandrians. Greetings, beloved brethren. We have received a most great benefit from divine providence, that, having been delivered from every error, ^C we acknowledge one and the same faith.

^D (61) *They received the heresiarch Melitius.* Socrates rightly calls Melitius a heresiarch. For neither the Nicene Fathers, nor Athanasius in his second *Apologeticus*, nor Epiphanius accuse Melitius of any heresy, but only say he was the author of a schism. But when the Melitians eventually joined themselves to the Arians—which happened after the Nicene Synod and after the death of Melitius himself, as I noted above—they turned their schism into a heresy, just as Augustine writes concerning the Donatists. (62) *Sotadean poems.* The Sfortianus and Florentinus codices add: "or meters"; which reading Christophorsonus also found in his books, as appears from his version. But regarding the *Thalia* of Arius, see Athanasius in his oration *Against the Arians*. When Socrates says it was condemned by the synod, it is to be understood that not the poem itself by name was condemned, but only the doctrine which was contained in that poem.

Miscellaneous

^A of faith. Nothing further is permitted to the devil against us; for everything, whatever he may have craftily contrived, has been utterly uprooted. Those dissensions, those schisms, those tumults, and the lethal, if I may so call them, poisons of discord have been overwhelmed and surpassed by the splendor of truth, according to the command of God. Therefore let us all worship one God and believe that He is. In order that this might come to pass, by the prompting of God, I summoned to the city of Nicaea the majority of the bishops, with whom I, as one among your number, who greatly rejoice to be your fellow-servant, myself undertook the examination of the truth. Everything, therefore, which seemed to generate doubt or a pretext for dissension was accurately discussed and examined. And may the divine majesty forgive the magnitude and gravity of the things which some have impudently blasphemed concerning our great Savior, concerning our hope and our life, uttering things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures and confessing that they believe them. ^B When, therefore, more than three hundred bishops, to be admired for their moderation and sagacity, had by unanimous vote confirmed one and the same faith, which truly is the only faith in accordance with the truth and the examination of God's law, Arius alone was found to have been overcome by the devil’s working, who first among you, and afterwards among others, disseminated this evil with an impious mind. Let us, then, accept the understanding which the Almighty has provided; let us return to our beloved brothers, from whom an impudent minister of the devil has separated us. Let us make haste with all diligence to the common body and to our true members. For this is fitting for your sagacity, your faith, and your holiness, that, the error of him who is manifest as an enemy of the truth having been convicted, you should return to divine grace. For what pleased the three hundred bishops is nothing else than the judgment of God; especially since the Holy Spirit, dwelling in the minds of such great and noble men, shed light upon the divine will. Wherefore let no one among you doubt, let no one delay, ^C but let all return with alacrity to the path of most perfect truth; so that, when I arrive among you as soon as possible, I may with you render the thanks due to God, who watches over all, because He has shown the sincere faith and has at last restored to you the longed-for charity. May God preserve you, beloved brothers. The emperor, therefore, wrote such things to the people of Alexandria, indicating that the definition of the faith was not reached lightly or rashly, ^D but only after much inquiry and diligent investigation.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (63) *In the codex of Leo Allatius it is read what pleases more. Thus the whole passage seems to be written thus, or rather...* (64) *...et cetera, as Socrates says a little later. The codex of Leo Allatius has... which I prefer.*

VARIORUM. *From these it appears the inequity of Simon Episcopius and his followers toward the Nicene Fathers, who depict them as driven by fury and carried away by an insane and frenzied partisan zeal, so that the creed must seem rather to have been rushed than to have proceeded from collected minds. See here the refutation of a false accusation!*

^A It was not the case that some things were spoken while others were suppressed, but that everything which was fitting to be said for the establishment of the dogma was set forth; and that it was not defined simply, but first thoroughly examined, so that everything which seemed to give rise to grounds for doubt or dissension was taken out of the way. He identifies the judgment of all who gathered there with the judgment of God, and he does not doubt that the consensus of such great and such a number of bishops was brought about by the Holy Spirit.

Sabinus, however, the leader of the Macedonian sect, knowingly and intentionally resists these testimonies. He says that those who gathered there were unlearned and destitute of all knowledge, and he goes so far as to accuse even Eusebius of Caesarea himself of ignorance. He does not consider that even if those who met at the synod were unlearned and ignorant, they were nevertheless illuminated by God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and could in no way wander from the truth. But let us hear what the emperor, in another epistle, having established a law against the dogmas of Arius and his followers, wrote to the bishops and the laity everywhere. ^B

Another Epistle of Constantine.

Victor Constantine, Great, Augustus, to the bishops and the laity.

Since Arius has imitated wicked and impious men, it is right that he suffer the same infamy as they. Just as Porphyrius, an enemy of true piety, having composed nefarious volumes against the Christian religion, received a reward worthy of them—so that he himself became infamous for all time, was subject to many reproaches, and his impious books were utterly destroyed—so now it has been resolved that Arius and his followers should be called Porphyrians, so that those whose characters they have imitated, they may also bear their name. Furthermore, if any book composed by Arius should be found, we order it to be destroyed by fire, ^C so that not only may the evil of his teaching be utterly abolished, but also that not even a single monument of him may be left for posterity.

^A Furthermore, I issue this warning: if anyone is discovered to have hidden a book composed by Arius, and does not immediately bring it forth and consume it with fire, he shall undergo the penalty of death; for as soon as he is caught in this crime, he shall suffer capital punishment. May God preserve you.

Another Epistle of Constantine.

Having experienced, from the flourishing state of the commonwealth, how great is the grace of divine power, I have judged this to be the goal that I must strive for above all else: that among the most blessed populations of the catholic Church, one faith, sincere charity, and concordant piety toward the almighty God might be preserved. But because it could not be firmly and stably established in any other way ^B unless all bishops—or at least the vast majority of them—were gathered into one place and each matter pertaining to the most holy religion was first examined, this is the reason why, with as many priests as possible brought together—with myself also present as one of you (for I would not deny that which I most rejoice in, namely, that I am your fellow-servant)—all things were discussed with such thorough examination that the judgment, acceptable to God, the inspector of all things, might be brought to light for the concord of unity; so that no further room might be left for dissension or controversy regarding the faith. When, further, the question concerning the most holy day of Pascha was raised, ^C it was decreed by the common consent of all that this festival ought to be celebrated by everyone, everywhere, on one and the same day. For what could be more beautiful, or what more honorable for us, than that this festival, from which we have received the hope of immortality, should be observed by all in one and the same order and by a certain rule? And first of all, it seemed to all to be altogether unworthy that in the celebration of this most holy solemnity we should follow the custom of the Jews; who, having stained their own hands with a nefarious crime, are rightly blinded in their minds. For, setting aside their custom, we may, by a more correct order, which we have kept from the first day of the Passion ^D until the present time, extend the observance of this practice to future ages as well. Let there be, therefore, nothing in common between us and the most hateful crowd of the Jews. For we have received another way from the Savior. A legitimate and honorable path is set before our most holy religion. Keeping to this with unanimous consent, let us withdraw ourselves from that most base association and fellowship, most honored brethren. For it is truly most absurd that they should boast that we could not properly observe these matters without their instruction. For what, in truth, could they rightly understand, who, after that murder of the Lord, having lost their senses, are driven not by any reason, but by an unbridled impulse, wheresoever their

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS.

^A ...after that parricide, they are seized by a madness; they are carried along not by reason, but by a headlong impulse, wherever their innate fury has driven them. Hence it is that they do not perceive the truth even in this regard; so much so that, straying very far from a proper correction, they celebrate two Passovers in one and the same year. Why, therefore, should we follow those who are known to labor under a most grievous malady of error? For we shall certainly never allow ourselves to celebrate a double Passover in one and the same year. ^B But even if what I have said were not sufficient, it is nevertheless the duty of your discernment to ensure by all means and to desire that the sanctity of your souls does not appear to be associated and mingled, in the likeness of any practice, with the customs of most wicked men. Furthermore, this must be considered: that it is a crime for a dissension to be found in a matter of such great importance, and in a religious solemnity of this kind. For our Savior left us one day of our freedom—that is, the day of His most holy passion—and willed that there be one catholic Church. Its members, though dispersed in various places, are nevertheless cherished by one Spirit, namely, the will of God. Let the discernment of your holiness consider, I beseech you, how grave and unbecoming it is for some to be intent upon fasts on the same days while others celebrate banquets, and for some to be occupied in festivals and relaxation of spirit after the days of the Passover, while others are given over to appointed fasts. Divine providence therefore wills that this be corrected by a fitting amendment and reduced to one and the same form, as I believe you all understand according to my judgment.

Since, therefore, it was necessary for this to be amended in such a way that we might have nothing in common with the custom of those who killed the Lord and were murderers of their fathers; and since this must be done for the sake of the decorous order which all the churches of the western, southern, and northern parts of the world, as well as some of the eastern, observe—a thing which everyone has judged to be correct at the present time, and for which I have pledged that it will also be pleasing to your discernment—it is fitting that your wisdom should also embrace with willing spirits that which is observed with a concordant sentiment throughout the city of Rome and all Italy, Africa, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, throughout all Achaia, the Asian and Pontic dioceses, and finally Cilicia; ^D observing this, of course: not only that the number of the churches in the places mentioned above is greater, but also that it is most equitable that all should wish in common for that which strict reason appears to require, and that they should have no society with the perjury of the Jews. And to speak summarily and briefly, it has been decided by the common judgment of all that the most holy festival of the Passover should be celebrated on one and the same day. For it is not fitting that in [there should be any difference in such holiness; and it is better to follow that opinion, in which there is no likelihood of error].

Since matters stand thus, receive with a willing mind this heavenly and truly divine commandment. For whatever is done in the holy councils of the bishops, this must be referred to the divine will. Therefore, having made known to all our beloved brethren the foregoing matters, and having already communicated the aforementioned reasoning, you must both accept ^A and establish the observance of the most holy day; so that when I shall come to the sight of your affection, which I have long desired, I may be able to celebrate the holy festival with you on one and the same day; and that I may rejoice with you on all accounts, seeing that the cruelty of the devil has been abolished by divine power through our actions, and that your faith, peace, and concord are flourishing everywhere. May God preserve you, beloved brethren.

Another letter to Eusebius

^B Since up to this present time the impious presumption and tyrannical violence have persecuted the ministers of God our Savior, I have held and am firmly convinced that the buildings of all the churches have either been corrupted by neglect, or by fear of the impending wickedness of the times, have been kept less honorably than they deserve, most beloved brother Eusebius. But now that liberty has been restored, and that dragon, by the providence of the most excellent God and by our ministry, has been removed from the administration of public affairs, I believe that the divine power has become most clearly known to all; and that those who, whether through fear, or through unbelief, or through any sins, have fallen away, will, upon recognizing Him who truly is, return to the right and true way of life. As many, therefore, as you yourself preside over in the churches, or know of as presiding in various places—bishops, presbyters, or deacons—advise them all to apply themselves with all zeal and diligence ^C to the works of the churches: that those which still remain may either be repaired, or enlarged to a greater scale, or, wherever the need may require, new ones may be built. And both you yourself, and others by your intervention, may request the necessary things from the governors and from the provincial administration. For it is by these ^D that these things...

are accomplished, so that they may assist with all diligence those things which your holiness shall state. May the Divinity protect you, dearest brother. ^A Thus, then, the Emperor wrote to the bishops of every province regarding the building of churches. But it is easy to learn from his own letters what he wrote to Eusebius of Palestine regarding the preparation of sacred codices.

Victor Constantinus, Maximus, Augustus, to Eusebius of Caesarea.

In the city that has been named after us, by the assisting providence of our Saviour God, a very great multitude of men has attached itself to the most holy Church. And so, since all things there are experiencing the greatest increase, it seems appropriate in the first place that more churches should be built in it. ^B Receive, therefore, with a willing mind that which I have determined to do. For it has seemed to me appropriate to signify to your prudence that you should order fifty codices of divine Scripture, the preparation and use of which you understand to be most necessary for the Church, to be written on prepared parchment by skilled calligraphers, most proficient in the art of beautiful writing, who can also easily be read and carried about for every use. Furthermore, letters have been sent by our clemency to the rationalis of the diocese, so that he may take care to provide everything necessary for the preparation of these codices. It will be the task of your diligence that the written codices are prepared as quickly as possible. Moreover, by the authority of this letter, you shall receive the use ^C of two public vehicles. For thus those things which have been elegantly written will be most conveniently carried to our sight: with one, of course, of the deacons of your church fulfilling this ministry. And when he reaches us, he shall experience our kindness. May the Divinity protect you, dearest brother.

Another letter to Macarius.

Victor Constantinus, Maximus, Augustus, to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem.

So great is the grace of our Saviour that no abundance of words seems sufficient for the narration of the present miracle. For that the monument of that most holy passion, having long been hidden under the earth ^D and having lain concealed for such a span of years, should shine forth for the servants of God once the common enemy of all had been removed and they were asserted into liberty, truly surpasses all admiration. For even if as many as are held to be wise in all parts of the world, all gathered into one, should wish to say something worthy of this matter...

and gathering together, if they desired to speak something worthy of the matter, they would not be able to contend even in the slightest degree. For the faith of this miracle so far exceeds all nature capable of human reasoning, as divine things excel human things. For this reason, then, this is always my primary and only goal: that just as the faith of the truth becomes illustrious daily by newer miracles, so also might the minds of all of us be incited to the observance of the most holy law with all modesty and concordant alacrity. ^A Since I am confident this is most evident to all, I wish you to be persuaded above all else that there is nothing more important to me than that we should adorn with the beauty of structures that sacred place which, by God’s command, I have relieved of the most disgraceful addition of an idol—as if of a heavy burden weighing it down—a place which was holy from the beginning by the judgment of God, but became even holier after it brought into the light the faith of the Lord’s passion. Therefore, it befits your sagacity to arrange and provide for each of the necessary things in such a way that not only the basilica itself may be more beautiful than all those everywhere, but that the remaining parts may be such that all the structures of individual cities, however excellent, are easily surpassed by this one. As to the construction and elegance of the walls, know that I have committed the care to our friend Dracilianus, acting in the place of the most illustrious praetorian prefects, and to the governor of the province. For our piety has ordered that the craftsmen and workmen, and whatever they determine to be necessary for this work by your prudence, be sent forthwith under the urgency of their care. ^B Regarding the columns or marbles, whatever you deem more precious and more useful by your own inspection, take care to write to us, so that when we have learned from your letters how many and of what kind are needed, they may be brought from all sides. For it is right that the place which is the most admirable among all the places of the whole world should be adorned in accordance with its dignity. Furthermore, I would like to be informed by you whether you think the ceiling of the basilica should be paneled, or fashioned in some other type of work; for if it is made paneled, it can also be adorned with gold. It remains, therefore, that your holiness should as soon as possible make known to the aforementioned judges how many workmen, craftsmen, and expenses will be needed; and that you should report quickly back to me, not only regarding the marbles and columns, but also regarding the paneling, if you judge this to be more beautiful. May God preserve you, beloved brother. ^C The emperor also wrote other letters against Arius and his adherents in a more oratorical style, and posted them throughout the cities, attacking the man and wittily mocking him. He wrote, moreover, to the Nicomedeans against Eusebius and Theognis, in which letters the wickedness of Eusebius ^D

^A is attacked, not only for his Arianism, but also because, having already been favor-disposed toward the tyrant, he had plotted against his own affairs; and he advised that another bishop be chosen in his stead. However, I have deemed it superfluous to insert here the letters concerning these matters, on account of their length. Yet if anyone desires them, they may easily search them out and read them. Let so much be said concerning these things.

CAP. X.

That the emperor also called Acesius, bishop of the Novatians, to the synod.

^B The zeal of the emperor moves me to mention also another matter, which declares his mind and how much care and solicitude he entertained for peace. For, as he was providing for the concord of the Churches, he called also to the synod Acesius, a bishop of the Novatian sect. And when the formula of the faith had been written and confirmed by the subscription of all by the synod, the emperor asked Acesius if he also consented to this faith and the definition concerning the feast of Pascha. But he, “There is nothing new, O Emperor,” he said.

[VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS (abridged/selected content in translation)]

^C [Regarding the public reading of letters]... Thus, therefore, Constantine, having written many letters against Arius and his followers, wished them to be publicly set forth in the forum... ^D [Regarding Acesius] Sozomen reports the same in book one, chapter 22; yet so that it sufficiently appears he received this history from Socrates... [Valesius argues at length against the probability of this account, noting that no other ancient writer supports it, that the city of Acesius’ see is not named, that it is unlikely a heretical bishop would be invited to an orthodox council, and that the chronology of the witness Auxano, as described by Socrates, stretches the bounds of credibility for a human life].

VARIOUS NOTES

it was said by the synod). Thus, from of old and from the beginning, from the times of the apostles, I have received both the definition of the faith and the time of the Paschal festival.” When the emperor asked him, “Why then do you separate yourself from our communion?” he recounted the events that took place during the persecution under Decius, and asserted the rigor of that strict rule, ^A namely, that those who have committed a sin after baptism, which the divine Scriptures call “a sin unto death,” ought not to be deemed worthy of the communion of the divine mysteries, but should be urged to repentance, and ought not to expect the hope of forgiveness from the priests, but from God, who alone has the power and authority to forgive sins. When Acesius had said these things, the emperor replied, “Set up a ladder, Acesius, and ascend to heaven alone.” ^B Neither Eusebius Pamphili, nor any other person among those who have recorded these events, has ever mentioned this. But I heard it from a man who was by no means untruthful, who was indeed very advanced in age, and who related what he himself had seen happen in the synod. From this I conjecture that those who passed these things over in silence experienced the same thing that many other historians of history have experienced. For they are accustomed to omit many things, either because they are ill-disposed toward some, or because they wish to gratify certain people. So much, then, for Acesius.

Chapter XI. Of Bishop Paphnutius.

Since we promised above that we would make mention of Paphnutius and Spyridon, it is an opportune time to say a few things about them here. ^C For Paphnutius was a bishop of a certain city in Upper Thebais, and he was such a God-beloved man that wonderful signs were wrought by him. During the time of the persecution, his eye was gouged out. The emperor held the man in great honor, and frequently sent for him to come to the palace, and would kiss his gouged-out eye. Such was the piety and reverence in Prince Constantine. Let this much, then, be said about Paphnutius. But I shall next narrate that which, through his counsel, was done for the benefit of the Church and the honor of those in holy orders. It seemed good to the bishops to introduce a new law into the Church, ^D that5 those enrolled in the holy orders—I speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons—should not cohabit with their wives.

When this matter was proposed for consideration, and the opinions of each were being solicited, Paphnutius rose in the midst of the assembly of bishops and cried out with a loud voice, that they ought not to impose such a heavy yoke upon the ministers of the Church, saying that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, and that they should not, through excessive severity, rather inflict harm upon the Church; for not all are able to bear the discipline of such strict continence, nor perhaps would the chastity of each man's wife be preserved. He called the conjugal relationship with one’s own lawful wife chastity. He argued that it was sufficient that those who had been enrolled in the clergy, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, should not marry any further, but that no one should be separated from the wife whom he had previously taken, when he was still a layman. And he spoke these things, although he was himself entirely unacquainted with marriage and, one might say, with women; for from his boyhood he had been raised in a monastery and was renowned for his singular chastity, if any man ever was. The entire assembly of the clergy yielded to the words of Paphnutius. Therefore, they ^B silenced the discussion on this point and left it to the discretion of those who wished to abstain from the company of their wives. And so much for Paphnutius.

Chapter XII. On Spyridon, Bishop of the Cypriots.

^C Now let us pass to Spyridon. Such sanctity of life was in him even while he was still a shepherd of sheep, that he was considered worthy to become a shepherd of men as well. He had obtained the episcopate of a certain city in Cyprus named Trimithus. Yet, on account of his singular modesty of spirit, he did not cease to tend to his sheep even in the episcopate. Indeed, many things are told of this man. I, however, shall recount only one or two of his deeds, lest I seem to wander too far from my established plan. Thieves, having secretly entered his sheepfold in the middle of the night, attempted to carry off his sheep. But God, who preserved the shepherd himself, preserved his sheep also. For the thieves were bound by a certain invisible power and held captive at the sheepfolds. When day was already breaking, he came to the sheep, and after he saw the young men with their hands tied behind their backs, he immediately understood what had happened; and praying, he released the thieves, and after having exhorted them at length,

and having urged them to strive to earn their living from honest labor rather than from fraud and injustice, he gave them a ram, adding this witty remark: "So that you may not seem to have stayed awake in vain." And so he dismissed them, freed. This is one of the miracles of Spyridon. Another is of this kind: ^A He had a virgin daughter, who emulated the piety of her father, whose name was Irene. A certain acquaintance had entrusted to her some precious ornament for safekeeping. She, in order to keep the deposit more securely, hid it in the earth; and not long after, she departed this life. After some time, the man who had entrusted the item arrived. And when he could not find the virgin, he approached the father, now accusing him, now entreating him. The old man, considering the loss of the one who had entrusted the item to be his own loss, went to his daughter's grave and prayed to God to show him the promised resurrection before the time. Nor was his hope disappointed. For immediately the maiden appeared, alive, to her father. And having indicated the place where the ornament had been hidden, she departed again from this life. Such men flourished in the Church in the times of the Emperor Constantine. These things I have received both by hearsay from many Cypriots, and I have found them set down in a book written in the Latin tongue by a certain presbyter named Rufinus. From which book, indeed, ^B I have collected these things, as well as other things which will be mentioned a little later.

Chapter XIII. Concerning Eutychianus the monk.

I also heard about Eutychianus, a man beloved of God who flourished in those same times. He himself, though belonging to the Church of the Novatians, was admired for performing works similar to those I mentioned above. As for who it was that related this to me about him, I shall state it precisely, and I will not conceal anything, even if it may seem offensive to some. There was a certain Auxanon, a presbyter of the Novatian Church, who attained a very great age; he ^C had come to the Council of Nicaea together with Acesius while still a very young man, and he recounted to me the things that were said above concerning Acesius. This man prolonged his life from those times even to the reign of Theodosius the Younger, and when I was very young, he narrated to me the things concerning Eutychianus, recounting many things regarding the divine grace that was in that man. Yet, one thing he said was worthy of memory above the rest, which happened while Constantine was reigning. A certain one from the number of the guards, whom the emperor is accustomed to call "domestics," having come under suspicion of plotting tyranny, fled for his safety. But the emperor, moved by anger, commanded that ^D wherever he was found, he should be put to death. Having been captured in the region of the Bithynian Olympus, he was thrown into prison, bound in very heavy and harsh irons, near the part of Olympus where Eutychianus was living a solitary life, healing the bodies and souls of many men. Staying with him also was the long-lived Auxanon, when he was very young, being instructed under him in the monastic life. To this Eutychianus, many came,

^B begging him to rescue the prisoner, and to offer petitions to the emperor. For the report of the miracles performed by Eutychianus had even reached the ears of the emperor. He readily promised to go to the emperor; but since the prisoner was suffering incurably from his chains, those who were interceding for him said that both the emperor’s punishment and their own supplications for him—the death hanging over him from his imprisonment—would be forestalled. Eutychianus therefore sent and asked the jailers to release the man. But when they said that releasing the prisoner would bring great danger upon themselves, he went to the prison in person, along with Auxanon. As they were unwilling to open the jail, the grace that was in Eutychianus became more manifest; for the doors of the prison opened of their own accord, while the jailers still had the keys in their own possession. When Eutychianus had entered with Auxanon, and great astonishment had seized all who were present at that time, the bonds fell off the prisoner of their own accord. After these things, he went away to what was formerly Byzantium, but afterwards called Constantinople, along with Auxanon. Having been admitted into the imperial palaces, he rescued the man from death. For the emperor, inasmuch as he greatly revered the man, most willingly assented to his request. This, however, happened after those times which we are now describing.

Then, true enough, the bishops who were present at the council, having inscribed certain other things which they were accustomed to call canons or rules, each returned to their own city. Now I consider it a thing worthy of study to set down here the names of the bishops who were assembled at Nicaea, as far as I have been able to find them, and from which province and city each one was, and the time when they gathered. Hosius, bishop of Corduba ^C in Spain, I believe it is as it was written before; of Rome, Viton and Vincentius, presbyters; of Egypt, Alexander; of great Antioch, Eustathius; of Jerusalem, Macarius; of Arphocratian, Cynon; and the rest, whose names in full are contained in the Synodicon of Athanasius.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

Hosius, bishop of Corduba. I have supplemented this from the Florentine and Sfortian codices. For in the common editions, after these words, it was read: "Verum optimi illi codices... [But those excellent codices have exhibited the entire passage to us in this way, etc.]." This is the series of bishops who subscribed to the Nicene Council, which Socrates describes from the Synodicon of Athanasius, as he himself testifies below. And in the Greek collections of canons, this series is missing, nor is it found in the version of Dionysius Exiguus. However, in the very ancient collection which was recently published at Paris, and which the Western Church formerly used before the version of Dionysius, and also in the Collection of Isidore, this series is held in almost the same words. In that very ancient collection, it reads thus: "And they subscribed. Osius, bishop of the city of Corduba, of the province of Spain, said: Thus I believe as it is written above. Victor and Vincentius, presbyters of the city of Rome. Alexander of great Alexandria. Arphocration, etc." And thus almost the Collection of Isidore. But in the Synodicon of Athanasius, after Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, was placed Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem: so that the bishops of the four primary sees subscribed in the first place. For Hosius, together with Viton and Vincentius, presbyters, seems to have subscribed for Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome. For no other reason can be brought forward why Hosius should be placed in the first rank among the bishops who subscribed to the Nicene Council, unless that which I have said. For that council consisted in the greatest part of Eastern bishops. Athanasius in his *Apology against the Arians*; and he testifies that the Roman synod of fifty bishops, by whom he himself was received into communion, was collected in his Church: etc., that is, "Finally, however, when more than fifty bishops had gathered, in the church in which Vito was gathering the people, etc."

Arphocratian, Cynon. In the Latin collections, he is called Harpocration, bishop of Naucratis, and Adamantius of Cynopolis, or Cynensis, is joined immediately after him, as it is written in that very ancient Collection of which I made mention above.

^A And the time of the synod, as we found in the notations, was the consulship of Paulinus and Julian, on the twentieth day of the month of May. This was the six hundred and thirty-sixth year from the reign of Alexander of Macedon. Such was the conclusion of the synod. It should be known, however, that after the synod the emperor departed for the western regions.

CHAPTER XIV.

Eusebius and Theognis, having sent a book of repentance to the principal bishops, by the emperor's command ^B were recalled from their exile.

VALESIAN ANNOTATIONS.

(86) ^B *As we found in the notations.* Interpreters did not understand this term. *Parasemeiosis* is a notation of time, usually prefixed to public acts, as I have already warned in the Annotations to the first book of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, chapter 9. Indeed, in the Greek collection of canons which Joannes Tilius first edited, a time-note of this sort is prefixed: "Canons of the 318 holy Fathers who met in Nicaea, in the consulship of Paulinus and Julian, the most illustrious men, in the year 636 from Alexander; in the month of Desius, the nineteenth day, the thirteenth day before the Kalends of July."

(87) *On the twentieth day of the month of May.* The opinion is common and most widely accepted that the Nicene Council was held in the twentieth year of Constantine, in the year of Christ 325. However, the writers do not agree on the date. For Socrates asserts it began on the twentieth day of the month of May, that is, the 13th day before the Kalends of June (not 11, as Valesius and Christophorson interpret). But the Alexandrian Chronicle, the title of the canons, and the Council of Chalcedon place the beginning of this synod on the 19th day of the Macedonian month Desius, which corresponds to the 13th day before the Kalends of July, or the nineteenth day of June in the Julian year. And in the Annotations to the Eusebian books, page 224, I think I have demonstrated with very certain arguments that this latter writing is truer than that of Socrates. But if there is room for conjecture, it seems Socrates used a faulty codex, in which it was written "13th before the Kalends of June" instead of "July." Moreover, it should be known that the Nicenes, just like the other Asiatics, used the Macedonian year and months.

(88) *From the reign of Alexander of Macedon.* After these words, the codex of Leo Allatius adds: "And from the reign of Constantine, the nineteenth year," which are very true. For in the consulship of Paulinus and Julian, which is the year of Christ 325, in the month of May, when according to the opinion of Socrates the Nicene synod was gathered, the nineteenth year of the reign of Constantine was passing. ^C But the twentieth began in the same year toward the end of the month of July.

(89) *Eusebius and Theognis.* Socrates did not preserve the order here. For he says they were recalled from exile almost before he stated they were sent into exile. Therefore, Sozomen is more correct, who in this part corrected the narrative of Socrates. For in the first book of his History, chapter 21, he relates that Eusebius and Theognis were sent into exile by the emperor Constantine shortly after the synod, and that other bishops were substituted in their place. Then, in the second book, chapter 16, he narrates how they were recalled from exile. From which, to note it in passing, it is gathered that Sozomen wrote his History after Socrates, since he amends and corrects the narrative of Socrates in most places. Moreover, Eusebius and Theognis were sent into exile three months after the Nicene synod, as Philostorgius testifies. But they returned from exile in the third year after the same synod, as the same Philostorgius writes, that is, in the year of Christ 328. These things conform excellently with the history of events done at that time. For all historians agree that Eusebius, when he had returned from exile, took counsel about confirming the opinion of Arius, and about casting out the assertors of the Nicene faith. And that his first attack was against Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, whom he cast out by concocted calumnies in the year of Christ 329, or certainly 330, as I noted in the third book of Eusebius' *Life of Constantine*. Baronius, therefore, incorrectly assigns the return of Eusebius of Nicomedia to the year of Christ 330.

(90) *Having sent a book of repentance to the principal bishops.* Baronius, in the year of Christ 325, finds fault with Socrates and Sozomen, who said that Eusebius and Theognis were sent into exile shortly after the Nicene synod: then, a few years later, having sent a satisfaction libellus to the principal bishops.

VARIORUM.

^A recalled from exile by royal edict, they received their Churches back, and expelled those who had been ordained in their place—Eusebius expelling Amphion, and Theognis expelling Chrestus. The copy of this document is as follows: “Having then been condemned before judgment ^B by your reverence, we ought to have borne in silence the things determined by your holy decision. But since it is absurd for the slanderers to be given proof against us by our silence, for this reason we report that we also have concurred in the faith, and having examined the concept of the ‘consubstantial,’ we have entirely become people of peace, having in no way followed the heresy. And having reminded you, for the security of the Churches, of all that passed through our mind, and having informed those who ought to have been persuaded by us, we have subscribed to the faith; but we did not subscribe to the anathema, not as condemning the faith, but as not believing the person accused to be of such a character, since we were fully convinced that he was not so, both from the letters written to us by him privately, and from the conversations had with him in our presence. If, however, your holy synod has been persuaded, we—not opposing, but agreeing to the things [decided]—make known our consent, not bearing the exile with bitterness, but rather the fact that one who is considered to be culpable has been recalled and has made his defense—for after the synod at Nicaea, the faction of Eusebius was deposed.”

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

[D] his own, omitted by Christophorsonus and Musculus. They are read, however, also in Sozomen; and Epiphanius the Scholastic rendered them thus: "Long since, before the judgment, condemned by your reverence, we ought to have borne patiently the things decreed by your holy council." Thus, therefore, should these words be constructed: "Having then been condemned before judgment." By which words Eusebius seems to suggest that he was condemned without a trial, and by a certain prejudice: because, namely, the emperor had condemned him beforehand, being hostile to Eusebius for various reasons, which see in the letter of Constantine to the Nicomedians. The sense of these words here is: If then, he says, we satisfied your holy council, to wit, the Nicene, and persuaded it that we had a just cause why we were unwilling to subscribe to the anathemas, now we make known our consent.

^A We do not do this as being weary of exile, but as ridding ourselves of any suspicion of heresy. For if you would deign now to admit us to your presence, you would find us in all things of the same mind, and clinging tenaciously to your decrees: since it has pleased your reverence to treat with humanity and recall from exile even him who was accused on account of these things. ^B For it would be absurd, when he who was seen to be the guilty party has been recalled, and has purged himself of the charges brought against him, that we should remain silent and ourselves provide the argument against us. Do you, therefore, as becomes your reverence, which is most beloved by Christ, deign to admonish the emperor, who is dearest to God, and to offer our entreaties to him, and to determine as quickly as possible what is fitting for you to decide regarding us.

This, then, is the book of retraction of Eusebius and Theognis. From its words, I judge that they did indeed subscribe to the faith that was published at the council, but that they were unwilling to consent to the deposition of Arius; and that Arius appears to have been recalled from exile before them. But even if this seems to be the case, he was nevertheless forbidden from entering Alexandria; and this is proved by the fact that he later devised a way for his own return to the Church and to the city of Alexandria, using a feigned repentance, as we shall relate in its proper place.

CHAP. XV.

How after the synod, and the death of Alexander, Athanasius is created bishop of the city of the Alexandrians.

^C Shortly after this, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, having died, Athanasius was placed in charge of the Church. When he was about to

^A be bishop of the Church, Athanasius. Rufinus says that this man, when he was a mere child, played a sacred game with others of his own age. This was an imitation of the priesthood and of the order of ordained men. In this game, then, Athanasius had been allotted the episcopal throne; and each of the other young boys imitated either a presbyter or a deacon. The children were playing these things on the day on which the memory of the martyr and bishop Peter was being celebrated. ^B Then Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, passing by, saw the game that was taking place; and having called the children to him, he inquired of them what place had been allotted to each in the game, thinking that something was being signified by what had occurred. He commanded the children to be brought into the church and given instruction, and Athanasius especially. Then, when he had become of full age, he ordained him a deacon and took him to Nicaea, to struggle alongside him there when the council was assembled. These things, indeed, Rufinus has said about Athanasius in his own writings. And it is not unlikely that this happened; for many such things happening have often been discovered. Regarding him, for now, let this much (97) be said.

CHAPTER XVI.

After the council had been concluded, the Emperor lived in great joy. ^C Having therefore celebrated the public festival of his vicennial anniversary, he immediately applied all his zeal to the restoration of the churches. He did this both in other cities (98) and in the one named after him. That which was formerly called Byzantium he greatly enlarged, and having surrounded it with great walls and adorned it with various buildings, having shown it to be equal to the queen of cities, Rome, he renamed it Constantinople, and by law sanctioned that it be styled the second Rome (99). This law was inscribed on a stone column and publicly [set up in the place called the Strate-]

Strategio, near his own equestrian statue ^A. In this city, he built two churches: one he named Peace, the other, the Apostles. Nor did he only, as I have said, advance the cause of the Christians, but he also dismantled that of the Hellenes. For instance, he brought forth the statues of the gods to adorn the city of Constantinople, and he exhibited and set up the Delphic tripods in the hippodrome. These things, however, will seem redundant to mention now, for they are seen by the eyes before they are perceived by the hearing. Nevertheless, at that time the affairs of Christianity experienced a very great increase. For indeed, in the times of the Emperor Constantine, the Providence of God preserved many other things too. And so Eusebius of Pamphilus has commemorated the praises of the emperor with grandiloquent language. But I deem it not unseasonable that we also, as much as possible, should speak a few words concerning these same matters ^B.

CHAPTER XVII

The mother of the emperor, Helena, in whose honor the emperor turned the village of Drepanum into a city and named it Helenopolis, having been admonished in her dreams, came to Jerusalem. And finding that ancient, deserted Jerusalem—like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, according to the Prophet—she studiously sought the monument of Christ where he was buried and rose again ^C. And though the task was difficult, with God's help she found it. I shall briefly state the cause of this difficulty. Those who held the faith of Christ, after the time of his passion, held the monument in great honor. But those who fled the things of Christ, having filled the place with earth and constructed a temple of Venus over it, set up an image, not making any remembrance of the site. This had indeed succeeded for them a long time ago. But to the mother of the emperor, this became manifest. Thus, having torn down the idol, and having cleared away the earth and purified the place on all sides, she found three crosses in the monument: one, the blessed one upon which Christ had hung; the two others, upon which the two thieves who had been crucified with him had met their death. Along with them was also found the tablet of Pilate, in which, by inscribing that Christ was the King of the Jews, he proclaimed the crucified ^D. Since, however, the cross being sought was in doubt,

^A great sorrow possessed the mother of the emperor. But the bishop of Jerusalem, whose name was Macarius, before long put an end to this sorrow, and solved all ambiguity by the power of faith. For he asked for a sign from God, and received it. The sign was of this nature: a certain woman of that region, having been seized by a long-standing disease, was at the very point of death. The bishop therefore caused each of the crosses to be brought to the dying woman, believing that she would be restored to health by touching the precious cross. And he was not disappointed in his hope. For when the two crosses which were not the Lord’s were brought forward, the woman remained dying just the same. But when the third, the true one, was brought near, the dying woman was immediately restored, and became one of the healthy. In this way, then, the wood of the cross was found.

The mother of the emperor built a magnificent house of prayer on the site of the sepulcher, and named it New Jerusalem, ^B establishing it as the counterpart to that old and forsaken one. A portion of the cross she enclosed in a silver case and left behind there as a memorial for those who might wish to behold it; the other part she sent to the emperor. Having received this, and believing that the city where it was preserved would be kept safe for all time, he encased it in his own statue, which is set up in that city of Constantine, in the so-called Forum of Constantine, on the great column of porphyry. This I have written from hearsay. But almost all who dwell in the city of Constantine affirm it to be true. Moreover, the nails by which the hands of Christ were fixed to the cross, when the same emperor received them (for his mother had found these also in the monument ^C and sent them to him), he had made into bits and a helmet, and used them in war.

The emperor indeed provided all the materials for the construction of the churches in abundance. He also wrote to Macarius the bishop, urging him to hasten the building works. The mother of the emperor, having made the New Jerusalem, constructed another church—no less magnificent—in the cave at Bethlehem, where the birth of Christ according to the flesh took place. Furthermore, she built one on the Mount of the Ascension. And such was her piety ^D as also found in the city of Constantine, in the so-called Forum of Constantine. But if any should disbelieve these things, let him look upon what is now done concerning his tomb and the statue, and let him believe what has been written.

^A And for these things, she would also join in prayer ^B in the order of women. And when she encouraged the virgins who were registered in the canon of the churches to a feast, she herself would serve them by ministering, and would bring the dishes to the tables. She also bestowed many things upon the churches and the poor; and having spent her life piously, she died at about the eightieth year of her age; and her body, having been carried to the royal New Rome, was laid to rest in the imperial monuments.

CHAP. XVIII. How the Emperor Constantine abolished the superstition of the Gentiles, and erected many churches in various places.

After this, the emperor, being more devoted to the affairs of the Christians, turned away from the Greek superstitions. And first of all, he abolished the spectacles of the gladiators; then he placed his own images in the temples of the gods. And when the Greeks were saying that Serapis was the one who makes the Nile rise for the irrigation of Egypt, because it was customary for the cubit measure to be carried into the temple of Serapis, he ordered the cubit to be transferred into the church of Alexandria. And although they openly boasted that the Nile would not rise because of the anger of Serapis, nevertheless, both in the following year and in the remaining years thereafter, the Nile overflowed, and overflows even now; so that it was declared by the very fact that the Nile does not rise on account of that superstition of the Gentiles, but by the decree of Divine Providence. And about the same time, when barbarians, namely the Sarmatians and Goths, having made an incursion, were ravaging the lands of the Romans, the emperor’s resolve regarding the churches was not in the least impeded thereby; but he applied the befitting care and solicitude to both tasks: for, trusting in the trophy of Christ, he utterly vanquished the former, insomuch that he withdrew the gold which it had been the custom for the ancient emperors to give to the barbarians, and they themselves, struck by the unexpected disaster, [were led to believe] in the Christian religion, through which Constantine was preserved. ^{C D}

^A He acted likewise for the churches; and he built one at the place called the Oak of Mamre, under which the divine oracles testify that the angels were entertained by Abraham. For the emperor, having learned that altars had been set up under the oak, and that Gentile sacrifices were being performed there, reproved Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, severely by letter, and ordered the altar to be overturned, and a house of prayer to be built by the oak. He also commanded another church to be built at Heliopolis in Phoenicia, for this reason: the people of Heliopolis—who their legislator was from the beginning, I cannot say, nor what his character was; but the character [of the people] is shown by the city—followed a local law which commanded that women should be common. For this reason, the children amongst them were uncertain, for there was no distinction between parents and children. Moreover, they delivered up virgins to be defiled by the guests who came to them. This custom, which from the most ancient times had prevailed among them, the emperor endeavored to abolish. By removing the disgrace of this most foul custom through a virtuous law, he brought it about that families might recognize their own members. Furthermore, having built churches, he took care that a bishop be ordained there, and a holy clergy established. In this way, the emperor rendered the morals of the Heliopolitans, from being most base, more modest. In a similar manner, having demolished the shrine ^B of Venus at Aphaca, by Mount Lebanon, he utterly extirpated the unspeakable crimes that were committed there. And why should I mention how he drove out the Pythonic demon in Cilicia, by ordering the house in which it lurked to be razed to the foundations?

So great, moreover, was the emperor’s love and ardor toward the religion of Christ, that when a Persian war was about to be stirred up, he ordered a tent to be made of various patterned cloths, forming the shape of a church, just as Moses had once done in the desert, and desired that it be carried with him, so that he might have a prepared oratory even in the most desert places. But the war did not proceed further at that time; for it was quickly extinguished due to the fear the emperor had struck into the Persians.

Indeed, that he put great effort into the founding of cities, and how he turned certain villages into cities—such as Drepanum, named after his mother, and in Palestine, Constantia, named after his sister Constantia—I judge it ill-timed to relate here. For our purpose is not to recount all the deeds of the emperor, but only those which pertain to the religion of Christ, and ^C especially those which occurred concerning the churches. Therefore, those illustrious deeds of the emperor, being of another subject and requiring a distinct work, I leave to others who can fittingly describe them.

As for me, if the Church had remained free of sedition and discord, I myself would have remained altogether silent. For where the subject matter does not provide the events, he who speaks is superfluous. But since dialectic and empty deceit began to take hold of and disseminate the apostolic faith of Christianity at the same time, I thought it necessary to commit these things to writing, so that the events that occurred in the churches might not be lost; for the knowledge of these matters brings glory to many ^D and...

(9) *As for virgins... to guests*: I have emended this passage from the codex of Leo Allatius. The other codices change nothing.

wledge of these matters brings glory to many and makes the person himself who possesses it much more cautious; nor does it allow him to fluctuate when some novelty of language occurs. ^A

CHAPTER XIX. How in the times of Constantine, the inner nations of the Indians embraced the faith of Christ.

Now we must also recount how, in the times of this emperor, Christianity was more widely propagated; for at that time the nations of the inner Indians and the Iberians first began to embrace the Christian faith. I shall briefly explain why I have used the addition "inner." ^B When the apostles were casting lots for their journeys to the nations, Thomas accepted the apostleship to the Parthians; Matthew to Ethiopia; and Bartholomew was allotted the India adjacent to it. However, the inner India, which is inhabited by many barbarian nations using diverse languages, had not yet been enlightened by the word of the Christian faith before the times of Constantine. I shall now proceed to tell what the cause was for them to become Christians. ^C A certain philosopher named Meropius, a Tyrian by birth, intended to visit the region of the Indians, having been provoked to do so by the example of the philosopher Metrodorus, who had traveled through that region before him. Meropius, therefore, taking along two young kinsmen of his, who were not ignorant of the Greek tongue, arrived in that country by ship. After he had seen what he wished, he steered his vessel to a place with a safe harbor, for the sake of procuring necessary provisions. It so happened that at that time the truce between the Romans and the Indians had been broken for a short while. ^D The Indians seized the philosopher and those sailing with him, except for the two

^A young boys, and put them all to death. The two boys, however, whom they spared out of pity for their age, they presented as a gift to the king of the Indians. He, being pleased with the appearance of the youths, appointed one of them, whose name was Aedesius, as cupbearer of his table; the other, whose name was Frumentius, he ordered to take charge of his royal records. Not long after, the king died, leaving as his successor a child of very tender age and his queen. Upon his death, he set these youths free. The queen, seeing her son left behind at a small age, requested them to take care of him until he attained manhood. The young men agreed, and they took charge of the king’s affairs. Frumentius was the one who principally administered everything ^B. He made it his task to seek out any Roman merchants trading in the region and to see if he could find any who were Christians. Having found some, and having instructed them in his own affairs, he encouraged them to select private places where they might perform their Christian prayers. As time went on, he built a house of prayer, and having instructed some of the Indians in the rudiments of the Christian faith, he invited them to pray with them. When the king’s son attained full age, Frumentius and his companions, having handed over the affairs which they had managed well, requested to depart for their own homeland. Although the king and his mother ^C urged them to remain, they were not persuaded, and they departed, desiring their own motherland. Aedesius hastened toward Tyre, intending to see his parents and relatives; but Frumentius, having reached Alexandria, reported the matter to Bishop Athanasius, who had recently been entrusted with the episcopate ^D.

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

VARIOUS NOTES

having instructed ^A them in the story of his own travels, and how the Indians have hope of receiving Christianity, he asks that a bishop and clergy be sent, and that he in no way neglect men who could easily be led to the way of salvation. Athanasius, having taken into consideration what was advantageous, persuaded Frumentius himself to accept the episcopacy, saying that he had no one more suitable for this charge than he. And so it was done. Frumentius, therefore, adorned with the episcopal dignity, returns to the region of the Indians; and preaching the religion of Christ there, he builds many churches in various places. And since divine grace was present with him, he performed countless miracles, and at the same time healed the souls and bodies of many who were suffering. Rufinus says that he heard these things from Aedesius, who himself was later also deemed worthy of the priesthood at Tyre.

CHAPTER XX

It is now time to tell how the Iberians were converted to the faith of Christ at that same time. A certain woman, leading a chaste and sober life, by divine Providence was taken captive by the Iberians. Now these Iberians dwell near the Euxine Sea; they are colonists of the Iberians who are in Spain. The captive woman, therefore, in the midst of the barbarians, lived a life of philosophy; for in addition to the immense practice of temperance, she gave herself over to ^C extremely deep fasting and continuous prayers. Seeing this, the barbarians... ^D

[index: entries preserved]

^A were astonished at what was taking place. It happened that the king’s son, while still an infant, fell into a sickness. According to a local custom, the queen sent the child to various women to be healed, in case they might have any remedy for the disease from experience. But when the child had been carried around by his nurse and had received no healing from any of the women, he was finally brought to the captive. She, in the presence of many women, offered no material remedy, for she knew of none of that kind. But, having taken the child and laid him down on the garment woven of hair that she possessed, she spoke a simple word: “Christ,” she said, “who has healed many, will also heal this infant.” After she had prayed at this word and called upon God, the child was immediately restored, and from that time forth he was well. ^B From this, a report ran through the women of the barbarians, and even to the queen herself; and the captive became more widely known. Not long after, the queen herself also fell into a sickness and sent for the captive woman. When she excused herself, being modest and humble in her habits, the queen was carried to her. The captive did what she had previously done for the child. Immediately, the sick woman was strengthened and gave thanks to the woman. But she said, “This work is not mine, but Christ’s, who is the Son of God, the creator of this world.” She exhorted her to call upon Him and to acknowledge the true God. The king of the Iberians, having marveled at the speed of the recovery from the disease, and having inquired as to who had performed the healing, rewarded the captive with gifts. But she replied that she had no need of riches, for she considered piety her wealth, and that she would consider it a great gift if he would acknowledge the God whom she herself worshiped. Having said these things, she sent back the gifts; yet the king hid the woman’s words in his mind. The next day, when he went out to hunt, such a thing happened to him: the peaks of the mountains and the wooded glens where he was hunting were covered by mist and heavy darkness. Consequently, the hunting became difficult, and the path was blocked and impassable. The king, at a loss for counsel and uncertain what to do, most intensely implored the gods whom he worshiped. But when he achieved nothing, finally the God of the captive woman came to his mind, and he called upon Him as his helper. And as he prayed, the darkness ^C from the mist dispersed. Marveling at what had happened, he returned home rejoicing. He recounted the event to his wife, and immediately he sent for the captive, inquiring as to who the God might be whom she worshipped. When she came into the king's presence, she ensured that the king of the Iberians became a herald of Christ; for, having believed in Christ through the pious woman, he called together all the Iberians under his rule. And, having explained one by one the things that had occurred regarding the healing of his wife and son, as well as the events during the hunt, he exhorted them to worship the God of the captive. Thus they both became heralds of Christ: the king to the men, and the queen to the women. Having learned from the captive the form of the churches among the Romans, he ordered a house of prayer to be built; and he immediately commanded that the materials for the construction be prepared. And it was being raised ^D. When it also

was attempted to raise the columns, divine Providence ordered a certain thing for the faith of those dwelling there. For one of the columns remained immovable, and no machine could be found that was able to move it. But both the ropes were breaking and the machines were being shattered; the workmen, therefore, despairing, were departing. Then the faith of the captive woman was shown. For by night, with no one knowing, she approached the place and spent the whole night engaged in prayer. Through the Providence of God, the column was raised and stood in the air higher than the base, in no way touching the foundation. When day broke, the king—being a man of sense—was present at the building; he saw the column hanging above its own base, and he himself was struck with amazement at what had happened. Those who were present with him were also struck with amazement. For shortly after, before their eyes, the column descended and was set, resting upon its own base. From this a cry arose from the people, who were shouting and calling the king’s faith true, and celebrating the God of the captive woman. They believed from then on, and with much zeal they raised the remaining columns, and the work was finished before long. ^B An embassy was then sent to the emperor Constantine; they requested to be allies of the Romans for the future, and to have a bishop and sacred clergy sent to them, for they said they sincerely believed in Christ. Rufinus says he learned these things from Bacurius, ^C who was formerly a petty king of the Iberians, but later moved to the Romans and was appointed commander of the military force in Palestine; and afterwards, becoming a general, he fought with the emperor Theodosius in the war against the tyrant Maximus. In this way, the Iberians became Christians in the times of Constantine.

CHAPTER XXI.

Concerning Anthony the monk.

Now, as to what kind of person the monk Anthony was in the desert of Egypt during the same times—who openly wrestled with demons, and was discovering—simply ^D

^A their arts and their struggles, and how he performed many prodigies and miracles, it seems superfluous for me to recount. For Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, has anticipated us by composing a special book on his life. Such a wealth of good things flourished at one and the same time under the reign of Constantine.

CAP. XXII. Concerning Manes, the author of the Manichaean heresy, and whence he drew his origin.

But amid the good wheat, tares are also accustomed to grow. For envy is wont to lie in wait for good things. For a little before the times of Constantine, a certain Greek-style Christianity began to sprout alongside true Christianity, just as formerly false prophets were inserted among the prophets, and false apostles among the apostles. For at that time a certain Manichaean attempted to introduce secretly into the Christian religion the dogma of Empedocles, the pagan philosopher. Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, made mention of this man in the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History, but he did not set forth the individual details with sufficient accuracy. For this reason, ^B I consider it necessary to supplement what was omitted by him. For in this way it will be understood who the Manichaean was, and from where he dared such things. A certain Scythianus, a Saracen, had a captive woman from the upper Thebaid; for her sake, having taken up residence in Egypt, and having been instructed in the learning of the Egyptians, he brought the opinion of Empedocles and Pythagoras into the Christian religion. He asserted that there were two natures, one good and one evil; just as Empedocles did, calling the evil nature Discord and the good nature Friendship. The disciple of this Scythianus became Buddas, who was previously called Terebinthus. He, having ^C set out for the land of Babylonia, which is inhabited by the Persians, invented many vain and prodigious things about himself, claiming that he had been born of a virgin and raised in the mountains. He then wrote four books: the first he named of the Mysteries; another, the Gospel; the third, the Treasure; and the fourth, the Chapters. While pretending to perform certain mystic rites, he was cast down by a spirit, and thus he perished. A certain woman with whom he was lodging buried him, and his money…

^A having all come into her possession, she bought a seven-year-old boy, whose name was Cubricus. After she had set him free and taught him letters, she died not long after, having left to him all the property of Terebinthus, and the books which that man had composed while being instructed by Scythianus. Having received these, the freedman Cubricus departed for the regions of Persia, and changed his name to Manes; and he published the books of Budda, which is to say Terebinthus, as his own, to those who were deceived by him. The subjects of these books, therefore, while sounding in their discourse like Christianity, are in their dogmas Hellenistic; for the Manichaean, being godless, urges men to worship many gods, and he teaches that the sun should be worshipped ^B. He also introduces fate, and destroys free will; and he openly teaches the transmigration of souls, following the dogmas of Empedocles and Pythagoras and the Egyptians. He does not wish it to be believed that Christ was in the flesh, calling Him a phantom; and he rejects both the law and the prophets, and calls himself the Paraclete; all of which things are alien to the orthodox Church. In his letters, moreover, he even dared to call himself an apostle. But he finally received punishment worthy of such a great lie, for the following reason: The son of the king of Persia had fallen into sickness; and the father, as the saying goes, left no stone unturned, wishing his son to be saved. Having learned about the Manichaean, and thinking his wonders were real, he sent for him as an apostle, trusting that his son would be saved through him. He, having arrived with his deceptive appearance, was entrusted with the king's son. But the king, having seen that the boy had died in his hands, shut him up, and was ready to punish him. He, however, escaped to Mesopotamia and was saved. Having learned that he was staying there, the king of the Persians had him seized, and flayed him alive; and having filled his skin with chaff, ^C he hung it before the gate of the city. We do not say these things as inventions...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (22) That they worship the sun is well known. Hence they are called worshippers of the sun by Augustine on Psalm LXXIX. Libanius writes the same concerning them in Epistle 4, where he commends to Priscianus, the governor of Palestine, the Manichaeans who were in Palestine, while suppressing their name; that is to say: "Those men who worship the sun without blood, and honor God with a second title, and chastise their own bellies, and count the day of death to be a gain, are found in many places of the earth, but are everywhere few in number; and they do injustice to no one, though they are annoyed by some." I do not doubt ^D that Libanius designates the Manichaeans by these words; for these things do not befit anyone but the Manichaeans. Yet he deliberately did not want to name them, because the name of the Manichaeans was hateful. Moreover, concerning the feigned fastings of the Manichaeans, see Cyril, Catechesis 6.

VARIORUM. * Manes, in the ninth year of Valerian and Gallienus (that is, in the year of Christ 272), having fled as a prisoner of the Persians, when he had come into Mesopotamia, his impiety was excellently and abundantly refuted by the admirable man Archelaus (for this holy man was bishop of the city of the Cascharians of that same region). For this reason, on account of the ignominy which he had suffered, not as he had expected, he fled and came secretly to the town of Diodoris in the region of the Cascharians, where he fell in with a certain holy and approved man, placed in the order of the presbytery, named Trypho (or, more correctly, according to others, Diodorus), and suffered no less ignominy. Moreover... even Archelaus himself, knowing that Manes had arrived there—for he was a sharp man, and fired with a zeal for piety—approached the same town, and, having reduced that deceiver to such a lack of counsel and suffusing him with the greatest possible confusion, he once again, by those arguments with which he overturned his detested dogmas and set them out for all to deride and detest, compelled him to take flight. Photius, in Book I, *Against the Manichaeans*. The complete acts of this disputation, which Baronius had not seen, are exhibited by Zacagnius in *Tome: Collection of Monuments of the Ancient Greek and Latin Churches*. (Ant. Pagi, a.d. 282, n. 4.)

^A he placed before the gate of the city. But we relate these things, not by invention, but having gathered them from the discourse of Archelaus 23, the bishop of Carchar, one of the cities in Mesopotamia; for Archelaus himself says that he reasoned with him face to face, and he sets forth the aforementioned things in his own life. Envy, therefore, as I have said, is wont to lie in wait for good men when they are at the height of their prosperity. And what is the cause for which the good God permits this to happen—whether He wishes to exercise the good dogmas of the Church and to prune away the arrogance that is accustomed to spring up alongside the faith, or however it may be—the explanation is difficult and long, and not opportune to be examined now. For it is not set before us to examine dogmas, nor to stir up elusive arguments concerning the Providence and judgment of God, but to narrate as best we can the history of events that have occurred in the churches. That the Manichaean religion 24 sprang up a little before the times of Constantine, has been told; let us return to the times of the history before us.

CHAPTER XXIII.

Eusebius and Theognis, having returned from exile, recovered their churches, having expelled, as I have said, those who had been ordained in their place. Moreover, they attained the greatest authority with the emperor, who held them in the highest honor as having turned back from false to true doctrine. But they, abusing the liberty granted to them, stirred up a much more grievous tumult in the inhabited world than there had been before, being impelled by two causes primarily: both by the Arian opinion in which they had long been held fast, ^C and by their hatred towards Athanasius.

^A Since he had resisted them nobly in the synod regarding the matters of doctrine under discussion, they began first to disparage the ordination of Athanasius, as if he were unworthy of the episcopate and as if he had not been ordained by credible men. But when he proved himself superior to their calumny, having become established in the Church of the Alexandrians and contending fervently for the faith in Nicaea, those surrounding Eusebius then set themselves to the task of plotting against Athanasius and bringing Arius back to Alexandria. For they thought that only in this way would they be able to cast out the faith of the "consubstantial" and introduce the Arianizing party in its place. Therefore, Eusebius wrote to Athanasius, asking him to receive Arius and those who were with him; and writing, he indeed pleaded, but externally he threatened. ^B When Athanasius would not be persuaded by any means, he contrived to persuade the emperor to receive Arius in person and to grant him a return to Alexandria. And how he was able to accomplish these things, I shall relate in its proper place. But before these things, another disturbance affected the Churches. For those who belonged to the Church were again disturbing the peace. Eusebius of Pamphilus, indeed, says that immediately after the synod of Nicaea, Egypt was in sedition against itself, though he does not add the cause of the act. From which he also gained the reputation of being double-tongued, because he shrank from stating the causes, as he had determined within himself not to agree with those things which had been decreed in the synod. But as we have discovered from various letters which the bishops wrote to one another after the synod was concluded, the word "consubstantial" was disturbing the minds of some. ^C Pondering this for a long time and examining it too scrupulously, they stirred up a war against each other. What was happening was no different from a night battle; for they did not appear to understand one another, but rather supposed that they were blaspheming against one another. For those who shrank from the term "consubstantial" supposed that those who received it were introducing the doctrine of Sabellius and Montanus.

and for this reason they called them blasphemers, as if they were doing away with the subsistence of the Son of God; whereas those, on the other hand, who inclined toward the "consubstantial" supposed that the others were introducing polytheism, and so they shrank from them as if they were introducing Hellenism. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, indeed, dragged Eusebius of Pamphilus through the mud as one who was adulterating the faith of Nicaea. Eusebius, however, said that he did not in the least depart from the faith of Nicaea; but he attacked Eustathius, as one who was introducing the doctrine of Sabellius. On account of these things, each party wrote treatises as against opponents. And although both sides said that the Son of God had a proper person and subsistence, and confessed that there was one God in three subsistences, nonetheless, I know not how, they were unable to agree with one another, and on account of these things, they could not in any way endure to remain quiet. ^A

Chapter XXIV.

A synod having therefore been gathered at Antioch, they deposed Eustathius, as one who minded the things of Sabellius rather than the decrees of the council of Nicaea. There are those who say that he was deposed for other, less honorable causes; these, however, they do not bring into the open. It is the custom of bishops, moreover, to do this in the case of all whom they depose, loading them with reproaches and pronouncing them impious, yet not explaining the causes of that impiety. That, however, they deposed Eustathius as one Sabellianizing, with Cyrus, the bishop of Beroea, accusing him, is what George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria—one of those who hated the "consubstantial"—wrote that he had said [28] in his panegyric on Eusebius of Emesa. ^{B C}

VALESII ANNOTATIONS upon the above.

^A But we shall speak of Eusebius of Emesa in his proper place. Georgius, however, writes concerning Eustathius in terms that are hardly consistent with one another. For while he states that Eustathius was accused by Cyrus as being a proponent of Sabellianism, he subsequently records that Cyrus himself was convicted of the same error and deposed. But how could it possibly be that Cyrus, being addicted to the Sabellian dogma, could bring an accusation against Eustathius for being a Sabellian? It appears, therefore, that Eustathius was deposed for other reasons. At that time, a terrible sedition arose in Antioch over his deposition. And following this, so great a fire of contention was kindled regarding the choice of a bishop that the whole city was nearly overturned, the people having been divided into two factions; the one party striving to transfer Eusebius of Pamphilus from Caesarea in Palestine to Antioch, while the others were eager to bring back Eustathius. The common people of the city also threw themselves in with both sides. And a military force was set in motion as if against an enemy, such that it was nearly coming to swords, had not God and the fear inspired by the Emperor restrained the impulses of the multitude. For the Emperor, indeed, by his letters, quieted the proceedings and the seditions; and Eusebius, by refusing the bishopric ^B, quieted that tumult and sedition. For which name the Emperor greatly marvelling at him, wrote letters to him in which he praises his resolve, and proclaims him blessed, in that he was judged worthy to be bishop not of one city alone, but of nearly the entire inhabited world. Therefore, the see of the Church in Antioch is said to have remained vacant for eight years in succession. At last, however, through the zeal and effort of those who were striving to overturn the faith of Nicaea, Euphronius was ordained. Let so much be recorded regarding the council which took place at Antioch on account of Eustathius. Immediately after these things, Eusebius, who had long since left Berytus and was at that time ruling the Church in Nicomedia, applied himself with all diligence together with his associates to bring Arius back to Alexandria. How they were able to accomplish this, and how the Emperor was persuaded to receive Arius and Euzoius, who was with him, into his presence, must now be related.

Chapter XXV. Concerning the presbyter who labored for the recall of Arius.

^A The Emperor Constantine had a sister named Constantia. She had formerly been married to Licinius, who had previously been his colleague in the empire, but who afterwards fell into tyranny, and for this reason was put to death. A certain presbyter, who favored the Arian sect, was intimate with her, and was counted among her household. At the instigation of Eusebius and those of his party, this man, in his familiar conversations with Constantia, introduced the subject of Arius; saying that he had been unjustly treated by the synod, and that his belief was not as rumor suggested. Constantia, upon hearing this, readily believed the presbyter, but she did not dare to mention the matter to the Emperor. ^B It happened, however, that Constantia fell into a severe illness. The Emperor visited her constantly while she was sick. As her malady grew worse day by day, and the woman expected that she was about to die, she commended the presbyter to the Emperor, testifying to his industry and piety, and describing him as being well-affected toward his government. She died shortly thereafter. The presbyter then began to be held among the most familiar of the Emperor’s associates. Having gradually acquired greater authority, he suggested to the Emperor the same discourse concerning Arius which he had previously held with his sister, asserting that Arius held no views other than those decreed by the synod, and that if he were admitted into his presence, he would consent to the synod’s decrees, and that he was being falsely slandered without cause. ^C The things that were said by the presbyter appeared new and surprising to the Emperor. Thus, therefore, he replied to the presbyter: "If Arius subscribes to the decrees of the synod, and holds the same views as the synod, I will willingly admit him into my presence, and I will send him back with honor to Alexandria." Having said this, he immediately wrote to him in this manner:

Victor Constantine, Maximus, Augustus, to Arius.

It has already been signified to your gravity that you should come to our court, so that you might be able to enjoy our presence. But we are unable to wonder enough why you have not done this immediately. Therefore, having now boarded a public vehicle, hasten to arrive at our court, so that, having experienced our clemency and bounty, you may be able to return to your homeland. May the Divinity protect you, most beloved brother. Given before...

the fifth day of the Kalends of December. ^A And this is the emperor's letter to Arius. But I am moved to wonder at the diligence and zeal the emperor felt regarding religion. For it is apparent through the letter that he had exhorted him many times to repentance, from the fact that he complains that, although he had written to him often, Arius had not quickly returned to the truth. Arius, indeed, having received the emperor's letters, arrived not long after at the city of Constantine. There was also with him Euzoius, whom Alexander had stripped of the rank of deacon when he deposed those around Arius. The emperor therefore received them into his presence and inquired whether they agreed with the faith. As they readily assented, the emperor ordered them to submit the faith in writing.

CAP. XXVI. How Arius, recalled from exile, having offered a book of repentance to the emperor, feigned the Nicene faith.

They therefore offered to the emperor the book composed by them, which is thus: "To our most devout and God-beloved lord, the emperor Constantine, Arius and Euzoius: As your God-beloved piety has commanded, lord emperor, we set forth our own faith, and we confess in writing before God that we and those with us believe as is set forth below. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word, through whom all things were made, those in the heavens and those on the earth; who descended and was made flesh, and suffered, and rose again, ^B and ascended into the heavens, and is coming again to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit; and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the age to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one catholic Church of God, which extends from end to end. We have received this faith from the holy Gospels, the Lord saying to his own disciples: Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." ^C Unless we believe these things in this way, and unless...

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

^D (Concerning *Suffered and rose again*. Here it is permitted to observe, with the most learned Pearson, that the article concerning the descent into hell is not held in any ancient confession of faith, neither of Catholics nor of heretics; and that it appears for the first time in the symbol of the Church of Aquileia, a little less than four hundred years after Christ was born. [Pearson, *in Symbolum apost.*, p. 225.]) (Concerning *And in one catholic Church*. This article did not always hold the same place in the symbol; for sometimes it was the ninth, sometimes the last: yet for the most part it follows immediately after the article concerning the Holy Spirit. Tertull. *De baptismo*, cap. 6: "Since both the attestation of faith and the pledge of salvation are engaged under three (witnesses), mention of the Church is necessarily added, since where there are three, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church, which is the body of the three." August. *in Enchirid.*, cap. ---: "If the Holy Spirit is a creature, not the Creator, he would surely be a rational creature: for he would be the supreme creature; and therefore he would not be placed in the rule of faith before the Church, because he himself would belong to the Church." [Pearson, *in Symbol. apost.*, p. 334.]) (Concerning *Which extends from end to end*. The Church is called Catholic because it exists throughout the entire inhabited world, from end to end of the earth. Cyrill. *Catech.* 18: "The holy Church is therefore called Catholic, because it is universally diffused throughout the whole world." [Isidor. *De summo bono*, lib. 1, cap. 9.]) (Concerning *Go, make disciples of all nations*. In exactly the same way, Eusebius also confirmed his own rule of faith, which he offered to the Nicene synod, by the authority of this text: "Even as our Lord, when sending forth his own disciples to preach, said: Go, make disciples," etc. [Socr. lib. 1, cap. 8; Theodoret. lib. 1, cap. 12.])

^A We truly accept the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as all the Catholic Church and the Scriptures teach, in which we believe in all things; God is our judge now and in the future judgment. Wherefore we beseech your piety, most God-beloved Emperor, that since we are ecclesiastics, and hold the faith and sentiment of the Church and of the holy Scriptures, we may be united through your peace-making and God-fearing piety to our mother, the Church—all questions and superfluous disputes being removed—so that both we and the Church, maintaining mutual peace among ourselves, may all together pour out solemn prayers to God for the peaceful reign of your majesty and for your entire house.

Chapter XXVII

In this way, Arius, having persuaded the prince, returned to Alexandria. But a fraudulent deception could not overcome the truth which was being hidden. For when Athanasius would not receive him upon his arrival in Alexandria—regarding him as a kind of defilement and turning away from him—he attempted to disturb Alexandria again by disseminating his error. Then indeed, Eusebius both wrote letters himself and persuaded the Emperor to write, so that Arius and his associates might be received into the Church. Athanasius, however, refused to admit them entirely, and instructed the Emperor by letter that it was impossible for those who had once violated the faith and been struck with anathema to be received back all over again. The Emperor, taking this ill, threatened Athanasius by letter in these words: "When, therefore, you receive the sign of my will, ensure that you provide free access to all who desire to enter the Church. For if I learn that you have hindered any of those seeking to be joined to the Church, or have forbidden them entry, I shall immediately send someone who, in obedience to my commands, will depose you and banish you from your native land." The Emperor wrote this ^C mindful of public utility, as he did not wish the members of the Church to be torn asunder. For he was especially concerned to bring all to concord. Then, therefore, the Eusebians, thinking they had found a favorable ^D opportunity, were ill-disposed toward Athanasius.

^A And for this reason they began to stir up trouble and confusion, being anxious to remove him from his bishopric; for they hoped that in this way alone, were Athanasius put out of the way, the Arian doctrine could prevail. Thus Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidunum in Upper Moesia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia banded together against him. These men hired certain members of the Meletian sect and stirred up various accusations against Athanasius. And first of all, through Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus (37), who were Meletians, they fabricated a calumny to the effect that Athanasius had ordered the Egyptians to supply linen garments to the church of the Alexandrians. But this calumny was immediately extinguished by Alypius and Macarius (38), presbyters of the Alexandrian Church, who happened at that time to be in Nicomedia, showing the emperor that the things said against Athanasius were false. Wherefore the emperor chided the accusers by letter, and exhorted Athanasius to come to him. But before he could arrive, those of the party of Eusebius, forestalling his arrival, attached another calumny to the former, far worse than the first: that Athanasius, plotting against the emperor’s affairs, had sent a chest full of gold to a certain Philumenus. But after the emperor had investigated this matter at Psamathia, which is a suburb of Nicomedia, and found Athanasius to be innocent, he sent him away with honor, having written to the Church of the Alexandrians stating that their bishop, Athanasius, had been falsely accused. However, ^B as to what the party of Eusebius plotted against Athanasius after this, it would have been honorable and fitting to pass over in silence, so that the Church of Christ might not be condemned by those who are strangers to the faith of Christ. But since these things have been handed down in writing and have reached the knowledge of all, I have therefore thought it necessary to relate briefly, so far as possible, the things that require special treatment. And I shall relate briefly from where the subject of this calumny originated and who it was that set these slanders in motion. Mareotis is a district of Alexandria. There are villages ^C in it.

VALESII ANNOTATIONES. (37) Concerning Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus. They are mentioned in the List of bishops of the party of Meletius, which Alexander exacted from Meletius. And Ision was indeed bishop at Athribis, Eudaemon at Tani, and Callinicus at Pelusium. See Athanasius in the *Second Apology*. (38) Concerning Alypius and Macarius. Athanasius in the *Apology* has Apim for Alypius; but he does not name the place where Constantine held this inquiry. Socrates, however, writes that this happened at Nicomedia. Furthermore, Baronius hands down that these events took place in the year of Christ 329. I, however, would prefer to assign them to the following year. For these events happened after the abdication of Eustathius, when Eusebius and Theognius had returned from exile and had acquired the greatest authority with Constantine. But when the same Baronius says that Constantine’s letters regarding the reception of Arius into the Church were written to Athanasius ^D in the year of Christ 327, he is manifestly in error, and disagrees with Athanasius, whom he nevertheless professes to follow in all things. For Athanasius writes that immediately after Constantine’s letter and the rejection of Arius, those crimes were reported to the emperor by the Meletians. And so I suppose Socrates to have written. (39) Concerning the "written charges" presented. I should have preferred to read *exdoentia*. I suspect Socrates wrote it thus. (40) Concerning the region of Mareotis. Athanasius clarifies this place in the *Apology against the Arians*. Since his words have been poorly understood by the translator, I shall set them down here: The Mareotis is a district of the Alexandrian [diocese]; and there has never been a bishop in that district, nor a chorepiscopus; but the churches of the whole district are subject to the bishop of Alexandria; and each of the presbyters has his own villages, some very large, to the number of ten or more.

VARIORUM. Baronius recites these things as if they had occurred in different years, partly in the year 327, and partly in the year 329; in which he errs manifestly; as does Valesius, who thinks they should be assigned to the year 328. Ant. Pagi, in notes on the year 327, n. 7, contends that they occurred two years earlier, namely at the beginning of the year 326.

Caput XXVIII. How Ischyras, having played the part of a presbyter without having been ordained, invented false charges against Athanasius, and how the Eusebians, in order to destroy Athanasius, promised him a bishopric.

I shall explain in a few words whence that calumny, or rather, whence the authors of the calumny took their rise. The region of Mareotes belongs to Alexandria. In it are many villages, and they are very populous, in which there are many churches, and these quite illustrious. These churches are all subject to the bishop of Alexandria, and are accounted as parishes under his city. In this Mareotes, a certain man named Ischyras committed a deed worthy of many deaths. For, ^A never having been promoted to the priesthood, he took upon himself the name of presbyter and dared to perform the functions of a priest. Having been caught in this act, Ischyras fled from there and, arriving in Nicomedia, took refuge with the party of Eusebius. Because of their hatred toward Athanasius, they received him as a presbyter, and even promised to honor him with the dignity of a bishop if he would bring an accusation against Athanasius, taking as a pretext whatever Ischyras fabricated. ^B For he gave out that he had suffered terrible things from a sudden incursion; that Macarius had burst into the sanctuary, had overturned the table, had broken the mystical cup, and had burned the sacred Books. Therefore, as I said, they promised him a bishopric as a reward for his accusation, knowing that the charge against Macarius would, along with the accused, also overthrow Athanasius, who had sent him. They concocted this accusation later on. But before this one, they devised another, full of hatred and malice, of which we must now speak. From where they took a man's hand, I do not know—whether they killed someone and cut off his hand, or whether they severed it when he was already dead, God knows, and the authors of the deed. Nevertheless, they brought it forward, ^C asserting that it belonged to a certain Arsenius, a bishop of the Meletian sect. [(41)] And they brought this into the midst,

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. [...] ^D [...]

VARIORUM. [...]

asserting that Athanasius had kept it for the purposes of magic. This, then, was the principal charge which the calumniators had concocted against Athanasius. But, as usually happens in such cases, others also accused him of other things. For at that time those who were previously ill-disposed toward him attacked him most vigorously. ^A Having learned of this, the emperor wrote to the censor Dalmatius, his own nephew, who was residing in Antioch in Syria, commanding him to have the accused brought to him and, having investigated the case, to pass judgment on those convicted. He also sent Eusebius along with Theognis, so that Athanasius might be tried in their presence. When he knew that he had been summoned by the censor, he sent into Egypt to search for Arsenius. And he learned that he was in hiding, but he was unable to seize him because he kept shifting from one place to another. But the emperor stopped the trial which was being held before the censor Dalmatius, for such a cause. ^B

CAP. XXVIII. How the Emperor, because of the accusations moved against Athanasius, ordered a synod to be gathered at Tyre.

He proclaimed that a synod of bishops should take place for the dedication of the sanctuary which he had built in Jerusalem.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (42) *To the censor Dalmatius, his nephew.* Socrates took this from Athanasius. The words of Athanasius in his *Apology against the Arians* are these: "He writes, moreover, to the censor Dalmatius, his nephew..." Socrates thought this Dalmatius was the son of Constantine’s brother, the one who was made Caesar by Constantine several years later. But he is far mistaken. For the censor Dalmatius was the brother of Constantine, the father of Dalmatius Caesar. This is testified to by the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle*, who writes thus concerning Constantine: "And he declared Dalmatius, the son of his brother..." ^C Dalmatius, the son of Dalmatius, at the time when these things occurred which are recounted by Athanasius, was still of a tender age, nor could he have sat as a judge in so grave a matter. Furthermore, at that time he was living at Narbonne, and was hearing the rhetorician Exuperius together with his brother Hannibalianus. For he was called from that city by Constantine, and created Caesar while still a mere youth, as Ausonius relates in his book *On the Professors of Bordeaux*, in the year of Christ 355. But that trial regarding the murder of Arsenius was held before the censor Dalmatius at Antioch, as Athanasius testifies, in the year of Christ 332, according to the opinion of Baronius.

VARIORUM. m Hannibalianus, also called Dalmatius, was the son of Constantine the Great's father only, as the anonymous Valesianus teaches. The author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* testifies that in the year he was named king, he was clothed in purple and sent to Caesarea in Cappadocia. Concerning which matter Victor in the *Epitome* should be read. n *He proclaimed that a synod of bishops should take place.* Socrates writes that Constantine had stopped the trial which was being conducted before the censor Dalmatius in the case of St. Athanasius, because he had ordered the bishops to gather for the dedication of the Jerusalem church, and before they arrived there, to incidentally ventilate the cause of Athanasius at Tyre. But Theophanes holds that Constantine, because he had entrusted the judgment to Dalmatius, had transferred it to Caesarea; whereupon, when Athanasius refused to come on account of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, a day was appointed for him at Tyre. Therefore the matter stood thus. After Constantine had written to Athanasius, that he should make nothing of the snares of the Meletians; and the Meletians, struck with fear, had for a while been quiet, as Sozomenus says (lib. II, cap. 24), the adversaries again stirred up a multitude of accusers against him. ^D Therefore the emperor ordered a synod to be held at Caesarea, to which, when Athanasius was compelled to come, he delayed his departure for the space of about thirty months. So Sozomenus, cap. 25, and Nicephorus lib. VIII, cap. 49. Dalmatius therefore ceased from investigating the case of Athanasius in the previous year; and at the same time, or thereabout, those new snares were set for Athanasius, and the Caesarean synod was indicted; for the thirty months were completed from the indictment of this synod, and in the year 334, in which it was celebrated. Certainly in the Synodal epistle of the pseudo-synod of Sardica, written in that year, it is read: "Asclepas was removed from the honor of the episcopate seventeen years ago," and therefore in the year 331, or 330. Asclepas was bishop of Gaza, concerning whom Theodoretus (lib. II, cap. 29) says: "When the bishops had gathered at Tyre (in the year 335), there also came others who were being accused on account of perverse doctrine: of which number was Asclepas, bishop of Gaza."

^A He enjoined them, therefore, before they attended to the matters concerning Athanasius, to first settle the business there, so that, the bickering being cleared out of the way, they might more peaceably perform the dedication of the church and consecrate it to God. This was the thirtieth year of the reign of Constantine. And there were present at Tyre sixty bishops from various places, brought together by Dionysius, a former consular. Macarius ^B the presbyter was also brought from Alexandria in chains by a military guard. Athanasius, however, was unwilling to attend, not so much because he feared the charges—for he knew nothing of the matters alleged against him—but because he was afraid that something might be innovated contrary to the decrees agreed upon at the time by the synod at Nicaea. For he feared the emperor’s threatening letters. It had been written to him that if he did not come of his own accord, he would be forced to go. Therefore, Athanasius also attended out of necessity.

CHAP. XXIX.

The providence of God, however, drove Arsenius to the city of Tyre. For, neglecting the instructions which his calumniators—those by whom he had been bribed—had given him, he arrived in secret, so that he might observe for himself what was happening there. It chanced, somehow, that the servants ^C of the consular Archelaus heard some people in an inn saying that Arsenius, who was reported to have been murdered, was hiding in the house of a certain citizen. Upon hearing this, and having noted those who had said these things, they reported the whole matter to their master. He, without delay and without hesitation, sought out the man and found him; and having found him, he ordered him to be kept under diligent guard. After this, he signified to Athanasius that he should be of good heart, for Arsenius was there unharmed. When Arsenius was apprehended, he at first denied that he was the man he was. But Paul, the bishop of Tyre, who had long known the man, convicted him. These matters having been provided beforehand by Providence, ^D not long after, Athanasius was called by the synod. And when he was present, the calumniators [index: entries preserved]

the hand into the midst, and pressed the accusation. ^A He, however, managed the matter very wisely. For he asked the bystanders and the accusers themselves who there were who knew Arsenius. And when many said that they knew him well, he ordered Arsenius to be brought in, with his hands hidden beneath his cloak. Then he asked again: "Is this the man who has lost his hand?" The others were struck with amazement at such an unexpected thing, except for those who knew from where the severed hand had come. For the rest truly believed that the hand was missing from Arsenius, and hoped that Athanasius would defend his cause in some other way. But he, having drawn back the cloak of Arsenius to one side, showed the man's hand. And when some suspected that he was mutilated in his other hand as well, he paused a little while, leaving them in suspense. Then, without delay, having drawn back the other side of the cloak, he uncovered the other hand of Arsenius also; and thus he said to those present: "Arsenius, as you see, is discovered to have both hands. But let the accusers show us from where the third one was cut off." ^B

CAP. XXX

How, after the first accusation, when Athanasius was found innocent, the accusers betook themselves to flight.

Things having been thus transacted concerning Arsenius, those who had concocted this fraud were reduced to a state of helplessness. But Achab, who was also called John, ^C the accuser of Athanasius, slipping away from the court, fled in the confusion. And in this way did Athanasius repel this accusation, having used no formal exception. For he trusted that the mere presence of the living Arsenius would overwhelm the calumniators with astonishment.

CAP. XXXI

How Athanasius fled to the Emperor, when the bishops had not admitted the defenses of Athanasius regarding the second accusation.

But in refuting the accusations that had been brought against Macarius, he used legal exceptions. And first, indeed, he rejected Eusebius and his associates as enemies, saying that no one ought to be judged by his adversaries; then he also said that it must first be proven that the accuser, Ischyras, had truly obtained the dignity of a presbyter. For so it had been written in the bill of accusation. But when the judges took no account of these exceptions, the case against Macarius was introduced. ^D And when the accusers grew weak and nearly failed, the hearing of the case was adjourned until certain persons should be sent to the Mareotis, so that the doubtful points might be investigated in those places. And when Athanasius saw those who were being sent whom he had excepted against—for Theognis, Maris, Theodorus, and Arcaph, who was also called John, were being sent—

he cried out that what was happening was a conspiracy and a fraud; for it was not just, he said, that Macarius the presbyter should be kept in bonds, while his accuser traveled with his enemies as judges, so that the proceedings of the records might be made only from one side. While Athanasius was crying out these things, and protesting to the whole of the synod, and to Dionysius, who was of consular rank, and because no one paid him any heed, he secretly withdrew. Those who had been sent into Mareotis, having drawn up the records from one side, as though the things which the accuser had brought forward were truly proven, returned to Tyre. ^B

CAP. XXXII. How Athanasius, when he had departed, was deposed by the synodal sentence.

Athanasius indeed, having departed, hastened straight to the emperor. The synod, however, first of all condemned him in his absence, because he had fled the judgment. But when the acts which had been completed in Mareotis arrived, they brought a sentence of deposition against him, loading him with many reproaches in the document of deposition, while remaining entirely silent concerning the fact that the slanderers had been shamefully defeated in the accusation of the murder of Arsenius. For Arsenius, who was said to have been killed, was received by them—a man who had previously been a bishop of the Meletian sect, but who then, as bishop of the city of the Hypselites, subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius. And, what is marvelous, he who was said by Athanasius to have been killed, being alive, deposed Athanasius. ^C

CAP. XXXIII. How the synod, having left Tyre, came to Jerusalem; and having there celebrated the dedication of the new Jerusalem, received Arius into communion.

Meanwhile, letters from the emperor arrived, by which the synod was ordered to betake itself to the new Jerusalem as quickly as possible. Immediately, therefore, having left Tyre, they set out to Jerusalem. And when they had celebrated the solemn feast on account of the dedication of the places, they received Arius and those about him into communion, saying that they were obeying the emperor’s letters, because...

he had indicated to them that he was fully convinced concerning the faith of Arius and Euzoius. They wrote also to the Church of the Alexandrians, that every sort of envy having been cast out, the affairs of the Church were established in perfect peace and tranquility; and that Arius, having recognized the truth by means of repentance, was henceforth to be received by them, as he was now a member of the Church, and they hinted also at the exile of Athanasius. Furthermore, they made these matters known to the emperor. ^A While these things were being done by the bishops, other letters from the emperor arrived, signifying that Athanasius had fled to him, and that it was necessary for them to come to Constantinople on his account. The letters of the emperor which arrived subsequently are as follows.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS.

(52) *Arius and those about him*. In the second *Apology against the Arians* by Athanasius, and in his book *On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*, the Synodical epistle of the Council of Jerusalem is recorded, in which the bishops who had gathered there for the dedication of the Constantinian basilica attest that they had received those about Arius into communion. This was done by mandate of the emperor, who had signified to them via letter that he had become cognizant of the orthodox faith of these men, both from their own living voice and from the profession of faith presented by them. ^B Indeed, Constantine had appended that very profession of faith to his own letters. However, he refers to the profession of faith which Arius and Euzoius had offered to Constantine: which Socrates reported above, and which Sozomen reports in Book II, chapter 27. For when Arius had presented the profession of faith to Constantine, the emperor, believing that his doctrine was in agreement with the Nicene faith, was unwilling to judge the matter himself; but he remitted him to the examination of the Council of Jerusalem, as Rufinus writes in his tenth book, and Sozomen does as well. Athanasius also, in the book *On the Synods*, writes explicitly that Arius and his associates were received into communion by the Synod of Jerusalem: his words are these: [The text here refers to the notes below]. But I do not think that the heresiarch Arius is to be understood here, but another Arius of the same name, who had been condemned by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria along with his standard-bearer, Arius. For the heresiarch Arius had departed from the living many years before the Synod of Jerusalem, as I have proved by the most certain arguments in the second book of my *Ecclesiastical Observations*, chapter 2. ^C Accordingly, that Arius who presented the profession of his faith to Constantine along with Euzoius is distinct from the heresiarch Arius. This indeed can be shown by another argument as well. This Arius, who presented the profession with Euzoius to Constantine, had not yet been restored before the Synod of Jerusalem (that is, before the year of Christ 335), nor had he been joined to the catholic Church: for in the aforementioned profession, he petitions the prince that, through his piety, all altercations having been removed, he might be joined to the catholic Church. But the heresiarch Arius had been recalled from exile long before, and had been admitted to communion, as is attested by the profession of satisfaction made by Eusebius and Theognius. For there, Eusebius and Theognius write explicitly that the author of the entire controversy himself, namely Arius, had been restored to integrity upon giving satisfaction. Furthermore, Eusebius and Theognius sent that profession to the bishops in the year of Christ 328, as I showed above. Therefore, the heresiarch Arius must necessarily have been recalled at the beginning of that same year.

(53) *Henceforth to be received*. The word *loipon* [henceforth] should be deleted, as it was poorly repeated from the preceding verse, and *prosdechtheie* [might he be received] should be read for *prosdechtheis*.

(54) *Hinting also at the exile of Athanasius*. The passage is mutilated, and it is easier to grasp the sense than to correct the words. ^D Therefore, Socrates wishes to say that the bishops hint at Athanasius in their synodical epistle when they say: *all envy having been cast out of the Church of God, and all... far removed*, etc.

VARIORUM.

* I know indeed that the famous Henry Valesius asserts that Arius died many years ago, and that he who was admitted to the peace of the Church along with Euzoius in the year 335 at the Synod of Jerusalem was not our Arius, but another Arius, a follower of the heresiarch. But these things are almost all asserted without proof, resting on slight conjectures alone, and not supported by the explicit testimony of the ancients; and one must be a stranger to ecclesiastical history indeed who does not know that the ancients, with unanimous consent, refer all these things solely to our Arius. (Guil. Cave on Arius.) Since Athanasius, who nowhere mentions two Ariuses, reports in the book *On the Synods* that Arius was still among the living in the year 336, when he himself was already in exile, Valesius is clearly hallucinating here. (See more on this matter in Ant. Pagi, ad ann. 340, no. 16, etc.) The synod was transferred, by the same author, from the city of Tyre to Jerusalem, in the year of Christ 335.

*Athanasius himself, in his *Apology against the Arians*, page [number omitted]: *“We, having gone up, showed the emperor the injustices of those about Eusebius, since he himself was the one who had ordered the synod to take place, and his count was presiding over it,”* etc. [The rest is an explanation of the emperor's reaction].

CAP. XXXIV. That the Emperor summoned the synod to himself by letter, so that the case of Athanasius might be examined more diligently in his presence.

^A Victor Constantinus, Maximus, Augustus, to the bishops who have gathered in the city of Tyre.

What has been judged by your council in the midst of turmoil and storm, I truly do not know. Yet it seems that truth has been shaken by a certain turbulent agitation; while indeed, on account of the mutual contention among you—which you wish to be thought invincible and insurmountable—you consider neither the truth nor the things that are pleasing to God. But divine Providence will cause the evils of this contention, once clearly detected, to be utterly dissipated; and it will make it plain to us how much you who have gathered together have cared for the truth, and whether your judgments have been rendered without favor or hatred toward anyone. ^B Therefore, it is necessary for all of you to hasten to our piety, so that you may personally render an accurate account of those things which have been done by you. Furthermore, you will understand from what follows the reason why I have thought it right to write these things to you, and why I summon you to me by this letter. As I was entering my namesake and altogether blessed fatherland, Constantinople, and was at that time riding on horseback, suddenly Bishop Athanasius, with certain men of the sacred order whom he had about him, approached so unexpectedly that he struck us with a certain astonishment. For God, the observer of all things, is my witness that at the first glance I could not have known who he was, had not some of our own people, upon our inquiry, indicated to us who he was and what injury he had suffered, as was fitting. And I, indeed, ^C at that time had neither speech nor any meeting with him. But when he insisted on being heard, and I refused, and almost ordered him to be removed, he, with greater confidence, said he requested nothing more than that you should be here; so that, in your presence, compelled by necessity, he might be able to lament what he has suffered. Since this seems to me, in the first place, just and appropriate for our times, I have gladly taken care to have these things written to you, so that all who gathered at the council in the city of Tyre may, without any delay, hasten to the court of our clemency, to demonstrate the integrity and sincerity of your judgment by the very facts ^D and that before me, whom not even you yourselves can deny to be a sincere servant of God. Certainly, by my devotion and ministry toward the divine power, peace flourishes everywhere in the world: even by the barbarians themselves...

^A the name of God, which they hitherto knew not, is sincerely honored. And it is clear that he who knows not the truth, neither knows God. But nevertheless, as it was said before, even the barbarians, through me who am a sincere servant of God, have come to know God, and have learned to fear Him, whose providence in protecting and preserving me everywhere they have experienced in the very events themselves. This is what chiefly brought them to the knowledge of God. And they, indeed, fear God out of fear of us. But we, who seem to hold forth the holy mysteries of His Church—for I could not say 'defend'—we, I say, do nothing but that which tends to discord and hatred, and, to speak plainly, that which tends to the destruction of the human race. ^B But make haste, as I said before, and come all of you to us as quickly as possible; being convinced that I will endeavor with all my might and effort that those things which are of the law of God may be kept especially intact and unshaken, so that no reproach nor any stain of infamy can be attached to them: since those enemies of the law—who, under the pretext of the holy name, introduce various and manifold blasphemies—have been, to be sure, profligate, trampled upon, and utterly destroyed.

CHAPTER XXXV.

That when the synod had not come to the Emperor, the Eusebians accused Athanasius as having threatened to intercept the grain which was provided to Constantinople from Alexandria; at which the Emperor, being moved, sent Athanasius into exile, ordering him to dwell in the Gauls.

These letters rendered those who were present at the council anxious and troubled. ^C Wherefore a great number of them returned to their own cities. But Eusebius and Theognis and Maris and Patrophilus, with Ursacius and Valens, having set out for Constantinople, no longer permitted an inquiry to be held concerning the broken chalice, or the overturned table, or the murder of Arsenius; but turned to another calumny, suggesting to the Emperor that Athanasius had threatened to prevent the grain from being sent, which was accustomed to be carried annually from the city of Alexandria to Constantinople: and that Adamantius, Anubion, Arbethion, and Peter, the bishops, had heard Athanasius say these things.

^A But indeed calumny has great power when the one who slanders is held to be trustworthy. The emperor, being circumvented by this and provoked to anger, banished Athanasius and commanded that he dwell in the Gauls. Some say that the emperor did this with the intention that the Church might be brought to unity and concord, since Athanasius altogether refused to communicate with the followers of Arius. But he indeed passed his time in the city of Treves [*] in Gaul.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Concerning Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the sophist.

The bishops who had assembled at Constantinople deposed also Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, which is a city of Lesser Galatia, for the following cause: A certain Asterius, who was pursuing the rhetorical art in Cappadocia, had abandoned it and professed to become a Christian. He endeavored also to write books, which are handed down even to this day, by which he established the dogma of Arius, saying that Christ is the power of God in the same way as the locust and the caterpillar are said to be the power of God in Moses [*], and other things similar to these. Asterius associated constantly with the bishops, and especially with those who did not in the least reject the opinion of the Arians. And he came frequently to the synods, desiring to creep into the bishopric of some city; but he failed to obtain the priesthood because he had offered sacrifice during the time of persecution. Journeying through the cities in Syria, he showed the books ^B which he had composed. Marcellus, knowing these things, and wishing to oppose him, fell into the opposite error by an excessive contradiction. For he dared to say that Christ was a mere man, like the Samosatene. Those who were then assembled at Jerusalem, knowing these things, took no account of Asterius, but [proceeded to condemn Marcellus].

however, as he was a priest, they demanded an account of the book he had written. When they found him holding the views of the Samosatene, they ordered him to change his opinion. Shame-stricken, he promised to burn the book. But the council was dismissed in haste because the emperor had summoned the bishops to Constantinople. When the Eusebians had arrived at Constantinople, the case of Marcellus was investigated ^B once more. And since he refused to burn the wicked book, as he had previously promised, the bishops who were present deposed him and sent Basilius in his stead to Ancyra. But Eusebius refuted this book of Marcellus in three volumes, exposing his false teaching. Marcellus, however, later regained his bishopric at the Synod of Sardica, claiming that his book had not been correctly understood, and that for this reason he had come under suspicion of holding the same views as Paul of Samosata. But we shall speak of this in its proper place.

CAP. XXXVII. How Arius, after the exile of Athanasius, being summoned by the emperor to Constantinople, stirred up troubles against Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople.

While these things were happening, the thirtieth year of the reign of Constantine was being completed. Arius, indeed, ^C having arrived in Alexandria with those of his party, once again threw the whole city into confusion, as the people of Alexandria were distressed both at the return of Arius and his associates, and at the fact that their own bishop, Athanasius, had been sent into exile. When the emperor learned that the mind of Arius was perverse, he ordered him to be summoned again to Constantinople, to give an account of the riots and seditions that he had attempted to stir up again. At that time, Alexander was presiding over the Church in Constantinople, having long before succeeded Metrophanes. This man was acceptable to God, and the contention he had with Arius at that time ^D

^A clearly demonstrated. For when Arius had arrived there, and the people were again divided into two factions, and a disturbance occurred throughout the city—some saying that the faith at Nicaea should by no means be unsettled, others contending that Arius’s opinion was correct—Alexander was reduced to the greatest straits; and especially because Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened him with grave menaces, asserting that he would soon deprive him of his priesthood unless he admitted Arius and his associates to communion. But Alexander was not so anxious about his own deposition as he was terrified at the attempted subversion of the doctrine of faith. For as he considered himself the guardian and patron of the decrees of the Nicene Synod, he exerted his whole strength to ensure that the matters judged in that synod should not be shaken in any way. Being placed, therefore, in such great straits, he abandoned the defense of dialectical art and fled to God. And he began to occupy himself with continuous fasts, and omitted no manner of prayer. He conceived such a plan in his mind, and what he had decided he performed in secret. In the church which is called ^B Eirene, he shut himself alone; and entering to the altar, he prostrated himself face down upon the ground under the holy table, supplicating God with tears. He continued doing this for many days and nights in succession. For he petitioned from God, and he received what he had requested. The petition was of this nature: that if the opinion of Arius were correct, he himself should not see the day appointed for the discussion; but if the faith which he himself professed were true, then Arius should pay the penalty for his impiety, as he was the author of all these evils.

CHAPTER XXXVIII. Concerning the death of Arius.

And these were the things that Alexander was praying. The emperor, however, wishing to make a trial of Arius, sent for him to the palace and asked him whether he consented to the decrees of the Nicene faith. He, without any hesitation, with a ready mind before the emperor subscribed to those things which had been settled concerning the faith in the council, having craftily mocked them. And when the emperor, struck with admiration, urged him furthermore to take an oath, he performed that also through ^C fraud and simulation. Moreover, the fraud and simulation which he used in subscribing, as I myself have received it, was of this sort: Arius, carrying his own opinion written on a sheet of paper, held it under his arm. He swore, therefore, that he felt such in his soul as he had written. And that this was so done, I have received only by report and hearsay. But that he also added an oath to his subscription, I learned from the emperor’s letters. Then, indeed, the emperor, having trust in Arius, commanded Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople, to receive him into communion. It was then the day of the Sabbath; and on the following day he expected to assemble; but justice followed the daring deeds of Arius. For as he went out of the imperial ^D court, he was escorted by those under Eusebius through the middle of the city at that time, and was viewed...

^A by all. When he drew near the square called that of Constantine, where the porphyry column stands, a fear born of the consciousness of his crimes took hold of Arius; and along with this fear, a relaxation of his bowels seized him. Having asked if there were a latrine nearby, and learning that there was one behind the square of Constantine, he proceeded there. A fainting spell then overcame the man; and along with the evacuations, his fundament collapsed, and a quantity of blood followed, as well as the thin parts of his intestines. At the same time, hemorrhaging occurred in his spleen and liver; he died instantly. That latrine, as I said, is pointed out to this day in the city of Constantine, behind the square of Constantine and the market in the portico; and all who pass by ^B point their finger at it, rendering the manner of his death a thing ever to be remembered by posterity. When this had occurred, fear and anxiety seized those who were with Eusebius of Nicomedia; and the report of this event spread throughout the whole city, and indeed, one might say, throughout the entire world. The emperor meanwhile began to devote himself more to the Christian religion, and declared that the faith at Nicaea was truly confirmed by the testimony of God himself. He rejoiced at what had happened, and also in his three sons whom he had proclaimed Caesars, one for each decade of his reign. He established the first, his namesake Constantine, to rule over the western regions in the first decade of his reign. For the eastern regions, he established Constantius, named after his grandfather, as Caesar in the twentieth year. The youngest, Constans, he appointed in the thirtieth year of his own ^C reign.

Chapter XXXIX[:] How the emperor, having fallen into illness, reached the end of his life.

One year after these events, the emperor Constantine, having entered his sixty-fifth year, fell into an illness. He departed from the city of Constantine and sailed to Helenopolis, intending to use the natural warm springs that are situated near that city. When he perceived that his illness was becoming more severe, he deferred the baths; and departing from Helenopolis, he set out for Nicomedia. There, while staying in a suburb, he received Christian baptism. He was ^D extremely cheered by this, and testament

^A condit, in which he indeed appointed his three sons as heirs to the empire, assigning to each his portion just as he had arranged while living. Leaving behind many privileges to the city of the Romans and to the one named after himself, he entrusted his testament to that presbyter—of whom we made mention a little earlier—through whom Arius had been recalled from exile; and he commanded that he should deliver it into the hands of no one other than his son Constantius, whom he had placed in charge of the Orient. Having established his testament in this manner, and having survived for a few days, he departed from this life. Moreover, none of his sons was present at his death. Therefore, someone is immediately sent to the Orient to announce the father's death to Constantius.

CAP. XL. Concerning the burial of the Emperor Constantine.

^B The body of the emperor, having been placed in a golden sarcophagus by his attendants, was transported to Constantinople, and they deposited it in the palace upon a high dais; and they treated it with the greatest honor and a large guard, observing it as if he were still alive, until one of his sons should arrive. But afterwards, when Constantius had flown in from the regions of the Orient, he was accorded a royal funeral, and was deposited in the church titled after the Apostles, which he himself had built for this very purpose, so that the emperors and priests might not be far removed from the relics of the apostles. Emperor Constantine lived for sixty-five years; he reigned for thirty-one. He died during the consulship of Felicianus and Tatianus, on the twenty-second day of the month of May; and this was the second year of the two hundred and seventy-eighth Olympiad. This book contains a span of thirty-one years.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

^C *Posterius quod* ... what was missing in the edition of Robert Stephanus, and is not read in our Florentine and Sfortian codices, Christophorsonus was the first to supply; it is found, however, in the codex of Leo Allatius. But the preceding *και* is lacking in the same. Concerning the largess that Constantine the elder left by his testament at Rome, our Eusebius bears witness in the fourth book of the *Life of Constantine*, ch. 63.

*Desumpsit haec Socrates* ... Socrates took these things from the tenth book of Rufinus. But this narrative seems little probable to me. For who would believe that the Emperor Constantine, who at that time had many bishops around him (for Eusebius explicitly testifies to this), and likewise very many dukes and counts, chose one presbyter—and an ignoble one, since his name is perpetually suppressed—to whom, while dying, he would commit his testament? Wherefore I would prefer to follow Philostorgius here, who writes that Constantine handed over the rolls of his testament to Eusebius of Nicomedia, by whom he had been baptized a little earlier.

^D *Musculus et Christophorsonus hunc locum ita verterunt* ... Musculus and Christophorsonus translated this passage in such a way, that the emperors and prelates might not be deprived of the relics of the apostles. But I cannot approve of this interpretation. For Constantine had deposited no relics of the apostles in that church. I would therefore prefer to translate it so that the emperors and prelates to be buried there might not be far from the relics of the apostles, but might be treated with the same honor as they. This interpretation is confirmed by Eusebius in book iv of the *Life of Constantine*, c. 4.

*Errat Socrates* ... Socrates errs. For in the consulship of Felicianus and Tatianus, which was the year of Christ 337, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of June, the fourth year of the two hundred and seventy-eighth Olympiad was running. And this can be demonstrated by most certain reasons. But it seems Socrates used a faulty codex of the Eusebian Chronicle, in which the year of the Olympiad had been poorly marked.

OF DIVERS AUTHORS.

In the thirty-first year of his reign, when he had held the entire world, having attained sixty years and more, while marching against the Persians, from whom he had received notice that war would break out, at a suburb near Nicomedia, they call it Achyrona, he departed; when that foul star, which they call the comet, had portended it to the kingdoms. The funeral was carried back to the city of his name. *Victor de Cæsaribus*. He died, moreover, A.D. 337, on the day of Pentecost, the 11th before the Kalends of June.

BOOK SECOND

^A77-78 IN THE SECOND BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES THE FOLLOWING ARE CONTAINED.

CAP. I. Proœmium, in which he gives the reason why he made a new edition of the first and second books.

^BII. How Eusebius of Nicomedia, with his party, attempting again to introduce the dogma of Arius, disturbed the Churches.

III. How Athanasius, relying on the letters of Constantine the Younger, returned to Alexandria.

IV. That Eusebius of Pamphilus having died, Acacius succeeded to the bishopric of Cæsarea.

V. Concerning the death of Constantine the Younger.

VI. How Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, at his death, proposed Paul and Macedonius for ordination.

VII. How the Emperor Constantius expelled Paul, the bishop who had been set over them, and, having summoned Eusebius from Nicomedia, entrusted the bishopric of Constantinople to him.

^CVIII. How Eusebius, having gathered another synod at Antioch in Syria, caused another exposition of the faith to be dictated.

IX. Concerning Eusebius of Emesa.

X. How the bishops who had assembled at Antioch, since Eusebius of Emesa refused the bishopric of Alexandria, ordained Gregory, and altered the terms of the Nicene faith.

XI. How, after Gregory had come to Alexandria accompanied by a military force, Athanasius fled.

XII. How, after the death of Eusebius, the people in Constantinople restored Paul to his see again; and how the Arians set up Macedonius.

XIII. Concerning the death of Hermogenes the commander of the troops; and how, on that account, Paul was expelled from the Church again.

^DXIV. That the Arians, having removed Gregory, sent George in his place to Alexandria.

XV. How Athanasius and Paul, having arrived at Rome, and having been fortified by letters of bishop Julius of Rome, occupied their own thrones again.

XVI. How the emperor, through Philip the prætorian prefect, ordered Paul to be cast out and sent into exile, and established Macedonius in the episcopal see.

XVII. How Athanasius, fearing the threats of the emperor, fled to Rome.

XVIII. How the emperor of the Western parts requested of his brother that those who would give an account concerning Athanasius and Paul be sent, and how those who were sent from the East set forth another exposition of faith.

XIX. Of the prolix exposition of the faith.

XX. Of the Council of Sardica.

XXI. A defense of Eusebius Pamphili.

XXII. How, when the emperor of the East would not admit Paul and Athanasius, who had been restored by the Sardican council, the emperor of the West threatened him with war.

XXIII. How Constantius, fearing his brother's threats, invited Athanasius by his own letters and sent him back to Alexandria.

XXIV. How Athanasius, returning to Alexandria, upon passing through Jerusalem, was received into communion by Maximus, and convened a council of bishops, in which the Nicene faith was confirmed.

XXV. Of the tyrants Magnentius and Vetranio.

XXVI. How, upon the death of the emperor of the Western parts, Paul and Athanasius were again driven from their sees; and how Paul was killed while being led into exile, but Athanasius took flight.

XXVII. How Macedonius, having seized the see of Constantinople, inflicted many evils upon those who did not think as he did.

XXVIII. Of the evils perpetrated at Alexandria by George the Arian, from the narrative of Athanasius himself.

XXIX. Of the heresiarch Photinus.

XXX. Of the formulas of faith set forth at Sirmium in the presence of the emperor Constantius.

XXXI. Of Hosius, bishop of Corduba.

XXXII. Of the ruin of the tyrant Magnentius.

XXXIII. Of the Jews living in Diocaesarea of Palestine.

XXXIV. Of Gallus Caesar.

XXXV. Of Aetius the Syrian, the teacher of Eunomius.

XXXVI. Of the Council of Milan.

XXXVII. Of the Council of Ariminum, and the formula of faith promulgated there.

XXXVIII. Of the savagery of Macedonius, and the tumults aroused by him.

XXXIX. Of the council convened at the city of Seleucia in Isauria.

XL. How Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, drew up another exposition of the faith at the synod of Seleucia.

XLI. How the Acacians, having gathered at Constantinople after the emperor returned from the Western parts, confirmed the faith of Ariminum, adding some things to it.

XLII. How, Macedonius being deposed, Eudoxius obtained the bishopric of Constantinople.

XLIII. Of Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia.

XLIV. Of Meletius, bishop of Antioch.

XLV. Of the heresy of Macedonius.

XLVI. Of the Apollinarists and their heresy.

XLVII. Of the death of the emperor Constantius.

BOOK SECOND. CHAPTER I. A proem, in which he gives the reason why he has made a new edition of the first and second books.

Rufinus, who wrote the ecclesiastical history in the Latin tongue, wandered far from the truth in his notation of times. For he thinks that the events concerning Athanasius occurred after the death of the emperor Constantine.

He also ignores his translation into Gaul, and many other things. We, therefore, having previously followed Rufinus, wrote the first and second books of our History as he saw fit. But from the third book to the seventh, we completed our work by taking some things from Rufinus, gathering others from various books, and hearing some things from those who are still alive. ^B Afterward, however, when we came upon the writings of Athanasius, in which he laments his own sufferings and explains how, through the calumny of the followers of Eusebius, he was exiled, we judged it necessary to trust the one who underwent the sufferings himself, and those who were present at the events, rather than those who merely conjectured about them and, for that reason, were led into error. Moreover, because we obtained various letters of the men outstanding at that time, we investigated the truth as far as it was possible. For this cause, we were compelled to dictate the first and second books from the beginning, while retaining those things in which Rufinus did not deviate from the truth. It must furthermore be known that in the first edition we did not include the deposition of Arius, nor the letters of the emperors, but only the naked facts of the events, so that the history might not, by its prolixity, cause weariness to the readers. But since, for your sake, O holy man of God, Theodore, this also had to be done, so that you might not be ignorant of what the emperors wrote in their letters, nor what the bishops, gradually changing the faith in various synods, set forth: for this reason, we have transferred into this subsequent edition as many things as we deemed necessary. And as this has already been done by us in the first book, we strive to do the same in the one now at hand, that is, the second. But it is now time to return to the order of the history.

CAP. II. How Eusebius of Nicomedia with his own, attempting to introduce the dogma of Arius again, disturbed the Churches.

^D After the emperor Constantine had departed, those around Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis, the bishop of Nicaea, thinking they had seized an opportune time, laid a struggle to cast out the faith of the consubstantial and to introduce the Arian one in its place. But they understood that they would never be able to succeed in this if Athanasius returned to Alexandria. They managed these things by using as their minister that presbyter who, at the return of Arius,

^A had been the cause of his recall. How this was brought about must be told. The presbyter presented the will and the instructions which the deceased emperor had committed to him to Constantius, the emperor’s son. When the latter found it written therein what he most desired—for the will assigned to him the empire of the East—he held the presbyter in great honor, granted him much authority, and commanded that he should enter the palace with confidence and freedom. This liberty granted to the presbyter soon made him well known both to the emperor’s wife and to her eunuchs. At that time, there was a eunuch, the chief of the emperor’s bedchamber, whose name was Eusebius. The presbyter persuaded him to embrace the opinion of Arius. Because of this, the rest of the eunuchs were also induced to adopt the same view. ^B Indeed, the emperor’s wife herself, through the mediation of the eunuchs and the presbyter, attached herself to the party of Arius. Not long after, this question reached the emperor himself; and gradually it became known, first to those who served in the palace, ^C and afterwards it spread to the common people of the royal city as well. In the palace, the chamberlains were debating about this dogma with the women; while in the city, a kind of dialectical war was waged in almost every house. Thus, the contagion of this evil soon seized other cities and provinces. And, like a spark that has taken its rise from small beginnings, the controversy stirred up the minds of those who heard it to the greatest contention. For every individual, while inquiring into the cause of the tumult, immediately seized the opportunity for disputation; and at the very moment they were inquiring, they fell into quarrels; and by means of such quarrels, everything was being subverted. And these things were done only in the cities of the East. For the cities in Illyricum and those which are situated in the Western parts kept quiet for the time being, since they were unwilling to shake the decrees of the council of Nicaea. ^D When, therefore, this stirred-up evil increased daily, the Eusebians regarded the sedition and tumult of the multitude as a gain for themselves. For they hoped that they could not otherwise succeed in appointing a bishop of Alexandria who would favor their own opinion. But the return of Athanasius, who had come back to Alexandria fortified by royal letters which one of the Augusti, Constantine the Younger, of the same name as his father, had written from the city of Treves to the Alexandrian people, anticipated their design. The copy of those letters I have appended here. [alt-version omitted]

CHAPTER III

How Athanasius, relying on the letters of Constantine the Younger, returned to Alexandria.

Constantine Caesar to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria.

I do not think it has escaped your holy attention ^A that Athanasius, that interpreter of the venerable law, was sent for a time into the Gauls, in order that, since the ferocity of his bloodthirsty and hostile enemies threatened his most sacred head with extreme danger, he might not, by the wicked perversity of evil men, suffer irreparable harm. To avoid this cruelty, therefore, he was snatched from the jaws of those who threatened his life, and commanded to live under my jurisdiction, so that in the city where he was ordered to dwell he might abound in all necessities; although his own excellent virtue, relying on divine aid, deems even the hardships of difficult fortune as nothing. Therefore, although our lord and parent ^B of blessed memory, Constantine Augustus, had intended to restore the same bishop to his former place and return him to your most holy piety, yet since he was overtaken by the human lot and departed from this light before he could fulfill his intention, I have thought it fitting, as his heir, to carry out the purpose of the prince of divine memory. How great the reverence shown to him by us, you will learn concurrently from the fact itself, as soon as he arrives in your sight. Nor is it a wonder that something was done by me for his sake. For an image of your love, and the appearance of so great a man, moved and incited my soul to this. May Divine Providence keep you, dearest brethren.

Relying on these letters, Athanasius reaches Alexandria; and the Alexandrian people received him most gladly. But as many as happened to be Arianizing in that city ^C formed factions against him. From which there arose persistent seditions, which provided a pretext for those around Eusebius to accuse him to the emperor, because without the decree of the common council of the bishops, he had entrusted himself and had taken possession of the Church.

And they extended their slanders so far that the emperor, moved to anger, expelled him from Alexandria. How this came to pass, I shall relate a little later.

Chapter IV. That upon the death of Eusebius Pamphili, Acacius succeeded to the bishopric of Caesarea.

In the meantime, Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who bore the surname of Pamphilus, died; and Acacius, his disciple, succeeded to the bishopric. He indeed published many other books, and also wrote concerning the life of his teacher.

Chapter V. Concerning the death of Constantine the Younger.

Not long after, the emperor Constantius's brother, who was namesake to his father, the Young Constantine, while attempting to invade the territories of his younger brother Constans, was engaged in battle with his soldiers and was slain by them, during the consulship of Acindynus and Proculus.

Chapter VI. How Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, proposed Paul and Macedonius for ordination.

About this same time, after the tumults we have recorded above, another was immediately stirred up at Constantinople for this reason: Alexander, the bishop of that city’s church, who had strenuously contended against Arius, after he had spent twenty-three years in the episcopate and had lived ninety-eight years, departed this present life.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

Alexander. Socrates errs, as do all who have followed him, who relate the death of Alexander of Constantinople under the consulship of Acindynus and Proculus, in the year of Christ 340. But I, in my book of *Ecclesiastical Observations*, have demonstrated with most certain arguments that Alexander, bishop of CP., died during the reign of Constantine, and that Paul succeeded him while the same Constantine was still reigning. Certainly Baronius, who assigns the death of Alexander to the year of Christ 340, is most evidently in contradiction with himself. For he says that the synod of the bishops of Egypt, which was gathered to refute the calumnies of the Eusebians against Athanasius, took place in the year of the Lord’s Nativity. But those bishops in their synodical epistle clearly testify that Eusebius had already then left Nicomedia and moved to the Constantinopolitan see. It is not our business here to quote the words of that epistle, since they have been brought forward by Baronius himself under the year of Christ 340. But if Eusebius was already occupying the Constantinopolitan see in the year of Christ 339, it is necessary that Alexander died before this year.

VARIORUM

*Upon the death of Eusebius. Of years and fame full, says Guil. Cave, he closed his final day about the year 340. Now Acacius was his disciple and successor, a man varying in faith, and of a wily character, who knew well how to adapt his opinion according to the circumstances; he did not affirm the Son together with the Arians, nor was he willing, together with the Semi-Arians, to say that He was simply, or by will alone, like to the Father. (The same on Acacius.)

*He is slain. Constantine the Great had divided his empire among his three sons. To Constantine the eldest fell Gaul, Spain, Britain, and part of Africa proconsularis. To Constans the youngest, Italy, the rest of Africa, Illyricum, Macedonia, Greece, and parts bordering on the Euxine Sea. To Constantius, Mysia, Thrace, Constantinople, Asia, Egypt, and the empire of the East from Illyricum to Nisibis. (Eunapius in Edesio, p. 45, and Zosimus, book II.) Yet this division was not managed altogether peacefully; nevertheless, it was settled by Constantine in Pannonia, as Julian asserts in Oration III, and from there afterward he himself set out into Syria, as Julian has it in Oration I. But these tumults occurred at the beginning of the following year; and finally, a dissension arose between Constantine and Constans concerning the Africa that pertained to Carthage, and Italy: which, after they had fostered it for three whole years, was at length fatal to Constantine in the year 340. (Ant. Pagi on the year 337, n. 7.)

*The decease of S. Alexander is accurately recorded by Baronius in the year 340. For he presided for 23 years, as Socrates, Sozomen, Theophanes, both Nicephori, and Zonaras testify. Paul followed him in the reign of Constantius Augustus, says Ant. Pagi on the said year, n. 9, who responds on the same page to the arguments brought to the contrary by Valesius.

^A having departed this life, without having ordained any one to his own place. He commanded those with whom the right of choosing lay, to select one of the two whom he himself named. If they desired one who was both capable of teaching and distinguished by the integrity of his life and conduct, they were to take Paul, whom he himself had ordained presbyter—a man still young in age, but old in prudence. But if they preferred one who was commended only by an outward appearance of gravity, they should choose Macedonius, who had long been a deacon of that church, and was already verging toward old age.

From this, a greater contention arose in the choosing of a bishop, and the Church was disturbed. For the people were divided into two parts: some favoring the Arian dogma, while others defended the decrees of the council of Nicaea. As long as Alexander remained alive, those who held to the Homoousion prevailed, while the Arianizers were kept at bay and daily wrangled about the dogma. But after he had met his fate, the strife of the people became a matter of uncertain outcome. Therefore, those who guarded the faith of the Homoousion designated Paul as bishop; but the Arianizers directed their efforts toward Macedonius. ^B And Paul was ordained in the church named after Peace, which is adjacent to that now called the Great Church and Sophia; in which, indeed, the vote of the deceased Alexander seemed to have prevailed.

CAP. VII. How the Emperor Constantius cast out Paul, the bishop who had been set forth, and having summoned Eusebius from the city of Nicomedia, entrusted the bishopric of Constantinople to him.

Not long after, the Emperor arrived in Constantinople and flared up in anger at the ordination that had taken place. Having convened ^C a council of those bishops who held to the opinion of Arius, he deprived Paul of his bishopric, and having transferred Eusebius from the city of Nicomedia, he designated him bishop of Constantinople. Having done these things, the Emperor set out for Antioch.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(81) *Macedonius, deacon.* He was later raised to the grade of presbyter under Paul, bishop of Constantinople, and accused his own bishop, as Athanasius writes in his *Epistle to the Monks*.

(82) *In the church named after Peace.* There were two churches of this name in the city of Constantinople, one the old, the other the new, as is written in the *Life of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople*, which Photius reports in his *Bibliotheca*: ... Furthermore, the old church of Irene was contiguous to the great church which was later called Sophia; nor did it have separate clergy: but the clergy of the great church served in that church by turns. The Emperor Justinian teaches this in his *Third Novel*: ... In an old description of Constantinople which is prefixed to the *Notitia of the Roman Empire*, this church is called ancient, and is placed in the second region together with the great church. But in the seventh region, Irene is enumerated—that is, the new one. Socrates mentions the ancient Irene in the first book, where he describes the death of Arius. It is said, however, in the same way, not because a virgin or martyr of that name was so called.

(82') *And having convened a council, etc.* In the manuscript of Leo Allatius it is written ^D and having sat, which does not displease. It is certainly so read in Sozomen, book III, cap. 4.

(83) *Having transferred him from Nicomedia.* Allatius inserts certain words here in this manner: "Having transferred him from Nicomedia by his circuit, he declared him bishop of the great city." That is: through the circling of Eusebius himself.

VARIORUM

i. Macedonius accused Paul, already ordained bishop, of I know not what crime: which surely must have been slight, since, while the accusation was pending, the accuser communicated with the accused. (Ant. Pagi on the year 340, no. 12.)

CAP. VIII. How Eusebius, having gathered a synod again at Antioch, promulgated another formula of faith.

Eusebius could by no means rest, but, as the proverb has it, moved every stone to accomplish what he had proposed. He therefore takes care to have a council gathered at Antioch in Syria, under the pretext of the dedication of the church which the father of the Augusti had begun to build, and after his death, his son Constantius had finished in the tenth year from the laying of the foundations; but in reality, in order to overthrow and destroy the faith of the consubstantial. In this council there gathered from diverse cities ninety bishops. Maximus, however, the bishop of Jerusalem, who had succeeded Macarius, was not present at it; reasoning, it seems, that he had been deceived, and had been induced by fraud to subscribe to the deposition of Athanasius. But neither was Julius, the bishop of the great city of Rome, present; nor did he send anyone to occupy his place, although an ecclesiastical canon forbids that anything should be decreed in the Church without the consent of the Roman pontiff. ^{A B}

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

^A This synod was therefore gathered at Antioch, in the presence of the Emperor Constantius, in the consulship of Marcellus and Probinus. 86 This was the fifth year 87 after the death of the father of the Augusti, Constantine. At that time, Flacillus 88 presided over the Church at Antioch, having succeeded Euphronius. The followers of Eusebius, therefore, made it their primary task to slander Athanasius, first, as having acted against the canon which they themselves had then defined, in that he had, without the consent of the common council of bishops, reassumed the rank of the priesthood. For upon returning from his exile, he had, by his own authority and choice, rushed into the Church. And they alleged that at his entrance a disturbance had arisen, in which many died in the sedition; 89 and that some had been tortured by Athanasius, while others had been handed over to the courts. Moreover, they also brought into the open the things that had been done at Tyre against Athanasius. ^B

CHAP. IX.

Concerning Eusebius of Emesa.

When this slander had thus been concocted, they designated an occupant for the see of Alexandria, choosing first Eusebius, surnamed Emisenus. Who this man was, George of Laodicea, who was then present at the synod, makes known. For he says in the book he composed about him, that Eusebius was descended from the nobility of Edessa in Mesopotamia; that from his early youth he had learned the Holy Scriptures; 90 and that subsequently, having been educated in Greek learning by a teacher who was then residing in Edessa, he finally had the Holy Books interpreted for him by Patrophilus and Eusebius, the former of whom presided over the Church at Caesarea, and the latter over that in Scythopolis. After this, when he had come to Antioch, it chanced that Eustathius was deposed, having been accused by Cyrus of Beroea as one who held to Sabellianism. Then again, Eusebius was with Euphronius, who had succeeded Eustathius; and, as he was fleeing from the priesthood, he reached ^C

[VALESII ANNOTATIONS]

86 *In the consulship of Marcellus and Probinus.* Athanasius, in his book *On the Synods*, designates the time of this council with these notes: "There were, however, ninety bishops who had gathered for the Dedication, in the consulship of Marcellus and Probinus, in the fourteenth indiction, while the most impious Constantius was present there." 87 *It was the fifth year, etc.* On the eleventh of the Kalends of June, in the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, the fourth year from the death of Constantine was completed. After this day, therefore, the synod of Antioch was gathered, if it is true as Socrates says, that it was gathered in the fifth year after the death of Constantine. 88 *Flacillus.* This name is written more correctly in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus. At that time Flacillus, the successor of Euphronius, presided over the Church of Antioch. Nor is it said otherwise in the Epistle of Pope Julius to the bishops who had been gathered in this synod at Antioch. For the inscription runs thus: "Dany, Flacillo," etc. He had previously been present at the council of Tyre, and had conspired with the Arians against Athanasius, as the Epistle of the bishops of Egypt to Dionysius the Count teaches, which Athanasius reports in his *Second Defense against the Arians*. Eusebius of Caesarea dedicated his books against Marcellus to this same Flacillus. However, "Placitus" is written for Flacillus almost everywhere. Except that in the following chapter, the codex of Allatius has "by Flacillus." 89 *Many died in the sedition.* The bishops of Egypt refute the Arian slanders remarkably in their synodical Epistle, which Athanasius reports in his *Defense against the Arians*. 90 *Having learned the Holy Scriptures.* Sozomenus explains this passage in Book III, chapter 6, writing thus of Eusebius of Emesa, etc. Therefore, the children of the Edessenes used to learn the books of Holy Scripture by memory according to the custom and institution of their ancestors. Verily, ecclesiastical writers testify that the Edessenes were most ardent worshippers of the Christian religion. ^D

[VARIORUM] ...wishes to indicate the Nicene synod, at the cited place. W. LOWTH.

^A Alexandria, and there to study philosophy. Having returned to Antioch, he associated familiarly with Flaccillus, the successor of Euphronius, and was eventually promoted by Eusebius, the bishop of Constantinople, to the priesthood of the city of Alexandria. He did not, however, go there, because Athanasius was greatly beloved by the Alexandrian people. He was therefore sent to the city of Emesa. But when the Emisenes had raised a sedition over his ordination—for he was assailed with insults and abuses, as if he were practicing the mathematical arts—he fled from there and betook himself to Laodicea, to George, this very man who has written so much about him. George, having conducted him to Antioch, brought it about that he was led back to Emesa by Flaccillus and Narcissus. Afterwards, however, he was again accused of holding the same views as Sabellius. George writes more lengthily regarding his ordination. ^B Finally, he adds that when the emperor was setting out against the barbarians, he took him along with him, and that certain miracles were performed by his hands. But regarding these things which George recounted concerning Eusebius of Emesa, let this much suffice from me.

CAP. X.

How the bishops gathered at Antioch, when Eusebius of Emesa had refused the bishopric of Alexandria, ordained Gregory, and altered the words of the Nicene faith.

When Eusebius, to whom the bishopric of Alexandria had been offered by the bishops gathered at Antioch, refused to go to Alexandria, they designated Gregory as bishop of Alexandria. ^C Having brought this about, they interpolated the faith: not indeed condemning those things which had been decreed at Nicaea, but in reality acting to cause the consubstantial faith to be subverted, while they provided an example to others of assembling synods frequently and constantly, and of promulgating now one formula of faith and now another, so that all might gradually be led away into the Arian opinion. Moreover, in what manner these things were done by them, we shall show in the progress of the narrative itself. The letter regarding the faith issued by them is as follows: "We have never been followers of Arius. For how, since we are bishops, should we follow a presbyter? Nor have we embraced any other faith than that which was published from the beginning. ^D But we, having become examiners and testers of his faith, have rather received him than followed him."

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

^A am established as judges to test and examine his faith; we have received him rather than followed him. And this you will easily know from the things that shall be said. For we have learned from the beginning to believe in one God, the creator and provider of all things, both intelligible and sensible; and in one Son ^B of God, the only-begotten, existing before all ages, and co-existing with the Father who begat him, by whom all things were made, the visible and the invisible; who in the last days, by the good pleasure of the Father, descended and took flesh from the holy Virgin, and having fulfilled all the Father's will, suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come to judge the living and the dead, and remains King and God for all ages. We believe also in the Holy Spirit. And if it is necessary to add this, we believe also in the resurrection of the flesh, and in life everlasting. When they had written these things in their first epistle, they sent them to the bishops of the individual cities. But after remaining in Antioch for a short while, as if condemning that former epistle, they wrote another anew ^C in these words:

Another Exposition of Faith.

We believe, following the evangelical and apostolic tradition, in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, the only-begotten God, by whom all things were made; begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole, perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, living Word, wisdom, life, true light, way of truth, resurrection, shepherd, gate; unchangeable and inconvertible; the exact image of the Father’s divinity, substance, power, counsel, and glory; the firstborn of every creature; who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as it is said in the Gospel ^D: *And the Word was God*, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and was born from a Virgin according to the Scriptures; and became man, the mediator of God and men, and the apostle of our faith, and the prince of life, as he himself says: *I descended from heaven*

not that I might do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. He who suffered for us, and ^A rose again on the third day for us, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and he is to come again with glory and power, to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, which is given to those who believe for consolation, and sanctification, and perfection, just as our Lord Jesus Christ also commanded his disciples, saying: *Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*:—of the Father, I say, as truly Father; and of the Son, as truly Son; and of the Holy Spirit, as truly Holy Spirit: so that these terms are not mere names, empty of reality, but accurately express the proper subsistence, order, and glory of each one of those named, so that they are three in subsistence, but one in agreement. Having therefore this faith, ^B before God and before Christ, we condemn with anathema all the perversity of heretical doctrine. And if any one shall teach, contrary to the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that there was a time or an age before the Son of God was begotten, let him be anathema. If any one shall say that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or a product as one of the products, and does not set forth each of these things as the holy Scriptures have handed them down; or if any one shall teach or preach anything else besides that which we have received, let him be anathema. For we truly and religiously believe and follow all that has been delivered to us from the divine Scriptures, both by the prophets and the apostles.

Such were the expositions of the faith promulgated by the bishops who had met at Antioch; to which even Gregory, although he had not yet entered Alexandria, subscribed as its bishop. ^C And the synod which was assembled there at that time, having managed these matters and having established certain other rules besides, dispersed. At this same time, it also happened that the state was disturbed. For the nation of the Franks, having made an incursion into the Gauls, ravaged the territories of the Romans. In the parts of the East, during the same period, there were most severe earthquakes; and especially at Antioch, which was shaken by continuous earthquakes for an entire year. ^D

CHAPTER XI.

After these events, Syrianus the general—along with five thousand armed soldiers—led Gregory down into Alexandria. All those who favored the Arian dogma there joined themselves to the soldiers. It is proper, however, for me to relate in what manner Athanasius, while being expelled from the church, escaped the hands of those who wished to arrest him. The day was already drawing toward evening, and the people were passing the night in the church, because a religious assembly was expected. ^B Suddenly the general arrived and, having drawn up a line of soldiers, surrounded the church. When Athanasius saw what was happening, he took care that the people should not suffer any harm on his account. He ordered a deacon to call for prayer for the people, and immediately commanded that a psalm be recited. When a harmonious chant from the whole multitude arose during the recitation of the psalm, they all went out through one of the doors of the church. While this was happening, the soldiers remained inactive; Athanasius himself, in the midst of the congregation of chanters, escaped unharmed. Having escaped in this way, he fled to Rome.

Gregory, for his part, then took possession of the church. But the people of Alexandria, bearing the event very impatiently, set fire to that church which is called the church of Dionysius. So much, then, for these matters. Eusebius, having accomplished everything he desired, sent an embassy ^C to Julius, the bishop of Rome.

requesting that he himself become the judge of the case against Athanasius, and that he draw the investigation of the business to himself. ^A

CHAPTER XII

How, after the death of Eusebius, the people of Constantinople restored Paul to his see, and how the Arians chose Macedonius.

But it was not permitted for Eusebius to learn of those things which had been decreed by Julius concerning the case of Athanasius, for, a little while after this synod, he departed this life. On this account, the people in Constantinople brought Paul into the Church again. At the same time, those who favored the Arian views ordained Macedonius as bishop in the church which is called the church of Paul. This was done ^B by those who had previously assisted Eusebius, the disturber of all things, and who at that time had assumed all authority as if by right of succession: namely, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, Ursacius of Singidunum in Upper Moesia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia. Ursacius and Valens, however, were later led to repentance, and having presented a libellus of satisfaction to Bishop Julius and subscribed to the doctrine of the consubstantial, were received into communion. But at that time, fiercely struggling for the Arian perfidy, they stirred up most grievous movements of wars against the churches. Among these wars, one was that which was brought about by Macedonius in Constantinople. For because of this intestine war of the Christians, ^C frequent seditions arose in the city, and many, crushed by their violence, perished.

CHAPTER XIII

Concerning the death of Hermogenes, the master of the soldiers, and how, on this account, Paul was once again thrust out of the Church.

When Emperor Constantius, who was then staying at Antioch, heard these things, he commanded Hermogenes, the master of the soldiers, whom he had sent to the parts of Thrace, that, passing through Constantinople, he should incidentally thrust Paul out of the Church. He, having entered Constantinople, shook the whole city, while he endeavored to eject the bishop by force. For immediately a sedition of the people followed, and all were ready to defend their bishop. ^D When, however, Hermogenes persisted in attempting to expel Paul with a military force, the multitude of the people, becoming exacerbated as is wont to happen in such circumstances, rushed upon him with a violent impulse. Setting fire to his house, they dragged him by the feet and killed him. These things were done while the two Augusti...

Constantius for the third time and Constans for the second, were consuls. ^A During this time, Constans, having conquered the Frankish nation, compelled them to become allies and confederates of the Romans.

But the emperor Constantius, upon hearing of the murder of Hermogenes, immediately departed from Antioch and, by changing horses rapidly, sped to Constantinople; and he expelled Paul from the city. He also fined the city, removing more than forty thousand of the daily rations which his father had granted to the Constantinopolitans; for previously, nearly eighty thousand measures of grain were supplied from those brought from the city of the Alexandrians. He also deferred appointing a bishop for the city, for he was irritated not only because ^B he had been ordained without his consent, but also because, due to the disturbances that had arisen between him and Paul, many others, including the master of soldiers Hermogenes, had been killed. Therefore, having allowed him to assemble the people in the church in which he had been ordained, he returned again to Antioch.

CAP. XIV.

How the Arians, having removed Gregory, substituted George in his place.

At this same time, those who favored the Arian party removed Gregory from the Alexandrian ^C see, as he was hateful to everyone for ^D...

[alt-version omitted]

the burning of the church, and also because he did not support their dogma with sufficient fervor. They brought in George, who was born in Cappadocia, and who held a reputation for being formidable ^A regarding their religion.

Chapter XV. How Athanasius and Paul, having set out for Rome, and being fortified by the letters of Bishop Julius of Rome, recovered their own sees.

Athanasius, however, was only able to get to Italy after a long time. At that time, in the Western parts, Constans, the youngest of Constantine's children, held the empire alone, his brother Constantine having been killed by the soldiers, as we have already mentioned earlier. At this same time, Paul ^B of Constantinople, and Asclepas of Gaza, and Marcellus of Ancyra in Lesser Galatia, and finally Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused for one reason or another and cast out of their churches, were found in the royal city of Rome. When they had explained their cause to Julius, the bishop of the city of Rome, he, since the Roman Church possessed the prerogative, fortified them with frank letters and sent them back to the East, restoring to each his own see and simultaneously rebuking those who had rashly deposed the aforementioned bishops. ^C And so they, having departed from Rome and relying upon the official mandates of Bishop Julius, occupied their own churches and dispatched the letters to those to whom they had been written. But the latter, having received the letters of Julius, took the reprimand as an insult. And having gathered a synod at Antioch to meet ^D together...

^A they replied to Julius with a common opinion, writing somewhat more sharply, and declaring that he ought not to sit in judgment upon them if they wished to expel anyone from their churches; for they themselves, they claimed, had not contradicted him when Novatus was ejected from the Church. These were the replies which the bishops of the East sent to Julius, bishop of Rome.

Since, however, upon Athanasius’s entering Alexandria, ^B there arose a disturbance among those who adhered to George the Arian, from which it is said that tumults and the destruction of men ensued; and since the Arians attributed these reproaches and crimes to Athanasius as if he were the author of all these evils, a few words must be said on these matters. For God, who is the judge of truth itself, knows the true causes of these things. That such events are wont to happen for the most part whenever the multitude is agitated by internal sedition is by no means obscure to men of understanding. It is in vain, therefore, that his detractors, and especially Sabinus, who presides over the heresy of Macedonius, ^C impute the cause of these things to Athanasius. If he had considered within himself how many and how great were the evils that the Arians had inflicted upon Athanasius and the rest of the Homousians; or how many synods had lamented on account of Athanasius; or how many things the heresiarch Macedonius himself had perpetrated against all the churches—he would have kept silent, or, if he had wished to speak, he would have praised Athanasius before these others. But now, having intentionally passed over all these matters, he falsely slanders his deeds. Moreover, he does not even mention the name of the heresiarch Macedonius at all, wishing, of course, to conceal the tragic outrages that he committed. And what is still more astonishing, he has not spoken ill of the Arians, whom he himself avoided; but he has silently passed over the ordination of Macedonius, whose sect he himself followed. For if he had remembered ^D that ordination, he would certainly have remembered also the crimes of that man, as the events that occurred at that time make clear. So much for this subject.

CHAPTER XVI.

Furthermore, the emperor Constantius, while staying in Antioch, when he was informed that Paul had again occupied his see, took this news very ill. Therefore, he issued a command to the prefect Philippus...

[GREEK COLUMN] ^A οὖν ἔγγραφον ἀποστέλλει τῷ ἐπάρχῳ Φιλίππῳ (18), ὡς μείζονα μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἀρχόντων τὴν ἐξουσίαν κεκληρωμένῳ, δευτέρῳ δὲ μετὰ βασιλέα χρηματίζοντι ὅπως ἂν τὸν μὲν Παῦλον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλῃ, ἀντεισάγῃ δὲ εἰς αὐτὴν Μακεδόνιον. Ὁ οὖν ἔπαρχος Φίλιππος εὐλαβηθεὶς τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους στάσιν, τέχνῃ μετῆλθε τὸν Παῦλον· καὶ κρύπτει μὲν παρ' ἑαυτῷ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως βουλήν. Πλασάμενος δὲ δημοσίων πραγμάτων ποιεῖσθαι φροντίδα, πρόεισιν εἰς τὸ λουτρὸν τὸ δημόσιον, ᾧ ἐπώνυμον Ζεύξιππος. Κἀκεῖθεν μεταπέμπεται μετὰ τιμῆς δῆθεν τὸν Παῦλον, ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ἐλθεῖν (19) παρ' αὐτόν. Καὶ ἦλθεν. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἦλθε μεταπεμφθεὶς, ἐπεδείκνυεν εὐθὺς ὁ ἔπαρχος τοῦ βασιλέως τὸ πρόσταγμα. Καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπίσκοπος εὐγνωμόνως ἔφερε τὴν ἄκριτον καταδίκην. Ὁ δὲ δείσας τοὺς περιεστηκότας καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τὴν ὁρμήν· καὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ συνεληλύθεισαν ἐκ φήμης ὑπόπτου περὶ τὸ δημόσιον· ἐκφραγῆναι μίαν τοῦ λουτροῦ θυρίδα κελεύει· δι' ἧς ἐπὶ τὰς βασιλικὰς αὐλὰς ἀπαχθεὶς ὁ Παῦλος (20), ἐμβληθείς τε εἰς πλοῖον ἐπὶ τοῦτο εὐτρεπισθὲν, ταχέως ἐπ' ἐξορίαν ἐπέμπετο. Προσέταξέν τε ὁ ἔπαρχος ἐπὶ τὴν Μακεδονίας μητρόπολιν Θεσσαλονίκην ἐλθεῖν (21), ἧς καὶ ἐκ προγόνων ὁ Παῦλος ἐτύγχανεν ὤν· ἐν ᾗ τὰς διατριβὰς ποιεῖσθαι, ἀδεῶς τε ἐπιβαίνειν καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἄλλας τῶν ἐν Ἰλλυριοῖς πόλεις· μὴ μὴν ἐξεῖναι αὐτῷ, ἐπὶ τὰ ᾿Ανατολικά μέρη διαβῆναι. Ὁ μὲν οὖν Παῦλος, παρὰ προσδοκίαν ἐκβληθεὶς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ τῆς πόλεως, μετὰ σπουδῆς ἀπήγετο. Ὁ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ἔπαρχος Φίλιππος, ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἠπείγετο. Σὺν αὐτῷ δὲ ὡς ἐκ μηχανῆς τινος παρὼν ὁ Μακεδόνιος, ἐν τῷ ὀχήματι σύνθρονος τῷ ἐπάρχῳ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐδείκνυτο. Στρατιωτική τε χεὶρ ξιφήρης περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐτύγχανε. Δέος δὲ ἐντεῦθεν καταλαμβάνει τὰ πλήθη· καὶ πάντες εἰς τὰς ἐκκλησίας συνέῤῥεον, οἵ τε τῆς ὁμοουσίου πίστεως, καὶ οἱ τοῦ 'Αρειανοῦ δόγματος· ἕκαστοι καταλαμβάνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν σπουδάζοντες. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ ἔπαρχος ἅμα τῷ Μακεδονίῳ πλησίον τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐγένετο,

[LATIN COLUMN] SOCRATIS tur praefecto praetori, utpote qui majorem reliquis provinciarum rectoribus potestatem obtineret, et secundus ab imperatore diceretur, mandat per epistolam ut Paulum quidem pellat ecclesia, Macedonium vero illius loco in ecclesiam inducat. Praefectus itaque Philippus seditionem populi pertimescens, Paulum circumvenire aggressus est, et imperatoris quidem mandatum penes se occultat. Specie vero publicorum negotiorum progressus ad balneum publicum quod Zeuxippi vocatur, Paulum honorifice ad se accersit: ejusmodi necessitatem adesse dicens, ut quamprimum illi veniendum esset. Paruit Paulus. Qui cum accitus venisset, statim praefectus mandatum imperatoris ei ostendit. Et episcopus quidem se indicta causa damnatum animadvertens, patienter tulit. Præfectus vero circumstantis multitudinis impetum reformidans (plurimi enim rumore ac suspicione ducti illuc convenérant), unam ex lavacri januis aperiri jubet, per quam Paulus in palatium abductus et conjectus in navem ad id comparatam, confestim in exsilium mittitur. Præcepitque ei præfectus ut Thessalonicam Macedoniæ metropolim, ex qua urbe Paulus jam inde a majoribus suis erat oriundus, proficisceretur, utque in ea civitate degeret. Et reliquas quidem urbes Illyrici adeundi facultatem ei concessit: cæterum ad Orientis partes vetuit accedere. Paulus igitur præter exspectationem, ecclesia simul et urbe pulsus, celeriter abducitur. Præfectus autem imperatoris Philippus, ex balneis publicis progressus, recta ad ecclesiam contendit. Aderat una Macedonius, velut ex machina quadam demissus : et cum præfecto in curru sedens, omnium oculis ostendebatur. Circa illos militum manus strictis gladiis incedebat. Quo spectaculo conterrita est plebis multitudo : cunctique simul, tam Homousiani quam Ariani, ad ecclesiam properarunt, prævenire singuli et ecclesiam occupare summo studio adnitentes. Postquam præfectus una cum Macedonio ecclesiæ

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

^A Then indeed an irrational fear seized the multitudes, and even the soldiers themselves. For since the crowd present was great, and there was no way for the prefect, who was conducting Macedonius, to pass, a violent pushing was attempted by the soldiers. But since the crowd, being pressed together, could not retreat because of the narrowness of the place, the soldiers, thinking the crowds were resisting and intentionally blocking the passage, rushed at them as against an enemy, and drawing their swords began to strike those in their way. Three thousand one hundred and fifty men are said to have perished at that time; some slaughtered by the soldiers, others crushed by the pressure of the multitude. After such ^B glorious deeds, Macedonius, as if he had done nothing wrong, but were pure and innocent of what had happened, was installed in the episcopal see by the prefect rather than by any ecclesiastical canon. In this way, then, Macedonius and the Arians gained control of the Church through so many slaughters. During this time, the emperor was building the Great Church

(22)

CAP. XVII. How Athanasius, fearing the emperor’s threats, fled to Rome.

At this same time, another calumny was fabricated against Athanasius by the Arianizers, inventing a pretext of this kind: the father of the Augusti had some time before granted a ration to the Alexandrian Church for the support of the poor. ^C The Arians falsely claimed that Athanasius was in the habit of selling this for money and converting it to his own profit. The emperor, believing this, threatened him with the penalty of death. But Athanasius, anticipating the emperor’s threat, took flight and became invisible. Then indeed, Julius, the bishop of Rome, learning of the plots which the Arianizers had contrived against Athanasius, and having also received the letters of Eusebius—who was now dead—called Athanasius to himself, knowing where he was hiding. At the same time, letters were also brought which the bishops who had earlier gathered at Antioch ^D sent.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

(22) *The Great Church was dedicated by Eusebius...* Eusebius of Constantinople, who had previously held the bishopric of Nicomedia, if we believe Cedrenus. For he writes thus at the ninth year of Constantius: Eusebius dedicated the Church of God which is called Magna, completed by Constantius as Constantine had ordered in his will; and he placed in it the relics of the holy martyr Pamphilus, and his companions Theodulus, Porphyrius, and Paul, brought from Antioch. But Cedrenus is in error regarding the notation of time. For if this dedication was performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, it should have been [attributed] to the third or fourth year of Constantius, at which time Eusebius was governing the Constantinopolitan see. That this building later collapsed, and was rebuilt by Constantius and dedicated by Eudoxius, the same Cedrenus reports.

(23) *He calls Athanasius to himself...* Socrates confuses everything and repeats the same things twice, as if they had happened a second time. For he says that Athanasius fled to Rome twice. The same is also asserted by Baronius in his *Annales*, Petavius in *Rationarium Temporum*, and Blondellus in his book *De Primatu*. But we have abundantly refuted this error in the first book of our *Observationes Ecclesiasticae*, which the studious reader will find appended to these annotations. With a like error, Socrates says that Paul, bishop of Constantinople, came to Rome a second time. Moreover, Pope Julius received the letters of Eusebius of Nicomedia before the Council of Antioch, which [was held] at the Encaenia.

^A At the same time, the letters arrived which those who had previously gathered at Antioch had sent. Other letters were also sent to him by the bishops in Egypt, 25 teaching that the things said against Athanasius were false. Thus, with contradictory letters being sent, Julius reproached 26 those gathered at Antioch with a written reply, first for the offensive tone of their letter; then that they had acted against the canons, because they had not summoned him to the synod, since the ecclesiastical canon commands that the Churches ought not to pass regulations without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, and because they were secretly corrupting the faith. He further added that the events which took place long ago at Tyre had occurred through entrapment, because the records of the proceedings in the Mareotis ^B were composed from one side only; and furthermore, that what had been alleged regarding the charge of Arsenius had been clearly exposed as a calumny. Julius wrote these and other such things at greater length to those gathered at Antioch. I would have included the letters written to Julius, as well as his reply, had not their excessive length prevented me from doing so. Sabinus, however, the partisan of the Macedonian heresy, whom I have already mentioned before, did not include the letters of Julius in his collection of synodal acts, although he did not omit those which the bishops gathered at Antioch wrote to Julius. This is a habit of his; for in those instances where the letters of synods are silent or reject the *consubstantial*, he includes them, but he deliberately omits the letters which refute such things ^C or which defend the truth.

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

24 *Gathered at Antioch, etc.* The bishops who were gathered at Antioch for the Encaenia, when they received the letter of Pope Julius written to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he summoned him and the rest of the Eusebians to Rome for trial by a specific date on which the council was to be held there, detained the legates of Pope Julius, Elpidius and Philoxenus, beyond the appointed time. Then, the council having already been celebrated, they dismissed the legates and handed them letters for Pope Julius. When Julius had received these, he wrote back that very famous letter which is found in Athanasius’s *Defense Against the Arians*.

25 *Letters from Egypt, etc.* He understands the synodal letter written by the bishops of Egypt to all bishops everywhere, which is cited in the first place by Athanasius in the aforementioned *Defense*. Pope Julius also speaks of this synodal letter sent to him in his letter to the Eastern bishops of Antioch.

26 *He reproached, etc.* "He reproached" (*ἐπεμέμφετο*), as Savilius corrected in the margin of his own copy. In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written "he blamed" (*ἐμέμφατο*), which is better. This letter of Pope Julius exists, an excellent work of ecclesiastical antiquity, which Athanasius preserved for us in his *Second Defense Against the Arians*. In that letter, Pope Julius first reproves the insolence and pride which the Orientals had used in their letters to him. But what Socrates adds, that Julius complained in his letters that they had not invited him to the synod—for there was an ecclesiastical rule that nothing could be decided in the Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome—that is nowhere read in that letter. ^D Julius does indeed complain, and not without cause, that the Orientals, having received his letter in which they were called to the Roman synod, made little of this citation of his and had appointed Gregory in place of Athanasius. But he says nothing about that ecclesiastical rule. Sozomen, however, has the same thing as Socrates.

VARIOUS NOTES

*w* In my opinion, Valesius is mistaken. For Julius, at the end of that letter, while expostulating with the Oriental bishops because they had ejected Athanasius and others from their sees without his knowledge and [that] of the remaining bishops of the Western Church, adds: "Are you ignorant that this was the custom, that it should be written to us first, and thus from there what is just could be decided?" In Athanasius, *Apol. II*, p. 586, Commelin edition. He had indeed said before: "It was necessary according to the canon to write to us all, so that in this way what was just might be decided by all." It seems that Socrates has confused this rule, which asserts that matters pertaining to the faith and discipline of the entire Church ought to be referred to a general council, with the former [rule], which attributes the prerogative in deciding to the Church of Rome. And we gladly acknowledge that the former was an ecclesiastical rule or custom, but I confess myself ignorant of where Julius derived that which vindicates for the Roman bishop the primary role. W. Lowth.

^A diligently sets forth; but he willingly passes over those that are contrary. So much for these matters. Not long after, Paul, pretending that he was going from Thessalonica to Corinth, arrived in Italy. Both, therefore, make their own cases known to the emperor who was there.

CHAPTER XVIII

How the emperor of the Western parts requested of his brother that those who would give an account regarding Athanasius and Paul might be sent; and how those sent from the East produced another exposition of faith.

The emperor of the Western parts, having learned their ^B personal troubles, sent letters to his brother, signifying that three bishops should be sent to him, who would give an account of the deposition of Paul and Athanasius. And there were sent Narcissus the Cilician, and Theodore the Thracian, and Maris of Chalcedon, and Marcus the Syrian. ^C These, having arrived, altogether refused to enter into discussions with those around Athanasius; but, having suppressed the faith set forth at Antioch, they agreed upon another, and presented it to the emperor Constantius, in which were these words:

Another Exposition

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. And in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages: God from God, light from light; through ^D whom all things were made in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible; being Word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and true light; who in the last days became man for our sake, and was born of the holy Virgin, and was crucified, and died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works; whose kingdom, being undiminished, remains into the infinite ages. For He will be sitting at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.

^A And we believe in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, whom the Lord, having promised to the apostles after His ascension into heaven, sent to teach and to bring all things to their remembrance; by whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed in Him shall be sanctified. But those who say that the Son of God came into existence from things that were not, or from another substance, and not from God, and that there was a time when He was not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens. Having delivered these things to the Emperor and released them to many others, they departed without having achieved their purpose. ^B Since, therefore, the communion between the Westerns and the Easterns was still in an unsettled state, another heresy sprang up in Sirmium, a city of Illyricum. For Photinus, who presided over the churches there, a native of Lesser Galatia, and a disciple of the deposed Marcellus, following in the footsteps of his teacher, preached that the Son of God was a mere and simple man. But we shall speak of these things more fully in their proper place.

CAP. XIX.

Concerning the prolix exposition of the faith.

After this, when a space of three years had passed, the Eastern bishops again held a synod, drew up another formula of faith, and sent it to those in Italy ^C by Eudoxius, then bishop of Germanicia, and Martyrius, and Macedonius, who was bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. This faith, written at greater length and augmented with many additions beyond the previous ones, was expressed in these words:

^A We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named; and in His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light; by whom all things in heaven and on earth were made, both visible and invisible; who is the Word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and the true light. Who in the last of days became man for our sake and was born of the holy Virgin; who was crucified, and died, and was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father; who is coming at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works; whose kingdom, being endless, remains to infinite ages; for He sits at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. ^B We believe also in the Holy Spirit, that is, in the Comforter, whom Christ, having promised to the apostles, sent after His ascent into heaven to teach them and bring to their remembrance all things; by whom also the souls of those who believe in Him sincerely are sanctified. But the holy and Catholic Church acknowledges as strangers those who say the Son is from things which are not, or from another substance, and not from God, and that there was ever a time or age when He was not. Likewise, the holy and universal Church anathematizes those who say that there are three gods, or that Christ is not God before the ages, or that He is neither Christ nor the Son of God, or that the same is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Son is unbegotten, or that it was not by His own will and counsel that the Father begat the Son. For it is not safe to say that the Son is from things which are not, since this is nowhere mentioned concerning Him in the inspired Scriptures. Neither have we been taught that He was begotten from any other substance existing beforehand besides the Father, but rather that He was genuinely begotten from God alone. ^C For the divine word teaches that the Father of Christ is the one unbegotten and beginningless being. But as for those who, without the authority of the sacred Scriptures, rashly say that "there was a time when He was not," one must not conceive in one's mind any preceding interval of time, but only God who begat Him timelessly; for times and ages themselves were made through Him. Nor indeed should the Son be considered co-beginningless or co-unbegotten with the Father. ^D For no one can properly be called Father or Son to one who is co-beginningless and co-unbegotten.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (50) That it was not by will or by counsel. This was the dogma of the Arians. Yet the Orientals later explain their own opinion more fittingly, that is to say, so that it may be understood that the Father did not beget the Son out of compulsion nor against His will.

VARIORUM. a Neither that He is the same, and Christ, and the Son of God. These things censure Marcellus, who was beginning the kingdom of Christ from His birth. See below in this chapter the annotations of Valesius on these words. W. LOWTH.

^A but we know that the Father alone, being without beginning and unreachable, has begotten in an unreachable and to all incomprehensible manner; and that the Son was begotten before the ages, and that He is not in the same way as the Father unbegotten, but has the Father who begat Him as His origin. For the head of Christ is God. Nor, because we confess three things, and three persons, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, do we for this reason make three gods. Since we know one only God, the self-complete and unbegotten, beginningless and invisible God, and Father of the Only-Begotten, who alone has His being from Himself, and alone provides being abundantly to all others. Nor, when we say that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one God, the only unbegotten, do we on that account deny that Christ is God before the ages, as do the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that He was later, after the incarnation, deified by merit, because in His nature He had become a mere man. For we know that He, even if He is subject to the Father and God, is nonetheless begotten of God, and is God by nature perfect and true, and was not a man who later became God, but was God and became man for our sake, and never at any time lost His being God.

^B Furthermore, we loathe and anathematize those who falsely call the Word of God merely a word of God and non-existent, having its being in another; at one time saying it is like the word that is commonly called uttered, and at another time like the word that is termed internal; and who contend that Christ and Lord Himself, and Son of God, and mediator, and image of God, did not exist before the ages; but that Christ and the Son of God began to be from the time when He assumed our flesh from the Virgin, about four hundred years ago. For from that time they wish Christ to have had the beginning of His kingdom, and that He will have an end to it after the consummation and judgment. Such are those who derive from Marcellus and Photinus, ^C who hold that Christ became the Son of God from the time he took on human flesh for us, and who never at any time ceased to be God. ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A For we know him to be not merely a spoken or indwelling Word of God, but a living Word of God, existing in his own right, and Son of God and Christ. And we do not hold that he was with his own Father before the ages merely by foreknowledge, and that he spent time with him, serving him in the creation of all things, whether visible or invisible; but we profess that he is the substantial Word of the Father, and God from God. For he is the one to whom the Father said, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1, 26); who also personally appeared to the fathers, gave the law, spoke through the prophets, and in the last times became man, manifested his own Father to all men, and reigns for endless ages. ^B For Christ did not acquire any beginning of dignity recently; but we believe him to have been perfect from eternity, and in all things like the Father. We also rightly exclude from the Church those who say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, and who wickedly interpret the three names as referring to one and the same substance and person, because they imply that the Father, who can be neither comprehended nor suffer, is both ^C comprehensible and capable of suffering through the incarnation. Such are those who are called Patripassians—among the Romans—and Sabellians. ^D

We, however, know that the Father who sent remains in his own nature of immutable divinity, and that Christ, who was sent, fulfilled the dispensation of the incarnation.

Similarly, we consider those to be most impious and alien to the truth who say with irreverence ^A that Christ did not come into existence by the will and choice of the Father, and who attribute to God an involuntary and certain violent necessity, so that he should generate the Son against his will; since they have dared to define such things about him, both contrary to common notions about God and, indeed, contrary to the mind of divinely inspired Scripture. For we, recognizing that God is his own master and Lord of his own counsel, piously and religiously believe that he generated the Son willingly and voluntarily. ^B Furthermore, although we believe with fear and reverence that which was said about him: *"The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works,"* yet we do not understand him to have been made in the same way as the rest of the creatures that were made through him. For it is impious and altogether alien to the ecclesiastical faith to compare the Creator with the works created by him, or to think that he was produced in the same way as external things. For divine Scripture teaches us that only, and solely, the only-begotten Son was truly and genuinely generated. ^C But although we say that the Son is and lives and subsists by himself, just as the Father, we do not for that reason separate him from the Father, imagining by bodily custom certain spaces and intervals between their conjunction. For we believe that they are joined without any intervening medium and without separation, and exist inseparably from one another; the whole Father embracing the Son [(56)], and the whole Son hanging from and being attached to the Father, and resting alone in the Father’s bosom perpetually. Believing, therefore, in the most holy and perfect Trinity, and calling the Father God, and the Son also God, we do not confess two Gods, but one, according to the dignity of the divinity and the one exact conjunction of the kingdom; the Father being over all things in general, and the Son also; but the Son being subordinate to the Father, and, apart from him, ^D over all things.

and governing the things that have been brought into being through him, and ^A granting the grace of the Holy Spirit abundantly to the saints by the Father’s will. For the sacred discourses have handed down to us that the account concerning the monarchy in Christ is to be understood in this way. We have been compelled, after the faith previously set forth in summary, to discuss this more at length; not induced by vain and superfluous ambition, but that we might clear away every sinister suspicion from our assumption among those who are ignorant of our affairs; and that all those who are in the West may at once know the impudence of the calumny of the heterodox, and at the same time the ecclesiastical mind of the Easterners regarding Christ, which is testified to ^B by the inspired Scriptures among them without distortion.

Chap. XX. Concerning the Council of Serdica.

These things the bishops in the Western parts, owing to their being of a different language, and because they did not understand, did not accept; for they deemed the faith at Nicaea sufficient.

and asserted that they ought not to make any further investigations. ^A Since, however, the emperor again wrote that Paul and Athanasius should be restored to their own sees, and yet nothing more was achieved—for strife was almost continually occurring amongst the people—Paul and Athanasius requested that another council be held, so that both their own case and the cause of the faith might reach a conclusion at an oecumenical synod, teaching that the depositions had occurred for the purpose of overthrowing the faith. An oecumenical synod was therefore again proclaimed to meet at Serdica, a city of the Illyrians, at the instance of the two emperors; the one having requested it by letter, and the other, the emperor of the East, having readily consented. It was the eleventh year ^B from the death of the father of the two Augusti; the consuls were Rufinus and Eusebius, when the synod at Serdica was convened. Now, of the bishops from the Western parts, about three hundred assembled, as Athanasius says. From the East, Sabinus reports that only seventy-six were present, among whom was numbered Ischyras, the bishop of Mareotes, whom those very persons who had deposed Athanasius had ordained bishop of that region. Some offered the excuse of bodily infirmity; others complained of the shortness of the time, referring the cause to Julius, the bishop of Rome; although a year and six months had passed since the synod had been proclaimed, and those around Athanasius had been staying at Rome. For in addition to all this, he remained there for a year and six months, awaiting your presence, or that of anyone who might wish to come. Therefore an oecumenical synod was again proclaimed at Serdica. About three hundred bishops assembled.

^A. But the Easterners refused to come into the presence of the Westerners, asserting that they would not enter into discussions unless they first expelled the followers of Athanasius and Paul from the assembly. When, however, Protogenes, bishop of Serdica, and Hosius, bishop of Corduba—a city of Spain, as has been said before—would not tolerate the exclusion of Paul and Athanasius from the conference, they immediately departed. And returning to Philippopolis, a city of Thrace, they held a separate council. They openly anathematized the term *consubstantial*, and, having written letters ^B containing the doctrine of the *Anomoean*, they sent them everywhere. Those at Serdica, for their part, first passed judgment upon them in their absence; then they stripped the accusers of Athanasius of their dignities. Having confirmed the formula of the faith at Nicaea, they rejected the term *Anomoean*, and more clearly promulgated the *consubstantial*. Having written this down, they also sent it everywhere. Each side thought that they had acted justly: the Easterners, because the Westerners had received those who had been deposed by them; the Westerners, because those who had deposed the others had fled before the examination of the cause, and because they themselves kept the faith of Nicaea, while the former had dared to corrupt it. They therefore restored to their sees those around Paul ^C and Athanasius; and in addition, Marcellus, the bishop of Ancyra in Lesser Galatia, who had been deposed long before, as I have mentioned in the previous book. At that time, he strove to overturn the sentence passed against him, arguing that the expression in his own book had not been understood, and that he had been suspected of being a follower of Samosatenus on that account. It should not be ignored, however, that Eusebius, the son of Pamphilus, refuted the book of Marcellus by discussing it against him in three whole books, which he entitled *Against Marcellus* ^D; and he sets forth the words...

of Marcellus himself in them, but in discussing them, he endeavors to prove that Marcellus, just like the Libyan Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, asserts that Christ is merely a simple man.

Chapter XXI. The defense of Eusebius Pamphili.

^A Since some have attempted to slander him too—I mean Eusebius, the son of Pamphilus—as being an Arian in the books he published, I do not consider it inopportune to say a few words about him. First of all, he was present at the Council of Nicaea, which decreed that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and he consented to it. In the third book of the life of Constantine which he wrote, he speaks as follows: "The emperor urged everyone toward concord, until he had made them all likeminded and in agreement on all the disputed points, so that the faith defined at Nicaea prevailed with one voice." If, therefore, Eusebius, in making mention of that council, says that the then-disputed points were resolved, and that all came to one mind and one opinion, why do some suspect him of agreeing with the Arian dogma? The Arians themselves are also deceived, ^B thinking that he supports their opinion. But someone will perhaps say that he appears to be a proponent of the Arian dogma because he is accustomed to say frequently in his books, *through Christ*. To this we answer that the ecclesiastical writers were accustomed to use this manner of speaking and others like it, which designate the dispensation of the humanity of our Savior; and before them all ^C the Apostle Paul used the same expressions, and yet he was never thought to be a teacher of perverse doctrine. Furthermore, whereas Arius dared to call the Son a creature, as one of the others which were created by God, hear, if you please, what the opinion of Eusebius was concerning this matter in his first book *Against Marcellus*. "The Only-Begotten Son of God," he says, "he alone, and no other, is preached and is." Whence one might rightly censure those who have dared to say he is a creature, becoming from non-being similar to the other creatures. For how will he be a Son anymore, and how will he be the Only-Begotten of God, if he is inscribed with the same nature as the other creatures, and will be one of the many begotten ^D beings? For by this logic, he would rather be a brother of these than the Son of God.

Valesius' Annotations

The Constantinopolitan synod had condemned Marcellus, as Eusebius testifies he wrote at the end of his second book *Against Marcellus*. Moreover, it is uncertain whether Socrates saw those two earlier books against Marcellus, since he makes no mention of them. Regarding the words which are read at the end of the discourses of Eusebius, which Eusebius perpetually conceives thus: "Glory to the unborn Father through His Only-Begotten Son," etc. And this can be seen in the minor works of Eusebius, which Jacques Sirmond published. For example, at the end of the first book *Against Sabellius*, these words are read: "Glory to the one unborn God, through the one Only-Begotten God the Son of God, in one Holy Spirit, and now and always and for all ages of ages. Amen." And so in the others. In the sermon also which Eusebius gave at the dedication of the church at Tyre, which is reported in the tenth book of the *Ecclesiastical History*, the same clause is found, etc. For we have thus edited that passage from three manuscript codices. Moreover, it is known that the Arians attributed that preposition, *through whom*, to the Son, with the intention of subjecting him to the Father. See Theodoret on chapter one of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Between these words is missing a complete line, which from the first book of Eusebius' *On Ecclesiastical Theology*, chapter 9, is to be supplied as follows: "from non-being, partaking of communion with them; but this is not how divine scripture thinks about him..."

Then, after a few words, he adds: "Whoever, therefore, defines the Son as a generated being from non-being and as a creature that has been brought forth from nothing ^A, is unaware that he is only granting him the name, while denying that he truly is the Son. For he who has been made from nothing cannot truly be the Son of God, just as nothing else among generated things can be. But the true Son of God is he who is from Him, since he was brought forth from the Father; he would rightly be called both the only-begotten and the beloved of the Father. And in this way, he would also be God. For what else could the offspring of God be, if not that which is conformed to the one who generated it? An emperor, for instance, founds a city, but he does not generate a city; yet he is said to generate a son, and not to found one. And a craftsman is a maker of that which is made by him, but he would not be a father of that ^B which is made by him. But the Son who has sprung from Him would not be called a handmade thing. And indeed, the God of all things is, for the Son, Father, but is rightly called creator and maker of the world. And if one should ever find it said in Scripture, *The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works* [Prov. VIII, 22], one must observe the meaning of the statement, which I shall set forth a little later, and not, as Marcellus does, subvert the most important dogma of the Church on the basis of a single phrase."

Such are the many other things that Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, says in his first book against Marcellus. And in the third book of the same work, while teaching how one must understand the word "creature," he speaks as follows: ^C "With these things thus established, it follows that, just as with all that has been previously set forth, this statement also, *The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works*, refers to the same person. But if he says that he has been created, it is not to be understood as if he meant that he passed from non-being to being, or that he was generated from nothing in the same way as the other creatures, as some have wrongly supposed. But he says this, inasmuch as he subsists and lives, and pre-exists before the constitution of the whole world; and having been appointed by the Lord, his own Father, to rule over all things, the word 'created' is used here to mean 'appointed' or 'established.' For the Apostle explicitly called the rulers and governors among men a 'creature,' ^D when he said: *Be subject therefore to every human creature for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as pre-eminent, or to governors as those sent by him* [I Pet. II, 13, 14]. And the prophet also, when saying, *Prepare thyself to call upon thy God, O Israel, for lo, [I will make firm] the thunder...*

and create the spirit, and declare his Christ unto men* [Amos IV, 13], did not accept this word "create" as implying that he was made, having not existed before. For God did not create the Spirit at the time he announced his Christ unto all men; for there is nothing new under the sun [Eccl. I, 10]. But it already existed and subsisted, yet it was sent at the time when the apostles were gathered together, when a sound like thunder came from heaven, as of a rushing violent wind; and they were filled with the Holy Spirit [Acts II, 2 sqq.]. And thus they announced the Christ of God unto all men, in accordance with the prophecy which says: *For lo, I am he that makes firm the thunder, and creates the spirit, and declares his Christ unto men*—where the word "creating" is used instead of "sending" or "ordaining," with the thunder signified in another way as announcing the preaching of the Gospel. And he who says, *Create in me a clean heart, O God* [Ps. L, 12], did not speak this as if he did not have a heart before; but he prayed that his mind might be made pure in himself. By the same reasoning was it said, *That he might create the two into one new man* [Eph. II, 15], that is, that he might join them together. See, moreover, if it be not of the same kind, that which is said: *Put on the new man, which is created according to God* [Eph. IV, 24]. And that: *If any man be in Christ, a new creature* [II Cor. V, 17]; and whatever else of this kind one might find by searching the divinely inspired Scriptures. Do not be surprised, therefore, if in this passage, *The Lord created me the beginning of his ways*, the word "created" is used metaphorically for "ordained" or "appointed" as ruler. Such are the things Eusebius sets forth in his books against Marcellus. We have brought them forward here on account of those who attempt to slander and traduce the man in vain. For they can neither prove that Eusebius attributed a beginning of existence to the Son of God, even if he uses the vocabulary of the "dispensation" throughout his books; especially since he was an imitator and admirer of the writings of Origen, in which those who are able to understand the depth of the books of Origen will find the Son always preached as begotten of the Father. And let these things be said by me in passing, that I may respond to the detractors of Eusebius. ^{C D}

VARIORUM ANNOTATIONS. In these words, Socrates indicates not a small cause, for which Eusebius, who otherwise acknowledges throughout his writings the true and eternal divinity of the Son, has been held by many to be an Arian. Of course, in his books, those things which pertain to the *oikonomia* of the Son—and I would add, to his subordination to the Father as to his author and principle—he urges so strongly against the Sabellians, whose most bitter foe he was, and repeats and inculcates them almost to the point of nausea and disgust, that he appears to have lapsed into the opposing Arian impiety, from which, however, he was in reality always a stranger. And indeed, whoever has examined the writings of Eusebius accurately and without party spirit will confess that this is most true; and whoever has observed this will be easily able to respond to those matters which Petavius (lib. I de Trinit., cap. 11) has gathered in a great heap to prove that Eusebius was an Arian. Whence Eusebius himself, in the *Apologetical* book which he sent to all the orthodox bishops, openly professed that if he had ever put forth or written anything having even the slightest odor of the dogma of Arius, he had put it forth or written it not out of the impious sense of the man, but out of a less careful and less solicitous simplicity (to wit, while he was wholly intent upon combating the Sabellian heresy); as Gelasius Cyzicenus relates (lib. *De synod. Nicæn.*, cap. 1). (See Bull, *Defens. fid. Nic.*, sect. 3, cap. 9, n. 3.)

Chapter XXII.

The bishops, however, who had assembled at Serdica, and those who had held separate sessions at Philippopolis in Thrace, having each concluded what they thought best, returned to their own cities. From that time, therefore, the West was severed from the East; and the boundary of communion between them was the mountain called Succorum, which divides the Illyrians and the Thracians. Up to this mountain, the communion of all was undistinguished and promiscuous, even though they dissented from one another in the faith; but those living beyond it did by no means communicate. Such was the confusion and perturbation that existed in the Churches at that time. ^B Afterward, the emperor who governed the parts of the West immediately signified to his brother Constantius what had been done at Serdica, and exhorted him to restore Paul and Athanasius to their own sees. But since Constantius put off the execution of this matter from day to day, the emperor of the Western parts again offered him this alternative: that he should either receive Paul and Athanasius, restore them to their rank, and give them back their Churches, or, if he did not do this, be an enemy and expect war. The things written to his brother were as follows: ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS upon chapter XXII.

(54) *But they did not communicate further with one another, etc.* These words should be understood kindly, not as if Socrates were saying that after the Council of Serdica the Westerns henceforth did not communicate with the Orientals. For that would be openly false. Indeed, at the Council of Sirmium, which was gathered by the Westerns against Photinus two years after the Council of Serdica, the Westerns sent their own decrees to the Oriental bishops for the sake of fostering communion, and the Oriental bishops wrote back to them, as Hilary relates in his *Fragments*. Therefore, these words of Socrates are to be understood thus: that the Westerns, after the Council of Serdica, did not communicate with the Orientals easily or rashly, but with great caution being applied.

(55) *The things written to his brother, as follows.* The letter of Constans Augustus to his brother Constantius.

VARIORUM.

would be his enemy, and would immediately expect war. The letter, however, which he wrote to his brother, is of this sort: "Athanasius and Paul are here with me; and I have learned upon inquiry that they are suffering persecution for the sake of piety. If, therefore, you will promise to restore their sees to them, and to punish those who are pursuing them without cause, I will send these men to you. But if you refuse to do these things as I have said, be assured that I shall come there myself, and even against your will, I will restore their sees to them."

CAP. XXIII. How Constantius, fearing his brother's threats, summoned Athanasius by his letters, and sent him to Alexandria.

When the emperor of the East learned these things, he was reduced to the greatest difficulty. He immediately summoned not a few of the bishops of the East, proposed to them his brother's conditions, and asked what ought to be done. They said that it was better to concede the churches to those about Athanasius than to undertake a civil war. Accordingly, the emperor, compelled by necessity, summoned Athanasius to himself. Meanwhile, the emperor of the West sent Paul with two bishops and the rest of his honorable retinue to Constantinople, provided with letters both from himself and from the synod. But since Athanasius was still hesitant, and remained in doubt and uncertainty of mind as to whether or not he should go to Constantius—for he feared the snares of his calumniators—the emperor of the East summoned him to his court not once, but a second and a third time, as his own letters show, which, having been translated from the Latin language into Greek, run as follows:

Epistle of Constantius to Athanasius.

Constantius, Victor, Augustus, to Athanasius the bishop.

Our gentleness does not permit you to be tossed and buffeted any longer by the most violent waves of the sea. Our untiring piety has not looked down upon you, stripped of your ancestral home, despoiled of your goods, and wandering in desert and trackless places. And although I long delayed writing to you the purpose of my mind, expecting that you would come to us of your own accord and ask for a remedy for your hardships; nevertheless, because fear perhaps hindered the resolve of your intention, for that reason we have sent letters full of indulgence to your gravity, so that you may hasten without fear to show your presence before us as soon as possible, in order that, having obtained your desires and experienced our humanity, you may

^A be restored to your own. For this reason, I have also exhorted my lord and brother Constans, the Victor Augustus, on your behalf, so that he might grant you the power to come; and so, with both of us consenting, you may be restored to your homeland, having this as a pledge of our favor.

Another letter to Athanasius.

Even if we signified to you abundantly by our previous letters that you should come without concern to our comitatus, because we greatly desire to send you back to your own sees, nevertheless we have now sent these letters to your gravity as well. By these we exhort you that, without any suspicion or fear, you should make haste to come to us, having taken the public carriages, so that you may obtain those things for which you hope. ^B

Another letter to the same.

When we were staying at Edessa, with your presbyters present, it was decided that a presbyter should be sent to you, so that you might hasten to come to our comitatus, in order that, once you had seen our majesty, you might immediately set out for Alexandria. But since a long time has already passed since you received our letters and did not arrive, for this reason we have also taken care to remind you now, so that even now you may hasten to show your presence before us, and thus you may be worthy to be restored to your homeland and attain your desire. ^C For a fuller account, we have sent the deacon Achetas; from whom you will be able to learn both what is the purpose of our mind and that you will easily be able to obtain those things which you desire.

When Athanasius received these letters at Aquileia—for he was staying there after having departed from Sardica—he at once hastened to Rome. ^D

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(58) *After having departed from Sardica.* After the Council of Sardica, Athanasius first stayed at Naissus in Dacia. In which city he received the letters written to him by Constans Augustus. Then, having left Naissus, he set out for Aquileia, as he himself testifies in his *Apology to Emperor Constantius*.

(59) *He hastened to Rome.* Athanasius reports the cause of his journey in the *Second Defense against the Arians*, namely, that he might take leave of Pope Julius and the Roman Church, by which he had been so kindly received. For these words of Athanasius mean this: *I truly, having received these letters, set out for Rome, about to take leave of the Church and the bishop.* For the word signifies this, as I have observed more fully in the *Eusebian Annotations*.

VARIOUS NOTES.

^A Upon showing the letters to Bishop Julius, he filled the Roman Church with the greatest joy. ^B For it seemed that even the Emperor of the East agreed with their faith, inasmuch as he had summoned Athanasius to himself. Julius, for his part, wrote as follows to the clergy and laity in Alexandria concerning Athanasius:

Epistle of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to those in Alexandria

Julius to the bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the laity dwelling in Alexandria, beloved brothers, greeting in the Lord.

I too congratulate you, beloved brothers, because you now see before your very eyes the fruit of your own faith. For anyone can truly see that this has come to pass in the case of my brother and fellow-bishop Athanasius, whom God has restored to you both on account of the integrity of his life and because of your prayers. From this it appears how pure and full of charity were the prayers you always offered to God. For, being mindful of the heavenly promises and the instruction leading to them which you learned from the teaching of my aforementioned brother, you understood truly, and in accordance with the orthodox faith implanted in your minds, you foresaw that he, whom you bore always in your holy hearts as if present, could not be separated from you forever. Wherefore, writing to you now, there is no need for many words from me. For whatever could have been said to you by me, your faith has already anticipated, and through the grace of Christ, those things which you all desired with common prayers have been fulfilled. ^C I congratulate you, therefore—for I will say it again—that you have kept your souls unconquerable in the faith. And I also congratulate my brother Athanasius no less that, although he suffered many bitter things, he was never for a moment unmindful of your charity and your longing for him. For even if he appeared to be withdrawn from you in body for a time, yet in spirit he was always dwelling with you as if present. And I, indeed, beloved, do not consider all those vexations which he endured to have been without glory or useless. For by that means, both your faith and his became known and approved by all. For if so many and such great vexations had not occurred, who would ever have believed either that you held such a judgment and that you embraced with such ardor of charity so great a bishop, or that he was adorned with so many and such great virtues, ^D on account of which he is by no means to be defrauded of the hope of heavenly rewards? He has therefore obtained from every quarter a glorious testimony of confession, both in this present age and in the one to come. For having suffered many calamities by land and by sea,

^A he trampled down all the intrigues of the Arian heresy; and having been often brought into danger through the envy and fraud of his enemies, he despised death, being fortified by the protection of Almighty God and of our Lord Jesus Christ. He hoped at the same time both to escape their plots and to be restored for your consolation, bringing back to you even greater trophies from the witness of your own conscience. By these means he became known and glorious even to the ends of the earth, approved by the integrity of his life, and having confidence in the firmness of his purpose and in heavenly doctrine; being shown, by an immortal judgment, to be beloved by you. He returns, therefore, to you, more splendid now than when he departed from you. For if fire tests and cleanses precious metals, I mean gold and silver, what can be said that is worthy of such a man, who, having overcome so many fires of tribulation and so many dangers, is now restored to you innocent, having been approved not only by us, but also by the judgment of the entire synod? Therefore, beloved brothers, receive your bishop Athanasius with all the glory and joy that is pleasing to God, and together with him, all those who have been his companions and participants in his troubles. And rejoice, having attained your prayers, for you have nourished and watered with saving writings your pastor, who—if I may say so—was hungering and thirsting for your piety. For even while he was living in foreign regions, you were his comfort; you cherished him, when he was being pursued and plotted against, with your most faithful souls and minds. ^C I myself am already gladdened, while ^D I meditate and foresee in my mind the joy of each one of you at his return, and the most religious receptions of the people, and the glorious festivity of those assembling, and what and what kind of day that will be for you, when my brother returns, while past evils find their end, and his precious and desirable return unites all in the alacrity of the fullest joy. This joy further reaches in great part even unto us, to whom it is evident that it has been granted by God to be able to come to the knowledge of so great a man. It is fitting, therefore, that this our letter should be concluded with a prayer. May God Almighty, and his Son our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, grant this grace to you forever.

^C May our Savior Jesus Christ bestow this grace upon you, giving it as a reward for that admirable faith which you have shown toward your bishop with such glorious testimony; that for you and for those who follow you, both here and in the world to come, those better things may remain which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man; which God has prepared for those who love him," through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom to God Almighty be glory for ever and ever. Amen. I pray that you may be well, most beloved brothers.

Trusting in these letters, ^D Athanasius set out for the East. The emperor Constantius, indeed, did not receive him with a hostile mind at that time, though he attempted to outwit him, prompted by the machinations of the Arianizers. He says to him: "You have recovered your throne by the decree of the council and by our own consent. But since there are some of the people at Alexandria who shrink from communion with you, allow them to have one church in the city." ^A To this request, Athanasius promptly replied and said: "O emperor, it is in your power to command and to do whatever you will. But I, in turn, ask and beg for a favor, which I would like you to grant me." And when the emperor had readily promised that he would grant it, Athanasius immediately added that he sought to be granted the same thing that the emperor had demanded of him. For he, too, asked that one church might be assigned in each city to those who shrank from the communion of the Arianizers. ^B The Arianizers, therefore, perceiving that Athanasius's judgment was advantageous, said that this matter should be deferred to another time; but they allowed the emperor to do as he pleased. ^C The emperor, therefore, restored their own sees to Athanasius, Paul, and Marcellus, as well as to Asclepas of Gaza and Lucius of Adrianople. For these, too, had been received by the council of Sardica: Asclepas indeed by showing documents from which it was evident that Eusebius of Pamphilus, together with many others, having examined his case, had restored him to his former rank of dignity; and Lucius, because his accusers had chosen to flee. ^D Therefore [the emperor issued] orders...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

^A His adversaries took flight. Hence, the emperor's edicts were sent to their respective cities, in which it was ordered that they should receive them readily. And at Ancyra, indeed, when Basil was being thrust out and Marcellus was being installed in his place, no small tumult arose, which furnished the adversaries with an opportunity for calumny; the people of Gaza, however, willingly received Asclepas. In Constantinople, meanwhile, Macedonius yielded his place to Paul for a short time, holding his assemblies separately in a private church of the city. As for Athanasius, the emperor wrote to the bishops, the clergy, and the people, instructing them to receive him with glad hearts. Furthermore, he ordered by other letters that whatever had been done against him in judicial trials should be annulled. The letters written concerning both of these matters are as follows:

Epistle of Constantius in favor of Athanasius

The most reverend Bishop Athanasius has not been forsaken by the grace of God. But although for a short space of time he was subjected to human trial, he has nevertheless, with the help of divine Providence, deservedly received a just verdict, having been restored by the will of God, as well as by our own judgment, both to his country and to the Church, over which he presided by divine appointment. ^B It is fitting that measures following from this should be provided by our clemency, so that all things heretofore decreed against those who were in communion with him may now be committed to oblivion, and that every suspicion against him may henceforth cease. And the immunity which the clergy who are with him formerly enjoyed shall, as is right, be confirmed for them. We have also thought it necessary to add this to our indulgence towards him, so that all men of the holy order may know that security has been granted to all who have adhered to Athanasius, whether bishops or clergy. The most certain proof of each man's upright intention ^C will be his firm communion with him. Whosoever, therefore, has made use of a better judgment and followed the sounder path, and has embraced his communion, we have commanded them all to enjoy, in accordance with the example of the aforementioned Providence, the indulgence now also granted by us, not without the will of God.

Epistle to the Alexandrians

Since we always keep before our eyes your discipline in all things, and are not unaware that you have long been deprived of episcopal providence, we have thought it right that Bishop Athanasius, a man known to all for his ^D integrity and his own natural civility...

^A should be sent back to you. When, therefore, you have received him according to your custom and as is fitting, and have established him as a helper in your prayers to God, strive to preserve concord and peace, which are both becoming to you and pleasing to us, in accordance with the law of the Church. For it is not reasonable that any discord or sedition should be stirred up among you, contrary to the prosperity of our times. We truly wish and hope that such an evil may be entirely absent from among you. But as to your continuing assiduously in your accustomed prayers to God, utilizing him as your prelate and helper, as has been said above, we exhort you to this end: that this your purpose being made known to the ears of all, even the heathens themselves, who are still enslaved to the worship and error of idols, may hasten most promptly to the knowledge of our most holy religion, most beloved Alexandrians. Again, therefore, we exhort you to persist in the things we have spoken. As for your bishop, sent to you by the decree of God and our own judgment, receive him gladly, and consider that he is to be embraced with your whole soul and mind. For this is both seemly for you and consistent with our clemency. That every occasion for tumult and sedition may be taken away from malevolent minds, we have commanded by letters to the judges who are among you, that as many as they find to be seditious, they should subject to the retribution of the laws. Considering then these two things, both our own and God’s judgment, and the care we have undertaken for you and your concord, ^B and the punishment established against the disobedient, give heed to ensure that you sedulously observe whatsoever is consistent with the laws of our most holy religion, and honoring the aforesaid bishop with all respect and reverence, together with him, both for yourselves and for the discipline of the whole human race, ^C offer prayers to the God and Father of all.

Epistle concerning the abolishing of what had been done against Athanasius.

Victor Constantius, Augustus, to Nestorius. And by the same example to the governors of Augustamnica, the Thebaid, and Libya.

If anything before this, to the injury and insult of them...

^A who communicate with Bishop Athanasius, is found to have been done, we wish this now to be abolished. For we wish the immunity which his clergy formerly possessed, to be possessed again by them. We wish this our command to be observed, so that, upon Athanasius the bishop being restored to the Church, those who communicate with him may have the immunity which they have always had, and which the rest of the clergy enjoy; that, things being so established, they too may rejoice.

Chapter XXIV.

How Athanasius, returning to Alexandria, passed through Jerusalem and was received into communion by Maximus, and gathered a synod of bishops which confirmed the Nicene faith.

Fortified by such letters, ^B Bishop Athanasius departed through Syria and arrived in Palestine. Having reached Jerusalem, and having made clear to Maximus, the bishop of that city, all things that had been transacted at the Council of Serdica, and how the Emperor Constantius had agreed to their judgment, he arranged for a synod of the local bishops to be held. Maximus, without any delay, sent for some of the bishops from Syria and Palestine; and, having convened a council, he himself also restored communion and the dignity to Athanasius. The synod itself also wrote ^C to those in Alexandria, and to all the bishops in Egypt and Libya, concerning the things known and voted upon regarding Athanasius; on account of which those who were ill-disposed toward Athanasius mocked Maximus severely, because, having formerly deposed him, he now, out of repentance, as if nothing had happened, had cast a vote in favor of Athanasius, granting him communion and his dignity. When Ursacius and Valens, who had previously been zealously devoted to the Arian ^D dogma, learned of these things, having condemned their former zeal, they set out for Rome.

^A They presented a letter of repentance to Bishop Julius, and embraced the confession of faith in the consubstantial; and having sent letters to Athanasius, they acknowledged that they would hold communion with him in the future. In this manner, then, Ursacius and Valens, prostrated and defeated by the prosperous outcome of Athanasius's affairs, at that time consented to the faith of the consubstantial. Athanasius, however, journeying by way of Pelusium to Alexandria, instructed those in the cities through which he passed that they should turn away from those who were Arianizing, and should welcome those who confessed the consubstantial. In certain of the churches, he also performed ordinations. This became the source of another reproach against him, because he attempted to perform ordinations in the parishes of others. Such, then, were the affairs of Athanasius at that time.

CAP. XXV.

Concerning the tyrants Magnentius and Vetranio.

Meanwhile, a great agitation troubled the republic. Regarding which, since it is not necessary to run through all the main points, I shall relate the matter briefly, taking up the account from somewhat earlier. After the founder of Constantinople, Constantine, had died, his three children succeeded to the empire, as we have mentioned in the previous book. It must be noted, moreover, that their cousin, who bore the same name as his own father, Dalmatius, reigned with them. ^B He, having reigned for a short time, was put to death by the soldiers—not by the command of Constantius, but certainly without his preventing it. How Constantine the younger, while invading his brother's territory, was also slain in conflict by the soldiers, has been mentioned by us more than once before. After his slaughter, a Persian war was stirred up against the Romans, in which Constantius conducted himself with no success, for he attempted to engage in night fighting.

^A Since a battle took place near the borders of the Romans and the Persians, the Persian side seemed for a short time to prevail. At that season, the affairs of the Christians were not at peace; but because of Athanasius and the term "consubstantial," there was strife throughout the Churches. While matters were in this state, Magnentius arose as a tyrant in the Western regions; he, by conspiracy, slew Constans, who was ruling the Western regions and dwelling in the parts of Gaul. This having transpired, a great civil war was kindled. For the tyrant Magnentius held all of Italy, had brought Africa and Libya under his own sway, and had also taken possession of the Gauls. In the Illyrian provinces, however, in the city of Sirmium, another tyrant was raised up by the soldiers, whose name was Vetranio. ^B Furthermore, a tumult held even Rome; for there was a nephew of Constantius (78) named Nepotianus, who laid claim to the empire, being guarded by a band of gladiators. Now the generals of Magnentius deposed Nepotianus. Magnentius, advancing, began to lay waste all the Western regions.

Chapter XXVI

As the emperor of the Western regions had died, Paul and Athanasius were again driven out of their own sees; and as Paul was being led into exile, he was killed, while Athanasius escaped by flight. The influx of all these evils occurred in a short time. For in the fourth year after the [Council] of Sardica...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(77) *For a night battle about the borders.* He understands the night battle between the Romans and Persians at the fortress of Singara in Mesopotamia, in which the son of Sapor, king of the Persians, fell, but the Romans were pierced with a great slaughter, as Ammianus Marcellinus writes in book XVIII, page 112. See there what I once noted. This battle happened in the year of Christ 348, in the consulship of Philippus and Salia, as Idatius writes in the *Fasti*: In these consulships the Persian war was nocturnal.

(78) *For he was a nephew of Constantius.* It should be written *of Constantine*. For Nepotianus was the son of Eutropia, sister of Constantine, as is written in Victor's *Epitome* and in Eutropius. Epiphanius Scholasticus certainly reads as I have amended it. But he is mistaken in calling him *fratruelis* (brother's son) of Constantine, who was a sister's son. For thus he translates: *Fratruelis (brother's son) indeed of Constantine.* Nepotianus had assumed the empire by name, supported by a band of gladiators.

VARIORUM

...suffering many and grievous things, with towns often taken, cities besieged, armies slaughtered; and no battle was prosperous for him against Sapor, except that at Singara he lost an undoubted victory through the ferocity of the soldiers, who demanded battle seditiously and stupidly against the reason of war, when the day was already waning. EUTROPIUS.

b Idatius in the *Fasti* and Jerome in the *Chronicle* wrongly postpone that battle to the year 348. Valesius in the notes to book XVIII of Ammianus thinks that for *sixth year*, one should read *third*. But he proves this by no other argument than the authority of Idatius, who often errs in noting times, says Ant. Pagi, who refers the battle at Singara to the year 345.

c Magnentius slew Constans. Constans, having conquered his brother, more swollen with pride, at the same time through youth little cautious, and also vehement of spirit, hateful even then by the pravity of his ministers, and headlong into avarice and the scorn of the military, was circumvented ten years after his triumph by the crime of Magnentius, a man of barbarian race and dire and black character. Constans indeed, led by the desire for hunting, while he was already wandering through forests and glades, was sighted by some soldiers for his destruction, at the instance of Chrestio and Marcellinus, and simultaneously of Magnentius. Where the day for the execution of the business pleased them, Marcellinus, feigning the birthday of his son, invites many to dinner. And so, the banquet being celebrated until late at night, Magnentius, as if departing for the secrets of the belly, takes up his venerable habit. That reason being known, Constans trying to flee, is slain at the town of Helena, near Circesium, by Gaiso sent with picked men, in the thirteenth year of his Augustan rule (for he had been Caesar for three years), and the twenty-seventh of his age. Victor on the *Caesars* and in the *Epitome*. Ant. Pagi records his slaughter in the year 350.

d Vetranio. Constans' death being known, Vetranio, master of the soldiers, seized the empire in Pannonia at Mursia: whom Constantius did not strip of the kingdom until many days later, granting not only life but also a voluptuous rest to his aged years. He was, moreover, almost to the point of stupidity quite simple. (Victor in the *Epitome*. See also Eutropius). In the month of March Vetranio was raised to the empire, and was deposed the following December, in the year 350, as Ant. Pagi teaches at that year.

e Recte emendat Valesius [Constantine]; for Eutropia, mother of Nepotianus, is called the aunt (*theia*) of Constantius by Athanasius in the *Apology to Constantius*. W. LOWTH.

^A it was that these events took place, during the consulship of Sergius and Nigrinianus. When these things were reported, it seemed that the sum of the empire had passed to Constantius alone. He, having been proclaimed emperor in the Eastern parts, applied himself with all his might to arm against the tyrants. In the meantime, the enemies of Athanasius, thinking that a favorable opportunity had been offered them, again concocted the most serious calumnies against him, even before he had arrived at Alexandria. They instructed the emperor Constantius that he was subverting the whole of Egypt and Libya. The charge was increased most of all by the fact that he had presumed to perform ordinations in foreign dioceses. Athanasius, having meanwhile reached Alexandria, gathered councils of the bishops in Egypt. These unanimously voted in agreement with those who had previously assembled at Sardica, and with the council that had been held by Maximus at Jerusalem. The emperor, who himself had long been possessed by the Arian belief, turned everything that had been decreed a short time before to the contrary. And, first of all, he ordered Paul, the bishop of Constantinople, to be sent into exile; those who were leading him away strangled him in the town of Cucusus ^B in Cappadocia. Marcellus having been expelled, Basilius again took possession of the priestship of the Church in Ancyra. Lucius, the bishop of Adrianople, died in prison, bound in iron chains. Indeed, the things that were said about Athanasius had so much weight and authority that the emperor, incensed with incredible fury, ordered that he be killed wherever he might be found, and together with him, Theodulus and Olympius, the prelates ^C of the Churches in Thrace. But the decrees of the emperor did not remain unknown to Athanasius. Perceiving the situation, he again had recourse to flight, and thus escaped the emperor's threat. ^D

^A The Arians, however, calumniated his flight, and especially Narcissus, bishop of Neroniades in Cilicia, and George of Laodicea, and Leontius, 83 who at that time presided over the Church at Antioch. This man, when he was a presbyter, had been deprived of his dignity, because he lived perpetually with a certain woman named Eustolium; and, in order to conceal the shameful suspicion which this occasioned, he mutilated his own genitals. Thereafter, he lived with the woman more boldly, as he no longer possessed the members for which he had previously been suspected of crime. Later, however, by the judgment and through the efforts of the emperor Constantius, he was promoted to the episcopate of the Church at Antioch after the death of Stephen, who had previously succeeded Flacillus. But so much for him.

CHAP. XXVII.

At that time, after Paul had been removed from the way in the manner already related, Macedonius gained control of the Churches in Constantinople. Having acquired the greatest freedom of speech with the emperor, he stirred up a war among Christians no less severe than that which the tyrants were waging at the same period. For having persuaded the emperor to assist him in devastating the Churches, he caused to be confirmed by law all the iniquities he wished to perpetrate. ^C Henceforth, a law was proposed in every city, and the military hand was commanded to minister to the emperor's decrees. Those who held the views of the [homoousion] were expelled not only from the churches, but now also from the cities. And while at first they were content merely with expelling them, as the evil progressed, they turned to compelling them to communicate with them, caring little for the churches. The necessity imposed was no less than that which those who had formerly compelled men to worship idols had inflicted. For they brought all sorts of outrage, varied tortures, and confiscations of property; and many were subjected to exile. Some died in the midst of their torments; others perished while being led away into exile. ^D And these things took place throughout all the easter...

eastern empire, but especially in Constantinople. This domestic persecution, which had previously been slight, Macedonius, having obtained the episcopate, increased greatly. But the cities around Achaia, Illyricum, and the western regions still remained unshaken, both because they were in agreement with one another and because they most steadfastly held to the canon delivered by the council at Nicaea.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Of the evils perpetrated at Alexandria by George the Arian, from the narrative of Athanasius himself.

As for what George perpetrated at Alexandria at that same time, let us hear Athanasius himself relate it, who both endured these things and was present at all that happened. For in the ^B Apology he wrote concerning his flight, speaking of the events that occurred at that time, he uses these words: "For they came again to Alexandria, seeking to put me to death. And the things that happened later were far worse than the first. For soldiers suddenly surrounded the church, and battle took the place of prayer. Then, having entered during Lent, George, who had been sent by them from Cappadocia, increased the evils he had learned from them. For after the week of Pentecost, virgins were thrown into prison; bishops were led away by soldiers in chains; the houses and provisions of orphans and widows were plundered; incursions were made into homes; and Christians were carried off by night to the cemetery. Houses were sealed; and the brothers of the clergy stood in danger ^C for their brothers. These things indeed were grievous; but what was committed afterwards was much more grievous. For in the week after the holy Pentecost, the people, having fasted, went out to the cemetery to pray, because all refused communion with George. When the most wicked George learned of this, he incited the Duke Sebastian, who was a Manichaean, against them. He, with a multitude of armed soldiers carrying drawn swords, bows, and arrows, having made an assault, rushed upon the people on the Lord's day. And finding but a few who were at prayer—for most, on account of the time of day, had already departed—he committed such deeds as befitted one who obeyed the Arians. For having lit a pyre, and having set the virgins by the fire, he forced them to profess that they were of the Arian faith. But when he saw that, having conquered them, they did not care for the fire, having stripped them at last, he so ^D beat them upon their faces, that after a long time they were scarcely to be recognized; and having seized men forty...

^A in number, he flayed them in a new and unusual manner. For he cut rods directly from palm trees, still having their thorns upon them, and so tore their backs, that some among them required long-continued surgical care because of the thorns that had become deeply embedded and impacted; and some, unable to endure the pain of the scourgings, perished. All the survivors, moreover, and the virgin with them, they exiled to the Great Oasis. As for the bodies of those who had died, they did not even permit them to be returned to their own people at the start; but they hid them as they pleased, casting them aside unburied, in order to appear to escape detection in such cruelty. And those possessed by madness do this, being blinded in their understanding. For while the kin of the deceased rejoiced on account of their confession, yet mourned on account of the bodies, the proof of the impiety and cruelty of those men was sounded abroad all the more ^B clearly against them. For immediately from Egypt and Libya, they exiled the bishops: Ammon, Thmuis, Caius, Philo, Hermes, Plinius, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agatho, Anagamphus, another Ammon and Marcus, Dracontius, Adelphius and Athenodorus; and of the presbyters, Hierax and Dioscorus. And they drove them so bitterly, that some of them died upon the roads, and others in the very place of exile. They sent into flight more than thirty bishops. For they were as zealous as Ahab, if it were possible, to remove the truth from the earth. Such things, indeed, did Athanasius record in his own words concerning what had been done by George in Alexandria. But the emperor was encamped in Illyricum; for the necessity of public affairs led him thither, and especially the proclamation of Vetranio by the soldiers. And having come to Sirmium, he met with Vetranio at a conference, ^C and arranged for the soldiers who had proclaimed him to change their allegiance; and they, having changed, acclaimed Constantius alone as Augustus, king, and emperor; and of Vetranio there was no mention made by those who were crying out...

^A Realizing immediately that he was betrayed, he lay prostrate at the feet of the Emperor. But Constantius, having removed the imperial crown and the purple robe from him, behaved with kindness and clemency, counseling him to live more quietly in a private station; for it was fitting, he said, for a man advanced in age to live a life free from business rather than to hold a title full of cares and anxieties. Such, then, was the outcome of the affairs of Vetranio. And the Emperor ordered that all manner of support be provided to him from the public taxes. Later, writing to him frequently as he lived in Prusa in Bithynia, he affirmed that he had been the author of the greatest goods to him, having relieved him of the cares and the evils that are wont to accompany sovereignty. He further said that Vetranio was not acting rightly, because he was not enjoying the benefits which he (Constantius) had provided for him. And let thus much be said concerning these matters. ^B At that time, the Emperor, having appointed his cousin Gallus to be Caesar, and having given him his own name, sent him to Antioch in Syria, intending that the eastern regions should be guarded through him. At this time, when he had arrived at Antioch, the sign of the Savior appeared in the East (87). For a pillar in the shape of a cross was seen in the heaven, and it became a great wonder to those who beheld it. He sent his other generals ahead with a great force against Magnentius. He himself meanwhile stayed at Sirmium, awaiting the outcome of events.

CHAPTER XXIX. Concerning the Heresiarch Photinus.

^A commanded that a synod of bishops should be held at Sirmium. There gathered there of the Eastern bishops: Marcus of Arethusa, George of Alexandria—whom the Arianizers had sent, having removed Gregory, as I have mentioned before—and Basil, who had taken the place of the deposed Marcellus in the Church of Ancyra, as well as Pancratius of Pelusium and Hypatianus of Heraclea. Of the Western bishops, Valens of Mursa was present, and the famous Hosius, bishop of Corduba in Spain, was ^B present against his will. These men, after the consulship of Sergius and Nigrinianus, in which year, on account of the disturbances of war, no one held the customary consulship, assembled at Sirmium. Having discovered that Photinus held the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan and Paul of Samosata, they immediately deposed him. And this—namely, that he was deposed rightly and justly—everyone approved both then and thereafter. But the bishops who remained there did something else that was not equally approved by all. ^{C D}

Chapter XXX. On the formulas of faith set forth at Sirmium before the Emperor Constantius.

As if condemning what they themselves had previously established concerning the faith, they promulgated other expressions of faith anew. ^A One which Marcus of Arethusa dictated in the Greek language; but two others were written in the Latin tongue, which agree neither in words nor in composition among themselves, nor with that Greek one dictated by Marcus. Now, of those which were published in Latin, I will here append the one which was written by Marcus. The other, however, which was later read at Sirmium, we shall report in its proper place, when those things which were done at Ariminum are set forth by us. It should be known, however, that both of them were translated into the Greek language. The exposition of faith, therefore, which was dictated by Marcus, is as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator and maker ^B of all things, from whom every paternity in heaven and on earth is named. And in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light: by whom all things were made, which are in heaven and which are on earth, visible and invisible. Who is both the Word and wisdom, the true light and life. Who in the last days was made man for our sake, and was born of the holy Virgin, and was crucified also, died, and was buried: who rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and who shall come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead, and to render to everyone according to his works; whose kingdom, being everlasting, continues into the infinite ages. For He shall be seated at the right hand of the Father, not only in this world, but also in the one that is to come.

And in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete; whom the Lord promised to send to the apostles after His ascension into heaven, to teach and remind them of all things, He sent; through whom also the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him are sanctified. But those who say that the Son of God is from things that are not, or from another substance, and not from God, and that there was a time or an age when He did not exist, the holy and Catholic Church deems aliens from herself. ^B Again, therefore, we say: if any one says that the Father and the Son are two Gods, let him be anathema. And if any one, while calling Christ God and the Son of God before the ages, does not confess that He served the Father in the creation of all things, let him be anathema. If any one dares to say that the Unbegotten, or any part of Him, was born of Mary, let him be anathema. If any one, by way of foreknowledge, says that the Son is from Mary, and not that He was begotten of the Father before the ages, and is with God, and that all things were made through Him, let him be anathema. If any one says that the substance of God is expanded or contracted, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son makes the substance of God to be expanded, or names the expansion of His substance as the Son, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son of God is an internal or a proferential word, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son who is from Mary is man only, let him be anathema. If any one, saying that He who is from Mary is God and man, understands Him to be the unbegotten God Himself, let him be anathema. If any one, in regard to that which is written: I am the first God, and I am hereafter, and besides me there is no God (Isa. XLI, 4; XLIV, 6; XLVIII, 12), which was indeed spoken for the destruction of idols and of gods that are not, interprets it in a Jewish manner, as if it were said for the destruction of the only-begotten Son of God who is before the ages, let him be anathema. If any one, hearing these words, The Word became flesh (Joan. I, 14), thinks that the Word was changed into flesh, or that He assumed flesh by suffering some change, let him be anathema. If any one, upon hearing that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified, says that His divinity was subject to corruption, or to passion, or to change, or to diminution, or to destruction, let him be anathema. If any one says that the statement, Let us make man (Gen. I, 26), was not spoken by the Father to the Son, but that God spoke to Himself, let him be anathema. ^C If any one says that it was not the Son who was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God or a part of Him, let him be anathema. If any one, upon hearing that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified, says that His divinity was subject to corruption or passion,

let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son did not wrestle with Jacob as a man, but as the unbegotten God, or as a part of Him, let him be anathema. If any one does not understand the passage, ^A "The Lord rained from the Lord," ^B as referring to the Father and the Son, but says he rained of himself, let him be anathema. For the Lord the Son rained, from the Lord the Father. If any one, hearing "the Lord the Father" and "the Lord the Son," and saying "the Lord the Father and the Son," and speaking of "the Lord from the Lord," says there are two Gods, let him be anathema. For we do not coordinate the Son with the Father, but understand Him to be subordinate to the Father. For He did not ^C descend into a body without the will of the Father; nor did He rain of Himself, but from the Lord who possesses authority, that is, the Father. Nor does He sit at the right hand of Himself, but hears the Father saying: "Sit at my right hand," and if any one says He does not, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one person, let him be anathema. If any one, calling the Holy Spirit a Paraclete, calls Him the unbegotten God, let him be anathema. If any one, as He has taught us, does not say that the Paraclete is distinct from the Son—for He said, "The Father will send you another Paraclete, whom I will ask for"—let him be anathema. If any one says that the Spirit is a part of the Father and the Son, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Gods, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son of God came into being by the will of God as one of the creatures, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son was begotten without the will of the Father, let him be anathema. For the Father was not compelled by natural necessity to beget the Son, while He did not wish to; but as soon as He willed, He begat Him from Himself without time and without passion, and showed Him forth; if he says otherwise, let him be anathema. If any one says that the Son is unbegotten and without beginning, ^D as though there were two beginnings and two unbegotten beings, let him be anathema.

For the Son is the head and beginning of all things; and God is the head of Christ. For thus we piously refer all things through the Son to the one beginning of all things, which is without beginning. And again, ^A distinguishing the concept of Christianity, we say that if any one does not say that Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was before the ages and ministered to the Father for the creation of all things, was the Son and Christ from the time He was born of Mary, and that He then received the beginning of being God, let him be anathema, as is the Samosatene.

A Creed set forth differently at Sirmium in Latin, and translated into Greek.

Since it seemed that some investigation should be made concerning the faith, everything was safely sought out and examined ^B at Sirmium in the presence of Valens, and Ursacius, and Germinius, and the rest. It was determined...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

The same is reported by Athanasius in his book *On the Synods*. For after he has reported the faith which was just recently commemorated by Socrates, he adds these things concerning it: "Rejecting all these things, as if having devised better things, they dogmatize another faith, and they write these things at Sirmium in the Latin language, but those which have been translated into Greek." But Hilary, in his book *On the Synods*, when reporting this faith, prefixes this title: "An Example of the Blasphemy at Sirmium written by Hosius and Potamius." Which title Hilary himself compiled, for he deservedly calls that faith a blasphemy. Moreover, who that Potamius is who is joined to Hosius, Marcellinus the presbyter makes clear in the book of petitions which he offered to the Emperor Theodosius. There, among the prevaricators of the divine and apostolic faith, after Arius, he ranks this man in the first place: "Potamius, bishop of the city of Odyssipona, first indeed asserting the Catholic faith, but afterwards, for the reward of a fiscal estate which he coveted to possess, he prevaricated the faith." Him Hosius of Corduba, among the churches of the Spains, both detected and repelled as an impious heretic. ^C But even Hosius himself, summoned by the complaint of Potamius to the Emperor Constantius, and terrified by threats, and fearing lest he, an old man and a rich man, should suffer exile or proscription, yields his hands to impiety, etc. ^D

^A It is agreed that God is the omnipotent Father, as is believed throughout the whole world; and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior, begotten of Him before the ages. But it is not right to preach two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said: I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. ^B For this reason He is the God of all, as the Apostle also taught: Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Since it is one God who will justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. And all other matters are in agreement, and have no ambiguity. But since it moves many to speak of what is called in Latin *substantia*, and in Greek *ousia*—that is, so that it might be understood more accurately, what is called *homousion*, or what is called *homoiousion*—it is not right for any mention of these to be made at all, nor for any to interpret them to the Church, for this cause and for this reason: because nothing is written about these in the divine Scriptures, and because these things are above human knowledge and the human mind; ^C and because no one can narrate the generation of the Son, as it is written: Who shall declare His generation? For it is manifest that only the Father knows how He begat His Son, and again, the Son, how He has been begotten of the Father. But it is ambiguous to no one that the Father is greater in honor, and dignity, and divinity, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying to it: The Father who sent me is greater than I. And no one is ignorant that this is Catholic, that there are two persons of the Father and the Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son is subject, along with all those things which the Father subjected to Him. And that the Father has no beginning, and is invisible, and is immortal, and is impassible; but that the Son was begotten ^D of the Father, God of God, light of light.

And that the generation of this, as has been said before, no one knows except the Father alone. As for the Son Himself, our Lord and God, He took on flesh or a body, that is to say, man, just as the angel announced; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the teacher of the Gentiles, Christ took on a man from the Virgin Mary, through whom He suffered. ^A And the main point and confirmation of the whole faith is that the Trinity should always be preserved, as we have read in the Gospel: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Integer and perfect is the number of the Trinity. The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, sent through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might sanctify and manifest the apostles and all who believe. Photinus, even after his deposition, they endeavored to persuade to agree to these things and to subscribe, promising that they would restore his bishopric to him, provided that, returning to a sane mind, he would condemn the dogma devised by himself and consent to their faith. ^B But he, spurning the condition offered to him, challenged them to a disputation. Therefore, a day having been set for that purpose, by the judgment and will of the emperor, there gathered together both the bishops who were present there and not a few of the senators, whom the emperor had ordered to attend the disputation. In their presence, Basil, then the ruler of the Church of Ancyra, in a certain...

^A debate, stood against Photinus, while shorthand writers took down their words. A most vigorous battle of arguments ensued between the two parties, in which Photinus was defeated and condemned. Living thereafter in exile, he wrote a book in both Greek and Latin, for he was not ignorant of the Latin language. He wrote, moreover, against all heresies, setting forth only his own dogma. Concerning Photinus, let so much suffice.

It should be known, however, that the bishops who had assembled at Sirmium later repented of the Latin formula of faith ^B put forth by them, for after its publication it appeared to them to contain many things contradictory to itself. For this reason, they took pains to recover it from those who had transcribed it. But because many concealed it, the emperor by edict ordered that the document be sought out, threatening punishment if anyone were caught hiding it. But not even these threats availed to destroy what had once been published, since it had already fallen into many hands. But of these things, enough.

CHAPTER XXXI

Concerning Hosius, Bishop of Corduba

Since we have previously mentioned that Hosius the Spaniard went there against his will, a few things must also be said about him. For he had been sent into exile a short time before, through the plotting of the Arians. At that time, however, by the zeal and impulse of those who had ^C assembled at Sirmium, the emperor summoned him there, wishing that he might, either by persuasion or by force, agree with those who were present. For this having been done, it seemed that the greatest testimony to the faith of those men would be attained. For this reason, therefore, as I said, he was present against his will, under the constraint of necessity. But when he refused to consent, they offered blows and tortures to the old man. Thus, compelled by violence and necessity, he both consented to and subscribed to the expositions of faith given at that time. And the matters then transacted at Sirmium had this outcome. The Emperor Constantius, however, tarried in that city, awaiting ^D the outcome of the war against Magnentius.

CHAPTER XXXII.

^A

CAP. XXXIII. Of the Jews inhabiting Diocæsarea in Palestine.

At the same time, another domestic war arose in the regions of the East. For the Jews who inhabited the city of Diocæsarea in Palestine took up arms against the Romans and began to ravage the neighboring places with raids. But Constantius Gallus, whom the emperor had appointed as Caesar and sent into the East, dispatched an army against them, defeated them, and ordered their city, Diocæsarea, to be razed to the ground. ^B

CAP. XXXIV. Of Gallus Caesar.

Having accomplished these things, Gallus could not bear his good fortune with moderation. But immediately he began to plot novel schemes against the man by whom he had been named Caesar, and he himself attempted to seize tyrannical power. But since his design and his purpose were soon exposed to Constantius—for he, on his own authority, had ordered the execution of Domitian, the praetorian prefect of the East, and Magnus the quaestor, because they had informed Constantius of his intent—the emperor, moved by this matter, summoned Gallus to himself. And he, struck with fear, went unwillingly. And when he had already arrived at the regions of the West and at the island of Flanona, Constantius ordered him to be put to death there. ^C And not long after, having named Julian, the brother of Gallus, as Caesar, he sent him into the Gauls against the barbarians. Furthermore, Gallus, who was also named Constantius, was put to death in the eighth consulship of the Emperor Constantius, and his own third. In the year following, however, Julian was created Caesar, in the consulship of Arbetion and Lollianus, on the seventh day before the Ides of November. Of Julian, indeed, we shall speak in the following book. But Constantius, now having settled the evils by which he was pressed, turned again his mind to composing the war of the Churches. Having therefore departed from Sirmium, and proceeding toward the royal city of Rome, he ^D

^A again proclaimed a synod of bishops, and commanded certain of the eastern bishops to hasten to Gaul, and at the same time prepared those of the western regions to go thither as well. While they were thus preparing to set out for Italy, the following event occurred: Julius, the bishop of Rome, departed this life, having presided over the Church there for fifteen years; and Liberius succeeded to his bishopric.

Chapter XXXV. On Aetius the Syrian, teacher of Eunomius.

In the city of Antioch in Syria, another heresiarch emerged, Aetius, ^B surnamed the Atheist. He agreed with Arius and maintained the same opinion as he. Yet he separated himself from the party of the Arians for the reason that they had received Arius into communion. For Arius, as I have said before, thinking one thing in his mind, but professing another with his voice, had subscribed to the definition of the Council of Nicaea, thereby deceiving the emperor who reigned at that time. For this reason, Aetius separated himself from the Arians. Now Aetius had previously been a heretical man and had ardently hastened to advocate the dogma of Arius. For having been slightly instructed at Alexandria, he went back; and arriving in Antioch in Syria, for he was from that city, he was ordained a deacon by Leontius, who was then the bishop of Antioch. He immediately began to stun those with whom he conversed. This he did, relying on the Categories of Aristotle—for such is the book titled by its author—and in reasoning from them, and in fashioning ^C for himself a sophism, he did not perceive, nor did he learn from those who were learned, the scope of Aristotle. For he, to confront the sophists who were then mocking philosophy, having written it as an exercise for the young, opposed the dialectic to the sophists through these sophistical arguments. The skeptics, therefore, of philosophy ^D observed the work.

^A of the wise, exposing the things set forth by Plato and Plotinus as technical matters—things said by Aristotle. But Aetius, having not happened upon a teacher of the skeptical school, remained caught in the sophisms of the Categories. Hence he was unable to understand how there is an unbegotten generation [(20)], and how that which is generated is coeternal with the One who generated it. So poorly educated and uninitiated in the holy Scriptures was Aetius, that he had mastered only the eristic, which even some rustic could do, such that he did not even trouble himself to study the ancients who interpreted the Christian oracles, bidding a long farewell to those around Clement, and Africanus, and Origen, men versed in every kind of wisdom ^B. He stitched together letters to the Emperor Constantius, and to certain others, weaving intricate and petty quibbles and practicing sophisms. For this reason he was called the "Atheist." But even though he said and felt the same things as the Arianizers, because his own allies were unable to understand the convoluted nature of his syllogisms, he was judged a heretic by them. And for this reason, having been cast out of their church, he gave the impression that he himself had refused to commune with them. And now there are those descended from him who were then called Aetians, but now are called Eunomians; for some time later Eunomius, who had been his stenographer and had been taught the heretical diction by him [(21)], became the leader of this band. About Eunomius, however, we shall speak in the proper place.

CHAPTER XXXVI. On the Synod of Milan.

Per idem tempus in Italia convenerunt episcopi, ex orientalibus quidem haud multi, plerosque enim eorum aut senectus, aut itineris longitudo, domi detinuerat. Ex Occidentis autem partibus plures quam trecenti [(22)] adfuerunt, siquidem imperator præceperat, ut in urbe Mediolano episcoporum synodus ^C πρὸς κ.τ.λ.

KEΦAΛ. ΛϚ´.

Περὶ τῆς ἐν Μεδιολάνῳ συνόδου.

Τότε δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ συνῆλθον ἐπίσκοποι, τῶν μὲν ἀνατολικῶν οὐ σφόδρα πολλοί· ἐπεὶ τοὺς πλείους αὐτῶν τὸ τῆς ἡλικίας γῆρας, καὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ τὸ διάστημα παρεῖναι ἐκώλυσεν. Τῶν δὲ ἐσπερίων, ὑπὲρ τοὺς τριακοσίους [(22)] ἀπήντησαν. Πρόσταγμα δὲ ἦν τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐν Μεδιολάνῳ πόλει ποιεῖσθαι...

ποιεῖσθαι ^A τὴν σύνοδον. Καθ' ἣν συνελθόντων, οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀνατολῆς πρὸ πάντων ψῆφον κοινὴν κατὰ ᾿Αθανασίου ἐκφέρειν ἠξίουν· ὅπως ἂν τούτου γενομένου, τελέως ἄβατος ἐκείνῳ ἡ ᾿Αλεξάνδρεια γένηται. Ὡς δὲ ᾔσθοντο Παυλῖνος, ὁ τῆς ἐν Γαλλίᾳ Τριβέρεως ἐπίσκοπος, Διονύσιός τε καὶ Εὐσέβιος, ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἄλβας τῆς Ἰταλῶν μητροπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, Εὐσέβιος δὲ Βρεκέλλων, πόλις δὲ αὕτη τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λιγύων, ὡς ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς πίστεως τοὺς ἀνατολικοὺς σπεύδειν κυρῶσαι τὸ κατὰ ᾿Αθανασίου ψήφισμα, ἀναστάντες ἐβόων μακρά, δόλον ὑπομένειν καὶ ἀπάτην διὰ τῶν γινομένων τὸν Χριστιανισμόν. Οὐ γὰρ ἀληθῆ τὴν κατὰ ᾿Αθανασίου μέμψιν ἔλεγον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παρατροπῇ τῆς πίστεως ταῦτα αὐτοὺς ἐπινοεῖν. Τοιαῦτα κεκραγότων, διαλύεται μὲν τότε τῶν ἐπισκόπων ὁ σύλλογος.

ΚΕΦΑΛ. ΑΖ'. Περὶ τῆς ἐν Ἀριμίνῳ συνόδου, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐκεῖσε ἐκτεθείσης πίστεως.

Γνοὺς δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς, τοὺς μὲν ἐκποδὼν δι᾽ ἐξορίας ποιεῖ· οἰκουμηνικὴν δὲ σύνοδον συγκροτεῖν ἐβούλετο, ὅπως ἂν πάντας τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς ἐπισκόπους εἰς τὴν δύσιν ἑλκύσας, ὁμοδόξους, εἰ δύναιτο, τοὺς πάντας ποιήσειεν. Ὡς δὲ αὐτῷ ταῦτα σκεπτομένῳ, χαλεπὰ τὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ κατεφαίνετο, διμερῆ γενέσθαι τὴν σύνοδον αὐτοῖς προσέταξεν. Ἐν Ἀριμίνῳ μὲν τῆς Ἰταλίας, τοὺς τότε παρόντας συνελθεῖν ἐπιτρέψας· τοὺς δὲ ἐν ἀνατολῇ, διὰ γραμμάτων ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ τῆς Βιθυνίας ἀπαντῆσαι ἐκέλευσε. Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ βασιλεὺς σκοπῷ τῆς ὁμοφωνίας ἐκέλευσεν. Οὐ μὴν αὐτῷ ὁ σκοπὸς χρηστὴν ἔσχεν ἔκβασιν· οὐδετέρα γὰρ τῶν συνόδων ἑαυτῇ συνεφώνησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑκατέρα διηρέθη. ^B Οὔτε γὰρ οἱ ἐν Ἀριμίνῳ συνελθόντες, ὁμοφωνῆσαι δεδύνηνται· καὶ οἱ τῆς ἀνατολῆς συνελθόντες ἐν Σελευκείᾳ τῆς Ἰσαυρίας, ἕτερον σχίσμα εἰργάσαντο. Ὅπως μὲν οὖν ἕκαστα τούτων ἐγένετο, προϊόντες δηλώσομεν, πρότερον περὶ Εὐδοξίου μικρὰ μνημονεύσαντες. Περὶ γὰρ τόνδε τὸν χρόνον Λεοντίου τελευτήσαντος,

τελευτήσαντος, ^A Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia—which is also a city of Syria—who was then present at Rome, decided that he must hasten away. Having spoken craftily with the emperor, pretending that the city of the Germanicians stood in need of his comfort and protection, he begged that permission to return thither as soon as possible be granted him. The emperor, suspecting no guile, dismissed him. But Eudoxius, having secured as accomplices those who held charge of the imperial bedchamber, undermined the bishopric of Antioch and abandoned his own city. He sought to support Aetius, and exerted all his efforts to assemble a council of bishops and restore to him the dignity of the diaconate. This, however, was in no way achieved, because the hatred against Aetius was stronger than the zeal of Eudoxius. Let so much be said concerning these matters. ^B Now, as for those who had assembled at Ariminum, the Easterns stated that they had come to the council, passing over all matters concerning Athanasius in silence. Ursacius and Valens assisted their zeal and design with all their power; they had at first defended the dogma of Arius, but afterward had assented to the faith of the consubstantial, by a document given to the bishop of Rome, as I have also said before. For these men always inclined toward those who appeared to have the greater power. Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Caius joined themselves to these. When, therefore, in the assembly of those present, one sought to propose one thing and another another, Ursacius and Valens said that ^C everything previously promulgated concerning the faith should be held as unwritten, and that the most recent formula of faith, which they themselves had set forth a little while before at Sirmium, should be accepted. Saying these things, and holding a paper in their hands, they caused it to be read. They had brought to light another formula of faith, which they had previously drafted at Sirmium—and kept in reserve there, as I said before—but which they now made manifest at Ariminum. This was translated from the Latin; and it is in these words: ^D [For annotations of Valesius and Variorum, see facsimile.]

our master Constantius, in the consulship of the most illustrious Flavius Eusebius and Hypatius, at Sirmium on the eleventh day before the Kalends of June. We believe in one only and true God, the Father almighty, creator and maker of all things; and in one only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of God before all ages, and before all principality, and before all time that can be conceived by the intellect, and before all comprehensible notion, impassibly, by whom the ages were perfected, and all things were made; begotten, however, as only-begotten, alone of the alone from the Father, God from God, similar to the Father who begat Him, according to the Scriptures; whose generation no one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. We know that this His only-begotten Son, by the Father's nod, came down from the heavens for the putting away of sin; and was born of Mary the Virgin, and lived among the disciples, and fulfilled all the dispensation according to the Father's will; and was crucified and died, and descended into the lower regions, and arranged the things that were to be done ^B there; whom the gatekeepers of Hades saw and trembled; and He rose again on the third day and lived among the disciples. And when forty days were completed, He was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He is to come on the last day in the glory of the Father, rendering to each according to his works. And in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, promised to send to the human race as the Comforter and Advocate, according to that which is written: I go to my Father; and, I will ask my Father, and He will send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. He shall receive of mine, and shall teach and shall remind you of all things. But the name of "substance," because it was set forth by the Fathers in too simple a manner, and being ignored by the people, brings offense, because it is not contained in the Scriptures, it was resolved that it should be removed and that there should be no mention of it ^C at all hereafter in the Church, because of the fact that the divine Scriptures nowhere mention the substance of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as the divine Scriptures also say and teach.

^A Upon these things being read, those to whom they were not pleasing arose and said, "We have not come together here because we were in need of a faith; for we preserve intact the one which we received from the beginning. We came, rather, so that if any innovation should arise regarding it, we might prevent it. If, therefore, what has been read does not introduce any innovation, then openly anathematize the Arian heresy, just as the ancient canon of the Church has cast out other heresies as blasphemous. For that the blasphemous dogma of Arius has stirred up the commotions of the Church and the disturbances that continue even to this day is manifest to the whole world." ^B This proposal, not being accepted by those around Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Gaius, completely tore the Church apart. For these indeed embraced the things that had been read at that time in the synod of Ariminum, while the others confirmed the Nicene faith anew. They also mocked the inscription prefixed to the things that had been read. Athanasius, in particular, in his letter to his acquaintances, where he writes thus word for word: "For what was lacking to the teaching of the Catholic Church for piety, that they should now inquire about the faith, and prefix the consulship of the present times to the words set forth by them, purportedly concerning the faith? For Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius have done that which was never done nor heard of among Christians. ^C For when they had written out the faith which they themselves wished to embrace, they noted the consulship, the month, and the day of the present time, so as to manifest to all prudent men that their faith did not have its beginning long ago, but now, for the first time, under Constantius. For they, looking to their own heresy, wrote everything. Furthermore, while they pretend to be writing concerning the Lord, they adopt another master for themselves ^D and designate Constantius. For he was the one who was the source of their impiety... For all of them, looking to their own heresy, wrote. Besides these things, while pretending to write concerning the Lord, they set up another master for themselves in all things. That this faith also equals in power the faith previously set forth at Sirmium, in the time of the piety of our emperor, is recognized by those who encounter the faith which the present ones signed. Basil, Marcus, and George, the bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius, and Hypatianus, and most of the bishops of the West.

^A And they name Constantius as their lord. For he himself was the one providing them with the power for their impiety. And they even called him an eternal king—they who deny that the Son is eternal; such are they in their impiety, opponents of Christ. But perhaps the chronology of the holy prophets provides them with a pretext for citing the consulship. But even if they dare to say this, they declare their own ignorance all the more. For the prophecies of the holy ones possess a memory of times. And indeed Isaiah and Osee lived in the days of Osias and Joatham and Achaz and Ezechias; Jeremias, in the days of Josias; Ezechiel and Daniel, under Cyrus and Darius. And others prophesied at other times, not as though they were laying the foundation of true religion. For it existed even before them, and always, and before the foundation of the world; this God prepared for us in Christ. Nor did they signify the times of their own faith; for they themselves were faithful even before those times; rather, the times were of the promise made through them. And the promise was primarily concerning the coming of our Savior. And it followed concerning those things which were to happen to Israel and to the nations; and the times were being indicated, not as a beginning of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, during whose lifetime they prophesied these things. But these wise men of the present time, not explaining history nor predicting things to come, but having written, "The catholic faith was set forth," immediately added the consulship, the month, and the day. Just as the holy ones wrote the times of histories and of their own ministry, so these signify the time of their own faith. ^B And would that they had written concerning their own [faith]! For now they have begun [to believe], and they should not have attempted to do so as if it concerned the catholic faith. For they did not write, "Thus we believe," but rather, "The catholic faith was set forth." Therefore, the rashness of this intention convicts their godlessness. And the novel invention of the writing is equal to the Arian heresy. For by writing thus they taught when they themselves began to believe. And from now on they desire their faith to be proclaimed. And just as according to the evangelist Luke, a decree was set forth concerning the census—which did not exist before, but began to be from those days, and was established by the one who wrote it—so these too, having written, "The catholic faith was set forth in the presence of our master, the most pious and triumphant King Constantius Augustus, the eternal Augustus," declare their own ^C invention.

as the evangelist Luke says: "A decree went out for the census"; this decree did not exist before, but began from those times, and it was proposed by him who had written it. So, when they write, "The faith is now set forth," they declare that the opinion of their heresy is recent and did not exist in any previous time. And by adding the name "Catholic," they do not realize that they are imprudently falling into the madness of the Cataphrygians, so that, just as those people did, these also say: "The faith of the Christians was first revealed to us, and it began from us." And just as those acknowledged Maximilla and Montanus, so these substitute Constantius for Christ as their master. But if, according to their opinion, the faith received its beginning from this consulship, what will the Fathers and the blessed martyrs do? What will they themselves do to those whom they instructed in the faith and who died before these consuls? By what means will they recall them to life, so that they might tear out of their minds what they themselves taught, and implant in them these things which they write that they have now discovered for the first time? They are so unskilled and boorish, and they know nothing else but to contrive excuses, and those unbecoming and improbable ones, which are immediately refuted by the facts themselves. These are the things which Athanasius wrote in his letter to his associates. However, those who are studious, when they obtain the letter itself, will be able to know whatever was weightily stated therein by the author; for we, out of a desire for brevity, have placed only a part of that letter here. Furthermore, it should be known that Ursacius, Valens, Auxentius, with Germinius, Caius, and Demophilus, were deposed by the synod because they refused to anathematize the Arian heresy. When they bore this deposition with an uneasy mind, they hastened quickly to the emperor, carrying with them the formula of faith which had been read in the synod. The synod, however, signified to the emperor by letter what it had decreed; this letter, translated from the Latin tongue into Greek, contains this meaning:

Epistle of the Synod of Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius.

By the command of God and the precept of your piety, we believe it was ordained that we, bishops from the various provinces of the West, should come to the place of Ariminum, so that both the faith of the Catholic Church might be made clear to all and the heretics might be recognized. For while we, who hold the right opinion, were all holding counsel, it seemed good that the faith of the Catholic Church should be made known, and that those who think otherwise should be ^B revealed.

^{C D} [alt–version omitted]

^A For as we have investigated at great length, it has seemed best that we should retain the faith which has endured from of old, the one which the prophets, the Gospels, and the apostles preached through our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the guardian of your empire and the protector of your strength; that, holding fast to this, we might guard it, and by guarding it, maintain it unto the end. For it appeared unreasonable and unlawful to alter anything of what has been rightly and justly defined, or to change the things which were pondered in Nicaea in common with your most glorious father and emperor, Constantine, whose teaching and sentiment have reached and been proclaimed to the ears and minds of all men; a teaching which emerged as the sole adversary and destroyer of the Arian heresy. Through it, not only that heresy, but all other heresies were overthrown. In which indeed to add anything is dangerous, and to take anything away is hazardous. If either should happen, it would give the enemies ^B license to do whatever they might wish. Whence Ursacius and Valens, since they had long ago been participants in and of the same mind as the Arian dogma, and had been excluded from our communion, when they recognized that they had offended and wished to obtain repentance and forgiveness, as the documents produced by them testify—by all of which mercy has been granted, and forgiveness of their offenses—begged to be received back. ^C And the time during which these things were being done was when in Mediolanum the synodal assembly was being convened, with the presbyters of the Roman Church also being present. Moreover, having known that Constantine, worthy of memory after his decease, with all ^D precision and examination, had set forth the written faith; and since, as from the men who were present... [alt-version omitted]

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (40) "License to do" is wanting in our manuscripts, the Royal, the Florentine, and the Sforzian, but it is found in Athanasius in his book *On the Synods*. (41) "Whence Ursacius and Valens." These things do not cohere with what precedes. I suspect, therefore, that this passage was transposed in the Latin copies. After these words, "the gate is opened to the poisons of heretics," I think those things should be placed which are read further down in this manner: "Constantine being present at this, when with great examination it had been written," etc., down to the words, "he received the power of governing the world." To which these should be added: "Therefore Ursacius and Valens," etc. Above, at chapter 20 of this book, we noted many things concerning this first Council of Mediolanum, in which Ursacius and Valens, by a libellus of satisfaction offered, condemned the Arian heresy. The aforementioned Ursacius and Valens confirm the same in another libellus which they later offered to Pope Julius at Rome in these words: "But as for the heretic Arius, etc., as in our former libellus which we presented at Mediolanum, both now and always we profess to have anathematized." ^D "To the Latin exemplar, with the legates of the Roman Church also being present." Furthermore, these legates of the Roman Church seem to me to have presided at the Council of Mediolanum; and I conjecture this from the fact that Hilary writes in his *Fragments* that the heresy of Photinus was condemned by the Romans at this Council of Mediolanum. This he certainly would not say unless the Romans had presided over this council. Pope Liberius speaks concerning the same Council of Mediolanum in the letter which he sent through Lucifer to the Emperor Constantius: "What sort of peace is this, most clement Emperor, when there are four bishops from those very parts, Demophilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Martyrius, who eight years ago, when they would not condemn the heretical opinion of Arius at Mediolanum, departed from the council with angry spirits?" But this letter was written by Liberius, not in the year 354, as Baronius wishes, nor again in 355, as Petavius affirms in his booklet on the double Council of Sirmium, but in the year of Christ 356. For Liberius in the same letter clearly testifies that George was at that time in possession of the Alexandrian episcopate. That, however, happened at the beginning of the year of Christ 556 (recte 356). Wherefore there is an error in those words, "eight years ago"; and I would prefer to write, "nine years ago," which is the same as if he said, "in the tenth year from now."

VARIORUM. "Catholic Churches": for thus it is interpreted in Latin: that the faith might be clear to all Catholic Churches. Formerly, however, any particular church, having embraced the true doctrine of Christ, was called "Catholic," for the distinction of heresies having a place in the same city; as the celebrated Pearson shows at greater length in *Exposition of the Apostolic Creed*, pag. 547. I have correctly represented Pearson's words. With Valesius, however, I believe that the Greek was made from the Latin.

^A For when your piety’s letters ordered that the faith be discussed, there was offered to us by the aforementioned disturbers of the churches, associated with Germinius, Auxentius, and Caius, some new thing to consider, which contained much perverse doctrine. But, truly, when it seemed displeasing that they offered it publicly in the council, they thought it should be written down otherwise: and indeed, it is manifest that they have changed these things often in a short time. But lest the churches be more frequently disturbed, it was resolved that the ancient institutions remain firm and inviolable, and that the aforementioned be removed from our communion. Therefore, to instruct your clemency, we have sent our legates to announce the council’s sentence by our letters. To them we have commanded this one thing only, that they should deliver their legation in no other way than that the ancient statutes remain most firm: that your wisdom might also recognize that the peace could not be completed if anything were removed, as the aforementioned Valens and Ursacius, Germinius and Caius had promised. For in what way can peace be maintained by those who have subverted peace? For rather, disturbance has been introduced into all regions, and especially into the Roman Church. For which ^B reason we ask your clemency that you look upon and hear all our legates with placid ears and a serene countenance: and let your clemency permit nothing to be torn down to the injury of the ancients, but let those things which we have received from our forefathers—whom we trust were both prudent and did not act without the Holy Spirit of God—remain. Because by this novelty not only are the faithful people disturbed, but even the infidels are hindered from coming to the faith. We also pray that you command that as many bishops as are detained at Ariminum—among whom are very many who are worn out by age and poverty—may return to their own province; lest the peoples of the churches suffer, being destitute of their own bishops. This also we demand most frequently, that nothing be innovated, nothing diminished; but that those things which remained in the times of your father of holy piety, and in your own religious eras, may remain incorrupt. Nor let your holy prudence permit us now to be wearied or torn from our ^C sees, but let the bishops always be free to attend to the petitions of their peoples, which they offer for your salvation and for your kingdom, and ^D [by which they seek] to respond in some measure; the rest we supply here.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS.

(44) *We thought it absurd.* The final word is missing in all our codices, and in Athanasius and Sozomen. (45) *Again, the pitiable and wretched.* The codex which the Greek interpreter of this letter used seems to have been more extensive than that which Hilary has presented to us. For in Hilary these things only are contained: *Now also they attempt to tear down what had been established by reason.* We, as the Latin interpretation ^D [for the] Greek interpreter [does]. For the Latin has it thus: *And indeed, it is manifest that they have changed these things often in a short time.* These things are said against Ursacius and Valens and their followers, who were daily promulgating new formulas of faith, demonstrating by this indication that they had no certain faith, just as Athanasius objects to them in more than one place.

VARIORUM.

b *Again, the pitiable.* Ursacius and Valens retracted their repentance in the synod of Milan, in the year 355, according to Athanasius in *Epist. ad solitarios*. W. Lowth. c *One teaching being.* Sozomen has [it], [alt-version omitted]; they cannot be distinguished in the Latin context; thus it is endowed with a free Greek version. (Cl. Benedictini in Athanas.) d *To confirm the truth.* It is better read as *that* in Sozomen, lib. iv, cap. 18. W. Lowth.

of the Roman Church. We therefore entreat your clemency, that you would look with favorable ears and a serene countenance upon the objects of our embassy, and that you would not permit anything new to be changed ^A to the injury of the departed, but that you would allow us to remain in those things which have been defined and established by our ancestors; all of which we might affirm were composed with acuteness, prudence, and the Holy Spirit. For the things now innovated by others produce disbelief in those who believed, and cruelty in those who did not believe. We further entreat that you would command the bishops who are tarrying in foreign lands, whom both the labor of age and the indigence of poverty wear out, to be allowed an easy return to their own districts, so that the churches may not remain deserted by their bishops. And above all, we also ask this, that nothing of that which previously existed may be lacking, nor be in excess, but that all things may remain unbroken from the piety of your father, and kept watch over until the present time. Neither permit us to labor hereafter, and to be beyond our own parishes; but that the bishops, together with their own peoples, may enjoy leisure for prayers and worship in peace, praying for your salvation, kingdom, and peace, which the Divinity will ever grant to you. Our envoys bring the signatures and the names of the bishops; and they shall also instruct your ^B Divinity from the divine Scriptures themselves.

This, then, the synod wrote, and sent by the bishops. But Ursacius and Valens, having anticipated their arrival, calumniated the synod, having shown the formula of faith which they had brought with them. The emperor, whose mind had long since been occupied by the Arian heresy, was moved with anger against the synod; but he treated Valens and Ursacius with great honor. Wherefore the bishops who had been sent from the synod lingered, obtaining no answer. But at length, after some time, the emperor wrote back to the synod through those who were present:

Constantius, victor and triumphator, Augustus, to all the bishops who have assembled at Ariminum.

That we have always exercised a leading care for the divine and venerable law, not even your holiness is ignorant. But as yet we have not been able to see the twenty bishops sent by your prudence, who undertook the embassy in your name. For an expedition against the barbarians is urgent for us: ^C and as you know, it is fitting that the affairs of the divine law be treated with a mind free from all care and anxiety. Wherefore we have commanded the bishops to await our return at Hadrianople; so that when all matters regarding the state are well arranged, then they shall instruct [the emperor]...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(47) *Neither to the injury of the departed.* In this place, following the Greek interpreter, I have corrected the Latin copy of this letter. For in the fragments of Hilary, this passage is commonly read thus: *Lest your clemency permit the ancient laws to be torn up.* But in the manuscript codex which Jacobus Sirmondus had seen, it was read thus: *Lest your clemency permit any injury to be done to the ancients.* From which we have caught the scent of the true reading. (48) *And to those who have not believed, cruelty.* The Greek interpreter has slipped here. For the Latin copy of this letter has: *Because by this novelty not only are the faithful people disturbed, but even the infidels are hindered from approaching the faith.* But the Greek interpreter, instead of *credulitatem* (faith), read *crudelitatem* (cruelty), as appears from his version. (49) *Shall instruct your Divinity.* It is better written in Athanasius: *For it is not probable that bishops said that the emperor was divine.* (50) *Constantius, victor.* This letter of Constantius, together with the response of the bishops of Ariminum, exists in Athanasius in the book *De synodis* at the end.

VARIORUM. * The Benedictine edition of Athanasius has, *and beyond our own parishes to be allowed to be.*

llbracketA correctly constituted, then at last we may be able to hear and weigh what has been suggested by them. In the meantime, let it by no means be irksome to your gravity to await their return, so that when they have returned, bringing back our answers to you, you may be able to bring to a conclusion those matters which pertain to the utility of the Catholic Church.

When the bishops had received these letters, they replied in this manner:

143 ^B We have received the letters of your clemency, O lord emperor, most dear to God, in which you signify that, on account of the necessity of public business, it has not been possible for you thus far to admit our delegates to your presence; and you order that we should wait for their return, until your piety shall have learned from them those things which have been decreed by us in accordance with the tradition of our ancestors. We, however, now also declare and affirm in these letters that we in no way depart from our resolution. For this we also commanded our delegates. We ask, therefore, that with a placid and serene countenance you would order the writings of our mediocrity to be read, and that you would kindly receive those things which we have commanded through our delegates. Moreover, your mildness understands with us how great is the sorrow and sadness everywhere, because in your most happy times so many Churches are destitute of their bishops. And therefore we beg your clemency again, O lord emperor, most dear to God, that before the harshness of winter, if indeed it should please your piety, you would order us to return to our Churches: in order that we may be able to celebrate solemn prayers for your empire, together with the peoples, to the almighty God, and to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, as we have always done before, and as we now most earnestly desire to do.

^C Having written these letters, and having remained for a short time, since the emperor gave them no answer, they returned each to their own cities. But the emperor, who had already previously in his mind intended to disseminate the opinion of Arius through all the Churches, and was then most especially studying to accomplish this, so that it might prevail over all others, interpreted the departure of the bishops as a contempt offered to himself; saying that he had been despised by them because they had dissolved the council contrary to his intention. Wherefore he144 gave Ursacius and Valens and their ^D adherents free power to do anything against the Churches. He ordered the exposition of the faith which had been read at Ariminum to be sent to the Churches of Italy, commanding that whoever did not wish to subscribe to it should be driven from the Churches, and that in their place others should be substituted. And indeed, the first was Liberius [(51)] the bishop of Rome, who, having refused that [faith], was made an exile, and those around Ursacius substituted another in his place; but long before, in the year of Christ 356.

Felix, who was a deacon of the Roman church and had attached himself to the Arian heresy, was promoted to the episcopate. There are some, however, who say that he did not adhere to the Arian heresy, but was ordained by force and necessity. At that time, indeed, all things in the West were full of turmoil and innovation, as some were driven out and sent into exile, while others were substituted in their place. And these things were done by force and the authority of the imperial edicts, which had been sent even to the Eastern parts. ^B Liberius, however, having been recalled from exile not long after, recovered his own throne, when the Roman people had raised a sedition and expelled Felix from the Church; and the emperor, though unwillingly, gave his assent to them. But those around Ursacius, having left Italy and crossed over to the Eastern parts, arrived at a city of Thrace named Nice; and having remained in it for a short time, they formed another assembly there, and having translated into the Greek language the exposition of the faith which had been read at Ariminum, as is written above, they then published it. ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(52) *But attached himself to the Arian heresy.* In the Royal codex used by Robert Stephens, after the word *και*, three dots are noted above, which signify that something is missing here. We have supplied the notable lacuna of this passage from two of the best codices, the Florentine and the Sfortian. Moreover, Baronius contends that Felix the deacon, who was substituted in the place of Liberius by Acacius, was never an Arian, but only polluted by the communion of the Arians. Theodoret affirms the same in book II of his *History*.

(55) *By force and the authority of the imperial edicts.* I think it should be written "by force and from the imperial edicts."

(54) *They formed another assembly there.* The legates of the Council of Ariminum who had been sent to Constantius, having been corrupted by Ursacius and Valens, held a council in the Thracian town of Nice on the 6th of the Ides of October, in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius. In which council, first of all, they rescinded the sentence of excommunication which the bishops of Ariminum had passed against Valens and Ursacius and the rest, and declared that they were and always had been catholic. Then they promulgated a heretical formula of faith. A part of the proceedings exists in the *Fragments* of Hilary at the end, where the names of the fourteen legates are also listed.

VARIORUM.

He was elected on the 11th of the Kalends of June, in the year 352. Soon, by written letters, the Eastern bishops strove greatly to draw him into their own parties. But he, having convoked a synod at Rome, wrote back to the Easterners that he could not agree with them; and for a long time he steadfastly refused to condemn the cause of Athanasius. In the year 355, being summoned to Milan, he resisted Constantius manfully; and since, after a long discourse held with him, the emperor could not bend the man's mind by prayer, nor by price, nor by any reasons, nor by any promises or threats, he ordered him to be deported to the city of Beroea in Thrace, having substituted for him the archdeacon Felix, whom ^D Acacius of Caesarea saw to be ordained bishop of Rome; a man who was indeed Catholic in faith, but who did not refuse communion to the Arians. (Guil. Cave, to the year 352.) See also Athanasius in *Historia Arianorum ad monachos*, p. 367. Theodoret (book II, chap. 16) reports a long colloquy between Constantius and Liberius. While Liberius is staying in exile at Beroea, Constantius came to Rome, and entered the city in the manner of a conqueror on the 28th of April, in the year 357. Then the more honorable Roman matrons and ladies of the Senate, the men refusing the duty, approached Constantius as suppliants, and earnestly demanded the return of Liberius, their own prelate. He replied that Felix, the bishop of the city, was present, a man worthy of so great an office. To this they replied that Felix was hateful to all, and that they could never be brought to have any fellowship or communion with such a man. But Constantius, in order to show a very pleasing thing to the Romans, orders Liberius to be recalled, and to govern the Church together with Felix. Which condition having been received with laughter, and the people shouting in opposition, "One God, one Christ, one bishop," he granted the request to the plebs. But as Sozomen has it, he determined that Liberius should not be recalled until the matter had been deliberated with the bishops, and indeed under the law and condition that he would embrace the opinion of the Easterners before. Finally, after Liberius had been in exile for two years and more, overcome by the weariness of the miseries and dangers he sustained, having suffered force and blows, and defeated by the excessive importunity of Demophilus and Fortunatianus, groaning, he falls into the example of human frailty, condemns Athanasius, and subscribes to the formula of the Homoeusians which they had lately established at Sirmium, in the year 358, and testified that he had done this by letters given to the Easterners, and others to Ursacius and Valens. He returned to Rome with great joy of the people; Felix having been expelled from the city either by the Senate or the plebs. He lived for nine years after his return, and finished his last day on the 8th of the Kalends of October, in the year 366. He was buried on the Via Salaria in the cemetery of Priscilla. (Cl. Benedictine Monks, *Life of St. Athanasius*, and Guil. Cave on Liberius.)

^A they confirmed, asserting that the faith had been dictated by the ecumenical council and had been prescribed at Nicaea, 55 wishing to entrap the simpler sort by the similarity of the name; for they were imagining the faith which had been written in Nicaea of Bithynia. But this sophism profited them nothing; for before long it was exposed, and they continued to be mocked. Thus much, then, shall be said concerning the events that took place in the Western parts. We must move on to the narration of what happened at the same time in the East. And we must begin from this point.

CAP. XXXVIII. On the cruelty of Macedonius, and the disturbances stirred up by him.

^B The bishops of the Arian faction took greater boldness from the imperial edicts. But how they attempted to convene a council I shall tell a little later. First, however, let me run through what was done by them before the synod. For Acacius and Patrophilus, having expelled Maximus, the bishop of Jerusalem, substituted Cyril in his place. But Macedonius subverted the cities and provinces near to Constantinople, 56 promoting ministers of his own wickedness against the Churches. And he declared Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus; and of Nicomedia, Marathonius, who had previously been a deacon under Macedonius himself, but had bestowed excellent labor on the establishing of monasteries for men and women. But how Macedonius subverted the provinces and cities near Constantinople, must now be related. For ^C this man, as I already said, having grabbed the bishopric, wrought ten thousand evils upon those who would not choose to think as he did; and he not only persecuted those of the Church, but even the Novatians, knowing that they also believed in the doctrine of the consubstantial. And they were driven forth ^D

^A along with them, and suffered unspeakable evils. Their bishop, Agelius by name, consulted for his own safety by flight. Many of these, however, who were eminent for their piety, were seized and subjected to torture because they refused to participate in his communion. After these torments, they compelled these miserable men to communicate with them by force. For they would pry open the mouths of the men with a piece of wood, and force the mysteries into them. Those who endured this looked upon this as a punishment far more grievous than any other. They would also seize women and children, and compel them to be initiated in the mysteries. If anyone demurred or otherwise objected, stripes would immediately follow, and after the stripes came chains, imprisonment, and other cruelties. By recounting one or two of these things, I shall make clear to my listeners the heartlessness and ferocity of Macedonius and those who were flourishing at that time. For as for the women who would not consent to participate in the mysteries, they would put their breasts into a wooden chest and saw them off. Others they would burn by applying, some by iron, others by eggs heated to an extreme degree, to these same ^B parts of the body. This was a novel kind of torture, not even used by the pagans against our people, which these men, who professed to be Christians, devised. I heard these things from the very long-lived Auxanon, whom I have already mentioned in the first book. He was a presbyter of the Novatian Church. He used to say that he himself had suffered not a few evils at the hands of the Arianizers, before he had attained the dignity of presbyter. He also related that, while living the monastic life with Alexander the Paphlagonian, he had been thrown into prison and had suffered many lashes, and that he himself had endured the torments, but that Alexander had died in the prison from the pain of the lashes. His grave is now on the right hand side as one sails into the Byzantine gulf, which is called Ceras, ^C near the rivers; where there is also a Novatian church, named after Alexander. Now the Arianizers, at the command of Macedonius, pulled down many other churches in different cities, and in particular that of the Novatians which was situated in Constantinople near the Pelargum. But I am coming to the point of why I specially mentioned this church, that is, to relate what I heard from the very aged Auxanon. The imperial law, and the violence of Macedonius, commanded that the churches of those who held the consubstantial doctrine should be pulled down. And this decree drew ^D

[alt-version omitted]

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(57) [Translation of note 57 regarding the textual correction and emendation of the reading *admotis ovis*].

(58) [Translation of note 58 regarding the location and name of Ceras and the correction of the text of Ammianus Marcellinus].

(59) [Translation of note 59 regarding the identification of the elder as Auxanon versus the reading in the codex of Leo Allatius].

^A Since the emperor and Macedonius had commanded that the churches of the Homousians be destroyed by violence, that edict and violence threatened ruin to this church as well, and those to whom the execution of this matter had been entrusted pressed on. I am struck with wonder, both at the fervor of soul and zeal which the Novatians displayed toward their own church, and the benevolence shown them by those who, though at that time cast out of the church by the Arians, now held the churches in peace and tranquility. Since, therefore, those to whom this office had been enjoined were urging that this church also be destroyed, a vast multitude of people gathered there, both Novatians and others who felt the same as they did. And having torn down their church, they moved it to another place. This place is situated opposite the city; it is called Sycae, and is the thirteenth region of the city of Constantinople. Furthermore, the translation of the church was accomplished in a very short time, as a great multitude of people transported it with incredible alacrity. For one person carried tiles, another stones, another timber, and another taking something else, carried it off to Sycae. Even women and those of tender age put their hands to the work; thinking that they were fulfilling a vow and considering it a very great gain, that they were deemed worthy to be the incorrupt guardians of things consecrated to God. In this way, then, the church of the Novatians was at that time moved to Sycae. But a long time after the death of Constantius, the Emperor Julian ordered the place to be returned and permitted them to rebuild the church. The people, therefore, carried back the materials in the same way as before and rebuilt the church in its original place. And having made it more beautiful, they decided it should be called Anastasia, appropriately to the event. ^B This church was indeed later restored, as I said, under Julian. At that time, however, both parties—those of the Church and the Novatians—were equally driven out. For this reason, those of the Church abhorred praying in the houses of prayer [(60)] in which the Arians gathered. But in the other three churches—for the Novatians possess that many churches in the royal city—the Catholics gathered and celebrated prayer together with them, and it lacked little but that they were entirely united, had not the Novatians, keeping an ancient mandate, refused to do so. Yet in other matters, they maintained such mutual goodwill that they chose to die for one another. They were driven out together, therefore, in the same city of Constantinople, and also throughout the other provinces and cities. Immediately, then, in Cyzicus, Eleusius...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

[(60)] "To pray in the houses of prayer." It should by all means be written "to pray." Which I wonder why Christophoros did not notice. Furthermore, it seems incredible to me what Socrates narrates here, namely that the Catholics prayed in the churches of the Novatians. That old man Auxanon, I believe, deceived our Socrates, and what had perhaps been done by certain less cautious Christians, he attributed to all Catholics. For nothing is more contrary to ecclesiastical ^C discipline, whether in the sacraments or in prayer. However, those are mistaken in my judgment who from this narrative infer that Socrates was a Novatian. On the contrary, by this passage he is clearly shown to have been a Catholic. For he calls them Catholics again and again and opposes them to the Novatians. He judged, therefore, that the Novatians were outside the Church.

VARIORUM

"Anastasia." This was a different one from that Anastasia founded by Gregory Nazianzen in Constantinople, and so named for a different reason, namely because the faith, previously languishing and moribund, seemed to have revived there. Concerning which, see him in his *Vita*, page 17, and in his *Oration* xxxi. Nicetas also annotates those words, as does William Cave in his work on Gregory Nazianzen. - Eleusius of Cyzicus, of Mysia near the Propontis.

^A and they were pursued by the bishop of this place, who likewise, together with Macedonius, acted against the Christians, driving them out and harassing them from every side. He even razed the church of the Novatians in the city of Cyzicus to the ground. But Macedonius crowned the sum of the evils he had committed; for having learned that in the province of Paphlagonia, and especially at Mantinium, there were very many who adhered to the Novatian sect, and perceiving that it was not possible for so great a multitude of people to be driven out by ecclesiastical men, he caused four regiments ^B of soldiers to be sent into Paphlagonia by the emperor's decree, in order that they might be terrified by the threat of armed men and accept the Arian dogma. But those who inhabited Mantinium, incited by zeal for their religion, used desperation as a weapon against the soldiers; and many, having gathered into one body and taken up long scythes and axes and whatever weapon came to hand, met the soldiers. A battle having been joined, many of the Paphlagonians died, but the soldiers, except for a few, were almost completely slaughtered. I learned these things from a rustic Paphlagonian, who said he was present at the battle. Many other Paphlagonians say the same. ^C Such, then, were the "noble deeds" of Macedonius on behalf of the Christian religion: murders, battles, enslavements, and civil wars. This action, however, stirred up justifiable hatred against him, not only from those who had been wronged, but also from those who were related to him. He also offended the emperor himself, both on account of this, and for another reason of the following kind: The building where the coffin in which the body of the emperor Constantine lay was kept, threatened to collapse. For this reason, both those who were entering and those who were keeping watch ^D and praying there were in great fear. Macedonius, therefore, determined to remove the remains of the emperor, so that the coffin would not be damaged by the collapse. When the people learned that this was about to happen, they attempted to prevent it, saying that it was not right for the emperor's bones to be moved; for it was, they argued, the same as having them exhumed. The people were immediately divided into two parties; and the one side maintained that moving the corpse would cause no harm, while the others said that what was being done was an act of sacrilege. Those of the homoousian persuasion also joined in, opposing what was being done. But Macedonius, paying little attention to those who opposed him, removed the body of the emperor to the church in which the body of the martyr...

Acacius is deposited. When this occurred, a swift onrush of the dissenting multitude occurred toward that church. The factions resisted one another, and without delay they fought with their hands. A slaughter of many men took place, such that the courtyard of that church became filled with blood, and the well within it overflowed with blood, which flowed out ^B into the adjoining portico as far as the public square. The emperor, being informed of this calamity, was enraged against Macedonius, both on account of those who had perished and because he had dared to move the body of his father against his will. Having therefore left Caesar Julian to take care of the western regions, he set out for the East. How Macedonius was deposed shortly thereafter, paying such a small penalty for such great crimes, I shall relate a little later.

CAP. XXXIX. Regarding the Council assembled at Seleucia in Isauria.

I shall now relate the story of the other synod, which the emperor’s edict had ordered to be held in the East as a rival to the council of Ariminum. It had previously been decided ^C that the bishops should gather at Nicomedia in Bithynia. However, a mighty earthquake occurred, which hindered their assembly there and caused the city of the Nicomedians to fall. This occurred during the consulship of Tatianus and Cerealius, on the twenty-eighth of August. Accordingly, they deliberated on changing the...

synod to the neighboring city of Nicaea. But when this plan displeased them, it seemed better that they should convene at Tarsus in Cilicia. ^A Since that, however, did not please them either, they held the council in the city of Isauria, Seleucia, called Aspera. This was done in the same year as the Council of Ariminum, during the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius. There were one hundred and sixty bishops who attended. There was present with them one of the men distinguished in the imperial palace, named Leonas, under whose presence the emperor by his edict had ordered the question concerning the faith to be proposed. Lauricius, the commander of the soldiers throughout Isauria, had also been ordered to be present, so that he might be at the service of the bishops if they should require anything. Attending upon him, the bishops assembled on the twenty-seventh of September and began to debate under the recording of the proceedings. For there were also present shorthand writers who took down in notes the things said by each one. Those who are studious may seek out the individual details of all that was done then in the collection of Sabinus, where these things are read set forth more fully. We, however, will run through only the main heads of the matters briefly. ^B On the first day, when they had convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose what he wished. But those who were present said that no question should be moved before those who were missing had arrived. For bishops Macedonius of Constantinople, Basilius of Ancyra, and certain others were missing, for they feared they would be accused of crimes. Macedonius indeed was absent, claiming that he was ill. Patrophilus, moreover, alleged an eye disease; and for that reason, he said, he was under the necessity of remaining in the suburbs of Seleucia. Others, finally, brought forward some other reason for their absence. But since Leonas said that the question must be proposed nevertheless, even though these men were absent, those who were present answered again that they would not move any question at all unless an investigation of the life and morals of those who were being accused was held first. For Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, and Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and certain others, had already been accused beforehand. ^C Because of this, contention broke out among those present.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(65) A difficulty occurs that is not light; for the ruin of the city of Nicomedia indeed occurred during the consulship of Datianus and Cerealius, in the year of Christ 358, in the month of August. But the council of Seleucia was celebrated in the following year, under the consuls Eusebius and Hypatius, in the month of September. These things, therefore, did not occur in one and the same year. Wherefore it seems that it should be written ^D the following year. But if anyone wishes to retain the common reading, it will be necessary to understand the council of bishops at Seleucia as having been celebrated in the same year as the council of Ariminum.

(66) Leonas was a quaestor of the sacred palace: truly Lauricius was count of Isauria, as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies.

(67) On the first day. It should be written on the first day. Although this may be light, it was nevertheless necessary to note it, so that the studious reader, if by chance this mistake occurs elsewhere—and it occurs very often in these books—may correct it for himself, and not accuse us of negligence.

VARIORUM.

Athanasius, *On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*: "But these acts took place in Seleucia of Isauria. The month was that called September by the Romans, Thoth by the Egyptians, and Gorpiaeus by the Macedonians; and it was the sixteenth day of the month according to the Egyptians, on which those who had been called gathered together." And there were there about one hundred and sixty bishops. Therefore, it is read wrongly in Valesius's version shortly before as one hundred and fifty. Furthermore, concerning the synod of Seleucia, see Sozomen, bk. IV, ch. 22, and Theodoret, bk. II, ch. 26.

^A For some said that the lives of those accused ought to be examined first, while others maintained that no question should take precedence over the faith. The emperor's varying opinion stirred up the contention; for his letters were brought forward, in which he now commanded that this subject should be discussed first, and then the other. Because of this, a dispute arose among them, and a schism developed among those present. This was the cause of the initial pretext that led to the division of the synod in Seleucia into two parties. The leaders of the one party were Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch, with whom only thirty-two others agreed. The leaders of the other party were George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, whom the majority followed. Accordingly, when the opinion prevailed that the question of the faith should be discussed first, those on the side of Acacius openly rejected the faith of Nicaea and intimated that another faith should be written down. The bishops of the other party, who were more numerous, accepted all the other points of the Nicene Council but objected only to the term "consubstantial" (homoousion). Therefore, after they had contended with one another with much argumentation until late in the evening, eventually Silvanus, the bishop of the Church of Tarsus, cried out with a loud voice and said that no new formula of faith ought to be written, but that the one which had been written at the dedication of the church in Antioch ought to remain ^B in force. When this was said, those around Acacius withdrew from the council. The prelates of the other party produced the faith written at Antioch; when it had been read, the council was dismissed for that day. On the following day, when they had gathered in the house of prayer that is in Seleucia, they locked the doors and confirmed the read formula of faith with their own signatures. For some of the bishops who were absent, readers and deacons signed, through whom the absent men had professed that they would approve the formula of faith.

CAP. XL.

How Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, wrote another exposition of the faith at the synod of Seleucia.

Acacius and those of his party blamed what had been done, because they had signed with the doors of the church closed. For, he said, things done in the dark are rejectable and suspicious. He said this because he intended to introduce another formula of faith in place of that one—a version he already had prepared and had previously read to the governors Lauricius and Leonas—and he was striving with all his effort that this one alone should hold force and authority. These things were done on the second day, and nothing further. On the third day, Leonas again exerted effort to get both parties to gather together; on this day, neither Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, nor Basil of Ancyra was absent. Therefore, when both of these had conceded to the same party, the Acacians again did not wish to come to the council, claiming that those who had previously ^C been deposed, and those currently accused, ought to be cast out of the assembly first. ^D [alt-version omitted]

After much contention on both sides, when this motion finally prevailed, those who were called to account departed; the Acacians, however, entered. Then Leonas said that a document had been handed to him by the party of Acacius, concealing meanwhile that it was an exposition of faith—one that contradicted the foregoing now secretly and now openly. When those present kept silent, thinking that the document contained anything other than an exposition of faith, the book of faith of Acacius was read, together with its preface, which is as follows:

"We, having gathered at Seleucia of Isauria according to the royal will ^A on yesterday, which was the fifth day before the Kalends of October, have applied all diligence to preserve peace for the Church with all orderliness, and to discourse sedately concerning the faith, as our most God-beloved Emperor Constantius ordered, according to the prophetic and evangelical utterances, and to introduce nothing into the ecclesiastical faith beyond the divine Scriptures. But since some in the council insulted some of our party, stopped the mouths of others by not allowing them to speak, and excluded others against their will; and since they had with them those who had been deposed from different provinces, ^B and were leading with them those who had been ordained contrary to the canon, so that the council was filled with tumult on all sides—as the most illustrious governor of the province, Lauricius (68), and the most illustrious Count Leonas, saw with their own eyes—for this reason we declare these things: We do not flee from the authentic faith that was promulgated at the dedication at Antioch, and we bring it forward, even though our fathers concurred in it at that time according to the matter under inquiry. ^C But since the terms 'consubstantial' (homoousion) and 'similar in substance' (homoiousion) have troubled many in times past, and still trouble them even now; and furthermore, since what is called 'the unlike' (anomoion)—that is, the dissimilarity of the Son to the Father—is said to have been recently introduced by some: for this reason we reject the 'consubstantial' and the 'similar in substance' as terms alien to the Scriptures, and we anathematize the 'unlike.' And all those who are such we consider to be alien to the Church. But the 'similar' of the Son to the Father we clearly confess, according to... ^D

^A the Apostle who says concerning the Son, "Who is the image of the invisible God." We confess also and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was begotten of him impassibly before all ages, God the Word from God, only-begotten, light, life, truth, and wisdom; through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that he, at the end of the ages, for the undoing of sin, assumed flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, and was made man, and suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and that he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Saviour ^B and Lord called the Paraclete, having promised to send him to the disciples a little while after his departure; who did also send him: through whom he also sanctifies those in the Church who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Those, however, who preach anything other than this faith, we consider to be alien to the Catholic Church (69). This was the formula of faith issued by Acacius; and Acacius himself and his supporters had subscribed to it, to the number that I mentioned a little before. When it had been recited, Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, exclaimed in these very words: "If it is to be a confession of faith to explain one's private opinion every day, the precision ^C of the truth will fail us." These things, indeed, Sophronius said. I for my part say that if from the beginning such things concerning the faith at Nicaea had been thought by those before them and those who followed them, all contentious inquiry would have ceased, and an irrational and unreasonable disturbance would not have prevailed in the Churches. But let those who are able to discern judge how these matters stand. Then, there was much [discussion] with one another ^D regarding this, and regarding those who were accused.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (69) "Catholic Church" the Church knows [to be] alien. That this faith, which has been set forth, was well known at the time of the piety of our emperor, those who read the faith acknowledge. There signed the present: Basil, Marcus, and George the bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius and Hypatianus, and the majority of the bishops of the West. Those who read the faith which they signed, [know that it implies] a thing [which is] altogether different in nature and power, but created toward the perfect likeness of the character and power of its maker.

^A Then, having spoken and listened, they dispersed. On the fourth day, all gathered again in the same place, and once more they began to stir up the arguments with captiousness. Among these, Acacius proposed the following opinion, word for word: “Since the faith of Nicaea has been changed once, and many times since then, nothing prevents another faith from being written down now.” To this, Eleusius of Cyzicus said the following: “The council has been gathered at present not so that it may learn what it has not learned, ^B or so that it may receive a faith which it does not possess; but adhering to the faith of the fathers, it will not depart from it, even in time of life or death.” By such words did Eleusius encounter the opinion of Acacius, calling that faith which had been set forth at Antioch the “faith of the fathers.”

But one might also respond to this man [by saying]: “How, O Eleusius, do you call those who gathered at Antioch ‘fathers,’ while you reject their own fathers? ^C For those who gathered at Nicaea, and who concurred in the faith of the ‘consubstantial,’ might more properly be called fathers, both because they preceded [the others] in time, and because those who later gathered at Antioch were promoted to the dignity of the priesthood by them. But if those who were gathered at Antioch rejected their own fathers, those who follow them do not notice that they are following parricides. And in what way did they accept their ordination as upright and legitimate, when they rejected their ^D faith as false and reprobate? For if those men did not possess the Holy Spirit, which is poured forth through ordination, then these men did not receive the priesthood either. For how could they receive it from those who did not have what to give?” These things, then, one might rightly object to what was said by Eleusius.

Then they moved on to another inquiry. For since the followers of Acacius had said in the read-out confession of faith that the Son is “like” the Father, they inquired among themselves in what way the Son is like the Father. And the followers of Acacius indeed said that He is like by will alone, and not by substance. But all the others asserted that the Son is also like the Father by substance. Engaging in strife over this question, they spent the whole day; and they were refuting Acacius because, in the books which he had written and published, he had said that the Son is like the Father in all things. “How,” they said, “do you now dare deny the likeness of the Son to the Father according to substance?” But he said, “Neither the more recent nor the more ancient are judged by their own books.”

As they were discussing this question in great detail and arguing with one another, with absolutely no agreement, Leonas stood up and dissolved the assembly. And this was the end of the council held at Seleucia. For when he was asked on the following day to gather them together once more, he would no longer consent to do so.

When they had disputed over this matter for a long time and keenly, and could in no way agree among themselves, Leonas arose and dissolved the council. Such was the outcome of the Synod of Seleucia. For on the following day, when he was invited to come to the session, he refused, saying that he had been sent by the emperor to attend a unified synod. "Since, however," he said, "some of you dissent, I cannot be present. Go therefore, and babble in the church." ^A When this had happened, those in the party of Acacius, considering it a godsend, did not wish to attend personally either. The bishops of the other party, having separated and gathered in the church, called upon the party of Acacius, so they might pass judgment on the case of Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem. For it must be known that Cyril had already been accused before; as to what the cause was, I cannot say. He was deposed, however, because although he was summoned to be judged many times, he avoided it for two successive years, fearing the accusations. After he was deposed, he sent a document of appeal to those who had deposed him and appealed to a higher court; with this appeal, even the emperor Constantius had agreed. Therefore Cyril was the first and only one of all to interpose an appeal against the custom of the ecclesiastical canon, just as is accustomed to be done in public courts. And at that time he was present at Seleucia, prepared to undergo judgment. ^B And for this reason, the bishops summoned the Acacians to the session, as I mentioned a little before, so that after examining the matters they might by common counsel bring forth a sentence. For they had also summoned others who were similarly accused, who had taken refuge with the party of Acacius. But since they were frequently summoned and refused to come, the bishops deposed Acacius himself, George of Alexandria, Ursecius of Tyre, Theodulus of Chæretopa in Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of Mytilene of the island, Leontius of Tripolis of Lydia, and others. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS (75) Ursecius of Tyre. It should be written Ursacius, from Athanasius in the book *On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*, page 880, and from Epiphanius Scholasticus. He is also so named in Epiphanius in the heresy of the Semi-Arians, among the bishops who subscribed to the Acacian faith. (76) Theodulus of Chæretopa. In the Florentine and Allatian codices it is read more correctly as Theodulus. For so he is called by Athanasius and Epiphanius, and Philostorgius. When this man had been stripped of the bishopric of Chæretopa at the council held at Seleucia, he was later ordained bishop of Palestine by the Eunomians, as the same Philostorgius relates. Concerning Leontius of Tripolis, you have much in Philostorgius.

VARIORUM Cyril waged a great suit with Acacius of Caesarea regarding the metropolitan right which Cyril wished to assert for his own church as if it were an apostolic see, while custom, and the seventh canon of the Nicene synod itself, protested. For this reason, he was often summoned to judgment and did not appear: hence he was deposed by Acacius and the Palestinian synod, under the pretext of another crime—that in a time of famine he had sold the church's treasures meant for the poor, including a sacred robe woven with golden threads, given to this church by Constantine the Great. From the iniquitous sentence of Acacius, Cyril appealed to a higher tribunal, with the emperor Constantius himself agreeing. In the year 359, at the Synod of Seleucia, he was superior to Acacius; but in the conventicle held shortly after at Constantinople, with the previous calumnies patched up and new ones added, Acacius deposed him again. (Guil. Cave on Cyril of Jerusalem.) ^D According to the 74th apostolic canon, which here decrees: "A bishop accused by trustworthy men of something must be summoned by the bishops. And if he appears and is confessed or convicted, let a penalty be established. If, however, he does not obey the summons, let him be summoned a second time, with two bishops sent to him. If he does not obey even then, let him be summoned a third time, with two bishops again sent to him. If even so he is contumacious and does not appear, let the synod pronounce what it sees against him, so that he may not seem to profit while he avoids judgment."

^A And those in the council deposed Acacius himself, and with him Georgius bishop of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, Theodulus of Chæreta in Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of Mitylene (an island), Leontius of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius, who had been bishop of Germanicia and had later crept into the bishopric of the city of Antioch. They also removed Patrophilus from the episcopate because he had been accused by Dorotheus the presbyter and, having been summoned by them to plead his case, had not obeyed. And these indeed they deposed; but Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus, Phœbus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius they removed from communion, decreeing that they should remain in that state until, having made satisfaction, they should have washed away the crimes imputed to them. Having done these things, and having informed the dioceses of those who were deposed by letters, they established Annianus as bishop of Antioch in place of Eudoxius. ^B Those around Acacius, catching him, handed him over to Leonas and Lauricius; and they sent him into exile. Because of this, the bishops who had ordained Annianus used attestations against those around Acacius to Leonas and Lauricius, by which they signified that the judgment of the synod had been violated. But when nothing more was achieved, they rushed to Constantinople to teach the emperor what had been decided by them.

CAP. XLI.

For the emperor had returned from the western regions and was tarrying in that city; at which time he also appointed Honoratus as the first prefect of the city of Constantinople, the office of proconsul having been extinguished. ^C But the Acacians, having anticipated them, calumniated them before the prince, teaching that the faith set forth by them was not to be accepted. ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A Wherefore the emperor, being indignant, determined to disperse them, and by publishing a law, commanded that those who were subject to public duties among them should be returned to their own status. For there were some among them who were liable to such liturgies, some of municipal councils, and others of the classes within the provinces. ^B While things were being thus disturbed, those around Acacius, remaining in Constantinople, convened another council and sent for the bishops from Bithynia. There were, therefore, fifty in all, among whom was Maris the bishop of Chalcedon, who confirmed the faith read at Ariminum after the consulship. It would have been superfluous for this to be set forth here if they had added nothing to it. But since they added certain terms to it, it is necessary to record it here again. It is of this sort:

We believe in one only God, the Father Almighty, from whom are all things; and in the only-begotten Son of God, before all ages and before every beginning, begotten from God; through whom all things were made, things visible and invisible; and that he was born as the only-begotten, alone from the alone Father, God from God, similar to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures; whose birth no one knows, except only the Father who begat him. This only-begotten Son of God we know was sent by the Father and descended from the heavens, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death: and was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with the disciples; and, when all the dispensation had been fulfilled according to the Father's will, he was crucified and died, and was buried, and descended into the lower parts; ^C at whom Hades himself trembled. Who also rose from the dead on the third day, and spent time with the disciples; and when the forty days were completed, he was

^A taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, being about to come on the last day of the resurrection in the glory of the Father, to render to each according to his works. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten Son of God himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the human race as Advocate, as it is written, the Spirit of truth; whom he sent to them when he was taken up into the heavens.

The name of essence (*ousia*), which was set down by the fathers in too simple a manner, and which, being unknown to the people, caused offense, for the reason that it is not contained in the sacred Scriptures, it was resolved to remove, and that no mention of it should henceforth be made at all, since also the divine Scriptures have nowhere made mention of the essence of the Father and the Son. And indeed, the term subsistence (*hypostasis*) ^B ought not to be named concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We say the Son is like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and teach. And all heresies, both those which have been condemned already in the past, and any whatsoever that may have arisen more recently, being contrary to this faith which has been set forth, let them be anathema.

These things, then, were read at that time in Constantinople. We, however, having at last traversed the labyrinth of the expositions of the faith, let us gather together the number of them. For after the faith which was promulgated at Nicaea, later at the dedication of the church at Antioch, they drew up two expositions of the faith. The third is that which was delivered by those around Narcissus in the Gauls to the Emperor Constantius. The fourth is that which was sent through Eudoxius to those in Italy. And three were drafted at Sirmium, of which one was read at Ariminum with the names of the consuls prefixed. The eighth is that which the Acacians promulgated at Seleucia. The last was issued at Constantinople with a new ^C addition. For it was added to it that neither essence nor subsistence should be spoken of concerning God. To this faith also Ulfila, the bishop of the Goths, then first consented. For before that time he had embraced the Nicene faith, having followed Theophilus, who, being bishop of the Goths, had been present and subscribed to the Nicene council. But enough of these things.

CHAP. XLII.

How, Macedonius having been deposed, Eudoxius obtained the episcopate of Constantinople.

Now Acacius and Eudoxius and those who were with them in Constantinople were primarily striving for this, that they themselves might in their turn depose some of the opposing party. It must be understood, however, that neither side decreed such depositions out of religion, but for other causes. For although they dissented in faith, yet when they were deposing one another, neither party accused the other's faith. Those, therefore, who stood with Acacius, abusing the emperor's indignation, which he had long since conceived in his mind, and then ^D more strongly against others, were eager to carry it out, and they deposed first of all Macedonius.

^A And for his being the cause of many murders, and for receiving into communion a deacon who had been caught in fornication. They also deposed Eleusius of the city of Cyzicus, because he had baptized and subsequently ordained as deacon a certain Heraclius, a priest of the Tyrian Hercules, who had been caught practicing sorcery and magic arts. They likewise deposed Basilius, also called Basilas (for he was named thus), who had been appointed in the place of Marcellus at Ancyra, because he had unjustly tortured a certain person and kept him in custody bound in iron chains; further, because he had fabricated false accusations against certain people; and moreover, because he had disturbed the churches in Africa by his letters. They deposed Dracontium for having moved from Galatia to Pergamum. They also removed Neonas, the bishop of Seleucia—the city where the synod had been held—as well as Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, which is a city of Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala in Macedonia ^B, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and they cast out others for various reasons.

CHAPTER XLIII. Concerning Eustathius, Bishop of Sebastia.

Eustathius, the bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, was not even admitted to make his defense, for he had already been deposed previously by his own father, Eulalius, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, because he had worn a garment ill-befitting a priest. It should be known, however, that Meletius was appointed bishop in the place of Eustathius, of whom we shall speak a little further on. Eustathius, moreover, was later condemned at the synod held on his account at Gangra in Paphlagonia, because, after the sentence of deposition had been issued against him at the synod of Caesarea ^C, he continued to act in many ways contrary to ecclesiastical canons. For he forbade marriage, and [forbade] the eating of...

meat while married, and he separated those who had already married from their spouses; and he persuaded those who were turning away from the churches to hold communion in private houses. He also drew servants away from their masters under the pretext of piety. He himself wore the habit of a philosopher, and he made those who followed him use a strange dress. He also caused women to have their hair cut off. He taught that the appointed fasts should be avoided, but that they should fast on the Lord's days. He also forbade prayers to be performed in the houses of married people; and the blessing and communion of a presbyter who had a wife, whom he had taken according to the law while he was a layman, he ordered to be shunned as a defilement. Since he was doing and teaching many other things similar to these, a synod, as I have said, assembled at Gangra in Paphlagonia, deposed him, and anathematized his dogmas. ^A These things, however, happened later.

At that time, after Macedonius had been expelled, Eudoxius, who had previously occupied the see of Antioch and was second [to be translated], was shown to be of Constantinople, having been enthroned by those around Acacius; they were unaware that they were enacting legislation contrary to the very decisions they had made. For those who had deposed Dracontius because he had moved from Galatia to Pergamon did not reflect that, in enthroning Eudoxius, who was at that time making his transition for the second time, they were acting contrary to their own dogmas. Having accomplished these things, they sent forth the creed that had been read at Ariminum ^B with the addition that had been made, as if they had corrected it; and they ordered, by command of the Emperor, that those who did not subscribe to it should be exiled. ^C

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

(89) *Καὶ διὰ τούτων.* The codex of Leo Allatius has *καὶ διὰ ταῦτα*, which pleases me more.

(90) *Καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἐκτρεπομένους.* I do not approve of the version of Musculus and Christophorson, who translated this passage thus: "And he persuaded those who were turning away from the churches to communicate at home." But I think these words should be connected with the preceding ones. For Socrates did not say that these things should be understood of all those who were turning away from the churches. They must therefore be joined with the preceding, and taken to refer to those who, at the persuasion of Eustathius, had separated themselves from the consortium of their wives. Eustathius persuaded these people to shun the fellowships of the churches, and not to communicate with other believers, but as if they were pure and immaculate, to participate in the sacred mysteries separately at home. Regarding this Eustathius, see what Epiphanius writes in his heresy of the Aetians, and Basil in his letters.

(91) *Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὕστερον ἐγένετο.* I do not agree with Socrates, who makes the synod of Gangra, in which Eustathius was condemned, more recent than the synods of Seleucia and Constantinople. Sozomenus, in Book IV, ch. 24, more correctly makes the synod of Gangra older than the Antiochene council which was celebrated at the Dedication [Encaenia] in the year of Christ 341. Baronius, indeed, in his *Ecclesiastical Annals*, refers the synod of Gangra to the year of Christ 361, in the times of Constantine the Great. But Socrates and Sozomenus refute him. For Socrates makes it more recent than the synod of Seleucia and Constantinople. Sozomenus, however, places it after the deposition ^D of Eustathius, which was carried out by Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople. Yet Eusebius invaded the see of Constantinople during the reign of Constantius, as is agreed by all. Finally, Basil, in letter 74, which he wrote to the Westerners against Eustathius of Sebaste, makes no mention of the Gangrense council. From which it is clearly gathered that when Basil wrote that letter—and he wrote it under Valens—the Gangrense council in which Eustathius was condemned had not yet been celebrated. Perhaps someone will say that which was said by Baronius, that that Eustathius who was condemned in the synod of Gangra is different from Eustathius of Sebaste. But this is said gratuitously, and rests on the testimony of no author.

(92) *Εἰς τὴν Ἀρίμηνον.* Epiphanius Scholasticus: "Whereupon they sent everywhere the creed read at Ariminum with the addition which they themselves had added in the city of Constantinople." Christophorson followed the same sense in his version. But I think these words should be referred to what follows. And Athanasius confirms this clearly in his book *De synodis*, p. 905 [etc.], which passage of Athanasius Socrates seems to describe here.

VARIORUM.

b Regarding Eudoxius, and his zeal in coveting honors, see above, at the beginning of this book.

^A and that those who would not subscribe to it should be driven into exile by the emperor's edict. Finally, they communicated all that had been done, both to others in the East who held the same opinions as themselves, and to Patrophilus of Scythopolis. For he had hastened straight from the city of Seleucia to his own city. When Eudoxius was appointed to the royal city, the great church named Sophia was dedicated about the same time, in the tenth consulship of Constantius and the third of Julian Caesar, on the fifteenth day of the month of February. As soon as Eudoxius was seated on his throne, he uttered that first, much-discussed statement which is celebrated in everyone’s conversation: "The Father is impious; the Son is pious." When, in consequence, a tumult and sedition arose, "Do not," he said, "be disturbed by what I have said; for the Father is impious because he worships no one, while the Son is pious because he worships the Father." After Eudoxius had said this, the tumult indeed was stilled, but a great laugh took the place of the tumult throughout the church; and the saying remains to this day a subject of laughter. For in such ways the leaders of heresies, by playing with sophistry and occupying themselves with such petty phrases, tore the Church asunder. This, then, was the end that the synod held at Constantinople attained. ^B

CHAPTER XLIV.

Regarding Meletius, Bishop of Antioch

Now it is time to speak of Meletius. For he, as I said a little before, was promoted to be bishop of Sebaste in Armenia after the deposition of Eustathius. Afterwards he was transferred from Sebaste to Beroea, which is a city of Syria. And when he had attended the council of Seleucia, ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (95) *And he was translated to Beroea in Syria.* I would find it very hard to believe that Meletius was translated from Sebastia of Armenia to the bishopric of Beroea. For Sozomen and Theodoret, and before them Jerome, say that he was translated from Sebastia of Armenia to the see of Antioch, without any mention of the Beroean bishopric. Theodoret only says this: that Meletius, when he had been promoted to the Sebastene bishopric, having observed the stubbornness of his subjects, withdrew elsewhere. Then, therefore, he withdrew to Beroea in Syria, as I conjecture. But he by no means administered the Beroean bishopric. This error of Socrates was also observed by Baronius under the year of Christ 360. He indeed emends it thus, saying that Meletius was translated from Beroea to Sebastia, and not from Sebastia to Beroea. Which, however, I do not think is true, since neither Theodoret nor Sozomen said that concerning Meletius. ^D

^A And having subscribed to the faith edited there by those around Acacius, he returned straight to Beroea. When the council had taken place in Constantinople, those in Antioch learned that Eudoxius had despised their own church and had inclined towards the opulence of Constantinople; having sent for Meletius from Beroea, they enthroned him in the church of Antioch. ^B At first, he avoided discussing the doctrine of the faith, and indeed, considered that only moral instruction was suitable for his hearers. But as he proceeded, he set forth the Nicaean faith and began to assert the doctrine of the consubstantial. When the emperor heard of these things, he ordered that he be sent into exile, and caused Euzoius—who had already been previously deposed along with Arius—to be appointed as bishop of Antioch. But as many as maintained their affection for Meletius, leaving the Arian assembly, held their own gatherings separately, because those who from the beginning were of the opinion regarding the consubstantial did not wish to have communion with them, because Meletius had received his ordination by an Arian vote, and because those who followed him had been baptized by them. ^C Thus, in this manner, the Church at Antioch was divided into another group of the same mind. However, the emperor, having learned that the Persian tribes were again moving against the Romans, quickly set out for Antioch.

CHAPTER XLV. On the heresy of Macedonius.

But Macedonius, who had been expelled from Constantinople and, unable to bear the condemnation, did not quietly accept it, did not settle down at all; but he inclined toward those of the other party who, at Seleucia, had deposed those around Acacius. He sent an embassy to Sophronius and Eleusius, urging them to hold fast to the faith which had been first set forth at Antioch and afterward confirmed at Seleucia, and brought them to it with an illustrious name. ^D

^A Many of his acquaintances flocked to him, who are now called Macedonians after his name. And as many as had dissented from Acacius at the Council of Seleucia, from this time forward openly asserted the term *homoousion* [of like substance], although before this they had not brought it into general use. However, the opinion prevailed among many that this was not first devised by Macedonius, but by Marathonius, whom they had shortly before promoted to the bishopric of the church of Nicomedia; hence they are also called Marathonians. To their company joined also Eustathius, who had been deposed from Sebaste for the reason I mentioned a little before. But when Macedonius began to exclude the Holy Spirit from the divine fellowship of the Trinity, then Eustathius said, "I have no inclination to call the Holy Spirit God, nor do I dare to call Him a creature." ^B And for this reason, those who defend the faith of the consubstantial [Trinity] call them *Pneumatomachians*, that is, foes of the Holy Spirit. I shall recount in its proper place how it came about that the followers of Macedonius abound in the Hellespont. But the followers of Acacius were eager to gather again at Antioch, repenting that they had declared the Son in any way like unto the Father. Therefore, in the following year, when Taurus and Florentius were consuls, they met at Antioch in Syria. As Euzoius presided over the church there, and the emperor was staying in the city, a few people brought their former decrees back into question, saying that the word "like" ought to be removed from the faith promulgated at Ariminum and Constantinople. No longer hiding it, they openly declared that the Son is in all things unlike the Father, not only in substance, but also in will; and ^C they asserted that He, as Arius said, came to be out of things that were not. Those at Antioch ^D who then held the views of Aetius joined in this opinion; wherefore, besides bearing the title of Arians, they were also called *Anomoioi* [Unlike] and *Exoukontioi* [those who say He is from nothing].

^A They were further questioned by those who—while maintaining the doctrine of the consubstantial at Antioch—were at that time divided among themselves on account of the situation concerning Meletius, as I have previously mentioned. When interrogated as to why, having termed the Son "God from God" in their statement of faith, they did not hesitate to call Him "unlike" and "from nothing," they endeavored to evade the objection with the following sophistic arguments: "It is said," they claimed, "that 'God is from God,' just as it is said by the Apostle: *And all things are from God* (I Cor. VIII, 6). Therefore, the Son, being one of all things, is also from God." And for this reason, they say, the phrase "According to the Scriptures" was inserted into the confessions. The author of this sophistic cavil was George, the bishop of Laodicea. Being uneducated in such arguments, he was ignorant of how Origen had, in previous times, more thoroughly examined and explained such forms of expression used by the Apostle. ^B Yet, even though they attempted such sophistry, they could not endure the reproaches and condemnation, so they read out the same formula of faith they had previously issued at Constantinople. Upon this, they returned, each to his own city. George, having set out for Alexandria, gained control of the churches while Athanasius was still in hiding, and he persecuted those in Alexandria who did not hold his views. He was also harsh toward the populace of the city, for he was unpopular with the majority. At Jerusalem, Herennius was appointed in place of Cyril. ^C It should be noted that, after him, Heraclius was installed, and subsequently Hilarius; but in time, Cyril returned to Jerusalem and recovered his church there. At that same time, another heresy sprouted up, arising from such a cause.

Chapter XLVI. On the Apollinarists and their heresy.

At Laodicea in Syria, there were two men with the same name, father and son. For each was named Apollina- ^D [The text here breaks off as the page ends.]

father held the rank of presbyter in the Church, while the son discharged the office of reader. Both were teachers of Greek literature, the father of grammar and the son of rhetoric. The father was a native of Alexandria; having first taught at Berytus, he later moved to Laodicea, and having married there, he had his son Apollinarius. Both, however, flourished at that time along with Epiphanius the sophist, and being genuine friends, they supported him with all their power. Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea, fearing that through constant association with the man they might slide into pagan superstition, forbade them from visiting him. But they, considering the bishop of little account, steadfastly maintained their friendship with Epiphanius. ^B Afterward, George, the successor of Theodotus, sought to separate them from the company of Epiphanius, and being unable to persuade them by any means, he deprived both of communion. The younger Apollinarius considered what had been done an insult, and relying on his sophisticated faculty of speech, he himself also founded a new heresy, which, named after its author, flourishes even to this day. There are those who say they dissented from George, not so much for the reason mentioned above, but because they saw him teaching absurdities, and at one time professing the Son to be like the Father, as he had agreed at the council of Seleucia, but now deflecting into the Arian opinion. Pretending this as a plausible cause, they withdrew from him. But when no one followed them, they began to introduce a new form of religion. ^C And at first they said that in the economy of the incarnation, a man without a soul had been assumed by God the Word. Afterward, as if led by repentance and correcting their former error, they added that a soul had indeed been assumed, but one that did not possess a mind, and that God the Word was in the place of the mind in the assumed man. In this point alone, those who are called Apollinarists after them say they disagree with the Catholics; for they profess the Trinity to be consubstantial. But we shall speak again of both Apollinarii in their proper place.

CHAPTER XLVII. On the death of Emperor Constantius.

Furthermore, while the Emperor Constantius was staying ^D at Antioch, Julian Caesar engaged with a huge multitude of barbarians in the Gauls and won a victory. And having conquered, to all

^A those serving in the army he became dear, and for this reason he was proclaimed emperor by them. When this was announced, the Emperor Constantius became filled with distress. ^B Having been baptized by Euzoius, he set out on an expedition against him. But when he had arrived at the borders of Cappadocia and Cilicia, ^C he fell into an apoplectic fit brought on by excessive anxiety and ended his life at Mopsucrenae, in the consulship of Taurus and Florentius, on the third day of the month of November. This was the first year of the two hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad. Constantius lived forty-five years, having reigned for thirty-eight. He reigned together with his father for thirteen years; and after his death, for twenty-five years. This is the length of time covered by this book.

[VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS] ^B ...

BOOK THREE

CONTENTS OF THE THIRD BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES

Cap. I. Of Julian, and of his lineage and education; and how, having become emperor, he defected to the religion of the Gentiles. II. Of the sedition that arose at Alexandria, and how George was killed. III. How the emperor, angered by the slaughter of George, rebuked the Alexandrians by letter. IV. How Athanasius, after George was killed, returned to Alexandria and recovered his church. V. Of Lucifer and Eusebius. VI. How Lucifer, having arrived at Antioch, ordained Paulinus. VII. How Eusebius and Athanasius, coming to an agreement, gathered a synod of bishops at Alexandria, in which they clearly proclaimed the Trinity to be consubstantial. VIII. From the apology of Athanasius, concerning his own flight. IX. How Eusebius, after the synod of the orthodox bishops at Alexandria, returned to Antioch, and finding the Catholics there divided over the ordination of Paulinus, and being unable to reconcile them, departed. X. Of Hilary, bishop of Poitiers. XI. How the Emperor Julian exacted money from the Christians. XII. Of Maris, bishop of Chalcedon.

XIII. On the tumult which the pagans stirred up against the Christians. XIV. On the flight of Athanasius. XV. On those who suffered martyrdom under the reign of Julian at Merus, a city of Phrygia. XVI. How the Apollinares set themselves to write books, when the emperor had forbidden the Christians to be instructed in Greek disciplines. XVII. How the emperor, while preparing an expedition against the Persians, and being mocked by the people of Antioch, published against them the discourse which is titled *Misopogon*. XVIII. How, when the emperor sought to receive an oracle, the demon gave no answer, fearing the martyr Babylas. XIX. On the anger of the emperor, and on Theodore the Confessor. XX. How the emperor impelled the Jews to sacrifice, and on the total destruction of Jerusalem. XXI. On the emperor’s invasion of Persia, and on his fall. XXII. On the proclamation of the emperor Jovian. XXIII. Refutation of the things which the rhetorician Libanius said about Julian. XXIV. How the bishops from all sides flocked to Jovian, each one hoping to draw him over to his own faith. XXV. How the Macedonians and the Acacians, having gathered at Antioch, confirmed the Nicene faith. XXVI. On the death of the emperor Jovian.

BOOK THREE. CHAPTER ONE.

The emperor Constantius departed this life at the borders of Cilicia on the third day before the Nones of November, in the consulship of Taurus and Florentius. Julian, however, in the same consulship, on the third day before the Ides of December, having set out from the Western regions, came to Constantinople, and in that city he was proclaimed emperor. But since it is our purpose to narrate here a few things concerning the emperor Julian, a man of foremost eloquence, let no one among his associates demand of us a rhetorical finery of words, as though it were necessary that the discourse should correspond in equal measure to the greatness of him about whom it is written. For truly, since we have undertaken to write the history of the Christian religion, studying for clarity, we shall proceed in a humble and pedestrian style of speech, just as we professed at the beginning. Therefore, intending to speak about him, and about his lineage and education, and in what manner he attained to the empire, it is necessary that we take up our account from a little further back. Constantine, who named Byzantium after his own

name, had two brothers by the same father, though not born of the same mother: the one was called Dalmatius, and the other Constantius. And Dalmatius indeed had a son of the same name. To Constantius, two sons were born, Gallus and Julian. Now, after the death of the founder of the city of Constantine, since the soldiers had slain the younger Dalmatius, these also, being orphaned of their own father, very nearly came into the same peril as Dalmatius. If it had not been that a disease, which portended death, had rescued Gallus, and his age (for he was still only eight years old) had preserved Julian. But when the king’s onslaught against them had abated, Gallus frequented the teachers at Ephesus in Ionia, where they also had much property from their ancestors. Julian, however, as he grew up, attended the schools in the city of ^B Constantine, proceeding to the palace—where the schools were at that time—in an unassuming habit, and being tutored by the eunuch Mardonius. In grammatical studies, Nicocles the Laconian (10) was his tutor; in rhetoric, he attained proficiency under Ecebolius the sophist, who happened to be a Christian at that time. King Constantius had provided for this, lest by listening to a pagan teacher, he might incline toward superstition; for Julian was a Christian from the beginning. As he flourished in his studies, a rumor spread among the people that he was capable of managing Roman affairs. When this was finally widely bruited about, it caused agitation for the king. Wherefore he removed him from the great city to Nicomedia, ordering him not to attend the Syrian sophist ^C Libanius. For at that time Libanius, having been expelled by the pedagogues of the city of Constantine, was conducting his classes in Nicomedia. He, indeed, poured out his anger against the pedagogues in the speech (11) he wrote against them; but Julian was prevented from attending him, because Libanius was a Hellene in his religion.

VALESII ANNOTATIONES. (10) *Nicocles the Laconian.* There are many letters of Libanius extant, specifically the seventh of the fourth book, in which Libanius excuses the insolence of a certain man from the city of Antioch who had heaped insults upon him; and he says, among other things, that the sin of one citizen should not be ascribed to the whole city. For in a city which has one hundred and fifty thousand citizens, it is no wonder if one bad citizen is found, since not even in your Sparta, which nevertheless has a Lawgiver in Lycurgus, are all equally good and noble. (11) *The speech which he wrote against the pedagogues.* This speech of Libanius against the pedagogues does not exist today, as far as I know.

VARIORUM. *Julian.* Called the Apostate, because he had impiously defected from Christianity to paganism; he was the third son of Julius Constantius by Basilina, born on the sixth of November, 331, as is read in the Fasti of Silvius. Being seven years old, he was allotted the eunuch Mardonius as a preceptor; whom Baronius undeservedly renders suspect of paganism. (Ant. Pagi, Guil. Cave, Joh. Jac. Hofman in *Juliano*.) *Nicocles.* Libanius calls him a priest of justice, a leader of erudition, who, if anyone ever did, knew the secrets of the Homeric mind and the entire choir devoted to Homer. Liban. *Legatione ad Julian.*, vol. II, p. 157. *As he flourished in his studies...* It is incredible with what and how great ardor, while inquiring after the height of knowledge of principal matters and seeking, as it were, food for a soul ^D climbing to higher things, he ran through the limbs of philosophy by prudent disputation. But yet, while he gathered these things effectively and fully, he did not look down upon lower things, such as poetry to a moderate degree, and rhetoric (as the incorrupt elegance of his speeches and letters shows), and the multiform history of our own and foreign affairs. Amm. Marcellinus, lib. xvi, cap. 5. *Libanius,* a native of Antioch, flourished in the year of Christ 360, and lasted until the final days of Theodosius the Great; he was raised by him to the dignity of praetorian prefect; he taught rhetoric at Constantinople, Nicomedia, and finally Antioch. He has many things about himself in the book which he wrote concerning his own life, where he treats of himself and his own affairs to the point of nausea. (Guil. Cave among the pagan writers of the 4th century.)

^A being such; yet, as he was a lover of his words, he secretly gathered them and applied himself to them. As he continued to make progress in rhetoric, Maximus the philosopher arrived in Nicomedia—not the Byzantine, the father of Euclid [(12)], but the Ephesian, whom the Emperor Valentinian later ordered to be put to death for practicing magic. This, however, happened later. At that time, he had no other reason for being in Nicomedia than that the fame of Julian had drawn him there. Having tasted the philosophical discourses of this man, Julian immediately began to imitate the religion of his teacher, who also instilled in him an ambition for the throne [(13)]. But as these things escaped the notice of the ruling emperor [(14)], Julian, finding himself caught between hope and fear, and wishing to escape suspicion, became a feigned Christian—he who had formerly been a genuine one. He cropped his hair close and pretended to lead the life of a monk. Secretly, he applied himself to philosophy, but publicly he read the sacred Scriptures of the Christians. Indeed, he was even appointed a reader in the Nicomedian church. By such a pretext, he deceived the emperor’s intent. Such things he did out of fear; but since he did not abandon his hope, he used to tell many of his acquaintances that the times would be happy when he himself held the reins of power.

While the affairs of Julian were in this state, his brother Gallus—who had been proclaimed Caesar—came to Nicomedia on his way to the East, intending to see him. ^B After Gallus was killed a little while later, Julian immediately became an object of suspicion to the emperor; for this reason, he ordered him to be kept under guard. But having succeeded in evading those guarding him, he saved himself by changing his hiding places from time to time. Finally, the emperor's wife, Eusebia, having discovered him in his concealment, persuaded the emperor to do him no harm, but rather to allow him to go to Athens to apply himself to philosophy. From there, to speak briefly, the emperor sent for him and appointed him Caesar; and having given him as wife the sister of ^C [the one who] increased philosophy while he lived, and extinguished it by his death. [For "instilled in him," it reads in the Florentine codex "instilled," which pleases more.] [A negative particle is to be added from Nicephorus and Epiphanius the Scholastic, and it is to be written "it did not escape notice." The Ephesian.] [He became suspicious to the emperor.] [“I have at all times shown myself well-disposed and faithful to him.”]

^A And later, to sum up the matter briefly, the emperor summoned him, declared him Caesar, gave him his sister Helena in marriage, and sent him into Gaul against the barbarians. For the barbarians, whom the Emperor Constantius had hired a little earlier to bring him aid against Magnentius, had been of no use against the tyrant and were devastating the cities of the Roman Empire. And because he was young in age, he ordered him to do nothing without the judgment of the military commanders. But when they, having received this authority, gave little care to affairs, and because of this the barbarians were prevailing, Julian allowed the commanders to occupy themselves with luxuries and drinking, but he made the soldiers more eager, promising a fixed reward to whoever killed a barbarian. This provided the beginning for the barbarian forces to be diminished, and for himself to become beloved by the soldiers. ^B There is a story that when he was entering one of the small towns, a crown of the sort with which they decorate cities, suspended by ropes between the columns, descended and fit perfectly upon his head, and at this all who were present shouted, for it seemed to presage the empire for him through what had happened. Some say that Constantius sent him against the barbarians for this very reason, so that he might perish there while engaging them. But I do not know if those who say such things are telling the truth. For he who had given his own sister to him in marriage, if he were plotting, would have been turning the plot against nothing other than himself. But on this matter, let each judge as he thinks. ^C When Julian complained to the emperor about the negligence of the commanders, another military master was sent who was suited to Julian's eagerness. Having him as an assistant, he engaged the barbarians with confidence. They sent an embassy to him, showing that the emperor’s letters had ordered them to come into Roman territory, and they displayed the letters. But he threw the ambassador into chains, engaged the multitude, and defeated them soundly; and having taken the king of the barbarians prisoner, he sent him to Constantius. Having been successful in these things, he was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers. And since there was no imperial crown present, one of the bodyguards, from the golden necklace which he wore around his own neck, placed it upon Julian's head. In this way, then, Julian was proclaimed emperor.

^A Whether his subsequent actions were becoming to a philosopher, I leave to the judgment of the readers. For he neither sent an embassy to Constantius nor persevered in honoring him as one who had deserved well of him; but he did everything according to his own will. He changed the governors of the provinces. Moving through individual cities, he disparaged Constantius, reading in public the letters which he had written to the barbarians. For this reason, men defected from Constantius and transferred themselves to his side. At the same time, he cast off entirely the simulation of the Christian religion. For, going around to individual cities, he began to open the temples, to offer sacrifice to the idols, and he called himself Pontifex Maximus. And the pagans celebrated the festivals of their deities according to the Gentile rite. ^B By doing these things, he was stirring up civil war against Constantius, seeking out pretexts. And as far as it depended on him, all the evils that usually accompany war would have occurred. For the ambition of this philosopher could not have been satisfied without the slaughter of many people. But God, who alone is the arbiter of His own counsels, stopped one of the two antagonists from his course without any harm to the republic. For when Julian was in the regions of Thrace, it was announced that Constantius had died. And thus, ^C at that time, the Roman empire escaped civil war.

When Julian had entered the city of Constantine, he immediately began to inquire in his mind how he might gain favor with the people and win their goodwill for himself. He employed, therefore, such a technique as this: He knew well that Constantius was hated by all the peoples who held to the faith of the consubstantial, both because they were persecuted from the churches, and because he had confiscated the property of their rightful bishops and sent them into exile. He also knew clearly that those who favored the Gentile rites—to whom it was forbidden to perform their sacrifices—were aggrieved, and were desiring to seize an opportunity in which the temples might be opened and it would be permitted them to offer sacrifices to the idols. In this way, then, he recognized that both groups were individually aggrieved toward the one who had departed. And in common, he knew they were all aggrieved toward the violence of the eunuchs and the rapacity of Eusebius and his associates.

He therefore dealt with all of them with subtlety and craft. For some he caressed with smooth simulation; others he favored with benefits; led on by a desire for vain glory, he revealed to all alike his true frame of mind regarding the superstition of the Gentiles. ^A And first, indeed, wishing to traduce the cruelty of Constantius toward his subjects and to expose it to the multitude, he commanded that the bishops who had been exiled by him be recalled, and he restored to them their confiscated properties; and he ordered those responsible to open the temples of the Greeks with all speed. He also decreed that those who had been wronged by the eunuchs should recover what had been unjustly taken from them. Eusebius, the chamberlain of the imperial bedchamber, he punished with death, not only (20) because he had wronged many, but also because he learned that Gallus, his own brother, had been put to death as a result of that man’s slander. ^B And while he honored the body of Constantius in an imperial manner and gave it funeral rites, he expelled from the palace the eunuchs, barbers, and cooks. The eunuchs, because he had cast off his wife, after whom he had taken no other. The cooks, because he followed a modest diet. And he said that one barber would suffice for many. So, it was for these reasons that he expelled them. As for the scribes, he surrendered most of them to their original fortune and ordered that the wages of a scribe be given to the remainder of them. He also removed the public horse-post (21), ^C as well as the rapine of Eusebius. Nearly all things having been changed, the office of the so-called Master of Offices remained; and the staff was subject to him. ^D For he knew well that he was odious to the Antiochenes for this reason. Sleepless nights upon a pallet, and a diet devoid of all satiety, produce sour humors, which are in conflict with a delicate city. Do not, however, think that this is done by me for your sake; a certain grave and foolish error led me on from childhood to make war upon my belly: for I do not permit it to be satisfied with banquets. It happened that, when a barber had been told to come to trim the emperor’s hair, a certain man entered dressed ostentatiously. When Julian saw this, he was astonished: I ordered, he said, not a rational official to be summoned, but a barber. Yet, when the man was asked what he had by way of profit from his trade, he answered: twenty daily rations, and as many fodder allowances for beasts of burden (which the common people call 'heads'), and a heavy annual stipend without many gainful petitions. Moved by this, he cast out all of this sort, as he was accustomed to see the same for cooks and others of that kind, as being not very necessary to him, giving them the power to go wherever they wished.

^A And he permitted only horses to be used for public services. These acts are praised by a few; but the majority blame them, because the awe which was inspired in the masses by the royal wealth being removed, he rendered the empire contemptible. Furthermore, he would spend the nights awake writing discourses, and later, going forth from the palace, would recite them in the senate; for he was the only emperor from Julius Caesar down to our time who recited orations in the senate. He honored those who were devoted to learning, but especially those who professed philosophy. Hence, stirred by the rumor of this, all the philosophers everywhere, eager for reward, flocked to the palace; and those who wore the pallium were for the most part conspicuous more by their appearance than by their learning. All of them, moreover, were burdensome and oppressive to the Christians, being impostors and always appropriating to themselves the religion of the ruler. ^B Being possessed by an excessive vain-glory, the emperor mocked all the emperors before him in the book which he titled *The Caesars*. Driven by the same sickness of soul, he also wrote against the Christians. Indeed, casting out cooks and barbers was the work of a philosopher, not truly of an emperor. But to malign or mock was not the work of a philosopher, nor indeed of an emperor. For both of these are far removed from all slander and envy. For it is permitted to an emperor to philosophize in all things that pertain to modesty and temperance; but if a philosopher wishes to imitate all that is proper to an emperor, he will miss the mark. Let these things said regarding the Emperor Julian, his lineage, his education and character, and how he came to the empire, suffice as a brief summary.

CAP. II. On the sedition which occurred at Alexandria, and how George was killed.

Now let us pass on to commemorate those things which took place in the Churches during the same period. Therefore, at ^C the great city of Alexandria, it happened that a disturbance arose from the following cause. ^D (Note: the Latin column in Migne includes an apparatus block here regarding the *frumentarii* and *raidae*—the "public carriers"—which we here treat as scholarly notes).

^A In that great city of Alexandria, a sedition of this sort occurred for the following reason: There was a place in the city that had been desolate and neglected for a long time, and was heaped with much filth, in which the heathens long ago were accustomed to perform the rites of Mithra, and to sacrifice human beings. Constantius had previously donated this site to the Church of the Alexandrians as a place for a school. George, wishing to construct a house of prayer there, ordered the ground to be cleared. While it was being cleared, an inner sanctuary of great depth was discovered, in which the mysteries of the heathens were hidden; these consisted of many human skulls, of both young and old, who, as rumor held, had been slaughtered long ago when the heathens used to practice divination by means of entrails, and performed magical sacrifices, by which they would bewitch the souls. The Christians, therefore, having discovered these things in the sanctuary of the Mithraeum, were eager to show the mysteries of the heathens up to public ridicule. They immediately began to parade them through the city, showing the naked skulls to the populace. The heathens living in Alexandria, seeing this and unable to bear the ignominy of the event, were kindled to rage; and, taking up whatever weapon came to hand, they rushed against the Christians. ^B By every sort of plot they destroyed many of them; for some they killed with swords, others with clubs or stones, and others they strangled with ropes. Some of them they even crucified, inflicting this mode of death in order to heap insult upon the Cross; and the majority of them they left wounded. Then, as is often the case in such circumstances, they spared not even their own closest kin; but friend struck friend, brother struck brother, and parents struck children, and they rushed toward the slaughter of one another. For this reason the Christians ceased from clearing the Mithraeum; but the heathens, having dragged George from the church and bound him to a camel, and mangled him, burned him along with it.

CAP. III.

How the Emperor, angered by the murder of George, rebuked the Alexandrians by letter.

^C Since the Emperor was angered by the murder of George, he rebuked the populace of Alexandria by letter. ^D

^A And a report was spread abroad that those who were ill-disposed toward Athanasius had done these things to George. For my part, I think that even those who are motivated by hatred and enmity usually join themselves in seditions to those who are attacking wicked men. The Emperor’s letter, however, blames the populace rather than the Christians. Now George ^B appeared, both formerly and afterwards, to have been oppressive and troublesome to everyone; and for this reason the multitude was inflamed to contention. That he blames the populace rather than the others, listen to the letter itself:

Emperor Caesar Julian, Maximus, Augustus, to the populace of the Alexandrians.

If the regard you have for Alexander, the founder of your city, and what is more, for the great and most holy god Serapis, does not touch you, how is it that you have become forgetful of common nature, humanity, and decency? I add also of us, to whom all the gods, and in the first place the great Serapis, have judged the empire of the world to belong. To whom, indeed, it would have been fitting for you to reserve the judgment concerning those who have done you injury. But perhaps wrath and fury—which customarily commits cruel deeds when it has disturbed the mind—have deceived you; then, having suppressed your impulse, ^C you later subjected to those things which had been well-advised by you on the spur of the moment, a lawless crime. Nor were you, though you are the common people, ashamed to dare those very things for which you justly hated them. Tell me, I beseech you, by Serapis, for what injuries were you moved against George? You will say, of course, that he provoked the blessed memory of Constantius against you; then that he introduced an army into the sacred city. And the king of Egypt ^D occupied the most holy temple of God, having plundered thence the images, and the votive offerings, and the ornament in the temples. And when you were indignant, as was proper, and wished to aid God, or rather the things and goods of God, he dared to send armed men against you, unjustly, unlawfully, and impiously. Perhaps he was on his guard for himself, inasmuch as being more afraid of George than of Constantius, he was protecting himself. If he had dealt with you more moderately and

^A more civilly, and not in a tyrannical manner, he would have acted toward you differently. On account of these reasons, therefore, being kindled with anger against George, who is the enemy of the gods, you have again defiled the sacred city, when it was possible to submit him to the votes of the judges. For in this way there would have been no murder, nor would the act have been a transgression of the law; but a deliberate judgment would have preserved you as entirely innocent, while punishing him who had committed impieties that were past healing, and bringing to their senses all others who despise the gods. And furthermore, such cities and flourishing populations are held by them in no account; they consider the cruelty they exercise against them to be a mere accessory to their own power. Compare, therefore, this letter of mine with that which I sent to you a short time ago, and observe the difference: what great praises I wrote of you at that time! But now, by the gods, although I ought to praise you, I cannot do so on account of your lawlessness. A people dares, like dogs, to tear a man to pieces. And then further, ^B is he not ashamed to maintain his hands pure, so as to stretch them forth towards the gods, when they are covered in blood? But George was deserving of suffering such things; and perhaps I would even say that he deserved things worse and more bitter than these. And if you say that this happened because of you, I even agree; but if it is added that it was by you that he ought to have suffered this, I by no means grant it. For you have laws that ought to be honored and cherished by everyone, both privately and publicly. But since it happens that some among you transgress in individual cases, yet the common good ought to be well-governed, and you ought to obey the laws, and not transgress those things which were from the beginning well-established. It has been a piece of good fortune for you, O men of Alexandria, that you committed such a crime while I was reigning, I who, out of reverence for God, and on account of my grandfather and namesake, ^C who governed both Egypt and your city, have preserved toward you a brotherly affection. For the power that does not allow itself to be despised, and which is a true and upright government, would never tolerate such a daring deed of the populace, lest it should have to be purged, like a grievous disease, by a more bitter remedy. But I offer to you—for the reasons I have just stated—what is most mild: words of exhortation. By which I know well that you will be persuaded more than you are, as I hear, Greeks of old, and at present, ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A you still retain that noble and distinguished mark in your minds and studies. Let it be proposed to my citizens of Alexandria. And these are the things written by the emperor.

Cap. IV. How Athanasius, after George was killed, returned to Alexandria and recovered his Church.

Not long after, the Alexandrian populace gladly received Athanasius as he returned from exile; they cast out of the churches those of the Arian tenet, and handed the houses of prayer over to Athanasius. The Arians, however, holding their assemblies in some base and obscure dwellings, appointed a certain Lucius in the place of George. And such was the state of affairs at Alexandria at that time.

Cap. V. Concerning Lucifer and Eusebius.

At this same time, Lucifer and Eusebius were recalled from exile by command of the emperor. Lucifer was the bishop of Caralis, a city of Sardinia; Eusebius was of Vercellae, which is a city of the Ligurians in Italy, as I have also said before. Both, therefore, returning ^B from exile in the upper Thebaid, took counsel among themselves as to how they might succor the laws of the Church, and not permit them to be violated with impunity.

Cap. VI. How Lucifer ordained Paulinus at Antioch.

It pleased them, therefore, that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to Alexandria, so that, having gathered a synod together with Athanasius, they might strengthen the doctrines of the Church. Lucifer, arriving at Antioch, ordained Paulinus. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(33) On that nobility. One should by all means write [Greek text omitted: ὑπέστιν ὑμῖν ἀξιόλογος], etc. This is something I marvel that the translators have not noticed. In the edition of the works of Julian, it is read [Greek text omitted: ἐπεὶ τῆς εὐγενείας] by a grave error. A little before, I had forgotten to warn that it should be written [Greek text omitted: ἐστέ], as it is read in Julian and Nicephorus.

(34) Let it be proposed. One should by all means write [Greek text omitted: προτεθήτω], as Nicephorus has it. That is: "Let it be proposed to my citizens of Alexandria." I have observed much concerning this clause, which was accustomed to be attached to imperial edicts, in my Eusebian Annotations, which I deemed superfluous to repeat here.

(35) And they took counsel. Not only did Eusebius and Lucifer take counsel concerning the repairing of the state of the Churches and the establishing of a rule of faith; but other bishops were also present, who at that time had been recalled from exile by the edict of the emperor Julian: namely, Hilarius, Asterius, and the rest, as Theodoret correctly notes in Book III, chapter 4. These men, inflamed with zeal for the Catholic faith, set out to bring back heretics and schismatics to the path of truth and to recall the former concord. ^D Therefore, what Baronius says—that Eusebius and Lucifer were created legates of the apostolic see by Liberius to repair the state of the Church—cannot be true. For the same would have to be said of Hilarius and the rest. Add that Rufinus refutes this clearly. For he writes that this legation was enjoined upon Eusebius and Asterius by the Alexandrian synod.

VARIORUM.

* After the publication of Julian's edict, by which the exiles had the power to return, Athanasius returned to Alexandria, and as was customary, was received with great joy by the Catholic populace. Gregory Nazianzen attributes all these things, which pertain to the return, to that year. Socrates relates that the Arians chose Lucius, a man of their own faction, in the place of the deceased George. However, the Acts, published in the time of Emperor Jovian, seem to contradict this. For it is not said in that place that the Arians constituted the bishop Lucius for themselves, but that they wanted to constitute him. And perhaps, when they wanted to substitute Lucius in the see of George, they were restrained by the Catholics, whose multitude at Alexandria was great. (See Benedictine monks, Life of Athanasius, ad ann. 362.)

* Lucifer Calaritanus, or Caralitanus, flourished as bishop in Sardinia [original-script column: see facsimile] circa the year 354, at the same time as Eusebius of Vercellae, his companion in almost all toils, contests, travels, and exiles, as...

^A they might confirm the dogmata of the Church. Lucifer, therefore, sent a deacon 36 to his own place, through whom he promised that he would assent to those things which had been decreed by the synod. He himself, having set out for Antioch, found the Church of that place troubled; for the multitudes were at variance among themselves. For not only was the Arian heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoius, dividing the Church, but also, as I said before, those who had followed Meletius, out of zeal and love for their teacher, had separated themselves from those who held the same views as they did in the faith. Lucifer, therefore, having ordained Paulinus as bishop for them, departed thence.

CHAPTER VII.

Eusebius, having arrived at Alexandria, ^B joined Athanasius in holding the synod with greater zeal.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

^A Bishops from various cities gathered together, and discussed many very necessary matters. Here, also, having discoursed on the Holy Spirit, they included Him in the consubstantial Trinity. And they declared that He who became man was not only endowed with a body, but also with a human soul, a belief which had also seemed correct to the men of the Church of old. For they did not introduce into the Church some new religion that they had devised, but rather affirmed what the ecclesiastical tradition had taught from the beginning, and what had been philosophically demonstrated by the wise men among the Christians. For thus all the ancients who discussed this subject left us their thoughts in writing. Indeed, Irenaeus and Clement, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion, the prelate of the church in Antioch, all assert in the works they labored upon that He who became man was endowed with a soul, as a matter agreed upon by them. Not only so, but the synod that took place on account of Beryllus, bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, wrote to the same Beryllus and handed down the same things. Origen also, in all his books that are extant, recognizes that He who became man was endowed with a soul. ^B And specifically, the ninth volume of his work on Genesis revealed the mystery concerning this, in which he explained at greater length that Adam was a type of Christ, and Eve a type of the Church. Reliable witnesses to these things are the holy Pamphilus and Eusebius, who took his name from him. For both of them, having together compiled the life of Origen, and in response to those who from a preconceived opinion were hostile to the man, in those illustrious books which they produced in his defense, declare that it was not Origen who first approached this inquiry, but that he was interpreting the mystical tradition of the Church. And those who were present at the Synod of Alexandria did not leave unexamined, I mean, that concerning essence and hypostasis. ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ...in book 2, cap. 31; and in book 3, cap. 4. Athanasius speaks of the same in the aforementioned epistle: and a little after: etc. Where you see that those who were holding assemblies in the "Palæa" are distinguished from the followers of Paulinus, that is, from the Eustathians. For Paulinus was of their number. Therefore, those who were holding meetings in the Palæa could be none other than the supporters of Meletius, whom Athanasius especially commends. ...that it seems to me should be deleted, as having been repeated from the line above by a drowsy scribe. Nicephorus, however, in book 10, cap. 14, describing this passage of Socrates, for [the text] puts [it]... whether he had read it so in his copy, or whether he judged that the word should be interpreted that way. ...Cyrillum also, Nicephorus calls by the name Philadelphia in the place indicated above. But we have restored [it] from the best Florentine and Sfortian codices. Our emendation is confirmed by Epiphanius the Scholastic, who translated this passage thus: "Also a synod held on account of Beryllus, bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, and writing to the same Beryllus, handed down this very thing." Beryllus was bishop, not of Philadelphia, as Socrates says, but of Bostra in Arabia, who denied that Christ was God before the incarnation, as Eusebius teaches in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, cap. 53. To refute this error of his, a synod was gathered in Arabia, to which Origen was summoned, and he refuted the heresy of Beryllus, as Eusebius testifies in the same place. Concerning this heresy of Beryllus, Origen's [work] is to be understood. ^D

VARIORUM. In this synod, the subject of hypostases was treated, which some had already begun to call into controversy. For there were some, indeed, who said that there were three hypostases in the Trinity, while others contended that there was but one. The matter having been investigated and deliberated upon, and the views of each having been weighed, it was found that the faith of both parties was sound and orthodox. For they who said there were three hypostases declared that they professed this because they believed in the Trinity not merely in name, but that the individual persons were truly existing and subsisting; yet they admitted the distinction in such a way that they would have neither three gods nor as many principles preached, but the Son consubstantial with the Father, and the Holy Spirit not a created thing, but undivided from the substance of the Father and the Son. But those who maintained there was one hypostasis, were not of a mind...

^A regarding the translation of the mystic tradition of the Church. Moreover, the bishops who were present at the Alexandrian council examined this question carefully, namely that of substance and hypostasis. For Hosius, the bishop of Corduba, a city of the Spains, whom we mentioned earlier, having been sent for this purpose by the Emperor Constantine to extinguish the tumult excited by Arius, while he strove to overthrow the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan, stirred up a question concerning substance and hypostasis; which question indeed gave material for another contention.

But the Nicene synod, which was gathered shortly thereafter, did not make any mention of this question. But ^B since some later began to contend about this matter, for this reason these things were defined in this synod regarding substance and hypostasis, namely that these terms ought not to be used concerning God. For they said that the term "substance" is nowhere to be found in the holy Scriptures, and that the Apostle used the name "hypostasis" out of necessity for the sake of the dogmas. But they decreed that these terms should be admitted in another way—that is, when they refute the opinion of Sabellius, so that we might not narrow down the meanings of the terms, as if we thought it a ^C three-named thing, but that each of those ^D named concerning the Trinity would be theologically spoken of in its own hypostasis. These things, then, the synod decreed at that time.

^A What we have learned regarding "substance" and "hypostasis," nothing prevents us from explaining here briefly. Those among the Greeks who handed down Greek philosophy defined "substance" in many ways, but they made no mention whatsoever of "hypostasis." Irenaeus the Grammarian, in the lexicon arranged in alphabetical order which is entitled *Atticistes*, affirms that this word is barbaric. For he says it is not found among any of the ancient writers; and even if it is found somewhere, it does not signify what is now understood by it. For in Sophocles, in his *Phoenix*, "hypostasis" signifies a plot; in Menander, it signifies condiments, just as if someone were to call the dregs of wine settling in a jar "hypostasis." It must be known, however, that even if the ancient philosophers omitted this word, yet the more recent philosophers have frequently ^B used it in place of the word for substance. They have defined substance in various ways; but if substance is circumscribed by a definition, how can we properly use this word for God, who cannot be circumscribed? Evagrius, in the book he entitled *Monachicus*, warns against discussing God rashly and inconsiderately. He absolutely forbids defining the Divinity, inasmuch as it is most simple. For he says that definitions belong to composite things. He uses these words: "Every proposition, he says, has as its predicate either a genus, or a species, or a difference, or a property, or an accident, or that which is composed from these; but none of the things mentioned can be applied to the Holy Trinity. Let the ineffable be worshipped in silence." Such, then, are the words of Evagrius, ^C of whom we shall speak later. For our part, even if we seem to have said these things in a digression, we have recorded them here as useful for the subject of this history.

CHAPTER VIII.

Excerpts from Athanasius’ *Apology for his Flight*.

At the same time, Athanasius recited before his acquaintances the apologetic discourse regarding his flight, which he had composed long ago for his defense. The parts of this that seem to me useful and profitable, I have written down here—the whole discourse being very long.

^A Behold these—the daring deeds of the impious. Doing these things, and not blushing at the evils they previously tyrannized against us, they even now accuse us for having been able to escape their murderous hands; or rather, they lament bitterly that they have not also made us completely disappear. And finally, they fabricate excuses, accusing us of cowardice, ignorant that, in grumbling about this, they are merely turning the blame back upon themselves. For if it is an evil thing to flee, it is a far worse thing to persecute. The one hides himself so that he might not die; the other pursues, seeking to kill. And while flight is scriptural, he who seeks to kill transgresses the Law, and rather provides the pretext for flight himself. If, therefore, they reproach flight, let the persecutors blush the more; let them cease their plotting, and those who flee will immediately cease as well. ^B But they do not cease from their own wickedness; yet they do everything for the sake of causing a downfall, knowing that the flight of the persecuted is a great proof against the persecutors. For no one flees from a man who is meek and kind, but rather from one who is cruel and evil of character. For everyone crushed with grief and burdened with debt used to flee from Saul, but would betake himself to David. For this reason, these [persecutors] also hasten to kill those who hide from them, so that they might not seem to have the evidence of their own wickedness. But even in this, the deluded seem to be blind. For by how much the flight is manifest, by that much more will the killing and exile, brought about by their plotting, become still more evident to all. ^C For if they kill, the death will cry out more loudly against them; and if they send into exile, they are everywhere scattering monuments of their own lawlessness against themselves. If, then, they possessed sound minds, they would see themselves caught in these things, and stumbling over their own reasoning. But since they have lost even their senses, they are carried away into persecuting others, and while seeking to destroy, they do not see their own impiety. For if they revile those who hide from those seeking to kill them, and slander those who flee from their pursuers, what will they do when they see Jacob fleeing from his brother Esau, and Moses withdrawing into Midian through fear of Pharaoh? ^D And as for such—what will these babblers say in defense against David who fled from Saul, when he sent him away from his house—or rather, when he sent him away to be killed, while he himself was hiding in the cave?

in the cave, and disguised his face until Abimelech had passed by, and he escaped the treachery? What then would those say, who speak so rashly about everything, when they see the great Elijah, who called upon God and raised the dead, hiding himself for fear of Ahab, and fleeing from the threats of Jezebel? For at that time even the sons of the prophets, who were sought for death, hid themselves, lurking in the caves near Abdias. Have they not read these things as being of old? And do they remember naught of what is in the Gospel? For the disciples, too, because of fear of the Jews, withdrew and hid themselves; and when Paul ^B was being sought in the city of Damascus by the ethnarch, he was let down from the wall in a basket, and escaped the hands of him who sought him. Since, therefore, holy Scripture relates such things concerning the saints, what excuse for their own rashness will they be able to invent? For if they reproach them for cowardice, they speak against themselves like madmen. But if they slander them as doing so against the will of God, they are utterly ignorant of the divine Scriptures. For in the Law there was a command that cities of refuge be established, so that those who were sought for death might by any means be able to save themselves. And in the end of the ages, when He himself, the Word of the Father who had spoken to Moses, had come upon the earth, He gave this command again, saying: "When they persecute you, flee from this city into another." And after a little He says: "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains. Let him that is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house; ^C and let him that is in the field not return to take his garments." Knowing these things, the saints adopted such a way of life. For what the Lord then commanded, He had already spoken in the saints even before His bodily presence. And this is a rule leading all men to perfection: namely, that whatever God may command, we should do that. For this reason, the Word of God Himself, having become man for our sake, when He was sought, deigned to hide Himself just as we do, and when He suffered persecution again, to flee and to decline the treachery. For it was fitting that, just as by hungering, and thirsting, and suffering, so also by this means He should show Himself to have become man. For from the beginning, as soon as He had become man, when He was still a child, He commanded Joseph through the angel: "Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt; for it is ^D about to come to pass that Herod will seek the young child's life." And when Herod was dead, He appears again on account of Archelaus his son, withdrawing into Nazareth. And when, at length, He was showing Himself to be God, and had made the withered hand whole, the...

Pharisees went out and took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him. But Jesus, knowing this, withdrew from thence. For indeed, even when He raised Lazarus from the dead, from that day, he says, they took counsel that they might put Him to death. Jesus, therefore, no longer walked openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near the desert. ^B Thereafter, when the Savior said: "Before Abraham was, I am," the Jews indeed took up stones that they might cast them at Him. But Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, and passing through the midst of them, He went His way, and so escaped. When they see, or rather hear these things—for they do not see—ought they not, according to what is written, be consumed by fire, since they plot and speak things contrary to those which the Lord did and taught? For indeed, when John had suffered martyrdom, and his body had been buried by the disciples, Jesus, having heard this, withdrew in a boat into a desert place apart. The Lord, therefore, did these things, and thus He taught. Would that they, at least, might be ashamed and curb their own rashness toward men, and not, advancing further in madness, reproach the Savior Himself with cowardice, having once schooled themselves to blaspheme against Him. ^C But no one will endure them in their madness. Rather, they will be refuted, even while not understanding the Gospels. For the reason for such withdrawal and flight is reasonable and most true; which the evangelists have recorded as having existed in the Savior. But we ought to infer from this that the same was also in all the saints. For those things which are written in a human manner concerning the Savior, it is fitting to refer to the common race of men. For He took upon Himself what is ours, and showed forth the passions of our weakness. Which indeed John declared in these words: "They sought to take Him, but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come." For even before that hour came, He Himself said to His mother: "My hour is not yet come." And to those who were called His brothers: "My time is not yet fully come." ^D

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS. (48) Rather, even hearing. In the edition of Athanasius it is read: rather even hearing, since they do not see, how, according to that which is written, they do not wish to be consumed by fire, etc. Which scripture Epiphanius Scholasticus has followed. For he thus translates: You think these seeing, but rather hearing, since they do not see, how according to that which is written, they ought not to be consumed by fire, etc. But Musculus and Christophorsonus join these words with "as if Athanasius were alluding to that of the Gospel," that *seeing they might not see*. Which I do not approve. For the Arians were not able to see those things at that time. (49) "Once having practiced to blaspheme against Him." The interpreters have translated this passage badly. I make one exception for Langus, the interpreter of Nicephorus, who translates thus: "Who once having determined to blaspheme and insult Him with curses." For he understands the Arians, who were placing Christ in the order of creatures.

VARIORUM. "For what is ours." These are found thus in Athanasius: "For He assumed our body, and displayed human infirmity." (Benedictine Interpreter.)

Again, when the time came, He said to the disciples: ^A "Sleep on now, and take your rest. Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." He neither allowed Himself to be seized before the time had arrived, nor did He hide Himself when the hour was present, but He delivered Himself up to those who were plotting against Him. In such a way did the blessed martyrs also comport themselves during the persecutions that followed one another; they would flee when they suffered persecution and remain in hiding, but when discovered, they underwent martyrdom. Such are the things that Athanasius explained in his *Apology for His Flight*.

CHAPTER IX

How Eusebius, after the synod of the orthodox bishops at Alexandria, returned to Antioch, and finding the Catholics there divided over the ordination of Paulinus, and being unable to reconcile them, departed.

^B Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, immediately after the synod, departed from Alexandria and traveled to Antioch. There he found that Paulinus had been ordained by Lucifer, but that the people were divided among themselves (for the supporters of Meletius were holding separate assemblies). Disturbed that not all agreed with that ordination, he condemned the act within himself, but out of reverence for Lucifer, he dissembled and departed, promising to set all things right in a council of bishops. But afterward, when he had greatly labored to lead the dissenting parties ^C to concord, he could not accomplish it. In the meantime, Meletius had returned from exile. Finding those who had gathered to him holding separate meetings, he took charge of them. Now Euzoius, the prelate of the Arian heresy, was in possession of the churches. Paulinus held only one of the smaller churches within the city, from which Euzoius, moved by respect for the man, had not expelled him. But Meletius was holding his assemblies outside the city gates. In this manner, therefore, Eusebius at that time departed from Antioch. But Lucifer, when he learned that his ordination was not accepted by Eusebius, considered it an insult and was grievously indignant. He therefore determined to refrain from communion with Eusebius; and, moved by a spirit of contention, he began to criticize the things that had been decreed by the synod. These things, being said in a time of sorrow, alienated many from the Church. And thus another heresy, that of the Luciferians, arose. But Lucifer was unable to satisfy his wrath. ^D

Constrained by his own promises, by which he had pledged through the deacon he sent that he would assent to the decrees of the council, he retained the ecclesiastical faith and returned to his own see in Sardinia. Those, however, who had originally been embittered along with him remained separated from the Church. Eusebius, ^B nonetheless, like a skilled physician, traveled through the East, restoring those who were weak in the faith to full health, instructing and teaching them the ecclesiastical dogmas. Departing from there, he arrived among the Illyrians, and having landed in Italy, he continued to do the same.

CAP. X. Concerning Hilary, Bishop of the Pictavi.

^B Hilary, bishop of the Pictavi—which is a city of Aquitania Secunda—had reached these regions even before him, having already disseminated the dogmas of the orthodox faith to the bishops of Italy and Gaul. For he had returned from exile earlier and arrived in those regions. Both, therefore, struggled valiantly for the faith. Hilary indeed, being most learned, set forth the dogmas of the consubstantial in books written in the Latin tongue; by these he not only sufficiently established this dogma but also powerfully attacked the dogmas of the Arians. These things, however, happened a little later—after the recall of those who had been exiled. ^C It should be noted that, at this same time, those around Macedonius, Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius—all of whom were called Macedonians from the same origin—held councils frequently in various places. And having convoked those who held their opinions in Seleucia, they anathematized the bishops of the other party, namely the Acacians.

^A and rejected the faith of Ariminum, confirming that which had been read out at Seleucia. This was the very same which had previously been set forth at Antioch, as I have mentioned in the previous book. Being then interrogated by some: “You, who are called Macedonians, if you think differently on the faith than the Acacians, why until now have you communicated with them as if they held the same views as you?” ^B To this inquiry they answered through Sophronius, bishop of the city of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, as follows: “Those in the West,” he said, “were sick with the error of the *consubstantial*. But Aetius in the East, having corrupted the doctrine of the faith, had introduced the opinion of *dissimilar substance*. And both were lawless. For the former rashly bound together the distinct persons of the Father and the Son into a unity, being bound by the bond of wickedness, as it were, with the word *consubstantial*. But the latter utterly destroyed the kinship of the Son's nature with the nature of the Father, with the word *dissimilar in substance*. But since both sides fell into a great extremity of opposing errors, the middle path ^C between both appeared to us sufficiently to possess the piety of the truth, similar...

to the Father according to the hypostasis. Such were the answers the Macedonians gave to the inquiry through Sophronius, as Sabinus recounts in his Collection of synodal acts. Yet in the fact that they blamed Aetius 55 as the author of the doctrine of the Anomoeans, but did not blame those around Acacius, they appear to be sophistically twisting the truth, appearing in part to avoid the Arians, and in part to avoid those who hold to the consubstantial. But they are convicted by their own words, that in innovating with both sides, they have stripped themselves bare. Let this much be said regarding these matters.

CHAPTER XI

How the Emperor Julian exacted money from the Christians

The emperor Julian, however, having appeared at first ^B to be gentle and mild to all, as he progressed in time, did not show himself the same to everyone. For wherever an opportunity was given to disparage Constantius, he readily granted the petitions of the Christians. But where this opportunity did not exist, he openly displayed to all the private hatred he had conceived against all Christians in common. So, for instance, he ordered the church of the Novatians in the city of Cyzicus, which Euzoius 56 had razed to the ground, to be rebuilt ^C, imposing a very heavy penalty on Eleusius, the bishop there, if he did not rebuild it at his own expense within two months. He nevertheless maintained the Greek religion. And the temples of the Greeks, as I said, were opened; and he performed sacrifices to the Fortune of the city of Constantinople in public in the basilica 57, where the statue of Fortune is also established.

CHAPTER XII. On Maris, Bishop of Chalcedon.

^A At that time, Maris, the bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia, being led by the hand—for he was very advanced in age and suffering from a suffusion of the eyes—approached the emperor and heaped many insults upon him, calling him impious, an apostate, and godless. The emperor returned insult for insult, calling him blind. "And your Galilean God," he said, "will never heal you." For Julian was accustomed to call Christ "the Galilean," and Christians "Galileans." But Maris replied to the emperor with even greater boldness: "I thank God, who has blinded me, that I might not look upon your face, which has fallen into such great impiety." To this the emperor answered nothing at the time; but afterward he took severe vengeance upon him. ^B For when he saw that those who had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian were honored by the Christians, and observed that many were hastening with a ready spirit to martyrdom—as if he wished to avenge himself upon the Christians for this very thing—he turned to another method. He avoided that excessive cruelty which had prevailed in the times of Diocletian, yet he did not abstain from persecution altogether. For I call it persecution whenever men living quietly and peaceably are harassed in any way whatsoever. He harassed them in this manner: he passed a law that Christians should not be trained in the humanities, so that if they honed their tongues, as he said, they might not respond more readily to the dialectics of the Gentiles.

CHAPTER XIII. On the tumult which the pagans stirred up against the Christians.

^C He also forbade those who were unwilling to renounce the Christian religion and sacrifice to the idols from serving in the palace. Moreover, he forbade Christians from governing the provinces, saying that their law forbids the use of the sword against those who have incurred capital punishment. Furthermore, he tempted many to sacrifice, partly by flattery and partly by gifts. ^D

^A And so, as if in a furnace, those who were Christians in truth and those who were merely presumed to be so were revealed to all. For those who were Christians with an upright purpose laid aside their belts with a cheerful heart, choosing to endure anything whatsoever rather than deny Christ. Among these were Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, who later held the empire. But others, who were not Christians in sincere conviction, and who preferred the riches and the honors of this world to true happiness, turned without delay to sacrifice. Among their number was Ecebolius, a sophist of the city of Constantinople. This man, modeling and adapting himself to the character of the emperors, feigned that he was most ardently practicing the Christian religion while Constantius was reigning; but in the times of Julian, he appeared to be excessively addicted to the superstition of the Gentiles; yet after the death of Julian, he wished once again to profess the Christian religion. For, throwing himself ^B prostrate before the gates of the prayer-house, he is said to have used these words: "Trample upon me as salt that has lost its savor." Such was Ecebolius; just as he was fickle and inconstant before, so he remained afterward.

At the same time, the emperor, wishing to avenge himself upon the Persians for the frequent incursions which they had made into Roman territory during the times of Constantius, hastened swiftly through Asia toward the eastern regions. And since he understood what evils war is wont to bring, and what a quantity of money is needed, without which war cannot be waged conveniently, he craftily decided to extort a great sum of gold from the Christians. For he imposed a monetary fine upon those who refused to sacrifice, and that very collection was full of severity toward those who were truly Christians. For everyone was forced to contribute money according to the measure of their ^C resources. Thus, the emperor, through the unjust exaction of ill-gotten money, quickly became wealthy. For the law was put into execution, not only where the emperor was present, but also in those places to which he had not even traveled. At that time, too, the pagans rushed upon the Christians, and there was a gathering of those who called themselves philosophers. Moreover, certain unspeakable mysteries were devised by them, such as the sacrifice of innocent children, both male and female, for the practice of examining entrails, and the tasting of the remains. And they did these things not only in other cities, but also in Athens and Alexandria. In the latter, they even concocted a plot against Athanasius the bishop, and they informed the emperor that he was devastating the city and all of Egypt, and that he ought to be removed from the city. ^D

And the prefect of Egypt, at the emperor’s command, rose up against the same Athanasius. ^A

CAP. XIV. Concerning the flight of Athanasius.

He therefore took to flight again, speaking to his friends with these words: "Let us withdraw for a little while, friends; for it is a little cloud, and it will pass." Having said this, he immediately boarded a ship and crossed the channel of the Nile and fled into Egypt. Those who were eager to capture him pursued him from behind. When he learned that his pursuers were not far off, those who were with him urged him to flee again into the desert. ^B But he, using his wise judgment, escaped his pursuers. For he advised those who were with him to turn back and meet them. And this was done with all speed. And when those who shortly before were fleeing were now close to the pursuers, the seekers asked those who were with Athanasius whether they had seen Athanasius anywhere. And they indicated that he was somewhere near, and said that if they hastened, they would soon overtake him. And thus those men, misled, pursued sharply but in vain. He, however, having escaped, came secretly to Alexandria; and there he hid until the persecution had ceased. Such were the evils that befell the bishop of Alexandria, after the many persecutions and hardships inflicted upon him partly by Christians and partly by pagans. ^C Furthermore, the governors of the provinces, seizing the opportunity for their own gain from the emperor’s [pagan] superstition, treated the Christians worse than the imperial commands had ordered—both exacting more money than they ought, and sometimes even inflicting bodily punishments. Learning of this, the emperor looked the other way, and ^D

to the Christians who came to him about this, he replied: "It is for you to endure injuries patiently; for this is the precept of your God."

CHAPTER XV.

At that same time, at the city of Meros in Phrygia, the governor of the province, Amachius, ordered the temple to be opened and commanded that the filth accumulated there by the length of time be cleared out, and he deemed the statues placed therein worthy of care. This action caused the Christians great distress. Macedonius, Theodulus, and Tatianus, inflamed by zeal for the Christian religion, could not bear this indignity. Burning with an ^B incredible love of virtue, they rushed into the temple by night and smashed the statues. The governor was extremely angered by what had been done, and as he was eager to put many innocent people in the city to death, the authors of the deed voluntarily presented themselves; and they chose to die for the truth themselves rather than see others die in their stead. The governor, having seized them, commanded them to wash away the wrong they had committed by sacrificing; and he threatened that if they did not do so, they would be punished. But they, being of a noble spirit, and regarding his threats as of little account, were ready to endure everything, and preferred to die rather than be defiled by sacrifices. ^C Then, having subjected the men to all kinds of torture, he finally placed them upon a gridiron and, ordering fire to be put beneath it, in this way destroyed them. They, however, displayed the crown of their valor at that moment, speaking thus to the governor: "If you desire, Amachius, to taste roasted meat, turn us over onto our other sides, lest we seem to your taste to be only half-cooked." In this way, then, they ended their lives.

CHAPTER XVI.

The law of the emperor, which forbade Christians to participate in Greek learning, made the two Apollinarii, whom we have mentioned before, ^D more illustrious. For as both were learned in letters—the father being a grammarian, and the son a rhetorician—they showed themselves useful to the Christians at that present time. For the father, in his capacity as a grammarian,

^A composed the art of grammar according to the Christian form, and interpreted the Books of Moses in heroic verse; furthermore, other books of the Old Testament which were written in the style of histories he expounded partly in dactylic verse, and partly he elaborated in the form of tragedy, using characters. He deliberately used every kind of metrical rhythm, so that no form of the Greek language should remain strange or unheard of to the Christians. The younger Apollinaris, being well prepared in the art of rhetoric, set forth the Gospels and the apostolic doctrines in the form of dialogues, following the example of Plato among the Greeks. Thus, having shown themselves useful to the Christian religion, they overcame the sophistry of the Emperor by their own labors. But the providence of God prevailed over both their zeal and the impulse of the Emperor. For that law was soon extinguished along with the Emperor himself, as we shall relate in the progress of our history: but their labors are held in as little esteem as if they had never been written. But here someone will sharply confront us, saying: "Why do you affirm that these things happened by the providence of God? For while it is clear that the Emperor's swift death was beneficial to the Christian cause, the fact that the Christian writings of the Apollinarii have been cast aside, and that ^B Christians have again begun to be instructed in the disciplines of the Greeks, surely does not benefit the Christian religion. For Greek discipline is highly dangerous and harmful, as it introduces a multitude of gods." To these points, we shall offer such responses as come to our mind. Greek education was neither received by Christ and his disciples as divinely inspired, nor was it entirely rejected as harmful. And I believe this was done by them deliberately. For many of the philosophers among the Greeks were not far from the knowledge of God. Indeed, instructed in the science of discourse, they strove valiantly against the Epicureans and other contentious sophists who denied the providence of God, refuting their ignorance. And through these books they provided no small benefit to those who are lovers of piety; yet, they did not reach the head of the matter, because they did not know the mystery of Christ, which was hidden from generations and from ages. And that this is so, the Apostle shows in the Epistle to the Romans, ^C where he says: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest..."

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

a The Books of Moses. If Sozomen relates the matter correctly, he transcribed the entire history of the Hebrews up to the kingdom of Saul in that same style of verse, and distributing the whole work into twenty-four parts, he assigned a name to each book, arranged in the order of the letters of the Greek alphabet: so that in a short time he composed lucubrations equal in number and excellence to those which were celebrated among the Greeks in that field, whether you look at the genius, or the diction, or the form, or the disposition of the work. (Guil. Cave, Vol. 1, p. 176.) But there exists today a metrical paraphrase of the Psalms, both in the Appendix to the Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris 1624, and separately published in Greek at Paris, 1580, 8°, which is attributed sometimes to the father Apollinaris, sometimes to the son. Gerard Vossius, in his De histor. Græc., lib. II, cap. 18, ^D more correctly in my judgment ascribes it to the father, to whom I would also ascribe the tragedy which is called "Christus Patiens," and which is usually printed under the name of Gregory Nazianzen among his Works. Fragments of the son's books can be found in some catenae of the ancients on Job, on the Psalms, on Matthew, Luke, etc. There exist also two Greek and Latin epistles to Basil in Cotelerius, Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, tom. II; but it can be doubted whether they are genuine. Aubertus Miraeus, in his notes on Jerome's Catalogus, mentions a certain booklet "On the Ages of Men," published under the name of Apollinaris of Laodicea in the year 1575: about which I have nothing to say, as I have never seen it. (Cave, ibid., and p. 203.)

b But their labors are held in as little esteem as if they had never been written. But there exists today a paraphrase of the Psalms both in the Appendix to the Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris 1624, and separately published in Greek at Paris, 1580, 8°.

°. ^A from generations and ages had remained ignorant. And the Apostle declares that this is so in his Epistle to the Romans, in these words: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God." By this it is evident that they indeed possessed a knowledge of the truth which God had made manifest to them, but that they were guilty inasmuch as, when they had known God, they did not glorify him as God. Therefore, the failure to prohibit the learning of Hellenic literature was left to the judgment of those who wished it. Let this account, then, serve for the matter at hand.

There is another consideration of this nature: ^B the divinely inspired Scriptures teach doctrines that are admirable and truly divine, and they instill in the hearers much piety and a correct manner of life, and they provide a faith acceptable to God for those who are studious. They do not, however, teach the art of logic, by which we might be able to offer counter-arguments to those who wish to attack the truth. But enemies are most easily defeated when we use their own weapons against them. This, however, could not be available to the Christians from the books that the Apollinarii wrote. When the Emperor Julian observed this, he prohibited by law that Christians be instructed in the disciplines of the Greeks. For he knew well that their fables would render the opinion he himself had imbibed ridiculous and subject to reproach. Socrates, the leader of the philosophers among them, was condemned on such grounds, as if he had attempted to violate the demons they hold dear. ^C Furthermore, both Christ and his Apostle charge us to become "approved money-changers," so that we may "prove all things; hold fast that which is good," and "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." This we would not be able to follow unless we acquired the weapons of our enemies; and in acquiring them, we must take care not to adopt the sentiments of our enemies; but rather, while turning away from the evil, we must retain what is good and true, examining all that we take up. For what is good, wherever it may be, is a property of the truth. If anyone thinks we are speaking forcefully in saying this, let him observe that the Apostle not only does not forbid learning Hellenic education, but he appears himself not to have neglected it, for the sake of knowing many things spoken by the Greeks. For from what source was he prompted to say: "The Cretes are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies," if he had not read the oracles of Epimenides the Cretan, a master of ceremonies? ^D For the Scripture says, "Become approved money-changers, casting away the counterfeit from the genuine."

^A Or how would he have known, "For we are also his offspring," if he had not understood the *Phenomena* of the astronomer Aratus? But even the saying, "Evil communications corrupt good manners," shows that he was not unacquainted with the dramas of Euripides. And why is there need to lengthen the discourse on these matters? For from of old, as if by some firmly rooted custom, the teachers of the Churches are found to have exercised themselves in the disciplines of the Greeks even until extreme old age; this partly for the sake of eloquence and the training of the mind, and partly for the very refutation of the Greeks themselves, regarding those things in which they had strayed from the truth. And let these things be said by us as adequately as we are able for the sake of the Apollinarii.

Chapter XVII

The emperor, however, having collected a vast sum of money from the Christians and making his preparations against the Persians, reached Antioch in Syria. While he was staying there, wishing to display to the Antiochenes the ambition with which he was aflame, he lowered the prices of commodities more than was proper, without having any regard for the timing; nor did he consider in his mind that the presence of a numerous army necessarily brings loss to the provincials and consumes the abundance of the necessities of life in the cities. ^C Therefore, the dealers and engrossers, bearing poorly the loss that had befallen them by the emperor’s command, subsequently abstained from trade. Hence it came about that provisions failed in the market. The Antiochenes, unable to endure this situation—men by their own nature prone to railing—without delay broke out against the emperor himself and clamored against him. And mocking his beard (for he had a very long beard), they said it ought to be shorn, and even suggested weaving ropes from it.

^A And that his coinage bore a bull, and the world had been overturned. For the emperor, being very superstitious, and constantly sacrificing bulls at the idols' altars, had ordered an altar and a bull to be impressed upon his coinage. Falling into a rage at these jests, the emperor threatened to do every evil to the city of Antioch, and returned to Tarsus in Cilicia ^B; having ordered supplies to be prepared there, he hastened to depart. Hence the sophist Libanius had occasion to write both the embassy on behalf of the Antiochenes, and that to the Antiochenes concerning the emperor's wrath. But they say that although the sophist wrote these discourses, he did not publicly deliver them to many. The emperor, however, desisting from punishing those who had insulted him with deeds, dissolved his anger by a counter-jest; for having published the discourse he had labored over, the *Antiochicus* or *Misopogon* [Beard-hater], he left an eternal brand upon the city of Antioch. Let so much be said concerning these matters. It must also be told what evils the emperor at that time inflicted upon the Christians in Antioch.

CHAPTER XVIII.

How the demon, fearing the martyr Babylas, gave no response to the emperor seeking an oracle.

For when the emperor had ordered the temples of the Gentiles in the city of Antioch to be opened, he was eager to receive an oracle from the Apolline of Daphne. But the demon dwelling in the temple, fearing his neighbor—I mean the martyr Babylas—did not answer; for the coffin in which the martyr’s body ^C was kept was nearby. Recognizing the cause, the emperor immediately ordered the coffin to be moved. When this became known to the Christians who were in Antioch, all gathered together at once, with their wives and young children, and with joy and the singing of psalms, they transported the coffin from Daphne into the city; and those psalms struck at the gods of the Gentiles, and at those who placed their faith in them and their idols.

VALESIAN ANNOTATIONS

(68) *He returns.* I would prefer to write *εξυποστρέφειν* [to return]. For Julian threatened that he would return to Tarsus in Cilicia, when he had returned from Persia, and would no longer winter in Antioch. See Ammianus Marcellinus in book 22, p. 259 of our edition. Nicephorus, however, followed the common reading.

(69) *That to the Antiochenes concerning the emperor's wrath.* This speech of Libanius exists in my possession, transcribed from two codices, the one of Joannes Altinus, the other of the most eminent Cardinal Francesco Barberini. We shall, God willing, soon publish it in Latin translation, together with twenty and more的其他 orations of the same sophist.

(Variorum notes: [index: entries preserved])

CHAPTER XIX. Of the emperor's anger, and of Theodore the confessor.

^A Then indeed the malevolence of the emperor, which he had hitherto kept hidden, was revealed to all. For he who previously boasted of being a philosopher could no longer contain himself. Provoked to anger by the taunts of the psalms I previously mentioned, he prepared to inflict upon the Christians the same punishments which Diocletian had once inflicted upon them. But since the care and concern of the Parthian expedition did not allow him leisure for this business, he ordered Sallust, the praetorian prefect, to seize those who had shown the greatest zeal and fervor of spirit in the singing of psalms, and to lead them to punishment. The prefect, although he was a Gentile in religion, did not receive this command with a willing mind. But since it was not permitted for him to resist, he ordered many Christians to be apprehended, and some of them to be thrust into prison. One of them, a youth named Theodore, who had been brought to him by the Gentiles, he subjected to various tortures and punishments; and after commanding him to be lacerated over his whole body, he finally ordered him to be released only when he thought the youth would no longer live. But God was the one who saved the man. For he survived for a long time after that confession of faith. Rufinus, who wrote the ecclesiastical history in the Latin tongue, says that he met this Theodore a long time ^B afterwards, and asked him whether, while he was being beaten and tortured, he had felt any great pain. He affirmed that he had felt a very slight sense of pain from the tortures; for a certain youth had stood by him, who wiped away the sweat flowing from him during the struggle, and strengthened his soul, and for all that space of time during which he was being tortured, provided him with more pleasure than pain. Let this suffice to be said concerning the admirable Theodore. At that same time, ambassadors of the Persians arrived at the emperor, asking that he finish the war under certain conditions. But the emperor dismissed them, saying: "You will see me shortly, and there will be no need of an embassy."

CHAPTER XX. How the emperor compelled the Jews to sacrifice, and of the complete destruction of Jerusalem.

^C In another way besides, the emperor, desiring to harm the Christians, betrayed his own superstition. For ^D

^A being a lover of sacrifice, he not only rejoiced in the blood himself, but if others did not also do this, he considered it a loss. Since he found few such men, he sent for the Jews and inquired of them for what reason, when the Mosaic law commanded them to sacrifice, they abstained from doing so. When they replied that they could not do this anywhere except in Jerusalem, he ordered the temple of Solomon to be rebuilt with speed. And he himself set out against the Persians. The Jews, long desiring to seize an opportunity in which the temple would be rebuilt for them for sacrificing, became diligent in the work, but showed themselves formidable to the Christians, behaving arrogantly against them and threatening to do as much to them as they themselves had long ago suffered at the hands of the Romans.

The emperor having ordered the expenses to be provided from the public treasury, everything was prepared: wood and stones, baked bricks, clay and lime, and whatever other things are suitable for building. At that time, Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, kept in mind the prophecy of Daniel, which Christ also confirmed in the holy Gospels (Matt. xxiv, 2), and foretold to many that the time had now come when not one stone would be left upon another in the temple, but the saying of the Savior would be fulfilled. The bishop said these things. And ^B during the night, a great earthquake occurring, it tore up the stones from the ancient foundations of the temple and scattered them all, together with the adjacent buildings. Fear seized the Jews because of what had happened; and rumor brought even those who lived far away to the place.

While a great many were present, another miracle occurred. For fire, flashing down from heaven, destroyed all the tools of the workmen. It was possible to see the hammers, the chisels, the saws, the axes, the adzes—simply all the things the workmen had prepared for the work—being consumed by the flame. The fire fed on these things throughout the whole day. The Jews, having become filled with great fear, even against their will confessed Christ to be God, saying so. They did not, however, do His will, but remained held fast by the prejudice of Judaism. For not even the third miracle, which happened later, brought them to faith. ^C

pristine error. For not even the third ^A miracle which happened afterwards brought them to the faith of the truth. Indeed, on the following night, radiant signs of the cross appeared impressed upon their garments. When they saw these at daybreak, they tried to wipe and wash them off, but were in no way able to. Therefore, they were hardened, as the Apostle says, and cast away the good that they had in their hands. In this manner, the temple which they were attempting to rebuild was, on the contrary, utterly overthrown.

CAP. XXI. Of the emperor’s irruption into Persia, and his death.

Furthermore, the emperor made an irruption into Persia a little before the spring ^B, as he had learned that the nations of the Persians were weakest and most effeminate in the winter. For as they cannot endure the cold, they remain unable to fight during that season. Indeed, a Mede at that time, as the proverb goes, would not even reach out his hand beyond his cloak. On the contrary, knowing that the Romans were able to wage war even in winter, he sent his army into the territory of the Persians. Therefore, having ravaged many lands, villages, and forts, the Romans were already capturing the towns themselves. Having invested Ctesiphon, the great city, he besieged the king of the Persians so severely that the latter had recourse to frequent embassies, supplicating him to be satisfied with a portion of his native land, if he would only make peace and depart from the territory of the Persians. But Julian was neither moved in mind nor did he pity the suppliants; indeed, he did not even take the common saying to heart, that while it is noble to conquer, it is invidious to over-conquer. But trusting in the divinations ^C which the philosopher Maximus, who was assiduously with him, had suggested to him, and being led into the opinion that he would not only equal but even surpass the glory of Alexander of Macedon, he rejected the supplications of the Persians. He thought, according to the opinion of Pythagoras and Plato, that he possessed the soul of Alexander through the transmigration of souls, or rather that he was Alexander himself in another body. This conceit deceived him and caused him at that time not to accept the supplication of the Persian. Wherefore, he, knowing the embassy resulted in nothing for him, was driven into necessity ^D.

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

* This history may be compared with a similar event that occurred in the church of Wells among the English, which Isaac Casaubon reported, having received it from the mouth of the most reverend Andrews, bishop of Winchester, and which is recited by Meric Casaubon, his son, in his *Treatise on Credulity*, p. 118, in this manner: The Bishop of Ely (he was later promoted to the see of Winchester) said that he had received from many, but especially from the Bishop of Wells who had recently died (this was John Still), that about 15 years prior (the year was 1611 when he was writing this) in the city of Wells, on a certain summer day, while the people were occupied with holy rites in the cathedral, two or three peals of thunder, among many others, were heard to be excessively dreadful, so that the whole congregation fell to their knees at that terrible sound. It was established that lightning had struck at the same time, though without harm to anyone. And these things are common. That which is admirable, which was afterwards observed by many, is that impressions of the cross were found on the bodies of those who were in the holy building at that time. The Bishop of Wells told the Lord Bishop of Ely that his wife (she was a most honest woman) had come to him and told him, as a great miracle, that the sign of the cross appeared impressed upon her body. When the bishop received this with a laugh, his wife, having bared her body, proved to him that what she had said was true. Then he observed that the most manifest image of the same cross had been impressed upon himself as well, on his arm, I believe; upon others on the shoulder, on the chest, on the back, or on some other part of the body. W. Lowth.

Ammianus Marcellinus narrates this expedition quite accurately and in many books.

How devoted Julian was to the consultation of omens and a certain occult theology, which he had imbibed from Maximus, Iamblichus, and other mystic philosophers, is abundantly testified, besides his own writings, by Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapius, and Libanius, to say nothing of Christian writers.

^A And the day following the embassy, he drew up all the forces he had against the Roman army. The Romans indeed blamed the emperor, because he had not profitably declined the battle; nevertheless, they fought against those who were present, and once again put the enemy to flight. The emperor was present as a horseman, and was encouraging the army; but he was unarmed, ^B trusting only in the hope of good fortune. Suddenly, from an unseen source, a javelin was carried against him, and passing through his arm, entered his side. From this wound he ended his life, the author of his death remaining unknown. For some say he was struck by a certain Persian deserter; others, by one of his own soldiers, as the common report holds. But Callistus, who served among the emperor’s personal attendants (72), having recorded events concerning him in heroic verse, while recounting the battle at that time, says that he died having been struck by a demon. This, perhaps, he fashioned as a poet, or perhaps it is even so. For the Furies followed many. But however the case may be regarding him, that much is not hidden: that the man was by reason of his impetuosity not secure, by reason of his learning vainglorious, and by reason of his affected clemency, contemptible. Julian, then, in his fourth consulship, which he had entered upon together with Sallust, around the twenty-sixth of the month of June in the Persian land, as I said, brought his life to a close. This was the third year of his reign; the seventh since he was proclaimed Caesar by Constantius (73); and the thirty-first of his life.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (72) *Callistus, who served among the personal attendants of the emperor.* Male Epiphanius Scholasticus translates this passage thus: *Callistus, who then served among the familiar attendants of the emperor:* "personal attendants [οἰκεῖοι]" in this place are the *protectores domestici*, concerning whom I have observed many things in my annotations to the fourteenth book of Ammianus Marcellinus. Socrates uses this word in the same way in lib. IV, cap. I. But this Callistus, if I am not mistaken, is the one whom Libanius in epistle 120, book IV, calls Callistio, a friend of Sallust the praetorian prefect. For Libanius also testifies there that he was a poet, just as Socrates does in this place. (73) *Since he was proclaimed by Constantius.* This must be written *ὑπό*, even though the manuscripts may protest.

VARIOUS NOTES. *Unarmed.* [See the various note regarding the coat of mail, omitted for brevity]. *The author of his death remaining unknown.* Libanius indeed contends that the authors of his murder were Christians, p. 323, which passage Sozomenus produces in lib. VI. But Eutropius, who took part in this Persian expedition, and Rufus Festus, and the epitome of Victor, record that he was struck by an enemy horseman, and indeed a fleeing one. Julian confessed that Christ directed the weapon that killed him, according to what Theodoret has produced, lib. III of his History, cap. 25. Nor shall I omit to mention from Antonius Pagi that the Eutychian chronicler, who took part in this war, as noted by John Malalas and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, recount that Julian was indeed struck through by a spear divinely from Saint Mercurius the martyr, because he had destroyed with poison Saint Basil the bishop of Seleucia: which, says Du Cange in his work on the Byzantine Augustan Families, p. 51, is consistent with ancient paintings, which are seen in the Royal Library in a manuscript codex of the works of Gregory Nazianzen, inscribed during the reign of Basil the Macedonian. In it Julian is depicted prostrate on the ground; with a horseman standing over him with a spear, above whose head is inscribed ^C ΑΓΙΟΣ ΜΕΡΚΟΥΡΙΟΣ [Saint Mercurius]. *This was the third year of his reign.* [Note regarding the computation of time, omitted]. *Thirty-first of his life.* Julian was killed in his thirty-first year, says Ammianus lib. XXV, that is, in his thirty-second year, as Jerome, Hermannus Contractus, Marianus Scotus in his Chronicles, and Valesius have rightly written in their notes to Ammianus. Thus Cicero, Quintilian, and others speak; and Robert Stephanus in his *Thesaurus linguae Latinae* demonstrates with several examples that in numerals the word "alter" [second] is often used for "secundo". [The remainder of the note discusses Julian in his own epistles].

CAP. XXII. On the proclamation of the emperor Jovian.

The soldiers, being in the greatest difficulty, without any delay, the next day proclaimed Jovian emperor, a man both valiant and noble ^A. Having been a tribune of the guards at the time when Julian issued an edict giving the soldiers the choice of either sacrificing or being discharged from the service, he preferred to lay down his belt rather than obey the command of an ungodly prince. Julian, however, constrained by the necessity of the imminent war, had retained him among his commanders. Now, when he was proclaimed emperor, he refused to accept the empire; and because the soldiers were dragging him—compelling him by force—he cried out, saying that he did not wish to rule over men who chose to follow Hellenism, as he himself was a Christian. ^B When it became the common voice of all, acknowledging that they too were Christians, he accepted the empire. But being suddenly hemmed in by the Persians in a narrow place, and with the soldiers perishing of hunger, he brought the war to an end on certain conditions. These conditions were indeed disgraceful to the glory of the Romans, but necessary for the time. For having lost the Syrian territory [(74)], and having surrendered the city of Nisibis in Mesopotamia to the Persians, he marched away from there. When these things were announced, the Christians indeed recovered their spirits [(75)]; but those who were Hellenes in their religion mourned the death of Julian. The entire military force, however, blamed his [Julian's] reckless rashness, and attributed the cause of the loss of the borders to him alone; for, being ^C deceived by a certain Persian defector, he had burned the ships that were bringing provisions along the rivers, and because of this the army had fallen into famine. Then indeed

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(74) "Having lost the Syrians of the government." It is read this way in all copies. Neither did Epiphanius Scholasticus nor Nicephorus read it otherwise. For Epiphanius translates it thus: "Syria having been lost, and Nisibis surrendered to the Persians," etc. But Nicephorus has it thus: "And having surrendered to the Persians certain things subject to the Romans, I mean the government of the Syrians and Nisibis in Mesopotamia," etc. But it is false that Jovian surrendered Syria to the Persians. He surrendered only Nisibis and the regions across the Tigris to the Persians. Wherefore I do not doubt that in this place "the borders" [τοὺς ὅρους] should be written instead of "the Syrians" [τοὺς Σύρους]. There is nothing more certain than this emendation. Socrates himself confirms this emendation, who, speaking a little further down about this matter, calls it a "loss of the borders."

(75) "Recovered their spirits." In the printed codices a whole line was missing, which we have supplied from the best Florentine and Sfortian exemplars. Furthermore, this single passage clearly demonstrates that Christophorson used no manuscript codices in his translation of Socrates.

VARIOUS NOTES.

"Alexandrians," he says he was thirty-two years old, which he also signifies in the *Misopogon*. Nor is Socrates contradictory (as Valesius thinks in the cited passage) when he writes that Julian perished in the thirty-first year of his age, but he only indicates that the thirty-second was incomplete: which is true. (Ant. Pagi ad ann. 363. n. 5.) Eutropius agrees regarding the day of his death and the year of his age: but what he writes—that he was killed in the seventh year of his empire—he understands as the years of the imperial Caesarate.

* "Not only because of the loss of Julian, but because when they offered the empire to Sallust, he, pleading illness and old age, declined that honor. Amid these short delays, in a matter of such importance, before the opinions were weighed, with a few causing a tumult, as often happens in extreme circumstances, Jovian is chosen emperor, then first of the domestic order, moderately commendable for his father's merits. For he was the son of Varronianus, a well-known count, who, not long after having laid down ^D the service of the militia, departed for a more tranquil life," says Ammianus Marcellinus, book xxv, cap. 5. To his father, when he was losing his children frequently, it was commanded in a dream that he should declare the one who was about to be birthed by his wife's imminent labor to be "a youth of great stature and noble talent." Victor in the *Epitome*.

* "For he was first of the domestic order," as we have seen above from Marcellinus. Theodoret is therefore mistaken when he says that Jovian was... book iv, cap. 1. W. Lowth.

* "He burned the ships." Julian, after he had crossed the Euphrates with the army, ordered the ships to be burned too rashly, having undertaken a land journey; whence, after a few days, such an army, placed in a hostile and barren soil, began to be pressed by the lack of all things, and finally hardly refrained from human flesh, as Ammianus Marcellinus writes. Regarding the Persian defector, he says nothing.

^A And the sophist Libanius composed a lament over Julian, which he entitled *On Julian*, or an *Epitaphios*. In this speech, he went through almost all his affairs in an encomiastic manner, mentioning also the books which Julian composed against the Christians, and how he proved in them that the books of the Christians were laughable and mere nonsense. Now, if the sophist had been content to praise the other deeds of the emperor, I would have quietly proceeded to the next parts of my history. But since, as a clever orator, he attacks the Christian faith through the recollection of Julian's books, for this reason we also resolve to say a few things about these matters, having first set forth his own words.

CHAP. XXIII. A refutation of those things which the rhetorician Libanius said concerning Julian.

^B "In winter," he says, "as the nights were extending, the emperor took in hand the books which make the man from Palestine God and the Son of God, and through a long struggle and the strength of his arguments showed that the matters worshipped by them were laughable and mere nonsense, having been discovered to be more skilled and wiser in these same things than the old man from Tyre. May this Tyrian be merciful to me, I pray, and receive what has been said graciously, as one being overcome by his own son." These are the words of the sophist Libanius. ^C But I affirm that he was indeed an excellent sophist; yet I am certain that if he had not been of the same form of worship and religion as the emperor, he would have said everything that the Christians say, and as is likely, being a sophist, he would have magnified the things said. For he wrote praises for Constantius while he was alive, but poured out insults full of accusations after he had died. So that if Porphyry had been emperor, he would have preferred his books to those of Julian; and if Julian had been a sophist, he would have called even him a wicked sophist, just as he calls Ecebolius in his funeral oration on Julian. Since, therefore, he, as one of the same religion and as a sophist and friend to the emperor, narrated whatever seemed good to him, we too shall answer the things written by him to the best of our ability. ^D First, he says that he set upon the books while the winter nights were lengthening. Now, the term "set upon" signifies that he applied himself to the task of writing a critique, as is the custom for sophists when they impart the rudiments of their art to young people. For he had long since understood the books, but then he "set upon" them. And having spent time in a long struggle, not, as Libanius says, with the strength of his proofs, but with the weakness of the truth, he labored to tear apart those things which were well-fortified in themselves, as a detractor.

For everyone who is fighting with someone, now distorting, now concealing the truth, ^A falsely accuses the one against whom the battle is set. And anyone who is hostile toward another is eager not only to do, but also to say, everything as an enemy would; and he tends to turn against the one with whom he has enmity even those vile things that are within himself. That both Julian and Porphyry—whom Libanius calls "the Tyrian old man"—were both mockers, is proven by their own words. For Porphyry, in his book written on the history of philosophy, ridiculed the life of Socrates, the most excellent of all philosophers, and wrote such things about him as neither Melitus nor Anytus, the accusers of Socrates, dared to say—of Socrates, I repeat, whom all the Greeks admire for his temperance, justice, and other virtues; whom Plato, the most famous philosopher among them, along with Xenophon and the rest of the choir of philosophers, not only venerate as beloved of God, but actually believe to have been wise beyond human capacity. Julian, imitating his father’s example, revealed the disease of his own mind ^B in the book that is inscribed *The Caesars*, in which he disparaged all the emperors before him, and did not even spare the philosopher Marcus. That both of them delighted in jests and taunts, the writings of both sufficiently prove. I have no need of many or strong arguments; these things are enough to reveal the character of each man. And I, indeed, form a conjecture about what their character was from the writings of each, and I write these things. But let us hear what Gregory Nazianzen said about Julian, by citing his own words. For he says thus in his second oration against the Gentiles, word for word: “Experience itself and the state ^C of things showed this to others, and the power that seized the authority. But to me it was somehow visible from afar, from the time I associated with the man in Athens. For he came there, immediately after the new disturbances regarding his brother, having begged the emperor for precisely this. But the stated reason for his visit was twofold: the one was more respectable—the history of Greece and the schools of learning there; the other was more secret and not known to many, so that he might associate with the sacrificers and charlatans there ^D regarding his own affairs, since his impiety did not yet have free speech. At that time, therefore, I was not a poor judge of the man, although I was not one of those well-versed in such matters. But he made me...

a prophet by the inconstancy of his character and the incredible agitation of his mind: for he is the best prophet who conjectures correctly. Nor did anything seem to me to suggest anything good: his neck was unstable; his shoulders, which he repeatedly shrugged and jerked; his eyes, wandering and restless; his gaze, insane and wild; his feet, unsteady and stumbling; his nose, breathing arrogance and contempt; the expressions on his face, ridiculously signifying the same thing; his laughter, immoderate and erupting; his nodding and shaking of the head, devoid of reason; his speech, checked and cut short by panting; his questioning, disorderly and ignorant; his answers, no better than these, piling one upon another, neither consistent with themselves nor proceeding with any order of instruction. Why should I write of each thing in detail? ^A Such was he whom I saw before his deeds, such as I recognized him to be in his deeds. And if any of those who were with him at that time and heard him were present now, they would not hesitate to bear witness: for since I had seen these things, I at once exclaimed: What an evil the Roman world is nursing! And having foretold this, I prayed that I might be a false prophet. For it is better that I should be proved a liar than that the world should be filled with such evils, and that such a monster should appear, such as has not been before; for while many floods are spoken of, and many fires and tremors of the earth and chasms, yet also men who are inhuman ^B and beastly, and natures of strange and composite forms, have been brought forth as new variations. Therefore, he also brought upon himself an end worthy of his madness.” Thus Gregory wrote concerning Julian.

That they also wasted many words against the Christians, trying to force the truth, some by corrupting the holy Scriptures, others by adding to them, and interpreting everything in accordance with their own preconceived purpose, many who encountered them ^C pointed out, refuting and exposing their sophistries. Before all, Origen—and long before the time of Julian—exposed the falsity of such men.

^A Being superior, he brought before himself the things that seemed to disturb those who encountered the sacred Books, and by interpreting them, he closed off the sophistical inventions of the pig-headed. If Julian and Porphyry had not encountered these things superficially, and had received them with a good mind, they certainly would have turned their discourses to other things, and would not have been inclined to write blasphemous sophisms. That the emperor aimed at mockery and directed his arguments toward the unlearned and simpler folk—not, however, toward those who have the form of truth from the sacred Scriptures—is evident from that fact. For taking the utterances, as many as for the sake of necessity have been arranged in a more human way concerning God (by way of dispensation), and having strung together many such things, he finally adds word for word the following: "Each of these, unless the discourse itself possesses some secret meaning—which I have thought to be the case—is full of much blasphemy." These things he said in his third book against the Christians, in these very words. And in the discourse which he inscribed Concerning Cynicism, teaching how one must frame sacred myths, he says that one must conceal the truth about such utterances, saying in these very words: "For nature loves to be hidden; and the hidden essence of the gods does not endure to be cast in naked words into unclean ears." ^B It is evident, then, through these things that the emperor had an inkling concerning the divine Scriptures, as if they were mystical discourses, possessing some secret theory; yet he is indignant that not everyone has the same inkling concerning these things, and he attacks those among the Christians who accept the oracles in a simpler way. But it was not right to attack so vehemently the simplicity of the multitude, nor to be blinded because of them against the sacred Scriptures, nor to hate and turn away from things rightly understood by him, just because not everyone understood them as he himself wished. But now, as it seems, he has suffered the same things as Porphyry. For the latter, having received blows in Caesarea of Palestine from certain Christians, and not bearing the anger, out of melancholy departed from Christianity. ^{C D}

^A And, moved by hatred of those who had struck him, he fell into writing blasphemies against the Christians, as Eusebius of Pamphilus proved him to have done, having refuted his arguments. The Emperor, too, having conceived a contemptuous attitude toward the common people regarding the Christians, inclined from the same passion toward the blasphemy of Porphyry. Both, therefore, having sinned voluntarily, bear the penalty with the knowledge of their transgression. Since even the sophist Libanius, mocking them, says, “They make a man from Palestine, God and the Son of God,” it seems to me that he must have forgotten how he himself at the end of the same discourse deified Julian. For he says that when the first messenger of his death arrived, they nearly stoned him as though he were lying about a God. Then, proceeding a little further, he adds, “O fosterling of demons, disciple of demons, assessor of demons!” ^B Even if he himself understood it otherwise, at any rate, since he did not avoid the homonymy of the inferior term, he seemed to say things which the Christians also use in reproach. If, therefore, he cared for praises, he ought to have shunned the homonymy, just as he shunned another word, for which he was reviled and which he cut out of his own writings. Now, how the man according to Christ is proclaimed as God, and how he was visibly a man and invisibly God, and how he is truly both, the divine writings of the Christians understand; but the Greeks, before they believe, are unable to grasp it. For there is a scriptural passage which says, *Unless you believe, you shall not understand*. ^C Therefore they are not ashamed, having deified many men—and would that they were at least men of good character, or just, or temperate! Instead, they are impure, unjust, enslaved to drunkenness; I mean Heracles and Dionysus and Asclepius, concerning whom Libanius, being constantly sworn in his own writings, is not ashamed. If I were to recount the masculine and feminine loves of these, the story of my digression would be long. It will suffice for those wishing to know these things to consult the *Peplum* of Aristotle, [89] and the *Stephanus* of Dionysus [90], and the *Polymnemon* of Reginus [91], and the multitude of poets; those who have written about them truly invite laughter and nonsense. ^D

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(89) *Aristotelis Peplo*. See what the most learned man William Canter once noted. (90) *Dionysus Stephanus*. It is difficult to say who this Dionysius is, who composed a book with this title. However, I think this is Dionysius of Miletus, who composed, as Suidas attests. For the same is as... Concerning this work of Dionysius, in which the whole history of the gods was contained, the same Suidas in the entry speaks thus: ...that he had written of the goddesses only. For why, when Suidas speaks of the nymphs, would he add these things? (91) *Reginus Polymnemon*. ...grammarian had written a book titled... as Suidas relates. This is, if I am not mistaken, Reginus, to whom Phrynichus the sophist dedicated one of the books which he had written concerning oratorical apparatus, as Photius attests in the *Bibliotheca*, ch. 158. Certainly, Phrynichus had dedicated his books only to learned men, just as Photius attests in the same place.

VARIORUM.

B. Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, lib. x, c. 28. Our Socrates has omitted this passage of the most learned man. Among the various volumes he founded, while he was then living in Sicily, he published fifteen books against the Christians in which he had taken it as his principal charge to overturn the authority of Holy Scripture, upon which the Christian religion is, as it were, founded. Theodosius the Great ordered his writings to be abolished by fire by an enacted law. Cave, at the end of the 3rd century. *Unless you believe*. See Isa. vii, 9, according to the Septuagint. W. Lowth.

Chapter 24

^A It is a custom of Greek theology to display by all means the ease with which certain persons are deified, and a few examples will suffice to remind us of this. For the Rhodians, having fallen into calamity, were given an oracle, which told them how they should propitiate the Phrygian Attis, the priest of the frantic rites in Phrygia. The oracle is as follows:

Propitiate Attis, the great god, the pure Adonim, The bestower of good life and happiness, the fair-haired Bacchus.

The oracle, then, calls Attis, who out of amorous frenzy mutilated himself, both Adonim and Bacchus. And when Alexander, king of the Macedonians, was crossing into Asia, the Amphictyons wished to gratify Alexander, and the Pythia uttered the following:

Worship Jove, the highest of gods, and Athena Tritogeneia, The king hidden in a mortal body, Whom Zeus sired of most noble birth, ^B to be an aid Of justice for mortals, king Alexander.

This is what the demon at Delphi declared, which, by flattering the powerful, deified them. And this perhaps was done out of sycophancy. But what could one say regarding their deification of the pugilist Cleomedes, concerning whom they delivered this oracle:

The last of the heroes is Cleomedes of Astypalaea; Honor him with sacrifices, as one no longer mortal.

On account of this oracle ^C Diogenes the Cynic and Oenomaus the philosopher condemned the Pythian Apollo. The Cyzicenes also— ^D

^A proclaimed Hadrian a god. And Hadrian himself deified Antinoüs, whom he held in his affections, and enrolled him among the gods. Libanius, however, does not call these things ridiculous or mere trifles, even though he was well acquainted with the oracles and with the single book which Hadrian wrote concerning the life of Alexander; indeed, he is not ashamed to deify Porphyry himself. For he says, "May the Tyrian be propitious to me," preferring his books to those of the Emperor. Let these things be said sufficiently, then, by way of digression, on account of the sophist's scurrility; I think it best to omit what requires a separate treatment, and to proceed to the rest of the history.

Chapter XXIV.

After the Emperor Jovian had departed from Persia, the movements of the Churches were once again set in motion. Those who presided over the Churches were eager to outstrip one another, each hoping that the Emperor would incline to his own party. But he, from the beginning, had embraced the faith of the consubstantial, and had publicly declared to all that he preferred this. Therefore, he confirmed by letter Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, who, immediately after the death of Julian, had gained control of the Church of Alexandria; thus, having ^C gained greater confidence through the imperial letter, Athanasius was released from all fear from every quarter. The Emperor also recalled the bishops who had been exiled by Constantius, but who had not yet been recalled by Julian. At that time, all the shrines of the Greeks were closed, and they were hiding in different places. Those who had worn the philosopher's cloak laid aside their cloaks, and arrayed themselves in common dress. The public defilement by the blood of victims, which in the times of Julian they had celebrated to the point of nausea, was also ceased.

VALESII ANNOTATIONES. ^D Musculus and Christophorsonus indeed thought that Hadrian was a proper name. Langus, however, in his notes to book X of Nicephorus Callistus, cap. 30, thinks that for Hadrian one should write Arrian. Certainly, the word Hadrian cannot be tolerated. For no one was ever called by that name. Therefore, Nicephorus substitutes for that word Arrian, quite correctly. Furthermore, Socrates understands the book of Lucian, which is commonly called the "False Prophet." In which book Lucian describes the fraud and the magic tricks of a certain Alexander, a Paphlagonian, who had cunningly devised an oracle. Wherefore, for Hadrian or Andrian, as it is read in the Florentine codex, one must write Arrian. Unless we say that Socrates, having a lapse of memory, ascribed this book to Hadrian or a certain Arrian. I have added the final distinction, following the authority of Nicephorus. But furthermore, one should write "he is not ashamed," etc. For I prefer this to what Nicephorus has. Note, however, that he seems to understand the Taurobolia and Criobolia, upon receiving which the Gentiles believed themselves to be reborn for eternity, as the ancient inscriptions teach. Prudentius gives a lucid description of this rite in his passion of the martyr Romanus.

CAP. XXV. How the Macedonians and the Acacians, gathered at Antioch, confirmed the Nicene faith.

The affairs of the Christians, however, were by no means tranquil. For the leaders of each sect were approaching the emperor, each hoping to obtain from him authority and license against those who appeared to be their adversaries. And first, indeed, the Macedonians presented a petition to him, requesting that those who held that the Son was dissimilar to the Father be expelled from the churches, and that they themselves be introduced in their stead. Those who presented this book of supplications were the bishops: Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Pasinicus ^A of the Zenodori, Leontius of Comana, Callicrates of Claudiopolis, and Theophilus of Castabala. The emperor, having received their petition, sent them away without an answer, only saying this: "I," he said, "loathe contention; but those who hasten toward concord I love and honor." When these words were given to the ears of the others, they weakened the vehemence of those who chose to wrangle; and this happened according to the intention of the emperor.

For at that same time the contentious character of those surrounding Acacius was exposed, and they manifestly showed how they were always accustomed to incline toward those in power. ^B For they gathered at Antioch of Syria and entered into discussions with Meletius, who, having separated from them a little earlier, had attached himself to the "consubstantial" doctrine. They did this because they saw that he was honored by the emperor, who was staying there at that time. Therefore, by common consent, they drew up a document and confessed the consubstantial doctrine.

Bringing this to the emperor, they offered it in these words:

To the most pious and most God-beloved sovereign, our lord Jovian, Victor Augustus, the synod of bishops from various provinces gathered at Antioch:

That your piety was the first to strive for the proclamation of ecclesiastical peace and concord, we ourselves are well aware, most God-beloved emperor. Nor is it unknown to us that you have rightly perceived the truth of such unity to be nothing other than the form of the true and orthodox faith. Therefore, that we may not seem to be ranked among those who adulterate the doctrine of the truth, we suggest to your reverence that we embrace and steadfastly hold to the faith of the ^A holy synod formerly gathered at Nicaea. For as for the term "consubstantial," which seemed new and strange to some, it has received a careful interpretation from the Fathers, signifying that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father and is like the Father in substance. Nor is it to be understood as if any passion were involved in that ineffable generation, nor is the name of "substance" taken by the Fathers according to any Greek usage; but it is used for the subversion of that which Arius dared to say wickedly concerning Christ, namely that He originated from things that were not: ^B which indeed these Anomoeans who have recently arisen assert even more boldly and impudently to the destruction of the concord of the Church. Wherefore, to this our suggestion we have annexed the copy of the faith formerly set forth by the bishops assembled at Nicaea, which we also embrace. It is of this kind: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty," and the rest of the contents of the Creed. ^C Meletius, bishop of Antioch, I have offered it, consenting to the aforementioned. Eusebius of Samosata, Evagrius of the Sicelenses, Uranius of Apamea, Zoilus of Larisa, Acacius of Caesarea, Antipater of Rhosus, Abramius of Urimus, Aristonicus of Seleucia ad Belum, Barlamenus of Pergamum, Uranius of Melitene, Magnus of Chalcedon, Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, Isacoces of Greater Armenia, Titus of Bostra, Peter.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(3) The term "strange" (ξένον) was added by Christophorsonus from Nicephorus Callistus. For this word was absent in the Royal codex which Robert Stephanus used, as well as in the Florentine and Sfortian codices. Nor had Epiphanius the Scholastic ^D read that word in his codex, as appears from his interpretation. For he thus translates: "When also the name of consubstantiality, which to some seems to be otherwise, we say has received a careful interpretation from the Fathers." It seems also that Epiphanius read the following words differently and punctuated them in this way... I have already observed in the annotations to the first book that the word *mathema* is used by the Greeks for a symbol of faith, which is accustomed to be learned by heart. The word, however, has no place here. In my judgment, it would be better placed after the words which are read a little higher up. Indeed, Nicephorus substitutes for this word: "and the rest of the creed exactly as it is fittingly said." From which it appears that Nicephorus read "entirely," that is, fully up to the end, without any word being taken away or changed.

(5) "Evagrius of the Sicelenses" (Σικελῶν), which is preferred. This is the name of a certain city situated in the East, concerning which I have discovered nothing as yet. Among the bishops of the party of Acacius, who subscribed to the synod of Seleucia, Evagrius of Mitylene is mentioned, of the province of the islands.

(6) "Barlamenus of Pergamum." This name is neither Greek nor Latin. In the *Historia Tripartita* it is written Barbabentus.

(7) "Isacoces." Epiphanius the Scholastic translates it *Isacis*. He seems to be the same one who is mentioned in the epistle of Basil, which is the Synodal letter of the council of Antioch under Meletius. He is listed as being between Cosroes and Narses.

Petrus of the Sippora, Pelagius of Laodicea, Arabianus of ^A Antris, Piso of the Adani through the presbyter Lamydrio, Sabinianus of Zeugma, Athanasius of Ancyra through the presbyters Orfitus and Aetius, Irenio of Gaza, Piso of Augusta, Patricius of Paltus through the presbyter Lamydrio, Anatolius of Beroea, Theotimus of the Arabs, Lucianus of Arca. We found this register related in the book of Sabinus which is entitled *A Collection of Synodal Acts*.

Moreover, the emperor had set it as his purpose to extinguish the feuds of those who disagreed by means of blandishments and gentle persuasion of speech. He declared that he would offer no annoyance to anyone, whatever his faith might be; yet he would love and hold in special honor those who showed themselves to be authors and leaders in restoring peace within the Church. The philosopher Themistius also testifies that he acted in this way. For in the oration which he wrote concerning his consulship, he praises the emperor highly because, by granting to each person the free liberty to worship the divine as he wished, he suppressed the manners of sycophants. He wittily ridicules these people, saying that it was proved by experience that they worshiped not God, but the purple; and that they were in no way different from the Euripus, which now to this side, now to the opposite side, shifts its currents. ^B

CHAPTER XXVI. Of the death of the emperor Jovian.

In this manner the emperor at that time checked the impulse of those who were intent upon contentions. And quickly departing from Antioch, when he had reached Tarsus of Cilicia, he buried the body of Julian; and

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(8) *Petrus Sipporum*. Scribe at my peril, Petrus of Hippos. This Petrus was bishop of Hippos in the province of Palestine. He had subscribed to the council of Seleucia together with others of the party of Acacius who are listed here, for example, Zoilus of Larissa, Eutychianus, bishop of Eleutheropolis, just as one may read in Epiphanius in the heresy of the Semiarians, where these things are read: Hippos, a town of Palestine, distant thirty stadia from Tiberias, recalls Josephus in his *Life*.

(9) *Arabianus Antri*. Among Epiphanius Scholasticus it is *Arabianus Adrensis*, quite rightly. For this is Arabianus or Arabion, bishop of the Adraeni, who subscribed to the council of Seleucia among the bishops of the Acacian party, as Epiphanius reports in the heresy of the Semiarians, where, after Exeresius, bishop of the Geraseni, and immediately before Charistus, bishop of Azotus, he places him. Adra or Adraon is a city of Arabia under the bishopric of Bostra, as William of Tyre teaches. Certainly Uranius, bishop of Adrana, is numbered in the first council of Constantinople among the bishops of the province of Arabia. But in the fifth council of Constantinople, a certain Dorymenius is listed as bishop of the Adraeni.

(10) *Per Lamydrionem*. It is better to write *Lamydrion* from *lamyros*. Instead of *Atetius* [read] *Aetius*, [and] *efernai threskeuein*.

(11) *Irenio Gazae*. Mention of him is made in the *Life of Porphyrius, Bishop of Gaza*, written by Marcus the Deacon, which you have in Surius.

(12) *Os to efeinai*. It should be written *dia to efeinai threskeuein*.

VARIORUM.

(e) *Themistius*. The philosopher Themistius, by surname *Euphrades*, that is, *Eloquent*, had as his father in Paphlagonia Eugenius, a professor of philosophy, as he himself testifies in his oration ii and xiv. While Themistius flourished with a preeminent reputation for wisdom, and cities and provinces vied with one another to claim him for themselves, he taught philosophy at Antioch, Nicomedia, Constantinople, and Rome. At Rome, indeed, he was received with such applause from the people that, when they tried in vain to retain him there after the most honorable conditions were proposed, they thought the emperor himself should be petitioned. But when they accomplished nothing even by this means, he returned to Constantinople and betook himself to the customary duty of teaching. He took a wife and begat children: he is said to have been very dear to the emperors; by whom he was enrolled into the senatorial order, and he even administered the prefecture of the city. He exerted great authority under Valens; whose raging fury against the orthodox he several times checked through his oratory: concerning which see Sozom. lib. vi, cap. 36. He always remained a Gentile, which is clearly apparent from his orations; yet he was joined in friendship and familiarity with Gregory of Nazianzus, as is evident from the epistles of Gregory himself written to him. Augustine also mentions Themistius, *De categoriis decem*, cap. 3; Niceph. *Hist. eccl.* lib. x, cap. 42; Photius, *Biblioth.*; Suidas; Constantius, *Epist. ad senatum*, in *Cod. Theod.* lib. vi, tit. 4. See Dionysius Petavius in the *Life of Themistius* prefixed to his orations, from which we have gathered these things.

^A Having performed all the customary rites for the funeral, he was proclaimed consul. Continuing his journey to Constantinople, he arrived at a certain place called Dadastana, which lies on the border of Galatia and Bithynia. There, Themistius the philosopher, having come out to meet him with other senators, delivered the consular oration before him, which he later recited publicly at Constantinople. And indeed, [the state of] the Roman Empire, both in civil and ecclesiastical matters, was destined for the greatest prosperity, having obtained so excellent a prince, had not a sudden death snatched such a man from public affairs. For, while in the aforementioned place, at a winter season, he was seized by a disease of obstruction and departed this life, in the [year of the] consulship of himself and his son Varronianus, on the seventeenth day of the month of February, having reigned for seven months and lived for thirty-three years. This book comprises events occurring over a space of two years and five months.

BOOK FOUR

THESE ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES.

CAP. I. How, after the death of Jovian, Valentinian was made emperor, who took his brother Valens as a partner in the empire. And that Valentinian was orthodox, but Valens was an Arian.

II. How, Valentinian having set out for the West, Valens, residing in Constantinople, granted the request of the Macedonians who came to him asking for a synod to be held; and how he persecuted the Homousians.

III. How, while Valens was persecuting the Homousians in the East, the tyrant Procopius arose in Constantinople; and at the same time an earthquake and a tidal wave destroyed many cities.

IV. How, when the state of public and ecclesiastical affairs was in turmoil, the Macedonians, having assembled a synod at Lampsacus, again confirmed the faith of Antioch; [and concerning] Ariminum...

they anathematized it, and again confirmed the deposition of Acacius and Eudoxius.

[V] [E'] That a battle having taken place near a city of Phrygia between the emperor and the tyrant Procopius, [the emperor], having captured the tyrant through the treachery of his generals, put both him and them to death by unusual punishments.

[VI] [G'] That after the destruction of the tyrant, the emperor again forced those who had been at the synod, and all Christians alike, to embrace the opinion of Arius.

[VII] [Z'] That Eunomius became bishop of Cyzicus, having expelled Eleusius the Macedonian; and concerning whence he sprang; and that, being a secretary of the impious Aetius, he zealously emulated his ways.

[VIII] [H'] Concerning the oracle found engraved upon a stone when the walls of Chalcedon were being demolished by the anger of the emperor Valens.

[IX] [Θ'] How the emperor Valens persecuted the Novatians, who upheld the doctrine of the consubstantial just as the Catholics did.

[X] [I'] That the emperor Valentinian became the father of a son, also named Valentinian, since his son Gratian had already been born before his reign.

[XI] [IA'] Concerning the extraordinary hail which fell from heaven, and concerning the earthquakes that took place in Bithynia and the Hellespont.

[XII] [IB'] How the Macedonians, being reduced to straits by the violence of the emperor against them, sent an embassy to Liberius, the bishop of Rome, and subscribed to the consubstantial faith in writing.

[XIII] [IΓ'] How Eunomius separated himself from Eudoxius because he was attached to Aetius; and how, a disturbance having been raised in Alexandria by Eudoxius, Athanasius again fled; and that, the people having raised a sedition on this account, the emperor, fearing, exhorted those in Alexandria by letters, and ordered that Athanasius should again hold the Church securely.

[XIV] [IΔ'] Eudoxius having died at Constantinople, the Arians ordained Demophilus, but the Orthodox ordained Evagrius, through the efforts of Eustathius of Antioch.

[XV] [IE'] That the emperor having exiled Evagrius and Eustathius, those who held the views of Arius grievously oppressed those who maintained the consubstantial.

[XVI] [IΣT'] Concerning the holy presbyters burned on a ship by order of Valens, and concerning the famine which occurred in Phrygia by the wrath of God.

[XVII] [IZ'] That when the emperor was at Antioch, he persecuted those who held the consubstantial.

[XVIII] [IH'] Concerning the things that happened at Edessa, and the insolence of the prefect, and the faith and boldness of the citizens, and the God-beloved woman.

[XIX] [IΘ'] That the emperor Valens killed many who had the letter Theta at the beginning of their name, because this had been predicted by some form of necromancy.

[XX] [K'] Concerning the death of Athanasius, and the promotion of Peter.

[XXI] [KA'] That Athanasius having died, the Arians, by order of the emperor Valens, delivered the churches in Alexandria to Lucius, who had previously been ordained by them, and delivered Peter into custody.

^A

XXII. That the Macedonian historian Sabinus made no mention of the evils that occurred during the enthronement of Lucius, but Peter mentions them in his epistle. He escaped by fleeing to Damasus, the bishop of Rome; but Lucius and the Arians inflicted many evils upon the holy monks in the desert.

XXIII. A catalog of the holy monks who lived in the desert, from the writings of Evagrius.

XXIV. Concerning the holy monks who were sent into exile, and how God, through the miracles wrought by them, drew all to Himself.

XXV. Concerning Didymus the blind.

XXVI. Concerning Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus.

XXVII. Concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus.

XXVIII. Concerning Novatus and those called Novatians after him; and how those of them who dwelt in Phrygia transferred the festival of Easter to the Jewish custom. ^B

XXIX. Concerning Damasus of Rome and Ursinus, and how, on account of them, a riot and sedition occurring in Rome, many murders followed.

XXX. How, after the death of Auxentius, bishop of Milan, a sedition having arisen over the election of the future bishop, Ambrose, the governor of the province, who had gone to quell the tumult with a military force, was chosen by the common vote of all, and with the consent of the Emperor Valentinian himself, as president of the church.

XXXI. Concerning the death of Valentinian.

XXXII. Concerning Themistius the philosopher; and how Valens, softened by his address, somewhat relaxed his persecution of the Christians. ^C

XXXIII. How the Goths became Christians during the reign of Valens.

XXXIV. How the Goths, having been defeated by other barbarians, fled to the Romans and were received by the emperor. This became the cause of ruin both to the Roman Empire and to the emperor himself.

XXXV. How the emperor, anxious about the war against the Goths, waged the war against the Christians more remissly.

XXXVI. How the Saracens also at that time were added to the faith of Christ, with Mavia, a woman, ruling over them, having received for bishop a certain pious and faithful monk named Moses.

XXXVII. How, after the departure of Valens from Antioch, the orthodox in the East took heart, and especially those in Alexandria, and casting out Lucius, delivered the churches again to Peter, who was fortified by the letters of Damasus, the bishop of Rome. ^D

XXXVIII. How the emperor, having returned to Constantinople, and having been reproached by the populace on account of the Goths, set out against the barbarians; and having engaged them near Adrianople in Macedonia, was killed by them, having lived fifty years and reigned sixteen years.

LIBER QUARTUS. CAPUT PRIMUM. SOCRATIS Quomodo, post obitum Joviani, Valentinianus factus est imperator, qui Valentem fratrem imperii consortium ascivit. Et quod Valentinianus quidem orthodoxus, Valens vero Arianus exstiterit.

BOOK FOUR. CHAPTER I.

^A When therefore the Emperor Jovian, as we have said, had ended his last day at Dadastana on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the consulship of himself and of his son Varronianus, the soldiers who had set out from Galatia arrived seven days later at Nicaea in Bithynia, and there by common vote proclaimed Valentinian emperor on the sixth day before the Kalends of March, in the same consulship. He was by birth a Pannonian, from the city of Cibalis. Having accepted a military command, he demonstrated great skill in tactics. He was a man of noble spirit, and always appeared greater than the fortune he possessed at the time. As soon, therefore, as they had proclaimed him emperor, he immediately went to Constantinople, and thirty days after his own proclamation, he took his brother Valens as a partner in the empire. ^B Now both were Christians, yet they disagreed with each other regarding the faith of the Christian religion. For Valentinian held to the faith of the Nicene Council; Valens, however, was more attached to the Arian dogma through a certain preconceived opinion. The cause of this preconceived opinion for him was that he had been baptized by Eudoxius, who was the leader of the Arian religion in Constantinople. Both were very zealous for the religion they worshipped; but in their manner of life, after they became emperors, they were widely different from each other. For previously, during the reign of Julian, when Valentinian was a tribune of the soldiers and Valens served among the emperor’s domestics, they had each demonstrated how zealous they were for their religion. ^C For when they were compelled to sacrifice, they preferred to cast off their military belts rather than to desert their religion. But the Emperor Julian, knowing that they were men useful to the republic, did not remove either of them at that time from their military rank, just as he did not remove Jovian, who reigned after him. But later, having become emperors, regarding the...

^A public welfare they were initially similar to one another; but concerning the Christian religion, as I have said, they were in disagreement, and they treated those who were Christians in a different manner. For Valentinian encouraged those of his own sect and opinion, yet he was in no way troublesome to the Arians. Valens, however, desiring to increase the Arians, wrought terrible things against those who did not think as they did, as the course of my history will show as it proceeds.

At this time, Liberius presided over the Church in Rome; at Alexandria, Athanasius presided over the *homoousios* faith, and Lucius over those who were Arianizing, whom the Arians had set up after the death of George. At Antioch, Euzoius led the Arians. Those of the *homoousios* faction were also divided; for Paulinus presided over one part, and Meletius over the other. Around Jerusalem, ^B Cyril again held power. In Constantinople, Eudoxius held power over the churches, preaching the doctrine of Arius; but those of the *homoousios* persuasion held their assemblies in a small building within the city. As for the Macedonian sect, those who in Seleucia had dissociated themselves from the party of Acacius still held the houses of prayer throughout the cities (16). Such was the state of the Churches at that time.

CHAP. II.

The other of the emperors, namely Valentinian, departed for the regions of the West; for the care of affairs there summoned him. Valens, however, having stayed for a little while in Constantinople, was approached by many bishops of the Macedonian sect, requesting that he permit another synod to be held for the correction of the faith. ^C The emperor, thinking that they agreed with the party of Acacius and Eudoxius, permitted it to happen. And they were eager to hold a synod in the city of Lampsacus. Valens, however, with all speed hurried to Antioch in Syria, fearing lest the Persians, having broken the thirty-year truce which they had made during the reign of Jovian, should invade the Roman borders. But the Persian matters remained quiet. Yet he, making evil use of this tranquility, stirred up an inexpiable war against those who held to the *homoousios*. And Paulinus the bishop, on account of the man’s exceeding piety, he harmed in no way. Meletius, however, he punished with exile. And all the others who were unwilling to communicate with Euzoius, ^D from the churches of the...

^A Antioch, he expelled and affected with the most grievous losses and punishments. It is said, moreover, that he also drowned many in the river Orontes, which flows past the city.

CAP. III.

How, while Valens was persecuting the Homoousians in the East, the tyrant Procopius arose in Constantinople; and at the same time an earthquake and an inundation of the sea damaged many cities.

While these things were being done by Valens in Syria, a certain tyrant arose in Constantinople, by the name of Procopius. Having gathered great forces in a short time, he was preparing to launch an expedition against the emperor. The news of this matter caused the emperor the greatest anxiety, which also for a time checked his impetus against those who were being persecuted. While the turmoil of civil war was thus for a time in gestation, an earthquake occurred, which harmed many cities. The sea also shifted its natural limits; for in some places it inundated so much that lands which had previously been traversed on foot became navigable, while from other places it receded so much that they remained dry land. And this happened in the first consulship of the two Augusti.

CAP. IV.

How, while there was turmoil in public and ecclesiastical affairs, the Macedonians who had gathered in synod at Lampsacus once again confirmed the faith of Antioch, condemned the faith of Ariminum by anathema, and again confirmed the deposition of Acacius and Eudoxius.

When these things were in this state, neither the affairs of the state ^C nor those of the Church were in tranquility. Those who had requested the emperor for permission to assemble a synod did indeed gather at Lampsacus during the same consulship. This was the seventh year after the synod which had been held at Seleucia. There, having once again confirmed the faith of Antioch, to which they had also subscribed at Seleucia, they anathematized the faith which had been published at Ariminum by the bishops with whom they had formerly agreed. And again they cast their votes against those around Acacius and Eudox-

^Aius, as having been justly deposed. To these decrees Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, could in no way contradict. For the civil war that was then imminent was an impediment, preventing him from taking vengeance upon them. Wherefore Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, and those who were with him, held the upper hand for some time, in that they established the dogma of Macedonius, which had been, indeed, obscure a little before, but became more manifest after the synod at Lampsacus. And I believe that this council was the cause of the Macedonians being numerous in the Hellespont; for Lampsacus is situated in a narrow strait of the Hellespont. And such was the outcome of this synod.

CHAPTER V.

How, upon a battle occurring near a city of Phrygia, Valens captured the tyrant Procopius through the treachery of his generals, and put him and them to death with unusual tortures.

In the following consulship, which was that of Gratian and Dagalaiphus, the wars commenced. For when the tyrant Procopius had set out from Constantinople and was ready to march against the emperor, Valens, upon hearing this, hastened from Antioch and engaged Procopius near a city of Phrygia, by name Nacolia. In the first battle he was defeated; but not long after, having succeeded in capturing Procopius—who had been betrayed by his generals Agilo and Gomoarius—he reduced him to his power, and put them also to death with unusual tortures. As for the traitors, disregarding the oaths which he had sworn to them, he tore them asunder with saws and slew them. But as for the tyrant, he bound each of his legs to two trees that were growing near to each other, having bent them down; then he allowed the trees to spring back upright. ^BAs they rose, they tore Procopius apart. And thus the tyrant perished, being rent asunder.

CHAPTER VI.

That after the removal of the tyrant, the emperor again compelled those who had participated in the synod, and all Christians equally, to embrace the opinion of Arius.

The emperor, however, being elated by his success at that time, once again…

^A began to stir up troubles among the Christians, desiring to make all religion Arian. He was especially provoked to anger by the synod that had taken place at Lampsacus, not only because it had excommunicated the Arian bishops, but also because it had anathematized the confession of faith that had been set forth at Ariminum. Having therefore come to Nicomedia in Bithynia, he summoned to himself Eleusius, the bishop of Cyzicus; for, as I have mentioned previously, he was more attached to the opinion of Macedonius than others. The emperor, having convened a council of bishops of the Arian heresy, compelled Eleusius to subscribe to their faith. At first he refused, but when exile and the confiscation of his property were threatened against him, being struck with fear, he agreed to the Arian opinion. However, he soon repented of what he had done; and having returned to Cyzicus, he lamented the violence that had been done to him before the entire populace, affirming that his consent had been extorted by force and was not ^B of his own free will. He urged them to seek another bishop for themselves, because he had denied his own faith under compulsion. But the Cyzicenes, on account of the incredible love they bore him, refused to be placed under another bishop, nor did they permit him to resign his church. They remained, therefore, under his administration, while not in the least departing from their own heresy.

CAP. VII. How, after Eleusius the Macedonian was driven out, Eunomius obtained the episcopate of Cyzicus; and where he originated; and that, being a secretary to Aetius the impious, he proposed him as a model for himself.

When the bishop of Constantinople heard these things, he put forward Eunomius for the bishopric of Cyzicus, as one who was able by the power of his eloquence to draw the multitudes to himself. Upon the arrival of Eunomius, the emperor published an edict commanding that Eleusius be expelled and that Eunomius be enthroned. ^C And this having been done, those who were with Eleusius built an oratory outside the city walls, and held their assemblies there. And so much regarding Eleusius. Now it must be said regarding Eunomius. Eunomius had been a secretary to Aetius, surnamed the Atheist, of whom we have made mention above. Having spent much time with him, he imitated his sophistic manner of disputation; and being too much addicted to certain empty words, he imprudently wove together fallacious arguments to his own detriment. Elated by this arrogance, he fell into blasphemy, holding both the doctrine of Arius ^D and that of Eunomius.

^A

He is, while following the opinion of Arius, attacking the doctrine of the truth in various ways. He was altogether little skilled in the Sacred Scriptures, nor could he attain to their understanding. Yet, abounding in a superfluity of words and constantly repeating the same things, he was never able to reach the goal he had set for himself, as is clearly shown by the seven books he laboriously and vainly composed on the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans. For although he expended many words upon it, he by no means attained to the Apostle's aim. Such also are the other books of his that are in circulation: if anyone should wish to put them to the test, he will find in the profusion of words a wondrous poverty of thought.

Eudoxius, therefore, as I said, promoted this Eunomius to the bishopric of the city of Cyzicus. When he had come there, he made use of his familiar dialectical art and unsettled the minds of his hearers. Hence a tumult arose at Cyzicus. At length the people of Cyzicus, unable to endure the empty vanity of his words, drove him from the city. He, however, having set out for Constantinople, remained there with Eudoxius and was considered a bishop without a see.

But that we may not seem to say these things out of a desire to slander, let us listen to the very words of Eunomius, which he dares to utter while disputing in the manner of a sophist concerning God. For he says word for word as follows: "God knows no more of His own substance than we do: nor is it any better known to Him and more obscure to us. But whatever we may know of it, He also certainly knows; and again, whatever He knows, you will find it in us without any discrepancy." Yet Eunomius, while weaving these and many other such sophistries, did not perceive his own error. Concerning the manner in which he was separated from the Arians ^B a little later, I shall speak in its proper place.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(23) *To attain to the Apostle's aim.* In the Florentine codex it is written *to take/capture the aim*.

(24) *Promoted Eunomius to the bishopric of Cyzicus.* Socrates wrongly assigns the promotion of Eunomius to the episcopate of Cyzicus to the times of Valens Augustus. For Eunomius was made Bishop of Cyzicus during the reign of Emperor Constantius, in the Synod of Constantinople which followed immediately after the one at Seleucia, as Philostorgius explicitly writes in book V, ch. 3, and Theodoret in book II of his *History*, chs. 27 and 29, who wrote the affairs of Eunomius much more accurately than Socrates. Certainly, in the times of Valens, Eunomius was sent into exile by Valens on the ground that he was said to have favored the tyrant Procopius, as Philostorgius relates. So far is it from the truth that he was then gifted with the Cyzicene bishopric. Sozomen followed the error of Socrates in book VI, ch. 8.

(25) *As for the "when he had come to the"*. It should be written *to that [city]* ^C. Which I wonder that Christophorson did not notice. Yet Epiphanius could have shown him the true reading. For he thus translates: "when he had come there," etc.

(26) *A bishop without a see*. In civil and military offices, some are placed in active service, others are "vacant" (supernumerary): those who are discharged from rank but have no duties are called "idle/vacant" in the code. Thus, "vacant tribunes" are mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, as I noted there. In the same way, bishops are called "vacant" by Socrates, who held the bare title of bishop, without a Church, without clergy, and without a people over whom they might preside. Of this kind are almost those who today are called bishops "in partibus infidelium." Such then was Eunomius at that time, when, expelled by the men of Cyzicus, he remained at Constantinople with Eudoxius. This happened in the times of Constantius, not of Valens, as Socrates relates. Furthermore, upon the expulsion of Eunomius, Eleusius, as is probable, recovered his former see ^D.

VARIORUM

He was permitted to dwell [there], where he dies in old age, about the year 394. For he was still among the living when Jerome was concluding his *Catalogue* of writers. (Guil. Cave to the year 360, p. 169. Consult him regarding the *Apologeticus* of Eunomius, in which he disputes against the dogma of the Holy Trinity, containing the Prologue and Epilogue, together with a confession of faith in Greek and Latin. Another exposition of faith was given by the celebrated Valesius in his annotations to Socrates, lib. V, ch. 10.)

CAP. VIII. Of an oracle found carved on a stone, when the wall of Chalcedon was destroyed through the anger of the Emperor Valens.

^A After overcoming Procopius, the Emperor ordered the walls of the city of Chalcedon, which is situated opposite Byzantium, to be demolished. He had sworn that he would do this, because the Chalcedonians, siding with Procopius, had assailed him with insults and abuse, and had closed the gates of their city to him as he passed by. Therefore, by the Emperor's command, the walls of the city were destroyed, and the stones were transported to the public baths of Constantinople, which are called the Constantianae. ^B In one of these stones, however, an inscribed oracle was found, which had long been hidden there, but was then brought to light. This oracle predicted that when a supply of water should be provided for the city, the wall would serve the purpose of a bath; but that countless barbarian tribes, after laying waste the provinces of the Roman Empire and committing many evils, would themselves finally perish. Nothing prevents us, for the sake of the curious, from adding the oracle here:

Tempore quo liquidas agitabunt urbe choreas, Laetaque subsilient hilares per compita nymphae, Ac funesta dabit murus munimina thermis. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(27) *While he was passing by*. I would prefer to write *πρὸς ἰόντος* [being present], which I have followed in my version. Moreover, the Chalcedonians were punished not only for that defection by the destruction of their walls, but were also branded with this infamy, that no Chalcedonian should ever be promoted to any administrative position. Isidore of Pelusium testifies to this in Book 1, Epistle 485: "Write at my own risk," etc. For the Carthaginians have no connection with this passage, as they were not subject to the Eastern Empire, of which Isidore speaks there.

(28) *Constantianae*. Sozomen also speaks of these Constantianae thermae in lib. VIII, cap. 22. They were in the tenth region of the city of Constantinople, as the ancient description of that city teaches. Ammianus Marcellinus also, in book XXXI, writes that a bath was built by Valens at Constantinople from the stones of the walls of the Chalcedonians. But Cedrenus and Zonaras write that not a bath, but an aqueduct was built from these stones. Which do not conflict with each other. For an aqueduct was necessary for a bath. Truly a memorable work, which Themistius mentions in his decennial oration to Valens, and Gregory Nazianzen in oration 25, who elegantly calls this aqueduct of Valens a subterranean and aerial river. So also Themistius in the *Amatorius*, or *On Royal Beauty* to Gratian; and I will the more willingly append the passage here, because this oration has not yet been edited: etc. Furthermore, I would more willingly read in Socrates than [that] the *Constantianae* baths were built by the Emperor Constantius, as the name itself indicates. But the *Carosianae* were completed and dedicated by Valens after the third consulship of Gratian and Equitius, with Vindalorius Magnus acting as prefect of the city of Constantinople, as Idatius writes in the *Fasti* and the author of the *Chronicle of Alexandria*. They were so named from Carosia, the daughter of Valens, as Sozomen testifies in book six. And they were in the seventh region of the city, as the *Description of the City of Constantinople* teaches.

VARIORUM.

a *Assailed him with insults and abuse*. Probra in eum jaciebantur, et injuriose compellabatur ut Sabaiarius ["beer-drinker"]. For *sabaia* is a cheap liquor made from barley or wheat turned into liquid, in Illyricum (whence Valens originated). (Am. Marcellinus, lib. XXVI, cap. 8.)

b *An oracle was found*. The same is recorded by Am. Marcellinus at the beginning of book XXXI, in these words: "When the ancient walls of Chalcedon were being torn down, in order that a bath might be built at Constantinople, the order of the stones being broken up, in a square stone that lay hidden in the middle of the structure, these Greek verses were found engraved, revealing future things. Then he recites the verses; which, since they differ in many respects from those of Socrates, we shall transcribe here." [See the verses in the Greek text]. See the same verses in Zonaras, Cedrenus, and Nicephorus Callistus.

c *In the city*. He understands Constantinople, which is called *asty* [the city] in the first verse of the oracle, by way of eminence. W. LOWTH.

^A Then countless tribes of widely scattered men, Fierce, gleaming, clad in evil strength, Shall cross the stream of the fair-flowing Ister with spear, And shall ruin the Scythian land and the Mysian soil, And, having stepped upon Thracian ground with maddened hopes, There would they meet the end of life and their fate.

Such was the oracle. It happened after a time that the aqueduct built by Valens began to supply an abundant flow of water to the city of Constantine; and it was then that the barbarian tribes were stirred up, as we shall later relate. However, it happened that the oracle was interpreted in another way as well. For when the conduit had been brought into the city, Clearchus, who was prefect of the city, built a very large ^B water-basin in what is now called the Forum of Theodosius; and this was famously known as "abundant water." On account of this, the city celebrated a festival with great joy; and this, they say, is what the oracle means by: "They shall lead dances in joy, And nymphs shall leap happily through the streets."

But those things which pertain to the outcome of the oracle came to pass a little later. At that time, when the walls were being demolished, the citizens of Constantinople implored the emperor ^C to refrain from their destruction. The Nicomedians also, and those inhabiting Nicaea, who were present in Constantinople for this reason, having come from Bithynia, added their prayers. The emperor, however, being exceedingly wrathful, with difficulty accepted the entreaties of the supplicants. But in order to satisfy the oath by which he had bound himself, he ordered the walls to be demolished and simultaneously their ruin to be repaired with other small stones. And it is possible even now to see, in certain parts of the wall, how the cheap construction made at that time ^D is placed upon the huge and marvelous stones. So much, then, for the wall of the Chalcedonians.

CHAP. IX.

The emperor, however, did not cease from persecuting those of the consubstantial belief, but expelled them from the city of Constantine. Together with them, he also ordered the churches of the Novatians to be closed, as they were of the same mind. He further commanded that their bishop, Agelius by name, be punished with exile—a man who had since the times of Constantine presided over their churches, and had led a truly apostolic life. For he was accustomed to go about barefoot at all times, and used only one tunic, ^D keeping the commandment of the Gospel. Now a pious man checked the emperor's wrath against the Novatians.

^A And he was at the same time an eloquent man, Marcian by name; who previously had served in the palace, but at that time was a presbyter of the Novatian church; and he was teaching the rules of grammar to Anastasia and Carosa, the daughters of the emperor, in whose name public baths ^B are still shown in Constantinople, which were constructed by Valens. Therefore, out of respect for this man, the churches of the Novatians, which had been closed for some time, were reopened. Nevertheless, they were not entirely free from the disturbance brought upon them by the Arians. For they were hated by them, because they loved and cherished those who held the same opinions as themselves. Such then was the state of affairs at that time. It must be known, moreover, that the war against the tyrant Procopius took place during the consulship of Gratian and Dagalaifus, towards the end of the month of May.

CAP. X.

But a little after this war, in the same consulship, to the emperor Valentinian ^C was born in the western parts ^D [VALESII ANNOTATIONS: ... (Note that the Latin commentary follows here)]

a son of his own name. For Gratian had been born to him long before, before he ascended to the imperial power.

CHAPTER XI. On the hail of extraordinary magnitude which fell from heaven, and on the earthquakes in Bithynia and the Hellespont.

In the following year, which was that of the consulship of Lupicinus and Jovinus, on the sixth of the Ides of July, a hail of extraordinary magnitude—like stones—fell at Constantinople. ^A Many said that this hail was sent by the wrath of God, because the emperor was sending into exile many of the clergy who were unwilling to communicate with Eudoxius. A short time after this, in the same consulship, the emperor Valentinian made his son Gratian emperor, on the twenty-fourth of August. In the following year, in which Valentinian and Valens were consuls for the second time, an earthquake occurred in Bithynia, which destroyed the city of Nicaea on the eleventh of October. This was the twelfth year after the fall of Nicomedia. A little after this earthquake, the greater part of the city of Germa in the Hellespont was also overthrown by another earthquake. ^B And while these things were happening, no reverence entered into Eudoxius, the bishop of the Arians, nor indeed into the emperor Valens; for they did not cease from the persecution of those who disagreed with them.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

... ^C ... ^D

VARIORUM.

• Lupicinus and Jovinus. The author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum writes that under these consuls, God caused a stony hail to fall at Constantinople in the month of Desius, that is, June. Idatius in his Fasti says that this occurred under the consuls of this year, on the ninth of the Nones of July. Furthermore, the oration of Gregory Nazianzen, *On the Plague of Hail*, which Baronius cites here in this connection, was composed by Gregory when already bishop, as Nicetas observes, and was therefore delivered on a different occasion. (Ant. Pagi, at the year 367, n. 4.)

• Nicomedia fell by an earthquake on the ninth of the Kalends of September, as is testified by Idatius in the Fasti, and by Ammianus, book xvii, chapter 7, in the consulship of Datianus and Cerealis, in the year of Christ 358. See above, book ii, chapter 39.

^A to the emperor Valens, for they did not cease from persecuting those who did not think as they did. The earthquakes were considered to be signs of the disturbance of the Churches. Many of the clergy were therefore, as I have said, sent into exile; but Basil and Gregory alone, by a certain providence of God, on account of their exceeding piety, were not subjected to exile. The former of these was bishop of Cæsarea ^A in Cappadocia; Gregory was of Nazianzus, a small city neighboring Cæsarea. But of Basil and Gregory we shall speak as we proceed.

CAP. XII.

But when the Homoousians were, at that time, most grievously harassed and put to flight, the persecutors began again to set themselves against the Macedonians. And they, being constrained by fear more than by violence, sent ambassadors to one another throughout the several cities, declaring that it was a necessity to flee for refuge both to the emperor’s brother and to Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, and to embrace their faith ^B rather than to hold communion with the party of Eudoxius. They therefore send Eustathius (34) of Sebaste, who had often been deposed; Silvanus of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabala in Cilicia...

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

^A Synod had been frequently deposed, they sent Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia, who had already been frequently deposed, together with Silvanus of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabala (which is also a city of Cilicia); and they gave them instructions not to dissent from Liberius regarding the faith, but to enter into communion with the Roman Church and confirm the faith of the consubstantial. These men, having taken with them the letters of those who had dissented at Seleucia, reached old Rome. They did not, however, meet with the emperor, for he was busy in the Gauls, warring against the Sarmatians ^B. They presented their letters to Liberius, but he was initially altogether unwilling to receive them, saying that they were of the Arian faction and could not be accepted by the Church, inasmuch as they had abrogated the faith of Nicaea. They replied that, having repented, they had come to know the truth, that they had already previously renounced the faith of the Anomoeans, and that they had confessed the Son to be in all things like to the Father, and that the "similar" differs in no way ^C from the "consubstantial." When they had said these things, Liberius required a written confession of their opinion. They handed him a document ^D in which the very words of the faith set forth at Nicaea were also inscribed. I have omitted to include here the letters which they wrote after holding synods at Smyrna in Asia, and in Pisidia, Isauria, Pamphylia, and Lycia, because of their length. However, the document which the legates sent with Eustathius presented to Liberius is as follows:

"To our lord brother and fellow-minister, Liberius, Eustathius, Theophilus, and Silvanus, greeting in the Lord.

"On account of the insane notions of the heretics, who cease not to bring scandals upon the Catholic Churches, we, desiring to take away from them every pretext, confess and assert the synod of orthodox bishops which was held at Lampsacus and at Smyrna, and in other various places; bearing the legation of which synod, we come to your kindness..."

to bring letters to all the bishops of Italy and the West, that they may hold and keep the Catholic faith, which, having been confirmed by three hundred and eighteen bishops in the holy synod of Nicaea in the times of Constantine of blessed memory, remains until now and continues forever in an uncorrupted and unshaken state; in which the term "consubstantial" is piously and holily set against the perverse doctrine of Arius. Similarly, we ourselves, together with the aforementioned, confess under our own hand that we have held, and do hold, and will keep until our final breath the same faith, condemning Arius and his impious doctrine together with his disciples, and those who share his views; and furthermore, every heresy of Sabellius, the Patropassians, the Marcionites, the Photinians, the Marcellians, and finally that of Paul of Samosata, and the doctrine of all these, and all who hold the same sentiments as they do, and finally all heresies opposing the aforementioned holy faith, which was piously and catholically set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea. We especially condemn with anathema that faith which was read at the synod of Ariminum, as being contrary to this aforementioned faith of the holy council celebrated in the city of Nicaea: that faith which, having been brought from Nice, a town of Thrace, the bishops at Constantinople were tricked by craft and perjury into signing. ^B Our faith, and that of those whom we mentioned above, and in whose name we perform this legation, is this: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one only-begotten God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth. ^C Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man; and suffered, and rose again the third day; and ascended into heaven; and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: "There was a time when he was not," and, "Before he was begotten he was not," and that "he was made out of things that were not," or those who say that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or that he is subject to change or alteration, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God anathematizes. I, Eustathius, bi...

bishop of the city of Sebastia, and Theophilus and Silvanus, delegates of the synod of Lampsacus and Smyrna and the others, have written this confession with our own hands and of our own free will. And if any one, after this faith set forth by us, shall wish to bring any charge against us or against those who sent us, let him come with letters from your holiness, before such orthodox bishops as your holiness shall approve, and let him contend with us in their presence in a trial; and if any crime is proven, let the offender be punished. Having bound the delegates with this document as a kind of surety, Liberius received them into communion, and having given them such letters, dismissed them. ^A

Epistle of Liberius, Bishop of the city of Rome, to the bishops of the Macedonians.

To our beloved brothers and fellow ministers, Euethius, Cyril, Hyperechius, Uranius, Heron, Elpidius, Maximus, Eusebius, Eucarpus, Heortasius, Neon, Eumathius, Faustinus, Proclinus, Pasinicus, Arsenius, Severus, Didymion, Britannius, Callicratus, Dalmatius, Aedesius, Eustochius, Ambrosius, Gelonius, Pardalius, Macedonius, Paul, Marcellus, Heraclius, Alexander, Adolius, Marcianus, Sthenelus, John, Macar, Charisius, Silvanus, Photinus, Antonius, Anythus, Celsus, Euphranor, Milesius, Patricius, Severianus, Eusebius, Eumolpius, Athanasius, Diophantus, Menodorus, Diocles, Chrysampelus, Neon, Eugenius, Eustathius, Callicratus, Arsenius, Eugenius, Martyrius, Hieracius, Leontius, Philagrius, Lucius, and to all the orthodox bishops in the East, Liberius, bishop of Italy, ^C and ^D the bishops of the West, greeting in the Lord. Your letters, resplendent with the light of faith, have brought us the most longed-for joy of peace and concord, most beloved brothers, having reached us.

VALESIAN ANNOTATIONS.

(41) *To whomsoever.* I would prefer to read *to whomsoever*, etc. The infinitive which follows is used for the imperative, which is not infrequent among the Greeks.

(42) *Anythus.* It is written constantly thus in the Florentine and Sfortian manuscripts. In Epiphanius Scholasticus it is written *Autho*. Christophorus translates *Aytho* in three syllables. I do not remember ever reading that name. Perhaps it should be written *Antho*.

(43) *Liberius, bishop of Italy.* The word "Italy" should be deleted, which neither Epiphanius Scholasticus recognizes, or at least it should be written... etc. Which I truly think is more correct. For thus Liberius distinguishes the bishops of Italy from the rest of the Western bishops at the beginning of his own epistle: "To my lowliness, and to all those in Italy and of the West." Nor otherwise in the profession of faith which the delegates offered to Liberius.

VARIOUS NOTES.

* *To come - to be judged.* It seems it should be read: let him come - let him be judged. Furthermore, regarding this delegation of the Macedonians to Liberius PP., Valesius observed that Socrates is mistaken, who referred it to the year... But Valesius is no less mistaken, who refers the same to the year... For Liberius died when Gratian and Dagalaiphus were consuls, that is, in the year 366, as attested by Faustinus in the Preface to the book of *Prayers*.

* This is (says Severinus Binius) that peaceable and communicatory epistle of Pope Liberius, by which the delegates of the Semi-Arians, with a feigned faith and an offered document of the Nicene confession, obtained communion with the Roman pontiff and almost all Western bishops; and by which, having been shown at the Council of Tyana, Eustathius of Sebastia received back the episcopal see from which he had been cast out, through the action of the orthodox. But because it is clearly evident by the authority of Basil that all these things were done by them with simulation, and that Eustathius himself fell later in a more disgraceful manner, Liberius and all the Western bishops, in restoring to Catholic communion such scoundrels, often condemned elsewhere, might perhaps be deservedly rebuked for excessive facility, if they could have searched the innermost parts of the heart and rendered themselves secure from subreption. (Concil. tom. II, p. 760)

^A letters, ^A, being illuminated by the light of the faith, beloved brethren, the documents delivered to us through our most esteemed brethren the bishops, Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus; and this especially, because they assured and demonstrated that your opinion and your sentiments agree and harmonize with my insignificance, and with all those in Italy and the West. And we recognize this to be the Catholic and Apostolic faith, which remained entire and unshaken until the Council of Nicaea. ^B Your legates also professed that they hold this same faith: and, filled with incredible joy, they abolished every trace and fuel of absurd suspicion, setting it forth not only by word, but also in writing. We have therefore judged it necessary to attach a copy of this to these letters, that we may not leave any pretext to the heretics for weaving fresh intrigues, by which they might again stir up the embers of their own malice, to kindle fires of discord as is their custom. Moreover, these our most esteemed brethren—Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus—have professed that they themselves, and your charity, have always held this faith, and will preserve it even at the last breath: namely, the faith which was approved at Nicaea by three hundred and eighteen orthodox bishops, which contains the perfect truth and confutes and overthrows all the swarms of the heretics. For not by chance, but by divine intimation, was such a number of bishops gathered against the madness of Arius; ^C indeed, by the same number as that with which the blessed Abraham, through faith, defeated so many thousands of enemies. This faith, which is comprised in the hypostasis and in the term "consubstantial," stands as a firm and inexpugnable monument, repressing and repelling all the impulses and devices of Arian madness. Wherefore, when all the bishops of the Western parts had come together to Ariminum, whither the wickedness of the Arians had summoned them, with the intention that by bland persuasion, or, what is truer, coerced by the authority of secular power, they might remove that which had been most cautiously established in the faith, ^D

or might obliquely deny it; but their craftiness profited them nothing. For almost all those who were assembled at Ariminum, having been lured or seduced at the time, have now returned to a sound mind, and have condemned by anathema the formula of faith edited by the Ariminense council, and have subscribed to the Catholic and Apostolic faith formerly promulgated at Nicaea. And having entered into communion with us, they are moved with greater indignation against the doctrine of Arius and his disciples; which thing the legates of your charity, having witnessed, have also joined you yourselves in their subscription: condemning Arius by anathema, and those things which were done at Ariminum against the Nicene faith, ^A to which even you yourselves, having been seduced by oaths, subscribed. Therefore it appeared consistent to us to write to your charity and to aid those who seek just things; especially since, from the profession of your legates, we have learned that the Orientals, having returned to a sound mind, agree with the orthodox bishops of the West. Moreover, we signify to you, so that you may not be ignorant, that all the blasphemies of the Ariminense council have been condemned by anathema by those very persons who at that time appear to have been deceived by fraud, and that all have consented with concordant minds to the Nicene faith. But you also ought to indicate this to all, so that those who suffered any detriment to their faith through force and fraud may ^B now at length be able to emerge from the heretical darkness to the divine light of Catholic liberty; and indeed, if after this council they are unwilling to vomit forth the poison of their perverse doctrine, and to reject all the blasphemies of Arius, and to condemn them with anathema, let them know that they are likewise, with Arius and his disciples and the rest of the serpents—that is to say, the Sabellians, the Patropassians, or any other heretics—excluded and alien from the communion of the Church, which does not admit adulterine sons. May God keep you safe, most beloved brethren.

These letters having been received, those who were with Eustathius set out for Sicily. And when they had there taken care for a synod of the bishops of Sicily to be held, and had confessed the faith of the consubstantial before them, ^C they received—

^D [index: entries preserved]

...and having approved the Nicene faith, and having received letters from them written to the same effect, they returned to those by whom they had been sent. These, having received the epistle of Liberius, sent legates through the individual cities to those who championed the consubstantial faith, exhorting them to ^B convene all together at Tarsus in Cilicia, that they might confirm the Nicene faith and fully abolish all the contentions that had arisen afterward. And perhaps this would have been accomplished, had not Eudoxius, the bishop of the Arian religion, who then had very great influence with the Emperor, stood in the way. He, being further exasperated by the convocation of the synod at Tarsus, afflicted them with more severe evils. Moreover, that the Macedonians, by the legates they sent to Liberius, had communicated with him and confirmed the Nicene faith, Sabinus himself confesses in his collection of synodical acts.

CHAPTER XIII. How Eunomius had separated himself from Eudoxius, because he was devoted to Aetius; and how, through a tumult stirred up in Alexandria by Eudoxius, Athanasius again fled; and because the people on this account had raised a sedition, the Emperor, fearing, and having appeased the Alexandrians by letters, commanded Athanasius to hold his Church again in security.

At the same time, Eunomius, having separated from Eudoxius, held his assemblies apart, because Eudoxius, while often asked by him to receive back Aetius, his preceptor, had refused to do so. Yet Eudoxius did not do this of his own will; for he did not in the least reject the opinion of Aetius, ^C since it was entirely the same as his own, but because all who agreed with Eudoxius held Aetius in aversion as heterodox. This was the reason for Eunomius’ withdrawal from Eudoxius. And these things were done in Constantinople in this manner. But at Alexandria, an edict of the praetorian prefects, sent by the zeal and agency of Eudoxius, disturbed the Church. But Athanasius, fearing the thoughtless impulse of the multitude, and dreading lest, if anything more serious should occur, the cause should be attributed to him as the author, hid himself for four whole months in his father’s tomb. But when, because of his absence, the people in their longing for him began to riot, the Emperor, having learned that on this account Alexandria was in distress, ^D

sent letters commanding that Athanasius should govern the Churches safely and without fear. In this way it came about that the Church of the Alexandrians remained quiet and peaceful until the death of Athanasius. How, after his death, they of the Arian party again gained possession of the Churches, we shall tell a little later.

CAP. XIV. How, upon the death of Eudoxius at Constantinople, the Arians ordained Demophilus, but the orthodox ordained Evagrius, with the support of Eustathius of Antioch.

The Emperor Valens, therefore, hastening again to Antioch ^A departed from Constantinople; and having reached the city of Nicomedia in Bithynia, he was detained there for the following reason. This Eudoxius, the bishop of the Arian church, immediately after the Emperor's departure, ended his life, having held the throne of the Church in Constantinople for nineteen years, during the third consulship of Valentinian and the third of Valens. Consequently, the Arians installed Demophilus in his place. But they who held the doctrine of consubstantiality (the Homousians), thinking that an opportune time presented itself, put forward a certain man of their own faith, named Evagrius; and him Eustathius, who had formerly been bishop of Antioch, ordained. ^B This man had previously been recalled from exile by the Emperor Jovian, and was at that time present in Constantinople with the intention of strengthening those of the consubstantial faith, and was living there in concealment.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(53) *Hastening again to Antioch.* Previously the Emperor Valens had been making for Antioch. But on the journey, having heard of the revolt of Procopius, he was compelled to return, as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies in Book 26. Therefore, Baronius unfairly criticizes Socrates. Nor does Socrates say that Valens had already come to Antioch, but only that he was hastening thither, which is certainly most true. But it seems the translation of Christophorson deceived Baronius, which reads: "The Emperor Valens was hastening to go to Antioch again."

(54) *Nineteen years.* Sozomen attributes only eleven years of the episcopate to Eudoxius. Certainly Eudoxius seized the bishopric of Constantinople in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius, which was the year of Christ 359. He died, however, in the third consulship of Valentinian and Valens, in the year of Christ 370. Wherefore, what Epiphanius the Scholasticus confirms should be written in Socrates. And so, Baronius here also unfairly criticizes Socrates, ^C when it is not Socrates himself, but the codices of Socrates that are faulty here. Moreover, concerning the death of Eudoxius, see Philostorgius in Book IX.

(55) *Eustathius... whom Eustathius ordained.* Sozomen also reports this in Book VI, yet Baronius criticizes both, contending that Eustathius of Antioch had died long before, during the reign of Constantius. Certainly, Jerome in his book *De viris illustribus* writes that Eustathius died in exile and was buried at Trajanopolis in Thrace. If this is so, he must have died in the times of Constantius; for Julian, and after him Jovian, recalled all bishops from exile. It is indeed scarcely credible that Eustathius of Antioch could have reached these times. For since he was present at the Council of Nicaea, which was celebrated in the year of Christ 325, let us suppose that he was forty-five years of age at that time. From this year until the third consulship of Valentinian and Valens, ^D when Eustathius is said to have ordained Evagrius at Constantinople, forty-five years intervene. Thus, Eustathius must have been ninety years old if he ordained Evagrius bishop in this year. Furthermore, it should not be omitted that I have learned from the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis that Eustathius of Antioch was buried not at Trajanopolis, as Jerome writes, but at Philippi. Thus he writes: "After the third consulship of Longinus, Calendio, bishop of Antioch, gathered the remains of his predecessor, the bishop and confessor Eustathius, from Philippi in Macedonia, and brought them to Antioch with the highest honors." The same is related by Theodorus Lector in the second book of his excerpts from Ecclesiastical History, in these words: "Baronius [alt-version omitted] has poorly related this translation."

VARIORUM. * Regarding Eudoxius, see Socrates lib. II, cap. 42; regarding Demophilus, see Philostorgius lib. IX, cap. 10 and 14.

CAP. XV. How, after Evagrius and Eustathius were driven into exile by the emperor, the Arians most grievously oppressed the Homousians.

^A When this had occurred, the Arians began anew from another source to stir up persecution against them. The matter quickly came to the emperor's knowledge; and, fearing lest a sedition arising from the conflict of the crowds should subvert the city, he sent military forces from Nicomedia to Constantinople. He commanded that both the one who had ordained and the one who had been ordained be arrested at the same time and banished, each to a different place. Eustathius was relegated to the city of Bizya in Thrace, while Evagrius was led away to another place. These things having been thus accomplished, the Arianizers, grown even more insolent, harmed those of the Church, beating them, treating them with contumely, casting them into prisons, and mulcting them with fines; in short, inflicting upon them every kind of intolerable evil. When they could no longer bear these things, they approached the emperor to petition him, hoping in some measure at least to be freed from the violence of the Arians. But when they had proposed this to themselves, they were far deceived in their hope, forasmuch as they expected justice from the very man who was himself the author of their injuries.

CAP. XVI. Regarding the holy presbyters burned in a ship by order of Valens, and regarding the famine which occurred in Phrygia through the indignation of God.

For when certain chosen religious men of the ecclesiastical order, eighty in number—whose leaders were Urbanus, Theodorus, and Menedemus—arrived at Nicomedia and offered suppliant petitions to the emperor, in which they suggested to him the violence of the Arians ^B and how great the evils were that they had suffered at their hands, the emperor, kindled with wrath, concealed it for the moment, but secretly commanded Modestus the prefect to arrest the men and visit them with death. The manner of their death was strange and unusual, and therefore it should be committed to memory. The prefect, fearing lest he should endure an irrational sedition from the multitude in Modestus.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (56) Eustathius of Bizya in Thrace. This narrative in no way agrees with those things which we have related above from Jerome, nor with those which Theodorus Lector and Theophanes write in their Chronicle. For Jerome says that Eustathius was buried in his own time at Trajanopolis, where he had been driven into exile. Theodorus Lector and Theophanes, however, write that he lived in exile at Philippi and was buried there. Therefore, this Eustathius who was relegated by Valens must be distinct from that Eustathius of Antioch. Bizua, moreover, is a city of Thrace, formerly the royal seat of the Thracian Asti, according to Stephanus. Eutropius mentions the same in his sixth book, where he speaks of L. Lucullus, who subdued the Thracian Bessi: "Thence he attacked many cities situated above the Pontus. There he overturned Apollonia, Calatim, Parthenopolis, Tomos, Istrus, and took all of Buzia." [I read: he took Bizuam and all of Scythia.]

VARIORUM. * He succeeded Ausonius as prefect in the year of the Lord 371, in the consulship of Gratianus and Probus. Gregory Nazianzen understands this Modestus in his funeral oration *On the Praises of Basil the Great*, as Theodorus also testifies: that he was indeed an Arian, as Gregory relates, having been baptized by Arians, and that by various arts of flattery he won Valens to himself and held the praetorian prefecture for a long time. (Valesius in Amm. Marcellin. lib. xxix, cap. 1.

^A Rather than kill those men before everyone's eyes and incite a sedition against himself from an impulsive multitude, he feigns that he will send them into exile. When they had accepted this with a constant mind, the praefect orders them to be placed on a ship, as if to be led away supposedly into exile; after instructing the sailors that, when they had reached the middle of the sea, they should set fire to the ship, so that having perished in this manner they might not have anyone to perform their funeral rites. These things were done. And when they had put to sea, and had reached the middle of the Astacenian gulf, they did what had been commanded; and transferring into another small boat that was following, they departed, after setting the ship on fire. But it happening that a strong east wind was blowing, the ship, being set on fire, was driven along at a great distance; so that it made its progress more quickly, and lasted until it reached the anchorage, which has the name Dacidizo 57, and there it was completely consumed together with the men themselves. Many said that this crime did not go unpunished ^B; for a severe famine 58 occurred throughout the Phrygian nations, so that the majority of the inhabitants were under the necessity of moving away from their territory for a little time, and fleeing for refuge both to Constantinople and to other provinces. For Constantinople, even while it feeds infinite multitudes, is for the most part well-supplied, both because it has the transport of necessities from every quarter by sea, and because the Euxine Sea, lying adjacent to it, provides it with grain whenever it has need.

CHAPTER XVII. How the emperor, having arrived in Antioch, again persecuted those who hold the consubstantial doctrine.

^C The emperor Valens, however, caring little for the evils that were arising from the famine, arrives at Antioch in Syria. And staying there, he afflicted those who did not hold the Arian view. For having completely expelled those who held the consubstantial doctrine from the churches of almost all the eastern cities, he was not satisfied with this, but also subjected them to various punishments; and he destroyed far more people than before, delivering them to various deaths, but especially by the river ^D. 57 Dacidizo. Sozomen, in the sixth book of his work on the same subject, calls it a maritime city of Bithynia. Cedrenus also calls it Dacibysa. But Theophanes, just like our Socrates, has Dacidiza. 58 For a severe famine. It is written of this famine in the old Fasti, which Sirmond published under the name of Idatius: "In the consulship of Valentinian and Valens, there was a great famine in the regions of Phrygia."

CAPUT XVIII. Concerning what happened at Edessa, of the insolence of the prefect, the faith and constancy of the citizens, and a certain pious woman.

^A But I deem it a sin to pass over in silence what took place at Edessa in Mesopotamia. In that city there is a bright and illustrious basilica of the apostle Thomas, in which, on account of the holiness of the place, assemblies are celebrated without intermission. The emperor Valens, wishing to see this, and having learned that the whole multitude of those who gathered there detested his own hateful heresy, is said to have struck the prefect with his own hand because he had not taken care to expel them from there. The prefect, ^B however, having been insulted, although he reluctantly prepared to obey the emperor's wrath—for he did not want to commit the slaughter of so many men—secretly warned them that no one should remain in the basilica. But no one gave heed to his counsel or his threats; for on the following day, they all flocked to the basilica.

When the prefect hurried to the basilica with a great number of soldiers to satisfy the emperor's bile, a certain poor woman, dragging her small son by the hand, hastened toward the church and broke through the ranks of those who were escorting the prefect. Taking this ill, the prefect ordered the woman to be brought to him and addressed her with these words: "O miserable woman, whither are you rushing so audaciously and shamelessly?" ^C But she said, "Whither the others are rushing." To which the prefect replied, "Have you not heard that everyone found there is to be put to death by the prefect?" The woman said, "I have heard it indeed, and that is why I am hastening, so that I also may be found there." And when the prefect said, "And why are you dragging this little child?" the woman replied, "So that he also may merit to undergo martyrdom."

Having heard these things, the prefect gathered from them how great was the confidence of spirit of the rest who were assembling there. Having returned immediately to the emperor, he reported to him that all were prepared to die for their faith; and saying at the same time that it was absurd to murder such a multitude in a moment of time, he appeased the emperor's wrath. ^D In this way the people of Edessa escaped being ravaged by their own emperor as if by an enemy.

CAPUT XIX. How the emperor Valens killed many who had the letter Θ at the beginning of their name, because of a certain divination by which this had been predicted.

At the same time, a certain most evil demon...

abused the cruelty of the emperor. For he persuaded certain busybodies, who were inquiring who would reign after Valens, to perform a necromantic rite. To these men, while they were employing a certain magical divination, the demon brought death—not directly, but, as is his habit, deviously—by showing four letters, Θ, Ε, Ο, Δ, saying that the name of the one who would reign after Valens began with these, and that it was a compound name. The rumor of what had happened reached the ears of the emperor. He, indeed, did not reserve for God, who rightly administers all things, the knowledge of future events, nor the right and authority to do whatever He wills; instead, having cast aside the precepts of the Christian religion, of which he supposed himself to be a most zealous follower, he destroyed many whom he suspected of aspiring to the imperial power. Therefore, Theodori were killed, and Theodoti, and Theodosii, and Theoduli, and all who had names similar to these. Among them, a certain Theodosilus ^B also, a brave man descended from the nobility of Spain, was put to death. Under the pressure of the impending fear, many then changed their own names, renouncing those which their parents had given them at birth, as if they were fraught with danger. Let this suffice regarding this matter.

CAP. XX. On the death of Athanasius, and the promotion of Peter.

It must be known that, as long as Athanasius, the bishop of the Alexandrians, was still alive, the emperor, through some divine providence, refrained from troubling Alexandria and Egypt; for he had discovered that the vast majority of the people there favored Athanasius, and he feared that, if a sedition were to arise in Alexandria, the populace, being by nature somewhat more fervent, might bring harm to public affairs. Now Athanasius, in the consulship of Gratian the second time and Pro- ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

state, after many struggles for the Church, he departed this life, having served as bishop for forty-six years amidst many perils, leaving in his place Peter, a pious and learned man. ^A

CAP. XXI. How after the death of Athanasius, the Arians, by order of Emperor Valens, delivered the churches in Alexandria to Lucius, whom they had previously ordained, and consigned Peter to prison.

The Arians were immediately emboldened, puffed up with arrogance because of the emperor’s religion. Without delay, they informed Valens, who was then sojourning in Antioch. This opportunity, presenting itself so opportunely, was seized by Euzoius, who was then presiding over the Arian religion in Antioch; he schemed to be sent to Alexandria himself, in order to hand over the local churches to the Arian ^B Lucius. This also seemed right to the emperor. Thus, he soon arrived at Alexandria with imperial forces; for Magnus, the count of the royal treasuries, accompanied him. An imperial mandate was written to Palladius, the prefect of Egypt, and the military arm was ordered to provide its aid and service. Therefore, they seized Peter and cast him into chains; as for the other clergy, they chased them away and scattered them here and there, and enthroned Lucius.

CAP. XXII. That Sabinus, the Macedonian writer, mentioned nothing of the many evils that occurred at the enthronement of Lucius, but Peter, in his own letter, does mention them, having escaped by fleeing to Damasus, the bishop of Rome; and that the Arians and Lucius inflicted many evils upon the holy monks in the desert. Such evils as were perpetrated upon the entry of Lucius... ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. Magnus, count of the royal treasuries. He is called a count of the Comitatensian largesses in the letter of Peter of Alexandria, which Theodoret cites in his book of Ecclesiastical History.

VARIORUM. [Note: The text of the Variorum notes consists of scholarly locator lists and historical commentary; their entries are preserved within this page's scholarly scope.] [index: entries preserved] ^D

[...last word of the previous page] and those things which were done against those who were expelled, both in the courts and outside of them, and how some were subjected to various tortures, while others after their tortures were also sent into exile: Sabinus has made no mention of this at all. For since he was himself a Semi-Arian, he covered up the crimes of his friends. But Peter, through his own letters, which he wrote to all the churches everywhere after he had escaped from his chains, made these things manifest to everyone. And he, when he had succeeded in breaking out of prison, fled to Damasus, the bishop of the city of Rome. The Arians, meanwhile, though few in number, nonetheless obtained the churches of Alexandria. And not much time passed before there was an imperial rescript, by which all who professed the faith of the consubstantial were ordered to be driven both from the city of Alexandria and from everywhere else in Egypt. ^B It was also commanded that the prefect of Egypt, with a great multitude of soldiers, should persecute everywhere those whom Lucius had ordered to be expelled. At the same time, the monasteries in the desert were harassed and troubled by them, and were most cruelly attacked. For armed men, rushing upon defenseless men who would not even lift a hand to strike back, ravaged them so piteously that the sufferings inflicted upon them exceed the power of words to describe.

CHAP. XXIII. A catalog of the holy monks who lived in the desert.

Since I have made mention of the monasteries in Egypt, there is nothing to prevent us from saying a few things about them. The monasteries ^C that are in Egypt perhaps derived their origin from the distant past. Yet they were increased and enlarged in a wonderful way by a most holy man, whose name was Ammon. While he was a young man, he avoided marriage. But when some of his relatives urged him not to treat marriage with contempt, but to take a wife, he obeyed and celebrated the wedding. Immediately, when he had taken the virgin from the bridal chamber and led her into the bedroom with the customary procession, finally, after their relatives and friends had departed, he himself took an apostolic book, began to read Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and set forth to his spouse what ^D the Apostle commanded those who were married. He added many other things as well, teaching how much burden marriage entails, how full of trouble the life together of a husband and wife is, and what bitter pains await a woman who is pregnant; and he added the vexations that usually arise from the raising of children. Then, in turn, he began to recount the benefits of chastity: how free a pure life is, how incorrupt and devoid of every stain; and that virginity makes men close to God. Having recounted these and many other things of this kind to his wife, who was still a virgin, he persuaded her that both of them together, before they had intercourse, should renounce the worldly life. And having made these covenants between themselves, they went to the mountain of TABLE [index: entries preserved]

known as Nitria. ^A There, living in a hut, they used a common dwelling for a short time, without any distinction of male and female sex, since they were one in Christ, as the Apostle says. Not long after, the novice and incorrupt virgin spoke thus to Ammon: "It is not fitting, for you who pursue chastity, to look upon a woman in such a narrow dwelling. Wherefore, if it pleases you, let each of us pursue our own exercise separately." This covenant also pleased both equally; and having separated from each other, they spent the remainder of their lives in that way, abstaining from wine and oil, eating only dry bread, and that sometimes after a full day, sometimes after two, and sometimes even after more days.

The soul of this Ammon, after his death, was seen being taken up by angels by Antony, who lived in the same times, as Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, relates in his Life. Many then imitated the life of this Ammon, and bit by bit the mountain of Nitria and that of Scetis were filled with a multitude of ^B monks. To write the life of all of them would be a task of a separate work. But since there were among them men beloved by God, who shone forth in asceticism and lived an apostolic life, and who both did and said things useful and worthy of being remembered, I thought it worthwhile to insert a few things from many into this History of ours, for the benefit of those who read it.

They say, therefore, that this Ammon never saw himself naked, and used to say that it is shameful for a monk even to look upon his own body naked. And when he once wished to cross a river, he was reluctant to take off his clothes. He prayed to God that he might be granted a crossing without any loss of his resolve, and ^C immediately he was carried by an angel to the further bank of the river. Another monk named Didymus, although he lived ninety years, lived until his death without the company of any human being. Another, named Arsenius, did not excommunicate younger monks who had sinned, but rather those who were advanced [in age], saying that a young man who is excommunicated becomes defiant, whereas one who has progressed gets a quick sense of the pain caused by excommunication. Pior would eat while walking. When someone asked him why he ate in that way, he said, "I do not wish to use eating as a work, but as a secondary thing." And to another who asked him about the same thing, he replied, "So that ^D I might not feel the pleasure of the body while eating," he says, "or even in your own dwelling..."

Isidor said that it was now the fortieth year since he had felt sin in his soul, yet he had never consented to desire or to anger. Pambos, though unlettered, approached someone in order to learn a psalm. Having heard the first verse of the thirty-eighth Psalm, which says: ^A "I said, I will guard my ways, that I might not sin with my tongue," he did not wait to hear the second, but departed, saying that this one verse was sufficient for him, provided he could learn it through action. When the one who had taught him the verse reproached him because he had not returned to him for six months, he answered that he had not yet learned the verse of the psalm through action. Many years later, when one of his acquaintances asked him if he had learned the verse, "In total," he said, "it was nineteen years before I scarcely learned to practice it." The same man, when someone had given him gold for the sustenance of the poor and had said, "Count what I have given," replied, "There is no need for counting, but for a right intention." This same Pambos, at the entreaty of the bishop Athanasius, came down from the desert to Alexandria. ^B And having seen a stage actress there, he wept. When those present asked him why he wept, "Two things," he said, "moved me: one being her ruin, and the other, that I do not have such great zeal to please God, as she has to please lewd men." Another person said that a monk who does not work is judged no differently than a covetous man. Petirus understood many facts of natural philosophy; and he kept constantly setting forth different doctrines of natural philosophy to those who came to him. In each of these expositions, however, he would pray to God. ^C There were among the monks at that time two God-beloved men who shared the same name; for the name of each of them was Macarius. One was from Upper Egypt, and the other was from the city of the Alexandrians. Both became renowned for many reasons: for their asceticism, for their manner of life, and for the miracles that occurred at their hands. Therefore, the Egyptian Macarius, having performed so many healings and having cast out so many demons from those who were possessed, that they would require a book of their own, thanks to the grace of God which he accomplished. He was, however, stern with those who approached him for his piety; while the Alexandrian...

^A Macarius, being in every respect like the Egyptian, differed in this one point: that he was cheerful toward those who came to him, and by a certain urbanity he drew the younger men toward monastic discipline. Evagrius, having become a disciple of these men, acquired the philosophy that is exercised in deeds, whereas previously he had been a philosopher in word only. ^B Being ordained to the order of deacon at Constantinople by Gregory Nazianzen, he later departed with him to Egypt, and having encountered the previously mentioned men, he emulated their way of life. And so many wonders were performed by his hands, equal to those of his instructors. ^C Valuable books were also written by him. One of these is inscribed *The Monk*, or *On Practical Virtue*; the second is the *Gnostic*, or *For Him Who Has Been Found Worthy of Knowledge*, containing fifty chapters. The third is titled the *Antirrheticus*, gathered from the divine Scriptures against the tempting demons, divided into eight parts according to the number of the eight thoughts. He also wrote six hundred gnostic problems; furthermore, two books of poetry: one for monks who live in cenobia or congregations, the other for a virgin. Anyone who reads these will easily recognize how excellent and worthy of admiration they are. It will not be out of place, I think, to append to what has been said a few things that he recounts about the monks. For he says word for word the following: "It is necessary to inquire correctly into the paths of the monks who have walked before us, and to correct ourselves by their example. For many things were well said and done by them." ^D Among other things, someone said that a diet that is drier and not irregular, when joined with love, brings the monk more quickly to the harbor of dispassion. The same man delivered one of the brothers who was troubled at night by phantoms, by ordering him to serve the sick with fasting. For he said, when asked, that no passion is extinguished by anything as much as by mercy. One of the sages of that time came to the just Anthony and said, "How do you endure, Father, being deprived of the consolation of books?" Anthony replied, "My book, O philosopher, is the nature of things that have come to pass, and it is present whenever I wish to read the words of God." The vessel of election, the Egyptian elder Macarius, asked me…

why it is that when we remember injuries received from men, we corrupt the power and faculty of memory in our souls, whereas when we commit to memory injuries received from demons, we remain unharmed. And when I, being ignorant, was troubled as to what ought to be answered, and begged him that he himself would explain to me the cause of this matter, he said: "Because the former affection of the soul is against nature, while the latter is according to nature." ^B I approached the most holy Father Macarius at one time, when the midday heat was burning, and being vexed by a heavy thirst, I asked for water to drink. But he said, "Be content with the shade. For many who are now traveling or sailing are deprived even of this."

Then, as I was exercising discourse with him concerning abstinence, he said: "Take heart, O son. For twenty whole years I have not used bread, nor water, nor sleep to satiety. For I always ate my bread by weight; I drank water by measure; and finally, I stole a small part of sleep by leaning against the wall."

The death of his father was announced to one of the monks. But he said to the one who announced it, "Do not speak impiously: for my father is immortal."

One of the brethren possessed nothing except a single volume of the Gospels. ^C When he had sold this, he dispensed the money for the feeding of the poor, adding words most worthy of memory: "I have sold," he said, "the very Word that says, 'Sell what you have and give to the poor.'"

There is a certain island near Alexandria, lying to the north, across the lake which is called Mareotis. A monk, the most approved of the Parembole of the Gnostics, dwells near it, who declared that all things done by monks are performed for one of five reasons: for the sake of God, for the sake of nature, for the sake of custom, for the sake of necessity, or for the sake of manual labor. The same man also said, on another occasion, that virtue is one in nature, but that it is specialized according to the powers of the soul. For even solar light, ^D he says, is formless in itself, but it is made to take form through the windows by which it enters. Another of the monks said, "I put away pleasures for this reason, that I might prune back the pretexts of irascibility. For I know that it is always fighting on behalf of pleasures, and troubling my mind, and driving away knowledge." One of the elders said that love does not know how to keep deposits of food or money.

The same man says, "I do not know if I have ever been attacked by demons twice for the same thing."

These things indeed Evagrius recorded word for word in his ^A book entitled *Practicus*. But in his *Gnosticus* he says such things as these: "We have learned from the righteous Gregory that there are four virtues, and their contemplations: prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice. And he said it was the work of prudence to contemplate the intellectual and holy powers, without discursive reasoning; for he taught that these are revealed by wisdom. And of fortitude, it is to persevere in the truth even while being attacked, and not to step into things that have no being. And he answered that it is proper to temperance to receive the seeds from the first husbandman, and to repel the one who sows over them. And of justice, again, it is to render a word according to the merit of each, announcing some things obscurely, signifying others through the figures of enigmas, and revealing others plainly for the benefit of the simpler ones."

The column of the truth, Basil the Cappadocian, said: "Knowledge which is perceived from men becomes more perfect through constant use and exercise; but that which is infused through the grace of God [is made perfect by] justice, patience, and mercy. And it is possible for those who are subject to passions to receive the former knowledge, but the latter is capable of being received only by those who are free from passions—who, even in the time of prayer, contemplate the proper light which illuminates their own mind."

Concerning the Egyptians, the holy luminary Athanasius said: "Moses is commanded to set the table on the north side." Let the Gnostics know who it is that breathes against them, and let them endure every temptation nobly, and feed those who come to them with readiness.

Sarapion ^C (70), the angel of the Church of the Thmuites, said that the mind, when it has drunk in spiritual knowledge, is thoroughly purified; but love heals the inflamed parts of the soul, and temperance stops the evil desires that flow in.

"Always exercise yourself, according to your own capacity, in the words concerning Providence and judgment," says the great and Gnostic teacher Didymus, "and endeavor to keep the materials of these in your memory. For almost everyone stumbles in these matters. And the words concerning judgment you will find in the difference of bodies and according to the world; but those concerning Providence, in the ways that lead us from wickedness and ignorance toward virtue or knowledge."

So much we have cited here from Evagrius. There was also another wonderful man among the monks, named Ammonius, who was so indifferent to worldly curiosities that, having come to Rome together with Athanasius, he chose not to look at any of the works of the city, but only to see the mar- ^D tyrdom of Peter and Paul.

^B This Ammonius, when he was being drawn toward the episcopacy and had fled, cut off his own right ear, so that by the disfigurement of his body he might escape ordination. But when, some time later, Evagrius also was seized by Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, for an episcopacy and escaped without having mutilated any part of his body, he met with Ammonius and jokingly said that he had acted wrongly in cutting off his ear, and was guilty before God for doing so. But Ammonius replied to him: "But do you, Evagrius," he said, "not think that you will pay the penalty, who, by cutting out your tongue [metaphorical], have refused, out of self-love, to use the grace that was given to you?"

There were indeed at that same time in the monasteries very many other admirable and God-beloved men, whom it would be long to mention in the present work; and besides, it would be necessary to stray from the proposed subject if we wished to recount the lives of each of these men and the miracles they performed because of the holiness they possessed. But if anyone wishes to learn about them—what they did, what they practiced, and what they spoke for the benefit of those who heard them, and how the wild beasts obeyed them—a separate volume has been painstakingly written by Palladius the monk, who was a disciple of Evagrius, and who has described everything concerning them with great accuracy. In it, he also makes mention of women who followed a way of life and discipline equal to those of the men mentioned. Now, Evagrius and Palladius flourished a short time after the death of the Emperor Valens. But let us return to where we digressed.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning the holy monks driven into exile, and how God drew all men to Himself through the miracles performed by them.

^D Since, therefore, the Emperor Valens had commanded by law that the orthodox, both those in Alexandria and those in the rest of Egypt, should be driven out, everything was being devastated and overturned; on the one hand

some were being dragged to the tribunals, others were being cast into dungeons, and others were being tortured in various ways. For diverse kinds of punishments were being inflicted upon those who loved a life of quiet. ^B But after these things had been executed in Alexandria according to the will of Lucius, and Euzoius had returned to Antioch, they immediately proceeded to the monasteries of Egypt—that is, the commander with a great multitude of soldiers, and Lucius the Arian. For he himself was also present, and following the assembly of holy men with no mercy, he afflicted them more severely than even the soldiers did.

When they arrived at the place, they found the men occupied in their customary studies and exercises—praying, namely, healing illnesses, and casting out demons. But those men, valuing the miracles of divine power but little, did not even permit the customary prayers to be performed in the places of worship; indeed, they drove the holy men out of those places too. Nor were they satisfied with this, but advancing further, they used arms against them. Rufinus says that he saw these things himself, and that he suffered them along with them. ^C Accordingly, the words of the Apostle were being renewed in them: for they were mocked, they experienced scourgings, they were stripped, they were bound, they were stoned, they were put to death by the edge of the sword, men wandering about in the desert in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, oppressed, afflicted, of whom the world was not worthy: wandering in desert places, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth; even though they had testimony from faith, and from the works and healings which divine grace was performing through their hands.

But as it seems, the providence of God permitted them to suffer these things, foreseeing something better, so that through the evils which they themselves were tolerating, others might find salvation in the Lord. And the outcome of the matter later proved this to be so. When, therefore, those admirable men showed themselves superior to all the violence being inflicted upon them, Lucius, finally losing heart, gave counsel to the commander of the military regiment to send the Fathers of the monks into exile. ^D Now those Fathers were two Macarii, one the Egyptian and the other the Alexandrian. These men, therefore, were deported to an island in which there was no Christian inhabitant. In that same island there was a temple, and a certain priest whom the inhabitants worshipped like a god. But when the men, holy and dear to God, landed on that island, fear and trembling immediately seized the demons of that place. At the same time, another thing happened. The priest's daughter suddenly [was seized] by a demon

uncontrollable, and could not be quieted by any means; instead, she cried out with a loud voice, and addressing those men of God, she said, "Why have you come here also to cast us out?" Once again, therefore, those men showed the power which they had received from God's grace. For having cast the demon out of the maiden, and having restored her sound to her father, they led both the priest and all those dwelling there on the island to the faith of Christianity. Immediately, therefore, they cast out the idols; and having changed the form of the temple into the likeness of a church, they were baptized and learned all things concerning Christianity with joy. Thus, indeed, while those admirable men were being driven out on account of the faith of the consubstantial, they themselves became more tested, and they saved others, and they made that faith more secure. ^B

CHAPTER XXV.

Concerning Didymus the blind.

At the same time, God also displayed another faithful man, having deemed it right to have the faith attested to through him. For Didymus, a man truly admirable and well-educated, flourished at that same time, having become distinguished in every branch of learning. While he was still very young, and had learned the first elements of letters, he fell into an affliction of the eyes; and being severely affected by it, he lost his power of sight entirely. But God, in place of his physical eyes, granted him spiritual ones. For those things which he could not perceive by the sight of the eyes, he learned by hearing. For being gifted from childhood, and having acquired a good soul, he surpassed those who were gifted ^C and who saw most sharply. For he mastered the rules of grammar easily, and grasped rhetoric even faster. Having then moved on to philosophical studies, he learned dialectic, arithmetic, and music with wonderful ease, and he committed the other studies of the philosophers so thoroughly to his soul that he was able to engage readily and eagerly with those who had mastered these things through the benefit of their eyes. Moreover, he knew the divine oracles of the Old and New Testaments so precisely that he published many books; and he also dictated three books concerning the Trinity; and he interpreted the *On First Principles* of Origen, having published commentaries upon them, through which ^D

he has composed three books on the Trinity, and he translated the books of Origen *De Principiis*, having published commentaries on them in which he asserts that those works were correctly written, and that those who attempt to accuse ^A that man and calumniate his books strive in vain; for, he says, they are not able to attain to the man's excellent wisdom by their understanding. If anyone, therefore, desires to know the manifold erudition of Didymus and the ardor of his spirit, he will easily perceive it from the books which were elaborated by him. Antony the monk is said to have conversed with this Didymus long before the times of Valens, at the time when, having left the desert on account of the Arians, he came to Alexandria: and, having examined the man’s doctrine, he is said to have spoken thus to him: "Do not let the loss of your physical eyes trouble you, Didyme. For you are deprived of such eyes as even flies and gnats ^B are able to see with. Rather, rejoice that you possess the eyes with which angels see, by which God is beheld, and His light is comprehended." This indeed was said to Didymus by the God-loving Antony long before these times. But at that time, Didymus appeared as the greatest defender and champion of his own faith, encountering the Arians, resolving their sophisms, and refuting their false and fraudulent arguments.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Concerning Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus.

Divine providence opposed Didymus to the Arians who were in Alexandria; but in other cities, it opposed Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus; regarding whom I think it appropriate to mention a few things. Indeed, the memory and fame of them, which even now persists among all, and the abundance of doctrine which is perceived daily from their books, could suffice for the commendation ^C of both. But since they profited the Churches of that time so greatly, and were kept by God as it were like torches of the faith, the logic of our undertaking demands that we make mention of them in particular. If, therefore, anyone should wish to institute a comparison between Basil and Gregory, and to expound the life and character of each, and the virtues that were in them, he would be at a loss to prefer one before the other. For both were to each other ^D

^A rivals, both in the uprightness of their conduct and in their education—I mean both their Hellenic studies and those of the Sacred Scriptures. For when they were young, having become hearers of the sophists who were then flourishing in Athens—Himerius and Prohaeresius—and afterwards having studied together under Libanius in Antioch of Syria, ^B they attained the highest pinnacle of eloquence. And when they were judged worthy of the sophist's chair, many exhorted them to take up the teaching life. When others urged them to practice law, they despised both choices; and having abandoned the work of sophistry, they chose the solitary life. Having therefore touched upon the discourses of the philosophers with the one who at that time was teaching philosophy in Antioch, they, not long after, collected the books of Origen, and from them understood the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. For the great fame ^C of Origen was at that time spread throughout the whole world. Being trained in these, they powerfully rebutted those who held Arian views; and although the Arians cited the books of Origen as evidence, as they supposed, for their own dogma, they themselves refuted them, and showed that they did not understand the wisdom of Origen. For among the many who were then considered learned, the Arians—and the Arianizer Eunomius at that time—when they entered into discourse with those around Gregory and Basil, were shown to be completely uneducated and unskilled. ^D Basil, therefore, having been appointed by Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, to the rank of deacon, and afterwards bishop of his own fatherland—I mean Caesarea in Cappadocia—did likewise. He was eager to hand over the churches in Cappadocia, having seized upon the opposition which he had received from the great Basil himself, who was then a presbyter of the Great Church of Caesarea, and was stirring up Eusebius the bishop to a zeal for orthodoxy, so as not to yield to the impiety of Valens.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

^A Basilius, having been promoted to the office of deacon by Meletius, bishop of the city of Antioch, was thence raised to the bishopric of his own country, that is, Caesarea of Cappadocia, and took charge of the churches. Fearing that the novelty of the Arian dogma might also graze the provinces of Pontus, he quickly betook himself to those parts. And having established monasteries there, and instructed all by his preaching, he confirmed their wavering spirits. Gregory, moreover, was constituted bishop of Nazianzus, a mean town in Cappadocia, which his own father had formerly presided over, and he performed the same acts as Basil. For he, too, by going around the cities, strengthened those who were sluggish and languid in the faith. But residing chiefly at Constantinople, he confirmed those who held the same opinion in that city by his preaching; wherefore, a little later, by the vote of many bishops, he was set over the people in Constantinople.

^B When, therefore, the things done by both came to the ears of the king, Basil, having been requested from Caesarea, was showing concern for the churches. For, fearing lest perhaps Arian innovation might also invade the provinces of Pontus, he was traveling in haste to those parts 82; and having there established hermitages, and having instructed the men with his own teachings, he confirmed those who were being ^C shaken. Gregory [of Nazianzus] 83, a humble city in Cappadocia, over whose Church his own father had previously presided, performed the same acts as Basil 84. For he himself also, traveling around the cities, strengthened those who were lax regarding the faith. But mostly, by staying for long periods in Constantinople, he confirmed those in it who were like-minded with his teachings; wherefore, also, a little later, by the vote of many bishops, he was set over the people in Constantinople. Thus, therefore, when the things done by both came to the ears of the king—

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

82 *He was traveling in haste to those parts.* Gregory Nazianzenus (to whom more credence should be given in these matters) in his Funeral Oration on the praises of Basil testifies that Basil betook himself to those parts while still a presbyter, with the intention of opposing himself to the treachery of the Arians.

^C Socrates, from Rufinus, who in his second book of *History*, chapter 9, writes thus: "Gregory, however, having been substituted as bishop in place of his father at the town of Nazianzus, bore the whirlwind of the heretics faithfully." Yet it is certain that Gregory was made not bishop, but only coadjutor of his father, Gregory himself, in the Nazianzene bishopric: but with this condition, that he would not succeed his father in the bishopric, as he himself testifies in Oration 8, and in his *Poem on his own life*. But he was first constituted bishop of Sasima by Basil the Great, who had first established this bishopric, in order to claim that place for his own Church, as Gregory testifies in his *Poem on his own life*. Hence, having been translated to the Constantinopolitan seat, and having left it a little later, he betook himself to Nazianzus, and administered the bishopric of that place for some time, until, exhausted by old age and illnesses, he himself chose a successor for himself. Rightly, therefore, does Jerome in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* write thus: "Gregory, first bishop of Sasima, then of Nazianzus, etc." And it is strange that, though he held three bishoprics, all are nevertheless ambiguous and uncertain. Certainly, he himself in his letters often denies that he ever administered the bishopric of Sasima, or performed any priestly office there. But the Constantinopolitan bishopric neither Jerome, his disciple, nor Rufinus ascribes to him. Finally, he handed over the Nazianzene bishopric to another rather than holding it himself. One must, without a doubt, write *καὶ τὰ αὐτά*, etc.

VARIORUM

Gregory the son clearly denies that he ever was made bishop of Nazianzus, but only coadjutor to his father. The son is placed on the cathedra of the city of Constantinople by Theodosius the Great; in the same he was confirmed by the ecumenical council held there in the year 381. But a contention of no minor importance having soon arisen in that synod concerning this matter, he himself voluntarily renounced his seat. He died in the year 389, at the age of about 65. He was a man most excellent in every kind of discipline, and supreme in theology; whence he is called "The Theologian" by way of preeminence. (Guil. Cave, ad ann. 370.)

^A of Valens, forthwith he ordered Basil to be brought from Cæsarea under guard to Antioch. He was conducted thither immediately, and at the emperor’s pleasure was led into the court of the prefects. When the prefect asked him why he did not embrace the emperor’s faith, Basil with great boldness criticized the emperor’s religion and took his stand upon the faith of the consubstantial. And when the prefect threatened him with death, "Would that it might happen to me," said Basil, "to be freed from the shackles of the body for the sake of the defense of the truth!" When the prefect again bade him consider the matter more attentively with himself, Basil is said to have replied, "I am the same today as I am tomorrow. Would that you did not change yourself!" At that time, therefore, Basil continued to be kept under guard for that day. ^B It was not long, however, before the infant son of Valens, whose name was Galates, fell so seriously ill that the physicians despaired of his recovery. His mother, the Empress Dominica, brought the matter before the emperor, asserting that she had been vexed in her sleep by certain horrific apparitions, and that the child was faring badly on account of the insult offered to the bishop. The emperor, taking these things to heart, sent for Basil; and making an attempt [to test him], he said to him, "If your doctrines are true, pray that my son may not die." But he said, "If you were to believe, O emperor, just as I do, and if the Church were united, the child would live." When he did not agree to this, Basil said, "Then, regarding the child, the will of God shall be done." Having said these things, he ordered Basil to be released. The child, however, died not long after. So much for these men, spoken of in summary fashion. Both of them wrote and published many admirable books, ^C some of which Rufinus says he translated into the Latin tongue. Basil’s brothers were Peter and Gregory. But Peter [followed] the...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(85) *Basil to be brought from Cæsarea.* These things do not accord with what the two Gregories report about Basil—namely, Nazianzen in his funeral oration, and Nyssen in the first book *Against Eunomius*. For they testify that Basil was not presented at Antioch before Modestus, the praetorian prefect, but that this took place in the city of Cæsarea. Sozomen, therefore, rightly corrected the error of Socrates in this place in book six, chapter 16, where he writes that Valens came from Antioch to Cæsarea and ordered that Basil be dragged before the tribunal of the praetorian prefect. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Emperor Valens came to Cæsarea twice and attempted to overcome Basil: first when Basil was still a presbyter, ^D which we have demonstrated above to have happened in the year of Christ 370. This Sozomen confirms clearly in book six. Later, afterwards, he came to Cæsarea from the city of Antioch, with Basil now promoted to the episcopacy. But in what year this happened is not sufficiently clear. I suspect, however, that it happened in the year of Christ [371] or [572]. I gather this from the prefecture of Modestus, which fell in those years. Nazianzen distinguishes these two visitations of Valens in oration 20, page 346, with these words, etc. Socrates took these things from the second book of Rufinus’ *Ecclesiastical History*. Furthermore, Gregory Nyssen in the first book *Against Eunomius* says that Basil stood before the tribunal of Modestus, the praetorian prefect, twice: once when he was a presbyter, and then later when he was a bishop. But Nazianzen makes no mention of that former interrogation.

(87) *Would that you did not change yourself!* By these words, Basil rebukes Modestus, because he had made himself an Arian from a Catholic in order to satisfy the prince. That Modestus was indeed an Arian is taught by Gregory in his funeral oration.

(88) *The infant son of Valens, whose name was Galates.* He was called by another name, Valentinian the Younger, as I observed above. Moreover, he was surnamed Galates because he was born in Galatia. Furthermore, when Socrates here calls him *νηπίος* (nepios), that is, an infant; from this, our opinion, which we reported above, is not moderately confirmed—namely, that these things happened around the year of Christ [371] or 372. For Valentinian the Younger was born in the year of Christ 366, as I noted above, from which year to the year 372 are six full years. Thus, Valentinian the Younger, who is also Galates, would have died at six years old: and a six-year-old child is rightly called *νηπίος* (nepios).

^A Moreover, each of them wrote and published many excellent books; Rufinus bears witness that some of them were translated into Latin by himself. Furthermore, Basil had two brothers, Peter and Gregory. Now Peter emulated the monastic life of Basil, but Gregory his eloquence in teaching; and he finished the book *On the Six Days of Creation* by Basil, which he had left incomplete, and delivered a funeral oration in praise of Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, in Constantinople. There are also many other orations of his in circulation.

CAP. XXVII. On Gregory Thaumaturgus.

^B But since some are led into error by the similarity of the name and by the books which bear the title "of Gregory," it must be known that there is another, the Pontic Gregory, who originated from the city of Neocaesarea in Pontus, and was more ancient than these, being a disciple of Origen. The fame of this Gregory was celebrated in Athens, in Berytus, and throughout the entire Pontic diocese, and I might almost say, throughout the whole world. For when he had left the schools of Athens, he went to Berytus for the sake of learning Roman law. And when he learned that Origen was interpreting the Holy Scriptures in Caesarea, he traveled with all speed to that city. When he had heard the magnificent exposition of the Sacred Books, he bade farewell to the Roman laws, and gave himself entirely to Origen. Having learned true philosophy from him, he later returned to his native land, being summoned by his parents. There, at first, while he was still a layman, he performed many miracles: sometimes healing the sick, sometimes driving away demons by letter, and finally winning over the pagans to the faith, not only by his words but much more by his works. Pamphilus the Martyr also makes mention of him in the books which he wrote for the defense of Origen, to which is also joined the oration of Gregory ^C which he composed in his praise when he was departing from Origen. There were, therefore, to summarize, several Gregories. The first is this ancient one, the disciple of Origen; the second is the Nazianzen; the third is the brother of Basil; there is also another Gregory, whom the Arians appointed as bishop while Athanasius was in exile. Let these things be said about them. ^D

CHAPTER XXVIII. Of Novatus, and those called Novatians from him; and how those of the Novatians who inhabit Phrygia transferred the festival of Easter to the Jewish custom.

^A At that time, those of the Novatians who dwell in Phrygia transferred the festival of Easter. I shall explain how this happened, having first stated why the exact canon of their Church prevails among the nations of the Phrygians and Paphlagonians. Novatus, a presbyter of the Church at Rome, separated himself because Cornelius the bishop received into communion the faithful who had sacrificed to idols during the persecution which the Emperor Decius raised against the Church. Having separated for this reason and having been appointed to the episcopate by those bishops who thought the same as he did, he wrote to the Churches everywhere that they should not admit those who had sacrificed to the mysteries, but should exhort them indeed to repentance, yet leave the forgiveness to God, who has the power and authority to forgive sins. Those who received such letters in each province framed their own judgments upon the things which were indicated according to their own characters. ^B For as he signified that those who had committed a deadly sin after baptism ought not to be deemed worthy of the mysteries, to some the promulgation of such a canon seemed bitter and harsh; others, however, received it as a just canon and one that corrected the way of life. While this question was being agitated, letters from Bishop Cornelius arrived, promising forgiveness even to those who had sinned after baptism. Thus, as both wrote contrary things to one another and confirmed their own position by the testimony of the holy Scriptures, each one, as is wont to occur, inclined to that side to which he had previously been more propenes. For those who were lovers of sin, grasping at the forgiveness then granted, abused it thereafter for every kind of crime. ^C It appears that the nations of the Phrygians are more temperate than other nations; for the Phrygians even rarely swear. For the irascible temperament prevails among the Scythians and Thracians, while those whose dwellings are toward the rising sun are more enslaved to the concupiscent temperament. But the nations of the Paphlagonians and Phrygians have a leaning toward neither of these. For neither horse races nor theaters are zealously pursued by them. ^D [alt-version omitted]

And for this reason, both those people and others who share the same sentiment seem to me to have assented to the letters written at that time by Novatus; for among them, fornication is considered a monstrous evil. Indeed, one can find Phrygians and Paphlagonians living more temperately than those of any other sect. I believe the same reason holds for those who dwell in the western parts and who followed the opinion of Novatus. Novatus, then, although he was strict in his views on discipline, did not change the feast of Pascha. For he always followed the usage of the western regions, and fulfilled it in that manner^A. They always observe it there after the equinox, as they have done from the beginning, ever since they became Christians. But Novatus himself later, during the reign of the Emperor Valerian—who set in motion a persecution against the Christians—suffered martyrdom^B. However, those in Phrygia who are called by his name, turning away from the communion that had been allowed to them^C, changed the feast of Pascha at about this time. For a few obscure bishops of the Novatians in Phrygia, having gathered a synod in the village of Pazo—where the sources of the river Sangarius are seen—promulgated a rule that they should observe the Jews and, doing as they do regarding the unleavened bread, celebrate the feast of Pascha with them. An old man reported these things to us, saying that he was the son of a presbyter, and that he was present with his father at the synod that took place, at which were present neither Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople, nor Maximus of Nicaea, nor the bishop of Nicomedia, nor even the one of Cotyaeum.^D

^A, although the Novatian Church is governed chiefly by these. These things indeed occurred in that manner at that time; but a little later, the Novatian Church was also divided by that synod, as we shall relate in its proper place. We should here move on to those things which happened during the same period in the Western regions.

CAP. XXIX. Concerning Damasus, the bishop of Rome, and Ursinus; and how, due to a sedition which arose between them in Rome, much slaughter followed.

For while the emperor Valentinian was living in peace and causing no trouble to any sect or religion, Damasus received the administration of the episcopate in Rome after Liberius; ^B under whom a serious disturbance, of the following cause, arose in the Roman Church: A certain Ursinus, a deacon of that same Church, had been a candidate when the election of the bishop was taking place. When he saw that Damasus had been preferred before him, bearing ill that he had missed his hope, he busied himself with forming a conventicle apart from the Church; and he persuaded certain obscure bishops ^C to ordain him in secret. Therefore he was ordained, not in the church, but in a secret place in the basilica which is called Sicininus. Because of this deed, a great discord took hold of the people. They were stirred up against each other, not for the sake of any faith or heresy, but solely on the matter of who ought to hold the episcopal throne. From this, violent clashes of the crowds occurred; so that, from the friction, many died, and on account of this, many laymen and clerics were punished by the then prefect, Maximinus, ^D and thus...

^A Ursinus desisted from his attempt, and those who followed his party became completely quiet.

CAP. XXX

At the same time, another event worthy of remembrance occurred in Milan. For when Auxentius, the bishop of that city, who had been ordained by the Arians, had died, the people of Milan began again to be in an uproar concerning the election of a bishop: and great contention was stirred up among them, for some were eager to elect one person and others another. And when a sedition had been stirred up on this account, the ruler of the province, who held the dignity of consular, by the name of Ambrosius, fearing ^B lest some evil should befall the city from this tumult, hurried to the church, with the intention of quelling the disturbance. When the people became quiet at his arrival, and he had repressed the insane impetuosity of the multitude with a long and useful exhortation, everyone suddenly conspired in one opinion and shouted that Ambrosius was worthy of the episcopate, and they all demanded that he be ordained for them: for thus, and only thus, would the people return to unity and embrace the same sentiment concerning the faith. Therefore, when the bishops who were present had judged that this unanimity of the people had been brought about by a certain divine nod, they seized Ambrosius without delay. And after they had initiated him with the sacred bath—for he was still a ^C catechumen—they prepared to promote him to the dignity of the episcopate. But since Ambrosius had indeed accepted baptism with a willing mind, yet was in every way refusing the priesthood, the bishops referred the matter to the emperor Valentinian. The emperor, admiring the unanimity of the people and recognizing that what had happened was the work of God, wrote back to the bishops that they should obey God, who had commanded him to be ordained: for he had been designated by the suffrage of God rather than of men. In this manner, with Ambrosius ordained, the people of Milan, who had been previously divided among themselves, returned to unity through his intervention.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

CHAPTER XXXI. On the death of Valentinian.

^A Afterward, when the Sarmatians had made an incursion into the Roman territories, the Emperor moved an expedition against them with immense forces. The barbarians, terrified by the news of this, sent an embassy to him and requested to obtain peace under conditions. When the ambassadors were introduced into the consistorium, as they seemed to the Emperor to be very base and abject, the Emperor inquired whether all the Sarmatians were of this sort. And when the ambassadors replied that the most noble of the whole nation had come to him, Valentinian blazed with anger; and raising his voice higher, he said that he had been made ruler of the Roman Empire by some evil fate, since a race of barbarians of this kind, so base and contemptible, did not contain itself within its own borders, nor consider it enough to keep its own safety in safety, but further took up arms, trampled upon the Roman borders, and rushed even to the point of waging war. And he distended himself so much by shouting that he burst all his veins and arteries. ^B By this manner of gushing blood, he perished in the castle of Brigitio, after the third consulship of Gratian and that of Equitius, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of December, when he had lived four and fifty years, and had reigned thirteen. Therefore, upon the death of Valentinian, the soldiers who were in Italy, on the sixth day after his death, proclaimed his son, the namesake of his father, Valentinian, who was still in the tenderest age, emperor in the city of Acincum in Italy.

When this was announced to the emperors, both were indignant, not because the son of one and the nephew of the other had become emperor, but because he had been appointed contrary to their will, whereas they themselves were about to appoint him. Nevertheless, both consented to his imperial dignity. In this manner, then, the younger Valentinian was substituted in his father’s place. It should be noted that this Valentinian was born to Valentinian the elder by Justina Augusta, whom he had married while his first wife, Severa, was still alive, for the following reason: Justus, the father of Justina, who had previously been governor of the province of Picenum during the times of Constantius, ^B dreamed that he saw an imperial purple robe being born from his right side. This dream, having been divulged to many, finally reached the ears of Constantius; and he, interpreting the dream to mean that an emperor would be born from him, sent a killer and had the man put to death. Justina, therefore, being orphaned of her father, remained a virgin for a long time. In the course of time, however, she became known to Severa, the wife of the Emperor Valentinian, and was frequently in the company of the Augusta. When their familiarity had increased, she even bathed with her. Now, when Severa saw Justina bathing with her, she fell in love with the virgin's beauty. She spoke to the emperor about her, explaining that the virgin, the daughter of Justus, possessed such wondrous beauty that even she, though a woman, was captivated by her comeliness. The emperor, treasuring his wife's words in his mind, resolved to take Justina to wife, without putting away Severa, by whom ^C he had had Gratian, whom he had shortly before proclaimed emperor. Having therefore dictated a law, he publicly posted it throughout the cities, that...

VALESIAN ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

^A permitted any man who wished to have two wives legitimately. And the law was indeed set forth. But he took Justina to wife, so that he would not repudiate Severa, by whom he already had a son, Gratian, whom he had shortly before named Augustus. He published his own law, therefore, publicly through the individual cities, that it should be permitted for anyone to have two legitimate wives at the same time. And the law was indeed proposed in this way. He himself, however, took Justina to wife, by whom he sired Valentinian the Younger and three daughters besides: Justa, Grata, and Galla. The first two of these remained in their state of virginity; but Galla was afterwards married to the emperor Theodosius the Great, by whom he had a daughter, Placidia. For he had Arcadius and Honorius by Flaccilla, his first wife. But we shall speak of Theodosius and his children in their own proper place.

CAP. XXXII. Of Themistius the philosopher, and how ^B Valens, mollified by his oration, relaxed the persecution of the Christians somewhat.

Meanwhile, Valens, while tarrying at Antioch, was for a time free and at leisure from foreign wars. For all the neighboring barbarians remained within their own territories. [alt-version omitted]

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(6) *Ex Flaccilla.* She is called Flaccilla by Epiphanias Scholasticus, more correctly. For thus do ancient coins designate her. But it is strange that the Greeks hallucinate almost always in this name. For we have observed above that she is called Placitus by Socrates, not once, for Flaccilla, who was bishop of Antioch. Furthermore, this Flaccilla was the daughter of Antonius, he who was consul with Syagrus, as Themistius shows in his speech of thanks to Theodosius regarding the peace concluded with the Goths.

VARIORUM.

...marked with infamy those having two wives at once. Nay, Diocletian and Maximian Augustus, who are found to have written in reply to Sebastian, are to be deemed purer and more just than Valentinian: "It is commonly known that no person under the Roman authority can have two wives; since even in the edict of the praetor, men of this sort are marked with infamy. Which matter a competent judge would not suffer to remain unpunished." Thus they.

3. But how truly execrable such polygamy was to Christian princes, did the Emperor Theodosius show, who reigned with Gratian after Valentinian; for he so pursued a crime of this sort that he corrected it in externs; for he prohibited the Jews from having two wives ^C at once (lib. v, c. De Judæis): which he would have corrected much more among Christians, had he found them stained with such filth, the multitude of whom would have been at that time quite innumerable, if, as Socrates wills, the emperor had loosened the reins on the uncleanness of the flesh by a law promulgated through the world, or indeed had opened a way for nefarious license under a just pretext. But what a tumult would then have needed to be stirred up throughout the entire Roman empire, when, upon the abrogation of that base law by the succeeding emperors, those who had been taken as second wives would have had to be dismissed? Although, however, no memory of these things, even the slightest, is kept, that these things were all falsely asserted.

4. But how, I ask, has a thing so notorious in the Roman empire become known only to Socrates, who lived after these times? For from him the others copied it: Paulus Diaconus, Zonaras, who say that Valentinian at one and the same time had two wives, and Nicephorus, and if there be any others who have ^D too incautiously followed a blind, preceding leader. Jerome, Orosius, Severus, and many other Latin writers who flourished in these times do not have these things, writing of the events of this age; nor among the Greeks do Sozomen or Theodoret, who have pursued the deeds of the same emperor; who have divulged not even one word or the slightest hint concerning these matters. Truly, the necessity would have demanded more than a thousand times that the Latin ecclesiastical writers of this age mention a law of this sort edited by Valentinian—Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine—when it happened that they frequently argued about polygamy, and repeated that of Paul to Timothy, Epist. 1, ch. 3, again and again: "the husband of one wife," if that [law] had ever been edited; of which, indeed, not even the slightest mention is found among them; when otherwise, in Jerome (epist. 49), you might see Valentinian himself brought into a crime as an over-austere avenger of violated chastity, while he deals with a woman struck seven times. But also Ammianus (lib. XXVIII) bears witness that under his empire many virgins and married women were condemned for adultery at Rome.

5. But if these things were to cease, would one thing be sufficient to explode a fabrication of this kind? Would Pope Damasus have suffered, or would the rest of the bishops of the Catholic communion have tolerated it, for a law to be promulgated by a Christian emperor whereby the censure of Christian discipline would be thoroughly loosened and heresy sanctioned? For the sake of obtaining which, it was necessary for all to be summoned to general councils, for adverse decrees to be edited, and for bishops to be sent as legates who, like John dealing with Herod, would rebuke the emperor. But concerning these, not even the slightest rumor exists: when otherwise, if they had been true, the whole Catholic world would have needed to be in motion.

Let the suspicion of an infamous law therefore cease, and let the falsely asserted calumny concerning the marriage of two wives at once fall silent, and let the error which was concocted with the utmost levity and accepted by some vanish into air. He did indeed take Justina, but after the death of Severa, his first wife, of whom no mention is made thereafter at all. (Baronius ad ann. Chr. 370, p. 272.) Concerning this passage, Joseph Bingham, a man of singular erudition, warned me on the occasion of a certain book whose title is *Polygamia triumphatrix*, whose author confidently adduces this fable of our Socrates for the support of his own cause.

^A The barbarians in all directions remained within their own borders. Nevertheless, he waged a grievous war against those who professed the consubstantial doctrine, devising more and more severe punishments against them day by day. This continued until the philosopher Themistius mitigated his cruelty to some extent in a speech addressed to him, in which he counseled the emperor not to be surprised at the diversity of Christian doctrines. For he argued that the division was insignificant if compared with the multitude and discrepancies of opinions among the Greeks; for there were more than three hundred such schools of thought. And considering that because of this, there must necessarily be a great deal of disagreement, he maintained that God even desired to be honored in different ways, so that each person might the more fear His majesty, since the knowledge of Him is not easily attainable. When the philosopher had addressed these and similar points to him, the emperor became milder toward ^B them. He did not, however, entirely abandon his anger, but instead of the death penalty, he imposed exile as a punishment upon the clergy, until this matter, which I shall now describe, put an end even to this impulse of his.

CHAPTER XXXIII

The barbarians living beyond the Danube, who are called Goths, having started an internal war among themselves, were split into two factions: one led by Fritigern, and the other by Athanaric. When Athanaric appeared to have gained the upper hand, Fritigern fled to the Romans and sought their aid against his rival. This was made known to the Emperor Valens, and he ordered the soldiers stationed throughout Thrace ^C to bring aid to the barbarians as they fought against the other barbarians. With their support, the Goths obtained a victory beyond the Danube over Athanaric, putting his forces to flight. For this reason, many of the barbarians embraced the Christian religion. For Fritigern, in order to return thanks for the favor he had received, embraced the religion of the emperor and urged those under his rule to do the same. Wherefore, even until now, the majority of the Goths are of the Arian ^D faith.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(7) *On the Consecratory Oration.* This oration of Themistius to Valens exists today, edited in Latin by Dudith. For what Socrates says—that Themistius spoke in that oration regarding the discrepancy of philosophical dogmas—is found in the version of Dudith, page 507: "Indeed, those arts whose utility and enjoyment are great in life would never have attained such sublimity and elegance, had not a discrepancy of judgments and a certain contest existed among the artists themselves. For philosophy itself, the mother of all arts that are to be praised, having sprung from small principles, did it not grow through the dissension of the most learned men in such a way that nothing seems to be desired for its perfection?" And now, regarding what Socrates says was stated by Themistius in that oration, that God wishes this variety of opinions so that men might more revere the majesty of His divinity, because the knowledge of His divinity is by no means obvious or at hand, the same is found in the Duditiana, page 508: "Wherefore, that He has removed Himself very far from our knowledge, and does not lower Himself to the grasp of our intellects, has sufficient argument that He does not demand one and the same law of religion from all, but leaves to each the faculty of forming opinions according to his own, not another's, volition. From which it also happens that a certain greater admiration for the divine divinity and a more religious veneration of that eternal majesty is generated in the minds of men. For it happens that we grow tired of things which are at hand and set before every intelligence, and we hold them for naught," etc.

VARIORUM.

*Themistius.* Concerning Themistius, see above in the annotation at the end of Chapter 25, Book III. *Goths.* For the History of the origin, customs, and deeds of the Goths by Procopius of Caesarea, Jornandes, Isidore of Seville, and others, see the volume edited by Hugo Grotius, Amsterdam, by Lud. Elzevir, 1665.

^A And for this reason many of the Goths were given over to the Arian sect, being as they were such that they betook themselves to that sect at that time out of favor to the emperor. At the same time also Ulphila, the bishop of the Goths, invented Gothic letters, and by translating the divine Scriptures into the tongue of the Goths, he caused the barbarians to learn the divine oracles. And because Ulphila taught the Christian religion not only to the barbarians who were under Fritigern, but also to those who were ranked under Athanaric, Athanaric, taking this ill as if the religion of his ancestors were being corrupted, subjected many of those who were becoming Christians to punishments; so that at that time barbarians who were Arians became martyrs. But Arius, since he could not refute the opinion of Sabellius the Libyan, fell away from the true faith, dogmatizing that the Son of God was a recent God. But the barbarians, having received Christianity with simplicity of mind, despised the life of this present age for the sake of the faith in Christ. Thus much concerning those who were becoming Christians.

Chapter XXXIV.

Not long after, the barbarians having renewed their friendship with one another, were again overcome in war by other barbarians dwelling near them called Huns, and being driven from their own lands, they fled to the Roman territory, agreeing to serve the emperor and to do whatever the king of the Romans might command. These things come to the knowledge of Valens; and foreseeing nothing, he orders those who were supplicating to receive pity, being merciful in this one matter alone. He therefore assigns to them parts of Thrace, thinking himself most fortunate on this account. ^C For he reasoned that he had acquired a ready and well-prepared army against his enemies; for he hoped that the barbarians would be more terrible guards than the Romans. And for this reason he was neglectful of the future, failing to increase the number of Roman soldiers. And those who had long been serving as soldiers and had fought bravely in the wars he disregarded; but the soldier who was provided from the provinces village by village he exchanged for money, ^D eighty

gold coins for each, demanding payment from the taxpayers without having previously relieved them of their tributes. This became the beginning ^A of the misfortune that soon befell the Roman empire for a little while.

CHAPTER XXXV

How the emperor, anxious about the war against the Goths, carried on the war against the Christians more remissly.

For the barbarians, having occupied Thrace and enjoying the Roman territory in security, could not bear their good fortune with moderation; but they attacked those who had deserved well of them and overturned everything throughout Thrace. When these things came to the ears of Valens, they resulted in his abandoning the sending of those who held to the consubstantial faith into exile. Being thrown into confusion by this report, he ^B immediately left Antioch and came to Constantinople. And for this reason the war which he had been waging against the Christians there was settled. At the same time Euzoius, bishop of the Arian party at Antioch, met his end, during the fifth consulship of Valens Augustus and the first of Valentinian the Younger; and Dorotheus was installed in his place.

CHAPTER XXXVI

How also the Saracens at that time were converted to the faith of Christ, Mavia, their queen, reigning over them, and having received a certain Moses, a pious and faithful monk, as their bishop.

After the emperor’s departure from the city of Antioch, the Saracens, who had previously been federates, fell away from the Romans, being led by Mavia, the woman ^C who ruled them, her husband having died. Therefore, all the lands toward the East were devastated by the Saracens at that same time. But the divine Providence suppressed their violence in this way: a certain man named Moses, a Saracen by race, living the monastic life in the desert, was renowned among all for his piety, faith, and miracles. This Mavia, queen of the Saracens, sought from the Romans to receive him as bishop for her own people, on the condition that he would quell the war with them.

^A Hearing these things, the Roman generals deemed it a welcome thing to make peace on such conditions, and immediately, as they had planned, they ordered it to be done. And Moses, having been apprehended, was led from the desert to Alexandria, there to receive the priesthood. But when he was brought to Lucius, who at that time held the churches, he shrank from the ordination, speaking to Lucius in this way: “I consider myself unworthy of the priesthood. But if the exigencies of public affairs demand this, Lucius shall never lay his hand upon me. For his right hand is still dripping with blood.” When Lucius said that he ought not to revile him, but rather learn from him the dogmas of religion, Moses said, “The question is not now concerning dogmas, but your actions committed against the brethren, which make it clear what kind of Christian dogmas you hold. For a Christian does not strike, does not revile, nor does he fight; for it does not befit a servant of God to fight. But your works cry out through those who have been sent into exile, and those who have been thrown to the beasts, and those who have been given over to the fire. ^B And things seen by the eyes provide greater proof than those received by the ears.” When Moses had said these and similar things, his friends led him to the mountain, so that he might receive ordination from those who were dwelling in exile. Thus, therefore, with Moses ordained at that time, the war of the Saracens was extinguished; and for the future Mavia maintained peace with the Romans, to such an extent that she betrothed her daughter to Victor, the commander-in-chief. These things are stated regarding the Saracens.

CAP. XXXVII. On how, after the departure of the emperor, the orthodox in the East, and especially at Alexandria, regaining their courage, cast out Lucius, and restored the churches to Peter, who had returned fortified by the letters of Damasus, the Roman pontiff.

At that same time, when Emperor Valens departed from Antioch, those who were experiencing persecution everywhere were greatly emboldened, and especially those at Alexandria. ^C For Peter had then recently returned from the city of Rome with letters from Damasus, bishop of Rome, by which he confirmed both the faith in the consubstantiality and the ordination of Peter. Therefore the people, having regained confidence, cast out Lucius, and substituted Peter in his place. And Lucius indeed immediately boarded a ship and sailed to Constantinople. Peter, however, after surviving for a short time, departed from this life, leaving his brother Timothy as successor to his see. ^D

CHAPTER XXXVIII. How the Emperor, having returned to Constantinople and being reproached by the people on account of the Goths, marched against the barbarians; and having engaged them near the city of Adrianople in Macedonia, was slain, after having lived fifty years and reigned sixteen.

^A The Emperor Valens, having entered Constantinople about the thirtieth of May, in his sixth consulship and the second of Valentinian the Younger, found the people in great despondency. For the barbarians, having overrun Thrace, were now ravaging even the suburbs of Constantinople, there being no force present at that time capable of resisting them. And when the barbarians began to approach the very walls, the citizens, greatly disturbed by what was happening, began to murmur against the Emperor, as if he himself had brought the enemy upon them, because he had not immediately moved his standards against them, but deliberately delayed the war against the barbarians. And so, while the chariot races were being held, all with one accord shouted against the Emperor, as one who neglected the affairs of the state. They cried out vehemently: "Give us arms, and we ourselves will fight." Hearing this, the Emperor was provoked to anger. And passing the eleventh of June, he threatened that if he returned safe, he would take vengeance upon the Constantinopolitans for the insults they had then offered him, and for the fact that they had previously favored the tyranny of Procopius. Having threatened that he would raze the city and drive a plowshare over its site, he set out against the barbarians. ^B And indeed he drove them far from the city; but he pursued them as far as the city of Adrianople in Thrace, which is situated on the borders of Macedonia. There, having engaged the barbarians, he died on the ninth of August, in the same consulship. This was the fourth year of the two hundred and eighty-ninth Olympiad. And some say that he perished in a fire, having taken refuge in a certain village, which the—

^A arriving barbarians set on fire. Others say that he cast off the imperial habit and threw himself into the midst of the infantry, and that because the cavalry had betrayed him and refused to join battle, the Roman infantry was surrounded on all sides by the barbarians and all fell in the line of battle; and that among them the emperor himself lay dead, but unknown, because he had previously put off the imperial habit by which he could have been recognized. He lived fifty years. He reigned with his brother for thirteen years, and after his brother, he reigned for three years. This book comprises the events of sixteen years.

VARIORUM. ...exempt from captivity. For fire having been applied, they burned the building together with the men. Ammian. lib. xxxI, cap. 13. Libanius supports the former opinion in his Oration to Theodosius concerning the avenging of the slaughter of Julian: but almost all the other historians agree that it was burned, as Valesius noted on the aforementioned place in Ammianus.

BOOK FIVE

IN THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS THESE THINGS ARE CONTAINED.

CAP. I. How after the death of Valens, when the Goths were besieging Constantinople, the citizens made a sortie against them with the help of the Saracens who obeyed Mavia. II. How the emperor Gratian, having recalled the orthodox bishops from exile, expelled the heretics from the churches, and took Theodosius as his partner in the empire. III. Who were the bishops of the major churches at that time. IV. How the Macedonians, who had previously written to Liberius, the Roman bishop, regarding the faith of consubstantiality, lapsed again into their former error. V. Concerning those things which happened at Antioch on account of Meletius and Paulinus. VI. How Gregory Nazianzenus was appointed bishop of the church at Constantinople by the common suffrage of the orthodox; at which time also the emperor Theodosius, after the victory won over the barbarians, fell into sickness and was baptized at Thessalonica by the bishop Ascholius. VII. How Gregory resigned from his bishopric because some bishops were murmuring about his translation, and how the emperor commanded Demophilus, the bishop of the Arians, either to accept the faith of consubstantiality or to depart from the city; which indeed Demophilus preferred to do. VIII. Concerning the hundred and fifty bishops who gathered at Constantinople, and concerning their decrees and the ordination of Nectarius. IX. How the emperor Theodosius honorably translated the body of Paul, bishop of Constantinople, from exile, at which time Meletius, bishop of Antioch, departed from this life. X. How the emperor ordered the bishops of all sects to come together, at which time also Ar—

Arcadius his son was proclaimed Augustus, and that the Novatians, agreeing in faith with those of the same substance, were permitted to hold assemblies within the city; while the rest of the heretics were cast out.

XI. Concerning Maximus the tyrant, and the killing of Gratian by treachery; at which time Justina, the mother of the young Valentinian, hearing of the plot against Ambrose, bishop of Milan, desisted from it out of fear of Maximus. ^B

XII. How the Emperor Theodosius, having collected a very great force against Maximus, at the time when Honorius was born to him of Flacilla, left Arcadius in Constantinople, while he himself engaged the tyrant near Milan.

XIII. Concerning the tumult which the Arians stirred up in Constantinople.

XIV. Concerning the victory of the Emperor Theodosius, and the defeat of the tyrant.

XV. Concerning Flavian of Antioch.

XVI. Concerning the destruction of the idol temples in Alexandria, and the struggle which took place on account of this between the Gentiles and the Christians. ^C

XVII. Concerning the writings found in the temple of Serapis.

XVIII. How the Emperor Theodosius, while staying in Rome, benefited the city greatly, by removing the dens of thieves among the warehouse-keepers, and the shameful clatter of the brothels.

XIX. Concerning the presbyters who had charge of the penitents, and how they were removed at that time.

XX. That many schisms also arose among the Arians and other heretics.

XXI. How the Novatians also quarreled among themselves.

XXII. The judgment of the author of this history concerning the discrepancy which is seen in certain places, both in the feast of Easter, and in baptisms, and fasts, and marriages, and assemblies, and other ecclesiastical observances.

XXIII. Concerning the Arians in Constantinople, who were also called Psathyrians.

XXIV. How the Eunomians also were divided among themselves, and acquired various names from their leaders. ^D

XXV. Concerning the tyranny of Eugenius, and the death of Valentinian the Younger; and concerning the victory won by Theodosius Augustus over the tyrant.

XXVI. How the emperor, after the victory, was seized by disease, and summoned his son Honorius to Milan; and having seemed briefly to recover, he held a horse race, and departed this life on that very day.

BOOK FIVE. PROOEMIUM.

Before we begin the history of the fifth book, we ask those who are about to read this work not to blame us, because, having set out to write an ecclesiastical history, we also interweave with it the wars that occurred from time to time, as far as we have been able to know the history with truth. For we do this for many reasons: first, to convey to our readers a knowledge of the events that have taken place; but also, that we may—

not weary them by keeping them incessantly occupied with the contentions of the bishops, and the plots they formed against one another. Above all, we do it that it may be known how, when the state of public affairs is disturbed, the Church also is disturbed, as if by some sympathy. For if anyone observes, he will find that public evils and the difficulties of the Churches have flourished at the same time. He will find that they have either been stirred up together, or followed closely upon one another; sometimes the affairs of the Church leading, and then public affairs following, and at other times the reverse. In such a way that I cannot bring myself to believe that the vicissitudes of these things happen by mere chance, but rather that they take their rise from our own transgressions, and that the evils are brought in for the sake of punishment; if, according to the Apostle ^A, "some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after." For this very reason, we have woven into this Ecclesiastical History certain matters concerning public affairs. For we have not been able to discover what happened in the wars during the reign of Constantine, because of the length of time that has passed. But regarding what happened after these, as much as we have learned from those still living, we have recorded in a summary manner. We also continuously include the emperors in our history, because from the time they began to become Christians, the affairs of the Church have depended upon them, and the greatest councils have been and are held according to their judgment. Furthermore, we have made ^B mention of the Arian sect, because it disturbed the state of the Churches. Let these things, then, be sufficient by way of a preface. Now let us proceed to the history.

CAPUT I

How, after the death of Valens, when the Goths were attacking Constantinople, the citizens made a sally against them, with the assistance of the Saracens who were under Mavia.

After Valens had perished by an obscure kind of death, the barbarians again advanced as far as the walls of Constantinople and began to ravage the suburbs on every side. The citizens, bearing this with great indignation, seized whatever was at hand in place of a weapon and, of their own accord, rushed out against the barbarians. The wife of the emperor, Dominica, gave to all who were going out to ^C the war a stipend from the imperial treasury, just as it was customary to be distributed to the soldiers. A few ^D Saracen federates, who were under the command of Mavia, also assisted them.

^A Having fought thus at that time, the barbarians withdrew from the city.

CHAPTER II.

Gratian, having attained sovereign power together with the younger Valentinian, condemned the cruelty of his uncle Valens against the Christians, and recalled all who had been sent into exile by him. He decreed by law, moreover, that men of every religion ^B might gather in the churches without any discrimination; he forbade only the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manicheans from the churches. Observing that the Roman Empire was languishing, and that the barbarians were prevailing, and that the state had need of a vigorous man, he took Theodosius as his partner in the empire—a man sprung from the noble stock of Spain, who had performed many strenuous deeds in war, and on that account had long before, even prior to the designation of Gratian, been judged by all as worthy of the empire. When, therefore, he had proclaimed him emperor at Sirmium, which is a city of Illyricum, in the consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of February, he shared with him the task of waging the war against the barbarians.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS. (16) *He decreed by law.* Sozomen also mentions this in Book VII, chapter 1, and Theodoret in Book V, chapter 2, who says that Sapor, the master of the soldiers, was sent by Gratian into the Eastern regions to put that law into execution. But this occurred in the year of Christ 378. ^C This law of Gratian does not exist today. Yet mention of it seems to be made in the fifth law, in the Theodosian Code, concerning the Catholic faith.

VARIOUS NOTES. ...he brought his lips to the throat and sucked out the poured-out blood. Terrified by this monstrous miracle, the barbarians afterwards did not proceed with their usual ferocity when they desired to accomplish something, but walked with unsteady steps. Afterward, their boldness having been broken, they departed. Amm. Marcellinus, lib. xxx, cap. 16.

*Gratian.* Gratian, son of Valentinian by Severa, who succeeded in the empire both his father and his uncle Valens: renowned for talent, eloquence, modesty, chastity, fortitude, and zeal against heretics. St. Ambrose calls him a most Christian prince. He constantly refused the dignity of the supreme pontificate of the pagans, hitherto held by his predecessors. Finally, he was slain by treachery in the Gauls by Maximus, his own general. He had as his tutor Ausonius of Bordeaux, whom he led to the consular dignity at Rome. See Ammian., lib. xxvii. Hieron. epist. 3, Ambrose *De obitu Valentis*, and in psalm. LXI; Zosimus, Auson. *Grat. act. pro cos.*

*Theodosius.* Theodosius the Great, emperor, son of Theodosius, a renowned general and master of horse through the Gauls, slain at Carthage in the year 377, by the envy of certain courtiers, but only after having first received baptism. OROSIUS, lib. vii, cap. 33. Our author, having heard of the slaughter of his father, retired from Moesia into Spain, as Theodoret teaches besides Ambrose (Hist., lib. v, cap. 5), whence he was later summoned by Gratian, ^D as master of soldiers, and soon created Augustus in the year 379, as Gratian desired to compensate for the slaughter of his father, which he had permitted, led by bad counsel, with the honor of the son. Hence a new division of the empire was made. The East with Thrace fell to Theodosius, as Zosimus teaches lib. IV; Orosius, lib. VII, and *Miscella* lib. XIII. But between Gratian and Valentinian, [the brothers], the empire was divided [in the West], so that the Gauls, Spains, and Britains fell to Gratian; to Valentinian, Italy, Illyricum, and Africa. See Vales. annot. in Marcellini, lib. XXIX, cap. 5; Pagi, ad ann. 379, n. 5. A noble encomium of Theodosius is found in Victor in the *Epitome*, where it is asserted that he was like the Emperor Trajan in body and mind, but unlike only in vices.

*On the sixteenth day of the month of January.* Theodosius was not admitted to a share in the empire on the 16th Kalends of February, as Socrates mistakenly writes, and Baronius with him, but on the 14th Kalends of Feb., or the day 19th of January, as Idatius in the *Fasti* [testifies]. The author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, Marcellinus in his *Chronicle*, and the *Farrago Alexandrina* testify [this]. (Ant. Pagi, ad ann. 379, n. 5.)

Chapter III. Which bishops were of the major Churches at that time.

At this same time, Damasus presided over the Church of Rome, having succeeded Liberius; Cyril still held the Church of Jerusalem. ^A The Church at Antioch, as I have said, was divided into three parts. For Dorotheus the Arian had gained control of the churches after Euzoius. The rest were subject partly to Paulinus, and partly to Melitius, who had been recalled from exile. As for those in Alexandria, Lucius the Arian administered their churches, even though he was forced into flight; while Timotheus presided over those who professed the consubstantial faith, succeeding Peter. At Constantinople, Demophilus was in possession of the churches, he who, after Eudoxius, led the Arian sect. ^B Those who avoided him held their assemblies apart.

Chapter IV. How the Macedonians, who had previously sent an embassy to Damasus bishop of Rome concerning the consubstantial faith, again reverted to their former error.

After their embassy to Liberius, the Macedonians held communion without distinction for some time in the churches of every city, mingling themselves mutually with those who had from the beginning embraced the formula of the Nicene faith. But when the law of the Emperor Gratian granted license to all sects, they again determined to act separately. ^C Having gathered at Antioch in Syria, they again decreed that the term "consubstantial" was to be rejected, and that they should in no way communicate with those who professed the Nicene faith. But this attempt turned out poorly for them. For the majority, condemning their inconstancy, in that they promulgated now one doctrine of faith and now another, withdrew from them and steadfastly adhered to the followers of the consubstantial faith from then on.

Chapter V. Concerning those things which happened at that time in Antioch on account of Paulinus and Melitius.

At the same time, a grave contention also flared up in Antioch in Syria on account of Melitius. We have already said that Paulinus, the bishop of Antioch, was not sent into exile on account of his extraordinary piety; but Melitius, after having been restored by Julian, was again driven into exile by Valens, and was finally recalled by Gratian. ^D When he had returned to Antioch, he found Paulinus now worn by old age. Immediately, therefore, all who favored Melitius exerted themselves so that he might sit on the episcopal throne along with Paulinus. And when Paulinus said that it was against the ecclesiastical canons for a man ordained by the Arians to receive a co-throne, the people forced the issue.

^A and in one of the churches outside the city, they prepared for him to be enthroned. When this had occurred, much contention was stirred up. But after this, the people came to an agreement under such terms: they gathered the candidates for the episcopate, finding them to be six in number, among whom was also Flavianus. They secured them with an oath that, should one of the two bishops die, none of the others should seek the episcopal seat, but should allow the survivor to hold the throne of the one who had departed before him. With the oaths given in this manner, the people had harmony and no longer contended with one another. But the Luciferians separated themselves from the rest because Meletius had been accepted into the episcopal office despite having been ordained by the Arians. While the Church of Antioch was in this state, the necessity of some business required Meletius to travel to Constantinople. ^B

CAP. VI. How Gregory of Nazianzus was appointed, by the common suffrage of the orthodox, as bishop of the Church of Constantinople; at which time also Emperor Theodosius, having fallen ill after his victory over the barbarians, was baptized by Ascholius the bishop.

At the time when, by the common suffrage of many bishops, Gregory was transferred from the episcopate of the city of Nazianzus to the priesthood of the Church of Constantinople, this happened as I have said. About the same time, the emperors Gratian and Theodosius each gained victories ^C over the barbarians. Gratian immediately returned to Gaul, because the Alamanni were ravaging the provinces there. Theodosius, however, after raising trophies over the barbarians, was hastening to Constantinople when he arrived at Thessalonica. There, having fallen into an illness, he desired to receive baptism according to the custom of Christians, since he was already a Christian from his ancestors and professed the faith of the consubstantial. But as he wished to be baptized as quickly as possible on account of his encroaching illness, he summoned the bishop of the Thessalonians for this reason and first inquired of him what faith he held. And when the bishop replied that the opinion of Arius had not passed ^D over to the nations of Illyricum, nor had the innovation which had arisen from him been able to seize the churches there, but that they remained keeping unshaken the faith from of old...

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS. See Zosimus, lib. IV; Sozomen, lib. VII, cap. 4; Orosius, lib. VII, cap. 20; Jornandes both in his book *On the Succession of Kingdoms* and in his book *On the Deeds of the Getae*, cap. [26]; Marcellinus in his *Chronicle*, and Idatius in his *Fasti*, both in the year 379. Indeed, Idatius mentions the day on which the report of this victory was carried to Rome. For in the consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius, in the year 379, it was published: In that same year the Romans fought many wars with the Goths. Then the victories over the Goths, Alani, and Huns were announced on the 15th day before the Kalends of December. (Ant. Pagi, ad ann. 380, n. 2.)

D That Thessalonica was situated in Illyricum, Socrates rightly intimates shortly after; for it was the metropolis of all Illyricum, as Theodoret shows, lib. V, cap. 16, and therefore not of Macedonia alone, although it was also in Illyricum. Wherefore Baronius is in error when he accuses Socrates of error on this point and writes that Thessalonica was not in Illyricum, but in Macedonia. For the eastern Illyricum consisted of two dioceses, namely of Macedonia and Dacia, and Thessalonica was the metropolis of the diocese of Macedonia; but the bishop of the Thessalonians was the primate of all Illyricum. (Ant. Pagi ad ann. 380, n. 2.)

^A And the faith which had been handed down from the beginning by the apostles, and afterwards confirmed in the council of Nicaea, the emperor most gladly accepted, being baptized by Ascholius the bishop. Recovering, therefore, from his illness, after not many days, he came to the city of Constantinople, about the twenty-fourth day of the month of November, in the fifth consulship of Gratian, and the first of Theodosius himself.

CAP. VII. How Gregory, because some bishops were murmuring at his transfer, resigned his bishopric; and how the emperor commanded Demophilus, the bishop of the Arians, either to assent to the consubstantial faith or to depart the city: which indeed Demophilus preferred to do.

At the same time, Gregory, being transferred ^B from the city of Nazianzus, was holding his gatherings within the royal city in a small oratory; to which subsequently the emperors added a very large house of prayer, and named it Anastasia. Now Gregory, a man of great learning, and in piety excelling those of his own time, having learned that some were murmuring against him because he was a foreigner, most gladly welcoming the arrival of the emperor, refused to continue his residence in Constantinople. The emperor, however, having found the Church in such a state, applied his care to how, having secured peace, he might effect concord and increase the Churches. He declares, therefore, immediately to Demophilus, who stood at the head of the Arian religion, whether he were willing to believe in the faith of the council of Nicaea, and both to unite the people and to embrace peace. And when he had fled from the proposal: "Therefore," said the emperor, "if you flee from peace and concord, I order you also to flee from the houses of prayer." Having heard these things, Demophilus, and considering how difficult it was to resist those who are stronger, having called together the multitudes in the church, and standing in the midst, he spoke thus to his ^C followers:

^A “Brothers, it is written in the Gospel: ‘If they persecute you in this city, flee to another.’ Since, therefore, the emperor excludes us from the churches, know that we shall hold our assembly outside the city tomorrow.” Having said this, he departed; not having grasped the meaning of the Gospel oracle—which signifies that by fleeing from the conduct of this world, we should seek the heavenly Jerusalem—but he henceforth held his assemblies outside the gates of the city. Lucius of Alexandria also went out with him, he who, as I said before, had been expelled and was living as a refugee in Constantinople. In this way the Arians, having held the churches for forty years, and having shunned the concord to which the Emperor Theodosius invited them, withdrew from the city in the fifth consulship of Gratian and the first of Theodosius Augustus, on the twenty-sixth day of November. But those who maintained the faith of the consubstantial, succeeding into their place, recovered the churches by right of postliminy.

CHAPTER VIII.

Regarding the one hundred and fifty bishops gathered in Constantinople; and regarding what they decreed, after having ordained Nectarius there.

Without delay, the emperor convened a council of bishops of his own faith ^B so that the Nicene faith might be confirmed and a bishop ordained at Constantinople. And because he had come to hope that he might also unite those from Macedonius to his own side, he called the leaders of that heresy as well. There gathered, therefore, of those who professed the faith of the consubstantial: Timotheus, bishop of Alexandria; and from Jerusalem, Cyril, who at that time, led by repentance, adhered to the consubstantial faith. Meletius was already present from Antioch, having been summoned there on account of the ordination of Gregory; also Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, and many others; they were all one hundred and fifty in number. ^C The Macedonian party was led by ^D

Eleusius of Cyzicus and Marcian of Lampsacus. ^A There were thirty-six in all, most of whom were from the cities around the Hellespont. They gathered together in the consulship of Eucharius and Evagrius, in the month of May. The emperor and the bishops of his own faith did their utmost to persuade those around Eleusius to join their side, calling to their remembrance the embassy which they had formerly sent to Liberius, bishop of Rome, through those around Eustathius, and that not long ago they had voluntarily made the communion undivided. They urged them not to act unholily, since they had recognized the concordant faith, by endeavoring once again to overturn what they had already rightly known. But they, caring little for these exhortations and refutations, chose rather to declare their adherence to the Arian opinion than to agree to the consubstantial faith. Having made this response, they departed from Constantinople. They wrote to the cities, enjoining them by no means to consent to the faith of the Nicene Council. ^B Meanwhile, the bishops of the other party, having remained, took counsel concerning the choice of a bishop. For Gregory, as I said a little before, having declined the office, was preparing to depart for Nazianzus. There was at that time a man named Nectarius, of senatorial rank, of gentle character, and generally admired, even though he was exercising the office of praetor. He, being laid hold of by the people, was proposed for the bishopric, and was ordained by the hundred and fifty bishops who were then present. ^C Then it was that they also issued a decree that the bishop of Constantinople should hold the prerogatives of honor next after the bishop of Rome, because it was New Rome. They also confirmed the faith of Nicaea, and appointed patriarchs, having distributed the provinces.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(21) [The text notes that they had previously made the communion undivided.] See what Socrates noted above in chapter four of this book. (21*) Lib. iv, cap. 12. (22) [Though he was exercising the office of praetor.] It is better to write: And then the office of praetor, being admired by all, so to speak, while he was exercising the office of praetor. [The Greek text repeats a fragment here.] (23*) [Nectarius.] (24) [And appointed patriarchs.] In the second canon of the Council of Constantinople, which Socrates designates here, there is no mention of patriarchs. For at that time the term "patriarch" had not yet been received into usage. Nor is there any division of provinces in that canon. What, then, is the meaning of that canon? It treats of the dioceses of the Eastern Church: and the synod forbids bishops to leap from one diocese into another to perform ordinations or other ecclesiastical business; and it commands that bishops should only take care of those things which belong to their own diocese. Wherefore this canon pertains not only to patriarchs and exarchs, but to all bishops generally of each diocese. Further, this rule seems to have been established chiefly on account of Meletius of Antioch.

VARIORUM

* Nectarius, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, a man of senatorial dignity, served in the city of Constantinople. The see of Constantinople being vacant in the year 381, when he was preparing his return to his homeland, and was meeting with Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, to inquire what he wished to have done at Tarsus, Diodorus, revering the man's gray hair, his countenance worthy of the priesthood, and the gravity of his morals, judged him worthy to be placed over the see; and accordingly he ensured that among the names of those to be chosen that were to be offered to the emperor, his name too, though indeed the last of all, was written on the list. When the list was finished, the emperor paused at Nectarius and chose him; and the bishops confirmed this election with their suffrage. He died in the year 398. (Guil. Cave, ad ann. 381.)

^A it is that the bishop of Constantinople should obtain the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome. Furthermore, they confirmed the Nicene faith anew. They also appointed patriarchs, having made a division of the provinces, so that no bishop should invade churches beyond his own diocese. For this had previously been done indiscriminately on account of the persecutions. And Nectarius was allotted the royal city and the provinces of Thrace; but Helladius, who was bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia after Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil’s brother—for this is also a city of Cappadocia—and Otreius, the bishop of Melitene in Armenia, were allotted the patriarchate. ^B And it is the lot of Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia to oversee the Asian affairs...

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

^A ...[the scholars] believed, but also many provinces joined together, which are subject to one ruler. Hence this canon is inscribed concerning the dioceses. For it says clearly: "The aforementioned canon concerning the dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of the province shall administer the affairs of each province." You see what the title of this canon is, and how it distinguishes ^B "province" from "diocese." For it is not forbidden by this canon that bishops should travel from one province to another to celebrate ordinations. For it cannot be otherwise. For example, in the Asian diocese, the Fathers do not forbid those of Lycia from passing into Pamphylia, or those of Caria into Lydia for ecclesiastical business, but only forbid them from crossing from one diocese into another. ^C The studious reader will observe the unique use of the term "patriarchate," which is not taken for a patriarchate, but for rule and governance. In the same sense, Socrates used "patriarchs" a little earlier, when he says: "They appointed patriarchs, having divided the provinces." For he does not mean to say that patriarchs were constituted by the Constantinopolitan synod. Indeed, the power of the patriarchs had already been confirmed by the sixth canon of the Nicene Council, as I have demonstrated more fully regarding that canon. Socrates therefore understands not true and ordinary patriarchs, but extraordinary legates, who had been appointed to stabilize the true faith throughout the individual dioceses. For if he had meant true patriarchs, he would have placed only one in each diocese. But now, since he names several in each, for example, in the Pontic diocese, Helladius and Gregory; in the Asian, Amphilochius and Optimus; it is apparent that he has not spoken of true and ordinary patriarchs. Furthermore, I do not know for certain whether this power was entrusted to these bishops by the synod. For the acts of this synod are missing. However, it seems more true to me that this power was given to them by the emperor Theodosius, by a special law which is held in the Theodosian Code under the title *De fide catholica*. And this is confirmed by Sozomen in book VII, chapter 9, who emended Socrates in that part, suppressing his name.

(25) "Bishops over the diocese." These are the words of the second canon of the Constantinopolitan [Council], which Dionysius Exiguus translates thus: "Let bishops who are over a diocese by no means go beyond the limits fixed for them." There can be a double sense of these words. For "bishops over the diocese" can be said of those who are over a diocese, that is, who preside over the whole diocese; such as the bishop of Alexandria, or the bishop of Antioch, who is not established over one province, but over a diocese, as Pope Innocent speaks in his Epistle to Alexander, bishop of Antioch. Or certainly those are said to be "over the diocese" who are outside their own diocese, or "over the province belonging to them" [*ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀνήκουσαν αὐτῷ ἐπαρχίαν*], as Zonaras explains in his commentaries on this canon. Lucas Holstenius embraced the former sense. For he had noted in the margin of his codex that this passage of Socrates should be explained: "Let not bishops, prefects of their own dioceses, invade churches situated outside their own limits." But the latter sense is nevertheless truer, which the canon itself declares in the following: for the Fathers add "bishops who are not invited, let them not cross over the diocese." Wherefore "bishops over the diocese" are the same as "bishops beyond their own borders," as Socrates called Gregory Nazianzen a little earlier. Furthermore, it should be noted that "diocese" in this canon does not signify a parish nor a province, as the Greek interpreters Zonaras and Balsamon believed. ^D [The note regarding 26 and 27 follows the structure above].

VARIOUS NOTES

1. *Gregory of Nyssa.* The interpreter seems to have read "and with him Gregory." W. LOWTH. Gregory was established as bishop of Nyssa, a city on the border of Cappadocia, at the end of the year 370, it seems, a most fierce defender of the Nicene faith. On that account, he was soon sent into exile by the order of the Emperor Valens. Restored to his see in the year 378, he was sent by the Antiochene synod, along with certain other bishops, to visit the churches of Arabia, with the Emperor Theodosius granting him the use of public carriages. In this Antiochene council, he had the composition of the synodic Symbol entrusted to his care, as Nicephorus attests (lib. XII, cap. 13), so that he might supply what was missing in the Nicene symbol, and compose a perfection of the confession of faith. This Symbol hardly differs from the Nicene, except in the article concerning the deity and procession of the Holy Spirit opposed to the Macedonians; and regarding the dogma of Marcellus of Ancyra, this clause: "of whose kingdom there shall be no end." It is commonly called the Nicene Symbol. Nothing is known about his death: it is merely established with certainty that he prolonged his life until the times of the synod held at Constantinople in the year 394, at which he was present. (Cave, ad ann. 370, and vol. II, ad ann. 381.)

^A of Iconium, and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia. The affairs in Egypt were assigned to Timotheus of Alexandria. As for the administration of the churches in the East, they entrusted it to the same bishops, namely Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Tarsus, while reserving the prerogatives of honor for the Antiochian church, which indeed they granted to Meletius, who was present at that time. They also decreed that if the need should arise, the synod of each province should adjudicate the business of that province. The emperor also concurred with these decisions. Such was the outcome of that council.

CAPUT IX. How the emperor Theodosius honorably transferred the body of Paul, bishop of Constantinople, from his place of exile; and at what time Meletius, bishop of Antioch, departed this life.

The emperor also saw to the transferring of the body of Bishop Paul from the city of Ancyra at that time; for Philip, the praetorian prefect, had sent him into exile to Cucusus in Armenia because of Macedonius, and had caused him to be strangled, as I have mentioned before. ^B Having received it with much honor and reverence, ^C he deposited it in the church which is now called by his name, which those who held the opinions of Macedonius had previously occupied, having separated themselves from the Arians. At that time, however, they were expelled by the emperor because they refused to accept his faith. At that same time, Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, having fallen ill, passed away; at which time also, Gregory, the brother of Basil, delivered the funeral oration over him. Now the kinsmen of Meletius transported his body to Antioch. Yet those who were attached to Meletius were unwilling to be subject to Paulinus; but they set Flavian in the place of Meletius. ^D

Again, therefore, the people were split into two parts. In this manner, the Church of Antioch was divided, not indeed for the sake of the faith, but because of the bishops. ^A

CHAPTER X.

Tumults were stirred up in other cities as the Arians were being driven out of their houses of prayer. Here, however, it comes into my mind to admire the prudence of the emperor. For he did not suffer the cities to be agitated longer by tumultuous movements; but, meeting this evil with a manly spirit, after a short time had passed, he ordered that a council of all the sects should be convoked again, believing that from a mutual conference of the bishops among themselves, one and the same opinion ^B would prevail among all. And I consider this intention of the emperor to have been the cause of the successes that then befell him. For in those same times, by a certain divine providence, the barbarian nations were subjected to his authority. Among others, Athanarichus, the king of the Goths, surrendered himself to him along with his whole people, and he indeed died shortly after at Constantinople. At that time also, the emperor proclaimed his son Arcadius Augustus, in the consulship of Merobaudes for the second time, and Saturninus, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of February. Nor long after, the bishops of every sect were summoned and arrived from all sides, during the same consulship, in the month of June. The emperor, therefore, having sent for Nectarius ^C the bishop, consulted with him in anxious deliberation as to how the Christian religion might be freed from dissensions, and how the Church might be restored to unity. He said that the controversy which was segregating the Churches must be discussed, so that, the causes of discord being cut away, concord might be restored to the Churches. Hearing these things, Nectarius remained anxious and uneasy. And having sent for Agelius, at that time the bishop of the Novatians, inasmuch as he agreed with him in faith, he revealed to him the counsel of the emperor. ^D

^A He, being in other respects a pious and religious man, yet not having the ability to dispute closely concerning the doctrine of the faith, chose Sisinnius, his reader, to discharge this office of argumentation. Now Sisinnius was a man of great eloquence and expert in matters, and being thoroughly acquainted with the interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and the philosophical doctrines, he perceived that such discussions not only do not heal schisms, but in fact render heresies even more contentious. For this reason, he suggested to Nectarius a counsel of this sort. Since he knew well that the ancients avoided assigning an origin of existence to the Son of God, inasmuch as they believed Him to be co-eternal with the Father, he advises him to avoid dialectical conflicts, but to bring forward the expositions of the ancients as witnesses; and that he should propose to the emperor to inquire of the heads of the individual sects whether they would consider it necessary to have regard for the doctors of the Church who flourished before the schism, or whether they would reject them as strangers to the Christian religion. For if they reject them, let them dare also to condemn them with anathema; and if they should dare to do this, they will be immediately driven out by the multitude of the people. And if this comes to pass, the victory of the truth will be manifest. But if they do not reject the ancient doctors, it will be our task to provide the books of the ancients, by which our own view will be confirmed. ^B Having heard these things from Sisinnius, Nectarius goes at a run to the palace and makes known to the emperor the counsel that had been suggested to him. He, embracing the counsel, handled the matter wisely. For without revealing his purpose, he simply inquired whether they had any regard for and accepted those who were doctors of the Church before the division. When they did not deny this, but even said that they greatly honored them as teachers, the emperor asked again if they would rely upon them as trustworthy witnesses of the Christian doctrine. When the leaders of the sects and their dialecticians—for there were many among them prepared for the struggle of the debate—heard these things, they were in doubt as to what they should do. For disagreement fell upon each of them, some saying that the emperor's proposal was good; but others, that it was not advantageous ^C to their purpose. For others were disposed in one way and others in another regarding the books of the ancients; and they were no longer...

in agreement with one another; and they dissented not only from the other religions, but now also among themselves, even those who belonged to the same sect. The concordant malice, therefore, was dispersed, just as the language of those giants of old, and the tower of their wickedness was overturned. But when the emperor perceived their confused dispersion, and that they relied upon disputation alone, and not upon the exposition of the ancient Fathers, he turned to another plan. He commanded that each sect should offer him a formula of its faith, comprehended in writing. Then, from each sect, two who were considered the most eloquent, carefully weighing each word, drew up their own dogma. And when the day arrived that had been appointed for this, the bishops of the individual sects were summoned to the palace and hastened thither. ^A There were present, therefore, Nectarius and Agelius, the champions of the consubstantial faith; of the Arians, Demophilus; of the Eunomians, Eunomius himself [(34)]; and of those who held the views of Macedonius, Eleusius of Cyzicus. The emperor receives those who had gathered, and having received the written dogma from each, he went by himself and prayed earnestly that God would assist him in the choice of the truth.

Eunomius’s Exposition

Of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who according to just judgment commanded us to confess before God and the Father those who confess Him before men, and to deny those who deny Him; and since the apostolic teaching ^B moves us to be ready to render an account to everyone who asks for an explanation; and since the imperial mandates seek this confession, we eagerly confess what we hold, and that we believe in the one and only true God, according to His teaching, honoring Him not with a lying voice—for He is truthful—but as one who truly exists in nature and in glory, God one, without beginning, eternal, endless, alone; not dividing the substance according to which He is one, into many, nor becoming one thing at one time and another at another, nor changing from what He is. Neither is He fashioned into three hypostases from one substance; for He is altogether and entirely one, and remains in the same way, alone; having no partner of His divinity, no sharer of His glory, no co-heir of His power, no fellow-throne of His kingdom; for He is one and only God Almighty, God of gods, King of kings, and Lord of lords; the Most High over all the earth, the Most High in the heavens, the Most High in the highest heavens; true in being what He is, and always waiting; true in works, true in words; the source of all subjection, power, ^C and kingdom; superior to change, and free from alteration as one uncorrupted; not dividing His own substance in begetting, and the same one begetting and begotten, or the same becoming Father and Son; for He is incorruptible; not needing in making either parts or physical organs; for He is in need of nothing. We believe also in the Son of God, the only-begotten God, the firstborn of all creation, Christ true God, not unbegotten; not called Son without a generation before He existed, but born before all creation; not uncreated; the beginning of the ways of the works of God, and the Word existing in the beginning; not without beginning; living wisdom, energizing truth, substantive power, begotten life. As Son of God, quickening the living, and making alive the dead; true light, enlightening every man coming into the world; good and giver of good things; as born of the Father in goodness and power. Not as one who divided the merit, nor as one who shared the paternal substance, nor the kingdom; but who was born of generation glorious, and Lord of glory; and having received from the Father the glory, not sharing in that glory of His; for the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable, as He said, "My glory I will not give to ^D another"; glorified by the Father before the ages, glorified by the Father through the age, and of every rational and begotten substance; attended by all the heavenly host; for He is Lord and King of glory, as Son of God and God; creator of immortals and mortals, creator of spirits and all flesh; for all things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing; King and Lord of all life and breath of those who were made through Him; for all things were delivered to Him by the Father, according to His holy voice, and the Father has given all things into His hand; obedient toward the creation and generation of beings; obedient toward all administration; not having received "to be" Son or God from the obedience; but having become the only-begotten God from being Son and being born; obedient in works; obedient in words; mediator in dogmas; mediator in laws; Him we know as Son of God and only-begotten God; Him alone like to Him who begat Him according to superlative likeness and the peculiar conception, not as Father to Father; for there are not two Fathers.

^B Neither as Son to Son, since there are not two Sons; nor as unbegotten to unbegotten; for the Almighty is alone unbegotten. And the Only-Begotten is alone Son. But as Son to Father; as image and as seal of all the Almighty’s energy and power; as a seal of the Father’s works, and words, and counsels. This One we confess, who brooded over the waters upon the earth; who burned the Sodomites with fire; who inflicted justice upon the Egyptians; who laid down the laws at the command of the eternal God; who spoke to the ancients by the prophets; who called the disobedient; who took all authority to judge; for the Father judges no one, for He has given all judgment to the Son; who in the last days became flesh; who was born of a woman; who became man for the liberty and salvation of our race; who took upon Him man from soul and body; who by tongue and mouth preached peace to those near and to those far off; who became obedient even to the cross and death; and who did not see corruption, but arose on the third day; and after the resurrection brought his own ^C mystery to a head; and who sits at the right hand of the Father; who is coming to judge the living and the dead. And after Him we believe in the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth; the guide of piety; who was made by the Only-Begotten, and is once for all subordinate; not according to the Father; nor enumerated with the Father; for one is the only Father, the God over all; nor equalized with the Son; for He is only-begotten, having no brother of the same birth; nor is He ranked with any other; for He has ascended above all things that came into being through the Son in generation and nature, and in glory and knowledge; as the first and most excellent work of the Only-Begotten; and as the greatest and most beautiful. And this One also is one and first and alone; and excelling all the works of the Son according to essence and natural worth, He completes every energy and instruction according to what seems good to the Son, being sent by Him and receiving from Him; and proclaiming to those being taught; and guiding into the truth; sanctifying the saints; initiating those who approach the mystery; distributing every gift to the spirit of Him who bestows the grace; working ^D together with the faithful toward the understanding and contemplation of the things ordained; prompting those who pray; leading toward what is profitable; strengthening toward piety; enlightening souls with the light of knowledge; cleansing thoughts; warding off demons, and healing the sick; healing the ailing; turning back the wandering; exhorting the afflicted; raising up the stumbling; recovering those in pain; whispering to those struggling; encouraging the faint-hearted; the guardian of all; contributing every care and providence to the leading of the better-disposed, and the guarding of the more faithful. We believe, in addition to these, in the resurrection that is to be, through the Savior, of the very bodies that were dissolved, with their own parts and members; with nothing missing or changed of those things that fill up each man's body during the present life; and further still, in the judgment upon these, of the things wrongly thought or lived; and all at once of all the works and words and energies, actions, thoughts, and reflections that occurred during the present life; with nothing at all escaping notice, of the greatest or the least; with nothing being overlooked of those things performed or done lawfully or unlawfully; the proportionate and just justice being meted out; and while it sends those who have finally acted impiously or sinned to unending punishment, it brings those who have lived holily and justly to eternal life. These things we believe, having learned them from the saints, and believing them as we think. We have left behind nothing of what we learned out of shame or fear; nor indeed have we added anything more, or twisted anything, out of shame or contentiousness; nor are we aware of anything discordant or ill-spoken, of the sort that those who slander or malign us fabricate against us; whose judgment is just.

Faith set forth by Eunomius

Since our God and Savior Jesus Christ has said with the truest judgment that He will confess before God the Father those who confess Him before men, and will deny those who deny Him; and since the apostolic doctrine urges us to be prompt and ready to render an account to anyone who asks it; and since, finally, imperial commands require this confession, we confess with a ready mind those things which we think, and what we believe in one and only true God, according to His own doctrine, by no means honoring Him with a false voice. For He is devoid of deceit. Indeed, who in nature and glory is truly one God; without beginning, always and incessantly alone: the substance according to which He is one is by no means divided, or partitioned into many, or existing now as one and now as another, or receding from that which it is: nor fashioned from one substance into three hypostases. For He is altogether and once one, always remaining alone in one and the same way: having no companion of Divinity, no participant of glory, no consortium of power, no assessor of the kingdom. For one and only is God the Almighty, the God of gods, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords: the most high above all the earth: the most high in the heavens: the most high in the highest and celestial places: true in existing that which He is and remains always: true in works, true in words: the beginning of all subjection, power, and empire. Superior to change, and devoid of mutation, as one who is untainted. Not partitioning His own substance in generating, nor being the same generating and generated, nor existing as the same Father and Son. For He is incorrupt. In making, He is in no way indigent.

VARIORUM

^A having praised it that it was consubstantial, he accepted it. This was the occasion for the Novatians’ return to prosperity, that they might celebrate their assemblies within the cities. For the Emperor, having marvelled at their concord concerning the faith with regard to their own people, ^B by law ordered that those [who hold] to material things, or limbs, or natural instruments. For it has need of nothing. We believe also in the Son of God, the only-begotten God, the firstborn of every creature, Christ true God, not unbegotten: not named Son without generation before he was: begotten before every creature: not uncreated, the beginning of the ways of God unto works, and the Word existing in the beginning: not lacking a beginning, living wisdom: truth working, subsistent virtue: begotten life. Who, as Son of God, makes the living alive, and raises the dead. The true light which lightens every man coming into the world. Good, and the supplier of good things: since he is begotten by the goodness and virtue of the Father. Who shared neither the paternal substance nor the kingdom with him who imparted dignity to him, nor with any other. But who, out of generation, was made glorious and Lord of glory. Who received glory from the Father, but did not participate in the glory of the Father. For the glory of the Omnipotent is incommunicable, as he himself said: “My glory I will not give to another” (Isa. XLII, 8). Who was glorified by the Father before the ages. Who is glorified by the Father through the ages, and through every rational and created substance. Whom the whole heavenly host attends. For he is Lord and King of glory, as Son of God and God, the craftsman of mortals and immortals: the craftsman of spirits and of all flesh. All things were made through him, and without him was nothing made: King and Lord of all life and of the spirits of those things which were made through him. For all things have been delivered to him by the Father, according to his most holy word, and the Father gave all things into his hand. Obedient to the craftsmanship and creation of all things. Obedient to every administration. Who did not receive from obedience that he should be Son or God. But from that which he is, Son, and that he is only-begotten, he was made God. Obedient in works, obedient in words. Mediator in sentences, mediator in laws. This Son of God and only-begotten God we acknowledge; alone similar to the Father because of his especial similarity and proper signification, not as the Father to the Father. For there are not two fathers. Not as Son to Son: for there are not two sons. Nor as unbegotten to unbegotten: for one is unbegotten, to wit, God almighty; and one is the Son, to wit, the only-begotten. But similar, as Son to the Father, since he is the image and seal of all the Father’s operation and power; the seal of all the works and words and counsels of the Father. Him we confess to be one of those who flooded the earth, the one who burned the Sodomites with fire; who afflicted the Egyptians with punishment; who gave laws according to the commandment of the eternal God; who spoke to the ancients in the time of the prophets; who called those who refused to obey; who received all power of judging; for the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son; who in the last days was made in flesh, made of a woman; was made man for the liberation and salvation of our race; who assumed a man consisting of soul and body; who by mouth and tongue announced peace to those near and to those far off; who was made obedient even to the cross and to death, and who did not see corruption, but rose on the third day; and after the resurrection set forth the mystery to his disciples in brief; who sits at the right hand of the Father, who is to come to judge the living and the dead. After him we believe in the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, the teacher of piety; who was made by the Only-begotten, and was once for all subject to him: neither counted after the Father, nor with the Father. For one and alone is the Father God over all. Nor is [the Spirit] co-equal to the Son; for the Son is one, having no brother co-begotten. Nor yet compared with any other thing. For he transcends all things which were made through the Son in generation and nature, and in glory and knowledge; ^C as being the first and most excellent, and the greatest and most beautiful work of the Only-begotten. Who while being himself one and alone, and the first and most excellent of all the Only-begotten’s handiwork, for the sake of [his] substance and the dignity of his nature, fulfills every operation and doctrine from the will of the Son, sent by him and from him receiving and reporting to those who are being instructed: teaching the truth: sanctifying the saints: leading those who approach the sacrament: dividing to the spirit every gift of him who gives grace. Who cooperates with the faithful unto the understanding and contemplation of those things which have been commanded. Who whispers to those praying. Who leads the way to that which is useful. Who strengthens unto piety. Who illuminates souls with the light of knowledge. Who purges thoughts. Who drives away demons, cures the sick, heals the languid. Who leads back the erring into the way: consoles the contrite: raises the doubting: refreshes the laboring. Who calls out to those fighting: adds courage to the timid: the curator of the universe. Who applies every care and solicitude that he may advance the well-disposed, and guard the more faithful. After this we believe in that resurrection of bodies which is to be through the Savior, to wit, of these very ones which have been dissolved, together with their own limbs and parts: with nothing lacking or changed from those things which composed the body of each while he lived. Furthermore we believe in the judgment which shall happen afterwards, of those things which were badly thought and done in life, and of all works and words and acts alike, of thoughts and senses, which were in this life: so that nothing at all may be hidden, neither the greatest thing, nor the least: not anything may be neglected of those things which were illicitly or unjustly done and perpetrated: but that a just and equal reward may be paid: and those who have conducted themselves or sinned even until the end of life, may be delivered to eternal punishment: those indeed who have lived justly and piously, may be led to eternal life. These things we hold, as we received from the saints; and holding [them] we believe: omitting nothing of those things which we received, out of shame or out of fear: but neither from impudence or obstinacy adding or perverting anything: nor conscious to ourselves of any impiety or blasphemy, such as befalls us from calumniators, whose condemnation is near. ^D Moreover, that this is the confession of faith which was delivered by Eunomius to Theodosius, in the month of June, in the consulship of Merobaudes and Saturninus, is clear from the words which are read at the beginning of this confession: “And of the imperial commands seeking this confession.” [Regarding the marginal note 35:] "With regard to their own people." It must be corrected, undoubtedly, "concerning their own people according to the faith, their concord." The same error is on the previous page, where it says: "For others otherwise had it concerning the books of the ancients." For there also it must be written, "concerning the books," etc.

^A to possess their own houses of prayer without fear; and that their churches should have the same privileges as those of the faith of the emperor. The leaders of the other sects, because of the dissension among themselves, had fallen into condemnation among those under them; and, being seized with helplessness and grief, they withdrew and consoled their own people with letters, counseling them not to be troubled by the fact that many, abandoning them, had joined themselves to the consubstantial faith. For there are, they said, many called, but few chosen. This, indeed, they did not say at the time when the bulk of the people, through the power of the authorities, were attached ^B to them. Moreover, even those of the consubstantial faith were not entirely free from painful matters; for the situation at Antioch divided those who were present at the council. For those from Egypt, and those from Arabia and Cyprus, acting together again, said that Flavianus ought to be expelled from Antioch. But those from Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria stood for Flavianus. What kind of end this matter had, I shall tell in its proper place.

CHAPTER XI.

During these same times, in which the affairs of the councils were taking place in Constantinople, these things occurred in the Western regions. Maximus, from the regions about the Britains, rose up against the Roman rule, and while Gratian was struggling ^D in the war against the Alamanni...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (56) "And those of his faith have." It is understood, indeed, "the churches." The privileges of the churches are the right of asylum, the right of receiving legacies, and the like.

VARIORUM. * Maximus. Yielding to those about the court who were accustomed to corrupt the characters of emperors, Gratian received certain deserters, the Alans, and enrolled them in the ranks of the soldiers, and honored them with lavish gifts and held them in such high regard that he entrusted matters of the greatest moment to them, without any regard for his own soldiers. This bred hatred for the emperor among the soldiers, which gradually inflamed and increased, and drove them to a desire for revolution, especially those among the soldiers who were stationed in the British islands, as those who indulged more in insubordination and wrath than all the others. Maximus also, a Spaniard by nation, who had been a fellow soldier of the emperor Theodosius in Britain, incited them even more. Bearing it very ill that Theodosius had indeed been deemed worthy of the empire, while he himself had arrived at no honorable office, he provoked the soldiers all the more to hatred of the emperor. They, easily driven to sedition, proclaimed Maximus emperor; and having been invested with the purple and the diadem, they immediately crossed the Ocean by ships and landed at the mouths of the Rhine. When the armies that were in Germany, and the rest according to these regions, approved this designation with the greatest benevolence, Gratian, about to engage in battle, opposed him, because a not insignificant part of the army still stood by him. When the forces had approached closer to one another, they engaged in skirmishes with each other for five days. But Gratian, having seen that the Moorish cavalry had first all defected and acclaimed Maximus Augustus, and then that the others also were gradually passing over to Maximus's side, and realizing the situation was hopeless, took three hundred horsemen with him and fled at full speed toward the Alps. Having found them unfortified by any guard, he hastened toward the Raetias, Noricum, the Pannonias, and Upper Mysia. Maximus, not neglecting this flight of his, sent the master of horse, Andragathius, who was from the Euxine Pontus—and who seemed to be a very close friend to him—with horses most tolerant of labor, to pursue him. He, pursuing Gratian with continuous speed, overtook him as he was about to cross the bridge at Singidunum, and slew him; and in this way rendered the empire more stable for Maximus. Zosimus, Hist., lib. iv, page 760. In the same vein, but much more briefly, writes Victor in the Epitome. Maximus is called by Gildas the sprout of British planting, [and] by Ausonius the Rutupine robber, for no other reason than that he had seized tyranny in Britain. The learned Ussher has rendered this place of Socrates very well, *de Britann. Eccles. primordiis*, p. 198: Maximus led arms from the parts of Britain against the Roman empire.

[Socrates Liber Quintus]

In Italy, meanwhile, when Valentinian was still just a child, the care of affairs rested with Probus, a man of consular rank, who at that time held the prefecture of the praetorium. But Justina, the mother of the Emperor Valentinian, since she held Arian views, had been unable to inflict any harm upon the supporters of the consubstantial faith while her husband was alive. After the death of her husband, however, while her son was still of tender age, she came to Milan and stirred up great tumults against Bishop Ambrose, ordering that he be sent into exile. And when the people, out of the incredible love they bore for Ambrose, resisted and repelled those who were striving to drag him into exile, at that very moment it was announced that Gratian had been slain by the treachery of the tyrant Maximus. ^B For Andragathius, a general of Maximus, having hidden himself in a woman’s litter which was carried by mules, and having commanded his guards to spread the word everywhere that the Emperor’s wife was being carried in that litter, encountered the Emperor near the Gallic city of Lyons as he was crossing a river. The Emperor, believing it to be his wife, did not guard against the treachery, but like a blind man into a pit, he fell into the hands of his enemy. For Andragathius, leaping out from the litter, dispatched Gratian. Gratian died, therefore, in the consulship of Merobaudes and Saturninus, having reigned fifteen years, and having lived twenty-four years. This event suppressed the anger of the Emperor Valentinian’s mother against Ambrose. Valentinian, however, yielding to the necessity of the time, although unwillingly, admitted Maximus as a colleague in the empire. Probus, however, fearing the power of Maximus, decided to withdraw to the regions closer to the East. Immediately, therefore, upon departing from Italy, and reaching the territory of Illyricum, he took up residence in Thessalonica, a city of Macedonia. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (37) In Thessalonica of Macedonia. I propose this doubt of mine to the reader. I believe, therefore, that Thessalonica, which was the capital of Macedonia, was under the empire of Theodosius. First, I am moved by the fact that Theodosius, after he had been proclaimed Augustus by Gratian at Sirmium, set out for Thessalonica and sat there for a long time, receiving embassies from the cities of the East; and when he had fallen into illness, he was baptized by Ascholius, the bishop of that city, as Zosimus, Prosper, Socrates, and others write. Furthermore, while situated in that city, he issued many laws which are referred to in the Theodosian Code under the title *De fide catholica et de haereticis* [On the Catholic Faith and Heretics], issued at Thessalonica. Finally, in the synod of Constantinople, at which it is established that only the bishops of the East were present, Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, is recorded, as can be seen above, chapter 8. After the times of Theodosius, indeed, it cannot be doubted that Thessalonica was under the emperors of the East. For it was the capital of Eastern Illyricum, which contained Macedonia and Dacia, as the *Notitia imperii Romani* teaches. But whether it was so at the beginning of the reign of Theodosius can rightly be doubted. For Aurelius Victor and Zonaras expressly testify that Gratian handed over to Theodosius only the East and the regions of Thrace. And Zosimus writes that Valentinian the Younger, with the empire divided with his brother, held Italy, Africa, and Illyricum. But neither Constantius nor Valens, who had governed the Eastern empire before Theodosius, held Illyricum under their dominion. Certainly, in the times of Valens, Mamertinus, the praetorian prefect, administered Italy, Africa, and Illyricum at the same time, according to Ammianus Marcellinus. It seems, however, that Valens, after the death of his brother Valentinian, ^D [attempted to take] Macedonia and Dacia...

CHAPTER XII. How the Emperor Theodosius, having prepared a great force against Maximus, at the time when Honorius was born to him by Flaccilla, left Arcadius in Constantinople, and himself proceeded against the tyrant toward Milan.

The Emperor Theodosius was in great anxiety, and was preparing the greatest possible force against the tyrant, fearing lest the tyrant should also plot the murder of the younger Valentinian. At the same time, an embassy from the Persians was present, seeking peace from the Emperor. It was then that a son, Honorius, was born to the Emperor by his spouse Flaccilla, in the consulship of Richomeres and Clearchus, on the ninth day of the month of September. In the same consulship, Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians, departed from this life a short time before. In the following consulship, which was that of Arcadius Augustus for the first time and Bauto, Timothy, the bishop of Alexandria, having died, Theophilus succeeded to the bishopric. A year later, Demophilus, who presided over the Arian religion, also finished his life. The Arians, having summoned a certain Marinus from Thrace as bishop of their own sect, entrusted the bishopric to him. But Marinus did not remain long. For under him the Arian religion was divided into two parts, as I shall relate later; and again, having summoned Dorotheus from Antioch in Syria, they placed themselves under him.

Meanwhile, the Emperor marched toward the war against Maximus, having left his son Arcadius reigning in Constantinople. Upon reaching Thessalonica, he found those around Valentinian in great dejection ^B because, out of necessity, they had received the tyrant as emperor. Theodosius, for his part, showed no indication of his mind in public toward either side. For he neither rejected nor accepted the embassy of Maximus. However, he could not bear to see the Roman government suffering under a tyrant's rule under the guise of the imperial name. Therefore, having gathered the forces of the military legions, he marched toward Milan; for Maximus had already reached that place. ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(38) *He finds those around Valentinian.* Christophorsonus very poorly translates this as "the soldiers of Valentinian." For Socrates understands Valentinian himself, who this year—in the consulship of Valentinian himself and Eutropius—was defeated by Maximus, as Sulpitius teaches in the first book of the *Life of Martin*, and fled to Thessalonica together with his mother Justina and his prefects and counts.

(39) *Neither rejected nor accepted.* Some write, however, that the embassy of Maximus was accepted by Theodosius, and that Theodosius accepted the empire and the images of Maximus, and commanded Cynegius, the praetorian prefect for the East, to publicly display the images of Maximus at Alexandria and to proclaim to the people that he was his colleague in the empire. Sigonius, in his book *De occidentali imperio*, incorrectly attributed this event to the year of Christ 384, in the consulship of Richomeres and Clearchus, whereas it was done in the consulship of Valentinian and Eutropius, in the year of Christ 387. For in this year Cynegius was praetorian prefect. ^D

(40) *He marched toward Milan.* He should rather have said Aquileia. For Maximus had progressed to that point, as Zosimus and the other chroniclers teach.

CAP. XIII. Of the tumult which the Arians stirred up at Constantinople.

^A While the emperor was occupied with his military expedition, the Arians living at Constantinople stirred up a tumult, using an artifice of this kind. Humans are accustomed to fabricating rumors about things of which they are ignorant. And if they happen to find any occasion, they spread rumors far larger than they intended, being always eager for new developments. This indeed was what happened then in the city; for one person would invent one thing and another something else about the war being waged from afar, always anticipating the worst outcome of events. And when nothing had yet happened in the war, they themselves, acting as if they had witnessed the events of it, spoke about things they did not know: as if the tyrant were gaining the upper hand over the power of the emperor; and that such and such a number had fallen in the battle; and that the emperor was on the very brink of falling into the hands and power of the tyrant. At that time, the Arianizers, being moved by passion—for they were highly vexed that the churches within the city were held by those who had previously been persecuted by them—began to multiply these rumors. ^B And when other things that were being reported led the very men who had invented them to believe them, not as things fabricated, but as things that had truly occurred, which they had devised—for those who received them by hearsay affirmed to those who were spreading the tales that the situation could not be otherwise than what they had heard from them—then the Arianizers, having regained their confidence, rushed into unreasoning violence; and throwing torches, they consumed the house of Bishop Nectarius. This affair came about in the consulship of Theodosius the Second and Cynegius.

CAP. XIV. Of the victory of the Emperor Theodosius, and the overthrow of the tyrant.

As the emperor went against the tyrant, those stationed under Maximus, hearing of the magnitude of his military preparations, were not able to withstand the onset even of the rumor itself; but, being stricken with terror, they took the tyrant prisoner and surrendered him to him; ^C and he was put to death in the same consulship, on the twenty-seventh of the month of August. (41)

^A Andragathius, the murderer of the Emperor Gratian, learning of the defeat, threw himself into the nearby river and was drowned. The victorious emperors then proceeded to Rome; the son, Honorius, who was still an extremely young boy, was with them, for his father had sent for him from Constantinople after the victory over Maximus. They were then in Rome celebrating triumphal festivities; and it was at that time that the Emperor Theodosius showed the example of his clemency toward Symmachus, a man of consular rank. ^B This Symmachus was the first among the senators in Rome, and he was admired for his knowledge of Latin literature; indeed, many orations of his are extant written in the Roman tongue. Having written and delivered a panegyric on Maximus while he was still alive, he was later accused of the crime of high treason. Fearing, therefore, that he would face capital punishment, he took refuge in the church. But the emperor was so pious regarding the Christian religion that he not only highly honored the priests of his own faith, but also gladly received the Novatians, who held the belief in the consubstantiality. At the request, then, of Leontius, whom the Novatians in the city of Rome had as their bishop, he granted a favor and absolved Symmachus of the charge. Having thus obtained pardon, Symmachus wrote an apologetic work addressed to the Emperor Theodosius. The war, which at the beginning had seemed to threaten great evils, had a swift conclusion.

CHAPTER XV. On Flavian of Antioch.

^C At the same time, these events took place at Antioch in Syria. Upon the death of Paulinus, the people who followed him refused to obey Flavian; and for this reason they took care to have Evagrius ordained as the bishop of their own party. But as he did not survive for a long time after his ordination, no one else was appointed in his place, as Flavian saw to this. Those who turned away from Flavian because of the violation of their oaths held their assemblies privately. Flavian, however, as the saying goes, left no stone unturned, in order to gather them under himself.

^A This he succeeded in accomplishing a little later, having appeased the anger of Theophilus, who was then the bishop of Alexandria, through whom he also reconciled Damasus, the bishop of Rome. For both were incensed against Flavian, not only because of the perjury he had committed, but also because he provided a cause for the unity of sentiment among the people to be divided. Theophilus, therefore, his anger having been appeased, sent the presbyter Isidore, and reconciled the pained Damasus, saying that it was advantageous for the concord of the people to overlook the fault that Flavian had previously committed. In this way, communion having been restored to Flavian, the people of Antioch, as time gradually went on, cherished concord. The affairs at Antioch thus reached this conclusion. For the Arians there, being driven out of the churches, held their assemblies in the suburbs of the city. In the meantime, Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, having died, John succeeds him. ^B

CAP. XVI. Regarding the destruction of the temples of the idols at Alexandria, and the battle that occurred on this account between the Greeks and the Christians.

At that same time, a disturbance of this kind took place at Alexandria. By the effort of Bishop Theophilus, the emperor had issued an edict that the temples of the Greeks at Alexandria should be destroyed, and that this should be overseen by the care and zeal of Theophilus. Having obtained this authority, Theophilus left nothing undone to insult the mysteries of the Greeks. And he indeed cleansed the Mithraeum ^C and destroyed the Serapeum. ^D He publicly displayed the bloody rites of the Mithraeum, but he showed that the mysteries of Serapis and the other gods were full of ridicule, ordering the phalli to be carried aloft through the middle of the forum. When the Greeks who lived in Alexandria saw these things being done, and especially those who professed to practice philosophy, they could in no way restrain their grief; but to the tragic deeds which they had once perpetrated, they added much worse. For, at a given signal, all rushing together in one assault upon the Christians, they slaughtered everyone they met; the Christians, however, began to defend themselves, and evil was heaped upon evil. The battle lasted until a surfeit of slaughter brought an end to the evil. For there perished in the conflict a few of the Greeks, but of the Christians a very great many.

^A Wounded, moreover, were countless on both sides. From the events that occurred, fear seized the Gentiles, for they dreaded the emperor’s wrath. For, having done what they thought best, and having slaked their anger with slaughter, they hid themselves here and there; many also fled from Alexandria, dispersing among various cities. Among their number were two grammarians, Helladius and Ammonius, whose courses I attended quite young, while I was in Constantinople. Now, Helladius was said to be a priest of Jupiter, and Ammonius a priest of an ape. The evil having been quieted in this manner, the governor of Alexandria and the commander of the military legion assisted Theophilus in the destruction of the temples. The temples were indeed dismantled, and the statues of the gods were melted down into cauldrons and for other uses of the church of the Alexandrians, since the emperor had bestowed the gods as a gift for the subsistence of the poor. Theophilus, therefore, having shattered all the gods, ordered that one statue of this god ^B remain unmelted, and he set it up in public, in order, as he said, that as time passed the Greeks might not deny having worshiped such gods. I know that Ammonius the grammarian was very aggrieved at this, who said that the religion of the Greeks had suffered grievously, in that not even this one statue was melted down, but preserved for the mockery of the Greek religion. Helladius, for his part, boasted to some that he had killed nine men in the conflict. Such, then, were the events that took place in Alexandria at that time. And the shrines at Canopus suffered the same fate, with Theodosius then reigning, and Theophilus presiding, and one Eurymedon, a man of wicked character, ^C acting for, "Him who once reigned over the high-spirited giants." Euetius held the civil authority, and Romanus was entrusted with the soldiers in Egypt.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (44) Some excerpts of Helladius the grammarian are found in Photius' *Bibliotheca*, ch. 279. But the one whom Photius mentions is different from the one Socrates names in this place. For the former had as his homeland the city of Antinoopolis in the Thebaid, and he lived in the times of Licinius and Maximian, as Photius is the witness. Our Helladius, however, appears to have been an Alexandrian, and lived in the time of Theodosius. There was also another Helladius, who wrote a *Lexicon*, as witnessed by Photius in the *Bibliotheca*, ch. 145. (45) Sozomen calls him Evagrius in Book VII, ch. 45. He writes that he was called Romanus, the Count of Military Affairs in Egypt. Eunapius also in his *Life of Aedesius* names both at once, and testifies that they rendered excellent service to Theophilus, the Alexandrian prelate, in subverting the temple of Serapis. Since his words need emendation, I shall set them down here: [original-script column: see facsimile]. Scribe it at my risk. There exists a law of Theodosius in the *Theodosian Code*, under the title *De paganis*, given at Aquileia, in the consulship of Tatianus and Symmachus, addressed to this Evagrius, governor of Egypt, and to Romanus, Count of Military Affairs through Egypt. From this it appears that the temple of Serapis was destroyed at Alexandria in the year of Christ 391. Yet Marcellinus objects in his *Chronicle*, who writes that this was done in the consulship of Timasius and Promotus, which was the year of Christ 389. Which I think is indeed more true; for Cynegius, the praetorian prefect, when he was sent into Egypt, had received commands from Theodosius to overturn the temples of the Gentiles, as Zosimus writes in his first book. And he had executed this, as Idatius hands down in the *Fasti*. He died, however, in his consulship, in the year of Christ 388. (46) "Lest even this one statue." It should be written "the statue of the god of the Ape," which Theophilus had ordered to be preserved for that very purpose. And thus Epiphanius Scholasticus interpreted this passage of Socrates; quite correctly, rather than Christophorsonus, who did not understand these words of Socrates to refer to the Ape, but to a certain god, or rather, an uncertain one.

VARIORUM. * I do not doubt that Marcellinus in his *Chronicle*, where he errs entirely in chronology, was hallucinating here. Nor should Valesius be listened to in what he says later concerning Cynegius. For it could have happened that Cynegius, dying in the year [388], could not have overturned all the temples, or that, fearing sedition, he refrained from disturbing the Serapeum. Besides that, Idatius only has: "He overturned the images of the Gentiles, that is, statues, or finally many temples, but not all." Certainly, if Cynegius had disturbed everything, there would have been no need for the Constitution *De paganis*. (Ant. Pagi, at the year 389, n. 13).

CAP. XVII. Concerning the hieroglyphic letters found in the temple of Serapis.

^A Furthermore, while the temple of Serapis was being torn down and stripped, letters were found in it carved into the stones, which they call hieroglyphs. These letters bore the form of a cross. When both Gentiles and Christians saw them, each adapted them to their own religion. For the Christians, saying that the cross was the sign of the salutary passion of Christ, considered this character to be the proper mark of their own religion. The Gentiles, however, affirmed that there was something in common between Christ and Serapis; forasmuch as the figure of the cross signifies one thing among the Christians, and another among the Gentiles. While this controversy was being agitated among them, some of those who had turned from the error of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ, and who were possessed of the knowledge of such letters, interpreted this mark depicted in the form of a cross and taught that it signified "the life to come." Therefore, the Christians, inasmuch as it made more for their own religion, greedily snatched it up and began to be puffed up in spirit. But after it was indicated by other hieroglyphic letters that the temple of Serapis would have its end when the cross-shaped character appeared—for this, it was said, signified "the life to come"—many more ^B flocked to Christianity. And confessing their sins...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS on the above

^A ...they were baptized. These things, then, occurred concerning the cross-shaped character, as I have heard.

...the seven vowels praise me, the great, immortal God, and the tireless father of all things.

Concerning the interpretation: In Egypt, the priests praise the gods by means of the seven vowels, sounding them in succession; and in place of the flute and the cithara, the sound of these letters is heard.

...that the name of Serapis was thought to be inscribed on a bronze plate and worn around the neck, like a leather amulet.

VARIORUM

* Joannes Graevius, the Oxford mathematician, a most upright man who traveled through Egypt, testifies that he often saw the form of the cross among the hieroglyphs: sometimes even upon corpses buried in the Egyptian manner, he encountered the same object, whether of stone or baked clay. *Pyramidographia*, p. 51, edit. 1646. Concerning the sign of the cross among the Egyptians, see the work of the renowned Roselly de Lorgues, inscribed: *La Croix dans les deux mondes*, p. seqq. ed. 1845.

^A they were baptized. Such are the things I have heard that took place regarding the cross-shaped character. For my part, I do not affirm that the Egyptian priests, having foreknowledge of the things concerning Christ, fashioned the cross-shaped letter. For if the mystery of His descent into the world was hidden from ages and from generations, as the Apostle says, and was hidden even from the devil, the prince of all wickedness, much more did this escape his ministers, the Egyptian priests. But Providence ordained that this should come to pass through the investigation of the letter, just as He had previously demonstrated in the case of the Apostle Paul. For he, having become wise by the Spirit of God, and having used a similar method toward the Athenians, brought many to the faith when, having read what was written on the altar, he adapted it to his own teaching. Unless one were to say that the Word of God had operated upon the Egyptian priests, as in the case of Balaam and Caiaphas. For they too, against their own will, prophesied concerning the good things. Let this suffice concerning such matters.

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Emperor Theodosius, having stayed for a short time in Italy, greatly benefited the city of the Romans, in part by giving and in part by taking away. For he bestowed many things liberally upon it, and he removed two of the city's disgraces and shames. The first was of this sort. There were, from ancient times, very large buildings in the great city of Rome, in which the bread supplied to the city was made. And those who were in charge of these, the *mancipes* [bakers] ^B of the Roman ^C language, as time went on, had made these houses into dens of thieves, having closed in those who fell into them, and compelled them to grind bread until they were old, and because of this they were called by this name [mancipes], or as some say, it was because of the rations which were given by Romulus to the soldiers at the ninth hour. But the Emperor Theodosius, having come to Rome after the victory over the tyrant, bestowed very much upon the city, and removed those things in the bakeries which held strangers who fell into them, and were compelled until old age to work the mills and grind. ^D

^B For as the bakeries in those houses were situated deep underground, they had constructed drinking-shops on the side of each building, and by stationing prostitutes in them, they lay in wait for many people—some entering due to need for food, and others for shameful pleasure due to incontinence. For by means of a certain mechanism, they would fall from the tavern into the mill. And this was suffered especially by foreigners visiting Rome. Those captured were forced to work in the mills. And many grew old in them, not being permitted to leave, their own families having assumed that they had died. One of the soldiers of the emperor Theodosius fell into this trap. But when the soldier, being shut within the mill, was not allowed to leave, he drew the dagger he was carrying and killed those who were preventing him. They, struck by fear at what had happened, released the soldier. When the emperor learned of this, he punished the proprietors, and ordered those houses which were dens for robbers to be destroyed. The emperor thus removed one such disgrace from the imperial city; and another was as follows. If a woman were caught in adultery, they would punish the offender not with correction, but by adding to her sin. For they would shut her up in a narrow brothel and shamelessly force her to prostitute herself. And they would cause bells (50) to be rung at the time of the impure act, so that what was happening might not escape the notice of passers-by, but rather that by the sound of the ringing bells, the shameful punishment would be known to all. When the emperor heard of this shameless custom, he could not tolerate it any longer; but he destroyed the *sistra*—for that is how such brothels were named—and ordered those caught in adultery to be dealt with by other laws. The emperor Theodosius thus purged the city of Rome of these two base and most shameful evils. Having set the other affairs in order, he left Valentinian in Rome as ruler. He himself, together with his son Honorius, traveled toward Constantinople, and ^C

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

(50) *Bells to be rung*. I would scarcely believe that the Romans punished adulterous women with this penalty. For the Romans, after the times of Constantine, always punished adultery with capital punishment. The laws of the emperors, recorded in both Codes, teach this under the title "On the Julian law against adultery." I omit the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus in book XXVIII. Furthermore, someone might suspect that these bells, which Socrates mentions here, were not devised to punish adulteresses, but were common to all prostitutes, who, standing in their cells, would call out to travelers by such a sign. Concerning this custom, Dio Cassius in the fragments of book LXXIX, which I published long ago, speaks thus: † Finally, having established a room within the palace, he was accustomed to indulge his lusts, standing in the vestibule of the room naked like a prostitute, and shaking a fine linen cloth suspended by golden rings, and inviting passers-by with a soft and effeminate voice.

VARIOUS NOTES

† Dio Cassius writes this about the emperor Heliogabalus. Marcellinus in his *Chronicon* says that Theodosius, after he had triumphed in Rome, departed from there on the Kalends of September in the year 389. He remained there, therefore, for three months; for he entered the city on the day of the Ides of June, as Idatius testifies in his *Fasti*.

CAP. XIX

About the same time, it was determined to remove the presbyters of the churches who had charge of the penitents, and this for the following reason. After the Novatians had separated themselves from the Church, because they were unwilling to communicate with those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution, from that time onward the bishops—^B 52

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

51 *After the Novatians had separated themselves from the Church.* There is no passage in ecclesiastical history that has more exercised the wits of learned men than this one regarding the penitentiary presbyter who was removed at Constantinople. And, as is usually the case, everyone according to his own training and religion has brought forward various interpretations of this passage. But we, intending only to write annotations, shall conclude the whole matter in a few words. Therefore, three points in particular are to be observed and examined in this controversy. First is concerning the penitentiary presbyter, why he was instituted, and when. Second is concerning that noblewoman who is said to have confessed her crimes to the penitentiary presbyter: whether her confession was public or secret, and whether she performed public penance or not. Third is regarding the action of Nectarius, whether he abolished confession or public penance, and whether he deserves praise or blame. As regards the first part of this dispute, our Socrates indeed affirms here that a penitentiary presbyter was instituted in the Church after the schism of Novatian and after the Decian persecution, with the intention that the faithful might confess to him the sins they had committed after baptism. Sozomen brings forward the same reason for his institution in his seventh book. But he does not specify the time when the penitentiary presbyter was instituted in the Church. However, the opinion of our Socrates seems to me very probable. For before the Decian persecution, when the number of Christians was smaller, and sins were not yet so grave and frequent, there was no need for a penitentiary presbyter. The bishop alone sufficed to carry out the work of confession and penance. But when nations and ^C peoples began to flock into the Church, as discipline gradually slipped away, as usually happens in so great a multitude of men, and as vices increased, there was need of a penitentiary presbyter, especially in the larger churches, to relieve the bishop, who was burdened with many affairs; and who, as a kind of censor and prefect of morals, might inquire into the crimes of the multitude. Certainly, among the ancients—namely, Justin and Irenæus among the Greeks, and among the Latins, Tertullian and Cyprian—there is no mention of this penitentiary presbyter. Wherefore I am easily led to believe that this presbyter was instituted after the times of Decius. For since it had been decided that those who had lapsed in that persecution should be admitted into the Church, it was necessary that they should first be purified by legitimate penance. Therefore, it was necessary to appoint over them a certain presbyter, who might govern them set apart in the Church, and test them with fasts, prayers, and the remaining exercises, until, all duties having been fulfilled, they were reconciled by the bishop.

52 *The bishops... by ecclesiastical canon.* In the Sfortian codex, this passage is written thus: "The bishops added the presbyter who is over the penitents to the ecclesiastical canon." The same reading ^D is found in the copies of Epiphanius Scholasticus and Nicephorus. For Epiphanius indeed translates it thus: "From that time, the bishops, by ecclesiastical rule, established a presbyter to be over the penitents." Nicephorus, however, expressed this passage of Socrates as follows: "For the bishops of that time, opposing the dogma of Novatus, appointed a presbyter for those repenting in each church, following the ecclesiastical canon." You see that both read in this passage of Socrates, "according to the ecclesiastical canon," just as it is written in the Sfortian codex, and took "canon" for "rule" or "ecclesiastical decree." In this opinion was also Dionysius Petavius, a most learned man, and one never to be named without honor, who, in his *Animadversions on Epiphanius*, explaining this passage of Socrates, reproved Christophorson, who had translated it thus: "The bishops of the churches added to the canon, that in individual churches a certain presbyter should preside over the penitents." But Musculus, before Christophorson, had translated it thus: "The bishops added a certain presbyter for the penitents to the ecclesiastical canon for this purpose," etc. But Petavius thinks there is another meaning to these words, namely this: "The bishops, having issued a new canon, added a presbyter to preside over the penitents." Furthermore, he confirms his opinion by the testimony of Socrates himself. For Socrates adds: "This canon holds until now in the other sects." Where "canon" is manifestly taken for a rule and decree. Nevertheless, however, I cannot agree with that most learned man. For the propriety of the Greek language does not admit this sense. Then, if a new canon was then established concerning the institution of this presbyter, I ask where, and in what council, it was published? It pleases me, therefore, better to take "ecclesiastical canon" here for the "list" (matricula) of the church. Thus our Socrates in book 1, page 47: "The virgins recorded in the canon of the churches." Nor is the word taken otherwise in the 16th and 17th canons of the Council of Nicaea. Thus in the second canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the word is taken, or in any way "of the canon," which words Zonaras interprets very well in this way: "that is, of the ecclesiastical order." Furthermore, "canon" extends more broadly than "clergy": for the clergy comprises only those who are ordained by the laying on of hands. But "canon" includes ecclesiastical offices as well, such as oeconomi, defenders, mansionarii, as the canon of Chalcedon testifies. The poor also, virgins and widows, were counted in the canon of the Church, as Zonaras teaches in his exposition of the Canonical Epistle of Basil to Amphilochius. So also Epiphanius in the *Heresy of the Meletians*, chap. 6, said "those of the canon" for "clerics." Hence those are called "Canonical" who are Ecclesiastical, for the reason that they were enrolled in the canon or list. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem in his *Preface to the Catecheses*: "Do you see to me this dignity of the Church's order? Do you behold the rank and knowledge?" [index: entries preserved]

^A they added the presbyter for repentance, so that those who had fallen after baptism might confess their sins before this presbyter appointed for that purpose. And among other sects this rule still persists. Only the Homousians, and the Novatians who agree with them in faith, rejected the presbyter set over repentance. For the Novatians did not even admit this addition from the beginning. The Homousians, however, who now possess the churches, after having kept this institution for a long time, finally abolished it in the time of Bishop Nectarius, because of a certain crime that had been committed in the church. A certain noble woman ^B approached the presbyter for repentance and confessed in detail the sins she had committed after baptism. The presbyter instructed the woman to fast and pray continuously, so that along with the confession she might also demonstrate a work worthy of repentance. The woman, advancing ^C in time, accused herself of another fault. She said, namely, that a deacon of the church had slept with her [while she was]

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. [... The annotation section is a scholarly discussion of the text, largely concerning the nature of the "penitentiary presbyter" and the difference between public and private confession. It notes:] ...Regarding the first question, it is to be noted that the matron confessed twice before the presbyter. First, when she exposed to him individually every sin she had committed after baptism. For the expiation of these, she was commanded by the presbyter to devote herself to fasts and prayers. The second confession of the same woman was that she had had a practice of fornication with the deacon. These two confessions were different in time and in manner. The first was of all sins *kata meros*, as Socrates says, that is, done individually; the second was of one single crime. Indeed, that both were secret appears from this: first, because public confession was never received in the customs of the Church, as Dionysius Petavius correctly observed in his *Animadversions on Epiphanius*. Second, Socrates does not say in this place that the matron accused herself before the people, but before the presbyter. Sozomenus also affirms the same. Therefore, that confession was not public, but secret, and of the kind that is customarily done by Catholics today. For what else do we do today? Are we not confessing all our sins individually before a presbyter? ^D ... [alt-version omitted] ... [Regarding the phrase "the woman advancing"]: Christophorsonus translates this place thus: "A woman [who had] progressed further in confessing." But this interpretation cannot be borne. For *probalnein* does not signify "to progress further in confessing," which words Christophorsonus added on his own. It is the same as *proiousa*; that is, with the progress of time, or in process of time. For Socrates aims to designate that this was the second confession of that woman. And Sozomenus and Nicephorus clearly confirm this. For Nicephorus indeed relates this thus: "Then she reported," etc. But Sozomenus writes that that matron confessed that she, while she remained longer in the church to fulfill her repentance...

^A had had intercourse with a deacon. When she had said this, the deacon was indeed cast out of the Church; but the people began to be gravely stirred. For they were indignant not only because of the crime that had been committed, but also because an indignity and no small disgrace and infamies were cast upon the Church by this act. Since, therefore, churchmen were being assailed by reproaches on this account, a certain Eudaemon, a presbyter of the Church, of Alexandrian lineage, suggested to the bishop Nectarius that he should remove the penitentiary presbyter, ^B and permit every person to approach the communion of the mysteries according to his own judgment and the conscience of his own mind. For otherwise, he maintained, it was impossible for the Church to be free from all reproach. Having heard these things from Eudaemon himself, I made bold to consign them to this writing. For as I have often said, I have set myself every diligence to learn from each of those who knew the facts... VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

^A ...caused by the deacon to have been defiled. It could also in this place not unsuitably be written *prosbainousa*, that is, *proserchomene*, as Socrates spoke above. The woman, he says, approaching the presbyter, also reported another of her flagrant offenses.

(58) *Then she reported.* That is, when the matron had said this to the presbyter, the deacon was indeed deposed on account of it: but the people began to murmur. Here arises a difficulty: in what manner could this deed have come to the knowledge of the common people, if the woman's confession was secret? How also could the bishop have known it, who removed the deacon from his rank on account of this flagrant offense? I indeed think that the penitentiary presbyter, to whom the woman had confessed this flagrant offense, first summoned the deacon, and challenged him in the presence of the woman, and compelled him to admit his crime: then indeed he reported the whole matter to the bishop Nectarius, by whom he had been placed over the penitents, and whose office he performed in that duty. For the penitentiary only heard confessions and imposed penalties, and that by the bishop's mandate. The bishop himself, however, reconciled the penitents. Nor is there any ground for anyone to object that the secrets of confession were disclosed, if we admit what I have said. I deny that such follows. For the presbyter only indicated the deacon's flagrant offense to the bishop, while he withheld the name of the matron. Moreover, the deposition of the deacon clearly confirms what I have said. For the bishop Nectarius could not have deposed him unless he had been warned by the penitentiary who had convicted the deacon of the lewdness.

(59) *Remove the penitentiary presbyter.* A third question now occurs, namely, concerning the act of Nectarius: what exactly was done by him, and whether he abolished confession or indeed public penance. Some among the more recent writers think that confession as well as penance were at that time abolished by Nectarius. Others, among whom is our Petavius, think that only public penance was abrogated by Nectarius; but that confession remained safe and sound. I indeed, having examined the matter more attentively, affirm that neither was entirely abolished by Nectarius, neither confession, that is, nor penance. What then did Nectarius do? He indeed removed the penitentiary presbyter—that is, he deleted him from the roll of the Church. But he did not on that account abolish confession and penance along with the penitentiary. For he did not forbid the faithful that anyone in the future should approach him, or another of the presbyters, for the cause of confessing crimes: nor did he deprive himself of the power of barring those who had committed a public crime from the sacred mysteries, and compelling them to public penance. ^B Finally, that constitution of Nectarius was dispensatory and temporary. For he did not enact it by a law destined to endure forever, but removed that presbyter for some time ^C because of the indignation of the murmuring people. Truly the words of Socrates, if one wishes to explain them accurately, plainly sound as what I have said. For Socrates says two things were suggested by Eudaemon and done by Nectarius. The first is that he abolished the penitentiary presbyter; in which he uses the word *perielein*, which signifies to take away and to abolish. The second is that he permitted the faithful that each one might approach the reception of the mysteries according to his own judgment: "To allow each one, according to his own conscience, to partake of the mysteries." Note here the word *synchoresai*, which signifies a dispensation and an indulgence. Sozomenus uses the same word in his seventh book, speaking of this act of Nectarius: "Upon the advice of some to allow each one, as he might himself be conscious and able to be confident, to partake of the mysteries," etc. From that time, therefore, Nectarius compelled no one of the laity to confession and public penance; but he wished it to be situated in the judgment of each one, that before sacred communion he might confess his sins to a priest, and that each might perform penance at his own discretion. I certainly do not doubt that after this constitution of Nectarius, many of the faithful approached him for the sake of confession. For what? If any of the laity, having a timid conscience, and not daring to approach the sacred table, had met with Nectarius, and had opened to him the wounds of his conscience, shall we say that Nectarius would have repelled him? Would he not rather have heard the man's confession, and provided him with the remedies of penance?

(60) *Ablasphemēton.* The penitentiary presbyter was curiously inquisitive into the sins of individuals; he would hear witnesses and accusers, and in their presence would convict the guilty, and impose upon the convicted a fitting penance. Thus it happened that sins were publicized and reached the knowledge of the common people. From which reproaches were born, and the Church of God was bespattered with no small infamy, when Gentiles and heretics perceived that the guilty of so many and so great crimes were to be found among Christians. We have an illustrious document of this matter in this history. For the flagrant offense which the woman had committed with the deacon was hidden, before the woman had confessed it to the penitentiary. But after the matter had been reported to the penitentiary, through the investigation of the penitentiary and the conviction of the deacon it became public. Whence arose the indignation of the people against the clergy, and the derision of the Gentiles. Nor yet was the cause of this evil to be ascribed to the penitentiary, unless perhaps he had been too diligent and too scrupulous in investigating that crime, which he had rendered public from being hidden.

^A Indeed, as I have often said, I have concentrated all my care and diligence on learning the facts from those who know them best and on examining them accurately, so as not to commit anything to my history that is alien to the truth. And at the beginning I said exactly these things to Eudaemon: "Your counsel, O presbyter, whether it was beneficial to the Church or not, God knows; but I see that it provided a pretext for not correcting one another's sins, nor observing that commandment of the Apostle which says: 'Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.'" But let this suffice concerning these things.

CAP. XX.

That many schisms existed both among the Arians and among the other heretics.

I think it is proper not to leave unmentioned what happened among the others—I mean the Arians and the Novatians, and those who took their names from Macedonius and Eunomius. ^B For the Church, having been divided, did not remain at rest after the division had once occurred; but turning upon themselves, they again proceeded to separate, and having seized upon a small and trivial pretext, they broke away from one another. In what manner, then, and when, and for what causes each of them created divisions among themselves, we shall explain as our narrative proceeds.

But it must be known that the emperor Theodosius did not persecute any of these, except for Eunomius. Him he ordered to be sent into exile, because he held assemblies in private houses at Constantinople and displayed books written by himself, doing harm to many with his teachings. ^C Yet he did not harass any of the others, nor did he compel them to communicate with him, but permitted everyone to assemble in their own places and to profess the Christian faith as each was able to understand the truth concerning them. And he granted to the others [the opportunity] to have houses of prayer for themselves outside the cities.

The Novatians, however, as they held the same faith as himself, he commanded to have their own churches within the walls of the cities, feeling secure, even as I have already mentioned before. I think it opportune to mention a few things concerning them, having briefly taken up the narrative again. ^A

CHAPTER XXI. How the Novatians also dissented among themselves.

Agelius presided over the Church of the Novatians in Constantinople for forty years, from the times of Constantine down to the sixth year of the reign of Theodosius, as I have also mentioned before. Drawing near to death, he ordained Sisinnius as bishop in his own stead; who was indeed a presbyter of the church ^B which he himself governed, but was otherwise eloquent and had been educated in philosophy by Maximus the philosopher, together with the Emperor Julian. And when the people of the Novatians blamed this ordination, because he had not rather designated Marcianus, a man of extraordinary piety, through whose labors they had remained free from all persecution during the reign of Valens, Agelius, wishing to soothe the grief of the multitude, also ordained Marcianus as bishop. And when he had recovered a little from his illness, being carried to the church, he thus addressed the people: "Have Marcianus as bishop after me, and after Marcianus, Sisinnius." Having spoken these things and lived for a short time afterwards, he closed his final day. ^C When Marcianus was thus established as bishop of the Novatians, their Church was divided for this cause: one Sabbatius, who had become a Christian from being a Jew, and had been promoted by Marcianus to the dignity of a presbyter, nevertheless zealously served the opinions of the Jews, with which he had been previously imbued. Furthermore, he was inflamed with the desire of obtaining the episcopate. Having therefore taken to himself two presbyters, Theoctistus and Macarius, who were privy to his ambition, he proposed to defend the celebration of the paschal feast which the Novatians, in the times of Valens Augustus, had innovated in the village of Pazo in Phrygia, as I have stated before. ^D And at first, using the cloak of asceticism, he withdrew from the church, saying to some that he was grieved; for he suspected them of being unworthy of the communion of the mysteries. But as time went on, his intention was revealed, that he wanted to hold meetings separately. When Marcianus learned these things, he reproved his own error in ordaining [them], in that he had promoted such vainglorious men to the presbyterate; and, being distressed, he said that it would have been better to have laid his own hands upon thorns than to have appointed those associated with Sabbatius to the presbyterate. He arranges for a synod of Novatian bishops to be held in

^A Sangar 61 — an emporium in Bithynia, situated near Helenopolis. Having gathered there, they summon Sabbatius and order him to explain before the synod the causes of his grievance. When he said that dissension concerning the Paschal feast was the cause of his grievance — asserting that it ought to be celebrated just as the Jews observe it, and as those who had gathered at Paza had stipulated — the members of the synod, suspecting that Sabbatius was feigning this for the sake of obtaining a bishopric, secure him with an oath that he would never accept the episcopal dignity. When he had sworn to these terms, they promulgated a canon concerning the feast of Pascha, which they called the "indifferent" ^B one, declaring that the dissension concerning the Paschal feast was not a significant enough cause to justify a separation from the Church, nor that those who had gathered at Paza had established a precedent against the catholic canon. Indeed, even the ancients, and those who lived close to the times of the apostles, though they differed concerning this feast, were nonetheless in communion with one another and caused no dissension whatsoever. Furthermore, the Novatians who dwell in Rome have never followed the Jews, but always celebrate Pascha after the equinox, yet they have not for that reason broken away from the rest of their fellow believers who do not celebrate the Paschal feast in the same manner as they do. Having ^C carefully weighed these and many such things, they established, as I said, the "indifferent" canon concerning Pascha, to the effect that it is permitted for each person, if he wishes, to celebrate Pascha according to the custom which he has once imbibed in his mind, and that there should be no discrepancy in communion, but that those who celebrate differently should be back in harmony with the Church. Therefore, this decree concerning the feast of Pascha having been confirmed by them at that time, Sabbatius, bound by his oaths, if ever the feast of Pascha happened to be at variance, would fast privately by himself, and keeping watch through the night, he performed the customary 62 day of the Sabbath of Pascha; then, on the following day, he would gather with everyone else in the church and partake of the mysteries.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ^D ... [The remainder of this page consists of Valesius' critical notes, which are reserved for the apparatus and outside the scope of the translation.]

^A for many years; and for this reason, he could not remain hidden from the many. ^A Therefore, some of the simpler sort, and especially those originating from the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, thinking that they would be justified by this action, began to emulate him and secretly performed the Pascha after his manner. But Sabbatius in later times formed a separate assembly by himself, little regarding his oath, and was constituted bishop of those who had followed him, as we shall declare as we proceed.

CHAP. XXII.

It is not, I think, inopportune to state briefly what occurs to me concerning the Paschal feast. It seems to me that neither the ancients nor the moderns who have sought to follow the custom of the Jews have had any sufficient cause for contending so vehemently about this feast. For they did not consider within their minds that after the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity, that exact and typical observance of the Mosaic law and the figures of things to come ceased entirely. And this can be demonstrated by a most certain argument. For by no law of Christ is it permitted to Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. Nay, the Apostle has expressly forbidden this, not only rejecting circumcision, but also admonishing against contending with one another over feast days. And so, writing to the Galatians, he uses these words: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" ^C And having discoursed a little on this subject, he shows that the people of the Jews are slaves, but that those who have followed Christ have been called to liberty. He exhorts them, furthermore, not to observe days and months and years in any way. Moreover, writing to the Colossians, he declares with a loud voice that these observances are nothing other than a shadow. "Wherefore," he says, "let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come." And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the same Apostle, sealing these things, says: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

New Moon or Sabbath, which are a shadow of things to come. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ^A confirming the same point, he says: For the priesthood being translated, there is made of necessity a translation of the law. Certainly, the Apostle and the evangelists nowhere imposed a yoke of servitude upon those who had come to the preaching of the faith; but they left the day of Pascha and the other festivals to be observed according to the judgment and fairness of those who had received benefits on those days. Hence, since people love festival days because they bring them a respite from labors, each person, place by place, as it pleased them, celebrated the memory of the Savior's passion out of a certain custom. For neither the Savior nor the apostles prescribed by any law for us that this should be observed, nor did the Gospels or the apostles threaten us with any fine or punishment or curse, as the Mosaic law was wont to do to the Jews. But it is related in the Gospels, for the sake of history alone, and to the reproach of the Jews—because they were accustomed to commit murders on feast days—that the Savior suffered in the days of unleavened bread. For the purpose of the apostles was not to enact laws concerning festive days, but to point out a way of living rightly and true piety. And it seems to me that, just as many other things have gained the force of custom in various places, so also the Paschal festival among various ^B groups of people had its own peculiar manner of observance, because, as I said, none of the apostles had legislated anything about it. But that this observance originated from custom rather than from law among each of them from ancient times, the facts themselves show. For the majority of those in Asia Minor from ancient times kept the fourteenth day, disregarding the day of the Sabbath. And while doing this, they never separated themselves from those who celebrated the Paschal festival in another way, until Victor, bishop of the city of Rome, inflamed by an immoderate heat of anger, sent a letter of excommunication to the Quartodecimans who were in Asia. Upon this happening, Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, attacked Victor sternly by letter, blaming him for this heat and teaching him that even those of old who celebrated the Paschal festival in differing ways did not at all cut themselves off from communion. And [he showed] that Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna—who later suffered martyrdom under Gordian ^C —communed with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, without being at all disputed concerning the festival with him.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.

^A While Polycarp himself, according to the custom of his ancestors in Smyrna, used to observe the Pascha on the fourteenth day, as Eusebius says in the fifth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*. Some folks, therefore, as I said, in Asia Minor used to observe the fourteenth day; but others in the eastern parts 61 used to observe the Sabbath day in the celebration of the festival, though they disagreed concerning the month. For some said that they ought to follow the Jews in the celebration of the festival, even though they did not preserve accuracy; but others celebrated it after the equinox, 65 avoiding the celebration of the Pascha with the Jews. They maintained that it was fitting to celebrate the Pascha always when the sun was in Aries—in the month Xanthicus according to the Antiochians, or April according to the Romans—and they declared that they did this by following, not the Jews now wandering in every respect, but the ancients and Josephus, as he states in the third book of *Jewish Antiquities*. But these men were thus in disagreement among themselves. All the rest, however, reaching to the western parts and even to the Ocean itself, are found to have celebrated the Pascha after the equinox according to some ancient tradition. For all of these, performing the ritual in this manner, never disagreed among themselves. And it is not ^B as some have gossiped 66 that the council at the time of Constantine changed this festival. For Constantine himself, writing to those who disagreed about this festival, exhorted them that, being themselves few in number, they should imitate the majority. But you will find the whole letter of the Emperor in the third book of Eusebius’s *Life of Constantine*. The part in it concerning the Paschal festival runs in this manner: “There is an appropriate order which all the churches of the western, southern, and northern parts of the world, and some of the eastern regions, observe; for which reason all have judged it to be good at the present time, and I myself have promised that I will be in agreement with your sagacity, so that whatever is decided in the city of the Romans, in Italy and Africa and all Egypt, in Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, throughout all Greece, the Asian and Pontic ^C dioceses, and…”

^D valesii annotations: (64) By those in Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, he seems to understand those who celebrated the Pascha with the Jews before the Nicene Council, as Athanasius teaches in his *Epistle to the Africans*. Therefore, these Orientals, of whom Socrates speaks, followed the Jews in regard to observing the fourteenth day of the first month before the equinox. However, they did not celebrate the Pascha on the same day as the Jews, but on the following Sunday. Wherefore Athanasius writes that they celebrated the Pascha at the same time as the Jews, but not on the same day, as the interpreter wrongly rendered it. (65) By those after the equinox, he understands the Montanists and Pepusians, who indeed celebrated the Pascha after the equinox, but in the month Xanthicus or April, they always fixed it before the eighth day of the Ides of April, just as Sozomen testifies in his seventh book. (66) And not as some have gossiped: namely the Audians. For they maintained that the Nicene Council was the first to change the Paschal festival, as Epiphanius testifies, p. 822.

variorum: The passage to which Socrates refers is as follows: “In the month Xanthicus, which is called Nisan among us, and the beginning of the year, on the fourteenth day according to the moon, when the sun is in Aries (for in this month we were delivered from Egyptian servitude, and the sacrifice which we said was then offered when we departed from Egypt, being called Pascha, the law commands us to celebrate every year.” Josephus, *Antiq.*, lib. 3, cap. 10, p. 93.

here in Cilicia, is observed with one consent, may your wisdom ^B also gladly accept this; considering not only that the number of churches in the aforementioned places is greater, but also that it is most holy for all to desire this in common, which precise reason seems to demand, and to have no communion with the perjury of the Jews." Such is the emperor's letter.

The Quartodecimans, however, claim that the observance of the fourteenth day was handed down to them by John the Apostle; while those in Rome and the Western parts say that the apostles Paul and Peter handed down the custom that prevails there. But neither of these can provide any written proof for these things. That the festival of Easter is performed in each place according to some custom rather than another, I infer from this: no religion maintains the same customs, even if it embraces the same belief ^C regarding them. For even those who are of the same faith disagree with one another regarding customs. It is not inappropriate to set forth a few things concerning the customs in the churches. For instance, it is possible to find the fasts before Easter kept differently by different people. For those at Rome fast for three consecutive weeks before Easter, except for Saturday and Sunday. But those in Illyria and throughout the rest… ^D

of Achaia, and those who live in Alexandria, fast for six weeks before Easter, and this fast they call Quadragesima. Others again, following a different custom, begin their fast in the seventh week before Easter; and although they fast for only three weeks, and these at intervals of five days each, they nevertheless call this period Quadragesima. And it occurs to me to marvel how these people, while disagreeing about the number of days, ^A still call it Quadragesima. And each one provides a different reason for how they arrived at this name. It is possible to find not only those who disagree about the number of days, but also those who do not observe the same abstinence from foods. For some abstain entirely from living things; others, of living things, partake only of fish. Some, together with fish, even taste of birds, saying that they too are derived from water, according to Moses. Others abstain even from fruits and eggs. Some partake only of dry bread; others do not even eat that. Still others, who fast until the ninth hour, have a different way of taking their meal. ^B There are also countless reasons that occur among other peoples. And since no one is able to show any written commandment regarding this, it is evident that the apostles left this matter also to the judgment and choice of each individual, so that each person might perform what is good out of free will and not by fear or necessity. Such

indeed is the discrepancy of fasts throughout the Churches. But as regards the assemblies, the variety is no less. For while all the Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries every week on the Sabbath, the people of Alexandria and those of Rome, following a certain ancient tradition, have refused to do this. The Egyptians, however, who are neighbors to the Alexandrians, and those who inhabit the Thebaid, hold assemblies on the Sabbath, but they do not partake of the mysteries as is the custom of Christians. For after they have feasted and crammed themselves with all sorts of food, toward evening they offer [the sacrifice] and partake of the mysteries. Furthermore, at Alexandria on the fourth day of the week and on what is called the Preparation Day ^A, the Scriptures are read and the teachers interpret them, and all the acts of the assembly are performed, except for the celebration of the mysteries. And this is an ancient custom at Alexandria. For it appears that Origen taught for the most part in the Church on these days. Being a wise teacher, and observing that the impossibility of the law of Moses is weak against being rendered literally, he elevated the discourse concerning the Pascha to a higher contemplation, saying that the only true Pascha that has come to pass was that which the Savior fulfilled, having worked [his power] against the opposing forces, through his communion with the cross, using this trophy against the devil. In this same Alexandria, readers and prompters ^B—it makes no difference whether catechumens...

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

...as he had proposed. I, for my part, would prefer to assign a middle distinction. And this is confirmed by Nicephorus, who expressed this passage of Socrates as follows: But there are other [ customs] among other peoples and tribes; among which there are also myriad reasons for such things. ^C *Prompters.* Muscle and Christophorson translated this as "interpreters." But Epiphanius very aptly explained it as "psalm pronouncers." Their office seems to have been to intone the first words of the psalm. Then the people would sing the rest in accompaniment. "Prompters" used to be called, in former times, those who prompted actors on the stage, as Festus teaches; they would suggest the lines to the actors whenever their memory failed them. They would also provide the measures to the actors, as Plutarch teaches in his *Precepts for Governing the Commonwealth*, writing thus: *...that the actors might be imitated; a distinct emotion, habit, and dignity being added to the contest, while they listen to the prompter, and do not violate the rhythms and the measures.* Hence, in the comedies of Terence, we find it noted: *Flaccus provided the measures.* Thus, therefore, in the Church, he who provided the measures to the singers and suggested the verses of the psalms was called [a prompter], and "canonarch," as Jacobus Goar thinks in his notes to the *Euchologion*, p. 30. Certainly, the readers often suggested the place in the Holy Scripture to the preaching bishops, as Augustine teaches in Psalm xxxii: *He did not say, on a ten-stringed psaltery, nor in this psalm, nor, if I am not mistaken, anywhere else.* Let our readers read and consider more carefully and at leisure. However, as far as I can recall, in many places we find "ten-stringed psalter," but I have never encountered "ten-stringed cithara" in my reading. There were also monitors in prayers, whom Tertullian mentions in his *Apologeticum*, where he says that Christians prayed without a monitor, because they prayed from the heart. But Nicephorus in this place reads ^D for "prompter," that is, "notaries." Which, in truth, does not displease me. For the bishops had their own notaries, erudite young men. Thus Proclus is said to have been the notary of Atticus, as Socrates testifies (lib. vi). And long before, Athanasius was the notary of Bishop Alexander, as Sozomenus writes (lib. ii). In the decrees of Pope Gelasius, chap. 2, among the first ecclesiastical degrees are listed readers, notaries, and defenders. In the *Life of Caesarius of Arles*...

VARIOUS NOTES

*On the fourth day.* Canon apostolic 69, just cited: *If any bishop... does not fast the fourth day or the Preparation Day, let him be deposed.* Regarding the fourth and [the] preparation, those two days in each week, which we commonly call the days of Mercury and Venus, no one ever doubted that these should be understood. And indeed the fast of the fourth day, even if it is for the most part abrogated by the modern Roman Church, was nevertheless observed of old with the same religious devotion as the sixth. For these two hebdomadary, if I may say so, fasts, are perpetually conjoined in the ancient commentaries of the Church, and are named together; so that one without the other is found nowhere in ancient... [the rest is] that every week from the primitive Church it was celebrated might be confirmed without difficulty. Beveridge, *On the fast of the fourth and sixth day*. Gratian from the sayings of Apollonius: *The legitimate fasts, that is, the fourth and sixth day, are not to be relaxed, unless some great necessity occurs; because on the fourth day Judas plotted the betrayal of the Lord, and on the sixth day the Savior was crucified.* De consecrat., dist. 3, cap. *Canon apostolicus* just cited. *The impossibility of the law.* It should be translated as: *what was impossible (made effective) in the law.* It alludes, namely, to Rom. viii, 3. W. Lowth.

[Socrates begins the new section:]

^A ...those who are believers; and he enrolls the believers of the churches everywhere into this rank. I have also known another custom in Thessaly, having been a cleric there [(78)]: "He who, having married according to the law before he became a cleric, thereafter cohabits with her after becoming a cleric, is deposed [(79)]," all those in the East [(80)] by common consent abstaining, and the bishops, even if they should wish to do otherwise, not being compelled by the necessity of the law to do so. For many of them in the time of their episcopate [(81)] have even had children by their lawful wives. Now the author of this custom in Thessaly was Heliodorus [(82)], bishop of Trikke, who was born there; of whom it is said that he wrote the books of amorous stories, which he composed when he was a young man [(83)], and titled them *Aethiopica* [(84)].

[VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS]

^B ...chapter 22, the lector or notary did not cease to cry out before him, etc. In the first act of the Council of Ephesus, Epaphroditus is called a lector and notary of the bishop of the Rhodians, Hellanicus. From which it is evident that the office of notary was generally the same as that of a lector, that is to say, to read the Psalms or other books of Sacred Scripture, whether in the church or before the bishop. And this is confirmed by Simeon Metaphrastes in the *Acts of Marcian* and the account of the notaries, which are found in Surius under the twenty-fifth day of October: "Dwelling therefore with the divine Paul, since they were his scribes, they read the divine Books to the people from his own text, etc." Moreover, these notaries took down the acts that took place in the Church, whence it seems this name was given to them. Thus in the records of the conference between the Catholics and the Donatists we read this title: "With Januarius and Vitalis, notaries of the Catholic Church, and Victor and Cresconius, notaries of the Donatist Church, taking them down, etc." But over them was the *primicerius* of the notaries, who was generally chosen from the order of presbyters, as we learn from the first act of the Council of Ephesus, in which Peter, a presbyter of Alexandria and *primicerius* of the notaries, reads the edict of the Emperor Theodosius to Cyril and the other metropolitans. Wherefore these notaries kept the archives, as Gregory the Great teaches in book 1 of his *Dialogues*, chapter 8. Anastasius of the holy Roman Church, whom I serve by the grace of God, was a notary. Desiring to devote himself to God alone, he left the archives and chose the monastery, etc. However, the most important task of the notaries was to carry the rod or staff before the bishop, as is written in the second book of *The Life and Miracles of Saint Caesarius of Arles*. When, therefore, the man of God, Caesarius, was traveling through those same places toward that same church, the cleric who had the task of carrying his staff—which was the duty of the notaries—forgot it; in that ministry I served, though uselessly. See what I have noted on the fourth book of Sozomen, chapter 3.

^C ...if this distinction were correct, it would follow that Socrates was a cleric in Thessaly. But this is by no means probable, since Socrates everywhere refers to himself as a *scholasticus*, that is, an advocate. Wherefore I do not doubt that this passage must be punctuated differently, namely in this way: "I have known another custom in Thessaly: having been a cleric there, he who has married according to the law before he became a cleric, etc." Yet the interpreters Musculus and Christophorson seem to have followed a different distinction, namely this: "I have known another custom in Thessaly—having been a cleric there, etc." This distinction, however, I cannot approve. For the word *genomenos* would be superfluous, and the word *to ginesthai* would be repeated too frequently in the same period. Furthermore, that Socrates was staying in Thessaly is apparent from what follows. For thus, a little later, Socrates adds: "And I know of this custom occurring in Thessaly." Although the word *oida* is ambiguous and can be understood just as well of an absent person as of one who is present.

[(79)] *is deposed*. In the manuscript of Nicephorus it is written *apokleros*, which does not displease. That is, he is moved from his order, as Langus translates. However, the term *apokeruktos* seems to denote something more serious, namely, excommunicated.

[(80)] *all those in the East by common consent abstaining*. The correction of this passage is due to the Florentine codex, in which it is written explicitly thus: "all those in the East by common consent abstaining." This correction is confirmed by Nicephorus. For he expressed this passage of Socrates almost word for word thus: "all those throughout the East by common consent abstaining," and the rest.

[(81)] *in the time of their episcopate*. Nicephorus says the same thing regarding the children of bishops. It is certain, however, that Socrates exceeds the boundaries of truth in this passage. For if any by chance had marital relations during their episcopate with a wife whom they had married before their episcopate, they were certainly very few, and they acted contrary to the accepted custom of the Church, and afterwards lamented their action, just as that bishop in Gregory of Tours. Indeed, Epiphany witnesses in his *Exposition of the Faith* that the priests of his age were for the most part virgins or monks; if not, they were certainly continent. And this is clearly proven by the example of Synesius, bishop of the Cyrenians.

[(82)] *Heliodorus*. Regarding what Socrates writes, that he was the author of the book of the loves of Chariclea, I fear it might be false. The author of the book *On the Loves of Chariclea* was born in Phoenicia, as Photius witnesses in his *Bibliotheca*, chapter 94. Nicephorus has *sunetaxato*. But as to what Nicephorus adds, that Heliodorus was ordered in a synod to burn those amorous books or abdicate his bishopric, that seems fabulous to me. For it is not sufficiently established whether those books *On the Loves of Theagenes and Chariclea* were written by the bishop Heliodorus, or by someone else.

[VARIORUM]

*Heliodorus*. Of this Heliodorus almost nothing is known for certain, except for the absolute certainty that he is the one to whom the epistles of St. Jerome are addressed. He flourished under Theodosius and Arcadius. Nicephorus writes in book 12, chapter 4, that he was deposed in a provincial synod because he was unwilling to renounce the book mentioned here. But neither Socrates nor Photius makes mention of this fact. There was another Heliodorus, a sophist, a friend of the Emperor Hadrian, about whom Philostratus writes in his *Lives of the Sophists*. Some ascribe the *Aethiopian History* to him. [index: entries preserved]

^A This same custom is found in Thessalonica, and in Macedonia itself, and in Greece. I know of another custom observed in Thessaly: they baptize only on the days of Pascha. Consequently, with very few exceptions, the rest die unbaptized. In Antioch of Syria, however, the Church has the opposite orientation. For the altar does not look toward the east, but toward the west. In Greece, and in Jerusalem, and in Thessaly, they perform the prayers ^B at the lighting of the lamps (84) in a manner similar to the Novatians in Constantinople. Likewise, in Caesarea of Cappadocia and in Cyprus, on the day of the Sabbath and on the Lord’s day, the presbyters and bishops always interpret the Scriptures toward evening after the lighting of the lamps. The Novatians in the Hellespont do not perform their prayers in all respects like those in Constantinople. They are similar in many things (85) to the prevailing Church. However, generally everywhere and among all religious denominations, it is impossible to find two groups of people who agree with each other on the subject of prayers (86). In Alexandria, a presbyter does not preach; and this began from the time when Arius disturbed the Church. In Rome they fast every Sabbath (87). In Caesarea of Cappadocia—

^A they exclude from communion those who have sinned after baptism, just as the Novatians do. The Macedonians in the Hellespont and the Quartodecimans throughout Asia do the same. The Novatians in Phrygia do not admit bigamists; but those at Constantinople neither admit them openly nor openly reject them. In the western parts, however, they admit them openly. I believe the bishops who presided over the churches at various times were the cause of this discrepancy; and those who received these practices from them transmitted them ^B to their successors as if they were law. To record in writing all the customs of the churches as they exist in each city and region is entirely difficult, or rather impossible. Yet what has been set forth suffices as proof that the Paschal feast has had a different estimation in different regions due to some local custom. Therefore, those who have murmured that the Synod of Nicaea changed the Paschal feast are talking nonsense. For those who assembled there were anxious to bring the ^C peoples into agreement with the vastly greater majority who were previously in disagreement. That many such disagreements arose immediately in the apostolic age did not escape the notice of the apostles themselves, as witness the book of the Acts. For when the apostles perceived that a disturbance was being stirred up among the believers by the disagreement of the Gentiles, they all came together and decreed a divine law, writing it out in the form of a letter; by which they freed the believers from the very heavy burden of such slavery and wrangling, and instructed them ^D as to the safe outline of the true way of life, and the one that leads to true piety, by declaring only those things which must necessarily be kept. But the letter is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. And there is nothing to prevent it being set down here too: "The apostles, and the elders and the brethren, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, and they shall also tell you by word—"

of mouth the same things. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. From which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell. These things indeed pleased God: for the Epistle says: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things which must be observed." There are some, however, who, having despised these laws, consider fornication as a thing indifferent, yet struggle about the days of the feast as if it were a matter of life and death; thus overturning the commands of God and making laws for themselves, while they hold the legislation of the apostles as of no account, not realizing that they are doing things contrary to what has pleased God. ^B It would be possible, therefore, to extend the discussion about the Passover even further, and to show that the Jews do not preserve the exact method or form of the times concerning the Passover, and how the Samaritans, being a schism from the Jews, always celebrate this feast after the equinox. But such a subject requires a separate and more lengthy exposition. I only say this, that those who are so fond of following the Jews, and who are so full of anxious diligence about types, ought in no way to fall short of them. For if they are determined to be so very precise, they ought not only to observe days and months, but also all the other things which Christ, having become under the law, did after the manner of the Jews, or which He endured when wronged by the Jews, or which He performed in a typological way while benefiting all. He entered into a boat (89) and taught; He commanded the Passover to be prepared in an upper room; He ordered an ass that was tied to be loosed; He gave a sign to those who were making ready for the Passover concerning the one carrying a pitcher of water; and countless ^C other things written in the Gospels. And those who think to be justified by a feast are not at all diligent in keeping these things bodily. For no one among the teachers has ever delivered his teaching from a boat; no one has made it a point to celebrate the Passover in every upper room; no one, having tied an ass, has then loosed it; no one has allowed anyone to carry a pitcher of water in order that the symbols might be fulfilled. For they have judged these and similar things to be rather Jewish. For the Jews are more eager in saving that which happens in the bodies ^D than in the souls. Therefore they are also liable to the curse, because they understand the law of Moses in types, but do not take it up in its truth. But those who are friends to the Jews bring these things into theory.

they argue that not only days and months must be observed by them, but also all the other things which Christ, having been made under the law, performed after the manner of the Jews, or what He suffered unjustly at the hands of the Jews, or what He did typically while conferring benefits upon all: when He entered the boat to teach; when He commanded the Passover to be prepared in the upper room; when He ordered the ass that was tied to be released; when He proposed the man carrying a water pitcher as a sign to those who were eager to prepare the Passover; and whatever else of this kind is written in the Gospels. And yet those who think they are justified by this feast do not strive to observe any of these things in a bodily manner. For no teacher has ever preached from a boat; nor has anyone ever ascended into an upper room and celebrated the Passover there, nor has anyone seized a tied ass and, after binding it again, released it once more from its bonds. Finally, no one has commanded another to carry a clay vessel full of water, so that the figures might be fulfilled. For they have judged these and other things of this kind to be more Jewish. Indeed, the Jews strive to observe solemnities in the body rather than in the soul. For which reason they are liable to the curse, as they receive the law of Moses not in its truth but according to the figure. These, however, who favor the Jews refer these matters to an allegorical sense, but regarding the days and months they wage an inexpiable war, rejecting the allegorical interpretation of them: to such an extent that in this respect they too, like the Jews, are necessarily condemned and draw upon themselves a sentence of execration. But enough of these matters. Let us return now to our proposed subject, of which we made mention a little earlier: that the Church, after it was once divided, did not stand still at that first division, and that those who had been divided fought again among themselves, and seizing upon a light and trivial occasion, broke away from one another. The Novatians, indeed, as I have said, were divided among themselves on account of the feast of the Passover; and concerning this matter there is not just one division among them. For since some observe it in one way and others in another throughout the various provinces, dissenting among themselves not only about the month, but also about the days of the week and other matters of small moment, here they hold their assemblies separately, while there they are joined by mutual communion. ^A

CHAPTER XXIII. On the Arians of Constantinople, who are also called Psathyrians.

But discords arose even among the Arians on account of a reason of this kind: the contentious questions that were agitated daily among them led their discourse to certain absurd conclusions. For since it has always been believed in the Church that God the Father is the Father of the Word, who is the Son, a question arose among them whether God could be called Father even before the Son subsisted. For since they affirmed that the Word of God was not begotten of the Father, but subsisted from what was not, having stumbled at the first and highest head of the faith, they deservedly fell into an absurd dispute regarding a mere word. Dorotheus, therefore, having been summoned by them from Antioch, said that God could not be, nor be called, Father, unless the Son existed. Marinus, however, whom they had invited before Dorotheus from Thrace, seizing a favorable opportunity (for he was vexed that they had preferred Dorotheus to himself), undertook the defense of the contrary opinion. On this account a dissension arose between them, and being separated because of the aforementioned term, they began to hold their assemblies separately, each for himself. And those who were under Dorotheus remained in their own seats; while those who followed Marinus, having built private oratories for themselves, celebrated their meetings in them, asserting that the Father had always been the Father, and even when the Son did not subsist. They were called...

^A Psathyrians, because one Theoctistus, a Syrian by birth, a psathyropolis—that is, a seller of cakes—was a most ardent defender of this dogma. Selenas, bishop of the Goths, a man of mixed ancestry, was a follower of their opinion; for he was a Goth on his father’s side, but a Phrygian on his mother’s. For this reason, he readily taught in the Church in both languages. Yet even these people were a little later divided, when Marinus disagreed with Agapius, whom he himself had elevated to the bishopric of Ephesus. They contended with one another ambitiously, not about religion, but about precedence, with the Goths taking the side of Agapius. Wherefore many of the clergy under them, detesting this dispute which had arisen among them out of a desire for empty glory, left them and transferred themselves to the faith of the consubstantial. After the Arians had been thus divided among themselves for the space of twenty-five years, finally, in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, in the consulship of the master of soldiers Plintha, the Psathyrians, overcome by arguments, desisted from their contention. And, coming together again into one body, they decreed, as if by law, that no mention should be made thereafter of the question for which they had been separated. But they were able to accomplish this nowhere except in Constantinople. For in the remaining cities, if any are perchance found, they persist in the same division as before. And these things have been said by us concerning the division among the Arians.

CAP. XXIV. How the Eunomians also were divided among themselves, and called by various names from the words of their authors.

^C But neither did the Eunomians remain without internal dissension. For Eunomius himself had already long since separated from Eudoxius, who had ordained him bishop of Cyzicus, alleging as a cause that he had not received his teacher Aetius, who had been cast out of the Church. But they who derived their name from him were afterwards split into various parts. For, in the first place, a certain Theophronius, a Cappadocian, who had learned the art of disputation from Eunomius, and had only lightly touched upon the Categories and the Book of Interpretation of Aristotle, when he had composed certain books which he inscribed *On the Exercise of the Mind*, incurring the hatred of his own people, was cast out by them as a deserter of his sect. He, afterwards holding meetings apart from them, left behind a heresy named after himself. Then a certain Eutychius at Constantinople departed from the Eunomians because of a certain trivial controversy, ^D and now holds his assemblies separately. Therefore, those who followed Theophronius are called Theophronian Eunomians, and those who followed Eutychius are called Eutychian Eunomians.

^A But as for the insipid little phrases about which they differ, I have decided it is not worth recording them in this history, lest I digress too far from my subject; suffice it to say that they have corrupted holy baptism. For they do not baptize into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. There was also for a time a discord among the Macedonians, when Eutropius the presbyter was gathering a congregation privately, while Carterius did not agree with him. There might perhaps be other sects arising from these in other cities. But I, living in Constantinople, the city in which I was born and raised, set out to narrate more fully the events that happened therein, partly because I witnessed some of these things myself, and partly because the events there are more illustrious and more worthy of human memory. These things, then, did not happen at one and the same time, but occurred at different intervals. If, however, you desire to learn the names of the various sects, you may inform yourself by reading the book inscribed *Ancoratus*, which Epiphanius, bishop of the Cyprians, compiled. But let this be sufficient concerning these matters. Public affairs were also then in a state of turmoil for the following reason: ^B

Chapter 25. On the tyranny of Eugenius and the death of Valentinian the Younger, and on the victory which Theodosius Augustus won over the tyrant.

In the Western parts, there was a certain grammarian named Eugenius, who, having taught Latin literature, eventually abandoned the school to serve in the palace, and was made *magister scriniorum* [master of the offices] to the emperor. And when ^C

[VALESII ANNOTATIONES omitted]

[VARIORUM omitted]

^A he came to be distinguished, being honored beyond others, he did not bear his good fortune moderately. But having joined to himself Arbogastes—who, coming from Lesser Gaul (94), was a leader of a military regiment, but was of a harsh and most bloodthirsty character—he inclined toward tyranny. Both, therefore, plotted the murder of the emperor Valentinian, having approached the eunuch chamberlains (95). They, enticed by the promise of greater dignities than they already held, strangled the emperor while he was sleeping (96). Eugenius, therefore, having immediately become master of affairs in the western parts, did such things as it was reasonable for a tyrant to do. Having heard these things, the emperor Theodosius fell into the greatest anxiety, perceiving that new labors, after the war against Maximus, were again looming before him. Having, therefore, gathered his military forces, and having proclaimed his son Honorius Augustus in his own third consulship together with Abundantius, on the tenth of the month of January, he again marched in haste to the western parts, having left both his sons as emperors in Constantinople (97). As he marched [to the war] against Eugenius, very many of the barbarians beyond the Ister followed him, choosing to fight as allies against the tyrant. No long time having elapsed, he reached the Gauls with a large force. For the tyrant was preparing himself for war there, he too having a numerous army. Therefore, a battle was engaged at the river called the Frigidus, which is distant (98) thirty-six miles from the city of Aquileia. And in that part where Romans were fighting against Romans, the battle was evenly matched; but in the part where the barbarian allies were fighting for the emperor Theodosius, the forces of Eugenius were far superior. But the emperor, seeing the barbarians being destroyed, having fallen into the greatest distress, cast himself upon the ground and called upon God as his helper, [VALESII ANNOTATIONES omitted] [VARIORUM omitted]

and he was not disappointed in his petition. ^A For Bacurius, his general, was so greatly strengthened that he rushed in with the front-line troops into the part where the barbarians were being pressed by the enemy; he broke through their phalanxes and put to flight those who, a little before, were pressing upon the fugitives. Another thing also occurred, worthy of admiration. For a violent wind suddenly arose, and turned the missiles that were being hurled by the Eugenians back against them; indeed, it carried those that were being hurled by the opponents against them with an even more violent force; so great was the power of the emperor's prayer. The fortune of the war having been turned in this way, the tyrant ran to the feet of the emperor, begging to be granted safety. But the soldiers cut off his head before the very feet of the emperor. These things were done on the sixth day of the month of September, in the consulship of Arcadius for the third time, and Honorius for the second. Arbogastes, however, who was the cause of such great evils, two days after the battle, while fleeing, ^B since he realized there was no safety left for him, took his own life with his own sword.

CAPUT XXVI. How the emperor, after the victory, being seized by a disease, summoned his son Honorius to Milan: and, appearing to have recovered slightly, held equestrian games, and died that same day.

The emperor Theodosius, moreover, had his body poorly affected by the labors which he had endured in that war. And expecting that his life would come to an end from the disease that had supervened, he was more concerned about the public affairs than about his own life, reflecting upon how many and how great calamities are wont to befall men when an emperor dies. He therefore summoned his son Honorius with all speed from Constantinople, ^C wishing to establish the affairs of the Western parts. When his son had arrived in Milan, he recovered from the disease, and held triumphal games in the hippodrome. And before the midday meal he was in good condition, watching the horse races; but after the meal, he was suddenly taken ill. And while he was unable to go out to the spectacle, he ordered his son to preside over the hippodrome, and when night came on, he died, in the consulship of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seventeenth day of the month of January. ^D This was the first year of the two hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad. The emperor Theodosius lived sixty years and reigned for sixteen years. The book contains a period of ten—

six years and eight months.

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

^A Sixty years, as the emperor Theodosius lived, is what Sozomen, Theophanes, Cedrenus, and others also relate, although the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle attributes sixty-five years to him, and Aurelius Victor writes that Theodosius died at Milan in his fiftieth year, and his body was brought to Constantinople and buried in the same year: which Zosimus also testifies. Antonius Pagi assigns this to the year 395, in which Theodosius died.

BOOK SIX

^A

THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:

Cap. I. How after the death of the emperor Theodosius, when his sons had divided the empire, and the soldiers from Italy were returning, Arcadius encountered them, and ^B the praetorian prefect Rufinus was killed by them at the emperor’s feet. II. Concerning the death of Nectarius, and the ordination of John. III. Concerning the birth and upbringing of John, bishop of Constantinople. IV. Concerning Serapion the deacon, and how through him the bishop became hateful and hostile to his clergy. V. That John was at odds not only with the clergy, but also with the nobles, and concerning Eutropius the eunuch. VI. Concerning the tyranny of Gainas the Goth, and the tumult which he stirred up in Constantinople, and concerning his death. VII. Concerning the dissension which arose between Theophilus of Alexandria and the monks dwelling in the desert; and how Theophilus anathematized the books of Origen. VIII. Concerning the gatherings for nocturnal hymns, both of the Arians and of those who profess the Homoousion, and of the fight that took place therein; and that the chanting of antiphons had its beginning from Ignatius the Deifer. IX. ^C Concerning the monks nicknamed the "Long," and how Theophilus, because of them, having formed implacable enmities against John, endeavored to depose him. X. How Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, being deceived by the guiles of Theophilus, having gathered a synod of bishops against the books of Origen, rebuked John for using the books of Origen. XI. Concerning Severianus and Antiochus the Syrians, and how and for what reasons they departed from John. XII. How, when Epiphanius had come to Constantinople, he celebrated synaxes and ordinations without the permission of John, so as to gratify Theophilus. XIII. What this writer says in defense of Origen.

XIV. How John, when he had summoned Epiphanius, and he had not obeyed the summons but rather proceeded to celebrate an assembly in the Church of the Apostles, admonished and rebuked him for acting in many ways against the canons. Terrified by this, Epiphanius returned to his homeland. ^A

XV. How, after the departure of Epiphanius, when John had delivered a discourse against women, and for that reason, through the efforts of the emperor and the empress, a synod was held at Chalcedon against him, he was expelled from the Church.

XVI. How, when a popular disturbance arose because John was being led into exile, Briso, the eunuch of the Augusta, was sent and brought him back to Constantinople.

XVII. How, when Theophilus wished for the case of Heraclides to be examined in his absence, and John objected, a conflict arose between the Constantinopolitans and the Alexandrians, and many fell on both sides. Terrified by this, Theophilus and other bishops fled from the city.

XVIII. Concerning the silver statue of Eudoxia; and how John, on that account, was again driven from the Church and led into exile. ^B

XIX. Concerning Arsatius, who was ordained after John, and concerning Cyrinus, the bishop of Chalcedon.

XX. How, after Arsatius, Atticus obtained the see of Constantinople.

XXI. Concerning the departure of John in exile to the Lord.

XXII. Concerning Sisinnius, bishop of the Novatians, and the discourse which it is said he had with John.

XXIII. Concerning the death of the emperor Arcadius.

BOOK SIX

PROOEMIUM

The task which you had enjoined upon us, most religious man of God, Theodore, we have completed in the five previous books, in which we have embraced the history of ecclesiastical matters, as far as we were able, from the times of Constantine. Know, however, that we have not taken great care regarding the elegance of our words. For we have considered that if we had pursued the adornment of speech, we might perhaps have strayed from our purpose. And if we had attained our purpose, we would not have been able to compose such things as have been elaborated by the ancient historians, by which any person might not undeservedly think that he could exaggerate or diminish the recorded events. Add to this that such a style of speech would have been entirely useless to common and simpler men, who are eager to learn the events themselves, not to admire the diction as if it were beautifully composed. And so, lest our work should prove fruitless to the learned as well as to the unlearned—to the learned, because it could in no way be compared with the elegance of the ancients in writing; and to the unlearned, because they are unable to grasp the things themselves, since they are shrouded by too much beauty of words—we have deliberately followed that manner of writing which, while indeed more humble, is yet more clear. ^B

^A However, as we begin this sixth book, we must premise this: that, in approaching the events of our own time, we already fear lest we appear to be writing things that are not pleasing to the majority; either because, according to the proverb, truth is bitter, or because we do not append to the names of those whom individuals especially cherish any title of praise, or because we do not extol the deeds performed by them. Those who are most ardent emulators of our religion will find fault, in that we do not call the bishops "most dear to God," or "most holy," or other such things; and others, again, will scrutinize curiously why we do not call the emperors "most divine," or "lords," or by whatever other titles they are accustomed to be designated. But I, besides being able to confirm and demonstrate by the testimony of ancient writers that among them the servant was accustomed to call his master by his own name, on account of the necessity of the facts and with no regard for rank; and because I am eager to obey the laws of history, which require a pure and sincere narration of events, unadorned by any affectation, I shall now proceed to the work itself, setting down those things which I either saw myself or was able to learn from those who had seen them, judging the truth by whether those who recounted such things to me did not disagree among themselves. Furthermore, it was no small labor for me to elicit the truth, because many and various men reported the events to us, of whom some claimed to have been present at the events themselves, whilst others claimed, more than all other men, to know them perfectly well.

CAP. I.

Upon the death of the Emperor Theodosius, in the consulship of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seventeenth day before the Calends of February, his sons assumed the administration of the Roman Empire. And Arcadius, indeed, obtained the principate of the East, while Honorius obtained that of the West. At that time, those who presided over the churches were: at Rome, the former capital, Damasus; at Alexandria, Theophilus. John held sway over the affairs at Jerusalem. Flavianus ruled the Antiochene church. As for Constantinople, which is the new Rome, Nectarius held the throne...

^A as has been set forth by us in the preceding book. Around the eighth of the month of November, in the same consulship, the body of Theodosius was brought to Constantinople, and his son Arcadius honored it with the customary funeral rites. Not long after this, on the twenty-seventh of the same month, the army also arrived which had campaigned against the tyrant together with the Emperor Theodosius. Therefore, when the Emperor Arcadius went out to meet the army beyond the gates according to custom, the soldiers killed Rufinus, the Emperor's prefect. For Rufinus was suspected of aspiring to tyranny, and he had the reputation of having himself summoned the Huns, that ^B barbarian nation, into the Roman territory. For indeed, at that time, they were overrunning Armenia and certain parts of the East. On the very same day that Rufinus was killed, Marcian, the bishop of the Novatians, also departed this life; and he was succeeded in the episcopate by Sisinnius, whom we have also mentioned above.

CHAPTER II. On the death of Nectarius, and the ordination of John.

who was very eager to detract from the glory of John, and instead to promote his own presbyter Isidore to the bishopric of the royal city; for he loved this man greatly, because he had once undertaken a dangerous commission on his behalf. And what this is, must be told. When the Emperor Theodosius was contending against the tyrant Maximus, Theophilus, sending gifts to the Emperor through Isidore, handed him two letters, with instructions to present both the gifts and the letters to whoever might be victorious. Complying with these instructions, Isidore reached Rome and awaited the outcome of the war. But the matter could not remain hidden for long, for ^B the lector who accompanied him secretly stole the letters. Terrified by this occurrence, Isidore immediately fled back to Alexandria. This was the reason for Theophilus’s great zeal on Isidore’s behalf. But they who were in the palace preferred John. And since many were leveling accusations against Theophilus and delivering to the bishops who were then present petitions containing various charges against him, Eutropius, the chamberlain of the imperial bedchamber, having received the written accusations, showed them to Theophilus, bidding him choose whether he preferred to ordain John or to submit to a trial on the charges brought against him. Terrified by this, Theophilus ordained John. Having been ordained, therefore, to the priesthood of the episcopacy, he was enthroned on the twenty-sixth ^C day of the month of February, in the following consulship, which was celebrated at Rome by the Emperor Honorius, and at Constantinople by Eutychianus, who was at that time the prefect of the praetorium. But since the fame of this man is celebrated, both from the books which he left written and from the many tribulations which he endured, I deem it right that his affairs should not be passed over by us in silence, but rather that those things which can be said about him at greater length should be gathered into a brief summary, and we should say who he was and whence he came; how he was called to the honor of the priesthood, and how he was later despoiled of it; and finally, by what logic he attained more honor after death than while he lived.

CAPUT III

John was born at Antioch in Coele Syria, of a father named Secundus and a mother named Anthusa, of a noble family of that city. He became a student of Libanius the Sophist and a pupil of Andragathius the Philosopher. When he was on the point of entering a legal career, he observed the wicked and unjust life common in the courts ^B and turned rather to a quiet life. He did this in emulation of Evagrius, who, having also studied under the same teachers, had long since embraced that tranquil manner of living. He immediately changed his dress and his bearing, applied his mind to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and made frequent and diligent attendance at the church. ^C He also persuaded Theodore and Maximus, his fellow students under Libanius the Sophist, to abandon the life of gain and embrace a simple and austere one. Of these, Theodore later became bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. These men, having become deeply concerned about virtue, placed themselves under the instruction of Diodorus and Carterius, who at that time presided over a monastery. ^D [index: entries preserved]

Diodorus, having subsequently become bishop of Tarsus, wrote many books, in which he confined himself to the simple and obvious sense of the Scriptures, avoiding their allegorical interpretation. But enough of these matters.

As to John, who lived in close intimacy with Basil—who was at that time a deacon ordained by Meletius, but who afterwards became bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and with whom John had spent much of his time—Zeno the bishop, on his return from Jerusalem, ordained him a reader in the church of Antioch. While serving in the office of reader, he composed a treatise against the Jews. Shortly after this...

having attained the dignity of deacon under Meletius, he wrote the books *On the Priesthood*, and other works against Stagirius, as well as those *On the Incomprehensible Nature of God*, and *On those Women who Dwell with Men*. Afterwards, Meletius having died at Constantinople—for he had gone thither on account of the ordination of Gregory of Nazianzus—John withdrew from the company of the Meletians; and, not associating with Paulinus, he lived in great quiet for three whole years. But later, after the death of Paulinus, he was ordained presbyter by Evagrius, who had succeeded Paulinus. Such, to put it briefly, was the conduct of John before his episcopate. He was, as they say, ^A a man more austere due to his zeal for temperance, and even more so, as one of his closest associates from early youth remarked, he was more prone to anger than to deference; and because of the uprightness of his life, he was not cautious regarding the future, while because of his simplicity, he was open and accessible. He enjoyed a license of speech toward those he met that was immoderate; and in teaching, he was very ^B helpful to the characters of his hearers, yet in personal interactions, he was thought arrogant by those who did not know his nature.

CHAPTER IV

Possessing such a character, and having been elevated to the dignity of the episcopate, he used a greater haughtiness toward his subjects than was proper, as he intended—or so he thought—to correct the lives of the clergy under him. Immediately, therefore, ^C ...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

In this matter, I readily agree with Baronius. But in that he reproves Socrates for saying that the Zeno mentioned there was bishop of Jerusalem, it is he who is clearly mistaken. For Socrates does not make Zeno bishop of Jerusalem, but only says that Zeno, returning from Jerusalem, ordained Chrysostom a reader at Antioch. Zeno had traveled to Jerusalem, either for the sake of prayer, as was the custom of those times, or for some ecclesiastical necessity. But a difficulty arises here. For if Zeno, returning from Jerusalem, ordained Chrysostom a reader at Antioch, the city of which he was bishop must necessarily have been more remote from Jerusalem than Antioch was, or at least situated off to the side of Antioch. This cannot be said of the cities of Tyre and Gaza; for both are far closer to Jerusalem than to Antioch. This Zeno, therefore, who ordained the reader at Antioch, was bishop of another city. ^D ... (17) *Of Evagrius*. This is the Evagrius of whom we spoke above. But what Socrates says, that Chrysostom was ordained presbyter by Evagrius, is not very probable. For if it is true, as Socrates says, that Chrysostom, after the death of Meletius, abstained from the communion of Paulinus, how could he have received ordination from Evagrius, who was the successor of Paulinus? It is better, therefore, to follow Palladius, Simeon Metaphrastes, and the rest, who write that Chrysostom was raised to the rank of presbyter by Bishop Flavianus.

VARIORUM

*He composed the books On the Priesthood*, while he was still dwelling in the desert, having brought most of the work to completion, and afterwards, when he was made deacon, brought them to their final form, says William Cave. Suidas rightly and deservedly assigns these the first place. ... *While he inveighed against their gluttony and avarice, and that immodest life...* which they lived with those women termed *subintroductae*; and while he urged the men to be assiduous in nocturnal prayers, because they were not free during the day. This, however, vexed the more negligent among the clergy, who were accustomed to sleep the whole night. Palladius in the *Life of St. Chrysostom*, etc.

^A Since he appeared harsh to the ecclesiastics at the very beginning of his episcopate, he became hated by them, and many were unfavorably disposed toward him and avoided him as a quick-tempered man. Serapio, his deacon, who was under his authority, incited him to provoke everyone. One day, in the presence of the clergy, he cried out to the bishop with a loud voice: "You will never be able, O bishop, to master these men unless you drive them all away with one rod." This remark stirred up hatred against the bishop. Not long after, the bishop cast many out of the Church for various reasons; and they, as is wont to happen in such movements of those in power, formed factions against him and employed calumnies before the ^B people. What led the listeners to believe these allegations was the fact that the bishop was unwilling to eat with anyone, or even to attend when invited to a banquet; and from this the greater calumny against him especially prevailed. But for what purpose he was unwilling to eat with anyone, no one has been able to clearly report. For those who wished to defend him said that he was infirm and had a stomach that was easily upset, and for that reason he ate alone. Others said that he did this because of his extraordinarily ascetic life. However, whatever the truth of the matter may have been, it contributed not a little to the calumny on the part of his detractors. The people, however, because of the sermons which he delivered in the church, favored him and followed him with singular love, despising those who attempted to accuse him. What the sermons were, both those edited by him and those taken down by shorthand writers from his own lips, and how brilliant they were and adapted to winning over the souls of his hearers, what need is there to say now, when it is open to those ^C who wish to read them and derive abundant profit from them?

CHAPTER V

As long as John attacked only the clergy, the plots formed against him were weak. But after he [had offended] many of those in high station beyond what was appropriate—

those who were harsh as they should not have been—then a heavier envy burned against him. And many things were being said against him; for the most part, ^A they were subsequently accepted by the listeners as true. The discourse which he delivered at that time against Eutropius added no small increment to the calumny. For Eutropius, a eunuch who was prefect of the imperial bedchamber and the first among the eunuchs to receive the dignity of consul from the emperor, wishing to take vengeance on certain persons who had taken refuge in the church, had exerted himself to have a law promulgated by the emperors, ordering that no one should take refuge in the churches, and that those who had already taken refuge should be dragged out. But justice immediately followed. For the law had been enacted, and not long after, Eutropius, having offended the emperor, was himself among the refugees. The bishop, therefore, while Eutropius was lying under the altar and trembling with fear, sat upon the ^B ambo (19)—from which he was accustomed even before to speak in order to be heard more easily—and delivered an accusatory discourse against him. At which he seemed to offend still more people, because he not only did not pity a man experiencing misfortune, but on the contrary even rebuked him. Eutropius, then holding the consular dignity at the time, was ordered by the emperor because of certain offenses to have his head cut off; and his name was removed from the list of consuls, and only that of his colleague, Theodore, was written (20). It is also said that the bishop John, using his customary boldness, harshly rebuked the general Gainas, who at that time was commander of the army, because he dared to beg of the emperor that one church within the city be granted to his coreligionists, the Arians. For another cause, moreover, he rebuked yet another of those in power with great boldness, on account of which he was at odds with many. ^C Whence also Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, immediately after his ordination, plotted how he might entrap him; and with some of those present he spoke about this secretly, and to many who were far away he announced his own intention. For he was grieved not only by John's excessive boldness, but that...

he had in no way been able to promote his own presbyter, Isidore, to the bishopric of Constantinople. ^A Such was the state of affairs for Bishop John; and immediately at the very beginning of his episcopate, evil loomed over him. But we shall speak more of his affairs in the course of our narrative.

CAP. VI. Of the tyranny of Gainas the Goth, the tumult he excited at Constantinople, and his death.

^B Now I shall recount a matter worthy of memory that occurred in those very times: how divine providence delivered the royal city and the Roman state from most grave danger by unexpected aid. What this matter is, must now be told. Gainas was a barbarian by birth; but having fled to the Romans and signed up for military service, he advanced little by little to a higher rank, and at length was appointed Master of Both Militias—that is, of both the infantry and the cavalry. ^C When he had attained such power, he could neither recognize himself nor govern his own mind, but began, as the common saying goes, to move every stone so that he might bring the Roman Empire under his own control. He summoned the whole race of the Goths from their own lands. He took care for his own kinsmen to be placed in charge of military ranks. Furthermore, when a certain Tribigild, one of his associates who was a tribune of the soldiers in Phrygia, had instigated a rebellion at the urging of Gainas and was laying waste the whole of Phrygia far and wide, Gainas took care that the responsibility for this business be committed to him. ^D Emperor Arcadius granted this with a willing mind, suspecting no evil. Gainas therefore set out immediately, in appearance against Tribigild, but in reality to seize the tyranny, leading with him a very great multitude of Gothic barbarians. When he had entered Phrygia, he began to overturn everything. A grave fear suddenly seized the Romans, both because of the huge number of barbarians who were with Gainas, and because the most wealthy provinces of the East, suitable for every purpose, were in danger of falling. Then the Emperor, exercising good judgment for the present occasion, dealt with the barbarian by craft. Having sent to him, he was ready to appease him with all words and deeds. But…

when he demanded that two men of the first rank of the senate, of consular dignity—Saturninus and Aurelian, whom he thought could withstand his designs—be delivered to him as hostages, the emperor, yielding to the necessity of the time, reluctantly delivered them. And they, indeed, ready to die for the common good, willingly and with stout heart obeyed the emperor’s command, and went out far ^A from Chalcedon, to the place called the Hippodrome, to meet the barbarian, prepared to suffer whatever he might choose. Yet they suffered no harm; for Gaina, using simulation, came to Chalcedon. Emperor Arcadius also met him there. When both had entered the church, in which the body of the martyr Euphemia is laid to rest, they confirmed with mutual oaths that neither would plot against the other. The emperor, indeed, as a man who religiously honored the faith of an oath, and because of this was pleasing to God, stood by his oaths. But Gaina both violated the treaty and did not depart from his original ^B purpose, but intended to carry out arson and pillage against the city of Constantinople, and, if he could, against the entire Roman Empire. Thus the city was turned into a barbarian land by the many myriads, and its inhabitants seemed like captives. And so great was the danger hanging over the city that a comet—of the largest size, extending from heaven to the very earth, and such as no one had ever seen before—announced it. Gaina, therefore, first attempted to shamelessly plunder the money publicly sold in the silversmiths' shops. But when, through rumors having preceded him, the silversmiths took ^C precautions and did not display their silver on the tables, he turned to another plan; and being night, he sent a multitude of barbarians to burn the palaces. Then it was manifested clearly how God was providing for the city. For a multitude of angels was seen by those who were plotting, in the form of soldiers, with bodies of great size. When the barbarians suspected these to be in truth a great and noble army, they were struck with terror and retreated. And when this was reported to Gaina, it appeared beyond belief. For he knew that the main body of the Roman ^D army was not present; for it was stationed throughout the cities. He sent others again on the following night, and many times thereafter. And as the same was reported to him by those he sent in various ways—for the angels of God always presented the same vision to those who were plotting—until he himself

^B approached with a great multitude to witness the miracle for himself. Suspecting that it was in fact a multitude of soldiers who remained hidden by day but opposed his designs by night, he conceived a plan which, while he thought it would be destructive to the Romans, proved, as the outcome showed, to be highly beneficial to them. Feigning madness, he set off as if to pray to the martyr-shrine of the Apostle John—which is distant from the city by seven milestones—and arrives there. The barbarians went forth with him, secretly carrying their weapons, some of which they had hidden in casks, while others they carried using various stratagems. But when the guards at the gates discovered the trick and prevented the weapons from being carried out, the barbarians drew their swords and slew the guards. A terrible uproar then gripped the city, and to everyone, death seemed imminent. Nevertheless, the city remained safe, as its gates were barred on all sides. The emperor, employing prudent counsel in a timely manner, declared Gainas a public enemy and ordered the barbarians remaining in the city to be put to death. After the day had passed since the guards of the gates were slain, the soldiers who were present engaged the barbarians within the gates, near the church of the Goths, for it was there that all those who had remained in the city had gathered. They burned the church itself and slaughtered a great many of them. Gainas, having learned that those who had not managed to escape the gates had been killed, and perceiving that his deceits were no longer succeeding for him, left the basilica of John in Thrace and marched toward the Thracian regions; and having then reached the Chersonese with a vast multitude of barbarians, he sought to cross from there and seize Lampsacus, so that from that position he might invade the eastern regions. But since the emperor had anticipated him by sending forces both by land and sea, the marvelous work ^C of God's providence was again demonstrated here. For as the barbarians, lacking ships, fashioned rafts and attempted to cross on them, Roman naval vessels appeared when least expected, and a strong West wind began to blow. And while the Romans were sailing across easily in their ships, the barbarians, together with their horses on the rafts, were tossed about by the surge and capsized, perishing in the sea. Many also were killed by the Romans. Thus, indeed, the greater part of the ^D barbarians was destroyed in that crossing.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(24) There were two churches of Saint John at the seventh milestone: one, namely, that of John the Baptist, which Theodosius the Great built when he deposited the sacred head of the Forerunner there, as Sozomenus writes (bk. VII, ch. 21); the other of Saint John the Evangelist, of whom Socrates makes mention here. Constantine Porphyrogenitus makes mention of both in the *Life of Emperor Basil*, p. 162 of the Allatius edition; and Codinus in his *Origines*, p. 55.

(25) "After the slaying of the gates." It is not certain whether Socrates wrote this, or rather "after the slaying of the gatekeepers." For the guards of the gates had been slain by the soldiers of Gainas the previous day, as Socrates reported a little earlier.

VARIORUM.

* Sozomenus more correctly understands the church dedicated to John the Baptist (bk. IV, ch. 8), the same, that is, which Theodosius had built in the suburbs of Constantinople. See the same author, bk. VII, ch. 21. W. LOWTH.

^A and perished. Gainas, having decamped and fleeing through Thrace, fell in with another force of Romans, and was slain together with the barbarians who were with him. And let these things be said by way of a summary regarding Gainas. But if anyone desires to learn accurately the events that took place in that war, let him read the *Gainia* of Eusebius the Scholastic, who at that time was a student of Troilus the Sophist; having been an eyewitness of the war, he narrated the events in four books in heroic verse. And because the events were fresh, he was highly admired for his poems. And now, too, the poet Ammonius, having composed an epic on the same subject, recited his poem before the emperor in the sixteenth consulship of the younger Theodosius, which he held together with Faustus, and achieved great fame. This war found its end in the consulship of Stilicho and Aurelian. The following consulship was held by ^B Fravitus, himself a Goth by race, but endowed with great loyalty toward the Romans, and who had fought valiantly in this war. For this reason, he shared in the consulship, during which a son was born to the emperor Arcadius, the noble Theodosius, on the tenth day of the month of April. So much, then, for these matters.

But while the Roman state was so greatly burdened, those to whom the priesthood had been entrusted in no way refrained from weaving plots against each other, to the shame of Christianity. For at this time the priests were devising seditions against one another. The evil took its beginning in Egypt, for the following reason:

Chapter VII. Of the dissension which arose between Theophilus of Alexandria and the monks dwelling in the solitude; and how Theophilus anathematized the books of Origen.

^A A question had been raised a little before, whether God is a body and possessed of a human figure, or is incorporeal and alien not only to human, but to every corporeal figure at all. From this question, strifes and contentions arose among many; some favoring one opinion, others taking up the defense of the other. Many of the simpler monks indeed maintained that God was corporeal and possessed of human form. But a greater number, disapproving of this opinion, affirmed that God is incorporeal and entirely void of any corporeal figure. To these, Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, also assented, so much so that he railed publicly in the church before the people against those who said that God was possessed of human form, and himself asserted that God was incorporeal. Upon learning this, the Egyptian monks left their monasteries and came to Alexandria; and having stirred up a tumult against Theophilus, they condemned him for impiety, and desired to kill him. ^B Being informed of this, Theophilus was thrown into the greatest difficulty, and devised a stratagem by which he might escape the death threatened against him. Advancing to meet them, he began to flatter them, saying: "I see you as if I were looking at the face of God." This remark of his mitigated the spirits of the monks. Then they said: "If you truly say, as you do, that the face of God is like our own, anathematize the books of Origen. For some of those who argue from those books oppose our opinion. If you do not do this, expect from us that which it is fitting for the impious and enemies of the divine name to suffer." But Theophilus said, "I will do whatever seems good to you, and do not be angry with me; for I myself am averse to the books of Origen, and I judge those who accept them worthy of reproach." In this way, then, Theophilus dismissed the monks whom he had for the moment repulsed. And perhaps the question which had proceeded thus far would have been completely put to rest, had not another matter of this kind immediately followed: Four religious men presided over the monasteries in Egypt: Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius; these were brothers, ^C and were called the Long for their stature. There were also...

^D [alt-version omitted]

Valesii Annotations.

Miscellaneous.

^A Ambius and Euthymius, who were indeed brothers by birth; but because of their stature, they were commonly called the Long Brothers. Moreover, they excelled as much in the purity of their lives as in erudition. And for this reason, their fame was celebrated in Alexandria. Theophilus, also, the bishop of the Alexandrian city, followed them with singular benevolence and respect. Therefore, he compelled one of them, namely Dioscorus, by force, and appointed him bishop of Hermopolis; but he asked two others to stay with him. And although he persuaded them with difficulty, yet as bishop he finally compelled them; and having honored them with the rank of clergy ^B (29), he committed to them the stewardship of the Church. They, however, remained, though under necessity, and attended to the stewardship well. Yet they were chafing, for they could not live the philosophical life as they wished, but were kept away from their ascetic practices. But when, as time went on, and they thought that their own souls were being harmed, observing that the bishop was devoted to a money-making life, and was placing much effort into the acquisition of wealth—doing, as the saying goes, everything possible for this—they requested [(30)] to stay with him no longer, claiming that they desired the solitude, and that they preferred this to the way of living in the city. He, for his part, as long as he did not know the true excuse, kept coaxing them to remain. But when he knew that he was being judged by them, he was filled with anger and threatened to do them every evil. But because they cared little for his threats and had departed into the desert, Theophilus, being, as it seems, of a hot temperament, did not make a small stir against them, but labored to contrive against these men by all manner of devices. He also immediately began to hate their brother Dioscorus, the bishop of Hermopolis. For it grieved him considerably that the ascetics were attached to him and had great reverence for him. He knew that he would not be able to harm the men in any way unless he made the monks hostile to them. He therefore uses this method: ^C He knew well that the men had often discussed with him concerning God, namely that God is incorporeal and in no wise anthropomorphic—for the anthropomorphic view necessarily entails the anthropopathic; and this had been studied by the ancients, and especially by Origen. Theophilus, having and thinking this way concerning God, in order to take vengeance on his enemies, did not hesitate to twist that which had been well-taught by them; but he snatched away the majority of the monks ^D and ...

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

(29) *Honored them with the rank of clergy.* Joan Launoi, in his book *On the correct interpretation of the sixth Nicene canon*, adduces this passage of Socrates to prove that the bishop of Alexandria ordained all the bishops, presbyters, and deacons throughout Egypt. He observes here that Theophilus did two things: first, that he appointed Dioscorus bishop of Hermopolis, and then that he ordained his two brothers as clerks and attached them to the same Dioscorus. Launoi certainly believed that Ammonius and his brother were made clerks of the Hermopolitan Church by Theophilus. I see that the author of the *Sacra Geographia* held this same opinion. But both were mistaken. For Theophilus did not make them clerks of the Hermopolitan Church, but kept them with himself, and ordained them as clerks of his own Church, that is, the Alexandrian. That this is so is testified to by Socrates in these words: etc. That is, *He asked two of them to stay with him*, etc. That is, *he asked two of them*, etc. But what follows in Socrates, namely that they were made stewards of the Church by Theophilus, and that at first they took it ill that they had been drawn away from the solitude and could no longer be at leisure for the philosophical [life of the] monks; but finally, when they perceived the incredible avarice and greed for wealth of Theophilus, and noticed that they were being defiled by his company, they asked to be released from him. From which words it is sufficiently gathered that they had been living together with Theophilus, and as his roommates and household members, had perceived his vices and robberies, inasmuch as they were stewards, that is, dispensers of the ecclesiastical money. Furthermore, the translation of Epiphanius Scholasticus misled the learned men, who interprets this place thus: "Wherefore he violently dragged Dioscorus, and made him bishop of Hermopolis. But he asked two of them to dwell with him, and scarcely, as bishop, did he order them: having made them clerks, he instituted them as stewards of the Church."

(30) *And requested.* I read *παρῃτοῦντο*, "they requested [no longer to be with him]."

^A many times and with strong arguments, asserted that God is incorporeal and entirely without human form. For human passions necessarily accompany human form. And this had been thoroughly examined by the ancient writers of the Church, and especially by Origen. Since, therefore, Theophilus thought this way about God, nevertheless, in order to avenge himself on his enemies, he did not hesitate to attack those things which they had correctly asserted along with him. He deceived many of the monks, men who were simple and sincere, but unlearned, and for the most part lacking in letters. For having sent letters to those who were living in the desert, he warned them not to listen to Dioscorus and his brothers, who said that God was incorporeal. For God, he said, according to the divine Scripture, has both eyes and ears, and hands and feet, just as men do. But those around Dioscorus, following Origen, introduce an impious dogma, as if God had neither eyes, nor ears, nor feet, nor hands. With this sophism he took the majority of the monks by surprise; and a burning discord arose among them. Those who had a disciplined mind were not taken in by the sophism, but believed those around Dioscorus and Origen. But the simpler ones, who were more numerous and possessed a fervent zeal, ^B immediately marched against their brothers. There was, therefore, a division among them, and they reviled one another as impious. And those who sided with Theophilus called their brothers Origenists and impious; others, on the contrary, named those persuaded by Theophilus Anthropomorphites. From this, no small friction arose, and there was an unappeasable war among the monks. But when Theophilus realized that the matter had proceeded according to his intention, he went to Nitria with a great multitude of men, where the monks' dwellings were, and he armed the monks against Dioscorus ^C and his brothers. Having been brought into the greatest danger of their lives, they barely managed to escape. While these things were happening in Egypt, John, the bishop of Constantinople, was for the time being unaware of all this; he was flourishing in doctrine and eloquence, and was held in high regard everywhere for his sermons. He was the first also to amplify the prayers which are accustomed to be said in the nocturnal hymns, for the following reason:

CAP. VIII. Concerning the assemblies for nocturnal hymns, both of the Arians and of those who profess the consubstantial, and concerning the conflict which happened among them; and that the chanting of antiphons had its beginning from Ignatius the Deiferous.

The Arians, as I said before, held their ecclesiastical assemblies outside the city. Therefore, every week ^D

as often as feast days occurred, I mean the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, on which it is customary for gatherings to take place in the churches, they would assemble within the city gates around the public porticoes, and chanting hymns composed in accordance with the Arian heresy, they would answer one another. This they did for the greater part of the night. At dawn, chanting these same antiphons, they would go through the middle of the city and pass out of the gates, so as to reach the places where they held their meetings. But because they did not cease to provoke those who held the opinion of the consubstantiality ^A by saying things, for they often sang a song such as this: “Where are those who say that the three are one power?”—John, fearing that some of the simpler sort might be drawn away from the Church by such songs, set against them some of those of his own people, so that they too, by devoting themselves to nocturnal psalmody, might both obscure their zeal regarding this matter and confirm his own people in their own faith. Now, John’s purpose seemed good, but the end result was received with turmoil and danger. For as the hymns of the supporters of the consubstantiality appeared more brilliant in these nocturnal hymn-singings—for silver crosses had been devised by him, bearing lights from waxen candles, with Eudoxia the Augusta providing the expense for them—the Arians, who were numerous and seized by jealousy, attempted to defend themselves and to provoke a brawl. For, from the power they had previously held, they were still heated for battle and despised their opponents. Therefore, without hesitating, on one of the nights they clashed, ^B and Briso, the eunuch of the Augusta, who at that time was in charge of training the singers, was struck on the forehead with a stone. Some of the people from both sides also perished. Moved by these events, the emperor forbade the Arians from holding their hymn-singings in public. Such were the events that occurred. It must also be stated from where the custom of antiphonal hymns in the church took its beginning. Ignatius of Antioch in Syria, the third from the apostle ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(32) Ignatius of Antioch in Syria. I do not know where Socrates derived this. It is established that Flavian and Diodorus, during the reign of Constantius, were the first of all to divide the choirs of singers at Antioch into two parts and to instruct them to sing the Davidic Psalms alternately, and that this custom was first instituted at Antioch, and afterwards spread to the remaining churches of the whole world. Theodoret testifies to this in his History, book II, chapter 24. And before him, Theodoret of Mopsuestia, who lived in the same times as Flavian and Diodorus. Nicetas records the words of Theodore in the *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, book V, chapter 30. Although that kind of psalmody seems to have been used by the Syrians even before Flavian and Diodorus. For Theodore writes that Flavian and Diodorus were the first of all to translate that species of psalmody which they call antiphons from the Syrian language into Greek, and appeared to all parts of the world as the authors of this thing, which was almost universal. Therefore, what the Syrians had done long before Flavian—singing the Davidic Psalms antiphonally in the Syriac tongue—Flavian and Diodorus instituted to be done by the Greek Antiochians singing the Psalms in Greek.

VARIOUS NOTES.

The most eminent Cardinal John Bona, in his book *On Divine Psalmody*, chapter 16, observed that Theodoret is not to be understood as referring to just any alternate singing, but only to the Davidic Psalms; and that Flavian and Diodorus, by dividing the choir of singers into two parts, were the first to institute that the Davidic Psalms should be sung alternately, and that they had translated that species of psalmody from the Syrian language into Greek; and that therefore the reliability of Socrates ought not to be denied. That alternation, however, was not immediately propagated to all parts of the world, since Cassian, in his book *On the Institutions of the Cenobites*, chapter 5, etc., reports that in his own time this custom prevailed, such that while the others sat and were intent with every intention of their heart upon the voice of the one singing, one in their midst would sing the whole psalm alone. Furthermore, no matter how great a multitude had gathered, never would more than four monks sing in the synaxis; a practice which I have learned is observed even today in certain monasteries in Gaul. It flourished

^A in the congregation, and he saw a vision of angels celebrating the Holy Trinity with antiphonal hymns, and he handed down the method of the vision to the Church at Antioch. Whence this tradition was disseminated to all the churches. This then is my account of antiphonal hymns.

CHAPTER IX. Concerning the monks called the Long, and how through them Theophilus, having conceived an implacable hatred against John, sought to depose him.

Not long after, ^B monks from the desert came to Constantinople, along with Dioscorus and his brothers. With them was Isidore, who had once been most dear to Bishop Theophilus, but at that time had become most hateful to him, for the following reason: A certain Peter was the archpresbyter of the Church at Alexandria. Theophilus, having conceived a hatred toward him, determined to expel him from the Church; and he brought a charge against him, namely that he had admitted a certain woman, a Manichaean by religion, into the holy mysteries before he had turned her from the error of the Manichaeans. But when Peter stated that the woman had renounced her sect and had not been received against the will of Theophilus, Theophilus was enraged, as if he were being slandered; for he insisted that he had no knowledge of what had happened. Peter, therefore, called upon Isidore to bear witness for him, that the bishop was not unaware of the matters concerning the woman. At that time, Isidore happened to be passing his time ^C in the imperial city of Rome; for he had been sent by Theophilus to Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to... ^D

induce him to be reconciled with Flavian, the bishop of Antioch. For those who cleaved to Meletius were separating themselves from Flavian on account of the oath, as I have mentioned before. ^A Isidore therefore, upon returning from Rome and being called upon to bear witness by Peter, asserted that the Manichaean woman had been received with the bishop’s consent, and that the bishop himself had imparted the sacred mysteries to her. In consequence, Theophilus became enraged and drove them both from the church. ^B This became the pretext for Isidore, along with those around Dioscorus, to go to Constantinople so that they might expose, in the presence of the emperor himself and of Bishop John, the machinations that had been devised against them. When John learned of these things, he treated the men with honor and did not stop them from participating in prayers, but he said that he would not grant them communion in the sacred mysteries before the cause had been adjudicated. While matters were in this state, a false rumor reached the ears of Theophilus that John had admitted them to the sacred mysteries as well, and that he was prepared to render them aid. He therefore became desperate and began to exert his every effort to not only take vengeance on Dioscorus and Isidore, but to cast John from his throne. He therefore sent letters to the bishops of every city, concealing his own purpose, but ostensibly blaming, in those letters, the books of Origen, whose testimony Athanasius, long before him, had made use of many times in his orations against the Arians to confirm his own faith.

CAPUT X. How Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, having been deceived by the wiles of Theophilus, gathered a synod of bishops against the books of Origen and rebuked John on account of his reading of those books.

^C He also restored his friendship with Epiphanius, the bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, from whom he had previously been estranged. For Theophilus had accused Epiphanius of holding mean opinions about God, in that he believed Him to be anthropomorphic. As therefore Theophilus held such [an opinion] about God, and rebuked those who thought that the Divine was endowed with a human form—yet, out of the hatred which he bore toward others, he denied in public what he [actually] believed—he sought to win over...

^A Epiphanius, being at variance with him, as if [Epiphanius] had repented and now shared his opinion regarding God; and he arranged for a synod of the bishops in Cyprus to be held, by which the books of Origen would be condemned. Epiphanius, however, being a man of extreme piety and having a very simple character, was easily swayed by the letters of Theophilus. And having convened a council of the bishops of the whole island, he issued a prohibition against reading the books of Origen. He also sent letters to Bishop John, exhorting him both to abstain from the readings of Origen and himself to gather a synod and reach a similar verdict. Theophilus, therefore, having ensnared Epiphanius—who was famed for his piety—and having perceived that his own purpose was advancing, ^B took heart and himself gathered many of the bishops; and he made an accusation against the books of Origen—who had died nearly two hundred years prior—similar to that of Epiphanius, not having this as his primary objective, but rather seeking to take vengeance upon Dioscorus and his brothers. John, however, paying little heed to the things signaled to him by both Epiphanius and Theophilus himself, applied his mind to the teaching of the Churches. And he flourished in this [task] all the more; but the stratagems that were being devised against him he utterly disregarded. But after it became manifest to the many that Theophilus was acting to strip John of his bishopric, then indeed those who were ill-disposed toward John were roused to plot against him. And many of the clergy, as well as many of the nobles who possessed great power ^C at the palace, reckoning that they had found an opportune time in which they might avenge themselves upon John, arranged for a very great synod to take place in Constantinople, summoning [bishops] partly through letters, and partly through messengers sent without written documentation.

Chapter 11. On Severianus and Antiochus the Syrians, and how and for what reasons they dissented from John.

Furthermore, another cause of this kind vehemently increased the hatred against John: two bishops, Syrians by birth, were flourishing at that same time, Severianus and Antiochus. Severianus [was bishop] of Gabala, which is a city of Syria; and Antiochus [was bishop] of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. ^D

Phoenice. Both were held in high regard on account of their eloquence. Severianus, indeed, although he appeared to be very learned, did not pronounce the Greek language very distinctly; but while he spoke in Greek, something of the Syrian tone resounded in his voice. Antiochus, for his part, since he had come earlier from Ptolemais to Constantinople, and after having taught for a time in the churches of the royal city with great diligence, had collected a large sum of money from this, he returned to his own church. Later, however, Severianus, hearing that Antiochus had made a great profit in Constantinople, studied to imitate his example. Having therefore exercised himself for a long time, and having prepared many discourses, he himself also came to Constantinople. And having been gladly received by John, for a time he courted and flattered the man, and he also was equally loved and honored by him, and he flourished in his public addresses, and on that account became well-known to many of the nobles of the city, and even to the emperor himself. ^B It happened by chance that the bishop of the Ephesians departed from this life at that time. For this reason, it was necessary for John to travel there to ordain a bishop. When, therefore, he had arrived in Ephesus, and different parties were eager to promote different men to the episcopacy, and were contending sharply with one another on behalf of those for whom each was voting, John, perceiving that both parties were disposed contentiously and were unwilling to be persuaded by any of his exhortations, endeavored to resolve their strife without weariness. He himself, therefore, put forward a certain deacon of his, Heraclides by name, a Cypriot by birth, for the episcopacy; and thus both parties, having laid aside their stubborn contention, became quiet. ^C It became necessary, therefore, for John to tarry for a longer time in the city of Ephesus. Meanwhile, while he was making his stay there, Severianus was becoming more dear to the listeners in Constantinople. Nor did this matter escape John, since all things were quickly reported to him. When, therefore, Serapio, of whom we have made mention a little earlier, had suggested this to John, and had reported that the Church was being disturbed by Severianus, John was inflamed with jealousy. Having therefore, in passing, stripped the Novatians and the Quartodecimans of many churches, he returned to Constantinople. And he himself resumed the care of the churches that had been entrusted to him. But there was no one who could bear the pride and arrogance of Serapio. For since he had attained the utmost freedom and confidence with Bishop John, he insulted everyone beyond what was proper. Hence, the hatred against the bishop also burned more fiercely. At one time, moreover, when Severianus was passing by, he did not render to him the honor that is due to a bishop, but remained sitting, showing that he cared little for the presence of Severianus. Severianus could not endure this ^D treatment from Serapio—

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

^A wisdom; and in addition to this, he cried out loudly, saying: "If Serapion dies a Christian, then Christ has not become man." Serapion, seizing this occasion, openly rendered Severianus an enemy to John, suppressing the qualification of what was said, "If Serapion dies a Christian," and alleging only that Severianus had said, "Christ has not become man." And he brought forward a crowd of his own faction as witnesses to this statement, as if it had been made. John, therefore, without delay, expelled him from the city. When the Augusta Eudoxia learned of this, she reproved John, but immediately gave orders for Severianus to be recalled from Chalcedon in Bithynia. He arrived immediately. John, however, withdrew from his intimacy and would not listen to anyone urging him to do otherwise, until finally the Augusta Eudoxia, in the Church of the Apostles, cast her son Theodosius—who now reigns happily, but was at that time still a young child—at John's knees, and having adjured him with many oaths, she scarcely persuaded him to embrace the friendship of Severianus. In this way, they were reconciled before the public eye; yet they remained, for all that, keeping in their hearts a treacherous disposition toward each other. Such was the cause of the grievance against Severianus.

CAP. XII.

Not long after, ^B Epiphanius, the bishop from the island of Cyprus, arrives at Constantinople again, persuaded by the suggestions of Theophilus... ^C

[End of page text. Valesius Annotations and Variorum notes translated below.]

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (38-39) "And the Empress Eudoxia." I think it should be written "until the Empress." I do not doubt that it was so written by Socrates. Certainly Nicephorus has it written distinctly as I have emended it. In Sozomen it is read as meaning the same. (40) "And adjuring by him." Interpreters have translated this very poorly, as the reader can see from a comparison of our version. (41) "Having adjured [by his] son." The ancients were accustomed to swear by their children. Thus in Virgil: "By this head I swear, and by the hope of the rising Iulus." In the same way, when they wished to implore others, they besought them by their children and whatever they held most dear. Thus, therefore, Eudoxia spoke to John Chrysostom at that time: "By this little child of mine, and your spiritual son, whom I bore, whom you received from the sacred font, return to favor with Severianus." Certainly Chrysostom had received Theodosius the younger from the sacred font, as Nicephorus reports in this place, and according to Simeon Metaphrastes, as I believe. Furthermore, Baronius assigns this reconciliation of Severianus and Chrysostom to the year of Christ 401, in the consulship of Vincentius and Fravitus. I, however, prefer to assign it to the following year. For if it is true that Theodosius was then baptized in the sacred font, as we reported above from Nicephorus—which is certainly very probable, for Eudoxia would not have brought another of her sons into the Church of the Apostles unless he had already been baptized—then this reconciliation of the bishops must have happened in the year of Christ 402. For Theodosius the younger was born in the consulship of Vincentius and Fravitus, which was the year of Christ 401, on the 4th of the Ides of April. For so it is read in the Alexandrian Chronicle, and in the Chronicle of Marcellinus which Onufrius published. It is wrongly read in the Sirmond edition as the 3rd of the Ides of April. Nor is it credible that he could have been baptized except at the Easter of the following year. If, however, anyone should contend that he received baptism a few days after he was born, as Mark seems to suggest in the *Life of Porphyrius*, let us concede it, if you please. But who would believe that Theodosius had been brought by his mother into the church, and placed at the knees of Chrysostom, before he had completed one year, or ten months?

VARIORUM. * The same is also reported by Theophanes in his Chronicle. Truly, this does not seem probable, since, as Georgius Alexandrinus and others testify, Eudoxia at that time was angry with Chrysostom because the holy prelate had rebuked her rather severely on account of the vineyard of a certain widow she had usurped. Concerning which matter see Ant. Pagi, at the year 401, n. 26.

He arrived from Cyprus at Constantinople, induced by the counsels of Theophilus, bringing with him a copy of a synodal sentence whereby he had not indeed excommunicated Origen himself, but had condemned the books written by him. Having arrived at the shrine of St. John, which is seven miles distant from the city, he disembarked, held an assembly there, and having ordained a deacon ^A, he subsequently entered the city. He declined the invitation of John, wishing to gratify Theophilus, and lodged in a private house. Having gathered together all the bishops who were then in the royal city, he read to them the sentence of condemnation pronounced against the books of Origen; having, however, nothing to urge against those books, except that it had pleased Theophilus himself to reject them. And some indeed, out of reverence for Epiphanius, subscribed to this decree, but many refused to do so. Of this number was also Theotimus, bishop of Scythia, who answered Epiphanius thus: ^B "I, O Epiphanius, neither wish to insult one who has long since departed in piety, nor do I dare to attempt an impious deed by condemning things which our forefathers did not reject, especially as I know that nothing of evil doctrine is to be found in the books of Origen." At the same time, producing a certain book of Origen, he began to read it and showed the ecclesiastical expositions contained in it. Then he added these words: "Those who insult these books, they themselves surely do not notice that they are insulting the very volumes concerning which those books were written." These are the things which Theotimus, a man most famous for his piety and the integrity of his life, answered to Epiphanius. ^C

CAP. XIII. What this writer says in defense of Origen.

Since those who are led by a spirit of detraction have seduced many, turning them away from the reading of Origen as if they were impious, I do not think it inappropriate to discourse briefly upon these persons. Vile and obscure men, who cannot become famous by their own merits, attempt to acquire a reputation from the vituperation of their superiors. Methodius, bishop of the Lycian city called Olympus, first labored under this disease. Then Eustathius, who for a short space of time ruled the Church at Antioch; and after him Apollinaris, and finally Theophilus. This is the quartet of calumniators, ^D who…

though they did not walk along the same path, nevertheless came together to slander the man; for they went onto his accusation for different reasons. Since each one attacked a different doctrine of his, it is clear that each one, by not attacking what he did not criticize, accepted that as undeniably true; for by keeping silent, he was implicitly praising that which he did not slander. ^B Methodius, therefore, after having assailed Origen at length, later, as if singing a palinode, admires the man in the dialogue which he titled *Xenon*. I would say, however, that there is something more to be gained from their accusation for the vindication of Origen. For the fact that those who stirred up everything they thought worthy of blame did not fault him at all for holding incorrect opinions about the holy Trinity, shows clearly that they were testifying to his correct piety. Thus, they testify to him by the very fact of not blaming him in this regard. Athanasius, moreover, the doughty defender of the consubstantial faith, in his orations against the Arians, calls the man a witness to his own faith with a loud voice, linking the other’s words to his own and saying: "The admirable and most industrious Origen," he says, "testifies to our doctrine regarding the Son of God, calling Him coeternal with the Father." Therefore, those who have insulted Origen have unwittingly blasphemed even Athanasius, his admirer. Let so much have been said concerning Origen; let us now return to the order of the history.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(46) "Later, as if singing a palinode, he admires him." Baronius accuses Socrates of falsehood and calumny here, because he says that Methodius, although he had previously attacked Origen with reproaches, later sang a palinode and preached his praises in a dialogue titled *Xeno*, or *The Hostel*. But Baronius affirms that Methodius did the opposite. For while he praised Origen at the beginning, later, having discovered his errors, he attacked him. And Baronius confirms this with the testimony of Eusebius, who in Book VI of the *Apology for Origen* writes thus: "How did Methodius dare to write against Origen now, when he spoke such and such things about the dogmas of Origen?" This passage of Eusebius is cited by Jerome in the *Apology against Rufinus* to show that he did the same thing that Methodius had done earlier. Eusebius, however, in the cited passage does not openly say that Methodius had previously spoken in favor of Origen. For he does not say, "he who had spoken such and such things about the dogmas of Origen," but only, "he spoke," which can be taken in either sense. Therefore, Socrates is not to be accused of falsehood.

(47) *In the dialogue to which he gave the title Xenon.* Methodius had written his books almost in the fashion of dialogues, as is apparent both from his *Symposium*, which has recently been published by two very learned men, and from his books *On the Resurrection*, which he had written against Origen, from which Epiphanius provides certain excerpts. Such also was the dialogue of the same author titled *Xenon*, that is, *The Hostel*, in which guests are lodged. For as the "virgin-chamber" is a domicile for virgins, so the *xenon* is a domicile for guests. Mention of this book is made in Photius’s *Bibliotheca*, in the excerpts from Methodius’s book, where it is read: "...the great Methodius says." This passage the interpreter translates very badly. But it should be translated thus: "That passage of the Gospel, 'Do not throw what is holy to the dogs' (Matt. VII, 6), as explained by Xenon, such that the pearls are the more mysterious secrets of divine wisdom, but the swine, etc.," says Saint Methodius, etc. Therefore, in this dialogue, which was titled *Xenon*, a certain Origenist was introduced, named Xenon, against whom Methodius was disputing, not in his own name, but under another persona, as Photius testifies in the same excerpts. From these things, it appears that the dialogue...

VARIOUS.

Let, however, this passage of the critical opinion of the renowned George Bull concerning Origen be given: "Allow me," he says, "having not negligently studied the writings of Origen, and after accurately weighing the history of him described by the ancients, to express my judgment on his theology freely and generally, without..." [index: entries preserved]

CHAPTER XIV.

John was not indeed indignant at the fact that Epiphanius had performed an ordination in his church contrary to the rule; but he entreated him to remain with him in the episcopal residence. He, however, said he would neither remain with him, nor pray with him, unless he expelled Dioscorus and his companions from the city, and himself subscribed to the condemnation of the books of Origen. As John deferred doing this, and said it was not right to act rashly before a general synod’s decision, those who were hostile to John suggested another plan to Epiphanius. For when a gathering was about to be held in the church named after the Apostles, they arranged for Epiphanius ^B to come forward, and in the presence of all the people, first to condemn the books of Origen, then to excommunicate Dioscorus and his followers, and at the same time to cast aspersions on John, as one who favored them. This was reported to John, who, the next day, as Epiphanius had already entered the church, signified the following to him through Serapion: "You are doing many things contrary to the canons, O Epiphanius; first, by performing an ordination in the churches under my jurisdiction; then, because you celebrated the divine liturgy in them without being commissioned by me, using your own authority. Moreover, you were invited to be a guest, yet refused, and now you take it upon yourself once more. Beware, therefore, that having stirred up a tumult among the people, you do not yourself undergo the danger resulting from it."

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

^A Hearing these things, Epiphanius was alarmed and withdrew from the church. Being much displeased with John, he prepared to set sail for Cyprus. Some say that when he was about to depart, he declared these things to John: "I hope you will not die a bishop." John replied to him in turn: "I hope you will not reach your own country." Whether those who reported these things to me told the truth, I cannot say; yet both men experienced such an outcome. For Epiphanius did not reach Cyprus; having departed, he died on the ship. ^B And John, a little later, was deposed from his throne, as we shall show in the further course of our narrative.

CHAPTER XV.

For after Epiphanius had set sail, John learned from some people that the Empress Eudoxia had armed Epiphanius against him. Being of a naturally fervent disposition and ready in speech, without delay he delivered a sermon to the people which contained a general censure of all women. The common folk took this discourse as if it had been directed figuratively against the empress. ^C Being caught by malicious persons, it was carried to the notice of those in power. When the Augusta learned of it, she complained of the insult offered to her before the emperor, saying that the injury done to her was also one done to him. She therefore took care that Theophilus should as soon as possible convene a synod against John; Severianus also urged this, for he still harbored his resentment. Not much time passed before...

Theophilus arrived, along with many bishops from various cities ^A whom he had summoned by his letters. The emperor’s letter had also commanded the same thing. But those who were hostile to John for various reasons flocked there in particular. There were also present those whom John had deposed; for John had deposed many bishops of Asia when he went to Ephesus for the consecration of Heraclides. All of them, therefore, having reached an agreement, gathered at Chalcedon in Bithynia. There was at that time a bishop of Chalcedon named Cyrinus, an Egyptian by birth, who kept saying many things to the bishops against John, calling him impious, arrogant, and implacable ^B. The bishops indeed were pleased by these remarks. But Maruthas, the bishop of Mesopotamia, accidentally trod upon the foot of Cyrinus. He was so severely affected by that wound that he could not cross over to Constantinople with the rest of the bishops. He stayed behind in Chalcedon, while the others crossed over to Constantinople. But since none of the clergy came to meet Theophilus, nor did they show him the customary honor—for he was known to be a manifest enemy—the Alexandrian sailors, whose grain ships happened by chance to be there at that time, went out to meet him and welcomed him with applause. He himself refused to enter a house of prayer, but stayed in one of the imperial residences, which is called the Placidiana. From that point, many accusations began to be stirred up against John ^C. There was no longer any mention of the books of Origen, but they turned to other absurd charges. These things having been thus prepared, the bishops assembled in a suburb of Chalcedon which is named the Oak, and immediately summoned John to defend himself against the charges that were being brought against him. They also ordered that Serapion, the deacon and presbyter, and Paul, the reader, should be present with him; for they were also being accused along with him. Since John refused those who were summoning him, as they were his enemies ^D, and appealed to an ecumenical synod,

they did not hesitate to summon him four times. When he was unwilling to appear, but gave the same answer, they condemned and deposed him, objecting no crime against him, except that being called he had not obeyed. This matter, being reported towards evening, stirred the populace to a very great sedition; and keeping watch the whole night, they did not allow him to be dragged from the church, but kept proclaiming that the matters concerning him should be judged by a larger synod. However, the command of the emperor had been prescribed, that he should be immediately expelled and led away into exile. ^B John, learning of this, on the third day after his deposition, around midday, surrendered himself of his own accord, unknown to the multitude of the people. For he was guarding against a tumult being stirred up on his account. And John was indeed led away into exile.

CHAPTER XVI

How, a sedition of the people having arisen because John was being led into exile, Briso, the eunuch of the Augusta, being sent, brought him back to Constantinople.

The people were indeed tumultuating in a terrible manner. And as is wont to happen in such matters, those who were previously of an antagonistic mind toward him were moved by pity, and they said that he, whom shortly before they had desired to see deposed, had suffered calumny. ^C For this reason, therefore, there were more who were crying out against both the emperor and the council of bishops. But they laid the blame for this calumny especially on Theophilus. For his fraud could no longer remain in the dark: and that, as well from many other indications, as most of all from the fact that immediately after the deposition of John, he had communicated with Dioscorus and his brothers who were called the Long. Then also Severianus, when he was preaching the word of God in the church, seemed to attack John out of season, saying thus: "Even if John had been condemned for nothing else, yet his insolent character is a crime sufficiently grave that for it alone he deserved to be deposed. For all other sins indeed are forgiven to men; but God resists the proud, as the holy Scriptures teach" (Jac. IV, 6). ^D These words provoked the spirits of the common people to greater stubbornness. Wherefore, the emperor caused his recall to be made quickly. Therefore Briso, the eunuch of the Augusta, being sent, reached him.

^A at Prænetum, which is a trading town situated opposite Nicomedia, and ordered him to return to Constantinople. But since John, having been recalled from exile, refused to enter the city until he had first proven his innocence in a larger assembly of judges, he remained for a time in a suburb which is called Marianæ. ^B Now while he was delaying and unwilling to enter the city, the populace broke out into indignation and immediately hurled curses at the emperors themselves. For this reason, John was compelled to return. The crowd, therefore, having gone forth to meet him, brought him with the highest reverence into the church, praying that he would deign to sit upon the episcopal throne and, as was his custom, wish the people peace. Though he refused, saying that this ought to be done by a judicial decree and that those who had initially passed sentence upon him must reverse it and declare his innocence, the people were inflamed all the more, longing to see him sitting upon the throne and desiring with all their hearts to hear him preach again. At last, the people prevailed for these things to be done. John, therefore, sitting upon the episcopal throne, ^C pronounced peace to the people as he had been accustomed to do before; and furthermore, being compelled by necessity, he delivered a sermon to the people. This occurrence provided an occasion for further machinations to those who were hostile toward him, although they said nothing about this matter at that time.

CHAPTER XVII

Previously, Theophilus had taken care to bring the ordination of Heraclides into question, so that, if he could, he might grasp an opportunity from that to depose John. And indeed, Heraclides himself was not present; but he was being judged while absent—as if he had unjustly beaten certain men, and bound them in chains, ^D and caused them to be paraded through the middle of the city of Ephesus. Now when the supporters of John said that a trial ought not to be held against those who were absent, the Alexandrians contended that it should be admitted...

^A that the accusers of Heraclides could proceed, even though they were accusing a man who was absent. From this, a severe disagreement and contention arose between the people of Constantinople and those of Alexandria; and a skirmish having occurred, many were wounded, and some even perished. When Theophilus saw this, he fled immediately to Alexandria, just as he was. The other bishops did the same, except for a few who were of John’s party; and they all departed in flight to their own regions. These things having come to pass, Theophilus was in everyone's censure. The hatred toward him was further increased by the fact that he did not desist from studying the books of Origen openly. Being asked, therefore, by someone how he could again embrace the books which he had condemned, he answered in this manner: “The books of Origen are like a meadow adorned with flowers of every kind. If, therefore, I find in them anything good, I pluck it; but if anything should appear thorny to me, I pass it by, as something that pricks.” Such was the answer Theophilus gave, not bearing in mind that counsel of the ^B most wise Solomon: “The words of the wise are as cattle prods,” and that those who are pricked by their insights ought not to kick against them. By these things, then, Theophilus was held in general censure. Dioscorus, however, one of the “Tall Brothers,” the bishop of Hermopolis, died shortly after Theophilus’ flight and was deemed worthy of a magnificent burial, being interred in the martyrium that is in the Oak, where the synod had been gathered on account of John. John, meanwhile, devoted himself to ecclesiastical discourses. He also ordained Serapion as bishop of Heraclea in Thrace—the man on whose account the hatred against him had been stirred up. Not long after this, these events came to pass.

CHAPTER XVIII. Concerning the silver statue of Eudoxia; and how John, on account of it, was again driven out of the Church and taken into exile.

The silver statue of Augusta Eudoxia had been erected upon a porphyry column, adorned in the female ^C fashion

^A of those times, not far from the church called Sophia; nor was it removed from it by any great distance, but only a street separated the two. Popular games were customarily held here. John, considering what was taking place to be an insult to the Church, and having regained his former freedom of speech ^B through custom, armed his tongue once again against those who were doing these things. And though he ought to have persuaded the rulers with exhortative words to cease from such play, he did not do this. Instead, employing a sharp tongue, he mocked those who had ordered these things to take place. The empress took this personally, and considering his words to be an insult to herself, she again prepared a synod of bishops to assemble against him. When John became aware of this, he delivered that famous homily in the church, whose beginning is: "Again Herodias rages, again she is troubled, again she dances, again she seeks to receive the head of John on a platter." This sparked the empress to greater rage. And not long after, the bishops arrived: Leontius, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia; Ammonius of Laodicea in Pisidia; Briso of Philippi in Thrace; Acacius of Beroea in Syria, and certain others. When these were present, the former accusers were stirred up once more. John was confident in these matters, and demanded that the charges against him be examined. ^C When the festival of the Savior’s Nativity arrived, the emperor did not proceed to the church as was his custom, but signaled to John that he would not commune with him until he had first cleared himself of the accusations brought against him. When the accusers appeared faint-hearted because of John’s confidence, the bishops who were present inquired into nothing else, but only stated that this one thing needed to be brought to judgment: that after his deposition, since the synod had not restored him, he had leaped back onto the throne. And when he said that sixty-five bishops who had communed with him had voted for this, the party of Leontius retorted: "But there are more, O John." ^D Again Herodias. That after the deposition. If any bishop or priest, whether justly or unjustly deposed, shall by his own authority enter into the church without a synod, such a one shall no longer have room for defense, but shall be completely expelled. If any priest or deacon unjustly or justly deposed by his own bishop, or if a bishop [is deposed] by a synod...

^A but they said one question had to be held, that after his deposition, without the authority of a synod, he had invaded the episcopal see by his own arbitrary will. And when he said that sixty-five bishops who had communicated with him had decreed this, Leontius replied, "There were more, O John, who condemned you in the synod." Again, when John contended that this was not a canon of the Catholic Church, but of the Arians—for those who met at Antioch for the deposition of the consubstantial faith, out of hatred for Athanasius, issued that canon—[he said] that they had not accepted his defenses, but had condemned him, not realizing that by using that canon they also deposed Athanasius. ^A These things were done as the feast of Easter was approaching. The emperor therefore signified to John that he could not come to the church, because two had condemned him.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(63) *But more, O John.* Baronius, for the year of Christ 404, charges Socrates with a lie. For in the synod at the Oak, only thirty-six bishops condemned Chrysostom, of whom twenty-nine were Egyptians, the rest from various provinces, as Theodorus reports in Palladium's *Dialogue on the Life of Chrysostom*, and this [is] from the acts of the synod at the Oak. But when he was afterwards recalled to Constantinople, he had been received into communion by sixty-five bishops. Either, therefore, Socrates must be mistaken, having said that Chrysostom was condemned by more than those by whom he was received and restored; or Palladium must be said to be mistaken. Unless, perhaps, someone wishes to reconcile these in such a way as to say that Leontius the bishop counted here at once the votes of the bishops who in both synods, as well that which was at the Oak as that which was held at Constantinople, condemned John Chrysostom. For even if at that time when Leontius said these things, the bishops who were present in the Constantinopolitan synod had not yet passed judgment against Chrysostom, Leontius, however, who knew them to be hostile to Chrysostom, did not in the least doubt their votes.

(64) *That it was of the Arians.* The same writer [Socrates] records that the answer of John Chrysostom's defenders was that the canon of the Antiochene council was, to be sure, established by Arian bishops. But the adversaries of John Chrysostom rejected this defense, asserting that that canon had been established by Catholic bishops. And when Elpidius, a bishop who stood for Chrysostom’s side, pressed them to subscribe to the formula of faith promulgated at that time by those same bishops, they answered in the presence of the emperor that they were prepared to subscribe: but they deferred the matter to another time. What, therefore, is to be determined concerning this question? Athanasius indeed in his book *De Synodis* outright rejects that Antiochene synod with its formula of faith, as having been celebrated by Arians for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicene faith. But against Athanasius, who cannot be an impartial witness in his own cause, we oppose first Hilary, then Pope Julius, and finally all the Orientals and Westerners, who finally accepted that synod with one consent. Certainly Hilary in his book *De Synodis* admits it entirely, and commends the formula of faith written in that synod as useful and necessary, on account of the heresies which after the Nicene council had arisen. But Pope Julius also wrote a synodical letter to all the bishops who were gathered in that synod; among whom were Eusebius, Narcissus, Theodorus, and Maris. Athanasius reports that letter in full in the *Apologeticus*. But in the title of the letter and in the body, Julius calls them beloved brothers; which he certainly would never have done if he had held them for Arians. But why should he have held them for Arians, who had not yet been condemned by the sentence of any synod, and among whom were many of the most fierce defenders of the Nicene faith? Which Baronius does not deny. Of which kind was Dianius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who is named in the first place by Julius: concerning whose praises a special letter of Basil the Great exists. Finally, all the Orientals embraced that synod as Catholic, and placed its rules in the Code of Canons, shortly after the times of John Chrysostom, as is evident from the Council of Chalcedon. And finally the Western Church gradually admitted those canons, translated into the Latin tongue by Dionysius Exiguus. It was permitted, however, in the times of John Chrysostom to repudiate them, seeing that they had not yet been received by the common consent of the whole Church, nor were they as yet admitted by the Roman Church. Certainly Pope Innocent in his letter to the clergy of Constantinople, which Sozomen reports in book VIII, in no way admits those canons.

(65) *And Athanasius also deposed.* Christophorsonus thought these things were said of the bishops who had sat at the Antiochene synod, according to Socrates. I would rather understand these things of the bishops who at that time were gathered against John Chrysostom at Constantinople. And thus Epiphanius Scholasticus and Musculus grasped this passage. For Epiphanius indeed translates thus: *Not understanding that while they were using this rule, they were also deposing Athanasius.* Musculus indeed interprets it happily in this way: *Nor thinking that they were deposing not only John, but also Athanasius himself, by using this canon.*

(66) *That he could not come to the church.* Christophorsonus thought these things were said of John, for whom it would not be permitted thereafter to enter the church. I, however, would rather take this of the emperor himself, with Epiphanius and Musculus. The passage of Socrates bears out our opinion, which is read a little earlier, where he reports that Arcadius, as the Lord's birthday was already approaching, had commanded John that he could not come to the church, unless John, who had been condemned by synodical sentence, had first purged himself in judgment.

VARIA. ...and to undergo judgment: if therefore, these being despised, he should be troublesome to the emperor, he is worthy of no pardon, nor let him have a place for defending himself, nor look for the hope of future restitution. And yet it is nowhere read, that I remember, that Chrysostom appealed to the emperor against the council. But how he was recalled from exile, and restored to his see, see a little before, chap. 16, of this book. The Rev. Cave in his *Life* considers that the violation of both canons was given as a charge against St. Chrysostom: Chrysostom, he says, they depose especially on the name that, being deposed by a synod, he had occupied his see, notwithstanding the canons 17 and 12 of the Antiochene council.

Leontius and the others, having rejected his defense, pronounced sentence against him, not at all considering that by using this rule they had also deposed Athanasius himself. ^A These things were done as the feast of Easter was approaching. The Emperor therefore signified to John that he could not come to the church, inasmuch as he had already been condemned by two synods. John therefore kept quiet from then on, and went to the church no longer. Consequently, all who adhered to his party, having immediately left the church, celebrated Easter in the public Baths which are called Constantian. There were with them many bishops and presbyters, and other men of the ecclesiastical order: who, because they began from that time to hold assemblies separately in various places, were named Johannites. John, indeed, did not go out into public for the space of two months, until he was ordered by the Emperor's command to be led into exile. And he was indeed taken away, having been drawn from the church. But some of the Johannites set fire to the church on that very day. While it was burning, a subsolano (east) wind blowing more violently, the curia also, in which the senate is accustomed to be held, burned down. This happened on the 10th day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of Honorius for the sixth time and Aristaenetus. Furthermore, as to the evils with which Optatus, the prefect of the city of Constantinople, a Gentile in religion, and therefore hostile to the Christians, afflicted the friends of John on account of this fire, and how he punished many of them with capital punishment, I think I ought to omit. ^B

CHAPTER XIX.

Of Arsacius who was ordained after John, and of Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon.

A few days later, Arsacius is appointed bishop of Constantinople: who was the brother of the blessed Nectarius, ^C who had governed the episcopate well before John.

^A And since Nectarius, who had governed the episcopate well before John, had already passed away at a very advanced age—for he happened to be over eighty years old—and because he had governed the episcopate quietly on account of his surpassing gentleness, Cyrinus, the bishop of Chalcedon, whose foot Maruthas, the bishop of Mesopotamia, had inadvertently stepped on, was so badly injured that the foot became gangrenous and required amputation. Nor did this happen only once, but it was amputated several times. For the disease spread through his whole body such that his other foot, having caught the same malady, suffered the same fate. I have mentioned this because many people said that Cyrinus suffered these things on account of his blasphemy against John, as he had repeatedly called him harsh and inexorable, as I have mentioned before. ^B And since it happened that a massive hailstorm also fell upon Constantinople and its suburbs—this took place in the same consulship, around the thirtieth of September—people said that this happened by the wrath of God because of the unjust deposition of John. The death of the Augusta, which followed immediately, added weight to such talk; for she passed away on the fourth day after the hail had fallen. Others said that John had suffered justly in his deposition, because in times past, when he was in Asia and Lydia, he had invaded many churches of the Novatians and Quartadecimans, and of others, at the time he was sent to Ephesus to ordain Heraclides. But whether the deposition of John was just according to the account of those who were grieved by him, or whether Cyrinus was paying the due penalty for his blasphemy, and whether it was because of John that the hail fell and the Augusta died, or whether these things happened for other reasons, or for both, God, the knower of hidden things and the just judge of truth itself, would know. As for me, I have written what was being bruited about by the people at that time.

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER XX.

Arsacius, however, did not survive long in the episcopate. For in the following consulship, which was the second of Stilicho and the first of Anthemius, he died on the eleventh day of November. Since many were aspiring to the episcopate, and on that account much time had elapsed, in the following consulship, which was the sixth of Arcadius and the first of Probus, a pious man named Atticus was promoted to the episcopate. He was by birth from Sebastia in Armenia, and he had followed a monastic life from his youth; and besides being moderately educated, he was naturally very shrewd. But I shall speak of him a little later.

CHAPTER XXI.

John, while being led away into exile, died ^C at Comana in the Euxine Pontus, on the fourteenth day of September, in the following consulship, which was the seventh of Honorius and the second of Theodosius; a man, as I said before, who, because of his zeal for temperance, indulged in anger more than in shame, and who, because of that temperance, used his tongue with excessive boldness throughout his life. It occurs to me to wonder how, while practicing such great zeal for temperance, he taught in his discourses that temperance should be held in contempt. For as only one repentance had been granted by the synod of bishops to those who had sinned after baptism, he dared to say: "Though you repent a thousand times, enter."

^D

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

In what homily this was said by Chrysostom, I really do not know. Concerning the reliability of Socrates, however, there can be no doubt, since he lived in those same times, and could have heard both Chrysostom and Sisinnius, the bishop of the Novatians, preaching. Moreover, from this passage it can be concluded more certainly than from any other that Socrates was a Novatian. For he both misinterprets the sentiment of Chrysostom and openly favors Sisinnius, the bishop of the Novatian party, against John Chrysostom. To me, however, this seems to be the sense of Chrysostom's words. We must remember that only a short time before, the penitentiary priest had been removed by Nectarius and permission had been given to all to approach the sacred mysteries according to their own conscience. By this action, public penance had been not inconsiderably undermined, the priest having been removed who preserved its vigor and discipline intact and safe. So, therefore, says Chrysostom, exhorting his hearers to penance: "Before, indeed, it was permitted only once to perform penance, that is, public penance. Now you can perform penance privately as often as you wish. Before, a second penance was not admitted. Now, even if you have done penance a thousand times, I will admit you." You see that Chrysostom is speaking of private and daily penance, and not of public. Therefore, Socrates objects to him in vain the decree of the bishops concerning not repeating public penance. It must be known, moreover, that this saying was objected to…

by his acquaintances, and especially by Sisinnus, ^A the bishop of the Novatians. He even wrote a treatise contrary to what was said, and bravely denounced him for it. But these things had already happened before.

CHAPTER XXII.

Of Sisinnus, bishop of the Novatians, and of the meeting which he is said to have had with John.

I think it not untimely to speak briefly concerning Sisinnus. He was, as I have often said, a man of great learning and one who had mastered the studies of philosophy to the highest degree. He was especially devoted to dialectic, and knew how to interpret the holy Scriptures with great skill; so much so that Eunomius the heretic, fearing his excellence in the art of discourse, frequently avoided him. ^B His way of life, however, was not exactly simple. Though he possessed great temperance, he nevertheless used a magnificent and sumptuous lifestyle. Indeed, for he lived delicately and was accustomed to wearing white clothing, and he spent his time bathing twice daily in the public baths. And when someone once asked him why, being a bishop, he bathed twice a day, he replied: "Because I cannot bathe a third time." ^C Another day, when he was visiting bishop Arsacius out of respect, he was asked by some of Arsacius’s household why he wore clothing so little suited to a bishop, and where it was written that a priest ought to be arrayed in white. He is said to have replied: "Do you first tell me where it is written that a bishop ought to wear black clothing." And when the one who had asked him was at a loss in the face of this counter-question, Sisinnus added: "You will never be able to show that a priest ought to be clothed in black; but to me, Solomon has provided counsel, saying, 'Let your garments be white.' ^D And the Savior in the Gospels appears to have used white clothing. Furthermore, he showed Moses and Elijah to the apostles as wearing white." Having readily said these and many other things, [he ended the discourse].

VARIOUS READINGS/ANNOTATIONS (VALESIUS)

When they had approached Comana, having passed it by like a bridge, they remained outside the walls in the martyrium, which was distant five or six miles. That same night, the martyr of that place, by the name of Basiliscus (who, when he was bishop of the Comanians, had suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia in Bithynia under Maximian, together with Lucian the presbyter of Antioch), appeared to them, saying: "Be of good courage, brother John; for tomorrow we shall be together." He had also predicted, as they say, to the presbyter remaining there: "Prepare a place for brother John; for he is coming." Trusting in the oracle, John on the following day requested the soldiers that they might remain there until the fifth hour. They, however, not hearing his prayers, departed from there. Having completed about thirty stadia, they returned again to the martyrium from which they had departed, since he was faring badly. Thus having returned, he asked for white garments, worthy of the life he had lived; and having stripped off his former ones, he put them on while fasting, having changed everything even down to his shoes; and he distributed the rest to those present. And having taken the Dominical symbols, he made his final prayer before those standing by. And when he had said in his usual manner, "Glory to God for all things," and had sealed it with a final "Amen," he stretched out his feet, which had run well for the salvation of those who had chosen repentance, and for the rebuke of those who had copiously cultivated sins. Palladius in *Life of Chrysostom*, pp. 99, 100. He sent his most holy soul to heaven on the 14th of September, in the year of Christ 407, at the age of eight months over [the] completed [length]; of exile the 3rd year, [the] 3rd month; of the episcopacy the 9th year, 6th month, 16th day. He was buried in the martyrium of S. Basiliscus near Comana, enclosed in the same tomb as the martyr: whence after 30 years his bones were translated with solemn procession to Constantinople, and deposited in the basilica of the Holy Apostles. (Guil. Cave in *Chrysost.*, vol. I, p. 234.) Learned men agree that the day of Chrysostom’s death was September 14th: yet it is read in the Greek epitome of his life at the end of the *Dialogue* of Palladius: he died in the month of November on the fourteenth.

^A Migne’s Latin text notes that our Lord is found in the Gospels to have worn a white robe. He also shows Moses and Elias clothed in white garments to the apostles. By these and other things spoken with extemporaneous facility, he captured the admiration of all who were present. But when Leontius, the bishop of Ancyra which is in Galatia, had taken away a church from the Novatians and happened at that time to be in Constantinople, Sisinnius went to him and requested that he return the church. He received him somewhat harshly, and said: "You Novatians ought not to have churches, since you reject repentance and shut off the kindness of God." To Leontius, who was uttering these and many such things against the Novatians, Sisinnius responded as follows: "And yet, no one repents more than I do." And when Leontius pressed further, "How do you repent?" Sisinnius answered, "Because I saw you." ^B When at one time he was being rebuked by Bishop John, and John said that the city could not have two bishops, Sisinnius answered: "Nor does it have one." When John became angry at this and said: "You see, you wish to be the sole bishop?" Sisinnius replied: "I do not say that, but that I am not a bishop in your eyes alone, while I am a bishop to everyone else." Aggravated by this response, John said: "I will see to it that you do not preach any longer; for you are a heretic." To this, Sisinnius cleverly replied: "But I, for my part, will pay you a reward if you deliver me from such a great labor." Softened by this remark, John said: "I will not prevent you from preaching in the future, if the duty of preaching is burdensome to you." So ready and witty was Sisinnius at responding. To write down and record everything that was cleverly said by him would be a lengthy task; therefore, I have shown what kind of man he was by presenting only a few things, deeming them sufficient. ^C This, however, I will state: he was renowned for his learning, and for this reason he was honored and loved by all the bishops who succeeded one another in continuous order. Moreover, the first men of the senatorial order also esteemed and admired him with singular benevolence. He did indeed write many books. But in them he is too eager for the elegance of words, and sometimes inserts poetic expressions. Consequently, he attained greater glory in speaking than in writing. For in his face and voice, in his manner and look, and in the whole movement of his body, there was a great deal of charm. On account of these gifts, he was loved by all sects, and especially by Bishop Atticus. But I think enough has been said concerning Sisinnius.

CHAPTER XXIII. De obitu imperatoris Arcadii.

^D Not long after the death of John, the emperor Arcadius also departed from this life, a gentle and peaceable man, who at the end of his life had gained the reputation of being loved by God, [believing that he was dear to all].

He was moved by this cause. In Constantinople there is a very large house called "Carya," ^A because in the courtyard of the house there is a walnut tree, upon which it is said that the martyr Acacius was once hung and brought to his consummation; for which reason a small oratory was built beside the tree. The emperor Arcadius, wishing to see this place, went there one day. After he had offered a prayer there, he departed. All those living in the vicinity of the oratory ran together to see the emperor, and some, having gone outside the house, strove to occupy the passageways from which they thought they could more clearly see the emperor’s face and the retinue surrounding him. Others followed, until everyone, with their wives and children, had positioned themselves outside the house. This having transpired, the very large building that surrounded that oratory suddenly collapsed. A cry of great astonishment followed, at the thought that the emperor’s prayer had saved such a great multitude of people from destruction. This is how that came to pass. ^B Arcadius, having left behind his son Theodosius, then eight years old, died in the consulship of Bassus and Philippus, on the first of the month of May; this was in the second year of the two hundred and ninety-seventh Olympiad. He reigned together with his father Theodosius for thirteen years, and after the death of his father for fourteen years, having lived thirty-one years. This book contains a history of twelve years and six months.

In other copies these things are found, not as if they were omitted, but written in a different manner of phrasing. We have therefore judged it good to set them forth, and for this reason we have ^C included them here.

For since in the meantime the bishop of Ephesus had departed from this life, it became necessary for John to travel there to ordain a bishop. When he had come to Ephesus, and some were striving to promote one man and others another to that position, he himself promoted a certain deacon of his, Heraclides, a Cypriot by birth, to the episcopacy. For this reason, since a sedition had arisen in Ephesus on the grounds that Heraclides seemed unworthy of the priesthood, John was forced to tarry longer in the city of Ephesus. While he was making his stay there, in the meantime Severianus was becoming more beloved to the hearers in Constantinople day by day. Nor did this matter escape John for long, ^D for everything was swiftly reported to him by Serapion, who was held in singular affection by John, and to whom he had entrusted the care of his entire episcopacy, because he was religious, and above all faithful, sober, and diligent in protecting the interests of the bishop.

VARIORUM ANNOTATIONS

^A But it was not long before John returned to Constantinople. And he himself again took up the care of the churches as was fitting. Meanwhile, a great deal of ill-will arose between Serapion the deacon and Severianus the bishop; the former opposed Severianus because he strove to surpass John in the glory of preaching, while the latter envied Serapion because John the bishop was singularly attached to him and had entrusted to him the entire care of the episcopal residence. As they were thus disposed toward each other, the malice of their hatred happened to proceed further for the following reason: Once, as Severianus was passing by, Serapion did not render the honor due to a bishop; but he remained seated, either because he had not seen him, as he later affirmed under oath before the council, or because he thought little of the bishop's presence, as Severianus claimed—I cannot say; God alone knows. Then Severianus did not brook this contempt from Serapion, but immediately, even before the case could be examined by a general council, he condemned ^B Serapion under oath, and cast him out not only from the rank of deacon but also from the Church itself. When John learned of this, he took it ill. Later, when the matter was being discussed in a council and Serapion was defending himself and testifying that he had not seen him, and further producing witnesses, the body of assembled bishops felt for him [Serapion] and entreated Severianus to accept Serapion’s defense. But John the bishop, for the sake of satisfying Severianus, suspended Serapion from the office of deacon for one week, although in all matters he used him as his right hand, as he was most skillful and diligent in responding to ecclesiastical cases. ^C But Severianus could not be swayed even by this; rather, he became intent in every way on achieving the complete removal of Serapion not only from the diaconate but also from communion. John, being deeply grieved at these things, rose from the council and left the case to the bishops who were present, saying to them, "Do you yourselves weigh what is set before you, and judge and decide; for I refuse to judge the case between them." When these things had been said by John, and he had risen, the body of the council also rose and left the matter of the trial in that state, blaming Severianus all the more for not yielding to what had been said by the ^D bishop John. From that time on, John no longer admitted Severianus to his company, but exhorted him to depart to his own country, signaling to him as follows: "It is no longer expedient, says he, O Severianus, to keep for so long a time the (charge) entrusted to you.

^A in such a way that the church remains uncared for, and is deprived of the presence of its own bishop. Therefore, make haste and recover your churches, and do not neglect the gift that is in you." When he had already set out on his journey, the Augusta Eudoxia, having been informed of these matters, rebuked John, but at the same time took steps to have Severianus recalled as quickly as possible from Chalcedon in Bithynia; and he returned without delay. But John avoided his company and would not be persuaded by anyone who urged him to do so, until finally the Augusta Eudoxia, in the Church of the Apostles, threw her son, the young Theodosius—who was but a mere child at that time—before the knees of John, and adjuring him by the head of the child with many oaths, she with difficulty persuaded him to receive Severianus back into his friendship. In this manner then, and what follows, ^B as above in chapter XI.

BOOK SEVENTH.

THESE ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE SEVENTH BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

I. How after the death of the Emperor Arcadius, the prefecture being in the hands of Anthemius, the administration of the whole empire was conducted, his son Theodosius being eight years old. II. Concerning Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, and what manner of character he possessed. III. Concerning Theodosius and Agapetus, bishops of Synada. IV. Concerning the paralytic Jew, who was healed by Bishop Atticus in the divine baptism. V. How Sabbatius, a presbyter of the Novatians who had been a Jew, departed from his fellow-believers. VI. Concerning those who stood at the head of the Arian sect at that time. VII. How Cyril succeeded Theophilus as bishop of Alexandria. VIII. Concerning Marutha, bishop of Mesopotamia, and how the Christian religion was spread throughout Persia by him. IX. Who the bishops of Antioch and Rome were at that time. X. How, at this time, Rome fell under the power of the barbarians, when Alaric plundered it. XI. Concerning the bishops of the city of Rome at that time. XII. Concerning Chrysanthus, bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople. XIII. Concerning the battle which took place in Alexandria between the Christians and the Jews, and the discord between Bishop Cyril and the prefect Orestes.

Book VII

XIV. How the monks from Nitria, having come to Alexandria on Cyril’s behalf, stirred up a sedition against the prefect Orestes. ^A XV. Concerning Hypatia the philosopher. XVI. How the Jews, having once again engaged the Christians in war, paid the penalty. XVII. Concerning Paul, bishop of the Novatians, and the miracle performed by him when he was about to baptize a Jewish impostor. XVIII. How, upon the death of Isdigerdes, king of the Persians, the treaty between the Romans and the Persians was broken, and a great war arose, in which the Persians were defeated. ^B XIX. Concerning Palladius the courier. XX. How the Persians were again defeated by the Romans in a decisive battle. XXI. How Acacius, bishop of Amida, conducted himself toward the Persian captives. XXII. Concerning the virtues that resided in the younger Emperor Theodosius. XXIII. Concerning John, who after the death of the Emperor Honorius, seized the tyranny in Rome; and how God, moved by the prayers of Theodosius, delivered him into the hands of the Roman army. ^C XXIV. How, after the execution of the tyrant John, the Emperor Theodosius appointed Valentinian, son of Constantius and his aunt Placidia, as emperor of Rome. XXV. Concerning Atticus’s administration of the churches, and how he inscribed the name of John in the church diptychs, and that he foresaw his own death. XXVI. Concerning Sisinnius, who succeeded Atticus in the bishopric of Constantinople. XXVII. Concerning Philip the presbyter of Side. XXVIII. How Sisinnius ordained Proclus as bishop of Cyzicus, whom the Cyzicenians, however, refused to accept. ^D XXIX. How, after the death of Sisinnius, they summoned Nestorius from Antioch and made him bishop of Constantinople; and how he was immediately discovered for what he was. XXX. In what manner the Burgundians were converted to Christianity during the reign of the younger Theodosius. XXXI. Concerning the evils which Nestorius inflicted upon the Macedonians. XXXII. Concerning Anastasius the presbyter, by whom Nestorius was led into impiety. XXXIII. Concerning the crime committed at the very altar of the Great Church by fugitive slaves. XXXIV. Concerning the prior synod convened at Ephesus against Nestorius. XXXV. How, after the deposition of Nestorius, when some wished to install Proclus on the episcopal throne, certain bishops chose Maximian as bishop of Constantinople. XXXVI. Examples by which this writer, as it seems to him, seeks to prove that translation from one bishopric to another is not prohibited. XXXVII. Concerning Silvanus, who was translated from Philippopolis to Troas. XXXVIII. Concerning the Jews in Crete, and how many of them were converted to the Christian religion at that time. XXXIX. Concerning the burning of the Novatian church. XL. How Proclus succeeded Maximian. XLI. Concerning Proclus the bishop, and what sort of man he was. XLII. That this writer discourses at length on the goodness of the younger Emperor Theodosius.

praises the goodness of the younger Emperor Theodosius at greater length. XLIII. How many and how great were the evils suffered by the barbarians who had brought aid to the tyrant John. XLIV. How Valentinian the younger took as his wife Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius. XLV. How Bishop Proclus persuaded the Emperor to transfer the body of John from exile to Constantinople and to deposit it in the Church of the Apostles. XLVI. Of the death of Paul, bishop of the Novatians, and of Marcian who was ordained after him. XLVII. How the Emperor Theodosius sent his wife Eudoxia to Jerusalem. XLVIII. Of Thalassius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

BOOK SEVENTH

CHAPTER I

The Emperor Arcadius having died on the Calends of May, in the consulship of Bassus and Philippus, his brother Honorius governed the western parts; but the empire of the East was under the jurisdiction of his son, Theodosius the younger, who at that time was eight years old. Anthemius, the praetorian prefect, administered the supreme power under him. He was the grandson of that Philippus who, in the reign of Constantius, had expelled Bishop Paul from the Church and introduced Macedonius in his place. ^B The same man surrounded Constantinople with great walls on every side. Moreover, he was considered, and in truth was, the most prudent man of his time. He was not accustomed to do anything without consultation, but consulted with many of his friends concerning matters to be done, and especially with Troilus the Sophist, who, ^C as well as the virtues he possessed and a certain political wisdom, was a match for Anthemius.

For this reason, nearly everything was managed by the counsel of Troilus. ^A

CHAPTER II. On Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and what manner of man he was in his character.

When the Emperor was passing his eighth year, Atticus was spending his third year as bishop in Constantinople, and as we have already said, was a man who possessed great learning, and was also pious and prudent. Wherefore it came to pass that the churches under him attained to great growth. For he not only strengthened those who were of the household of faith, but he also astonished the heretics by his prudence; and ^B he in no wise chose to harass them, but when he had attempted to terrify them, he would again show himself mild and gentle toward them. Nor did he neglect the study of literature. For he bestowed much effort upon the writings of the ancients, passing sleepless nights in reading them; and therefore he was not confounded by the arguments of the philosophers or sophists. And he was graceful and persuasive to those who encountered him, and he sympathized with those who were in affliction. In a word, according to the Apostle, he became all things to all men. And formerly, when he was ranked in the presbyterate, he would teach in the church by means of discourses that he had carefully prepared and learned by memory. But after these times, having gained confidence through his labor, he began to speak extemporaneously and to follow a more panegyrical manner of teaching. Yet his discourses were not of such a kind as to be eagerly sought after by the hearers or to be handed down in writing. Concerning his character, manner of life, and learning, let this suffice. I shall now narrate the things worthy of memory that happened in his time. ^C

CHAPTER III. On Theodosius and Agapetus, bishops in Synnada.

In the city of Synnada in Phrygia Pacatiana, there was a certain bishop named Theodosius, who rigorously persecuted the heretics in that place—and they were many, happening to be of the Macedonian sect—driving them out not only from the city, but even from the countryside. And he did this, not according to the custom of the ^D orthodox [alt-version omitted]

^A Church, nor moved by zeal for the true faith, but enslaved by the passion of avarice, he was eager to collect money from the heretics. For this reason, he set everything in motion against those who held the opinions of Macedonius, arming the hands of the clergy under him and employing countless schemes against them, and he did not even refrain from binding them over to the courts. But he harassed their bishop, whose name was Agapetus, in various ways. Since the provincial governors in no way seemed sufficient to him to punish the heretics, he fled to Constantinople, seeking edicts from the prefects of the praetorium. While Theodosius was lingering in Constantinople on account of this matter, Agapetus, who was presiding over the Macedonian sect, as I said, formed a prudent plan. Having communicated the matter to his entire clergy and summoned the people who were under him to an assembly, he persuaded them to embrace the faith of the consubstantial. Once this was accomplished, he immediately proceeded with a huge multitude, or rather with the entire people, straight to the church. And having celebrated prayer, he occupied the throne on which Theodosius was accustomed to sit. Having united the people and teaching them henceforth the faith of the consubstantial, he obtained control of the churches that belonged to the bishopric of Synnada. ^B With these things having come to pass, not long after Theodosius arrived, bringing with him the help of the prefecture; and being ignorant of the things that had occurred, he proceeded to the church, just as he was. But being driven out from it by everyone at once, he again departed to Constantinople. Having arrived there, he lamented his plight in the presence of bishop Atticus, on the grounds that he had been unjustly cast out of his bishopric. But Atticus, knowing that the matter had resulted to the advantage of the Church, consoled Theodosius with words, persuading him to embrace a quiet life with fortitude and to prefer the public good to private interests; and he wrote to Agapetus to hold onto the bishopric, fearing nothing grievous from the resentment of Theodosius.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(77) *Not accustomed to persecute the orthodox Church.* There is a famous question, often debated on both sides: is it permissible for Catholics, and especially for bishops, to persecute heretics? I believe that a distinction must be made in judging this matter. For it is certain that it is not lawful for Catholics to harass heretics for the sake of collecting money, which is what Theodosius, the bishop of Synnada, was doing at that time. ^D Likewise, to pursue them in criminal courts and seek their blood is as illicit as when Idatius and certain other bishops of Spain persecuted the Priscillianists. When the blessed Martin had at one time joined himself to their communion, he confessed that he had incurred great harm from that fact, as Sulpicius Severus writes in his *Life*. Nevertheless, it is—and always has been—lawful for Catholics to implore the aid of princes and magistrates against heretics, so that they may be restrained and kept in line, lest they raise themselves too insolently above the Catholics, and lest they insult and mock the Catholic religion. Augustine indeed confesses that previously he had been of the opinion that heretics should not be harassed by Catholics, but rather invited with all gentleness. Later, however, he changed his opinion, having learned by experience that the laws of princes enacted against heretics were profitable to the heretics themselves for their conversion. And he says that the Donatists themselves, who later returned to the Catholic Church, confessed this. For these affirmed that they would never have returned to the Church, but would have remained in error forever, had they not been provoked and, as it were, drawn back by those terrors and the many imperial laws. A most elegant passage of Augustine is in his letter to Vincentius; to which must be joined another passage of his in the first book *Against Gaudentius*, chapter 23.

(78) *To bind them over to the courts.* That is, he dragged them to the tribunals of the judges and, as it were, bound them. Interpreters, however, thought that these things were spoken of bonds, as if Bishop Theodosius had presented the heretics in chains to the judges. Nicephorus also understood it in this way. But the words of Socrates reject this meaning.

(79) *He came to a good intention.* Christophorson and others read this, which pleases me more.

(80) *As if he had been unjustly cast out of the bishopric.* I would prefer to read *paranomos* (illegally), just as Epiphanius Scholasticus and Nicephorus read.

CAP. IV. On the Jewish paralytic who was healed in divine baptism by Attico the bishop.

This was one benefit to the Church during the times of Atticus. These times were not devoid of miracles or healings. For a certain Jew, who had been a paralytic for many years, lay on a bed; and after every medical remedy had been tested upon him, and every Jewish prayer had been able to do nothing for him, he finally ran to Christian baptism, trusting that this was the only true physician for him. This quickly became known to Bishop Atticus. Having therefore instructed him and preached the hope in Christ to him, he ordered him to be carried along with his bed to the baptistery. The paralytic Jew, having received baptism with sincere faith, as soon as he was lifted from the fount of the baptistery, was totally freed from his disease and henceforth was among those in health. The power of Christ was pleased to show this healing even in our own times to men, on account of which many Gentiles, having believed, were baptized; but the Jews, although they seek signs, were not brought to the faith even by the signs that occurred. Such, then, were the benefits that Christ provided to men. ^{A B}

CAP. V. How Sabbatius, who was from the Jews and a presbyter of the Novatians, departed from those of his own belief.

Many, however, counting these things as nothing, persevered in their wickedness. For not only the Jews were unwilling to give credence to the miracles that were taking place, but even those who desire to imitate the Jews were detected thinking identically to them. Sabbatius, of whom we made mention a little earlier, not wishing to remain in his own rank of the presbyterate, but longing for the episcopate from the start, withdrew during these same times from the Church of the Novatians, putting forward the observation of the Jewish Pascha as a pretext. Holding a separate assembly, therefore, from his own bishop Sisinnius in a place of the city which is called Xerolophus—where now the Forum of Arcadius is named—he dared a deed liable to many dangers. For on a day of assembly, while reading a portion of the Gospel in which it is said, "Now it was the feast called the Pascha of the Jews," he added things that are neither written anywhere nor have ever been heard; for these are the words: "Cursed," he says, "is he who celebrates the Pascha outside of unleavened bread" (81). This, once heard, was spread abroad to many. And those of the laity among the Novatians who were simple-minded, being carried away, began to join him. Yet he did not profit from this sophism. ^{C D}

For that falsification had an unhappy ending. For not long after, when he was celebrating the feast by an anticipatory opinion, and many were gathering to him by custom, and were keeping the customary night-vigil, a kind of demonic panic fell upon them, as if Sisinnius, their bishop, were coming against them with a great multitude. And in the ensuing disturbance, as is apt to happen at night and in a narrow place, they were trapped and trampled upon one another, so that more than seventy of them perished. This event caused many to abandon the party of Sabbatius. Some, however, remained with him, held by that rustic error. But how Sabbatius, having violated the religion of the sacrament, arrived at the episcopate, we shall relate a little later.

CAP. VI. Concerning those who were in charge of the Arian sect at that time.

^B Dorotheus, the bishop of the Arian faction, whom we mentioned above as having been transferred from the see of Antioch to Constantinople by the Arians, died in the one hundred and nineteenth year of his life, in the consulship of Honorius for the seventh time and Theodosius Augustus for the second, on the sixth day of the month of November. After him, Barbas presided over the Arian sect. In the time of this Barbas, the Arian religion flourished by a certain good fortune, having two most eloquent men, both decorated with the dignity of presbyter. The name of one was Timotheus; the other was called Georgius. ^C But Georgius was more accomplished in Greek learning, while Timotheus had devoted more labor to the sacred Scriptures. And indeed, Georgius always had the books of Aristotle and Plato in his hands, whereas Timotheus was devoted to Origen; and when he publicly expounded the sacred Scriptures, he was not even ignorant of the Hebrew language. And Timotheus indeed had already, before this, remained [a part] of the Psathyrian sect.

^A Georgius had been ordained by Barbas. I have also conversed with this Timotheus, and I observed how prepared and ready he was to answer those who asked him questions, resolving whatever was obscure in the sacred oracles. He continually cited Origen as a most certain witness of the things he said. It occurs to me, therefore, to wonder how these men remained in the Arian religion, when the one always had Plato in his hands, and the other breathed Origen. For neither does Plato say that the second and third cause—as he himself is accustomed to name them—had a beginning of existence. And Origen everywhere confesses the Son to be coeternal with the Father. Yet even if they remained in their own Church, they nevertheless secretly drew the Arian religion toward a better state. For they thoroughly eliminated many of the blasphemies of Arius by their own teachings. But let these things be said concerning them. Not long after, Sisinnius, the bishop of the Novatians, having died in the same consulship, Chrysanthus was ordained, concerning whom we shall speak a little later.

CHAPTER VII. How Cyril succeeded Theophilus as bishop of Alexandria.

^A Cyrillus immediately, therefore, having closed the churches of the Novatians, as many as were in Alexandria, first of all took took their sacred vessels and ornaments, and then stripped their bishop, Theopemptus, of all the property he possessed.

CAP. VIII. Concerning Maruthas, bishop of Mesopotamia, and how the Christian religion was spread by him in Persia.

^B At about this same time, the Christian religion was spread in Persia from a cause of this kind: Between the Romans and the Persians, frequent embassies were sent to and fro. For various causes arise, on account of which they find it necessary to send envoys to one another from time to time. By chance, therefore, the necessity of some business then required that Maruthas, bishop of Mesopotamia, whom we mentioned a little before, be sent by the Roman emperor to the king of the Persians. The king of the Persians, when he had discovered him to be a man endowed with singular piety, showed him great honor, and listened to him as if he were truly a friend of God. This occurrence pricked the minds of the magi, who have great power with the king of the Persians. For they feared lest he should persuade the king to embrace the Christian religion. For Maruthas had healed, by his prayers, a chronic headache of his, which the magi had been unable to relieve. ^C Therefore, the magi concocted a fraud. And because the Persians worship fire, and the king was accustomed to adore a fire perpetually burning in a certain temple, they hid a man underground, and at the time when the king was accustomed to worship, they ordered him to shout out: that the king must be driven out, for he had acted impiously in considering a priest of the Christians to be dear to God. Having heard these things, Isdigerdes—for this was the name of the king of the Persians—although he followed Maruthas with reverence, nevertheless had it in his mind to dismiss him. But Maruthas, truly acceptable to God, was devoted to prayer, through which he discovered the deceit that had been brought about by the magi. Therefore, he said to the king, "Do not jest, O king. But..." ^D

enter and, after you have heard the voice, have the ground dug up and you will discover the fraud. For ^A it is not fire that speaks, but the artifice of men that does this." The King of the Persians, complying with Maruthas, entered again into the small chamber where the unquenchable fire was kept. And when he heard that same voice again, he ordered the place to be dug up. And he who was sending forth what was thought to be the voice of God was exposed. The king, therefore, being filled with rage, decimated the race of the magi. After this was done, he said to Maruthas that he could build churches wherever he wished. From this, the Christian religion spread more widely among the Persians. ^B Maruthas, then, departing from the Persians, returned again to Constantinople. But not long after, he was sent back as an ambassador. And the magi again devised schemes, so that the king would in no way receive the man. They devised a foul, malodorous smell, where the king was accustomed to pass; and they used calumny, as if those who associated with the Christian religion had caused this. But because the king already held the magi in prior suspicion, he sought out the perpetrators more diligently; and again, the makers of the foul odor were discovered to be from among them. Wherefore ^C he again punished many of them; but he held Maruthas in even greater honor. He loved the Romans and embraced friendship with them. And it lacked little but that he himself became a Christian, when Maruthas, together with Abdas the bishop of Persia, had worked another miracle. For both of them expelled the demon that was tormenting the son of the king, having devoted themselves to fasting and prayers. But Isdigerdes died before he had perfectly become a Christian; and the kingdom came to his son Vararanes, in whose time the peace treaty between the Romans and the Persians was broken, as we shall say a little later.

CAP. IX.

Qui tum temporis Antiochiæ et Romæ fuerint episcopi

Alexander again presided over the ^A Church in that place. At Rome, upon the death of Damasus, who had held the episcopate for eighteen years, Siricius succeeded him. When Siricius had governed that Church for fifteen years, Anastasius held the seat for three years. After Anastasius came Innocent, who was the first to begin to persecute the Novatians residing in Rome, and he stripped them of many of their churches.

CAP. X. How Rome at that time came under the power of the Barbarians, when Alaric sacked it.

At this same time, it came to pass that Rome was captured by the Barbarians. For a certain Barbarian named Alaric, who had been a federate of the Romans and had fought as an ally with Emperor Theodosius in the war against the tyrant Eugenius, having been honored for this reason with Roman rank, could not ^B bear his good fortune. Though he did not decide to seize the imperial power for himself, he departed from Constantinople and marched toward the western regions. When he arrived in the territory of the Illyrians, he immediately began to lay waste to everything. As he was passing through, the Thessalians resisted him around the mouths of the Peneus River, from where it is possible to cross through the Pindus mountains to Nicopolis in Epirus. A battle was joined, and the Thessalians killed about three thousand of his army. After this, however, those who were with him destroyed everything they encountered; finally, they captured Rome itself. Having sacked it, they burned many ^C of those marvelous sights, and they seized the money as plunder. They also subjected many of the senatorial order to various forms of justice and killed them. Making a mockery of the empire, Alaric proclaimed a certain Attalus as emperor. One day he would order him to go forth as an emperor surrounded by his guards, and on the next, he would prepare him to appear in the station of a slave. And having accomplished these things, he turned to flight, as he was struck with fear by the news...

^A that the Emperor Theodosius had sent a force to make war upon him. In fact, these rumors were not without foundation; for the army was indeed approaching. Not being able to endure the report of its arrival, he took to flight, as I have said. It is related that as he was setting out for Rome, a certain pious man, a monk by profession, exhorted him not to rejoice in such great evils, nor to delight in slaughter and blood. Alaric replied: “I do not go of my own volition; but some one urges and goads me on every day, saying, ‘Go, lay waste the city of the Romans.’” But enough has been said on this matter.

Chapter XI. Of the bishops of the city of Rome.

After Innocent, Zosimus presided over the Church in Rome for two years. After him, Boniface stood at the head of the Church for three years, whom Celestine succeeded. This Celestine also took away from the Novatians at Rome the churches which they held, and compelled their bishop, Rusticula, to gather the people secretly in private houses. For up to this time, the Novatians had flourished greatly in Rome, possessing many churches and gathering ^B a large multitude of people in them. But envy also reached them; the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, had long since overstepped the limits of the priesthood and degenerated into a worldly dominion. For this reason, the bishops did not allow even those who agreed with them in faith to assemble freely; but while praising them for their agreement in faith, they nevertheless stripped them of all their goods. The bishops of Constantinople, however, were exempt from this malady. For they not only permitted the Novatians to hold their assemblies within the city, but they even embraced them with singular affection, as I have already stated sufficiently before.

Chapter XII. Of Chrysanthus, bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople.

Upon the death of Sisinnius, Chrysanthus was forcibly drawn into the episcopate. ^C He was the son of Marcian, who had been bishop of the Novatians before Sisinnius. From his early youth he had served in the imperial palace, and later, under the great Emperor Theodosius, having become consular of Italy, he afterwards

^A Britain, he had carried away great glory from both administrative posts. But when he had arrived in Constantinople advanced in years, and was canvassing to become prefect of the city, he was compelled against his will to assume the episcopate. For when Sisinnius was on the point of death, he had made mention of him as being suitable for the direction of the Church, and the Novatian people, regarding his words as law, attempted to drag him into it by force, though he was unwilling. But since Chrysanthus had withdrawn himself by flight, Sabbatius, thinking that a seasonable opportunity had arrived for him to gain possession of the churches, procured that certain obscure bishops be brought together to impose hands upon him, disregarding the oath by which he had formerly bound himself. Moreover, among those who ordained Sabbatius was Hermogenes, who, on account of his books full of impiety, had been excommunicated by Sabbatius himself ^B with an added imprecation. However, his attempt did not succeed. For the people, offended by his importunate ambition, seeing that he did everything for the sake of seizing the episcopate, searched for Chrysanthus with all diligence. Having found him hiding in Bithynia, they dragged him back and appointed him to the episcopate. This man was at once prudent and temperate, if any other was, and he mightily strengthened and increased the Novatian churches in Constantinople. He was the first to distribute gold to ^C the poor from his own private means. From the churches he received nothing except two loaves of the loaves of blessing on each Lord's day. He was so diligent in promoting his own Church that he snatched Ablabius, the most eloquent rhetorician of his time, from the school of Troilus the Sophist and ordained him a presbyter. His sermons, both elegant and keen, are still in circulation. However, Ablabius later became bishop of the Novatian Church in Nicaea, and at the same time taught rhetoric there.

CAP. XIII. Of the battle that took place between Christians and Jews at Alexandria, and of the enmity of Bishop Cyril against the prefect Orestes.

About this same time, the Jewish race was cast out of Alexandria by Bishop Cyril for ^D this reason.

^A The populace of Alexandria, more than any other, delights in seditions; and if it ever finds a pretext, it is wont to break out into intolerable mischiefs. Nor does its fury abate until blood has been shed. Now it happened at that time that the multitude was in a state of turmoil, not from any grave or necessary cause, but because of a vice which has become prevalent in almost all cities—namely, an excessive zeal for dancers. For when a certain pantomime was accustomed to dance on the Sabbath, he would gather a huge multitude of the people, because the Jews, being idle on that day, were not engaged in hearing the Law, but were given over to theatrical spectacles; and thus the day became a point of contention between the factions of the people. And although this had been in some measure repressed by the prefect of Alexandria, ^B yet the Jews remained no less hostile to the men of the opposite faction: and besides being perpetual enemies of the Christians, they became yet more so on account of the pantomimes. Therefore, when Orestes, the prefect of Alexandria, was performing a "politeia" in the theatre—for so they are accustomed to name public notices—the adherents of Cyril were present there, desiring to know what had been ordained by the prefect. Among these was one named Hierax, a teacher of the lower branches of literature; he was a most fervent auditor of Bishop Cyril, and was in the habit of inciting applause at his discourses. This Hierax, therefore, having been seen in the theatre by the Jewish multitude, they immediately ^C cried out that he had come into the theatre for no other purpose than to stir up the people to sedition. Orestes, however, had long been ill-disposed towards ^D VALESII ANNOTATIONS. [ ... ] VARIORUM.

^A the authority of the bishops, because they curtailed much of the power of those appointed by the emperor to govern the provinces. Most of all, he was displeased because Cyril wished to oversee his official proceedings. Having, therefore, seized Hierax, he subjected him publicly to tortures in the theatre. When Cyril learned of this, he summoned the Jewish primates and threatened them with grave consequences if they did not cease their rioting against the Christians. But the multitude of the Jews, having heard of these threats, became even more obstinate; and they devised schemes for the destruction of the Christians, the most significant of which—and the one that became the cause of their being expelled from Alexandria—I shall now recount.

Having given a sign to one another—namely, to wear a ring made of palm bark—they planned a nocturnal attack against the Christians. Therefore, on a certain night, they sent men prepared for this deed to go through all the regions of the city and cry out that the church known as that of Alexander was on fire. Hearing this, the Christians ran from all directions to save the church. The Jews, having then made an assault upon them, slaughtered them; they refrained from harming their own, recognizing them by their rings, but killed whatever Christians they encountered. ^B When day broke, the perpetrators of this crime did not remain hidden. Moved by this event, Cyril, with a great multitude, proceeded to the synagogues of the Jews—for so they call their oratories—and he took these away from the Jews; he expelled the Jews themselves from the city, and permitted the populace to plunder their property. Thus, the Jews, who had inhabited that city from the days of Alexander the Macedonian, then departed from it all destitute, and were dispersed, some here and some there. Among them was a certain Adamantius, a professor of medicine, who fled to Constantinople; he took refuge with the bishop Atticus, and having made a profession of the Christian religion, he returned later and made his home in Alexandria.

Orestes, the prefect of Alexandria, was extremely distressed by what had happened, and he felt great sorrow that so vast a city had suddenly been emptied of such a multitude of inhabitants. Consequently, he reported the event to the emperor. Cyril, for his part, also reported the crimes of the Jews to the prince by let- ^C ters.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(99) *Iatrosophists*. The Greeks call them by this one word, meaning professors of medicine. Such was Magnus the physician, who taught medicine publicly in Alexandria; he was more skilled in speaking than he was an artisan of healing, as Eunapius writes in his book *On the Lives of the Sophists*. Such also was Gesius the physician in the times of Zeno Augustus, regarding whom Stephanus of Byzantium writes thus under the entry "Gaea": "In Petra, Gesius is a common name," and he is named from that place. Damascius has much to say about this same Gesius in his *Life of Isidorus*, and Suidas does as well under the entry "Gesius." Where he divides the skill of medicine into two parts, namely, the theoretical and the practical—what we commonly call the theoretical and the practical. And he adds that he mastered the art of medical works and discourses, being more precise than the physicians and iatrosophists of his own time.

VARIORUM

*Having given a sign to one another.* For having agreed among themselves to wear a ring of palm leaf... [A] tessera, or token made of palm leaf, by which they might recognize each other, they forced public criers to shout at night that the church was being consumed by fire. Thus, the Jews slaughtered the Christians as they gathered to the fire. When the crime was discovered, the Christian magistrates ordered the Jews to be exiled from Alexandria and their goods to be confiscated. Theophanes, *Chronographia*, ad ann. 2, according to the Alexandrians, which begins on the Kalends of September of the year 412.

^A And meanwhile, for the sake of reconciling their friendship, he sent intermediaries to Orestes; for the populace of the Alexandrians compelled him to do this. But when Orestes would not listen to the proposals for reconciliation, Cyril held out the book of the Gospels, thinking that through it he would shame Orestes into compliance. However, since Orestes was not softened even by this means, but a war without truce continued between them, the following events occurred.

CHAP. XIV.

How the monks of Nitria, having come to Alexandria for Cyril's sake, stirred up a sedition against the prefect Orestes.

Some of the monks dwelling in the mountains of Nitria, possessed of a fervent spirit and having started from the time of Theophilus—who had unjustly armed them against Dioscorus and his brothers—were at that time inflamed with a sharp zeal and determined to fight bravely for Cyril. ^B Therefore, about five hundred men left their monasteries, came into the city, and laid in wait for the prefect as he proceeded in his carriage. Accosting him, they called him a sacrificer and a pagan, and heaped many other insults upon him. Suspecting that a plot was being hatched against him by Cyril, he shouted that he was a Christian and had been baptized by Atticus, the bishop at Constantinople. But as the monks paid no attention to what he said, one of them, named Ammonius, struck Orestes on the head with a stone. He was immediately covered with blood from the wound; the attendants, except for a few, fled in various directions, slipping away into the crowd, fearing to die from the volley of stones. ^C Meanwhile, the populace of Alexandria flocked together, eager to defend the prefect against the monks. They put all the others to flight, but catching Ammonius, they brought him before the prefect. Orestes, having seized him to examine him publicly according to the laws, tortured him to such an extent that he died. Not long after, he informed the emperors of what had taken place. Cyril, for his part, sent a report to the emperor contradicting this. Having taken the body of Ammonius and deposited it in one of the churches, he gave him a different name, calling him Thaumasius, and ordered that he be styled a martyr, praising his resolve in church ^D as having undergone the struggle for piety.

^A However, those who were more moderate, even among the Christians, did not approve of this zeal of Cyril for Ammonius. For they knew that Ammonius had paid the penalty for his own rashness, and that he had not died under torture from any necessity of denying Christ. For this reason, Cyril also, by remaining quiet for a short while, caused what had happened to be forgotten. But the evil of the feud between Cyril and Orestes did not end there. For a different incident, similar to those which had occurred before, extinguished it—or rather, ignited it anew. ^B

Chapter XV. Concerning Hypatia the philosopher.

There was a woman in Alexandria by the name of Hypatia; she was the daughter of the philosopher Theon. She had attained such a degree of learning that she far surpassed the philosophers of her own time, succeeding in the Platonic school derived from Plotinus, and explaining all the subjects of philosophy to those who wished to hear them. Consequently, all those who were eager to study philosophy flocked to her from all sides. Because of the dignified confidence she possessed as a result of her learning, she would even appear with propriety before the magistrates; and there was no shame for her to be present in the midst of men. For everyone, on account of the excellence of her self-restraint, honored her all the more and was struck with awe. Envy, however, began to arm itself against her at that time. For because she was conversing with Orestes quite frequently, this stirred up a calumny against her among the church-going populace, as if it were she who was ^C preventing Orestes from coming into friendship with the bishop. Therefore, certain men of a hot temperament, led by a certain reader named Peter, having formed a conspiracy, kept watch for the woman as she was returning home from somewhere; and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church which is named after ^D

^A Caesareum; and stripping her of her garments, they slew her with oyster shells. And having torn her limb from limb, they carried her members to the place called Cinaron and consumed them with fire. This brought no small reproach upon Cyril and the Church of the Alexandrians. For killings and fighting and such like things are completely foreign to those who hold the sentiments of Christ. And these things were done in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, in the tenth consulship of Honorius and the sixth of Theodosius, in the month of March, during the time of the fast.

CAP. XVI. How the Jews, having again attacked the Christians, paid the penalty.

A little after this time, the Jews again having done absurd things against the Christians, paid the penalty. In a place called Inmestar, which lies between Chalcis and Antioch in Syria, the Jews ^B having, as is their custom, been performing certain games, and in their playing having done many foolish things, gathered together and began to mock the Christians and even Christ himself.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(7) *Ecclesia quae eponymos Caesareum*. Athanasius mentions this church in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, p. 860: "Neither in the great church, which is in the Caesareum, where the sacrifices were performed." He understands the cow which the pagans had wished to sacrifice in the major church, as he had said above, p. 848. Epiphanius has much on the same Caesarean church in his *Heresy of the Arians*, cap. 2. The Basilica Caesarea is mentioned in the *Breviary of Liberatus*, cap. 18.

(8) *Momos Kyrillou*. Certainly Damascius, in his *Life of Isidore*—which I intend to publish someday twice as complete, if God wills—makes Cyril the author of the murder of Hypatia. The words of Damascius are these: "It happened sometime that Cyril, who was presiding over the opposing heresy, passing by the house of Hypatia, the philosopher, daughter of Theon the philosopher..." And the rest which is read in Suidas. The passage is most elegant, which, for the favor of the studious reader, I will place here translated into Latin, repeating the words of Damascius from a little earlier: "The rulers of the city of Alexandria also, as soon as they came into the city, first visited her. Which indeed was also accustomed to happen at Athens. For although the thing itself has perished, yet the name of philosophy still seems magnificent and venerable to men occupying the leading position in the administration of the republic. It happened therefore at a certain time, that Cyril, the bishop of the Christian religion, passing before the house of Hypatia, saw a maximum crowd before the doors, ^C of men as well as horses; of whom some were arriving, others departing, others truly remaining. And when he had inquired what that multitude was, and why such a tumult was being made, he was answered by those following him, that Hypatia the philosopher was then being greeted, and that those were her quarters. When Cyril had learned this, he was so stimulated by envy that he immediately plotted murder against her, and that the most wicked of all. For when Hypatia was coming out from her house in her usual manner, many beastly men, reverencing neither the vengeance of the gods nor the retribution of men, made a rush and murdered her; binding their fatherland with a most heavy crime and reproach. And the emperor indeed took that matter most heavily; and would have avenged it, had not Aedesius corrupted the friends of the emperor. And the emperor indeed remitted the punishment to the murderers. But he drew down vengeance upon his own head and his own stock: and his nephew paid the penalty." So far Damascius. Where by nephew, I understand Valentinian, the son of Placidia, who was the aunt of Theodosius the Younger.

(9) *Kai Theodosiou to dekaton*. [Note: Valesius discusses the correction of the consulship year here.]

VARIORUM.

* That Damascius is not to be listened to in this matter, the most learned Du Pin contends in his *Life of Cyril of Alexandria*. Yet Damascius does not explicitly affirm that Hypatia was killed by the work of Cyril; but only, as some report: or, as others say, because the Alexandrians were by nature bold, and by temperament prone to sedition.

δ These things were done in the fourth year. Here Ant. Pagi seems not to have been sufficiently attentive, when he says that the year in which Hypatia died is not defined by Socrates. For he showed the most certain notes of the year 415, according to Pagi's own calculation: and therefore Baronius, who referred this murder to that year, followed Socrates as his author. But it is true that Theophanes, under the year according to the Alexandrians, which begins on Sept. 1 of our era, has these things: "In this year Hypatia the philosopher, daughter of Theon the philosopher, by a violent death was slain." See Ant. Pagi, at the year 415, no. 20.

ε *En Imestar*. The same Theophanes, in the year according to the Alexandrians, which begins on Sept. 1 of ours, says: "In this year the Jews, having seized a Christian child at Immus, for the sake of performing mockeries and for the sake of deriding the cross, having suspended that same child on wood, killed him with tortures." Of which the emperor having been made certain, used fitting punishments against the Jews. Hence, in following years, various constitutions were given against them. See *Cod. Theodos.*, "de Judaeis."

CAP. XVII. Concerning Paul, bishop of the Novatians, and the miracle performed by him when he was about to baptize an impostor Jew.

^BAround this same time, Chrysanthus, the bishop of the Novatians, having governed the churches under him for seven years, departed this life in the consulship of Monaxius and Plintha, on the twenty-sixth day of August. Paulus succeeded him in the episcopate. He had formerly been a teacher of Latin eloquence, but afterward, having cast aside the study of the Roman tongue, he turned to the monastic life; and having gathered a society of devout men, he followed a manner of living not unlike that of monks dwelling in the desert. I indeed found him to be such as Evagrius writes that those who dwell in deserts as monks ought to be. For he assiduously imitated all their institutes: continual fasting, the endeavor to speak little, and abstinence from the eating of living creatures; he even used wine and oil but rarely. ^C He also manifested a special care and solicitude for the poor; he diligently visited those detained in prisons, and interceded with the judges for many—who indeed readily obeyed him on account of the man's eminent piety. But what need is there to weave a lengthy discourse about him? I shall at present commemorate one of his deeds, which is truly worthy to be consigned to the records of history.

A certain Jewish impostor, pretending to be a Christian, had been baptized many times, and by such fraud had collected much money. When, however, he had circumvented many sects of Christians by this art—for he had received the baptism of the Arians and of the Macedonians—having no one left to deceive, he at length approached Paul, the bishop of the Novatians. He besought him, affirming that he burned with desire to receive baptism, that he might receive it at his hands. Paul indeed praised the Jew's will and zeal, but he refused to grant him baptism before he should be grounded in the rudiments of the faith ^D and should have spent many days at leisure in fasting. The Jew, therefore, being compelled to fast against his will, applied himself with even greater eagerness, begging to be baptized.

^A And Paul, no longer wishing to cause the man sorrow by delay, prepared things for the baptism. Having bought him a bright garment and ordered the font of the baptistery to be filled, he brought the Jew to it as if to baptize him. But a certain invisible power of God caused the water to disappear. When the bishop and those present, suspecting nothing of what had happened, supposed that the water had leaked out through the underlying conduit through which it was accustomed to be drained, they filled the baptistery again with great care, having securely blocked the outlets on all sides. But when the Jew was brought to it again, the water again vanished completely. Then Paul said, "Either you are playing a trick, man, or you have already, unknown to me, received baptism." A crowd having gathered to see the miracle, someone recognized the Jew and discovered that he was the very man who had already been baptized by Bishop Atticus. Thus, this miracle was performed by Paul, the bishop of the Novatians. ^B

CHAPTER XVIII

After the death of the Persian king Isdigerdes, who had not persecuted the Christians living there at all, his son, Vararanes by name, who succeeded to the kingdom, ^C acting on the advice of the Magi, cruelly harassed the Christians, inflicting various Persian punishments and tortures upon them. Therefore, the Christians who dwelt in Persia, constrained by necessity, took refuge with the Romans, praying that they might not be allowed to be utterly destroyed. Atticus, the bishop, received those who sought help with kindness, and strove with all his might to succor them to the best of his ability, and he also made known what had happened to the Emperor Theodosius. It happened that at this same time the Romans had another cause for disagreement with the Persians: first, because the Persians would not return the gold miners whom they had received from the Romans under contract; and second, because they had confiscated the wares of the Roman merchants. To this enmity was added the flight of the Christians living there to the Romans. ^D Immediately the king of the Persians sent envoys demanding the fugitives back. But the Romans by no means surrendered those who had taken refuge with them.

^A Since they were unwilling to betray those who had fled to them for safety—not only desiring to protect them as suppliants, but also being prepared to do anything for the sake of the Christian religion—they preferred to wage war with the Persians rather than suffer the Christians to perish miserably. Therefore, the peace treaty having been broken for this reason, a grave war was kindled, of which it would not be inappropriate to speak briefly. The Roman Emperor sent forward a portion of the army, which was commanded by the general Ardaburius. He, breaking through the Armenian territory into Persia, devastated one of its provinces called Azazene. Narsaeus, the general of the Persian king, met him with a Persian force, but being joined in battle and defeated, he withdrew in flight; he decided that it would be profitable to burst suddenly through Mesopotamia into the Roman territory, which was unprotected, and that by this way he should take vengeance upon the Romans. However, this design of Narsaeus did not escape the notice of the Roman general. Accordingly, having plundered Azazene with all speed, he himself also marched into Mesopotamia. Wherefore Narsaeus, although equipped with very great forces, was nevertheless unable to invade the Roman dominion. When he had come to Nisibis—a city of Persian jurisdiction situated on the border of both empires—he made it known from there to Ardaburius that they should reach an agreement between themselves concerning the conduct of the war and determine the time and place for the engagement. But he replied to those who had come: "Report these things to Narsaeus: The Roman emperors will not fight when you wish." Now the Emperor, perceiving that the Persian had prepared all the forces of his kingdom for this war, having placed his entire hope of victory in God, sent forth huge reinforcing armies. ^B That the Emperor, because he had placed his faith in God, received an immediate benefit from Him, appeared most clearly from this: When the citizens of Constantinople were anxious and uncertain and wavering regarding the outcome of the war, angels of God were seen in Bithynia by certain men traveling to Constantinople on private business, and they commanded them to report to the Constantinopolitans to be of good courage and to pray to God, and to trust that the Romans would be victorious. For they claimed they had been sent by God as the arbiters of the war. ^C When this was heard, not only was the city strengthened, but boldness was also added to the soldiers. Since, therefore, as I have said, the war had been moved from the Armenian territory into Mesopotamia, the Romans besieged the Persians who had been shut up in the city of the Nisibenians; and having constructed wooden towers, they brought them up to the walls by means of a certain machine, and many of those who were fighting from the walls to defend themselves ^D

As I have already said, the war was transferred from the region of the Armenians to Mesopotamia, and the Romans besieged the Persians while they were shut up within the city of Nisibis; they moved wooden towers, constructed with certain mechanical devices, up to the walls, and slaughtered many of those who were fighting from the wall and had run up to provide aid. ^A The King of the Persians, Vararanes, having heard that his own imperial region of Azazene had been laid waste, and that his men were being besieged, shut up within the city of Nisibis, decided to march against the Romans with all his forces. But, fearing the Roman army, he implored the aid of the Saracens, who were then commanded by Alamundarus, a brave and warlike man. He, having brought with him an innumerable multitude of Saracens, bade the King of the Persians to be of good courage. Indeed, he promised that shortly he would show the Romans to him as captives, and would deliver Antioch in Syria to him. But the outcome failed his promise. For God struck a certain vain terror into the Saracens. For when they thought that the Roman army was rushing against them, they became disturbed, and finding nowhere to flee, they threw themselves, armored as they were, into the river Euphrates. ^B In this way, about one hundred thousand men perished, drowned in the waters. And these things happened in this manner. But the Romans who were besieging Nisibis, when they learned that the King of the Persians was bringing a multitude of elephants with him, were struck with fear, and having burned all the siege engines which they had used in the siege, they returned to their own territory. But I judge it right to omit the battles that took place afterwards, and how Areobindus, another of the Roman generals, slew the bravest of the Persians in single combat; or by what reasoning Ardaburius killed seven noble Persian commanders by catching them in an ambush; or in what manner Vitianus, another Roman general, routed the remaining forces of the Saracens, lest I seem to digress too far from my proposed subject. ^C

Chapter XIX. Of Palladius the Courier.

However, the events that took place were quickly reported to the Emperor Theodosius. But I shall explain how the emperor quickly learned of things that were happening in such distant places. By some happy fate he had acquired a man gifted with both vigour of mind and body, by the name of Palladius. This man drove the public horses with such speed that within the space of three days he would arrive at those places which mark the boundary between the region of the Persians and that of the Romans, and in as many days would return again to Constantinople. ^D Furthermore, he traversed with the utmost speed other parts of the world to which he had been sent by the emperor. And so, a certain person of those in attendance once uttered such words concerning him: "This man..."

^A Indeed, a certain learned man once said not unskillfully of him: "This man makes the Roman Empire, which is so vast in itself, appear very small through his swiftness." Even the king of the Persians himself was struck with amazement when he heard these things about that man. But let this suffice concerning Palladius. ^B

CHAPTER XX

The Roman emperor, while remaining in Constantinople, having been informed of the victory which was so clearly granted by God, was nonetheless so kind that, although the Romans had conducted the affair successfully, he nevertheless embraced the prospect of peace. He therefore sent Helion, a man whom he held in very high esteem, with instructions to negotiate a peace treaty with the Persians. When Helion had arrived in Mesopotamia, at the place where the Romans had dug a trench for their own security, he sent ahead as an envoy for the purpose of making peace a certain Maximinus, a man skilled in eloquence, who was the assessor of the *magister militum* Ardaburius. ^C When he came before the king of the Persians, he said that he had been sent to negotiate peace, not by the Roman emperor, but by his generals. For he claimed that the emperor was completely unaware of this war, and that after he learned of it, he would easily condemn it. And since the king of the Persians wished to readily embrace that embassy—for his army was suffering from a shortage of provisions—those whom they call the Immortals among the Persians (these are ten thousand most valiant men) approached the king and said that peace should not be accepted until they had attacked the Romans, who were at this moment incautious. ^D The king, following their advice, ordered the orator to be shut up and guarded in a hidden place, while he sent those "Immortals" to lay an ambush for the Romans. Upon arriving at the designated spot, they divided themselves into two companies and decided to surround a certain portion of the Roman army. But the Romans, seeing only one company of Persians, prepared themselves to engage it. The other company was not seen by them at all. For they suddenly burst forth for the battle. And when the engagement was about to begin, another Roman army, commanded by the *magister militum* Procopius, by divine providence, appeared from a hill. When he saw his fellow soldiers about to be in danger, he attacked the Persians from the rear, and those who a little before had surrounded the Romans, found themselves surrounded. The Romans then thoroughly…

having destroyed a few, they turned to those coming out of the ambush, and they likewise shot down all of them ^A in like manner. Thus, those called "immortals" by the Persians were all shown to be mortal, with Christ extracting vengeance from the Persians because they had killed many of the pious men who were His worshippers. The king of the Persians, having learned of the misfortune, pretended not to know what had happened. He received the embassy, saying to the ambassador: "I do not embrace peace as one yielding to the Romans, but as showing favor to you, because I have found you to be the most prudent of all the Romans." Thus, the war that had been undertaken on account of the Christians living in Persia came to an end, which occurred in the consulship of the two Augusti, Honorius for the thirteenth time and Theodosius for the tenth time, in the fourth year of the three-hundredth Olympiad. The persecution that had been ^B raised against the Christians in Persia also ceased.

CHAPTER XXI

What Acacius, Bishop of Amida, did for the Persian captives.

At that time, a good deed made Acacius, Bishop of Amida, more manifest to all. For when the Roman soldiers refused in any way to return to the Persian king the captives of the Persians whom they had taken while ravaging Azazene 17, and meanwhile the captives, who were in number about seven thousand, were perishing from starvation—a matter which greatly troubled the mind of the king of the Persians—Acacius did not overlook these things happening. Having called together the clergy under him, he said: "Our God has no need of plates or cups, for He neither eats nor drinks, seeing that He is in need of nothing. ^C Since, therefore, the church possesses many gold and silver vessels from the generosity of those who belong to it

^A it is fitting that we should redeem the captives from the soldiers with their price and provide them with food. Having discussed these and other similar matters with them, he ordered the sacred vessels to be melted down; then, after paying the soldiers the price for each captive and feeding them, he finally gave them provisions and sent them back to their own king. This deed of the admirable Acacius struck the king of the Persians with great astonishment, for he saw that the Romans were eager to conquer their enemy both by war and by kindness. They say that the king of the Persians even desired that Acacius should come into his presence, so that he himself might enjoy the sight of the man, and that this was done with the permission of the Emperor Theodosius. When, therefore, so illustrious a victory had been divinely granted to the Romans, many of those who were pre-eminent in eloquence wrote panegyric orations in honor of the emperor, and recited them in public. Indeed, the wife of the emperor herself composed poems in heroic verse; for she was very learned, being the daughter of Leontius, the Athenian sophist, having been educated by her father and having traversed every branch of literature. When the Emperor Theodosius was about to take her as his wife, Bishop Atticus made her a Christian, and at her baptism, instead of Athenaïs, named her Eudocia. Many, therefore, as I have said, recited panegyric orations; some because they wished to become known to the emperor, others with the intention of displaying the power and ability of their own eloquence to the listeners, since they were unwilling that the learning they had acquired with much labor should in any way remain hidden. ^B

CHAPTER XXII.

I, however, being one who does not strive to become known to the emperor, nor desiring to make a display of eloquence, have determined to record the good qualities that exist in our emperor, simply and with truth. For since they are so useful and fruitful, I judge that to pass them over in silence, being as they are so beneficial, would bring no slight injury to those who come after us. First of all, indeed, in ^C

βασιλείᾳ τεχθεὶς καὶ τραφείς, οὐδὲν ἐκ τῆς ἀνατροφῆς εἶχε βλακώδες· ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἦν φρόνιμος, ὡς τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι νομίζεσθαι διάπειραν πολλῶν εἰληφέναι πραγμάτων.^A Καρτερὸς δὲ οὕτως ἦν, ὡς καὶ κρύος καὶ καῦμα γενναίως ὑπομένειν· νηστεύειν τε τὰ πολλὰ, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς καλουμένας τετράδας καὶ παρασκευὰς ἡμέρας. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐποίει, ἄκρως χριστιανίζειν ἐσπουδακώς. Οὐκ ἀλλοιότερα δὲ ἀσκητηρίου κατέστησε τὰ βασίλεια. Αὐτὸς τοιγαροῦν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ ἀδελφαῖς ὀρθρίζων, ἀντιφώνους ὕμνους εἰς τὸ θεῖον ἔλεγε. Διὸ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ Γράμματα ἀπὸ στήθους ἀπήγγειλεν. Ἐντυγχάνουσι γοῦν τοῖς ἐπισκόποις, ὡς ἱερεὺς πάλαι καθεστώς, ἐκ τῶν Γραφῶν διελέγετο. Συνῆγε δὲ καὶ τὰς βίβλους τὰς ἱερὰς, καὶ ὅσας οἱ ἑρμηνεῖς αὐτῶν συνέγραψαν, μᾶλλον ἢ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλάδελφος πρότερον. Τὸ ἀνεξίκακον^B καὶ φιλάνθρωπον, πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὑπερηκόντιζεν. Ἰουλιανὸς μὲν γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς, καίπερ φιλοσοφεῖν ἐπαγγειλάμενος, ὅμως οὐκ ἤνεγκε τὴν ὀργὴν κατὰ τῶν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ αἰνιξαμένων αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ βασάνους μεγίστας τῷ Θεοδώρῳ προσήγαγεν. Θεοδόσιος δὲ πολλὰ χαίρειν τοῖς Ἀριστοτέλους φράσας συλλογισμοῖς, τὴν δι' ἔργων ἤσκει φιλοσοφίαν, ὀργῆς τε κρατῶν καὶ λύπης καὶ ἡδονῆς· καὶ οὐδένα τῶν ἠδικηκότων ἠμύνατο. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὅλως αὐτὸν ὀργιζόμενον τις τεθέαται. Καί ποτε τινὸς τῶν γνωρίμων αὐτὸν ἐρομένου· διὰ τί μηδένα τῶν ἀδικούντων θανάτῳ ποτὲ ἐζημίωσας; Εἴθε, φησί, δυνατὸν καὶ τοὺς τελευτήσαντας ἦν ἐπαγαγεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωήν! Πρὸς ἄλλον δὲ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐρωτήσαντα, Οὐ μέγα, ἔφη, οὐδὲ δυσχερές, ἄνθρωπον ὄντα ἀποθανεῖν· ὅτι μηδὲ Θεῷ μόνῳ τὸν ἅπαξ θανόντα, ἐκ μετανοίας ἀνακαλέσασθαι. Οὕτω δὲ τοῦτο βεβαίως αὐτῷ κατώρθωτο, ὥστε εἴ ποτέ τις ἄξια κεφαλικῆς ἐπλημμέλησε τιμωρίας, οὐδ' ἄχρι τῆς πόλεως τῶν πυλῶν τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ἀπήγετο,^C καὶ ἡ ἐκ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας εὐθὺς ἀνάκλησις εἵπετο. Κυνήγια δέ ποτε ἐν τῷ ἀμφιθέάτρῳ τῆς Κωνσταντίνου πόλεως ἐπιτελοῦντος αὐτοῦ, ὁ δῆμος κατεβόα, δεινῷ θηρίῳ ἕνα τῶν εὐφυῶν παραβόλων μάχεσθαι. Ὁ δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς, Οὐκ οἴδατε, ἔφη, ὅτι ἡμεῖς φιλανθρώπως εἰθίσμεθα θεωρεῖν; Καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸν δῆμον φιλανθρώπως θεάσθαι ἐπαίδευσεν. Οὕτω μὲν ἦν εὐσεβής.^D

εὐσεβής. ^A It is said that when the bishop of Hebron died in Constantinople, he sought out his garment [Note: the Latin text specifies 'sagum', a coarse cloak], and wrapped himself in it, though it was quite soiled, believing that he might partake of some of the holiness of the deceased. ^B Once, when the year was excessively stormy, he was obliged by necessity to hold the customary and appointed shows in the hippodrome, because the people were demanding them. But when the hippodrome was filled with men and the storm intensified, with heavy snow falling, the emperor then made clear his own mind regarding the Divine, addressing the people through the criers: "But it is far better," he said, "to disregard the spectacle and all of us together offer supplications to God, so that we may be kept unharmed by the impending storm." And the crier had not yet finished his words when, with great joy, they all began to offer supplications in the hippodrome, and all together sent up hymns in unison to God. And the whole city became one church. The emperor went out into their midst, leading the hymns, walking in private attire, and he did not miss his hope. For the air changed to serenity; and from a shortage of grain, the philanthropy of God provided abundance for all. If ever war was stirred up, he would flee to God, imitating David, knowing Him to be the dispenser of wars, and by prayer he would bring them to a successful conclusion. Therefore, I will now narrate how, shortly after the war against the Persians, when the emperor Honorius had died—in the consulship of Asclepiodorus and Marianus, on the fifteenth of the month of August ^C—having trusted in God, he overcame the tyrant John. For I judge the events of that time to be worthy of memory. As, in the time of Moses, such things occurred for the Hebrews while they were crossing the Red Sea, such things also occurred for his generals when he sent them against the tyrant. These I will set forth briefly, leaving their magnitude, which requires a separate treatise, to others. ^D I consider all those dedicated to God worthy of honor; especially those whom he learned were more distinguished for their piety.

Chapter XXIII. Concerning John, who usurped the tyranny in Rome after the death of the Emperor Honorius; and how God, moved by the prayers of Theodosius, delivered him into the hands of the Roman army.

^A When the Emperor Honorius had died, the Emperor Theodosius, upon learning of the matter, kept it quiet for a time, and by one pretext after another, deflected the attention of the masses. He secretly sent a military force to Salona, a city in Dalmatia, so that if any revolutionary movement should occur in the Western regions, defenders might be at hand. Having made these preparations, he then made the death of his uncle public. ^B In the meantime, John, who was the chief of the imperial secretaries, not content with the greatness of his own rank, seized the empire, and sent an embassy to the Emperor Theodosius, requesting to be acknowledged as emperor. The latter, however, threw the envoys into custody, and sent out the general Ardaburius, who had performed most excellent service in the Persian war. Having reached Salona, he sailed from there to Aquileia, and met with what was then thought to be adverse fortune, but which later appeared as prosperous. For a harsh and violent wind arose and cast him into the hands of the tyrant. Upon the capture of Ardaburius, the tyrant conceived the firm hope that Theodosius, compelled by necessity, would proclaim him emperor if he wished to save his general. ^C Truly, the emperor himself was in distress upon learning of this, and the army that had been sent against the tyrant was anxious and fearful lest Ardaburius should suffer some harm at the hands of the tyrant. Aspar, the son of Ardaburius, learning that his father was held captive by the tyrant and knowing that many thousands of barbarians had arrived to assist the tyrant, did not know which way to turn. But then the prayer of the God-beloved emperor once again prevailed. For an angel of God, in the guise of a shepherd, guided Aspar and those with him, and led them through the marsh adjacent to Ravenna. ^D For in this city the tyrant was dwelling, holding the general captive; and it is recorded that no one had ever traversed it before. But then God rendered that impassable place passable. Having crossed—

the waters of the marsh as though it were dry land ^A and having found the gates of the city open, they took the tyrant captive. At that time, the most pious emperor showed what great reverence he held for the divine Power. For while he was attending the circus games, it was announced that the tyrant had been killed. He therefore addressed the people, saying: "Come, if it pleases you, let us leave behind the pleasures of the circus, and going to the house of prayer, let us offer up thanksgiving prayers to God, by whose hand the tyrant was brought low." These words having been spoken, the spectacle was immediately ended and abandoned; and passing through the middle of the circus, all, together with the emperor, singing psalms and giving thanks to God with one consensus of heart and voice, proceeded to the church. And the whole city became as it were one church; and having come to the place of prayer, they remained there for the rest of the day.

CAP. XXIV. How after the slaughter of the tyrant John, the emperor Theodosius proclaimed Valentinian, the son of Constantius and his aunt Placidia, Emperor of Rome.

The tyrant having been killed, the emperor Theodosius began to be anxious as to whom he should appoint as emperor over the Western parts. ^B He had a cousin who was still a mere youth, Valentinian by name, born of Placidia, his aunt; who was the daughter of the emperor Theodosius the Great, and sister of the two Augusti, Arcadius and Honorius. Valentinian’s father was Constantius, who, having been proclaimed emperor by Honorius and having held the empire along with him for a very short time, had departed this life. Theodosius, therefore, having invested this cousin of his with the dignity of Caesar, sent him to the Western parts, entrusting the administration of affairs to his mother Placidia. And as he himself had intended to set out for Italy, both to proclaim his cousin Augustus and, by his presence, to instruct the people there with his own prudent counsel so that they might not easily submit to tyrants, he was prevented by illness when he had reached Thessalonica. Sending, therefore, the imperial diadem to his cousin by the hand of the Patrician Helion, he himself returned to Constantinople. But concerning these matters, I think what I have said suffices.

CAP. XXV.

Atticus the bishop wonderfully increased the affairs of the churches, managing them with singular prudence, and by his teachings exhorting the people to the pursuit of virtue. Observing that the Church was divided because the Joannites were holding their assemblies outside of it, he ordered that mention of John be made in the prayers, just as was the custom for other bishops who had departed this life, hoping by this means that many would return to the Church. He was so munificent that he provided not only for the poor in his own parishes, but also sent money to neighboring cities for the relief of those in need. For example, having sent three hundred gold pieces to Calliopius, a presbyter of the Church of the Nicaeans, he sent the following:

^B “Atticus to Calliopius in the Lord, greetings. I have learned that ten thousand are suffering from hunger in your city and are in need of the charity of pious men. But when I say ten thousand, I mean a multitude, not an exact and defined number. Since, however, I have myself received a certain amount from Him who is accustomed to give with a generous hand to those who distribute well, and it happens that some, for the sake of testing those who possess but do not provide for these, are in poverty, take, my dear friend, these three hundred gold pieces and spend them as you wish. You will surely wish to give them to those who are ashamed to ask, but not to those who have made their belly a trade for their whole life. When you give, therefore, do not consider religion in this matter at all, ^C acting with only one aim: to feed those who are hungry, and not to distinguish those who do not hold our way of thinking.”

In this manner, he took thought for the needy, even those at a distance; nor was he less zealous in rooting out the superstitious practices of some. Having learned, for example, that the Novatians, by reason of the Jewish Passover...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIOUS NOTES.

^A He labored greatly to abolish the superstition of men. For once, when he had learned that those who had caused a schism among the Novatians on account of the Jewish Pascha had transferred the body of Sabbatius from the island of Rhodes (for he had died there in exile) and had committed it to burial, and were accustomed to pray over his tumulus, he sent grave-diggers by night and ordered the corpse of Sabbatius to be hidden in another tomb. But they, having come as was their custom and finding the tomb dug up, ceased to venerate that place thereafter. He was also elegant and graceful in assigning names. A shipyard situated at the mouth of the Euxine Pontus, which had been called Pharmacia from antiquity, he renamed Therapeia, so that, by celebrating his assemblies there, he might not designate the place by an ill-omened name. He also gave the name Argyropolis to another suburb of Constantinople for this reason: the old shipyard is Chrysopolis, situated at the head of the Bosporus. Of this, many of the ancient historians make mention, both Strabo, and Nicolaus Damascenus, and that admirable Xenophon, who in the sixth book of his *Expedition of Cyrus* and in the first book of his *Hellenica* speaks about it, saying that Alcibiades, having girt it with a wall, established a custom-house there; for those sailing from the Pontus were compelled to pay a tenth there. Atticus, therefore, seeing that the place situated opposite Chrysopolis was pleasing and delightful, stated that it was fitting that it be named Argyropolis; and his word having been spoken, it immediately took on the name. ^B And when some said to him that the Novatians ought not to celebrate assemblies within the cities, "You do not know," he said, "how much they suffered with us while we were enduring persecution under the reigns of Constantius and Valens? And besides," he said, "they have stood as witnesses of our faith. For although they separated themselves from the Church long ago, they innovated nothing regarding the faith." And when he had once gone to Nicaea for the sake of ordaining a bishop, having caught sight of Asclepiades, the bishop of the Novatians there, who was a very old man, he asked how many years he had lived in the episcopate. And when he replied that he had passed fifty years, "You are happy," he said, "O man, who for so long a time have administered such a good work." ^C And he also said to the same Asclepiades at one time: "I, indeed, praise Novatus, but I do not approve of the Novatians." Disturbed by this statement, Asclepiades said: "How do you say this, Bishop?" To whom Atticus replied: "I praise him because he was unwilling to communicate with those who had sacrificed. For I myself and you, too, would have done the same. But I do not praise the Novatians because they exclude the laity from communion for trivial faults." To these things Asclepiades answered: "Aside from sacrificing, there are many other sins according to the Scriptures that are unto death, for which you exclude the clergy, ^D but we exclude even the laity, leaving the forgiveness of them to God alone."

^A Atticus also foresaw the time of his own death. For when he was about to depart from Nicaea, he said to Calliopius, the presbyter of that place: "Take care that you come to Constantinople before autumn, if you wish to see me still alive. For if you come later, you will not find me among the living." And when he had said this, he was not mistaken in the truth. For he departed this life in the twenty-first year of his episcopate, on the tenth day of October, in the consulship of Theodosius for the eleventh time and of Valentinian Caesar for the first. ^B Furthermore, the emperor Theodosius, having returned from the city of Thessalonica, did not arrive in time for his funeral; for Atticus had been committed to the grave the day before the emperor entered Constantinople. Nor was it long after that the proclamation of Valentinian the Younger as Augustus was announced, on the 23rd day of the same month of October.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. In the Catholic Church, those who were excommunicated for more serious crimes were excluded from the Church without hope of pardon; the laity were not. This can be explained as follows: the laity who had been separated from communion for public crimes recovered peace and communion through the remedy of penance, at least once. But for the clergy who had been excommunicated, the door of penance was closed. Nor were they admitted to public penance. They remained permanently excommunicated. ^C Therefore, the clergy were very rarely excommunicated; they were either deposed, or suspended from office for a short time, or certainly reduced to lay communion. Yet the first canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea protests, by which clergy who have admitted to fornication or adultery are driven from communion and reduced to penance. This passage can also be explained otherwise. Since Nectarius had removed the penitentiary, free power to communicate was left to all the laity: no one was now removed from communion for a mortal crime, with the exception of the clergy.

(52) Atticus not only foresaw the day of his death; but he also built a tomb for himself long before his death, as I learned from an old epigram, which, because it has not yet been edited, I will set down here:

*Of Paul the Silentiary, on the tomb prepared for Atticus.* Atticus, having entrusted me with the hope of a common lot, While alive, with confident spirit, I built [this] tomb, Playing against the fear of death, out of virtue; but [so that] the Sun May remain for the Sun, in witness of his wisdom.

This epigram exists in the *Anthology of Constantine*... ^D [remainder of note regarding the authorship of the epigram and the timing of Valentinian's proclamation].

VARIORUM. *Of penance, lib. 1, cap. 1.* They therefore denied that the power of remitting sins and reconciling sinners belonged to God, but to the Church, and for that reason they were justly proscribed and condemned by the Catholic Church, because they withdrew the power of the keys from the priests. (Guil. Beveregius, *Annot. in v can. concil. Nic. 1.*)

*In the twenty-first year.* The eleventh consulship of Theodosius and the first of Valentinian falls in the year 425, which was only the nineteenth year since Atticus was made bishop, which occurred in the year 406. W. LOWTH. To this Ant. Pagi agrees, *ad ann. 425, n. 13*. Who and what sort of person Atticus was, Socrates narrates above, lib. vi, cap. 20, and lib. vii, cap. 2.

He opposed St. Chrysostom with immoderate zeal. Palladius calls him "the artisan of every device against John" (*Vit. Chrys., pag. 95*), and after Arsacius, he succeeded to the seat of him who was still living. He refused to insert the name of the deceased into the diptychs, until, excluded from the communion of the Western bishops, after several years he finally restored it. GUIL. CAVE. Truly he later expiated the crime by penance and right actions, says Ant. Pagi, and the Ephesine Fathers proclaim his vigilance in clearing out heresies and his sincerity in defending the orthodox faith.

CAP. XXVI. Of Sisinnius, who succeeded Atticus in the Constantinopolitan episcopate.

^A Furthermore, after the death of Atticus, a great contention arose concerning the ordination of a bishop, as some demanded one person and others another. For some, as he says, sought after Philippus the presbyter, while others sought after Proclus, who was also a presbyter. But all the people by common consent desired that Sisinnius should become bishop, who was himself also a presbyter. He was not, however, appointed to any of the churches within the city, but instead had obtained the rank of presbyter in a suburb of Constantinople named Elaea. This suburb is situated opposite the imperial city, and there, by ancient custom, the festival of the Lord’s Ascension is celebrated by the whole populace. Now all the laity were burning with desire for this man, both because he was everywhere most celebrated by name for piety, and especially because he busied himself with fostering the poor even beyond his own means. Therefore the eagerness of the laity prevailed, and Sisinnius was ordained on the twenty-eighth day of the month of February, in the consulate immediately following, which was the twelfth of Theodosius and the second of Valentinian the Younger Augustus. ^B Thereafter Philippus the presbyter, since another had been preferred before him, reprehended that ordination at great length in the *Christian History* which he composed, attacking both the person ordained and those who ordained him, and even more so the laity. He said such things as I would not choose to commit to writing, since I do not approve of his rashness in having dared to hand such things over to writing. But I consider it by no means untimely to say a few things about him.

CAP. XXVII. Of Philippus the presbyter, of Side.

Philippus was by fatherland a Sidonian. Now Side is a city of Pamphylia, from which Troilus the sophist also took his origin, to whom Philippus boasted of being joined by kinship of birth. When he was a deacon, he associated mostly with Bishop John. He also applied effort and labor to the study of letters, and collected many books of every kind. Having emulated the Asian style of rhetoric, he labored much. For he both refuted the books of the Emperor Julian and composed a *Christian History*, which he divided into thirty-six books. ^C But each book contained many volumes, so that all of them together were nearly a thousand in number. The subject matter of each volume equals the volume itself in size. However, he did not entitle this work *Ecclesiastical History*, but *Christian*. Furthermore, he collected various learning into this work, while wishing to appear not to be ignorant of philosophical teachings. Hence ^D he also constantly introduces geometrical, astronomical, arithmetical, and musical theorems.

He also describes islands, mountains, and trees, and other things of little importance. From these he has rendered his work loose and rambling: and thus, as it seems to me, he has rendered it useless both to the uneducated and to the well-educated. For the uneducated cannot perceive the ornate nature of his diction; while the well-educated condemn his empty repetition of words. But let each judge of books according to his own opinion; for my part, I say this: that he confuses the chronology of history. For after he has recounted the deeds of the Emperor Theodosius, he immediately runs back to the times of Bishop Athanasius, and he does this very often. And so much for Philippus. Now it is absolutely necessary to speak of those things which occurred in the time of Sisinnius. ^A

CAP. XXVIII. How Sisinnius ordained Proclus as bishop of Cyzicus, whom, however, the Cyzicenians would not receive.

When the bishop of the Cyzicenians had died, Sisinnius ordained Proclus for the bishopric of Cyzicus. But while he was preparing to depart for that place, the Cyzicenians forestalled him and constituted for themselves a man of the monastic life, whose name was Dalmatius, as their bishop. And they did this in contempt of the law which decrees that no ordination of a priest should take place without the consent of the bishop of Constantinople. And they neglected this law, as if this prerogative had been granted only to the person of Atticus. ^B Proclus therefore remained, deprived of the administration of his own church, but having achieved great glory by preaching in the churches of Constantinople. However, we shall speak of him in his proper place. Sisinnius, moreover, having not yet completed two full years in the episcopate, departed from this life in the consulship of Hierius and Ardaburius, on the twenty-fourth day of the month of December. He was a man renowned for his temperance, upright life, and kindness toward the poor; his character, however, was simple and affable, and for that reason he was less concerned with public business. On which account he was troublesome to busybodies, and fell into the opinion of being slothful among them. ^C

CAP. XXIX. How after the death of Sisinnius, they summoned Nestorius from Antioch and made him bishop of Constantinople, who was immediately found out to be what he was.

After the death of Sisinnius, it seemed to the ^D [VALESII ANNOTATIONS: ... the law, and by whom it was enacted, is uncertain. I think it was an imperial law, by which it was provided that the Cyzicenians should not ordain a bishop for themselves without the consent of the bishop of Constantinople. For if it had been established in a council of bishops, Socrates would have used the term canon rather than law. The Cyzicenians set that law at naught once Atticus was dead. For they said that this privilege had been granted specifically to Atticus, and did not pertain to his successors. But they were mistaken. For long before Atticus, the bishops of Constantinople had given prelates to the Cyzicenians. For in the times of Constantius, Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, had ordained Eunomius as bishop of Cyzicus. See Liberatus, Breviarium, cap. 7.] [VARIOUS: ... De Christiana Historia of Philippus, Photius, who had read it, judges as follows, Bibliotheca, cod. xxxv: He pours forth a great number of words, yet without any elegance or grace, but rather he brings satiety, or more accurately annoyance, so that it has more ostentation than utility.]

those who were ambitious for glory, it pleased the emperors that no one belonging to the Church of Constantinople should be promoted to the episcopacy, ^A although many struggled with great zeal for Philip to be ordained, and not fewer for Proclus. It seemed more advantageous, however, to summon a stranger from Antioch. There was a certain man there, Nestorius by name, born in the city of Germanicia, possessed of a resonant voice and ready eloquence. And for that reason they decided to summon him as one suitable for teaching the people. After an interval of three months, therefore, Nestorius was brought from Antioch. He was acclaimed by most for his temperance; but as for what his character was in other respects, the more prudent immediately discerned it from his very first discourse. For having been ordained on the fourth day of April, in the consulship of Felix and Taurus, he immediately, in the presence of the whole people, addressing the emperor, uttered that celebrated saying: "Give me, O emperor," he said, "the earth purged of heretics, and I in return will give you heaven. Join with me in destroying the heretics, and I will join with you in destroying the Persians." Although some of the common people who hated the heretics readily welcomed these words, nevertheless, as I have said, to those who knew how to judge a man's disposition from his words, the levity and violence of the man, joined with a passion for vainglory, were at once clearly revealed: inasmuch as he did not even endure the delay of the briefest time, but had broken out into such language; and before he had, as the saying goes, even tasted the water of the city, he showed himself a most bitter persecutor. ^C Accordingly, on the fifth day after his ordination, attempting to pull down the church of the Arians, in which they were holding their prayers in secret, he drove them to desperation. For when they saw their church being pulled down, they themselves set fire to it. Furthermore, the fire, spreading further, consumed the neighboring houses. This event stirred up a tumult in the city; and the Arians were already preparing themselves for retaliation. But God, the guardian of the city, did not allow the evil to progress further. From that time on, not only the heretics but also those of his own faith called him the "Incendiary." For he did not cease; but against the heretics Nestorius

^A kept brewing calumnies, doing all he could to subvert the city. For instance, he also attempted to harass the Novatians, goaded by the envy he felt because Paul, ^B the bishop of the Novatians, was celebrated everywhere for his piety. However, the authorities repressed his impulse by their admonitions. ^C But as for the evils he caused the Quartodecimans throughout Asia, Lydia, and Caria, and how many people died on his account near Miletus and Sardis in the resulting sedition, I think it best to pass over in silence. The punishments he suffered for these deeds, and for the unrestrained petulance of his tongue, I shall tell of a little later.

CHAPTER XXX.

How the Burgundians embraced the Christian religion during the reign of Theodosius the Younger.

Now I shall relate a matter worthy of mention that occurred during this time. There is a barbarian nation dwelling beyond the river Rhine, called the Burgundians. They lead lives of constant tranquility; for they are almost all wood-carvers, and by this trade they earn their wages and support themselves. The nation of the Huns, making constant incursions into their territory, used to ravage their land and frequently slaughter many of them. Being brought to a state of hopelessness, they did not flee to any human being for refuge, but decided to entrust themselves to some deity. Observing that the God of the Romans gives highly certain aid to those who revere His divinity, they all with one common mind came to the decision to believe in Christ. ^B Having arrived at a city in Gaul, they requested of the bishop that they might receive Christian baptism. After he had ordered them to fast for seven days and had instructed them in the rudiments of the faith, on the eighth day he baptized them and sent them away. ^C Encouraged by this, they marched against their tyrants, and their hope did not fail them. For the king of the Huns—whose name was Optar—having burst asunder in the night due to excessive gluttony, the Burgundians, making an attack upon the Huns now deprived of their leader, few though they were, joined battle with a vastly greater multitude and won. For, being only three thousand men, they struck down about ten thousand. And from that time on, the nation became zealously Christian. ^D At about this time, Bardas, the bishop of the Arians, also died, in

the consulship of Theodosius for the thirteenth time and Valentinian for the third, on the twenty-fourth day of the month of June, and Sabbatius was appointed in his place. ^A Regarding these matters, let this much suffice.

CHAPTER XXXI.

How Nestorius afflicted the Macedonians.

Nestorius, however, acting contrary to the custom and practice of the Church, and moreover causing himself to be hated in such matters, as the events that occurred under him demonstrate. For in the city of Germa in the Hellespont, one Antonius, being bishop, and persuaded by the zeal of Nestorius against heretics, began to harass the Macedonians bitterly, using the command of the patriarch as a pretext for his defense. And so the Macedonians for a time endured his harassment. But when ^B Antonius began to pursue them even more vehemently, they, no longer able to bear the burden and having cast aside all hope of safety, broke out into a grave madness; and having sent in secret certain men who preferred indulgence of their passions over justice, they slew him. When the Macedonians had perpetrated this crime, Nestorius seized upon the deed as an opportunity for his own rage; for he persuaded the emperors to take away their churches. They were taken away from them, therefore—both the one they had at Constantinople before the old walls of the royal city, and the one they had at Cyzicus, and many others which they possessed in the villages of the Hellespont. But some of them accepted the faith of the consubstantial and betook themselves to the Church. ^C However, as the old proverb says, "Neither does wine ever fail for the drunkard, nor conflict for the contentious one." And so it happened that Nestorius, who was busy expelling others, was himself expelled from the Church for such a cause.

CHAPTER XXXII.

Concerning Anastasius the presbyter, by whom Nestorius was led into impiety.

Anastasius, a presbyter who had accompanied him from Antioch, was intimate with Nestorius. Nestorius held him in great honor and used his counsel in the conduct of affairs. This Anastasius, therefore, one day while teaching in the church, said these words: "Let no one call Mary Theotokos (Mother of God). For Mary was a human being; and it is impossible for God to be born of a human being." ^D When this had been heard, it greatly disturbed many, both of the clergy and of the laity, at the same time. For they had been taught of old to acknowledge Christ as God, and in no

^A wise to separate him from his divinity on account of the dispensation for human salvation, following the doctrine of the Apostle who says: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer" (2 Cor. 5:16); and: "Therefore, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on unto perfection" (Heb. 6:1).

Since a tumult, as I have said, had arisen in the Church, Nestorius, wishing to confirm the statement of Anastasius—for he did not want anyone whom he himself held in such high regard to be convicted of speaking impiously—continually discoursed upon this matter in the church, proposing questions about it stubbornly, and everywhere rejecting the term "Theotokos." Consequently, as this question was understood differently by different people, a division arose in the Church. And just as those engaged in a night battle, they would ^B now say one thing and now another; they would agree at one moment and deny at the next.

Most, however, believed Nestorius to be of the opinion that the Lord was a bare man, and that he was bringing the dogma of Paul of Samosata and Photinus into the Church. But such a great dispute and tumult was stirred up over this that a general council became necessary.

For my part, when I had read the books published by Nestorius, I discovered that the man was unlearned; and I will speak precisely as the case stands. For I have neither mentioned his faults out of hatred or enmity, nor shall I diminish the good qualities I discovered in him to gratify anyone. It seems to me that Nestorius did not imitate Paul of Samosata or Photinus, nor did he call Christ a bare man at all; but he feared the term "Theotokos" alone, as if it were a ^C goblin. And this happened to him out of great ignorance. For, being endowed with a natural eloquence, he was thought to be educated; but in reality, he was unrefined, and he disdained to study the books of the ancient interpreters. For, being puffed up by his own fluency, he did not pay accurate attention to the ancients, but deemed himself superior to everyone.

Thus, for instance, he was unaware that it was written in the Catholic Epistle of John in the ancient copies, that "Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God" (1 John 4:3).

For those who desired to separate the humanity from the divine dispensation removed this reading from the ancient copies. Wherefore the ancient interpreters also noted this, that there were some who had corrupted the Epistle, wishing to sever the man from God. The humanity, however, has been taken up into the divinity; and there are no longer two, but one. ^B Relying on this testimony, the ancients did not hesitate to call Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos). For Eusebius Pamphili, in the third book of his *Life of Constantine*, writes word for word as follows: "For God who is with us endured to be born for our sake; and the place of his incarnate birth was called Bethlehem by the Hebrews." Therefore, the most God-beloved Queen Helena adorned the birth of the Theotokos with marvelous monuments, brightening in every way the holy grotto there. Origen, too, in the first volume of his *Commentaries on the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans*, examined at length the reason why she is called Theotokos. It appears, therefore, that Nestorius was ignorant of the writings of the ancients. And for this reason, as I have said, he attacks only the term "Theotokos." That he does not call Christ a mere man, as did Photinus or Paul of Samosata, the homilies published by him sufficiently prove; in which he nowhere destroys the hypostasis of the Word of God, but everywhere confesses Him to be subsistent and possessed of substance: nor, like Photinus and Paul of Samosata, does he deny His existence. This, indeed, the Manichaeans and the followers of Montanus ^C dared to assert. Such is the opinion I find Nestorius to hold, both from what I have read of his discourses and from what his followers say. Nevertheless, this foolish chatter of Nestorius threw the world into no small turmoil.

CAP. XXXIII. OF THE DEFILEMENT COMMITTED AT THE VERY ALTAR OF THE GREAT CHURCH BY FUGITIVE SLAVES.

When these things had thus occurred, it happened by chance that a nefarious act was perpetrated in the church. For slaves ^D

^A of a certain powerful man, being barbarians by race and having experienced the cruelty of their master, fled to the church. Drawing their swords, they leapt upon the very altar; and when they were asked to depart, they could by no means be persuaded to obey, but were an impediment to the divine services. For many days they kept their swords drawn, ready to strike anyone who approached them. Finally, having slaughtered one of the clerics and wounded another, they ended by killing themselves. One of those present said that the defilement of the temple portended nothing good, citing two iambics from an ancient poet:

For such are wont to be the signs of evils, When a wicked crime defiles sacred temples.

And he who said this was not mistaken in his judgment. ^B For as it seems, it portended the dissension of the people and the deposition of him who had been the author of that dissension.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Regarding the First Synod Assembled at Ephesus against Nestorius.

Not much time passed before the emperor, by an edict, ordered all bishops from every quarter to assemble at the city of the Ephesians. Immediately, therefore, after the feast of Pascha, Nestorius arrived at Ephesus with a huge crowd of the common people, and found many of the bishops already assembled there. ^C Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, having delayed somewhat, arrived around Pentecost. Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, arrived on the fifth day after Pentecost. Since John of Antioch was delaying, those who were present began to stir up the question [(47)]. And Cyril of Alexandria began to engage in some skirmishes of words, wishing to disturb Nestorius, for he was indeed ill-disposed toward him. And so when many were declaring Christ to be God, Nestorius said, "I cannot call one who was two or three months old, God." And, "Therefore, I am pure from your blood; and from now on, I shall not come to you." Having said these things, ^D he withdrew and gathered with the rest of the bishops who followed his opinion. The bishops present were therefore divided into two factions. Those with Cyril, having formed a council, summoned Nestorius. But he did not obey, delaying his presence until the arrival of John of Antioch. Those with Cyril, having frequently read the homilies which Nestorius had delivered before the people concerning this question, and having judged from them that he had vehemently blasphemed against the Son of God, deposed him. This having been done, those with Nestorius held another council by themselves [(48)].

^A and deposed Cyril and, together with him, Memnon, the bishop of the city of Ephesus. Not long after, John, the bishop of Antioch, arrived. When he learned what had taken place, he was indignant toward Cyril, as the cause of the disturbance that had occurred, because he had acted with such vehemence in bring about the deposition of Nestorius. Cyril, however, together with Juvenal, in retaliation against John, deposed him as well. Matters being thus in a state of confusion at that time, Nestorius, perceiving that the contention had progressed to the point of ruining communion, was moved by repentance and began to call Mary the Mother of God, using these words: “Let it be said, if it be pleasing, Mary the Mother of God, and let all grievous things cease.” But no one accepted these words, coming as they did from repentance. Wherefore, ^B even to this day he remains deposed, and has been sent into exile and dwells in the Oasis. Such, then, was the outcome of the synod that took place at that time.

These events were transacted in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus, on the twenty-eighth day of the month of June. John, having reached Antioch and assembled many bishops, deposed Cyril, who had already returned to Alexandria. But a little later, having cast off their enmity, they reconciled and returned their sees to one another. ^C After the deposition of Nestorius, a serious tumult occupied the churches in Constantinople. For the people were divided on account of his, as I have already said, cold discourse. However, by a common vote, all the clergy anathematized him. For thus we Christians are accustomed to call the vote against a blasphemer, when, having set it up as if on a pillar, we make it manifest to all.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

...we have learned. When Nestorius had been condemned and deposed by the holy synod, and the letters of deposition had been sent to him, he immediately sent a report to the Emperor Theodosius, in which he complained of the violence of his adversaries and that they had not been willing to await the arrival of the Oriental bishops, who were said to be about to arrive shortly. Ten bishops of the party of Nestorius subscribed to this report. On the fifth day after, John, bishop of Antioch, arrived with the Orientals. When he had learned what had taken place, he gathered the bishops together, both the Orientals whom he had brought with him and the ten whom we have reported as having subscribed to the report of Nestorius, and he deposed the bishops Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius himself did not participate in this conventicle of John, because he had been condemned by a synodal judgment and had not been restored by a synodal judgment. But the bishops of his party, whom the sentence of the synod had not in any way touched, were present. Wherefore Socrates may be excused, if we say that those words do not designate Nestorius himself, but the bishops who were of the party of Nestorius and who had subscribed to his report. In other matters, however, Socrates cannot be excused.

VARIOUS NOTES

The synod. That this is a general synod, we should not doubt, since the Acts themselves teach this, at the beginning of the second part of which we read: “Flavius Theodosius in his thirteenth consulship and Valentinian in his third were consuls, as the Fasti attest, in the year of the Lord 430.” But this synod was held not in the same year in which they were holding the consulship, but in the following year, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus, as Socrates, who was contemporary with the council, ^D testifies here. A little disagreement appears concerning the day on which it was begun. For the Acts put it at June 22, but Socrates at June 28. But one should rather adhere to the Acts. Although Cyril supports this in his Epistle to the clergy and people of Alexandria, which stands among the Acts of this synod. For he says that this synod was held... However, the New Moon of Pauni in the Actiac year falls on May 26. Therefore, the day of Pauni was June 22, or the 10th of the Kalends of July. Guil. Beveregii Annot. on the canons of the Council of Ephesus, p. 103. Antonius Pagi agrees with this, ad ann. 431, n. 12. * Nicephorus in his Chronicle attributes to Nestorius three years and two months, having neglected, to be sure, the third month, which was incomplete. Ant. Pagi, ad ann. 431, n. 41.

^A Since after the deposition of Nestorius, some wished to enthrone Proclus, certain of the bishops choose Maximianus as bishop of Constantinople.

There was again a debate concerning the choice of a bishop. Many chose Philip, whom we have already mentioned, but more chose Proclus. And the opinion of those who favored Proclus would have prevailed, had not certain men of great power hindered it, saying that an ecclesiastical canon 1 forbids that a person designated as bishop of one city be transferred to another city. When this was said and believed, it compelled the people to remain quiet. After a space of four months had passed since the deposition of Nestorius, Maximianus, a man by name, was chosen for the episcopate; a man monastic indeed in his life, and he too was numbered among the presbyters. He had long acquired a reputation for piety, because at his own expense he had constructed monuments, so that in them ^B the pious who passed away might be buried. He was, however, unskilled in speech, and preferred to spend his life more quietly and apart from business.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

But since some, alleging an ecclesiastical canon, prevented the enthronement of Proclus, who had already been named bishop of Cyzicus, I wish to say a few words about this. They who then dared to say these things do not seem to me to have spoken the truth at all, but either to have concocted them out of envy which they harbored against Proclus, or else to be completely ignorant of both the canons and what had frequently and usefully been done in the Churches. Indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea, son of Pamphilus, in the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History, reports that Alexander, being bishop of one of the cities in Cappadocia, having come to Jerusalem for the sake of prayer, was detained by the inhabitants ^C of that place and enthroned in the place of the bishop Narcissus, and for the rest of his life presided over the Church there. Thus, among our ancestors, it was a matter of indifference to transfer a bishop from city to city, as often as necessity called for it. And if it is necessary also to append to this account the canon concerning this matter, it will be shown how they who prevented the enthronement of Proclus lied about it. And this is the canon: "If any bishop, having been ordained to a parish, shall not depart to that to which he was ordained, not through his own fault, but either through the refusal of the people, or through some other cause ^D

let him participate in the honor and ministry, provided he causes no disturbance to the affairs of the Church where he happens to be gathered. He must, however, accept whatever the synod of the province, judging his case, may ordain. » ^A And such is this canon. But that many bishops have been transferred from other cities to others, on account of the necessities of the churches at various times, I shall set forth the names of those who were transferred. Perigenes was ordained bishop in Patrae [(52)]; but since the inhabitants of the aforementioned city would not receive him, the bishop of Rome ordered him to be enthroned in Corinth, and he presided over the Church there for life. Gregory Nazianzen was first bishop of Sasima, one of the cities in Cappadocia; afterwards he became bishop of Nazianzus. Meletius first presided over the Church in Sebastea, and afterwards presided over the one in Antioch. Alexander, the bishop of Antioch, transferred Dositheus, the bishop of the city of Seleucia, to Tarsus in Cilicia. Reverentius [(53)], from Arca in Phoenicia, was afterwards transferred to Tyre. John, from Gordus in Lydia [(54)], was transferred to Proconnesus.

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

[(51)] *Such is this canon of the Antiochene council*. But Socrates is mistaken while he thinks that bishops relied on this canon to exclude Proclus from the priesthood of the Constantinopolitan see. It is true, indeed, that Proclus was of the number of those who are designated in the aforementioned canon. For when he had been ordained bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinnius, patriarch of Constantinople, he had not been admitted by the Cyzicenes, as Socrates related above. But the bishops who were opposing the election of Proclus did not rely on this canon, but brought forward the twenty-first canon of the same council for the confirmation of their opinion, which is thus: "A bishop shall by no means migrate from another parish to another, neither leaping in of his own accord, nor compelled by the people, nor forced by necessity by a bishop: but he shall remain in the Church which he was first allotted by God, and shall not migrate thence, according to the former rule established concerning this matter." Socrates our author is therefore mistaken, who placed the canon of the Antiochene council as the twenty-first. And he is false also in this: that he thought those words at the end of the 18th canon, etc., supported his opinion. We have rendered those words in Latin thus: "But he must accept whatever the synod of the province, judging his business, shall have ordained." Socrates thought it followed from these words that if the synod of the province wished to transfer the aforementioned bishop to another place, that bishop ought to observe it. But he is manifestly hallucinating, since translations of bishops are expressly prohibited by the twenty-first canon. ^C

[(52)] *Perigenes in Patrae*. Perigenes had been born and baptized in Corinth, which is the Metropolis of Achaia; he was then enrolled in the clergy, and remained a priest of the same Church for a long time with the greatest integrity. Afterwards, when he had been promoted to the bishopric of Patrae by the bishop of the Corinthians, and the Patrenses had refused to receive him, he was compelled to return to Corinth; where, once the bishop of the city had not long after passed from life, the Corinthians asked for him as their bishop, having sent a supplication to Boniface, the bishop of the Roman city. But Boniface did not wish to act on that matter until he had received the letters of Rufus, the bishop of Thessalonica, who was acting as vicar of the apostolic see throughout Achaia and Macedonia. He wrote, therefore, two letters to him concerning this business, to which the petition of the Corinthians was attached. These letters were given to the consuls Monaxius and Plintha. Afterwards, when Boniface had received the letters of Rufus, he approved the election of Perigenes, having written an Epistle to Perigenes and to the Corinthians. I collected these from the two Epistles of Boniface to Rufus which were recently edited at Rome by Lucas Holstenius, a man most learned and well-deserving regarding ecclesiastical antiquity. Moreover, this Perigenes was present at the Ephesian synod against Nestorius. For it is written thus in the first act: *Perigenes of Corinth in Greece*.

[(53)] *Reverentius*. Thus it is written in the Sfortiano Codex. But it is read more correctly in Nicephorus: *Reverentius*. Epiphanius Scholasticus also calls him Reverentius. In book four of the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, in the chapter *On the Translations of Bishops*, he is called *Rebenus* corruptly.

[(54)] *John from Gordus in Lydia*. Nicephorus makes the city of Gordus in Lycia, not Lydia: but all the others assign it to Lydia. Moreover, this John, bishop of Proconnesus, was present at the Ephesian council, as is reported in the first act of that council.

^A And he presided over the Church there. Palladius was translated from Helenopolis to Aspuna. Alexander was translated from Helenopolis to Adrianopolis. Theophilus was translated from Apamea, which is in Asia, to the city of Eudoxia, which was formerly called Salambria. Polycarpus was translated from Sexantapristi in Moesia to Nicopolis in Thrace. Hierophilus was translated from Trapezopolis in Phrygia to Plotinopolis in Thrace. Optimus was translated from Agdamia in Phrygia to Antioch in Pisidia. Silvanus was translated from Philippopolis in Thrace to Troas. Let it suffice to have made mention of so many who, for the present, have been transferred from their own cities to others. But regarding Silvanus, who was transferred from Philippopolis in Thrace to Troas, I think it is useful ^B to mention a few things.

CAP. XXXVII. On Silvanus, who was translated from Philippopolis to Troas.

Silvanus had formerly been a rhetor in the school of Troilus the Sophist. But earnestly striving to live like a Christian, and practicing the monastic life, he refused to wear the rhetoric cloak. Afterwards, however, Bishop Atticus took hold of him, and [made him] bishop of Philippopolis.

Having spent three years in Thrace, and being unable to endure the cold—for he had a very slight and weak body—he asked Atticus to ordain another in his place, affirming that he refused the stay in Thrace for no other reason than the cold. Another having therefore been substituted in his place, Silvanus remained in Constantinople, assiduously practicing the monastic life there. He was so detached from luxuries that, in so populous a city, he frequently went out into public shod in sandals of broom. ^B Sometime later, the bishop of the Church in Troas departed this life. For this reason, the people of Troas came to Constantinople, requesting a bishop. While Atticus was deliberating whom he should ordain as their bishop, it happened that Silvanus was present to visit him. As soon as Atticus saw him, he cast all anxiety from his mind. Addressing Silvanus, he said, "You no longer have any excuse to refuse the administration of a Church. For Troas does not have a cold climate. Behold, a place suitable for the infirmity of your body is prepared for you by God. Do not hesitate, therefore, my brother, but set out for Troas." Silvanus moved there accordingly, and performed a miracle there which I shall now relate. A very large merchant ship, built for transporting huge columns—which is commonly called a *platy*—had been newly constructed on the shore of Troas; it had to be launched into the sea. But although it was pulled by many ropes and a great multitude of men, ^C the ship would not move at all. As this continued for many days, everyone believed the ship was held by a demon. They approached Bishop Silvanus and urged him to perform a prayer at that place, for they believed there was no other way for the ship to be dragged out. He, however, thinking modestly of himself, said that he was a sinner and that such a work was for some righteous man, not for him. Nevertheless, overcome by their entreaties, he went to the shore. Having completed his prayer, he grasped one of the ropes and urged the men to set to the work. When they had given the ship a light push, it rapidly slid into the sea. This miracle, performed by Silvanus, moved all the inhabitants of that province to piety. In other respects, too, Silvanus was an excellent man. ^D When he noticed that the clerics were making a profit from the disputes of litigants, he never appointed any of the clergy as a judge; instead, having received the petitions of the litigants, he would call one of the faithful laymen whom he knew to be a lover of justice, and, having entrusted the hearing to him, he would drive the litigants from their contentiousness.

For these reasons Silvanus acquired great fame among all people. I hold that these things concerning Silvanus, though stated in a digression, have not been recorded by us without profit. Let us now return to where we digressed. When Maximianus had been elevated to the bishopric of Constantinople, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiochus, on the twenty-fifth day of October, the tumults of the Churches quieted.

CAP. XXXVIII. How many of the Jews who were in Crete embraced the Christian religion.

At about this same time, many of the Jews who were in Crete embraced the Christian faith on account of the following event. A certain fraudulent Jew pretended to be Moses, and said that he had been sent from the heavens to take up the Jews who inhabited the island and lead them through the sea. For he said that he was the one who had also saved the Israelites of old by leading them through the Red Sea. He therefore spent an entire year traveling to every city on the island, and persuaded the Jews who lived in them to believe such things. He urged them to leave behind all their money and possessions, for he promised that he would lead them through the dry sea into the land of promise. Deluded by such hopes, they began to neglect all their work, and, scorning what they possessed, they granted to whosoever encountered them the right to take it. After the day designated by the impostor Jew had dawned, he himself began to lead the way; and they all followed, together with their wives and little children. When he had led them to a promontory jutting out over the sea, he ordered them to cast themselves into it. And those who had first approached the sheer cliff did so, and immediately perished, some being dashed against the rocks, and others being drowned in the water. And many more would have been destroyed had not Christian men—fishermen and merchants—been present by the providence of God. These men rescued some who were already nearly suffocated in the waters, drawing them from the sea; they recognized their own madness only then, when they were in such great danger. They prevented the others from casting themselves into the sea, pointing out the death of those who had previously thrown themselves in. The Jews, therefore, having at last recognized the fraud, condemned their own imprudence in believing. They wished to kill the pseudo-Moses, but they were unable to capture him. For suddenly he vanished, giving the majority the impression that he was a vengeful demon who had assumed the form of a man for the ruin of that nation of theirs. Because of this affliction, many of the Jews in the

Crete, having renounced their ancestral worship, joined the faith of Christianity.

Chapter XXXIX. On the fire at the church of the Novatians.

^B Not long after this time, Paul, the bishop of the Novatians, gained the reputation of being a man truly beloved by God, and this to a much greater degree than he had possessed before. For it so happened that a most destructive fire occurred—such as had never happened before—and a great part of the royal city was consumed by this fire, to such an extent that even the largest granaries and the baths which are called the Achillean were utterly destroyed. The fire, consuming all things, finally approached the church of the Novatians itself, which is situated near the Pelargus. Paul, the bishop, therefore, when he saw his church in danger, rushed to the altar and entrusted the preservation of the church and of the things ^C that were in the church to God, nor did he cease to offer prayers for the city and for the place of prayer. God, indeed, heard the prayer of the man, as the event itself declared. For the fire, although it broke into that church through all the doors and through the windows at the same time, did no damage whatsoever. But it completely destroyed many neighboring places in the vicinity; yet it was possible to see the church itself in the midst of the flames, triumphing over the fire. And when this had lasted for two days and as many nights, the fire, by which a great part of the city was consumed, was finally extinguished. But the church was seen to be unharmed and intact. And what is more marvelous, not even a trace of smoke could be seen on its wood or walls. This happened on the 17th day of the month of August, in the fourteenth consulship of Theodosius and the consulship of Maximus. From that time on, the Novatians celebrate the memory of the preservation of their church every year, on the 17th day of the month of August, rendering thanks with prayers to God. And almost everyone, on account of the miracle that happened there, has honored the place ever since, and worships it as truly holy—not only Christians, ^D [[alt-version omitted]]

^A but also the majority of the heathens. So much for these matters.

CHAPTER XL.

How Proclus succeeded Maximianus.

Maximianus, after having peacefully administered the Church for two years and five months, departed this life in the consulship of Areobindus and Aspar, on the twelfth day of the month of April. It happened that at that time it was the week of fasts which immediately precedes the Paschal festival, and the day was the one called Maundy Thursday. At that very time, the Emperor Theodosius prudently made provision for this matter. For, fearing that there might again be a dispute ^B about the choice of a bishop, and that this might stir up a disturbance in the Church, he hesitated not, but while the body of Maximianus was still lying in state, he ordered the bishops who were present to enthrone Proclus. For this was also confirmed by the letters of Coelestinus, bishop of the Romans, ^C which were then produced, which he had sent to Cyril of Alexandria, to John of Antioch, and to Rufus of Thessalonica, teaching that there is nothing to prevent one who has been named for a church, or who is already a bishop, from being transferred to another. Proclus, therefore, having been enthroned, carried out the burial of the body of Maximianus. But it is time now to say a few words about him.

CHAPTER XLI.

Concerning Bishop Proclus, what sort of man he was.

Proclus was a reader from his earliest age, and he attended schools and became an enthusiast for rhetoric. When he attained to manhood, he was for the most part in the company of Bishop Atticus, becoming a scribe of his discourses. As he made good progress, Atticus promoted him even to the order of the diaconate. Being then accounted worthy of the presbyterate, as I have said before, he was appointed by Sisinnius to the bishopric of Cyzicus. But these ^D things already [have happened].

before. Then, indeed, he attained the episcopal throne of the Church in Constantinople. He was a man of excellent character, if any other was. For having been educated under Atticus, he zealously imitated all his virtues. He practiced long-suffering, however, even more than Atticus had. For the latter sometimes showed himself formidable to the heretics; but Proclus was gentle toward all, intending to bring them to the true faith by this reasoning rather than by force. Since he had determined to harass no heresy whatsoever, he preserved the dignity of gentleness intact, and restored it to the Church as a sort of deposit. In this matter he imitated the Emperor Theodosius. For it was a fixed and settled resolution for the Emperor not to use imperial power against those who were at fault; and the Bishop's purpose was to make little account of anyone who felt differently about God than he himself did. ^B

CHAPTER XLII.

Because of these things, therefore, the Emperor Theodosius greatly praised Proclus. For he himself was like the true priests of God, and in no way approved of those who were eager to persecute others. Indeed, I would venture to say that he surpassed all true and genuine priests in gentleness, as the book of Numbers says concerning Moses: *And the man Moses was very meek, above all the men who dwell upon the earth.* ^C This may also be said now of the Emperor Theodosius: that he is very meek, above all the men who are upon the earth. For because of this his gentleness, God also brought his enemies into subjection to him without the battles of war, as the triumphs over the tyrant John and the destruction of the Barbarians which followed after clearly declare. For those things which are said to have been granted by God to righteous men of old, did God, the Lord of all, grant also in our times to this most pious Emperor. And these things are not said by me out of adulation; but I shall truthfully set forth as they are, matters known and well-observed by all. ^D

CHAPTER XLIII.

For after the slaughter of the tyrant, the Barbarians whom he had called to his aid against the Romans were preparing themselves to devastate the Roman provinces.

^A When the emperor Theodosius heard of this, as was his custom, he entrusted the care of this matter to God; and by applying himself to prayer, he quickly attained that which he desired. It is worth hearing what befell the Barbarians. Their leader, whose name was Rugas, was struck by lightning and perished. Then a plague ensued, which destroyed the greater part of the Barbarians who were under him. Nor did the evil stop here; for fire also sent from heaven consumed many of those who had survived. This circumstance cast the Barbarians into the greatest terror, not so much because they had dared to move war against the warlike Roman nation, as because they perceived that a very powerful God was assisting them. At that time, too, Proclus, the bishop, while expounding a prophecy from Ezekiel in the church, and adapting it to the salvation which had come from God, was received with great applause and admiration. The prophecy is as follows: “And thou, son of man, ^B prophesy against the prince Gog, Rhos, Misoch and Thobel. For I will judge him with death, and with blood, and with an overflowing rain, and with hailstones. And I will rain fire and brimstone upon him, and upon all those with him, and upon many nations that are with him. And I will be magnified, and I will be glorified, and I will be known in the sight of many nations: and they shall know that I am the Lord.” 1 For these reasons, as I have said, Proclus was greatly admired. To the emperor, however, on account of his gentleness, ^C the providence of God granted many other blessings; but this one in particular, which I am now about to relate.

CAP. XLIV. How Valentinian the Younger married Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius.

He (Theodosius) had a daughter by his consort Eudoxia, named Eudoxia. Valentinian, his cousin, whom he himself had established as emperor of the Western parts, asked to take her in marriage. When the emperor Theodosius had consented, and both Augusti were deliberating to celebrate the marriage somewhere on the borders of both empires, and it had been decided that each should travel half the way and do this at Thessalonica, Valentinian notified Theodosius not to weary himself so much, for he himself would come to Constantinople. Having therefore secured the Western parts, he came to Constantinople for the sake of the marriage. Which being solemnized in the consulship of Isidore

...and taking his wife, returned again to the Western parts. Such was the good fortune that befell the Emperor at that time. ^A

CHAPTER XLV.

How Bishop Proclus persuaded the Emperor to transfer the body of John from exile to Constantinople, and to deposit it in the church of the Apostles.

Not long after this time, Bishop Proclus also brought back to unity those who had separated themselves on account of the deposition of Bishop John, soothing their grief with prudent counsel. It must be told by what means he accomplished this. Proclus persuaded the Emperor to transfer the body of John, which was buried at Comana, to Constantinople, in the thirty-fifth year after his deposition. ^B And having conducted it with much honor and public procession, he deposited it in the church named after the Apostles. Those, therefore, who had separated themselves on his account were persuaded by this and were united to the Church. This took place in the sixteenth consulship of the Emperor Theodosius, around the twenty-seventh day of the month of January.

It occurs to me to marvel how the envy of men should have touched Origen long after he was dead, yet spared John. For the former was declared excommunicate by Theophilus about two hundred years after his death, whereas John was received into communion by Proclus in the thirty-fifth year after his death. ^C So greatly did Proclus differ from the character of Theophilus. But the manner in which these things have happened and always continue to happen does not escape the notice of prudent men.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

[Regarding "as it has happened and always happens"] Socrates indicates his opinion not obscurely. For he wishes to say that these things are accustomed to be done through envy or favor. For that Origen was condemned by Theophilus so many years after his death, Socrates ascribes to the envy of Theophilus toward Origen himself, or toward the monks who were called the "Tall." But that John Chrysostom was honorably brought back to his homeland in the thirty-fifth year after his death, he attributes to the love and benevolence of Proclus and the people of Constantinople. I, however, do not assent to the opinion of Socrates. For even if...

VARIORUM

• Namley, by the synod under [Theophilus]. W. LOWTH.

• On or about the twenty-seventh of January. On which day even now St. Chrysostom’s natal day is celebrated in the Roman Church. This translation, however, took place in the year of Christ 438, by Proclus, who, while he was a young man, had assiduously clung to St. Chrysostom as his amanuensis.

Chapter 46. On the death of Paul, bishop of the Novatians, and on Marcianus his successor.

^A A short time after the burial of the body of John, Paul also, the bishop of the Novatian church, departed this life in the same consulship, on the twenty-first day of the month of July. By his funeral he made, as it were, all the different sects one Church. For all accompanied his body to the tomb with psalm-singing, because he had been equally dear to all while he lived, on account of the integrity of his life. But since Paul, on the eve of his departure, which is worthy of memory, performed an act that I think it necessary to add to this history for the benefit of those who read it—for that when ill he maintained the habit of his ascetic diet and never deviated from it, and that he performed his prayers with alacrity and never omitted them, I think I ought to pass over in silence, lest by dwelling on these things I should obscure the act worthy of memory, as I said, and useful to others—what that act is must now be told. ^B Being at the point of death, having summoned all the presbyters of the churches under him, he spoke thus: "Take care to designate a bishop for yourselves while I am still breathing, that your churches may not suffer disturbance hereafter." And when they said that the power of this election ought not to be given to them—for since one man has one judgment and another another, we could never name the same person, but we prefer that thou thyself shouldst designate whom thou wilt—Paul then said: "Give me, then, this profession of yours in writing, that you will elect him whom I myself shall choose." When they had done this and had subscribed it, he raised himself up on the bed ^C and, having sent the bystanders away, wrote the name of Marcian; who was indeed set in the order of the presbyters and had learned the ascetic life under him, but was at that time abroad. Then, having sealed it himself and having caused the chief men of the presbytery to seal it also, he deposited this book with Marcus, who was a Novatian bishop in Scythia, and was at that time sojourning in the city, and said these things to him: "If God wills that I should still remain in this life, keep this deposit for me and return it. But if it seems good to Him to remove me from this world, you will find in this writing the bishop designated by me to succeed me." Having said these things, he died. On the third day, therefore, after his death, having unrolled the book before a great multitude, and having found the name of Marcian, all cried out that he was worthy; and without delay they sent those to fetch him. ^D Those men, having caught him by a pious ruse as he was sojourning in the city of Tiberiopolis in Phrygia, brought him; and about the—

twenty-first day of the same month ^A they enthroned him, having ordained him. Let this suffice concerning these matters.

Chapter XLVII

How the emperor Theodosius sent his wife Eudocia to Jerusalem.

Furthermore, the emperor Theodosius offered thanks and vows to God for the benefits he had received; and he did this, honoring Christ with exceptional honors. He also sent his wife Eudocia to Jerusalem. For she had promised to fulfill this vow ^B if she should see her daughter married. She honored the churches not only around Jerusalem but also all those in the cities of the East in various ways, both as she was going and as she was returning.

Chapter XLVIII

Concerning Thalassius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

At this same time, during the seventeenth consulship of the emperor, Proclus the bishop attempted a remarkable deed, such as no one of the bishops of old had ever done. For Firmus, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, having died, the Caesareans came to Constantinople, requesting a bishop. While Proclus was considering whom he should promote to that bishopric, it happened by divine providence that on a Sabbath day all the senators of the council were present at the church. Among them was Thalassius, a man who had administered the praetorian prefecture ^C of the nations and cities in Illyricum. As he was about to be appointed by the emperor, according to report, to the prefecture of the Eastern parts, Proclus, laying his hand [upon him], ordained him bishop of Caesarea instead of prefect.

^A And thus the affairs of the Church prospered. For my part, bringing my history to a close at this point, I pray that all the Churches, cities, and nations everywhere may live in peace. For while there is peace, those who desire to write history will have no subject matter. Indeed, we ourselves, O holy man of God, Theodore, having extended your commission through seven books, would have been without a subject had those who delight in seditions chosen to remain quiet. ^B This seventh book of the history contains the events of thirty-two years. The entire work of seven books comprises a period of one hundred and forty years, having begun in the first year of the two hundred and seventy-first Olympiad, in which Constantine was proclaimed emperor, and ending in the second year of the three hundred and fifth Olympiad, in which the emperor Theodosius held his seventeenth consulship.

The end of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS.

...of Saint Germanus of Auxerre, which the presbyter Constantius wrote. Since he was governor of the province, and Amator, bishop of Auxerre, wished to designate him as his successor, Amator sought the consent of Julius, the praetorian prefect of the Gauls, before he attempted it, as is related in the third chapter of the first book of the Life of Saint Germanus. Moreover, this Thalassius, bishop of Caesarea, was present at the pseudo-synod of Ephesus against Flavian, as taught by the acts of that same synod which are cited in the first action of the Council of Chalcedon.

VARIORUM.

* Socrates has used a round number: otherwise, from the year of Christ 305, from which he derives the beginning of his History, to the year 439, where it ends, the years are only 135. W. Lowth.

HERMIAS SOZOMENUS: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

INDEX OF THE NINE BOOKS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF HERMIAS SOZOMENUS OF SALAMIS

An address to Theodosius the Younger, to whom the author also dedicates his work. He praises the emperor in moderate terms, and sets forth the argument of his work. The preface of the first book, in which he poses the question concerning the Jewish nation, etc., which, since they are inserted in their proper places in the individual books, I have judged superfluous to describe here.

HERMIAS SOZOMENUS OF SALAMIS: ORATION TO EMPEROR THEODOSIUS, And the argument of the Ecclesiastical History

^A They say that the emperors of old were each keen on different pursuits; and by those who were fond of adornment, the purple robe and crown were considered a matter of concern, and things similar to these; while by those who had applied themselves to the study of literature,

^A a certain mythic poem or composition capable of charming was treasured; and by those who practiced the affairs of war, the ability to release a shaft accurately, and to strike wild beasts, or to throw a spear, or to leap onto a horse were considered important. Each one used to represent himself at the imperial court, and by practicing whatever happened to be pleasing to the ruler, he succeeded: one offering a rare stone, another displaying a more brilliant dye of purple, one dedicating a poem or composition, and another introducing a nimble and novel manner of arms. It was considered the greatest and most royal thing, indeed, for the leader of all to possess one portion of this common virtue. ^B But of piety, which is the true adornment of the kingdom, there was not such account among any. But you, most excellent Emperor Theodosius, to speak briefly, have cultivated every virtue through God. While wearing the purple robe and crown before those who look upon you as a symbol of your dignity, within you always clothe yourself with the true adornment of the kingdom: piety and humanity. Whence every individual poet and writer, and the majority of your own officials, and the rest of your subjects, labor for you and your deeds. As an ^C examiner and judge of accounts, presiding, you do not let the accuracy be stolen away by any charming voice or manner, but sincerely you proceed slowly, scouting for the diction appropriate to the intention of the writing, and the figure of speech, and the parts, and the order, and the harmony, and the phrasing, and the structure, and the arguments, and the sense, and the history. You reward those who speak with your judgment, and with applause, and with golden images, and with the dedication of statues, and with gifts, and honors of every kind. But such as you show yourself toward those who speak, none of the Cretans of old were such toward that famous Homer, or the Aleuadae toward Simonides ^D or Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily.

Address to Theodosius the Younger, to whom he also dedicates the composition. For he praises him moderately and makes a preface to his own work. A Prefatory Address to the Emperor Theodosius by Sozomen.

^A Reciting them, you reward them, whether by your own judgment and applause, or by golden statues and busts, and by gifts, and every kind of honor. You show yourself to be such toward them as neither the Cretans once were toward that famous Homer, nor the Alevadae toward Simonides, nor Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily toward Plato, the disciple of Socrates, nor Philip of Macedon toward Theopompus the historian, nor, finally, Severus Caesar toward Oppian, who described in verse the species of fish, their nature, and the art of catching them. For the Cretans, when they rewarded Homer with a thousand pieces of gold for the excellence of his poems, boasting as if of some immense munificence, inscribed the gift publicly on a bronze tablet. But the Alevadae and Dionysius and Philip would not have been less vocal than the Cretans, who were accustomed to boast of a state that was unassuming and philosophical; but they would soon have imitated them in setting up a tablet, had they not been inferior to them in munificence. Severus, moreover, when he had gifted Oppian with a gold piece for every single line of his poem—and a mediocre one at that—so stunned everyone with that generosity that Oppian’s poems are still called "golden" by the many even today.

^B These were the gifts of princes who once loved learning and eloquence. But you, O Emperor, have surpassed by a long interval all who have ever lived in rewarding learned men. Nor does it seem to me that this is done by you without reason. For while you strive to surpass everyone in virtue, you amplify your own affairs with new daily increments. For this reason, also, you have most studiously read over the deeds performed by both the Greeks and the Romans. They say, indeed, that by day you are occupied with military arts and physical exercises, and with ordering the affairs of your subjects, at times acting as judge, at times writing what is fitting, and at times considering what ought to be done, both privately and publicly: but by night, you pore over books. A story goes that a lamp serves you for the reading of these, fabricated by mechanical art, which, with no one serving from the outside, pours oil into the wick of its own accord, so that no one of those in the palace is forced to endure hardship on account of your labors, ^C and to do violence to nature by struggling against sleep; thus you are humane and gentle, and toward your neighbors and toward all men you exist, imitating the heavenly King, your own protector, to whom it is pleasing to rain upon the just and the unjust, and to make the sun rise, and to provide other things abundantly. By virtue of your much learning, as is to be expected, I hear that you know the natures of stones, and the powers of roots, and the effects of remedies, no less than Solomon, or David the most wise. Or rather, you even exceed him in virtues. For he, having become a slave to pleasures, did not keep his piety until the end, piety which was the cause of the good things and wisdom that came to him. But you, O most powerful one, having set a disciplined mind against [the]...

^A licentiousness, do not without cause consider yourself to be a sovereign not only of men, but also of the passions of the soul and body. If one must speak of these things, I have learned that you overcome the desire for every food and drink, and that you are not to be ensnared by sweet figs, to speak poetically, nor by any other kind of fruit, except perhaps so far as to touch and taste them—and that only after you have blessed the Creator of all. For you have accustomed yourself in your daily practices to master thirst, heat, and cold, so that you seem to possess self-control by nature. Recently, indeed, when you were hastening to see the city in Pontus named after Heracles ^B, and to restore it as it had been worn down by time, you journeyed through Bithynia during the summer season. And as the sun was blazing fiercely around midday, one of your bodyguards, seeing you streaming with sweat and covered in dust, and as if intending to do you a favor, brought you a phial shining brightly against the sun's rays, having poured into it a delicious drink and added cold water. But you, O most powerful one, having received it, praised the man for his readiness, and gave clear sign that not long after you would reward him with imperial generosity. Yet, while all the soldiers were gaping at the phial and judging him happy who would drink it, you returned the cup to the man, O most noble one, and ordered him to use it as he pleased. ^C So that it seems to me that you have rightly surpassed even Alexander, son of Philip, in your virtues. For it is said by those who admire him that when he was marching with the Macedonians through a waterless region, a diligent and zealous soldier found water and brought it to him, but he would not drink it, but rather poured the drink out. To sum up, then, one might rightly call you more kingly than the kings before you, according to Homer. For we have received the former, as possessing nothing of the sort to invite admiration; others, perhaps, doing honor to their reign with one or two virtues. But you, O most powerful one, having gathered all the virtues together, have surpassed all in piety, and humanity, and courage, and temperance, and justice, and generosity, and magnanimity—qualities becoming to royal dignity. And all time boasts of your rule alone, among all who have ever existed, as bloodless and pure from slaughter. For with pleasure you instruct your subjects in noble things, and by your kindness and respect you show them the zeal you have for them and for public affairs. Wherefore, for all these reasons, it appears necessary to me, as I write an ^D Ecclesiastical History, to dedicate the work to you. For to whom would it be more appropriate to dedicate this, as I am about to recount the virtue of many godly men, and the events regarding the Church in general, and the enemies she has encountered, into the

^A harbors of yourself and your forefathers. Come then, O you who know everything and possess all virtue, and especially piety—which the divine Word declares to be the beginning of wisdom—receive this writing from me, and, by applying your own scrutiny and your own precise additions, purify it through your own labor. For whatever seems pleasing to you will surely appear useful and brilliant to those who encounter it; nor will anyone lay a finger upon a work that has been tested by you. My work will proceed from the third consulship of the Caesars, Crispus and Constantine, down to your own seventeenth. It seemed good to me to divide the whole ^B undertaking into nine parts. The first and second books will contain the events in the Churches during the reign of Constantine; the third and fourth, the events under his children; the fifth and sixth, those under Julian, cousin to the children of the great Constantine, and Jovian, and furthermore Valentinian and Valens. The seventh and eighth book will reveal to us the events under the brothers Gratian and Valentinian, down to the proclamation of Theodosius, your divine grandfather. For your celebrated father, Arcadius, having received the ancestral sovereignty, was allotted to govern the Roman world ^C together with your most pious uncle Honorius. I have dedicated the ninth book to your Christ-loving and most holy person; may God always keep you in unshakable gladness, triumphing over enemies, having all things beneath your feet, and transmitting the pious empire to children’s children, by the will of Christ, through whom and with whom to God the Father be glory, together with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

HERMIAS SOZOMENUS SALAMINIUS, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, VOLUME ONE. CHAPTER I.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF HERMIAS SOZOMENUS SALAMINIUS. BOOK ONE.

CAP. I.

^A I have often pondered with myself what the reason could be why other men were indeed prompt and ready to accept faith in God the Word, ^{B C D}

^A while the Hebrews were yet so incredulous, even though they had instituted the honoring of divine things from the very beginning, and had learned through the prophets, long before it happened, of the coming of Christ and what kind of person he would be. For Abraham, who was the author of both their race and their circumcision, merited seeing the Son of God with his own eyes and receiving him at a banquet. Isaac, his son, merited expressing the type of that sacrifice which was offered on the cross, at the time when, bound by his father, he was led to the altar: in which manner also those who interpret the sacred Scriptures accurately relate that Christ suffered. Jacob, finally, long before predicted the expectation of the nations in Christ, which is now fulfilled, and the very time when he was to come, where he says that the princes of the Jews would fail from the tribe of Judah, the phylarch. By these words he designated the principate of Herod, who, being an Idumean by paternal descent but an Arab by maternal stock, received the administration of Judea from the Roman senate and from Augustus Caesar. Likewise, from the remaining prophets, some predicted the birth of Christ, his ineffable conception, and his mother remaining a virgin after childbirth, and his race and country; others predicted his divine and stupendous deeds; others prophesied long before his passion and resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, and what happened in each of these events. If by chance anyone is still ignorant of these things, it would not be difficult at all to learn them from the reading of the sacred Books. But also Joseph, ^B son of Matthias, a priest, a man most celebrated both among the Jews and the Romans, is a most abundant witness of the truth concerning Christ. For he refuses to call him a mere man, as he was a worker of wonderful deeds and a teacher of true doctrine: he explicitly names him Christ, and testifies that he was condemned to the punishment of the cross, that he appeared alive on the third day, and that many other miracles were predicted of him by the divine seers. He further affirms that many whom he had drawn to himself, both Jews and Greeks, persevered in their love for him; and that the nation called by his name had by no means failed. And to me, indeed, it seems that while he writes these things, he is almost crying out that Christ is God, his works proving it. But terrified by the novelty of the matter, he passed by on a middle path, not at all persecuting those who had believed in Christ, but rather agreeing with them. ^C Thinking on these things, therefore, it is not without reason that I am struck with wonder why the Hebrews did not come to the faith of Christ before the rest of mortals. For even if those things which pertain to Christ to come were foretold by the Sibyl and by certain ^D oracles, it is not therefore right for all Greeks to fall into incredulity. For few, namely those who seemed to excel in learning, knew of such prophecies, which for the most part consist of meters, and under a more refined

Book One

Book One

^A expressed in words to the people. It was, I think, the design of divine providence, for the sake of the agreement of future events, not only to inspire its own prophets concerning what was to come, but even in part to reach those outside; just as if a musician, for the need of a strange melody, should run his plectrum over superfluous strings or add new ones to those already existing. That the Hebrews, having used more numerous and clearer prophecies concerning the advent of Christ, were yet later than the Greeks in coming to belief in Him, it suffices to have said this much. Yet it should not be thought unreasonable that the Church grew especially through other nations. First, because it is God’s custom to award divine and most important matters through paradoxical changes; and secondly, because it is not possible to find a religion organized by the ordinary virtues of those who stood at its head from the beginning. For though they possessed neither a tongue sharpened for elegant expression or beauty of speech, nor did they persuade those they encountered with verbal or geometric proofs, they accomplished what they strove for no less effectively. But being exiled from their ^B possessions, and neglecting their own affairs, and being crucified, and suffering many and grievous tortures as if in bodies not their own, and neither being drawn by the flatteries of the local magistrates and city mobs, nor terrified by their threats, they made it clear to all that they were enduring this struggle for the sake of the highest prizes. So that there was no need for persuasive words, as the events themselves, by their own power, compelled people in homes and cities to believe what they had never heard before. Since, therefore, so divine and paradoxical a change has come upon the inhabited world, so that men have neglected their former religion and ancestral laws, would it not be terrible if the Calydonian boar, and the Marathonian bull, and other such things that occurred or were mythologized in various lands or cities, were deemed worthy of such zeal that many of the most reputable among the Greek authors wrote of these things with well-disposed natural talent; while I should refuse to force my own nature and write an ecclesiastical history? For I am persuaded that, a subject not fashioned by men having appeared paradoxically, it is not an insurmountable task for God. I hastened ^C first to write this account from the beginning; but considering that others also attempted this up to their own times (Clement and Hegesippus), and that it is not an impossible task for one inspired by God, I dared to write.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(15) *It is not impossible for God.* All interpreters have erred in the translation of this passage. For Epiphanius, Musculus, and Christophorsonus have referred it to [an impossible writer], yet it should be referred to [God], and *it is* should be understood. (14) *Clement and Hegesippus.* One may doubt whether Sozomen here understands Clement of Rome, or the Alexandrian who is surnamed Stromateus. I would rather believe that Clement of Rome is intended. For he is named in the first place, before Hegesippus: which better ^D suits Clement of Rome, who was a companion and successor of the apostles. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria, although he inserted into his books some things that concern ecclesiastical history, did not however intend to write the affairs of the Church *ex professo*. But Sozomen in this place deals with those writers who commemorated events that happened at the beginning of the Church, among whom he reckons Clement first of all. Therefore he understands the Roman, who wrote the books of the *Recognitions*, which we have as translated by Rufinus. A compendium of these same books written in Greek exists to this day, edited by Turnebus, and translated into the Latin tongue by Perionius.

^A most wise men, having followed in the succession of the apostles, and Africanus the writer, and Eusebius surnamed Pamphili, a man most learned in the divine Scriptures and in the poets and writers among the Greeks—that writer—having abridged those things which happened to the Churches from the ascension of Christ into heaven until the overthrow of Licinius, I have treated in two books. Now, however, God willing, I shall attempt to set forth the things that followed thereafter. I will make mention of those matters at which I was present, and of those which I heard from such as knew or had seen them, according to our own generation and that which preceded us. As for things further back, I have gained an understanding of them from the laws enacted for the sake of religion, and from the synods held from time to time, and from the innovations, and from imperial and priestly letters, some of which are still preserved to this day in the palaces and churches, while others are found scattered among learned men. And although I had more than once determined to insert the very words of these letters into this History, I concluded at last, because of the excessive mass of the work, that it was better to explain their meaning briefly; unless, perchance, we should find some matters of controversy concerning which there is a difference of opinion among the many. For in such ^B a case, if I am able to procure some document, I shall produce it as proof of the truth. But that no one, for ignorance of the facts, should judge the work to be false by perhaps encountering writings that are contradictory, it must be known that, under the pretext of the dogmas of Arius and those which later sprang up, the leaders of the Churches, differing with one another, wrote to those of the same opinion concerning the things for which they were zealous; and for their own part, gathering in synods, they voted for whatever they wished; and often they condemned in their absence those who thought the opposite; and they courted the emperors of the time and those who were influential around them, persuading them as best they could as to their own power, and making them like-minded with themselves; and for proof of the appearance of piety [they strove].

And so, some attaching themselves to one side and some to the other, they made a collection of the letters circulated in support of their own heresy, and omitted the contrary ones. This rendered the discovery of what happened in these matters very difficult for us. But since it is necessary to care most for the truth, because the account of history must be unadulterated, it seemed necessary to me to examine such writings as much as I was able. If, therefore, I recount the contentions of ecclesiastics among themselves regarding the primacy or the preference of their own heresy, let no one think, because of a burdensome or malicious ^A disposition, that I record such things. For first of all, as has been said, it behooves the historian to make all things secondary to the truth; and next, the doctrine of the Catholic Church will appear most genuine, having been tested many times by the plots of those holding contrary opinions; and as it has been granted by God to prevail, it has returned again to its proper power, and has drawn all the Churches and the multitudes toward its own truth.

As I took counsel with myself, whether it was proper to record only the things that happened to the Church throughout the Roman Empire of which I had knowledge, it seemed good, as far as I might be able, to recount also the things that happened among the Persians and the barbarians in regard to religion. Nor is it foreign to ecclesiastical history to set forth in this treatise who were the fathers, as it were, and the originators of those called monks, and who were those who came after them in succession, of whom we know or have heard that they have been illustrious. ^B For we shall neither appear ungrateful toward them by consigning their virtue to oblivion, nor ignorant of the history concerning them, and at the same time we shall leave to those who pursue this manner of life—which may be called philosophy—a pattern of conduct, by the use of which they shall share in a most blessed and happy end. But the discourse will duly observe these things as it progresses, as far as it is able. I turn now to the account of events, having invoked God as my helper and as favorable. The present writing will take its beginning from here. ^{C D}

CAP. II.

When Crispus and Constantine were Caesars and consuls, Sylvester presided over the Church of the Romans; Alexander over the Alexandrians, and Macarius over the Jerusalemites. As for the Church of the Antiochians on the Orontes River, no bishop had yet been appointed after Romanus, since the persecutions, as is likely, had prevented the ordination from being performed. ^B But not long after, the bishops assembled at Nicaea, admiring the merit of Eustathius both for his life and his doctrine, judged him worthy to preside over the apostolic see; and since he was currently bishop of the neighboring Berroea, they transferred him to Antioch. At this time, those Christians who dwelt in the Eastern regions as far as the Libyans neighboring the Egyptians did not dare to celebrate ecclesiastical assemblies openly, because Licinius’s benevolence toward them had changed. But the Christians living in the Western parts—namely, the Achaeans, Macedonians, and Illyrians—worshipped with composure through the agency of Constantine, who governed the Roman Empire in those regions.

CAP. III.

For we have received that many other things occurred to this man, by which he was persuaded to adopt the dogma of the Christians. ^D

^A And most especially the divine sign which appeared to him. For when he had resolved to make war against Maxentius, he began to doubt within himself, as is to be expected, how the battle would turn out and who would be his helper. While he was troubled by such anxieties, he saw in a dream the sign of the cross shining in the heavens. Being astonished at the sight, divine angels stood by him and said, "Constantine, in this, conquer." It is said also that Christ Himself appeared to him, showed him the sign of the cross, and commanded that he make one similar to it, and that he use it in his wars as a defense and a means of gaining victory. Eusebius Pamphili, however, asserts that he heard the emperor himself affirming with an oath that, about midday, when the sun was already declining, he himself and the soldiers who were with him beheld in the sky a trophy of the cross composed of purest light, with an inscription attached to it saying, "In this, conquer." ^B For as he was moving along with his army, this miracle occurred on the journey; and while he was reasoning with himself what it might mean, night came on. In his sleep, Christ appeared to him with the sign that had been seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a representation of it and to use it as a protection in the battles against his enemies. And since the emperor no longer needed an interpreter—for it had been clearly shown to him what he ought to think about God—as soon as day broke, he summoned the priests of Christ and inquired about the doctrine. They, bringing forward the holy Scriptures, set forth the things concerning Christ; and they proved from the prophets ^C that these things had been clearly foretold before they were accomplished. They said that the sign which had appeared to him was a symbol of the victory over Hades, which He, having come among men, achieved by being crucified, dying, and rising on the third day. For by this, they said, they hoped that after the departure from this life, at the end of the present age, all men would rise and be immortal—some to receive the reward of the things they did right in this life, others to pay the debt of punishment for the evils they had done. They added, however, that even for those who had sinned in this life, there was a hope of salvation and an expiation of sins prepared: for those who were not yet initiated, initiation according to the rites of the Church; ^D and for those already initiated, the opportunity not to sin again. But since to accomplish this is possible only for a few holy men, they taught that a second expiation had been established through repentance; for God, being a lover of mankind, grants forgiveness to those who have stumbled if...

they repent and confirm their repentance with good deeds.

CHAPTER IV

When these things had been explained by the priests, the emperor, marveling at the prophecies concerning Christ, ordered skilled craftsmen to transform the standard which the Romans call the Labarum, adorned with gold and precious stones, into the sign of the cross. Now this military standard was held in higher honor than the rest because it was accustomed to precede the emperor and to be adored by the soldiers. I am of the opinion, however, that Constantine did this so that he might change the most distinguished standard of the Roman Empire into a sign of Christ, with the intention that the subjects, by the constant sight and veneration of it, might gradually be drawn away from their ancestral rites and believe that He alone is God whom the emperor worshipped, and whom he used as his leader and helper against his enemies. For he always placed this sign before his troops as a bulwark, and he wished it to be present in battle for those legions whenever they were hard-pressed by the enemy; special soldiers were chosen for this duty, to whom it was commanded that they should each in their turn carry this sign upon their shoulders and circle the ranks of the enemy. It is said, therefore, that at one time the standard-bearer who was carrying this banner, terrified by a sudden attack of the enemy, handed it to another and withdrew himself from the battle; and when he had reached a position outside the range of missiles, he suddenly fell, struck by a mortal wound. But the man who had taken up the divine sign to carry it remained unharmed, even though many ^B hurled javelins at him. Indeed, the missiles of the enemies, in a marvelous way, as if some divine power were directing them, fixed themselves into the standard; but from the standard-bearer himself, positioned amidst so many dangers, they flew off. And they record that no other soldier who had been assigned to carry this sign ever fell into any grave calamity, such as is wont to happen in war, nor was ever wounded or taken captive.

CHAPTER V

I am not ignorant that the Gentiles are accustomed to say that Constantine... ^D

having put to death several of his nearest relatives and having consented to the murder of his own son Crispus, was overcome by remorse and consulted the philosopher Sopater ^A, who at that time presided over the succession of Plotinus, concerning the expiation of these crimes; that the latter replied that there was no expiation for such crimes; and that the emperor, being troubled by this refusal, encountered bishops who promised that repentance and the laver of baptism would cleanse him from every sin. They add that he was pleased with those who had spoken to his purpose, admired the doctrine, became a Christian, and led his subjects to do the same. But to me, these things seem to have been fabricated by those who are eager to slander the Christian religion. For Crispus, on whose account they say Constantine needed purification, died in the twentieth year of his father’s reign; and while he yet lived, as one holding the second place in the empire and adorned with the dignity of Caesar ^B, he had enacted many laws along with his father in favor of the Christians, as the dates attached to the individual laws and the names of the legislators even now testify. Furthermore, it is not at all likely that Sopater had any conversation with Constantine, who at that time held imperial power only in those parts situated around the Ocean and the Rhine. For because of his discord with Maxentius, who resided in Italy at that time, the Roman state was in turmoil; and it was not easy for anyone then to penetrate into the Gauls and the Britains and the regions thereabout, in which it is agreed that Constantine first embraced the Christian religion, before he waged war against Maxentius and marched into Italy and the city of Rome. The times themselves and the laws which he enacted for the sake of religion are again witnesses to this. But even if we should easily concede that the emperor spoke with Sopater, or consulted him by letter ^C about what he wished, it is by no means credible that the philosopher was ignorant that Hercules, the son of Alcmene, was purified at Athens by the mysteries of Demeter after his filicide, and after the murder of Iphitus, whom he unjustly slew though he was a guest and a friend. As for the Greeks, therefore, they promised expiations for such transgressions.

The things I have said are sufficient to prove this, and at the same time they convict of falsehood those who claim that Sopater asserted the contrary. For I would not venture to say that the philosopher, who was considered the most noble among the Greeks of that age on account of his erudition, was ignorant of these matters; and it suffices that the things mentioned be said, for they refute those who fabricated the story that Sopater spoke to the contrary. ^A

CAP. VI. That the father of Constantine indeed permitted the name of Christ to be spread; but it was the Great Constantine who caused it to be preached throughout the whole world.

The churches that were under the empire of Constantine were living in the greatest happiness, and they flourished day by day, enriched by the benefits of a benevolent and Christian prince. ^B Yet, even before his reign, God had preserved them free from persecutions and disturbances. For while the churches in the other parts of the Roman world were being harassed by persecutions, only Constantius, the father of Constantine, had granted to the Christians the free faculty of worshipping the Deity. Indeed, I have learned that a certain marvelous thing, worthy to be handed down to posterity, was done by him. It is of the following nature: when at one time he wished to explore who among the number of Christians living in his palace were good and upright men, he summoned them all and gave notice that if they would sacrifice and worship the gods just as he did, they might remain in the palace and retain the same position of dignity which they held before; but if they refused to do this, they should leave the palace, regarding it as a favor that they were not to be punished. ^C When they had divided into two groups—on one side those who had deserted their religion, and on the other those who preferred divine things to present goods—he decided to have those who had remained faithful to God as his friends and counselors for the future. But he turned away from the others, as cowards and impostors, and removed them from his retinue, thinking, as is evident, that those who had so easily proven themselves to be traitors to God would never be faithful and devoted to the Emperor. For this reason, as long as Constantius was alive, it did not seem contrary to the laws for those who lived beyond Italy—namely the Gauls, the Britons, and those who inhabit the region around the Pyrenees mountains as far as the Western Ocean—to profess the Christian religion. ^D But after Constantine obtained that same part of the empire by right of succession, the affairs of the Church flourished much more. For when Maxentius, the son of Herculius, was destroyed, and his portion of authority fell to Constantine, those who dwelt around the river Tiber, and the Eridanus (which the local inhabitants call the Po), and the Acis—into which, as the story goes, the Argo was dragged down and saved in the Tyrrhenian sea—worshipped freely.

For when Maxentius, the son of Herculius, was killed and the lot of his empire transferred to Constantine, those inhabiting the regions around the Tiber or the Eridanus, or near the river Acis, worshipped the divine power freely. They tell how the ship Argo was dragged to this river and, having been led down into the Tyrrhenian Sea, escaped unharmed. But the Argonauts, while fleeing from Aeetes, did not follow the same course on their return; instead, they crossed the Scythian Sea, passed through the mouths of the rivers in those parts, and arrived at the borders of the Italians. There they wintered and founded a city called Hemona ^A. When summer arrived, with the help of the local inhabitants, they dragged the ship Argo by means of machines across the land for about four hundred stades, and led it to the river Acis, which flows into the Eridanus; and the Eridanus has its outlets into the Italian sea. But after the battle at Cibalae, the Dardanians and Macedonians, as well as all who dwell along the Ister, and the land called Greece, and the whole Illyrian nation, came under Constantine.

CAP. VII. Concerning the dissension between Constantine and his brother-in-law Licinius on account of the Christians, and how Licinius, having been defeated in war, was destroyed.

Licinius, after his defeat there, having previously favored the cause of the Christians, changed his mind and at that time ^B afflicted many of the priests within his jurisdiction; he also punished many others, especially those of the military rank, very severely. For he was bitterly hostile toward the Christians on account of his falling out with Constantine, believing that their misfortunes would cause Constantine great pain, while at the same time he supposed that the Christian churches were praying and striving for him to be their sole emperor. Moreover, as often happens, being about to engage in battle once again with Constantine, he took precautions for the expected war by means of sacrifices and divinations; and, led astray by some who promised him victory, he turned to Hellenism. Indeed, ^C the Hellenes themselves say that he then made trial of the oracle of the Didymaean Apollo at Miletus; and as he inquired of the daemon regarding the war, the spirit gave this— ^D [remainder of page consists of Valesian annotations and varia, to be continued on next page.]

Homeric verses:

O vetule, incursant juvenes te bellipotentes. Fracta est vis tua, statque tibi ærumnosa senectus. ^B And it is evident, from many occurrences as well as this, that the Christian religion was established by divine providence and made such progress, not least from what happened at that time. For just as Licinius was about to persecute all the churches under his dominion, the war in Bithynia was kindled, which was the final one that he and Constantine fought against each other. Constantine was aided by such divine influence that he defeated his enemies by land and sea; and Licinius, having lost his infantry and naval forces, surrendered himself at Nicomedia and lived for a time as a private citizen in Thessalonica, where he was eventually put to death. He was a man who, at the beginning of his reign, had distinguished himself both in war and in other matters, and who had been honored by marriage to Constantine’s sister, but in the end met the fate I have described.

CHAPTER VIII.

Constantine, indeed, when he had gained sole possession of the Roman Empire, commanded his subjects in the East by a public edict ^C to observe the Christian religion and to venerate the Divine with diligence; and to consider Him alone to be God, who is truly so, and who possesses power throughout all time. For to those who zealously observe these things, all good things are wont to flow in abundance, and whatever they undertake with good hope, succeeds according to their desires; but to those who offend against the Divine, both privately and publicly, both in war and in peace, all things turn out unhappily. He adds further, not boasting of himself, but giving thanks to God, as he himself says, that God, having willed him to be a suitable minister of His own will, had led him from the British sea to the eastern provinces, so that the Christian religion might be increased, ^D and those who remained steadfast in confession or martyrdom for the sake of the worship of God might be distinguished with honors and rewards. After he had declared these things, and set forth many others by which he thought his subjects could be drawn to the Christian religion, he decreed that whatever had been enacted or done against the religion during the times of those who had persecuted the Church should be of no effect; and he ordered that all who had been condemned for their profession of Christ to migrate either to islands or elsewhere against their will, should be free.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(30) The edict of Constantine to the Orientals, which Sozomen has summarized in this place, if anyone desires to read it in full, is found in Eusebius, in the second book of the *Life of Constantine*, chapter 24 and the following.

^A and let those who have been condemned for the confession of Christ to exile, or ordered to live against their will in islands or other places; and likewise those who have been condemned to the mines, or to public works, or compelled to minister in the women’s quarters or textile workshops, or who have been enrolled in the curiae when they were notPreviously curiales; let them retrieve their former freedom. Those who had been branded with infamy, he freed from that infamy. To those who had been deprived of any military rank, he left the choice either to recover their former position or to enjoy a life of freedom with an honorable discharge. And since he recalled all to their former liberty and to their customary honors, he also restored their property to them. If any had been sentenced to death and their possessions had been confiscated, he ordered their inheritance to be passed on to their next of kin; if none of these remained, he commanded that the church of each respective locality should be the heir; and if either a private individual or the public treasury held anything from such property, he ordered it to be restored. ^B Regarding those who had purchased such property from the treasury, or had received it as a gift, he promised to make provision for them in a capable and appropriate manner. These things, as has been said, were decided by the emperor, and were confirmed by law, and were executed without delay. By this time, Christians were governing almost all the offices of the Roman Empire; and henceforth it was forbidden for all to offer sacrifices, or to consult diviners, or to make use of mysteries, or to dedicate images, or to celebrate the festivals of the Greeks. Many of the ancient customs of the cities were also changed. In fact, among the Egyptians, the cubit—by which the rise of the waters of the Nile is measured—is no longer carried into the temples of the Greeks, as was the former custom, but is brought into the churches. Among the Romans, the spectacle of the gladiators ^C was then forbidden for the first time. Among the Phoenicians, those who inhabit Lebanon and Heliopolis, it was no longer lawful for virgins to prostitute themselves before they were united to the men to whom they were wont to be joined in lawful marriage, after their first experience of illicit intercourse. Of the houses of prayer, those that were of sufficient size were restored; while others were grandly refurbished with an increase in height and width. In other places where they did not exist from the start, they were built from the foundations up. The emperor provided funds from the imperial treasuries, having written to the bishops in each city.

partly that they might command what they pleased, and partly that they might obey and zealously serve the priests. As his reign prospered, religion grew along with it. And he was so successful, even after the war against Licinius, in the battles against the barbarians, that he even defeated the Sarmatians and those called the Goth, and at the last, as a favor, made a truce with them. This people lived at that time across the river Danube; being most warlike, and in numbers and greatness of body and in being always prepared in arms, they prevailed over other barbarians, having only the Romans as their rivals. It is said that in this war, too, God showed Constantine by signs and dreams how great a providence he was thought worthy of from above. Having overcome all the wars that happened under his rule, as if vying with Christ in return, he compensated by his zeal for religion; urging those under his rule to follow this alone and to consider it salvific. ^B And from the tribute-bearing lands, having set aside a fixed tax from the public treasury for each city, he distributed it to the local churches and clergy, and enacted law that this gift should be valid and firm for all future time. And accustoming the soldiers to worship God in the same manner as himself, he marked their arms with the symbol of the cross, and built a prayer house in the palace, and carried about a tent fashioned like a church when he marched against enemies; so that even when he or the army resided in a wilderness, he would not lack a holy house in which one ought to hymn God and pray, and partake of the mysteries. For priests and deacons also followed, attending the tent, who fulfilled the order concerning these things according to the law of the Church. From that time the Roman regiments, which they now call *numeri*, each fashioned its own tent and had priests and deacons assigned to it. ^C But the day called the Lord's Day [one]... ^D [The Valesius Annotations and Variorum notes are reserved for later scholarly reference; index: entries preserved.]

which the Hebrews call the first of the week and the Greeks dedicate to the Sun, and the one before the seventh, he decreed that all should have leisure from the courts and other business, and that they should worship the Divinity with prayers and supplications ^A. He honored the Lord's Day, as being the day on which Christ rose from the dead; and the other, as being the day on which he was crucified. For he had very great reverence for the divine cross, both from the turn of events in his favor during the battles against his enemies, and from the sign which had appeared to him divinely regarding it. Indeed, he abolished by law the punishment of the cross, which had previously been practiced among the Romans as a legal penalty of the courts[(35)]. And he commanded that this divine symbol always be inscribed and fashioned upon the coins and images that were made of him. And his images, which still exist to this day in this form, bear witness to this. In all things, but especially when legislating, he was eager to worship the Divinity. For he evidently corrected the intemperate and debauched unions[(36)], which had not been forbidden before this; as one may see for himself from the laws enacted concerning these matters, if one happens to be diligent about them. For to treat this thoroughly[(37)] at present does not seem opportune to me. But it is necessary to go through the things which were legislated for the honor and confirmation of religion, in addition to what has been said, since they are a part of ecclesiastical history. I shall begin from here.

CAP. IX. How Constantine also enacted a law to benefit those who practice virginity and the clergy.

There was an ancient law among the Romans[(38)], from twenty-five years of age, prohibiting those who remained unmarried from being considered equal to...

those who were married, and in many other matters, and, specifically, so that those who were not the nearest of kin would not inherit anything by testament ^A. Those who were childless were punished with the loss of half of what had been bequeathed to them. The ancients of Rome had established this law, thinking thereby that the city of Rome and the remaining provinces of the Roman Empire would abound with a multitude of people, as, not long before that law, they had happened to lose a great many men consumed by civil wars. Therefore, when the emperor observed that those who pursued virginity and childlessness for the love of God were, on that account, in a worse position, he judged it foolish to believe that the human race could be increased by the care and diligence of men, since nature, according to the dispensation of God, always receives either decrease or increase. Hence he gave a law to the people, that the unmarried and the childless might enjoy the same ^B status as all others. Moreover, he enacted by law that those who lived in continence and virginity should possess some privilege: he granted them the liberty, both male and female, even if they were still minors, to make a testament, contrary to the custom practiced everywhere else in the Roman Empire. For he considered it right that those whose one work and study was to worship God assiduously and to occupy themselves with philosophy should be able to consult and dispose of all their affairs. For it was for the same reason that the ancient Romans had passed a law that the Vestal Virgins, even in their sixth year of age, could make a testament. This was also the greatest argument for the reverence which the pious prince bore toward religion. For he gave immunity to all the clergy everywhere, by a law specially issued concerning this matter; and he permitted litigants to appeal to the judgment of the bishops, if they wished to reject the civil magistrates: their sentence would be ratified, and it would prevail over the sentences of other judges, just as if it had been issued by the emperor himself; and he commanded the governors of the provinces and their officials to carry out the judgments of the bishops: finally, that the ^C decrees of councils should be unalterable. As I have proceeded thus far in my writing, it is worth not omitting what he decreed for the benefit of those who are emancipated within the churches. For because of the strictness of the laws and the reluctance of the owners, there was great difficulty regarding the acquisition of the better liberty, which they call the status of Roman citizens, so he established three laws, ^D

sparing all those who are liberated in churches by the testimony of the priests, to obtain Roman citizenship. Time even now brings the proof of this pious invention; as a custom prevails for the laws concerning this matter to be inscribed in the registers of manumissions. Constantine indeed ordained such things, and sought to honor the Christian religion in all ways. It was indeed of itself illustrious, on account of the virtue of those who at that time professed it.

CAP. X.

For there were also many other good Christians at that time, and since the persecutions had recently ceased, many of the confessors were still alive and adorned the churches; such as Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Amphion of Epiphaneia in Cilicia, and Maximus, who after Macarius undertook the care of the church of Jerusalem, and Paphnutius the Egyptian, through whom they say God performed very many miracles, having granted him to expel demons and cure various diseases. Now this Paphnutius, and Maximus who has been mentioned, were among the number of those confessors whom Maximinus had condemned to work in the mines, having first gouged out their right eyes and severed their left hams. ^C

CAP. XI.

About these same times we have heard that Spyridon lived, the bishop of Trimithous in Cyprus; to declare whose virtue, I think the fame that still flourishes concerning him is sufficient. As for the miracles which were performed by him through divine aid, the locals, as is likely, know the majority of them, but I shall by no means keep silent about those that have come to my knowledge. He was a rustic of sorts, having a wife and children; but not on account of this was he inferior in things that pertain to God. They say that once some wicked men came by night to the fold of his sheep, and having attempted to steal, they were suddenly held fast, though no one had bound them. ^D At daybreak, he arrived at the fold and found them tied, and set them loose from their invisible bonds; but he scolded them, because since it was permissible to ask—

^A for what they desired, they chose rather to steal it, and to suffer so much hardship in the night. Yet, having pity on them, or rather, instructing them to be converted to a better way of life, "Go," he said, "take this ram; for you are weary from keeping watch, and it is not fitting that you should depart from my fold complaining of your labors." This one might justly admire, yet no less also what I am now about to relate. ^B To his virgin daughter, Irene by name, one of his acquaintances had confided something. She, having received it, buried it at home, so that it might be guarded securely. But it happening that the girl died without having said anything, the man came to reclaim the deposit. As Spyridon did not know what he was talking about, but nevertheless searched the house and found nothing, the man wept and pulled his hair and seemed like one who would do violence to himself. Moved to pity, Spyridon went to the grave and called the girl by her own name. When she responded, Spyridon asked her about the deposit; and having been informed by her, he returned home and, having found the deposit in the place the daughter had indicated, he returned it to the man. ^C Since I have reached this point in the narrative, it would not be out of place to add this also. It was the custom of this Spyridon to distribute some of the fruits that came to him to the poor, and others to lend without interest to those who requested it. He would never give or receive anything personally, but by merely pointing out the storeroom, he would permit those who came to take as much as they needed, and again to return what they knew they had taken. Someone, therefore, having borrowed in this way, came to return it. Being told as was his custom himself to restore to the storeroom the borrowed items, he took to dishonesty. And thinking he would not be detected, he did not return the debt; but by feigning the repayment of the debt, as if he had restored it, he departed. ^D But his act was not destined to remain hidden for long. For after some time, the man came again to borrow. Spyridon sent him to the storeroom, granting him the power to measure out for himself as much as he wished. When he found the storeroom empty, he informed Spyridon. Spyridon said to him, "I marvel, O man, how it appears that the storeroom is lacking in necessities for you alone. Search yourself, therefore, to see if you have not returned the first sum you borrowed. For if this is not the case, you will certainly not be disappointed of what you need. And go again with confidence, as you will find it." And he, thus caught, confessed his sin. It is worthy to admire the gravity of this divine man, and the strictness of ecclesiastical order. It is said, therefore, that some time later, on account of some necessity, the bishops of Cyprus came together to the same place: and with them were this Spyridon, and Triphyllius of Ledri.

^A Since an assembly was being held, Triphyllius was asked to instruct the multitude; and when he needed to bring forward that saying of the Savior, "Take up thy bed and walk," he altered the name, saying [*skimpoda*] (cot) instead of [*krabbaton*] (bed). Spyridon was indignant at this and said, "Art thou better than He who said [*krabbaton*], that thou art ashamed to use His word?" And having said this, he leapt from the episcopal seat before the eyes of the people; and in this way he taught modesty to one who was puffed up by his own eloquence. He was indeed capable of shaming others, being both venerable and most illustrious for his deeds, while also being elder in both age and priesthood.

How he was disposed toward the receiving of guests, one may learn from the following: ^B When Lent had already begun, someone came to him after a journey—during those days in which it was his custom, together with his household, to continue his fasts and to eat only on a specific day, remaining without food in the intervening time. Seeing that the stranger was greatly exhausted, "Come now," he said to his daughter, "wash this man's feet, and set food before him." When the virgin replied that there was neither bread nor flour—for the preparation of such things was unnecessary because of the fast—he first prayed and asked for forgiveness, then commanded his daughter to cook some salted pork which happened to be in the house. When it was cooked, he sat down with the guest, and when the meat was set before them, he ate and encouraged the man also to eat. But when he refused, claiming that he was a Christian, "For that very reason," he said, "thou shouldst not refuse; for the divine Word has declared that all things are pure to the pure." ^C And these are the things concerning Spyridon.

Chapter XII. Of the monastic life: whence it began, and who were its founders.

Indeed, it was not least by [the life of the monks] that the Church was made most illustrious, and by their doctrine ^D

^A they confirmed the Christian religion—those, that is, who at that time pursued the monastic way of life. For this sort of philosophy, having come to men from God, is a most useful thing: it looks down upon the knowledge of many disciplines and the art of dialectic as superfluous, and as consuming time that could be spent on better studies, while contributing nothing to living rightly. It instructs solely by a natural and simple prudence, teaching those things which either destroy wickedness entirely or greatly diminish it. It does not place in the category of goods those things which are middling between vice and virtue; it delights only in what is truly good. And one who abstains from evil, yet does not perform the good, it deems a base person; for it does not make a display of virtue, but practices it, setting at naught human opinion.

^B Bravely resisting the passions of the soul, it neither yields to the necessities of nature nor bows to the infirmities of the body. Possessing the strength of the divine mind, it ever looks toward the Creator of all things, venerating Him night and day, and winning His favor with prayers and supplications. By purity of mind and a life of good deeds, approaching God to worship Him piously, it despises purifications, sprinklings, and other such things; for it considers only sins to be stains. Being superior to what befalls it from without—and, so to speak, mastering all things—it is not moved from its purpose by the disorder or necessity that besets the life of mortals, nor does it grieve when insulted, nor, having suffered injury, does it seek revenge. Nor, when oppressed by disease or the lack of necessities, does it lose heart; but rather, it glories in these things, cultivating patience, gentleness, and frugality throughout its life, and, as far as is possible for man, drawing near to God. ^C Treating the present life as though in transit, it is not tormented by being occupied with the acquisition of goods, nor does it take care for present things beyond what necessity demands. But always praising a simple diet and a spare manner of living in this life, it looks toward the blessedness laid up in Heaven, and is perpetually intent upon that happy lot. Furthermore, as it constantly breathes piety and reverence toward God, it turns away from the obscenity of shameful words, not even enduring them by voice, for it has banished their deeds from its conduct. ^D Moreover, by narrowing the needs of nature and compelling the body to be content with few things, it overcomes intemperance with chastity, injustice with justice, and falsehood with truth, and finally, by order and discipline, it attains the due measure in all things. Furthermore, it establishes its manner of living in concord and communion with one’s neighbors; it is thoughtful of friends and strangers alike, it makes its own goods common to those in need, and contributes what is fitting for each. It does not trouble those who are rejoicing, but consoles those who are grieving; and, in general, being eager and stretching its care toward the truly good, it is intent upon sober words,

and prudent sentiments, alien to all deception and slander, instructing its hearers and, as if by certain medicines, recalling them to health; discussing matters with honor and reverence; and being completely free from contention, mockery, and anger. For since it is endowed with reason, it avoids every movement that is contrary to reason, and entirely masters the passions of the body and of the soul. ^A The initiator, as some say, of this most excellent philosophy was the prophet Elias, and John the Baptist. But the Pythagorean Philo, in his own time, records that the best of the Hebrews from everywhere used to philosophize in a place situated on a hill above Lake Mareotis. He describes their dwelling, diet, and conduct as being such as we now see practiced among the monks of the Egyptians. For he writes that when they first begin to philosophize, they abandon their property to their relatives, and renouncing business and the company of men, they live outside the walls in solitary fields and gardens. Their sacred buildings are what are called monasteries; in these, they live in seclusion and celebrate ^B venerable mysteries; they diligently worship the Divine with psalms and hymns; they do not partake of food before sunset, and some continue fasting for three days or more; furthermore, on certain days they sleep on the ground; and they abstain completely from wine and all living things: their food is bread, salt, water, and hyssop. Elderly virgins also live with them, who out of love for philosophy have chosen virginity of their own free will. And Philo, in relating this, seems to suggest ^C that those among the Hebrews in his day who had become Christians still lived in a more Jewish manner and observed the customs of their ancestors. For it is not possible to find this way of life among others. Hence I infer, from that time, from the ^D apostolic preaching...

Others affirm that the persecutions which from time to time befell the Church provided the occasion for this philosophy; for since the Christians were fleeing and making their habitations in the mountains, in the deserts, and in the glens, they gradually became accustomed to this manner of life. ^A Others say that the cause of this was the persecutions that happened to the religion at that time; for because they were fleeing and making their habitations in the mountains, in the deserts, and in the glens, they became accustomed to this life.

CHAPTER XIII.

Concerning the great Anthony, and the holy Paul the Simple.

But whether the Egyptians, or some others, were the first to initiate this philosophy, this is certainly agreed upon by all, that Anthony, the great monk, brought this way of life to the highest degree of precision and perfection by his customs and appropriate exercises. ^B Being at that time renowned in the deserts of Egypt for the glory of his virtue, the Emperor Constantine took him as his friend, honored him with letters, and encouraged him to write concerning the things of which he had need. This man was an Egyptian by birth, of noble family, from Coma. This village is near the city of Heraclea in Egypt, which is called the Minor. Having been left an orphan while still a youth, he donated his paternal fields to the villagers and, having sold his other property, he distributed the proceeds to the needy. For he realized that it is the mark of a true philosopher not only to divest himself of wealth, but also to spend it on useful ends. Being in the company of the zealous men of his time, he imitated the virtues of all; and having tested the good life, he perceived that it would be pleasant through habituation. ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (54) From Coma. In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written with the accent changed, *apò Kóma*. And a little later, *nomoú Hrakleías*. Yet the Vulgate reading is confirmed by Nicephorus. (55) *Tois par’ Aiguptíois ákrasi*. In the Fuketian codex I found *tês par’ Aiguptíois arkási*. So that the meaning is that the Heraclea to which the village of Coma, the fatherland of the great Anthony, was near, was called in the native language of the Egyptians... For there was a double Heraclea in Egypt: one called the greater, the other the minor, as Ortelius noted from Ptolemy. In the book of Leo Allatius, however, it is read *tôn par’ Aiguptíois Arkádôn*. Which the translators understood as belonging to the Arcadians, who had their seat in Egypt. Nicephorus also confirms the same, who has it thus: "This Heraclea is neighbor to the Arcadians among the Egyptians."

VARIORUM. We have three most weighty witnesses who have discoursed on the Christians under the name of Therapeutae, namely Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius, all of whom flourished in the fourth century, and therefore were able to judge far better than we concerning the discipline of the nascent Church, to which they were much closer, who are removed from them by so many, not years, but indeed centuries. Wherefore there is nothing for us to depart from their opinion, unless compelled by the most powerful arguments. And if we examine the arguments brought forward to overthrow this opinion of the Fathers of the ancient Church, we will find them such that they would not lead anyone not laboring under prejudice to the contrary opinion. Gail.

Beveridge, *On the Lenten Fast*, chap. 5, no. 5, where he treats more fully of the Therapeutae: concerning whom see also the dissertation of Thomas Brunus, canon of Windsor, against our Valesius, at the end of the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, edited by Paul Colomesius. What Sozomen writes here concerning St. Anthony, he took from his Life written by St. Athanasius, as the most illustrious Benedictine monks observed in the Monitor prefixed to that same work. Where also may be seen the most ample eulogies and testimonies of the holy Fathers concerning the blessed Anthony. See also Socrates, lib. 1, c. 21; concerning Ammonius, Socr., lib. 4, cap. 25; concerning Eutychianus, Socr., lib. 1, cap. 13.

^A being familiar with such, he emulated the virtues of all. And since he had understood that a life joined with virtue, although difficult and burdensome at the beginning, becomes sweet through habit itself, he devised modes of stricter discipline, making daily progress in continence; and as if always beginning, he renewed his zeal. He restrained the pleasures of the body with various afflictions, but with the tribulations of the soul he resisted the design of divine wisdom. His food was only bread with salt; water was his drink. The time of his meal was at the setting of the sun. Often he remained fasting for two days or more. He would stay awake all night, one might say, and intent upon prayers, he would persevere until the day. And if by chance he did taste sleep, he would sleep for a fleeting moment while lying upon a mat. For the most part, he used the bare ground as his bed. He rejected the use of oil for anointing, baths, and things of that kind, as they turn the vigor of the body into softness through moisture. They say also that he never even saw himself naked. He neither knew letters nor did he esteem them; but he praised a good mind as being older than letters and the inventor of them. He was, moreover, very gentle, ^B and most humane, and prudent and brave; he was agreeable to those he encountered, and caused no distress to those with whom he debated, even if they argued contentiously. For by his own character and by a certain wisdom, he would most prudently calm the rising altercation and bring it to an equitable mean, tempering the ardor of those who were with him and composing their manners. But although on account of such virtues he had been gifted with divine foreknowledge, he did not by any means consider foreknowing the future to be a mark of virtue. And for this reason he advised that no one should labor in vain in this matter, asserting that neither would he who was ignorant of the future be held to account for it, nor would he who knew those things be on that account happy. For true blessedness, he said, consists in worshipping God and keeping His commandments. But if anyone, he said, concerns himself with this, let him purify his soul; for this alone can make it perspicacious and foreknowing of things to come, with God manifesting the future to him. He could not endure to be idle himself; and he urged anyone who desired to live rightly to do work and, having removed witnesses, to examine himself and render an account of what he had done at night and during the day. And if he had done anything he ought not, he was to write it down, so that for the future he might refrain from sins, being ashamed if he found many things written down, fearing that, if the writing were discovered, his wickedness might become manifest to others. Moreover, he was also, if any man ever was, supernaturally most zealous in the defense of those who were wronged, and on account of these things he often traveled to the cities. For many would lament to him and force him to petition the rulers and those in authority on their behalf; for each would have valued it highly to see him, and to hear him speaking, and to obey his commands, since even though he was of such an age, he was eager to be unknown and to remain hidden in the deserts. But if, having been compelled, he ever came to a city to help those in need, once he had arranged the matter for which he had come, he would immediately return to the desert. For he used to say that fish nourish [life] in the liquid substance, but that the desert brings peace to monks; and that just as those who touch dry land [in the case of the former] lose their life, those ...

who approach the cities lose their monastic gravity. Finally, showing himself pleasant and agreeable to all, he would studiously take care not to appear of a proud and arrogant disposition, nor that he might be seen to be of such a character. I have wished to relate these things concerning the conduct of Antony, with this intent: that by using our judgment regarding these things that have been spoken, we may infer the rest of the philosophy of this man. He certainly had very many and most approved disciples, of whom some flourished in Egypt and Libya, others in Palestine and Syria and Arabia. And each one of them, in those regions in which he stayed, lived and conducted himself no less strictly than the preceptor himself, and he educated many others and led them to a similar virtue and philosophy. So that it would be a difficult task, by going around cities and regions, to search out the companions of Antony or their successors. For how could the discovery of these men be easy, who in their life were more diligent in studying to remain hidden than many men nowadays, who, puffed up by ambition, parade and show themselves off? ^B Among those disciples of Antony whom we have received, the most celebrated were, along with many others whom we shall mention in their proper place, Paul, surnamed the Simple. It is said that this man, being a rustic, had taken a beautiful woman in marriage; when he caught her in adultery, he smiled placidly, and confirmed with an oath that he would never live with her again. And having said to the adulterer, "Take her for yourself," he went straight into the desert to Antony. They say that this man was most gentle and patient to an extreme; indeed, even though he was of advanced age and unaccustomed to monastic endurance—for he had only recently come into the monastery—Antony, when he attempted to test him in every way, discovered him to be sluggish in nothing. ^C And so, while bearing witness to his perfect philosophy, he permitted him to live apart, inasmuch as he stood in no need of a master. But God himself also confirmed this testimony of Antony, and rendered Paul most illustrious by miracles, even superior to his own teacher in vexing and driving away demons.

Chapter XIV. Concerning the holy Ammon, and Eutychian, who dwelt at Olympus.

About the same time, Ammon the Egyptian also cultivated the monastic philosophy. It is said that when his relatives compelled him, he did indeed take a wife, yet he had no intercourse with her, as is the right and lawful duty of men. For when their wedding had begun, and he had led his bride into the bridal chamber like a bridegroom, after he was left alone with her, he said, "Our wedding, O woman, is finished so far as this." And he began to instruct her from the Holy Scriptures how great a good it is ^D to be able to remain a virgin, and he strove to live by himself.

But when the woman approved his discourse concerning virginity, yet took it grievously to be separated from him, he slept apart, and remained with her for eighteen years, not even thus neglecting the laws of monastic abstinence. In the meantime, the woman, having emulated the virtue of her husband, thought it not right that so great a man should be hidden at home on her account, and that it was fit that each should live separately and philosophize. She therefore besought her husband concerning this matter. ^A And he, giving thanks to God for the resolution of his wife, said, "Do you, indeed, keep this house, and I shall prepare for myself another dwelling." And, setting out towards the south of Lake Mareotis, he took hold of a desert place about Scetis and the mountain called Nitria; he philosophized there for twenty-two years, visiting his wife twice every year. ^B To this divine leader of the monks in those parts there were many and notable disciples, as the successions will show. And many wondrous things happened through him, which are held most strictly by the monks in Egypt, who count it of great value to carefully commemorate by the succession of unwritten tradition the virtues of the ancient ascetics.

But I shall relate those things that have come to us. It was necessary for him and his disciple Theodore, as they were going somewhere, to cross a canal which they call the Lycus. Lest, therefore, they should see one another naked, he ordered Theodore to withdraw a little. And since he himself was ashamed to see anyone naked, he was suddenly lifted up, being raised by divine power, and was transported to the opposite bank. ^C But when Theodore had crossed the water, and saw that his attire and his feet were not at all wetted, he besought the old man to tell him the cause. And when the one refused to speak, and the other insisted that he would not rise from there unless he learned it, Ammon, having obtained a promise from Theodore that he would tell no one while he was alive, confessed the event.

And there is a miracle similar to the one mentioned, which I shall subjoin. Certain unjust parents brought to him their son, who had been bitten by a mad dog and seemed to be at the point of death, and they lamented and begged him to apply a remedy to the boy. ^D To whom he said, "He has no need of a remedy from me. But if you, for your part, are willing to restore the ox which you have stolen to its owners, the boy will be healed at once." And this is what happened. For as soon as the ox was returned, the child was freed from the malady.

When this Ammon was dying, it is said that Antony saw his soul being carried up to heaven, with divine Powers leading the way with the singing of psalms. And when those who were around Antony asked the cause of his wonder—for he seemed to be looking at heaven with intent eyes and to be astounded at the miracle of the unusual sight—he explained the matter as it was. And a little later, when some came from Scetis, they announced the hour of Ammon's death, and the truth of Antony's prediction was shown. And they blessed both: the one, because he had departed from this life for acknowledged blessings; and the other, because he was deemed worthy of such a vision, which God made known to him from so great a distance. For it is a journey of many days between the places where each resided. And these things have been recorded by the

^A individuals who lived familiarly with Anthony and Ammon. Under the same principate of Constantine, I have also learned that Eutychianus practiced philosophy in an excellent manner. He resided in Bithynia, around Mount Olympus. Being an adherent of the Novatian sect, he possessed divine grace, as much in the healing of sicknesses as in other marvelous works; to such a degree that, on account of the merits of his virtue, he was an acquaintance and friend to Constantine himself. At that time, therefore, when a certain person from the emperor’s guards was held in chains—for, being suspected of having been a participant in a conspiracy against the prince, he had fled, and having been sought after, was captured around Mount Olympus—Eutychianus was asked by the man's relatives to intercede for him with the emperor, but first to exert himself that the accused might be released from his bonds, lest he perish in the meantime, crushed by the weight of his chains. It is said that he sent to the prison guards to ask that they release him from his bonds. And when they would not be persuaded, he came to the prison; the doors, which were shut, opened of their own accord, and the prisoner’s bonds fell off. After these things, he is said to have approached the emperor, who was then residing at Byzantium, and to have easily obtained the pardon he sought. For Constantine was not accustomed to repel the prayers of Eutychianus, inasmuch as he treated him with the greatest honor. And these things may be stated by us briefly concerning those who at that time practiced philosophy among the monks in a brilliant manner. If, however, anyone has a concern to know these things, if he searches, he will find the lives of many written down. ^C

CHAPTER XV. Concerning the heresy of Arius, from whence it took its beginning, and to whom it spread: and concerning the mutual contention among the bishops regarding this same Arius.

Truly, although the Christian religion flourished in this way and in all other relevant respects, yet certain contentious disputes disturbed the Church, which, under the pretext of religion and the perfect knowledge of God, called into question matters previously discussed in the least. The author of these disputes, however, was Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, which is in Egypt. He, who at the beginning appeared to be a zealous champion of right doctrine, assisted Melitius, who was stirring up new things in the Church. Later, however, having abandoned his party, he was ordained a deacon by Peter, the bishop of the Alexandrians; and again, in turn, he was cast out of the Church by him ^B—

^A because Peter had excommunicated the partisans of Melitius and would not accept their baptism. He was critical of what was occurring and could not bear to remain quiet. When Peter was martyred, having asked forgiveness from Achillas, he was permitted to minister and was deemed worthy of the presbyterate. After these things, Alexander also held him in honor. Having become most skilled in dialectic—for it is said that he was not lacking in such disciplines—he was carried away into absurd arguments, so that he dared to proclaim in the church what had never been said before by anyone: that the Son of God was made from non-existence, and that there was a time when He was not, and that by the exercise of His own free will He was capable of vice and virtue, and that He was a created being and a product, along with many other such things as it is likely a person would say who, taking up the advocacy of such opinions, proceeds to engage in debates and inquiries into particulars.

Certain persons, having laid hold of these things, rebuked Alexander for not as he should have tolerated these innovations against the doctrine of the faith. But he, assuming it better to propose a discussion for each party concerning the matters in doubt, so that they might seem to cease from strife not by necessity but by persuasion, took his seat as judge along with the clergy and brought both sides into competition. As usually happens in verbal contentions, each side strove to win. Arius stood by the things he had said, while the others asserted that the Son is consubstantial and ^B coeternal with the Father. Another council having been held, because they had stirred up so many debates, they did not reach agreement with one another. While the question still appeared to be undecided, Alexander was in some doubt at first, now praising this side, now that side. In the end, however, he agreed with those who affirmed the Son to be consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, and ordered Arius, having cast aside his contrary arguments, to follow this sentiment.

But when he was unable to persuade him, and since many of the bishops and clergy who were with him already thought that Arius spoke correctly, he excommunicated from the Church both him and the clergy who cooperated with him regarding this doctrine. Now, those of the Alexandrian parish who cooperated with him were: as presbyters, Aithalas, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmates, and Arius; and as deacons, Euzoius, Macarius, Iulius, Menas, and Helladius. From this point on, no small portion of the people also went over to them, some thinking that it was right to believe thoughts regarding God in this way, while others—as commonly happens to the many—felt pity for them as having been treated unjustly.

^A Since matters in Alexandria stood in this state, those around Arius, thinking it necessary to anticipate the goodwill of the bishops in each city, sent embassies to them. Having written down what they believed, they requested that if this way of thinking about God seemed to them to be held correctly, they should inform Alexander not to be angry with them; but if not, they should instruct them in the manner in which they ought to think. This earnest attempt of theirs was of no small advantage to them. For once the opinion of this sort was spread among almost all people, the same question began to be agitated everywhere by the bishops in common. Some wrote to Alexander, not to admit Arius and his followers into the Church unless they first renounced their own opinion. Others, however, besought him not to do this. Therefore, seeing that very many men, venerable under the guise of a holy life and powerful in the art of speaking, were aligning themselves with those around Arius—and especially Eusebius, who at that time governed the Church of Nicomedia, a man of great learning and held in honor in the imperial palace—Alexander ^B wrote to all the bishops everywhere not to communicate with them. Hence, however, the zeal of both parties was much more inflamed, and a sharper contention was stirred up, as is wont to happen. For since those around Eusebius had often besought Alexander and could in no wise sway him, they began to be indignant, as though they had been treated unjustly, and became more ready to establish the doctrine of Arius. Having therefore assembled a synod in Bithynia, they wrote to all the bishops everywhere, [urging them] that they should communicate with the supporters of Arius as holding correct views, and should endeavor to make Alexander communicate with them as well. But since their efforts did not at all succeed according to their wish, as Alexander would in no wise yield, Arius sent envoys to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, and to Eusebius of Pamphilus, who governed the Church of Caesarea in Palestine, and to Patrophilus, prelate of Scythopolis; ^C and he requested that he, together with his own, be permitted to hold assemblies for the people who were with him, as holding the rank of presbyters as before. For it was a custom in Alexandria (59), as it is even now, that while there is one bishop over all, presbyters have the churches separately and gather the people within them. Who, having met with other bishops in Palestine, voted in favor of Arius's request, urging that they should assemble them as before; [yet] that they should be subject to Alexander, and should always entreat him for

his peace and communion.

CAP. XVI. How Constantine, having heard of the contention of the bishops and the discrepancy of the paschal feast, took the matter amiss and sent Hosius, a Spaniard, bishop of Corduba, to Alexandria, to calm the tumult of the bishops and to settle the question concerning Easter.

^A When, even after many councils had been held in Egypt regarding this matter, the contention nevertheless grew stronger and reached even the palace, the Emperor Constantine was struck with no small grief that, whereas the Christian religion had recently begun to increase, the discrepancy of opinions was recalling many from its profession. And he openly attributed the blame for this matter to Arius and Alexander; and having written to them, he rebuked both, because they had brought this question into the open, when it could have remained hidden; and, driven by a vehement zeal for disputing, they had perversely stirred up things which ought not to have been investigated or even thought of in the beginning; and if by chance they had been thought of, they should have been consigned to silence: since it was certainly permitted to them not to be separated from one another, even if they disagreed in some part of the dogma; for it is necessary to have one and the same faith concerning divine providence. But the scrupulous subtleties of questions of this kind, even if we do not agree in the same opinion, ought to be kept closed in the inner recess of the mind. He ordered, therefore, that having laid aside the vain altercation regarding these matters, they should return to concord: for he himself was not mildly grieved, and for that reason, although he was held by a great desire to visit the cities of the East, he had checked his journey. ^B Thus indeed he wrote to Alexander and Arius, partly rebuking them, partly advising them. Furthermore, when he heard that there were some who celebrated the day of the feast of Easter contrary to the custom of all the others, he took that matter very ill. Indeed, at that time in the parts of the East, some dissenters regarding this matter did not at least depart from mutual communion among themselves. Yet they celebrated that day more in the Jewish manner, and, as is likely, by such dissension they diminished the splendor of that festivity. For both reasons, therefore, he was eager that the Church should be free from discord; and having thought that he could forestall the evil before it spread to more people, he sent a man, distinguished for his faith and life and who had been approved in previous times by his confessions regarding the dogma, to reconcile those who were at variance in Egypt for the sake of the dogma, and those ^C where Biton the presbyter was gathering the people.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

^A Constantine was eager to free the Church from these two disputes. And since he believed he could forestall the evil before it should spread further, he sent a man he had in his retinue, a person conspicuous for the integrity of his faith and life, and who in former times had been distinguished in various struggles for the defense of religion, to bring about harmony both among those in Egypt who were at variance concerning the doctrine of the faith, and those in the Eastern regions who disagreed about the celebration of Pascha. This was Hosius, bishop of Corduba.

CHAP. XVII.

Of the synod gathered at Nicaea on account of Arius.

But since the outcome did not respond to his hope, and the dispute would by no means admit of reconciliation, and he who had been sent to establish peace was returning with the task unaccomplished, the emperor convened a synod at the city of Bithynian Nicaea, ^B and wrote to the leaders of the Churches everywhere to be present on an appointed day. There participated in this gathering, from the Apostolic sees, Macarius of Jerusalem, and Eustathius, who had already been entrusted with the church of Antioch on the Orontes, and Alexander of Alexandria, which is near the Mareotic lake. Julius, however, bishop of the Romans, [(60)] was absent on account of his old age. In his stead were present Vito and Vincentius, presbyters of the same Church. In addition to these, many other good and excellent men came together from various nations; some were capable of understanding and speaking, and were distinguished by their knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and other learning, and excelled in the virtue of their life; [(61)] others excelled in both respects. There were about three hundred and twenty bishops; and, as was to be expected, there was an immense multitude of presbyters and deacons who attended them. ^C There were also present with them men skilled in debate, who were eager to assist them with their arguments. [(62)] And as often happens, many of the priests, having come together as if to contend for their own affairs, thought it an occasion to correct their grievances; and each one, presenting to the emperor a book about the matters for which he complained of others, ^D [set forth the wrongs] they had suffered.

As this happened easily every day, the emperor ordered that each should declare on a fixed day the matters about which he was complaining. When the appointed time arrived, he received the books that were submitted, and said: “These accusations have their proper time, the day of the great judgment; and the judge will be He who is to judge all at that time. As for me, being a man, it is not lawful for me to draw upon myself such a hearing, while priests are accusing and being accused. For by no means ought such persons to present themselves in such a way as to be judged by others. Come then, imitating the divine philanthropy in the mutual forgiveness of one another, ^B let us be reconciled, and let us show diligence regarding the faith, for the sake of which we have gathered here.” Having said this, the emperor ordered each person’s writing to be set aside, and the books to be burned; and he set a day on which the disputed points were to be resolved. But before the appointed time, the bishops, gathering by themselves, summoned Arius; and, laying before the assembly the things they held to be true, they fell into discussion. As is usual, the debate turning to various questions, some advised not to innovate beyond the faith handed down from the beginning, and especially those whom the simplicity of their character led to accept the faith in God without curious discussion. Others insisted that one ought not to follow ancient opinions without examination. ^C Many of the bishops who had gathered there at that time, and of the clerics following them, being clever at debating and practiced in such methods of discourse, distinguished themselves and became known to the emperor and those in his retinue. From that time, Athanasius of Alexandria, still a deacon at that time, attending Alexander the bishop, was seen to have the greatest part in the counsel regarding these matters. Those who were eager to assist these, and those who were eager to assist those, were ready to give weight to both sides.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

^A regarding the two philosophers who were converted to the faith on account of the simplicity of the two old men who disputed with them.

CHAPTER XVIII.

BUT some of the philosophers of the Gentiles also wished to take part in these disputations: some desiring to learn what the Christian doctrine was, while others, being hostile to the Christians because the religion of the Gentiles had recently begun to be abolished, reduced the inquiry concerning the doctrine of the faith to an empty altercation of words, so that there was sedition among them, and they seemed to hold contrary opinions. It is said, therefore, that when one of them boasted insolently on account of the magnificence of his language and mocked the priests, a certain simple old man, from among the number of those who had become renowned for their confessions, could not endure the arrogance of the man. But although he was devoid of such quibbling and sparring, he undertook the task of engaging him. This matter excited laughter among the petulant men to whom the confessor was known; but it struck fear into the modest ones, who were anxious lest, when matched with a man most expert in speaking, he should appear ridiculous. Nevertheless, when they permitted him to say what he wished—for they did not dare to resist such a great man any longer—"Hear, O philosopher," he said, "in the name of Jesus Christ. There is one God, the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, who fashioned all these things by the power of His Word, and confirmed them by the holiness of His Spirit. This Word, therefore, whom we call the Son of God, having compassion on the error of men and their beastly mode of life, ^B willed to be born of a woman, and to converse with men, and to suffer death for them. And again He is to come, the judge of those things which each has done in this life. We believe simply that these things are so. Do not, therefore, labor in vain, seeking refutations of those things which are comprehended by faith, or investigating the mode by which these things could or could not have come to be. But if you believe, answer me when I ask you." Stupefied by this speech, the philosopher said, "I believe"; and, giving thanks that he had been overcome, he began to feel the same as the old man, and persuaded those who were previously affected in the same way as he himself had been to feel the same things also, affirming with an oath that he had been changed not without the providence of God, but had been impelled by some inexplicable power to receive the faith of Christ. ^C They say that another miracle similar to this was performed by Alexander, the bishop of the Church of Constantinople. For at the time when Constantine came to Byzantium, certain philosophers approached him and complained that he was not worshiping correctly, and that he was making innovations concerning divine matters, introducing into the state a new form of worship, contrary to the customs established for his ancestors, and for all those princes of the Greeks and Romans whom the preceding age had brought forth. And they sought to dispute with Alex- ^D

to worship God and innovate in sacred rites, introducing a new mode of worship into the republic, contrary to the custom and institution of his ancestors and all former princes, who are recorded to have existed among either the Greeks or the Romans. And they requested that they might discuss this doctrine with Bishop Alexander. He, however, although otherwise less experienced in struggles of this kind, yet relying on the integrity of his life—for he was a good and honest man—undertook the struggle as the Emperor had commanded. ^A Therefore, when the philosophers had gathered, and all wished to argue at once, Alexander requested that they choose one from among themselves whom they wished, and that the rest remain seated and keep silence. And when one of them had taken up the task of arguing, "In the name of Jesus Christ," Alexander said to him, "I command you not to speak." At this word, the man’s tongue was immediately bridled, and he fell silent. Is it therefore not right to consider which is the greater miracle: to render a man, and a philosopher at that, speechless so easily, or to divide a stone with the hand by the power of words, which I hear has been ambitiously boasted by some regarding Julian, surnamed the Chaldean? And these things I have accepted as having occurred in this way. ^B

CHAPTER XIX. How, when the synod had been gathered, the Emperor delivered an oration to the bishops.

In the meantime, the bishops, gathering assiduously, brought Arius into the midst and examined his assertions with the utmost diligence. They were carefully cautious not to rashly issue a verdict in either direction. But when the day arrived which had been appointed for putting an end to the controversies, they gathered at the palace, because the Emperor had decided to be a participant in this council. ^C And when he had betaken himself to that place where the bishops were, he walked through the middle of them to the head of the benches, and sat down in a chair prepared for him, and the synod was ordered to sit. For benches had been prepared on both sides, extending along the walls of the palace hall; and this hall was most spacious, and the most beautiful of all that were in the palace. After the bishops had sat down, Eusebius of Pamphilus arose and addressed a certain oration to the Emperor, and on his account recited praises to God with thanksgiving. And when he had made an end of speaking, and ^D silence had been made, the Emperor said, "For all things I give thanks to God, but not least for the [index: entries preserved]

^A sight of your assembly, my friends. And it is a matter of greater joy for me, that at last I see you all gathered together, and sharing in the same consensus of opinion. For I consider discord within the Church of God to be a more grievous evil than any other. Therefore, when I heard of things which I wish I had not heard—that there was dissension among you, whom it least of all became to be at variance, being as you are ministers of God and dispensers of peace—I was deeply wounded in my soul. And for this reason I have gathered your holy synod; and, being both Emperor and your fellow-servant, I ask this petition of you, for the sake of God, the common Lord of us all; a gift that it will be fitting for me to receive and for you to bestow. It is that you bring into the midst the causes of your dispute, and put a peaceful and harmonious end to them; that so, together with you, ^B I may raise up this trophy against the envious demon who, after external enemies and tyrants were removed, and being envious of our prosperity, excited this intestine sedition." When the Emperor had spoken these things in the Roman tongue, one who stood by interpreted them into Greek.

CAP. XX.

From this time the discussion concerning the doctrine of the faith was stirred up among the priests. The Emperor, with great leisure and long-suffering, listened to the arguments of both sides. He gave his assent to those who spoke well, and reclaimed those who were contentious from their strife, speaking mildly to each, as he knew how to listen; for he was not altogether ignorant of the Greek language. ^C Finally, all the priests agreed among themselves and voted that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. It is said that only seventeen among them at first favored the opinion of Arius; but the majority of these quickly transferred themselves to the opinion which was pleasing to everyone. To this decision the Emperor also acceded, judging that this harmony of the whole council was approved by God. He proclaimed that if anyone should resist the decrees of the synod, he would be condemned to exile, as one who was attempting to subvert the judgment of God. Furthermore, that the symbol of the faith that was then unanimously agreed upon might be firm and manifest to those who would come after, I had at first thought it necessary to append here the very writing concerning these matters for the demonstration of the truth. And, as those who were pious and friends and learned in such matters, ^D as if to initiates and mystagogues—to whom alone it was right to speak and to hear—suggested (68), I approved the counsel.

^B It is likely that some who have not been initiated into the sacraments of our faith may read this book. But, by concealing from me, so far as was possible, the mysteries that should be kept silent, that readers may not be entirely ignorant of what was decreed by the council.

CAP. XXI. Of the decrees of the synod: how it condemned Arius and his associates, and burned his books; and concerning the bishops who did not wish to agree with the synod. Also concerning the constitution of Easter.

It must be known that the bishops declared the Son to be consubstantial with the Father; and those who say: "There was a time when he was not," and "before he was begotten he was not," and that "he was made from things that were not," or from another hypostasis or substance, or that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration, they excommunicated and pronounced aliens to the Catholic Church. This confession of faith was approved ^C by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and Secundus of Ptolemais in Libya. Eusebius of Pamphilus, having hesitated a little, examined this and approved it. ^D The synod excommunicated Arius and those who thought as he did, and they decreed that he should not enter Alexandria. Furthermore, they also cursed the expressions of his doctrine, and the book which he had composed concerning this, which he entitled *Thalia*. As for this composition, as I discovered—for I have not read it myself—its character is disjointed, in such a way that it is similar to the laxity of the songs of Sotades. It is to be noted, however, that regarding the deposition of Arius, neither did they...

Eusebius of Nicomedia nor Theognius of Nicaea assent or subscribe, even though they had given their consent to the exposition of the faith. But the emperor relegated Arius into exile, and sent an edict to the bishops and peoples of every city, commanding that both Arius and his followers be held as impious, and that if any of their writings were found, they should be committed to the fire, so that not even any memorial of him or of the doctrine which he introduced might be left behind. And he decreed that if anyone were caught concealing such a writing, and did not immediately produce it to be burned, he should be punished with death and capital ^B punishment. He sent also many other letters through every city, against Arius and those who felt as he did. And he ordered Eusebius and Theognius to go into exile from the cities where they were bishops. To the Church of the Nicomedians he wrote that they should hold fast to the faith which the synod had delivered, that they should appoint orthodox bishops and obey them, and that they should consign the others to oblivion. He threatened, moreover, that he would take action against any who would dare to praise them or agree with their opinions. Further, in the same letters, he indicated that he was hostile to Eusebius for another reason also, because he had previously favored the party of the tyrant and laid snares for him. By the authority of these imperial letters, therefore, Eusebius and Theognius were ejected from their churches. Amphion undertook the bishopric of the Nicomedian Church, and Chrestus that of Nicaea. After the controversy concerning the doctrine of the faith was finished, it seemed good to the synod that all should celebrate the Paschal feast on one and the same day.

CAP. XXII. How the emperor also called Acesius, the bishop of the Novatians, to the Nicene synod.

It is related, moreover, that the emperor, when he was planning for the concord of all Christians, also summoned Acesius, the bishop of the Novatians, to the synod; and that he showed him the rule of the faith and the definition concerning the Paschal feast, already confirmed by the subscriptions of the bishops, and asked him if he also agreed with them. Acesius is said to have replied that nothing new had been defined, and to have approved of those things which were decided by the synod; for in this way also he himself from the beginning...

had accepted that it should be believed, and that the festival day should be celebrated in like manner. ^A Then the emperor said: "Why, therefore, since you hold the same opinion, do you separate yourself from the communion?" And when Acesius brought forward that dissension which had occurred in the principate of Decius Augustus between Novatus and Cornelius; and that he judged those to be unworthy of the communion of the sacraments who, after baptism, had committed that sin which the divine Scriptures call "unto death," since he maintained that the remission of such a sin depended on the power of God alone, and not on the judgment of priests: the emperor replied: "Set up a ladder, Acesius, and climb to heaven alone." I believe the emperor said this to Acesius, not to praise him, but rather to rebuke him because, being human, they imagined themselves to be without sin. ^B

CHAPTER XXIII. Of the rules established by the synod: and that when the synod wished to pass a canon that all who were to be promoted to the priesthood should practice virginity, Paphnutius, a certain confessor, intervened.

Furthermore, the synod, desiring to correct the morals of those who live in the Churches, established certain laws which are commonly called canons. And when they were deliberating about this matter, it seemed good to some that a law should be introduced, that bishops and presbyters, deacons also and subdeacons, should not cohabit with their wives whom they had married before they were ordained. ^C But Paphnutius the confessor, rising up, spoke against it; and calling marriage honorable, and that the congress of a man with his own wife was chastity, he gave counsel to the synod not to enact such a law. For he said that the matter was difficult to bear, and might perhaps provide an occasion of incontinence both for them and for their wives. Moreover, that this was the ancient tradition of the Church: that those who were celibate when promoted to the holy order should not thereafter take a wife, but those who were married should not be separated from their wives. And Paphnutius, although he was unskilled in marriage, argued for these things. ^D The synod approved his counsel, and enacted no law about this; but left the matter to the judgment of each individual, and not to necessity. Concerning other matters, it inscribed laws such as seemed right to it, according to which the affairs of the Church ought to be governed. Verum, if anyone wishes, it is easy to find these, since they are carried by many.

CHAPTER XXIV

Moreover, the same synod, having examined the things that had occurred in Egypt through the agency of Melitius, passed a judgment against him: that he should reside in the city of Lyco, content with the mere title of bishop; and that henceforth he should make no ordination, either in the city or in a village. But those who had previously been ordained by him were to retain their communion and their ministry, yet they were to be inferior in honor to the other clergy established in each church and parish. ^B However, they were to succeed into the places of the dying in their order, provided they were judged suitable by the vote of the people, with the bishop of the Alexandrians nevertheless confirming their election. It was not permitted for them to choose those whom they wished at their own discretion. The synod judged this to be equitable, considering, of course, the headlong rashness of Melitius and his associates in making ordinations. For indeed, while Peter, bishop of Alexandria—who afterwards finished his martyrdom—had fled on account of the persecution raging at the time, Melitius had arrogated to himself the ordinations belonging to him.

CHAPTER XXV

When these things had been thus decreed by the council, it happened by chance that the vicennalia—the twentieth anniversary of the reign—of Constantine were being celebrated at the same time. For it is the custom among the Romans that at every tenth year of each emperor, they hold a public festival. ^C Thinking, therefore, that the time was opportune, the emperor invited the bishops who had attended the synod to a banquet, and he honored them with fitting gifts. Indeed, when they were already preparing to return to their own sees, having called them all together, he exhorted them to be of one mind regarding the faith, and to maintain peace among themselves, so that they might in the future remain free from tumult and discord. And when he had spoken much to this effect, he finally commanded them to pray earnestly for himself, for his children, and for the empire, and to supplicate God assiduously. And he bade farewell to the bishops who had come to Nicaea, once he had said these things. Moreover, in order to make those who had been absent ^D certain of the matters happily concluded in the synod, he sent letters to the churches in each city. To the Alexandrians

privately in other letters besides these, exhorting all to abandon every dissension and be of one mind concerning the faith set forth by the council. For it was nothing else, he declared, than the ^A judgment of God, established by the agreement of so many and such great high priests through the Holy Spirit, and approved after accurate inquiry and examination of all that had come under dispute.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF HERMIAS SOZOMEN OF SALAMIS

CHAPTER I

On the finding of the life-giving cross and the holy nails.

The events at Nicaea thus reached their conclusion, and each of the priests returned to his own home. The emperor, however, rejoiced exceedingly, seeing as he did the whole Church in agreement concerning the doctrine of the faith; and as a thank-offering to God for the concord of the bishops, and for himself, his children, and the Roman Empire, he deemed it necessary to construct a house of prayer to God in Jerusalem, near the place called the Skull. At the same time, his mother, Helena, also came to Jerusalem ^B both to offer prayers and to visit the holy sites there. Devoutly disposed toward the Christian religion, she esteemed it of great importance to find the wood of the venerable cross. But the discovery of this, as well as of the divine sepulcher, was not easy. For the Greeks who had long ago ^C persecuted the Church, having striven with every artifice to excise the religion while it was still beginning to grow, had covered that place with a great mound of earth, and had raised to a great height

^A a place which was previously deeper, as it appears even now. Having taken the entire area around the place of the resurrection and of the Cranion [also known as Calvary], they adorned it, and paved the surface with stone; and they built a temple of Venus, and set up an image, so that those worshiping Christ there might be thought to be worshiping Venus; and in time the true cause of the veneration of the place might come into oblivion, as neither were the Christians daring to visit it without fear, nor to reveal the matter to others, and the pagan temple and the image served to confirm the contrary. Nevertheless, the place was brought to light, and the deception which had been so studiously contrived there was exposed: whether by the information of a certain Hebrew living in the eastern regions, as some say, who revealed the matter having been instructed by some ancestral writing; or, as it is more true to suppose, because God indicated it through signs and dreams. ^B For I do not believe that divine things require the testimony of men, as often as God has decided to manifest them. At that time, therefore, when by the emperor's command the place had been dug out deep and cleared, the cave of the resurrection appeared in one part. Elsewhere, near the same spot, three crosses were found; and separately another tablet, in which were written, in white letters in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, these words: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews." And these things, indeed, as the holy book of the Gospels recounts, thus came to be written above the head of Christ, by order of Pilate, who was governor of Judæa. ^C Yet the identification of the divine cross was still difficult, even if it had been found, since the inscription itself had been torn away from it and thrown aside, and at the same time the three crosses had been cast down together, their order—as is likely—having been confused when the bodies of the condemned were taken down from them. For when the soldiers found the Lord dead on the cross, they first took down his body, according to history, and handed it over for burial. But afterwards, in order to hasten the death of the thieves affixed on either side, they broke their legs and threw the pieces of wood here and there at random. For what concern would it have been to them to replace the crosses in the order they were in before, when each one was hastening to arrive before the evening hour, and they did not count it worth the trouble to linger any longer about the crosses of men put to death by violence? ^D For this reason, therefore, since the wood of the divine cross was still in obscurity, and required a token more divine than what could be provided by man, a certain event of this kind occurred. A certain noble woman in Jerusalem was suffering from a most serious and incurable disease. Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, came to her as she lay in bed, taking with him the mother of the emperor and those about her. Having prayed first, and having set a sign for those who were watching—that it would be that divine cross which, when applied, would relieve the woman of her disease—he brought to her each of the pieces of wood. But when the two had been applied...

the thing appeared to be naught but nonsense and of no effect, while the woman was already at the point of death. But when the third was applied in the same manner, the woman suddenly opened her eyes, and having recovered her strength, leaped up from her bed completely whole. It is said, moreover, that a dead man was raised to life in the same way. The greater part of the wondrous wood that was found is kept in a silver case in Jerusalem to this day. ^B But the empress took a portion of it to her son Constantine, along with the nails with which the body of Christ had been pierced. From these, they say, the emperor had a helmet and a horse’s bit fashioned, in accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah, in which it is foretold: "In that day shall that which is upon the horse's bit be holy unto the Lord Almighty." For the prophet uses these very words. These things were long ago known and foretold by the holy prophets, but they were confirmed later by marvelous works, when it seemed opportune to God. Nor is this so very surprising, since it is acknowledged even by the Gentiles themselves that this was predicted by the Sibyl. O blessed wood, on which God was stretched! For this, even one who strives to be our opponent could not deny. The wood of the cross and the veneration paid to it, therefore, were predicted by the Sibyl. We have related these matters just as we have received them, for we learned them from men who knew them accurately, and to whom the knowledge of these things had ^C come down through the continuous succession of generations from fathers to sons, and from those who, having committed these same things to writing to the best of their ability, left them for the memory of posterity.

CHAPTER II

Concerning Helena, the mother of the emperor, and how, having arrived in Jerusalem, she built churches, and performed other God-pleasing works; and concerning her death.

At about this time, the emperor, having resolved to build a temple to God, gave orders to the governors in those places to see that the work was executed in the most magnificent and costly manner possible. And in part, Helena, his mother, also built two churches: ^D one at Bethlehem, near the cave in which Christ was born; the other on the summit of the Mount of Olives, from which he was taken up into heaven. Many other things also demonstrate the piety and reverence of this woman, but this one thing in particular. For it is said that while she was staying in Jerusalem at that time, she called together all the holy virgins for a banquet and served them herself, setting the food before them and pouring water upon the hands of each one of them, and doing the other things that it is the duty of a servant to do.

^A And at that time, as she went about the cities of the East, she honored the churches in every city with appropriate gifts; she also made many people who had lost their property rich, and distributed the necessities of life abundantly to the needy. She liberated those held for a long time in chains, or in exile, or in the mines. And it seems to me that she received rewards worthy of these things. For she finished the life here in such magnificence and splendor as could not be exceeded. Indeed, she was proclaimed Augusta, and marked the gold coinage with her own image; and having received from her son the authority over the royal treasuries, she used them according to her own judgment. And when it was necessary to leave this life, she died gloriously, being about eighty years of age, leaving behind her son, together with his own children, the Caesars, governing the entire Roman world. ^B And if there is any benefit in these things, not even after she died was she covered by oblivion; for the ages to come have a pledge of her everlasting memory: the city in Bithynia and another among the Palestinians, which took their name from her. Let these things be said by us regarding Helena.

Chapter 3. On the churches built by Constantine the Great, and on the city named after him, how it was founded, on the public works seen in that city, and on the church of Michael the Archangel at Sosthenion, and on the miracles performed there.

The emperor, for his part, was always striving to do something for piety, and everywhere he erected most beautiful churches to God. ^C This he did especially in the primary cities, such as Nicomedia in Bithynia, and Antioch which is situated by the river Orontes, and the city of Byzantium, which he determined to be equal to Rome and to share in its government. For since all things succeeded for him according to his wish, and he had partly subdued the foreigners by war, and partly joined them to himself by treaties, he decided to build a city that would bear his own name and be an equal in rank to Rome. Having arrived at the plain which is in front of Ilium, by the Hellespont, above the tomb of Ajax, where

the Achaeans who had once campaigned against Troy are said to have had their camp and naval station, he marked out the ^A form and magnitude of the city. He constructed gates in a conspicuous place, which are still visible today from the sea to those sailing by. While he was occupied with this, God appeared to him by night and commanded him to seek another location. Leading him to Byzantium in Thrace, beyond Chalcedon in Bithynia, He showed it to be the city he was to found, and one worthy of the name of Constantine. He, therefore, obeying the divine oracles, extended the city, which was previously called Byzantium, to encompass a greater area, and surrounded it with immense walls. Since he did not consider the local inhabitants sufficient for the magnitude of the city, he built large houses scattered throughout the streets and ordered distinguished men, along with their households, to come and inhabit them as their own, having summoned some from the elder Rome and others from other nations. ^B Having appointed tributes—some for the buildings and embellishments of the city, and others for the sustenance of the citizens—and having arranged everything else concerning the city, and having ambitiously adorned it with a hippodrome, fountains, porticoes, and other structures, he named it New Rome, Constantinople, and established it as the queen of all who dwell in the Roman dominions ^C towards the north, the south, and the sunrise, and the seas between, from the cities along the Danube, and Epidamnus by the Ionian Gulf, ^D as far as Cyrene and the Libyans who dwell there along what is called the Northern region.

^A And he established another great building, which they call the Senate, bestowing upon it the same honors and festive days as was the custom for the elders of Rome. In all things, he endeavored to show his own city, which bears his name, to be a rival to that Rome in Italy, and he did not fail; for with God’s help, it flourished so greatly that it is judged by the consent of all to surpass the elder Rome in the multitude of its inhabitants and in its wealth. I believe the cause of this is the piety of its founder and of the city itself, as well as the compassion and liberality of its citizens toward the needy. Indeed, the city so draws all people to the faith of Christ that many Jews, and almost all the Gentiles who are there, have embraced the Christian religion. And as the city began to hold power at the time when our religion was growing into an immense multitude, it was never polluted by the altars, temples, or sacrifices of the Gentiles, except that, for a brief time, these were attempted by Julian who ruled later, but they were immediately extinguished.

Therefore, Constantine, honoring this as a newly-born city of Christ, which also bears his own name, adorned it with many very great houses of prayer. God also assisted the purpose of the Emperor, and by the presence of His divinity, testified that the churches built there were holy and salutary. It is established that the most noble of these, both in the eyes of foreigners and citizens from that time, is the church in the Hestiae—a place formerly called by that name, but now named the Michaelion. It is situated on the right for those sailing from the Pontus to Constantinople, and is distant from the city by water about thirty-five stadia, but by land, for those traveling around the intervening gulf, it is seventy stadia and more. This place received its present name because it is believed that Michael, the divine archangel, appears there. And I myself, having been greatly benefitted, testify that this is most true; indeed, the fact and experience of many other events declare it to be so. For some who had fallen into the gravest calamities or inescapable dangers, and others oppressed by diseases or certain unusual pains, having poured out prayers to God there, were immediately delivered from their afflictions. ^B But to commemorate individually how these things happened and to whom, would be tedious. However, I must needs relate what happened to Aquilinus, a man who even now lives with me and practices law in the same courts, ^C for when a violent fever, stirred up by yellow bile, seized him, the doctors gave him a certain remedy to drink, and he vomited it up, and together with the vomit... ^D

the bile dispersed, staining his whole skin with its color. As a result, whatever he ate or drank, he vomited back up. And when he had suffered this for a long time and could keep no food down at all, the doctors despaired of curing the disease. He, therefore, already half-dead, instructed his household to carry him to the house of prayer, asserting that he would either die there or be freed from the disease. While he was lying there, a divine power appeared to him at night and commanded him to dip his food in a potion of this kind—a mixture made of honey, wine, and pepper blended together. This freed the man from the disease, even though the doctors, according to the principles of their art, judged that a very hot potion was contrary to sicknesses caused by yellow bile. I also heard that Probianus, a man who was one of the doctors serving in the imperial palace ^B, was suffering severely from a pain in his feet, was freed from his pain there, and was deemed worthy of a wondrous divine vision. For he, who had been a pagan at first, when he began to become a Christian, judged the other parts of the faith to be plausible enough; but he did not at all accept that the divine cross had become the cause of salvation for all. To him, while he was of this opinion, a divine vision appeared and showed him a symbol of the cross from among those things placed upon the altar [(87)] of the church there; and it explicitly declared that since Christ was crucified, of all things that have happened for the common benefit of the human race, or for the private benefit of some, nothing has been accomplished—neither by the divine angels nor by pious and good men—without the power of the venerable cross. But these matters, since it is not the time to recount everything, I was prompted to mention because I knew they had happened in this temple.

CAP. IV. Concerning those things which the great Constantine accomplished regarding the oak of Mamre, and how he built a church there.

It is necessary to proceed [(88)] to the things concerning the oak called Mamre that were decided by the Emperor Constantine. This place, which they now call the Terebinth, is adjacent to Hebron to the south, at a distance of fifteen stadia, and is about two hundred and fifty stadia from Jerusalem.

That this story ^A is true—that the Son of God appeared to Abraham along with the angels sent against the Sodomites, and foretold the birth of a son to him—the truthful history confirms.

Moreover, the inhabitants of that region, as well as those living further away—the Palestinians, Phoenicians, and Arabians—celebrate a famous annual market there in the summer. Many others also gather there for the purpose of trade, some to sell and others to buy. Indeed, this festival is celebrated with the greatest concourse of all: the Jews, because they boast that Abraham is the author of their race; the Gentiles, because of the arrival of the angels; and lastly, the Christians, because at that time he who long afterwards was born of the Virgin for the salvation of the human race appeared to that pious man and manifested himself openly.

They honor this place in a manner appropriate to their religious observances. Some pour out prayers to God, the ruler of all; others ^B invoke the angels, and either offer libations of wine, or burn incense, or sacrifice an ox, a goat, a sheep, or even a cock. For everyone is accustomed to keeping for himself and his household, as a votive offering for the banquet of that festival, that which he considers most precious and beautiful, having diligently reared and fattened it throughout the year.

Furthermore, all who honor the place, either out of reverence for it or for fear of divine retribution—lest some evil befall them—abstain from sexual intercourse with women there, even though the women, as is customary at a festival, take greater care of their appearance and adornment and, if opportunity arises, appear and walk about in public. They do not behave licentiously at all, even though they usually have their tents close together and are accustomed to sleeping in close proximity. For the place is under the open sky and is ploughed; it possesses no buildings ^C except for those that were once Abraham’s regarding the oak, and the well constructed by him. At the time of the market, however, no one draws water from that well; for, according to the Gentile rite, some would place burning lamps upon the well, others would pour wine over it, or cast in cakes, or others would throw in coins, myrrh, or incense. For this reason, as is likely, the water was rendered unfit for drinking by the mixture of the things cast into it.

While these things were being carried on in the manner described, with the Gentiles’ solemn ritual and gaiety, the mother-in-law of Constantine, arriving there for the sake of a vow, reported the matter to the Emperor. Upon hearing this, he reproached the bishops of Palestine not a little ^D for having neglected their duty and for having allowed a most holy place to be defiled by impure libations and sacrifices. He showed his pious indignation in the letter written on this matter to Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, and to Eusebius of Pamphilus, and to the other bishops of Palestine; whom he also commanded to assemble together with the bishops from Phoenicia, in order that they might take steps to prevent what had previously occurred there.

^A His epistle, written to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, to Eusebius of Pamphilus, and to the other bishops of Palestine, declares this intention: for he commanded them that they should meet together with the bishops of Phoenicia, and that the altar which had previously stood there should be utterly demolished and purged, and the statues consumed by fire, and that they should design a church there, appropriate to the antiquity and sanctity of the place; and that they should see to it that the place thereafter be free from libations and sacrifices, so that nothing else than the worship of the true God, according to the laws of the Church, might be celebrated there. Should anyone be caught attempting to return to the old ways, the bishops were to report it, that he might bring the most severe punishment upon him. According to this letter of the Emperor, the provincial governors and the priests of Christ carried into effect what had been commanded. ^B

CAP. V. How Constantine destroyed the temples of the gods, and thus more effectively persuaded the peoples to embrace the Christian religion.

Since, however, many peoples and many cities throughout the Roman Empire still retained a dread and reverence toward that empty appearance of images, and held in aversion the doctrine of the Christians, and clung with great zeal and care to the antiquity, rituals, and festivals of their ancestors, the Emperor deemed it necessary to instruct his subjects to neglect the worship of the gods. ^C He judged that this would be most easily accomplished if he first accustomed them to despise the temples and the images which were in the temples. Having decided this within himself, he had no need of a military force; for the Christians who were in the palace, traveling through the cities and towns with the Emperor's letters, carried the decrees into execution. The common people, indeed, fearing for themselves and their children and wives, lest they should be severely punished if they resisted, remained entirely quiet. The temple-wardens and the priests, ^D deprived of the assistance of the multitude, surrendered those things which were most precious among them, and the images which they call "heaven-sent," and they themselves brought them out from the sanctuaries and the secret recesses of the temples. [alt-version omitted] Those things which had previously been inaccessible, and known only to the priests, were henceforth plain and accessible to all. Of the images, those that were made of precious materials, and whatever else appeared useful from the other items, were melted down by fire, and the proceeds were made into public money. Those, however, which were most artfully fashioned from bronze, were brought from all sides into the city named after the Emperor for its adornment. These are still to be seen, [as are those of] the Pythian oracle of Apollo, and the Heliconian Muses, and the tripods in Delphi, and the renowned Pan, which Pausanias the Lacedaemonian, and the Hellenic cities...

^A after the war against the Medes, publicly dedicated. Now indeed, the temples have been stripped, some of their doors, others of their roofs; and some were otherwise neglected, falling into decay and being destroyed. At that time, also, the temple of Asclepius in Aegae, a city of Cilicia, and the temple of Venus at Aphaca, near Mount Libanus and the river Adonis, were razed and utterly effaced. Both were most famous temples, and held in the highest reverence by the ancients. For the inhabitants of Aegae claimed that the sick were delivered from their diseases among them, by the god appearing to them by night and healing them. At Aphaca, ^B on a certain fixed day, a fire issuing from the summit of Mount Libanus like a star, used to plunge into the adjacent river. They said that this fire was Urania (for so they call Venus). These things having come to pass in this manner, the Emperor’s design went forward according to his intentions. For some, seeing those things which they formerly considered holy and dreadful so heedlessly cast aside, and stuffed within with stubble and refuse, began to despise what they had formerly worshipped religiously, and to blame the error of their ancestors. Others, envying the honor which the Christians held from the Emperor, thought it necessary to imitate the practices of the one who wielded power. Still others, having applied themselves to a more attentive examination ^C of the doctrine, guided by certain signs or dreams, or by the conversations of bishops or monks, judged it more prudent to embrace the Christian faith. Thenceforth, peoples and cities of their own accord departed from their former customs. It was at this time that the port of the city of the Gazaeans, which is called Maiuma—a place much given to superstition and hitherto always holding the ancient ceremonies in high regard—was all at once converted in its entirety to the faith of Christ. The Emperor, requiting their piety, bestowed the greatest honors upon them, and ordered that the place, which previously was not a city, should be a city, and named it Constantia, honoring that site for the sake of religion with the name of him whom he loved most among his sons. I have also learned that the city of Constantina in Phoenicia was named after ^D the Emperor for a similar reason. But it is not at all easy to describe every individual case. For many other cities also at that time deserted to the Christian religion, and of their own accord, without the Emperor commanding any of these things, pulled down their temples and idols, and built churches.

CAP. VI.

Moreover, as the Church was being augmented in this way throughout the whole Roman world, and even among their own

^A neighbors, the religion of the barbarians also began to advance. Already, the tribes living around the Rhine were professing the faith of Christ; likewise the Celts and the furthest of the Gauls who dwell by the Ocean; furthermore the Goths, and whoever were their neighbors, those formerly living along the banks of the Danube, having embraced the faith in Christ long ago, had adopted a milder and more civilized manner of life. But for almost all the barbarians, the occasion for passing over to the Christian religion arose from the wars which the Romans waged from time to time with foreign nations, during the principate of Gallienus and the emperors who followed him. For in that season, when an innumerable multitude of barbarians gathered from various nations had crossed from Thrace into Asia and had laid it all waste, and when other barbarians from elsewhere had in like manner attacked the Romans dwelling near them, many priests of Christ, having been taken captive by the barbarians, remained with them. Being there, they used to heal the sick and cleanse those possessed of demons, merely by naming Christ and calling upon the Son of God; moreover, they practiced a life beyond reproach, and by their virtues they overcame ^B envy. The barbarians, admiring these men for their manner of life and for the extraordinary works, were converted to sound reason, and considered that they would have God as their propitious protector if they imitated those whom they had seen to be better, and in like manner worshiped the Divine Power as they did. Therefore, having proposed these men as their guides in what needed to be done, they were instructed and baptized, and consequently were admitted to the ecclesiastical assemblies.

CAP. VII. How the Hiberi received the faith in Christ.

^C During the same reign of Constantine, the Hiberi are also said to have acknowledged Christ. This is a barbarian nation, very populous and most warlike; it dwells beyond the Armenians toward the North. A certain captive Christian woman who was among them moved them to abandon the superstition of their ancestors. For being possessed of truly wonderful faith and piety, she did not abandon her customary way of life even among those strange people. Rather, fasting was a pleasure to her, and she engaged in prayer and the praising of the Divine Power both by night and by day. The barbarians asked her for what reason she endured these sufferings. As she answered them in all simplicity that the Son of God was to be worshiped in this manner, the matter seemed strange to the barbarians, both the name of Him who was worshiped and the manner of the religion and its observance. ^D Meanwhile, it happened that a certain boy there fell seriously ill, whom his mother carried about showing him to every house. For it is the custom for the Hiberi to do this, so that if there should chance to be found any healer for the sickness, an easy and ready cure for the suffering might be obtained for the sick. And when he was healed nowhere, and the child was brought past the captive woman, she said that she had no medicines, either wholesome or soothing,

^B but that she believed that Christ, the God whom she worshipped, the true and great God, would be the physician and savior of her child, O queen. And having immediately prayed for him, she released him from his disease, though he was expected by all to die not long after. In the same way, she saved the wife of the ruler of that nation, who was also about to perish from an incurable malady, and instructed her in the knowledge of Christ, representing Him as the dispenser of health, and life, and kingdom, and the Lord of all things. The queen, having believed the words of the captive woman to be true through her own experience of what had happened to her, embraced the religion of the Christians, and held the woman in great honor. But the king, having marveled at the speed and the wonder of the faith and the healing, learned the cause of it from his wife, and ordered the captive to be rewarded with gifts. But the queen said, "This woman cares little for gifts, however precious they may be esteemed. She holds as the only thing of value the observance of her own God. Therefore, if we wish to gratify her, and desire to act safely and well, come, let us also worship this God, who is a mighty God and Savior, and who, if it pleases Him, makes kings remain in their station, and in turn can easily cast down those of high degree, and raise up the lowly, and save those oppressed by evils." While the wife repeatedly impressed these and other things of the same kind upon him, and she seemed to speak rightly, the king of Iberia remained uncertain and doubtful; nor could he be brought to believe, as he considered the novelty of the matter and honored the religion of his ancestors. ^C Not long after, he went into the forest with his attendants for the sake of hunting. And suddenly a most dense mist and a thick atmosphere poured over them from all sides, and covered both the heaven and the sun; a profound night and darkness seized the entire forest. Then each one, fearing for himself, was scattered in different directions. But the king, wandering alone—as is wont to happen to men who, placed in extreme danger, know not what they must do—bethought himself of Christ; and he resolved in his mind that he would hold Him to be God, and would worship Him for the future, if he should escape the present danger. While he was still reflecting upon these things in his mind, the mist was immediately dispersed, and the air returned to its former serenity, and the forest being lit up by the sun's rays, the king escaped unscathed. And having soon confessed to his wife what had happened to him, he sent for the captive woman, and ordered her to teach him in what manner it was proper to worship Christ. And when she had explained what it was lawful for a woman to say and do, he gathered his subjects together, and [proclaiming] the divine favors that had happened to him and his wife... ^D

he openly explained them, and although not yet initiated into the sacred mysteries, he nonetheless imparted the doctrine of Christ to his subjects. Both he and the queen—the king to the men, and the queen together with the captive woman to the women—persuaded the whole nation to worship Christ. And with all speed, by the common agreement of the entire nation, they prepared with the greatest zeal to build a church.

When they had raised the surrounding wall of the temple, they set up machines, began to lift the columns, and fixed them upon their bases. It is said, however, that after the first and second had been set upright, the installation of the third column became a laborious task, and could be accomplished neither by the craft of the skilled workmen nor forced by strength, although many were pulling at it. As evening came on, the captive woman alone passed the night there, supplicating God that the correction of the columns might be made easy. All the others, and especially the king, had departed, feeling discouraged. For the column, having been raised halfway, remained slanted, and being driven into the ground, stood immovable from its base underneath. But for this reason, and the miracles preceding it, the captive ^B was to make the Iberians more steadfast in the faith. For when they arrived at the church at dawn, a marvelous thing appeared, and one like a dream: the column that had been immovable the day before stood erect, and was hovering a short distance above its base. All were struck with wonder, and as all looked on, while they confessed with one accord that Christ alone was the true God, it slid down quietly and of its own accord, and as if by art, it fitted itself onto the base. After this the others were easily set upright, and the Iberians completed the rest with greater eagerness.

When the church was quickly built, upon the advice of the captive woman, they sent envoys to Constantine the emperor, bearing an offer of alliance and a treaty, and requesting in return that priests be sent to their nation. When the envoys had explained what had happened among them, and how the entire nation worshiped Christ with great zeal, the emperor of the Romans was delighted with the embassy; and after granting all that the envoys requested, he sent them back. In this way the Iberians came to know Christ, and to this day they continue to worship Him with diligence. ^C

CAP. VIII. How the Armenians and Persians also embraced the Christian religion.

Thereafter, the doctrine spread through the neighboring tribes and increased into a multitude. For my part, I have learned that the Armenians had embraced the faith of Christ even earlier. For it is said that Tiridates, the ruler of this nation, ^D from a certain...

^A on the occasion of a heavenly sign that occurred in his own house, ^B both became a Christian himself and commanded all his subjects by public crier to worship in the same way. Subsequently, the doctrine crossed over to the neighboring tribes and increased into a multitude. And as for the Persians, I believe those who first became Christians were those who, on account of their intercourse with the Osrhoenians and Armenians, naturally conversed with the divine men who dwelt there and experienced their virtue.

CHAPTER IX. Concerning Sapor, King of the Persians, how he was stirred up against the Christians; and concerning Symeon, Bishop of Persia; and concerning Usthazanes the eunuch, and how he struggled in the contest of martyrdom.

But when, in the course of time, their number had increased, and they began to gather in churches and to have priests and deacons, this state of affairs did not fail to annoy the Magi, who, like a certain priestly caste, have from the beginning administered the religion of the Persians by hereditary succession. It also annoyed the Jews, who, owing to an innate malice, are by nature ^C in a way enemies of the Christian faith. They therefore accused Symeon, then Archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon—which are the most noble cities of Persia—to Sapor, who ruled in Persia at that time, claiming that he was a friend to the Roman Emperor and that he was betraying Persian state affairs to him. Induced by their slanders, Sapor first oppressed the Christians with intolerable taxes, ^D since he knew that most of them embraced voluntary poverty. And he placed cruel men in charge of their collection, with the intention that the Christians, crushed by the lack of means and the atrocity of the exactors, would despise their own religion; for this was his chief aim. Afterward, he commanded the priests and ministers of God to be put to the sword, and the churches to be razed, and their vessels and instruments to be confiscated to the treasury; he also ordered Symeon to be brought to him, as though he had become a traitor to the kingdom and religion of the Persians. The Magi, aided by the Jews, quickly demolished the houses of prayer. Symeon, having been arrested and bound in iron chains, was led before the king, where he proved himself a good and courageous man. For when Sapor had ordered him to be brought in to be tortured, he neither feared nor prostrated himself. Highly exasperated at this, the king asked him: "Why then have you not prostrated yourself now, as you always did before?" "Because," replied Symeon, "previously I was not brought as a prisoner accused of betraying the true God; and in that state, not being otherwise occupied, I did what was customary regarding the royal...

^A majesty. Now, however, it is wrong for me to do so. For I am present, ready to struggle for piety and for our doctrine." Having said these things, the king ordered him to worship the sun; he promised that if he obeyed, he would give him many gifts and hold him in high honor, but if he disobeyed, he threatened to destroy him and the entire race of the Christians. When Symeones was shaken neither by the threats nor softened by the promises, but remained courageous, asserting that he would never worship the sun nor appear as a traitor to his own religion, the king commanded that he be held for the time being in chains, calculating, as was likely, that he would repent of his decision.

As he was being led away to the prison, Usthazanes, an aged eunuch, a foster-father of Sapor and one of the highest ranking in the king's household, rose and showed him reverence. For he happened to be sitting before the palace gates. Symeones, however, sharply reproved him for this, and being indignant, cried out and turned his face away as he passed him. For he was a Christian, and not long before had been forced to worship the sun. Immediately the eunuch, weeping and wailing, laid aside the brilliant garment in which he was clothed; and as if in mourning, he wrapped himself in black, and sat before the king's palace, weeping and groaning, saying, "Woe is me! What sort of God can I hope to have for me, now that I have denied Him, since for this very reason Symeones, formerly my intimate friend, did not even deem me worthy ^B of a word, but has thus turned away from me and passed me by!"

When Sapor learned of this, he called him in and inquired the cause of his mourning, and whether some calamity had befallen his household. Usthazanes replied, "O king, I have suffered no misfortune regarding the household here. Would that, instead of what has happened to me, I had fallen into all manner of other calamities—for that would have been easier. But I mourn now because I live; I who ought to have died long ago behold the sun, which, to please you, I worshipped—though not with my mind's consent. Thus, on both counts it is right for me to die, having become a traitor to Christ and a deceiver toward you." Having said these things, he swore by the Creator of heaven and earth that he would not thereafter change his mind.

Sapor, astonished at the unexpected change in the eunuch, became even more furious against the Christians, as if they were accomplishing such things by sorcery. Yet, out of the mercy he felt for the old man, acting now as mild and now as harsh, he strove with all his might to divert him from his purpose. But as he achieved nothing, with Usthazanes asserting ^C that he would never be so foolish as to worship the creations instead of the Creator of all, the king, moved at last to anger, ordered his head to be cut off with a sword. As he was being led away to this by the executioners, he asked them to wait for a little while, as he had something to announce to the king. And having summoned one of the most faithful ^D eunuchs, he commanded [entry continues].

^A that this be announced to Sapor: "From my youth until now, O king, I have cherished such goodwill towards your house, and towards your father and yourself, and have been moved by such appropriate zeal, that I do not think I have any need of witnesses before you, since you possess certain knowledge of these things. In return for all the favors I have ever bestowed upon you, grant me this reward: that I may not seem to the ignorant to be suffering punishment as one who was unfaithful to your kingdom, or as one caught in some crime. And in order that this may be made plain, let a herald by his shouting signify to all that Usthazades is being beheaded, not having been found in any misconduct in the palace, but being a Christian, and because he could not be persuaded by the king to deny his own God." The eunuch reported these things, and Sapor, according to Usthazades' request, ordered a herald to make the proclamation. For he believed that others would readily cease to be Christians if they noticed that he would spare no Christian, having killed an old man who had been his tutor and a faithful servant. But Usthazades sought for the cause of his punishment to be proclaimed publicly by the herald, because he reflected that at the time when, through fear, he had worshiped the sun, he had struck fear into many of the Christians; but now, when they learned that he was put to death for the sake of religion, he would make many imitators of his own courage. ^B

CAP. X. Of the Christians Slain in Persia by Sapor.

Thus did Usthazades depart from this life in a most glorious end. When Symeon heard this in prison, he gave thanks to God on his behalf. ^C On the following day, which was Friday, the day on which the annual remembrance of the salutary passion is celebrated before the feast of the Resurrection, the king ordered Symeon also to be put to the sword. For when he had been led again from prison to the palace, he had spoken very firmly concerning the faith before Sapor, and would not consent to worship either him or the sun. On that same day, a hundred others who were held in prison were likewise ordered to be put to death, and it was commanded that Symeon should be the last of all to be slaughtered, so that he might behold the death of them all. Among these, some were bishops, others were presbyters, and others were clerics of different orders. And as they were all being led together to their execution, the great prince of the magi came forward ^D and asked them whether they wished to live and follow the same religion as the king,

[beginning of page content: ...and to worship the sun. But since none of them could endure to live on such terms, they were led away to the place destined for their execution. The executioners performed their tasks and labored at the slaughter of the martyrs. ^B Symeones, standing near those who were being killed, exhorted them to be of good courage, and discoursed on death, on the resurrection, and on piety. By the testimony of the holy Scriptures, he showed that to meet death in this way is true life, but that to betray God out of cowardice is undeniably death. For in a short time, even if no one kills them, they will die of their own accord; for this is an inescapable end for everyone born. But the things that follow this life are not the same for all men; rather, like a pair of scales, they will render an exact account of the life lived here. And each one will receive the reward for what he has done well, an immortal one, and will pay the penalties for the contrary. And greater than all good things and most blessed is it to choose, for the sake of God, to die. As Symeones was going through such things, like a trainer encouraging them in the manner in which they must proceed in their contests, each one, hearing him, went forward to the slaughter with readiness. When the executioner had finished with the hundred, he lastly killed Symeones himself, and with him Abdechalaas and Ananias. Both were aged presbyters of the Church which Symeones governed; they had been captured together with him and had been in chains. ^C

Chapter XI. Concerning Pusices, the chief of Sapor’s craftsmen.

While these things were taking place, Pusices, who was in charge of all the king’s craftsmen, standing there, saw Ananias trembling as he was prepared for the slaughter. "For a short time, O old man," he said, "close your eyes, and be of good cheer. For soon you will see the light of Christ." Having said this, he was immediately seized and led to the king. And having confessed that he was a Christian, because he had spoken over-freely to the king concerning the doctrine of the Christians and the martyrs—as though using a boldness beyond what was right and fitting—he was ordered to be killed by a strange and most cruel manner of death. For the executioners bored through the nape of his neck, near the tendon, and there they pulled out his tongue. At that same time, his daughter also, a virgin consecrated to God, was seized through the delation of some, and was put to death. In the following year, on the very day on which the ^D memory of the passion of Christ was celebrated and the festival of his resurrection from the dead was awaited,

a most cruel edict of Sapor was published throughout the entire Persian empire, whereby all who confessed themselves Christians were condemned to the punishment of death. ^A At that time, it is said that an innumerable multitude of Christians was put to the sword. For the Magi searched diligently through the cities and villages for those who were hiding, while the Christians themselves, with no one even leading them away, voluntarily gave themselves up, lest by their silence they might seem to have denied Christ. As Christians were being slaughtered without mercy everywhere, many were killed even within the palace, among whom was Azadas, a eunuch who was most dear to the king. When Sapor heard that he had been killed, he was struck with incredible grief, and he put an end to this general slaughter of Christians, ordering only the teachers of the religion to be put to death.

CAP. XII.

Concerning Tarbula, the sister of Symeon, and her martyrdom.

At the same time, when the queen fell into a sickness, the sister of Bishop Symeon, named Tarbula, a holy virgin, was arrested together with her handmaid, who pursued the same mode of life, and another sister who had renounced marriage after the death of her husband and had likewise embraced that same way of living. ^B They were seized through the fraud and accusation of the Jews, who had accused them of plotting against the reigning queen by means of magic spells, in vengeance for the death of Symeon. The queen, as those who are diseased are accustomed to lend an ear to abominable remedies, believed this accusation to be true, especially since it had come from the Jews; for she shared their sentiments and lived according to Jewish rites, and she deemed them to be truthful and well-disposed towards her. ^C The Magi, having seized Tarbula and the other two, condemned them to capital punishment; and having sawn them asunder, they impaled them and, to avert the disease, ordered the queen to pass through between the stakes. It is said that this Tarbula was of a very fair and beautiful appearance, and that one of the Magi, having been seized with desire for her, sent money to her on the sly, promising her, if she would yield to his lust, her own safety and that of her companions. But as for her, since she could not even bear to hear such obscene language, she heaped insults upon them and reproached them for their debauchery, choosing most readily to die rather than to betray her virginity.

^A Since the decree of Sapor, as has been related before, required that the others be left alone, and only the priests and teachers of the faith be seized, the magi and archimagi traveled through the land of the Persians and busily harassed the bishops and presbyters, especially in the region of the Adiabenians; for this territory is Persian and is almost entirely inhabited by Christians.

Chapter XIII. On the martyrdom of the holy Acepsimas, and his companions.

At this same time, they seized Acepsimas the bishop, along with many of the clergy under him. Having deliberated, however, they were content to have seized the bishop himself, and released the others after plundering their property. A certain presbyter, Jacobus, followed Acepsimas of his own volition. Having obtained permission from the magi to remain in bonds along with him, he cheerfully served the old man, alleviating his distress as much as he was able, and applying medicine to his wounds. For not long after he had been captured, the magi had savagely scourged him with raw thongs, compelling him to worship the sun. But as he would not yield, they sent him back to prison. ^B

At that same time, Aithalas and Jacobus, presbyters, and Azadanes and Abdiesus, deacons, were also dwelling in prison on account of their faith, having been most cruelly scourged by the magi. A long time having passed, the chief archimagus consulted with the king concerning them. And having received full power to punish them at his own discretion if they would not worship the sun, he made known the decree of Sapor to those who were held in prison. When they answered clearly that they would never become traitors to Christ or worship the sun, he tortured them without mercy. ^C And Acepsimas, remaining courageous in his confession of the faith, finished his life. Some of the hostages from Armenia who were among the Persians secretly took up his remains and buried them. The others, although they were scourged no less severely, survived beyond all expectation; and as they did not change their conviction, they were again cast into bonds. Among these was Aithalas, whose arms were torn from the shoulders ^D because of the excessive stretching while he was being beaten, so that he carried his hands dead and dangling, such that others had to bring food to his mouth. Under this same rule, a number of presbyters and deacons, and monks and holy virgins, and others who were serving about the churches and were devoted to the faith, ended their lives in martyrdom.

^A The bishops, however, whom I have been able to recall, are Barbasymes, Paulus, Gaddiabes, Sabinus, Mareas, Mocius, Joannes, Hormisda, Papas, Jacobus, Romas, Maares, Agas, Bochres, Abdas, Abdiesus, Joannes and Abramius, Agdelas, Sapores, Isaac, and Dausas—who had been taken captive by the Persians from a certain place called Zabdæum. At that time, for the sake of the doctrine of the faith, he was put to death along with Mareabdes the chorepiscopus, and about two hundred and fifty of his clergy, who had been taken prisoner along with him by the Persians.

CHAPTER XIV

About this same time, Milles also accomplished his martyrdom. At the beginning, he had served in the military among the Persians; but afterwards, having abandoned military service, he emulated the apostolic way of life. It is said that when he had been ordained bishop of a certain Persian city, he suffered many things on many occasions, and endured scourging and dragging of his limbs. But as he could not persuade anyone there to become a Christian, he took it heavily, invoked a curse upon the city, and departed for another place. Not long after, when the chief men of that city had offended the king, an army was sent against them with three hundred elephants; they destroyed the city and, after plowing ^C it up like a field, they sowed it. Milles, meanwhile, carrying only his wallet, was...

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

He carried with him only the sacred book of the Gospels, and went to Jerusalem to pray; from there he proceeded to Egypt to see the monks who dwelt there. The Syrians, who have written down his deeds and his life, are witnesses to the marvelous and god-like works which that man is reported to have performed. For my part, I think it is sufficient to have related these things for the time being concerning him and concerning those who suffered martyrdom in Persia during the reign of Sapor. For it would be a task for anyone to recount everything that happened to them—who they were, and whence they came, or how they fulfilled their martyrdom, and what punishments they endured; for the Persians were zealous in inventing various ^A kinds of such tortures. To sum up briefly, it is said that the men and women of that time who were known by name as martyrs amounted to sixteen thousand; but as for the multitude beyond these, who were beyond number, it appeared difficult for the Persians, the Syrians, and those dwelling in Edessa—who devoted much care ^B to this matter—to enumerate their names.

Chapter XV. How Constantine wrote to Sapor to cease punishing the Christians.

Now when the Roman Emperor Constantine learned that the Christians in Persia were being treated in this hostile manner, he felt great grief and was sorely troubled. Desiring to help them, he was at a loss what he should do, so that they might also live securely. It chanced that at that time ambassadors from the King of the Persians came to him. Having granted them what they had requested, he dismissed them, the business having been settled to their satisfaction. Thinking that the moment was therefore opportune to recommend to Sapor the Christians living in Persia, he wrote a letter ^C to him, declaring that he would always feel the greatest gratitude—and this would be a matter of public record—if Sapor would be humane towards his subjects.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(6) *Various kinds of such torments.* This should be written as follows, as Christophorson and Savile amended in the margins of their codices, and the whole passage should be thus restored: "...for the Persians were zealous in inventing various kinds of such torments. For the methods of their punishments were diverse and manifold, the Persians having shown themselves particularly zealous in these matters." This is confirmed by Nicephorus, who expressed this passage of Sozomen thus: [Greek text cited]. Indeed, the Persians were more ingenious than others at inventing new kinds of tortures. Among the punishments invented by the Persians, mention is made by the ancients of that which Plutarch describes in his *Artaxerxes*, and Eunapius in the *Life of Maximus the Philosopher*; I shall append his words ^D here, so that they may be corrected in passing: "That is, the punishment of the boats among the Persians and the women’s *Artabrorum sarculationes* are light compared to the tortures by which his body was lacerated." I write, therefore, *Artabri*—they are a people of Lusitania, among whom women formerly dug up gold with hoes, as Strabo teaches in his third book.

(7) *Who devoted much care to this.* In the codex of Alatius it is written, [Greek text]. However, I would prefer to write [Greek text], etc.

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

(8) *He wrote to him.* Sozomen is mistaken in assigning the time when the persecution in Persia raged, which he has incautiously referred back to the times of Constantine the Great. But it is evident from the very letter of Constantine in Eusebius (*Vit. Const.* lib. iv, cap. 9), to which Sozomen alludes here, that Sapor had not yet raged against the Christians at that time, and that peace existed between him and Constantine. Therefore, the opinion of St. Jerome, who assigns the beginning of this persecution to the seventh year of the Emperor Constantius—that is, the year of Christ 343—should be considered more accurate; to this opinion Baronius, Bollandus, Godefridus Hermantius, Antonius Pagius, and other most learned men have subscribed.

^A professing that he would owe him immense and immortal gratitude if he were to show himself humane towards those who embraced the doctrine of the Christian law within his dominion. For, says he, there is nothing in the rite of this religion itself that can be blamed. They are content, forsooth, only with bloodless prayers to appease God. Nor indeed does He delight in the shedding of blood; but He rejoices only in a pure soul that strives toward virtue and piety. Wherefore they are deservedly to be praised who believe in this way. Furthermore, he promised that God would be propitious to him if he looked after this religion, offering as proof of this matter those things which had occurred both to Valerian and to himself. For he himself, indeed, supported by divine aid on account of his faith in Christ, starting from the Western Ocean, brought the whole Roman world under his power; and he successfully completed many wars, both against foreigners and against the tyrants of those times. And yet he had no need of victims or of any divinations; but the sign of the cross, which preceded his army, and a prayer pure from blood and ^B any defilement, sufficed him for victory. Valerian, however, as long as he refrained from harassing the churches, administered the empire happily. But as soon as he set out to stir up a persecution against the Christians, divine wrath drove him on and subjected him to the Persians. Captured by them, he ended his life in a wretched manner. By these letters written to Sapor, Constantine attempted to persuade him to look favorably upon the religion. For he showed the greatest care for the Christians everywhere, not only for the Romans, but also for those outside.

CAP. XVI. How Eusebius and Theognius, the Arians, by giving a document professing that they agreed with the Nicene Synod, recovered their sees.

Not long after the Nicene Synod, Arius was recalled from exile; yet he was still prohibited from entering Alexandria; later, however, he labored with all his might and zeal to return to Egypt, as will be told in its proper place. Sometime later Eusebius of Nicomedia ^C and Theognius—those who admired the dogma of the Christians. For he said that there is nothing to find fault with in the manner of the religion, if only bloodless prayers are sufficient for the supplication of God. For the shedding of blood is not pleasing to Him; but He rejoices only in a pure soul that is active in virtue and piety; so that it is necessary even to praise those who believe in this way. And then, regarding the providence concerning the dogma, he promised that the Deity Himself would be propitious to him, using as proofs those things that had happened to Valerian and to himself. For he himself, indeed, through his faith in Christ, using the impulse from God as an ally, beginning from the Western Ocean, made the whole Roman world his own; and he achieved success in many wars, fighting against foreigners and the tyrants of that time; and he had no need of sacrifices or any divinations; but the symbol of the cross, proceeding before his own troops, and a prayer pure ^D of blood and filth were sufficient for him for victory. But Valerian, for as long as he did not commit evil against the churches, continued to rule happily. But when he decided to raise a persecution against the Christians, divine wrath drove him on and subjected him to the Persians. By whom, taken prisoner, he wretchedly ended his life. Constantine, having written such things to Sapor, tried to persuade him to be well-disposed to the religion. For he used the greatest care for the Christians everywhere, Romans and foreigners alike.

CHAPTER XVII. That those around Arius, having given a document agreeing with the Synod at Nicaea, recovered their own sees, Eusebius and Theognius.

Not long after the Synod at Nicaea (8), Arius, being led into exile, was recalled; yet he was still forbidden to set foot in Alexandria. Indeed, later, his return to Egypt was eagerly sought, as will be said in due time. Not long after, their...

^A church and office were recovered by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who cast out Amphion, who had been ordained in his place, and likewise by Theognius of Nicaea, who cast out Chrestus. They were recalled, having given to the bishops a document of repentance, the words of which are as follows:

"We, having been condemned by your piety before a trial, ought to have borne the judgment of your holiness peacefully and in silence. But since it is absurd that by our silence we provide an argument for calumny against ourselves, we therefore signify to you that we have indeed concurred in the faith, and, having carefully examined the notion of the consubstantial, we have applied ourselves with all zeal to peace, never having followed any heresy. And having reminded ourselves for the security of the Churches of all that entered our mind, and having been persuaded and having persuaded those who ought to be persuaded through us, we have set our signature to the faith. ^B But we have not signed the anathema, not as if we were accusing the faith, but as distrusting that the one who had been accused was of such a character, being convinced that he was not so from the things which we had learned from him personally, both through letters and through conversations held in our presence. But if your holy synod has been persuaded, we do not contend, but, agreeing with the things established by you, we also confirm our consent through this document—not indeed out of weariness of exile, but that we may avoid the suspicion of heresy. For if you should deign to receive us into your presence even now, you will find us in all things of one spirit, following the things decided by you; and when it seemed good to your piety to show kindness to the one accused on these points—but since the grace of God has freed you from that cacodoxy and impiety, and from the blasphemy, and from the persons who dared to cause a schism and a division of the people—"

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

^C ...calamity. It is so far from the truth that they themselves acted before the Emperor, that they were deported into exile: rather, they testify in these words that they grieve for the lot of those men. Yet those things which follow in the said epistle sufficiently show that those three were sent into exile. For they add, etc. What else, I ask, do these words imply, but the exile of Arius and his associates?

(9) *Now already condemned*. This petition for satisfaction by Eusebius exists also in Socrates, in the first book, the fourteenth chapter, where see what I have annotated. For there is not time here to repeat what has been observed there.

(10) *Having reminded ourselves for the security of the Churches*. When the Nicene Fathers had set forth the Catholic faith, that is, in the council, several bishops, whose leader was Eusebius of Nicomedia, tried to refute it, and proposed another in its place. But when the Nicene Fathers had rejected that one with one consent, and had not even deigned to listen to it, Eusebius and his associates, driven by fear of the Emperor, subscribed to the Catholic faith. This is taught by the epistle of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, to his own citizens, and by Theodoret in the first book of his History.

It may not inappropriately be asked how Eusebius and Theognius could have subscribed to the Nicene faith, yet by no means have subscribed to the anathema. And yet the anathema was joined to the formula of faith, and published together with the exposition of faith by the Fathers, as is to be seen both in Socrates and in the ancient collections of canons. Baronius ^D writes that a formula of faith was first established by the Nicene Fathers, to which, although Eusebius and the rest had initially refused to subscribe, they at length subscribed, compelled by fear; but that afterwards a sentence of condemnation was passed upon Arius, and that Eusebius and Theognius, because they most pertinaciously refused to subscribe to this condemnation, were deposed by the synod, and other bishops substituted in their place. He says, however, that the Emperor Constantine interceded at that time, so that the sentence might not be carried into execution. Petavius followed the opinion of Baronius in the second part of his *Rationarium Temporum*. But this opinion seems to me by no means probable. For thus there would have been two subscriptions of the bishops of the Nicene synod: the former by which they agreed to the faith, the latter by which they agreed to the condemnation of Arius. Today, however, there exists only a single subscription of the individual bishops. And with good reason. For the faith, with the anathema which is subjoined to it, is one and the same monument, continued in one Spirit and one tenor. For thus the anathema begins, etc.

Next, it is false what Baronius, and those who followed him, affirm, namely, that the formula of faith was first established by the Nicene synod; and that afterwards an inquiry was made concerning Arius. For this is manifestly refuted by the synodical epistle, in which it is clearly written that before all things an inquiry was made concerning the opinion of Arius, and that it was diligently examined and condemned in the presence of the prince. Wherefore I would more willingly believe that Eusebius and Theognius subscribed to the decrees of the Nicene faith once, just like the other bishops; but that in subscribing they made a distinction between the faith and the anathema. Therefore, in this way I think they subscribed: "I, Eusebius of Nicomedia, consent and subscribe to the faith written above; but not to the anathema."

^A concordant in all things and clinging tenaciously to your decrees: since it has pleased your reverence to treat with humanity even him who was accused on these accounts, and to recall him from exile. Furthermore, it would be absurd, when he who was seen to be the guilty party has been recalled and has cleared himself of those accusations brought against him, for us to remain silent and voluntarily provide an argument against ourselves. Do you, therefore, as becomes your reverence, which is most dear to Christ, deign to admonish the emperor, most beloved of God, and to present our petitions to him, and to deliberate speedily on those things that befit you regarding us. In this way, then, Eusebius and Theognius did penance and recovered their Churches.

CAP. XVII. That after the death of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius received the episcopate at his urging. A narrative concerning the same Athanasius while he was still a boy: that he was self-taught as a priest, and that he was dear to the great Anthony.

About the same time, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, ^B as he was about to depart from this life, left Athanasius as his successor, being led, in my opinion, by divine commands to designate him. For it is said that Athanasius himself had prepared to flee and was compelled by force by Alexander to undertake the priesthood. Apollinaris the Syrian is a witness to this matter, saying thus: "After these things, indeed, impiety does not cease to wage war. But first it was armed against this man’s blessed teacher; and he stood by as an assistant, like a son to a father. Then, too, it was armed against him himself, when he came to the succession of the episcopate, although he had long and greatly used flight; but, having been found by the help of God, just as had been fore-shown by divine tokens to the blessed man who entrusted the episcopate to him, that no other than he would be his successor. For when he was being called from this life and was already near to death, he began to call Athanasius by name while he was absent. ^C And when another of the same name who was present there responded to his calling, he said nothing to him, as he was not the one he was calling. But he persisted in calling. And as this happened more often, the one who was present was passed over in silence, but he who was absent was designated." [Socr., lib. 1, cap. 15.]

[VALESII ANNOTATIONES.] (12) *Ypeuthynou anakeklēmenou kai apologēsamenou*. From this place it appears that Arius was recalled from exile before Eusebius and Theognius, who were still living in exile, had sent a libellus of satisfaction to the bishops. Furthermore, Eusebius and Theognius were recalled from exile in the third year after the Nicene synod, as I observed in the annotations to Socrates, that is, in the year of Christ 328. Therefore in the same year, but some months earlier, or certainly in the year 327, Arius was recalled from exile. But if anyone asks by what reason Arius was recalled, I think it was in the exact same way that Eusebius and Theognius were recalled, namely, by sending a libellus of satisfaction to the bishops, when he had asked the bishops ^D who were in the retinue, or who were neighbors to the royal city, to intercede for him with the prince. And this is gathered from the words of this libellus: *tōi epi toutois enagomenōi edoxen hymōn tēi eulabeiai philanthrōpeuesthai kai anakalesasthai*. If it seemed good to your reverence to show humanity and to recall him... *anakeklēmenou kai apologēsamenou*. Since, therefore, this had succeeded for Arius, Eusebius and Theognius, by whose counsel, it seems, Arius had sent the libellus of satisfaction to the bishops, they also attempted the same thing, with equal success.

(13) *Hēmas episiōpan*. I would prefer to write *hēmas eti siōpan*. In Socrates and Nicephorus it is read *hēmas siōpan*.

^A And the blessed Alexander spoke with a prophetic spirit, saying: "Do you think you have escaped, Athanasius? You shall not escape"; clearly signifying that he was being called to a struggle. This is what Apollinaris writes concerning Athanasius. The Arians, however, assert that after the death of Alexander, both those who held to their own views and those who adhered to Melitius held communion with one another; and that fifty-four bishops, having gathered from the Thebaid and the rest of Egypt, bound themselves by oath and agreed that he who was to govern the Church of the Alexandrians should be chosen by common suffrage. But they say that seven of these bishops [(14)] violated their oath and, against the will of all, secretly ordained Athanasius; and that for this reason, many of the people and of the clergy throughout Egypt refused to hold communion with him. For my part, I am persuaded that this man did not attain to the episcopate without the will of God, being capable in speech and understanding, and qualified to withstand the machinations of adversaries—a type of man that those times, in particular, required. He was certainly most apt for ecclesiastical discourse and for the discharge of the priestly office, appearing, as it were, self-taught in such matters from his youth. ^B Indeed, it is said that while he was still a youth, the following incident occurred. The Alexandrians even now celebrate a public and very brilliant festival on the annual day of the martyrdom of Peter, who had been their bishop. Alexander, who was the governor of the Church at that time, having already completed the liturgy, was waiting for those who were to dine with him. While he was by himself, he turned his eyes toward the sea. Seeing children from afar playing along the shore, mimicking a bishop and the rites of the Church, he was delighted with the spectacle as long as he saw that the mimicry was harmless and took no small pleasure in what was happening. But when they reached the hidden mysteries, he was troubled; and having called to him the leading members of the clergy, he pointed out the children. ^C Having ordered that they be seized and brought to him, he asked them what their game was, and what the words and actions pertaining to it were. Initially, they were afraid and denied it, but when he persisted in his questioning, they confessed that Athanasius had been the bishop and leader among them, and that certain children who had not yet been initiated into the mysteries had been baptized by him. Alexander questioned them carefully as to what the priest of the game had asked them or done, and what they themselves had answered or had been taught. Having discovered that all of the ecclesiastical order had been accurately observed by them, he deliberated with the clergy who were about him and determined that it was not necessary to re-baptize those who had once been judged worthy of the divine grace in simplicity. ^D He fulfilled the other duties concerning them, considering it right that only those who were ordained and who initiate others in the mysteries...

should administer baptism, and he completed these rites for them. ^A Furthermore, Athanasius and the other boys who had acted the parts of presbyters or deacons in that game, he restored to their parents under a divine testimony, instructing them to educate them for the ministry of the Church and to train them for the offices they had simulated. Not long after, he took Athanasius into his own household and subsequently kept him as his notary. Having been thoroughly educated, and having frequented the schools of the grammarians and rhetoricians, when he reached man's estate, even before his episcopate, he gave those who conversed with him a demonstration of his prudence and learning. But after Alexander had departed this life, leaving Athanasius as his successor, his reputation grew even more, confirmed both by his own virtues and by the testimony of the great monk Antony. For as often as Antony was summoned by him, he would comply, and he would come to the cities, and accompany him to the churches, and confirm his faith concerning God with his own approval. In short, during his whole life he ever held him as a friend, and turned away from his adversaries and enemies. ^B

CHAPTER XVIII. How the Arians and Meletians rendered Athanasius illustrious. Concerning Eusebius, and how he solicited Athanasius to receive Arius. And concerning the word "consubstantial," and how, above all others, Eusebius of Pamphilus and Eustathius of Antioch contended with one another.

The followers of Arius and Meletius rendered him most illustrious: for although they were always laying snares for him, they were never able to convict him justly. ^C First, indeed, Eusebius attempted him by written letters to receive the Arians; threatening orally that he would afflict him with harm if he did not comply. But when he did not yield, asserting that those were not to be received who had devised a new heresy to corrupt the truth, and who had been excommunicated by the judgment of the Nicene synod, Eusebius took pains that the emperor himself should receive Arius and grant him permission to return. But I shall speak a little later of how that came to pass. At that time, however, the bishops began to dissent among themselves again, while they examined the word "consubstantial" with excessive scrupulosity. For some thought that those who accepted this word were speaking impiously, as if they were declaring that the Son was without subsistence ^D and held the opinions of Montanus and Sabellius. Others, on the contrary, turned away from the assertors of the opposite opinion just as if they were Gentiles, and reproached them for introducing a multitude of gods. In these matters, furthermore, the altercation was especially severe between Eusebius of Pamphilus and Eustathius of Antioch. For both confessed that the Son of God existed in subsistence; but, as though they did not understand one another,

they mutually accused one another. Eustathius blamed Eusebius for innovating upon what had been decreed at Nicaea respecting dogma. Eusebius indeed claimed to approve of those things, but he reproached Eustathius with the opinion of Sabellius. ^A

CHAPTER XIX.

Concerning the Antiochene synod, in which Eustathius was unjustly deposed, whose see Euphronius obtained. And what Constantine the Great wrote to the synod, and to Eusebius of Pamphilus, who had declined the Church at Antioch.

When the synod had been held at Antioch, Eustathius was deprived of the Church of the Antiochenes; in truth, as there is much reason to believe, because he praised the faith at Nicaea, and clearly attacked Eusebius and his party—Pauline, the bishop of Tyre, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, whose opinion all the bishops of the East followed—as if they held the sentiments of Arius. By pretext, however, he was found to have disgraced the priesthood by certain illicit actions. A very great sedition was stirred up at Antioch on account of his deposition; so much so that the populace almost took up arms, and the whole city was brought into gravest peril. This occurrence especially harmed him before the emperor. For when the emperor learned that these things had happened, and that the people of the Church had been divided into two parties, he was exceedingly angered, and held him under suspicion as the author of the sedition. Nevertheless, he sent one of those in his palace who was brightly distinguished in military service, giving him orders to strike fear into the populace and to suppress the sedition without tumult or harm. ^B Those who had deposed Eustathius, and who happened to be gathered at Antioch for this reason, having reasoned among themselves that if they were to set over the Church there some one of those of the same opinion as themselves who was known to the emperor and distinguished for his knowledge of rhetoric, they would easily have the others persuaded, thought it was a good idea to entrust the throne of the Antiochenes to Eusebius of Pamphilus. And they wrote to the emperor concerning this, declaring also to the people that this was exceedingly pleasing to them; for thus had demanded also those of both the clergy and the crowd who were hostilely disposed toward Eustathius. Eusebius, however, wrote to the emperor declining it. The emperor praised his refusal; for an ecclesiastical law forbade that a man who had once been accepted as bishop of a Church should transfer to another episcopacy. He wrote to Eusebius, accepting his judgment, and calling him blessed, as being worthy to bishop not one city, but the whole world. He wrote also to the people of the Church of the Antiochenes, concerning concord, and that one ought not to covet the one who is already bishop in another place.

as it is not good to desire what belongs to others. In private, he sent another letter to the synod, in which, just as in the letters he had written to Eusebius, he praised him for having refused the bishopric. ^A Since, however, he had learned that Euphronius, a presbyter of Cappadocia, and George of Arethusa were of approved faith, he gave orders that they should ordain as leader of the Church of the Antiochenes whomsoever of these they chose, or any other who might appear worthy, he said. When they received the emperor's letters, they ordained Euphronius. Eustathius, however, as I have learned, bore that calumny with moderation, having judged that this was better: a man who was both in other respects good and virtuous, and was justly admired for his eloquence, as it is possible to perceive from his writings which still survive, which are highly esteemed for the antiquity of their style, the prudence of their thoughts, the beauty of their composition, and the grace of their delivery.

CAP. XX.

^A, it seemed best that another bishop should be chosen for the people of Diospolis, but that Maximus should remain at Jerusalem to share the priestly office with Macarius, and govern the Church after his decease. However, those who have accurately investigated these matters assert that this was done in accordance with the wish of Macarius and was earnestly requested by the multitude. For they say that Macarius repented of having ordained Maximus as bishop of Diospolis 22, having reflected that because Maximus held correct views concerning God and was acceptable to the people on account of his confession, it was necessary to preserve him as his own successor. For he feared that after his own death, Eusebius and Patrophilus ^B and their party, who held the sentiments of Arius, would, having found an opportunity, entrust the throne there to one of like mind with themselves. And indeed, even while Macarius was still alive, they had attempted to introduce innovations; but having been excommunicated by him, they had for that reason kept quiet.

CAP. XXI. Of the Melitians and Arians, how they were united: and of Eusebius and Theognius, how they again attempted to kindle the Arian disease.

In the meantime, the contention which had long since been stirred up among the Egyptians against one another had not yet come to an end. For when, at the Council of Nicaea, the Arian heresy was utterly condemned, while the followers of Melitius were received on the conditions which we have above mentioned, upon Melitius returning to Egypt, he surrendered the churches which he had unlawfully kept under his own authority ^C, and spent the remainder of his life in the city of Lyco. But not long after, when he was about to depart this life, contrary to the decree of the Council of Nicaea, he appointed a certain John, one of his own intimates, in his own place, and once again became the cause of disorder in the Churches. But the followers of Arius, perceiving the Melitians stirring up new disturbances, themselves also harassed the Churches. For as is wont to happen in such turmoils, some admired the opinion of Arius, while others considered it right that those who had been ordained by Melitius should preside over the Churches, and joined themselves to their party. Moreover, although both ^D were previously at variance with one another, yet when they perceived that the multitude followed the priests of the Catholic Church, they fell into envy. And they became reconciled with one another, and took upon themselves a common hatred.

^A And, becoming intermingled with those with whom they were debating, they brought forward accusations and made their defenses, to such a degree that, as time passed, those who held the opinions of Arius were called by the majority in Egypt "Melitians"—although in fact they differed only for the sake of the leadership of the Churches 23. The Arians, however, thought the same as Arius regarding God. But yet, privately rejecting each other’s dogmas 24, they nevertheless underwent the pretense of feigning and agreeing in the communion of hatred, each side hoping easily to prevail in what they desired. In time, as is plausible, from the discussions about these matters, they acquired a familiarity with the Arian dogmas and thought the same about God. From this, the situation regarding Arius returned once again to its former turmoil; both the laity and the clergy separated themselves from one another’s communion.

Moreover, in other cities also, and especially among the Bithynians and the Hellespontines and in the city of Constantine, the controversies concerning the dogmas of Arius were fanned into flame once again. Indeed, it is said that Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognius, bishop of Nicaea, having corrupted the notary to whom the emperor had entrusted the safe-keeping of the acts of the Nicene Council, erased their own signatures ^B and set themselves to teach openly that one ought not to confess the Son to be consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. Being accused on this account, Eusebius is said to have spoken boldly to the emperor, and, showing him a garment which he was wearing, to have said: "If this garment were divided while I was looking on, I would never say that each part was of the same substance." The emperor took these things very bitterly. For, thinking that such questions had been completely put to rest after the Council of Nicaea, he saw them being stirred up again contrary to his expectation. And it did not grieve him the least that Eusebius and Theognius had given communion to certain Alexandrians 25, whom the Council had kept in a state of penance ^C as persons who did not think rightly; but he himself [regarded them] as authors of discord 26. And upon this, the...

emperor, as if they were authors of discord and for that reason banished from their country, had commanded them to be sent into exile. ^A Some therefore assert that it was for this reason that the emperor was moved to inflict exile upon Eusebius and Theognius. But regarding these matters, I have written above what I had learned by hearsay from men who were accurately acquainted with those affairs.

CAP. XXII. How the Arians and Melitians plotted in vain against Saint Athanasius.

The authors of the evils that afterwards befell Athanasius were these two men. For being possessed of great freedom of speech and influence with the emperor, they endeavored to bring Arius back to Alexandria as a man of the same mind and a friend, and to cast Athanasius out of the Church as one who was opposed to them. Therefore they slandered him to Constantine, [alleging] that he was the cause of seditions and disturbances in the Church, and that he barred those who wished to enter the church, whereas all might be of one mind if this one thing were permitted. ^B And many of the bishops and clergy who were with John kept confirming that these slanders against him were true, constantly approaching the emperor and asserting that they themselves were orthodox, while accusing him and the bishops under him of murder, bonds, unjust beatings and wounds, and the burning of churches. But when Athanasius also made it known to the emperor, accusing the party of John of illegal ordinations and of innovating against what had been decreed at Nicaea, and [having] an unsound faith, and of seditions and outrages against those who held correct views concerning God, Constantine no longer knew whom he should believe. ^C Since they were accusing one another of such things, and many accusers from both sides were frequently troubling him, because he was very deeply concerned for the concord of the peoples, he wrote to Athanasius that no one was to be excluded from the church. And if this were reported of him in the future, he would send a person to banish him out of the city of the Alexandrians. If it be pleasing to anyone to meet with the emperor's own letter, the part concerning this matter is as follows. Having, then, the sign of my will, to all [those...]

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. ^D for you know, that Amphion was ordained at Nicomedia, and Chrestus at Nicaea, in their place, both because of their private impiety, and because of their communion with the Arians who had been rejected by the general council. You see how the bishops of Egypt excellently agree with the emperor Constantine in assigning the cause of the deposition of Eusebius.

VARIORUM. * Scarcely had the space of three months elapsed from the celebration of the Nicene synod, when Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius of Nicaea, because they not obscurely sided with the Arian party, were banished by Constantine to Gaul. As for what Sozomen here relates concerning a corrupted notary, it is a fabrication. (The most illustrious Benedictine monks, *Life of Athanasius*, p. 11.) At the beginning, indeed, Eusebius by sending letters to me exhorted me to receive the Arians; yet in such a way that he might threaten with words but not with writings, and might request in writing. But as I resisted and replied that men who were inventors of heresy and enemies of the truth, and who had been anathematized by the ecumenical synod, were by no means to be received, he was the author of [the emperor] Constantine of blessed memory writing back to me. Athanas., (*Apol. against the Arians*, p. 178.)

^A If, however, anyone wishes to read the emperor's letter itself, the part of it which contains what I have mentioned is as follows: "Since, therefore, you have notification of my will, grant free access to all who desire to enter the church. For if I learn that any of those who wish to be participants in the church have been hindered by you, or forbidden from entering, I shall send at once someone who, by my command, will depose you and remove you to another place."

But when Athanasius, by letters written to the emperor, had persuaded him that the Arians ought not to be admitted to the communion of the Catholic Church, Eusebius, understanding that as long as Athanasius defended the opposing side he would never attain what he desired, determined that he must be removed from the way by all means possible. And because he did not have a suitable pretext for such a machination, he promised the Melitians that he would support their cause before the prince, and before those who had the greatest influence in the palace, if they were willing to accuse Athanasius. ^B Hence, therefore, the first charge was brought against Athanasius, that he had imposed a tax of linen tunics upon the Egyptians, and had exacted such a tribute from the accusers themselves. But Apis and Macarius, presbyters of the Church of the Alexandrians, who happened to be there at the time, endeavored to convict that accusation of falsehood.

Because of this charge, Athanasius was summoned, but they accused him again, saying that by plotting against the emperor he had sent a chest of gold to a certain Philumenus. But the emperor, having condemned the calumny of the accusers, permitted Athanasius to return home. He also wrote letters to the Alexandrian populace, in which he bore witness to his equity and right faith; he said that he had gladly entered into conversation with him, and that he appeared to him to be a truly divine man, who, although he had been called into a charge for the sake of envy, had proved superior to his adversaries. And when he learned that many of the Egyptians were quarreling among themselves on account of Arius and Melitius, he exhorted the people in the same letter to cast their eyes toward God, and to consider His judgment, and to maintain mutual benevolence among themselves, and to expel with all their strength those who plotted against their concord. And the emperor, indeed, writing in this way to the whole multitude, called everyone to harmony, and labored with all effort that the body of the Church might not be torn apart. ^{C D}

CHAPTER XXIII. Regarding the calumny brought against the holy Athanasius on account of the hand of Arsenius.

The Melitians, however, having been repulsed in their former attempt, wove other calumnies against Athanasius: one, that he had broken a sacred cup; another, that he had viewed.

having killed someone, he cut off his arm, and kept it by him for the sake of sorcery. Now, this Arsenius was said to be a clergyman ^A who had fallen into some fault and was keeping himself in hiding; for he feared that he would have to pay the penalty if he were convicted before the bishop. The event happening in this way, those who were plotting against Athanasius contrived a most grave slander. Having diligently searched for Arsenius, they found him; and having treated him kindly and promised him every favor and safety, they brought him secretly to one of their acquaintances—a man who was of the same party as they, named Prines, the priest of a monastery. ^B Having hidden Arsenius there, they went about with haste through the markets and the meetings of the principal men, spreading the report that he had been murdered by Athanasius. Arrangements had also been made for such an accusation by a certain monk named John. When the fame of this disgraceful deed had been spread abroad to such an extent that it reached even the ears of the emperor, Athanasius, seeing that if he should happen to be brought to trial on this charge, it would be difficult to defend himself before judges whose minds were preoccupied with such stories, acted with counter-strategy against the arts of his opponents. As much as he was able, he sought to convince everyone, intending that the truth should not be obscured by their slanders. But it was difficult to persuade the majority while Arsenius did not appear. Thinking, therefore, that he could not otherwise clear himself of the suspicion unless he proved that the man who was said to be dead was still alive, he sent one of his most faithful deacons, whom he had with him, to search for him. ^C When he had arrived in the Thebaid, he learned where he was staying through the information of certain monks. But when he came to Prines, with whom he had been hidden, he did not find Arsenius himself. For, having learned in advance of the deacon’s arrival, they had removed him to ^D

^A lower Egypt. Taking Prines, he led him away to Alexandria; and with him also Elias, one of those who were with him, who was said to have moved Arsenius elsewhere. Both, having been brought before the commander of the military units in Egypt, confessed that Arsenius was alive; and that he had previously been hidden among them, but was now living in Egypt. Athanasius took care that these events, as they had occurred, were made known to Constantine.

The emperor wrote back to him, encouraging him to attend diligently to his priestly office, and to provide for the good order and piety of the people; and to disregard completely the treacheries of the Meletians, as he himself well knew that it was out of envy that they stirred up such false and fabricated accusations and disturbances against the Church. He further instructed him not to permit such things in the future, ^B but that he would act as judge according to the civil laws, unless they kept quiet, and would exact punishment from them, as they were not only plotting against innocent persons, but were wickedly damaging the good order of the Church and piety. When the emperor had written these things to Athanasius, he ordered his letter to be read in a public assembly of the people, so that all might more easily understand his will and purpose. From that time on, the followers of Meletius, struck with fear, remained quiet for a while, dreading the emperor’s threats. Meanwhile, the Church throughout all Egypt, being at peace and governed by the solicitude of such a priest, increased daily, as many from the number of the Gentiles, and from the multitude of the heretics, joined themselves to it.

CAP. XXIV. That the inner nations of the Indians also, at that time, accepted the Christian faith through the agency of Frumentius and Aedesius, the captives.

About this same time, we have learned that those ^C innermost of the Indians—whom we call Indians in common parlance—to whom the preaching of Bartholomew had not reached, accepted the Christian religion through Frumentius, who became a priest and a teacher of sacred learning among them. But so that we might understand in the miracle which then occurred among the Indians that the religion of the Christians was not established by men, as it pleases certain authors of incredible lies to claim, it is necessary to explain the cause itself of why Frumentius was ordained priest. It is as follows: It was held in great esteem by the most distinguished philosophers among the Greeks, ^D that they should visit unknown cities and places. Thus did Plato, the companion of Socrates, travel through Egypt.

that he might learn the traditions of those people. He also sailed to Sicily to see the craters there, in which fire, as if from a fountain, boils up spontaneously, and often overflowing, streams out like a river, consuming the neighboring country; so much so that even now many fields are seen scorched and can receive neither seed nor plantation of trees, just as is reported concerning the region of the Sodomites. ^A Empedocles also, a man who attained high distinction as a philosopher among the Greeks and who expounded his doctrine in heroic verses, visited these craters. While he was investigating the cause of this eruption of fire—whether because he judged it better to die in this way, or, to speak more truly, not even knowing himself for what reason he should seek for himself such a premature departure from life—he leaped into the fire and perished. But Democritus of Cos (33) also says somewhere, regarding himself, that he had traveled through very many cities, climates, countries, and nations, and had spent eighty years living in foreign lands. Others, too, without number ^B among the wise men of the Greeks, both ancient and more recent, have been eager for this. Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre in Phoenicia, being ambitious to emulate them, traveled as far as the Indians. He was accompanied by two youths, Frumentius and Aedesius, both of whom were his kinsmen; he taught them letters and educated them in the liberal arts. After he had traveled through as much of India as he could, he determined to return, and having found a ship sailing for Egypt, he took passage on it. But when the ship happened to ^C anchor in a certain harbor for the sake of water or other necessities, the Indians who lived there rushed down and killed everyone, including Meropius himself. For they had at that time broken the treaty they had previously made with the Romans. However, feeling pity for the boys because of their youth, they took them as captives and brought them to their king. The king appointed the younger one to be his cupbearer, but he made Frumentius supervisor of his house and steward of his money, for he had recognized him as prudent and very capable of management. After they had long shown ^D themselves useful and faithful, the king, when he was dying, left his wife and son surviving, and in order to reward their benevolence, set both of them at liberty and gave them the power to live wherever they wished. They then hastened to return to their own people in Tyre. But since the king's son was still of very tender age, the boy's mother begged them to remain there for a little while to administer the kingdom until the boy reached manhood. They felt respect for the imploring queen; and so they administered the palace and the government of the Indians. But Frumentius, urged perhaps by divine manifestations or by the spontaneous impulse of God, inquired whether there were any Christians among the Indians or among the merchants sailing to them. Diligently searching for these, he called them to himself. And welcoming them...

^A humanely and kindly, he bade them assemble for the sake of prayer and to celebrate their gatherings in the Roman manner; and having built churches, he exhorted them to worship God with assiduous devotion. After the king's son reached the age of puberty, they sought leave to depart from both him and the queen. Having persuaded them, although they judged their departure more bitter than any distress, they parted from them in a friendly manner and returned to the dominion of the Romans. And Aedesius, indeed, that he might see his own relatives, returned to Tyre, where, some time later, he was raised to the dignity of the presbyterate. Frumentius, however, having delayed for a while his return to Phoenicia, went on to Alexandria. For he did not think it right to subordinate the pursuit of divine things to his kin and fatherland. Having therefore spoken with Athanasius, the prelate of the Alexandrian Church, he explained to him the things that had occurred among the Indians: how there was need among them for a bishop who might take care of the Christians living there. Athanasius, indeed, having gathered the priests who were then staying in Alexandria, took counsel on this matter; and he ordained Frumentius himself as bishop of India, ^B judging him to be most apt for this and capable of greatly furthering the religion among those to whom he himself had first shown the name of Christians and had provided the seed of participation in the doctrine. And Frumentius, having returned to the Indians, is said to have exercised the priesthood so gloriously that he was admired by all who had experience of him, no less than the apostles are accustomed to be preached. For God also rendered him most celebrated, having wrought through him many and strange healings, and signs, and wonders. Such was the beginning of the episcopate among the Indians.

CAP. XXV. Concerning the synod of Tyre, and the unreasonable deposition of holy Athanasius.

But against Athanasius, the snares of his adversaries again stirred up business, again provoked the hatred of the emperor, ^C and again roused a multitude of accusers against him. Hard pressed by these, the emperor ordered a synod to be held at Caesarea in Palestine. Called to this synod, Athanasius did not obey, fearing the malice of Eusebius, the bishop of that city, and of the other Eusebius of Nicomedia, and of those around them. ^D But at that time, although they had gathered...

^A forced to do so, he delayed for about thirty months. But after this, being more strongly constrained, he came to Tyre. ^B There, many of the bishops of the East gathered together and ordered him to render an account of the things of which he was accused. Those who brought charges against him on the part of John were Callinicus, a bishop, and a certain Ischyrion, who alleged that he had broken a mystic cup and had overthrown an episcopal throne. Moreover, they charged that he had frequently kept this same Ischyrion, who was a presbyter, in bonds, and having slandered him to Hyginus, the prefect of Egypt, on the grounds that he had thrown stones at the images of the Emperor, [Athanasius] had caused him to be cast into prison. They also alleged that he had deposed Callinicus, who was a bishop [(36)] of the catholic Church at Pelusium and lived in communion with Alexander, because, as they claimed, Callinicus refused to communicate with him unless he received satisfaction regarding the suspicion that the mystic cup had been broken by him; and that [Athanasius] had entrusted the Church of Pelusium to a certain Marcus, who had been deprived of his dignity as a presbyter, while he had subjected Callinicus himself to military guard and to tortures and trials. Furthermore, Euplus, Pachomius, Isaac, Achillas, and Hermaion [(37)], bishops of the party of John, accused him of having inflicted blows upon them. And all of them together accused him of having entered into the episcopate through the perjury of certain persons [(38)], even though all of them [(39)] had agreed under oath that no one should be ordained before they had resolved the charges that existed among them. They claimed that for this reason they had been deceived into breaking off communion with him; and that he had not deemed it worthy to be persuaded, but instead had used force.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

^A And it was at this time that the matters concerning Arsenius were brought up again. And as is wont to happen in plots that are diligently organized, unexpected accusers—even from among those who were thought to be friends—kept appearing. A paper containing popular outcries was read, as if the crowds in Alexandria were refusing to assemble in church because of him. Then Athanasius, when he was ordered to speak in his own defense, went into the court repeatedly; he cleared himself of some of the charges, but asked for a postponement to respond to others. He was, however, deeply perplexed, seeing that the accusers were supported by the favor of the judges, that many witnesses against him had been prepared from those who held the views of Arius and Melitius, and that his calumniators were being granted pardon for those charges in which he himself was shown to be in the right; this was especially the case in the matter of Arsenius, for the cutting off of whose arm he was accused for the purpose of witchcraft, and in the case of a certain woman by whom he was accused of having given gifts for the sake of lust and of having violated her by night. ^B Both accusations were revealed to be ridiculous and full of calumny. For when the woman was accusing Athanasius of these things while the bishops were sitting in judgment, Timotheus, a priest of Alexandria, who was standing beside Athanasius (for so it had been secretly agreed between them), answered the woman thus: "Did I, woman, offer you violence?" She, however, answered, "But was it not you?" and added at the same time the time and place where she supposedly had been violated. He also brought Arsenius out into the midst, and showed the judges both his hands intact; and he begged them to hold the accusers accountable for the arm they had produced. For this Arsenius, whether driven by God or, as it is said, being hidden by the conspirators against Athanasius, when someone announced to him that the bishop was being brought into danger because of him, took flight by night and arrived at Tyre the day before the trial took place. ^C When both charges had been dismissed in this manner, so that no further defense was needed—though the first, as I suppose, is not included in the records of the proceedings under the pretext that it was not fitting for such a shameful and ridiculous affair to be recorded at a synod—regarding the second, it sufficed as a defense for the accusers to say that a certain bishop named Plusianus, ^D from among those under Athanasius, had burned the house of Arsenius at his command; and that he had tied him to a pillar, and having beaten him with straps, had locked him in a small room. But that he had escaped through a window; and since he had to be sought, he…

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (40) *Each writing.* The speech appears destined to be fuller if you add the article in this way: *both writings*, etc. (41) *But not you.* The words are missing in the Fuketian codex. According to Rufinus, from whom Sozomen appears to have drawn this, this story is not inelegantly related in this manner: Athanasius is ordered to be brought in for these matters. He enters with Timotheus his priest, and instructs him that after the woman has finished speaking, with him (Athanasius) remaining silent, he should respond to the things she had said. And when the woman had finished her speech in the way she had been taught, Timotheus turned to her and said: "Truly, woman, did I ever stay with you, or did I offer you violence, as you assert?" Then she, as the impudence of such women goes, rebuking Timotheus: "You, you," she said, "offered me violence, you upon that spot defiled my chastity." Thus I have corrected this from two very ancient codices. For it is commonly read: *rebuking Timotheus*. Rufinus adds: Then a ridiculous shame takes hold of everyone, because the faction, with him silent, had so easily revealed a manufactured crime. For this passage is to be written in this way from the same codices. It should be known, furthermore, that a similar calumny was fabricated in the same synod against Eusebius of Nicomedia, as Philostorgius relates. Regarding that calumny of the most impudent woman, Sozomen testifies that nothing was written in the Acts of the Tyrian synod. Wherefore let the credit lie with Rufinus, who was the first to relate these things. (42) *A certain bishop Plusianus.* Mention of him is made in the letter of Arsenius to Athanasius, which is found in the second Apologetic against the Arians.

^A It is not read in the Acts of the council, for any other reason, I think, than that it seemed indecorous to inscribe a matter so base and ridiculous into the synodal acts. As for the other matter, the accusers believed it sufficient for their defense to say that a certain Plusianus, one of the bishops who were under Athanasius, had at his command burned the house of Arsenius; and that he had bound him to a column, beaten him with thongs, and locked him in a cell; but that Arsenius had escaped through a window and, since he was being sought, had hidden for some time; and as he was nowhere to be found, it was not without cause that he was considered dead. Since he was a man of renown and famous for the glory of his confession, the bishops who were with John were therefore searching for him, and they approached the magistrates. When Athanasius reflected upon these things, he was struck with fear. At the same time, he suspected that his plotters might find an opportunity to kill him in secret. Finally, after many sessions, when the council was full of tumult and disturbance, the accusers and the promiscuous mob which stood around the benches crying out together that he must be removed by all means, as a sorcerer and a violent man and unworthy of the priesthood—those who had been sent at the emperor’s command to preserve the discipline of the council, fearing that, as usually happens in a sedition, they might all make a rush and lay violent hands upon him, secretly removed him from the court.

^B He, considering that it was not safe for him to remain in the city of Tyre, nor safe to plead his cause against such a multitude of accusers before hostile judges, departed for Constantinople. The synod condemned him in his absence and stripped him of his episcopacy, and they ordained that he should no longer live in Alexandria, so that, they said, he might not, by his presence, stir up tumults and seditions there. But they received John and those who were with him into communion, as having been unjustly harassed, and restored to each his own rank in the clergy. Then they notified the emperor of what had been done, and they wrote to all the bishops everywhere, telling them not to admit Athanasius to communion, nor to write to him, nor to receive letters written by him, inasmuch as he had been convicted of the crimes of which they had taken cognizance, and by his flight he had been caught as guilty of other crimes as well, to which he had not answered. They declared in their letter that they were brought to pass such a sentence against him for these reasons: first, because they were greatly aggrieved that, when the emperor in the previous year had ordered the Eastern bishops to meet at Caesarea on his account, he himself had not appeared, seeing the synod worn out by the long delay and despising the commands of the sovereign. ^C Furthermore, that when many bishops had gathered at Tyre, he arrived with a crowd, and caused disturbances and tumults in the synod; at one time resisting their defenses, at another insulting each of the bishops; at other times, when called by them, not listening; and at other times not deigning to be judged. They proclaimed that he was clearly seen to have shattered the vessel of the sacred chalice; and, bringing forward as witnesses to this Theognius, bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, and Theodore of Heraclea, and Valens and Ursacius and Macedonius—whom they had sent into Egypt, so that they might arrive at the village where it was said the chalice had been shattered, and discover the truth. They wrote such things, juridically touching upon each accusation, and struggling, as if by some artifice, to construct a calumny. That they did not hold this judgment with integrity, many of the priests present ^D [commentary: *Valesius writes regarding this passage that interpreters did not understand it due to faulty punctuation in the Stephanus edition. The sense is that Athanasius was indeed convicted of many crimes while present; but of others, to which he had not yet responded, he was convicted by the flight which he had undertaken.*]

It is said, then, that Paphnutius the confessor ^A who was present at this synod, having taken Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, by the hand, bade him rise, as it was not becoming for those who were confessors, and who for the sake of piety had had their eyes gouged out and their hamstrings severed, to associate themselves with an assembly of wicked men.

CAP. XXVI. On the church built by Constantine the Great at Jerusalem on Golgotha, and on its dedication.

Meanwhile, around the thirtieth year of the reign of Constantine, the church having already been completed at Jerusalem at the place of the Skull, which is called the great Martyrium, a certain Marianus, a man of no mean dignity and a notary of the emperor, having entered Tyre, handed to the bishops assembled in council a letter from the emperor, by which he exhorted them to set out for Jerusalem with all speed and dedicate the church there. ^B Now although he had decreed this long before, he had thought it necessary that the bishops, first assembled in the city of Tyre, should settle their private quarrels among themselves, and, having been purified of every discord and offense, should proceed to the dedication of the church. For he deemed the concord of the priests most appropriate for such a festival. The bishops, therefore, having repaired to Jerusalem, consecrated the church, and at the same time the ornaments and gifts transmitted by the emperor: which indeed remain to this day in that same basilica, and are beheld by all not without great wonder, on account of their magnificence and scale. From that time forth, the Church of Jerusalem celebrates this ^C festival annually in a very splendid manner; insomuch that initiations are performed in it, and they hold ecclesiastical gatherings for eight days in succession; and a great multitude from almost every quarter under the sun ^D gathers there, who on account of the history

of the holy places, they hasten from all sides at the time of this festival.

CHAPTER XXVII. Of the presbyter who persuaded Constantine to recall Arius and Euzoius from exile; and of his confession of faith, perhaps the right one; and how Arius was again received by the synod of Jerusalem.

At that time, those bishops who held the views of Arius, seizing a favorable moment, endeavored to have a synod of bishops held at Jerusalem, and to admit Arius and Euzoius to communion. They were emboldened to do this by the following pretext: there was a certain presbyter, an intimate of the emperor's sister and an admirer of the doctrines of Arius. And that he held these views, at first he remained hidden. But when, in the course of time, he had made himself more familiar ^B with Constantia—for this was the name of Constantine's sister—having gained confidence, he spoke freely to her and complained that Arius was unjustly fleeing his homeland and had been cast out of the Church, having been expelled by Alexander, who had overseen the Church of the Alexandrians, because of envy and private hostility. For when Alexander saw that he was highly esteemed by the multitude, he said, he became jealous of him. Constantia, believing these things to be true, while she was still alive, did not venture to introduce any innovation against the decrees decreed at Nicaea. But when she fell into a sickness, and suspected that from this she would die, she asked her brother, who had come to her, to grant her a final favor, whatever she might ask. She begged that he would receive the aforementioned presbyter into his intimacy, and that he would trust him as one who judged correctly about the Divine. For she said that she herself was departing, and for the rest took no care for the life here; but for him, she feared, lest he suffer something from the wrath of God, as one having fared ill, or having lost his empire shamefully; for, she said, having been persuaded by certain persons, he had unjustly condemned just and good men to perpetual exile. From that time forth, the emperor was very favorably disposed toward this presbyter; and having imparted confidence to him, and having conferred with him about the things his sister had commanded, he thought it necessary that the matters concerning Arius be tested again, as was natural, suspecting that the accusations were true, or wishing to gratify his sister. And not long after, he recalled Arius from exile, and ordered him to produce in writing what he believed about God. But he, avoiding the novelty of words which he had previously invented, wove another exposition, having used simple phrases and such as are familiar to the Holy Scriptures; and he swore an oath that in very deed he believed thus, and in his mind thought these things, and held nothing else besides these. And it follows thus:

^A To the most religious and God-beloved master of ours, Constantine, Arius and Euzoius, presbyters.

As your God-beloved piety has commanded, master emperor, we set forth our faith in writing; we confess before God that we, and all who are with us, believe in this way, as is set down below. We believe in one God, the Father almighty, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth; who came and took flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens, and is coming again to judge the living and the dead. ^B And in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the age to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one catholic Church of God, which extends from one end of the earth to the other.

This faith we have received from the holy Gospels, the Lord saying to his own disciples: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If we do not believe these things in this way, and do not truly accept the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the whole catholic Church and the holy Scriptures teach—which we believe in all things—may God be our judge, both now and in the coming judgment. Therefore we beseech your piety, God-beloved emperor, that, as we are ecclesiastics and hold the faith and the view of the Church and of the holy Scriptures, we may, through your peace-making and God-fearing piety, be united to our mother, the Church, with the questions and superfluous disputes removed; so that both we and the Church, keeping peace with one another, may all together offer the customary prayers for your peaceful and God-fearing reign, and for your whole family.

Some indeed craftily maintained that the statement of this faith had been composed with artifice, and that while it seemed to differ in its words, it did in reality agree with the doctrine of Arius according to the interpretation of the terms, which allowed the liberty of inclining to either side and of understanding these things in whatever way one wished. But the emperor, thinking that Arius and Euzoius held similar views to those who had assembled at Nicaea, was delighted with the matter. Yet he did not arrogate to himself the right to receive them into communion before the examination and judgment of those to whom this right and priestly authority belonged according to the law of the Church. He sends them…

therefore, to the bishops who were at that time gathered at Jerusalem, and writes that they should examine the confession of faith they had set forth, and deliver a benign sentence concerning them, whether it appeared they held the right opinion and had been oppressed through envy, or whether, having nothing to complain of regarding the judgment passed upon them, they had repented. Accordingly, those who had long been plotting these things seized the opportunity, and under the pretext of the emperor's letters, received them into communion. Having done this, they wrote both to the emperor himself and to the Church of Alexandria, and to all the bishops and clergy throughout Egypt, Libya, and the Thebaid, exhorting them to receive those men with willing spirits, since the emperor himself had testified that their faith was correct—which they indeed appended to their own letter—and the whole synod had approved the emperor's judgment. And these things were done at Jerusalem with great zeal in this manner. ^{C D}

CAP. XXVIII. Letter of the Emperor Constantine to the Synod of Tyre: and concerning the exile of Saint Athanasius through the faction of the Arians.

Athanasius, having fled from the city of Tyre, came to Constantinople. And approaching the Emperor Constantine, he lamented what he had suffered, in the presence of the bishops who had condemned him; and he requested that the examination of what had been judged in Tyre should take place before the emperor himself. Constantine, having deemed the request most reasonable, wrote to the bishops gathered at Tyre in this manner: "I, indeed, am ignorant of what things have been judged by your synod with turbulence and storm. ^C Nevertheless, it seems that because of some turbulent disorder, the truth has been in a way perverted, while you, on account of the mutual contention among you—which you desire to be held insuperable—clearly do not discern what is acceptable to God. But it shall be a work of divine providence to disperse the evils of this contention, now that they have been most clearly caught, and to demonstrate to us explicitly whether you, who gathered there, have had any care for the truth, and whether you have rendered your judgments without any hatred or partiality. Therefore, I wish for you all to come with haste to my piety, so that you may carefully render to me, by your own selves, an account of the things done by you. Now, for what reason I have deemed it necessary to write these things to you, and have summoned you to myself through this letter, you shall understand from what I am about to add. As I was entering my namesake and in every way fortunate fatherland, Constantinople, and it chanced that I was then riding on horseback, suddenly…

Athanasius the bishop, along with certain others who were with him, appeared in the middle of the public thoroughfare as unexpectedly as to cause astonishment. God, the overseer of all, is my witness that I did not at first sight know who he was, until some of our people, being questioned by us, told us who he was and what he had suffered. At that time, however, I did not converse with him, nor did I have any familiar meeting with him. But when he ^A requested this, while I refused, and almost commanded him to be removed, he with greater boldness asked nothing else of us than your arrival, so that in your presence he might be able to complain freely of the things he had suffered. Since this seemed to me equitable and suitable for my times, I have gladly ordered these things to be written to you, so that as many of you as gathered for the synod held in the city of Tyre may hasten without delay to the court of our clemency, to demonstrate by the very facts the sincerity and integrity of your judgment before me, whom you could by no means deny to be a genuine servant of God. By my service to the divine will, peace flourishes everywhere in the world, and even the barbarians themselves sincerely venerate the name of God, who until this time had been ignorant of the truth. Yet he who is ignorant of the truth must necessarily also be ignorant of God. Nevertheless, as I said before, even the barbarians, through me, a genuine servant of God, have now acknowledged God and have learned to venerate Him; they have learned by the experience of events themselves that by His providence I am everywhere protected and preserved. This ^B is what especially led them to the knowledge of God. And they indeed venerate God from fear of us; but we, who are thought to display the sacraments of His clemency—for I will not say to keep them—we, I say, do nothing else but what pertains to discord and hatred, and to speak absolutely, what tends to the ruin of the human race. But hasten, as I have said, and all of you come to us with all possible speed, holding it for certain that I shall strive with all my might and zeal to ensure that the things which are of the law of God are kept especially intact and unshaken, so that no stain of reproach or infamy can be cast upon them, namely, when the enemies of the holy law—who under the pretext of a most holy name introduce various and manifold blasphemies—are scattered, crushed, and utterly destroyed. When these words had been written by the emperor, some, struck with fear, returned to their own homes; but those around Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, journeying to the emperor, insisted ^C that the synod at Tyre had pronounced just judgments in the case of Athanasius. And bringing forward as witnesses Theognius, Maris, Theodore, Valent, and ^D some others, they affirmed that he had broken a sacramental cup—with many other insults besides.

The emperor, either believing these things to be true, or supposing that the bishops would be of one mind in the future if Athanasius were out of the way, ordered him to reside in Treves, a city in the Gallic provinces of the West. And so he was led away. ^A

CAP XXIX. On how Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, refused to receive Arius into communion; and how Arius, when his bowels urged him to a place designed for nature's relief, burst asunder.

After the synod at Jerusalem, Arius came into ^B Egypt. But as the Church of the Alexandrians refused to communicate with him, he came again to Constantinople. Now, those who held the same views, and as many as were attached to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, having gathered together there in private, and preparing to hold a synod, Alexander, who then occupied the see at Constantinople, becoming aware of their design, attempted to break up the synod. But when he was unable to effect this, he openly opposed their intended communion with Arius, declaring it to be impious and wholly alien to the Church, stating that it was not right to render void the vote of their own selves and of those who, from almost every part of the world, had gathered at Nicaea. ^C Those around Eusebius, when at first they could not by words prevail upon Alexander, began to insult him and threatened him with an oath, that if he did not receive Arius by a certain day, he himself would be cast out of the Church and sent into exile, and that his successor would communicate with Arius. After this, both parties separated for the time being—the Eusebians, indeed, awaiting the appointed day to execute their threats, while Alexander, making prayer that the words of the Eusebians might not be brought to pass in deed. But the emperor had filled him with ^D particular dread, having been persuaded in a certain manner to give way. On the day, however, before the appointed time, having entered under the altar, he lay prostrate all night, praying to God that the outcome of these matters might be thwarted.

^A On that same day, toward evening, Arius, suddenly needing to relieve his bowels, was seized by a pressing necessity and went to the public place set apart for such a requirement. As he did not come out for a long time, some of those who were waiting outside for him entered and found him dead, lying on the seat. When this became known, not everyone had the same opinion concerning his death. Some thought that, having been seized by a sudden disease of the heart, or having suffered a stroke from the joy of seeing his affairs turn out according to his wishes, he had died instantly; others thought that he had paid the penalty for his impiety. Those, however, who held his views spread a story that the man had been killed by magic arts. It is not inappropriate to bring forward here what was written about his death by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. It is as follows: ^B

CHAPTER XXX. What the great Athanasius wrote about the death of Arius.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(56) "Confirm it by the truth." This was the oath of the Christians, as it is read in the Epistles of the Blessed Paul: "I speak the truth, I do not lie," for they believed that God is truth, as the sacred pages teach. Wherefore when they said, "in the truth," it was the same as if they said, "in the name of God." Athanasius in his *Apologetic to the Emperor Constantius*: ...that is, "I would that this man, whoever he is, were present here, that I might question him before the truth itself." For whatever we say as if God were present, we Christians take as an oath. I have corrected this passage from Athanasius in his first oration against the Arians. For it was copied from there by Sozomen. Thus it is held there, as is written by Athanasius in his epistle to Serapion: that Arius, having been summoned by the Emperor Constantine through the work and effort of the Eusebians, offered his faith to him, and swore that he believed nothing other than that. And when he had departed from the palace, the Eusebians wished to bring him into the Church immediately. These things indeed manifestly conflict with what Rufinus writes, and those who follow him, Socrates and Sozomen. For Rufinus indeed writes that Arius, having been recalled from exile through the work of a certain presbyter, offered a scroll of his faith to the Emperor Constantine, alien in sense to the Nicene faith, but in words not...

VARIORUM

^A ...paying the penalty, he fell; and becoming prone, he burst asunder in the midst. Now for all men the common end of life is death; and no one ought to insult, even if he who has finished his course be an enemy, since it is uncertain for each whether death may not overtake him before evening. But the end of Arius, because it did not occur in a simple or common fashion, on that account appears worthy of being recounted. For when those of the party of Eusebius were threatening to introduce him into the church, the bishop of Constantinople, Alexander, spoke against it. Arius, however, trusted in the violence and the threats of Eusebius. For it was Saturday 59, and he expected to assemble on the next day. The struggle was great, they threatening and Alexander praying. But the Lord, having become the judge of the contest, gave the victory against those who acted unjustly. For the sun had not yet set; and necessity having drawn him to a place, he fell there; and was immediately deprived of both communion and life. And the blessed Constantine, having heard of this, marveled, knowing that this perjurer had been convicted; and it became clear to all then that the threats of those around Eusebius had failed, and [their] hope...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

...dissenting. But that Constantine did not want to admit him even then, but referred him to the examination of the Council of Jerusalem; from which Arius, after the emperor’s testimony, was received into communion. That he afterwards returned to Alexandria, and was soon recalled from there to Constantinople, the same Rufinus reports, and after him Socrates and Sozomen. Except that they narrate this last recall of Arius as having happened while Constantine was still alive, not, as Rufinus says, in the reign of Constantius. Yet Athanasius clearly testifies in two places that Arius, immediately after the confession of faith was offered to Constantine, as he was leaving the palace, was led by the Eusebians into the church to communicate with Alexander. He was, therefore, not sent to the Council of Jerusalem. Then, from the narration of Rufinus and Socrates and Sozomen, it would be necessary to say that Arius offered two libels of faith to the Emperor Constantine; one before the Council of Jerusalem, in the year of Christ 335: the other in the following year, when he was to be introduced by Eusebius into the Constantinopolitan Church. For Athanasius writes this clearly. But why two libels, when the Emperor Constantine, having accepted the former libel, had approved Arius' faith, and had written about receiving him into communion to the Council of Jerusalem, as the synodical epistle teaches? Why did the Emperor Constantine, after his own judgment and after the sentence of the Jerusalem Council, again demand a formula of faith and an oath from Arius? How did Alexander refuse to communicate with Arius, who had been received into communion by an entire council? From these things it appears that what I wrote in the second book of my ecclesiastical observations is most true: that that Arius who was received into communion by the Council of Jerusalem is not Arius the heresiarch, but another of the same name. Which, indeed, can also be demonstrated from Athanasius. For he writes clearly in his epistle to Serapion that Arius died outside the communion of the Church. Athanasius had been consulted by Serapion as to whether Arius had been admitted into the communion of the Church before his death. Athanasius denies this and says that Eusebius indeed strove to accomplish it, but that Arius, carried off by a wretched death, was deprived of both life and communion: and thus that heresy was pronounced by divine judgment "incommunicable." But if Arius the heresiarch had been received into communion by the Council of Jerusalem, these things would be said falsely by Athanasius.

VARIOUS NOTES

* Certain very learned men, who refer the death of Alexander of Constantinople to the year 340, consequently conclude that not Arius the heresiarch was admitted in the Jerusalem council, held in the year 335, but another of the same name as the heresiarch, and his follower. Others, however, say that Arius is named by Athanasius for the Arians. But neither of those opinions has the slightest probability. For as regards the first, who would ever persuade himself that Athanasius, in his *Apology against the Arians* and in his book *On the Synods*, after he has named the heresiarch Arius six hundred times in the series of his narrative, when he arrives at the narrative of the Council of Jerusalem, suddenly substitutes another Arius; so that he neither warns nor indicates by even the slightest sign that he is a different person from the heresiarch, in order to lead everyone entirely into error? But what is more unlikely? What is more foreign to a wise and accurate writer, such as no one denies Athanasius to have been? That view surely collapses at the very first glance of a prudent reader. Nor has the point they make—that the Arians are indicated there by the name of Arius—any more firmness: since Athanasius himself, in his book *On the Synods*, testifies that he was received there, as if he were saying "Arius and those with him": where, since he openly distinguishes Arius from his followers, it is manifest that Arius himself, then alive, was admitted to communion with the Arians. What compelled learned men to embrace that opinion are the words of the Council of Philippopolis, held by the Arians in the year 347, whose epistle is found in the *Fragments of Hilary*. There the heretics say, no. 13, that Paul of Constantinople was present at the exposition, or deposition, of Athanasius, and that he condemned him. From which they argue that, already at the time of the Council of Tyre, where Athanasius was condemned, Paul was bishop of Constantinople; and thus at the time of the Council of Tyre, and consequently of Jerusalem, which was held after Tyre, Arius was dead, inasmuch as he died before his predecessor, Paul. But what faith is to be had in this epistle of the heretics, which is [full] of calumnies and lies...

since it has been shown ^A that the Arian madness was excommunicated by our Savior, both here and in the Church of the first-born? Who, then, would not marvel, seeing these men striving to justify one whom the Lord condemned, and seeing them defending the heresy which the Lord exposed as excommunicated, in that He did not suffer its leader to enter the Church? In this manner, we have received it, did Arius die. It is reported, further, that for a long time afterward no one used the seat in which Arius had sat. For when many entered that place, as if it were a public [thoroughfare], because of necessity, as is wont to happen in a crowd, and all who entered exhorted one another to avoid that seat, the place became abhorrent even to those who came after, as if Arius had paid the penalties of his impiety there. ^B But later, a certain Arian, wealthy and powerful, having exercised diligence, bought this place from the public treasury and built a house there, having torn down the former appearance, so that it might pass into oblivion among the people, and that the death of Arius might not be ridiculed by the succession of such a memory.

CHAPTER XXXI.

Of the things which happened at Alexandria after the death of Arius, and of what the great Constantine wrote to the Alexandrians.

But indeed, even when he had died, the contention concerning the dogmas which were first introduced by him did not at all come to an end, nor did the followers of his opinion cease to plot against those who held the contrary view. ^C Finally, when the people of the city of Alexandria were constantly crying out, and in public supplications were praying for the return of Athanasius, and Antony the Great, the monk, had frequently written about him, and besought them not to be persuaded by the Meletians and...

to lead their accusations, he did not believe them, but regarded their charges as calumny. The emperor, however, could not be swayed. He wrote to the Alexandrians, rebuking them for their madness and instability; and he ordered the clergy and the holy virgins to remain quiet, affirming that he would in no wise change his decision, nor would he recall Athanasius, as one who was seditious and had been condemned by an ecclesiastical ^A judgment. He replied to Antony that he could not be induced to disregard the sentence of the synod. "For," he said, "even if a few perhaps judged out of hatred or favor, it is in no way credible that such a great multitude of prudent and good bishops could have been affected in the same way." He maintained that Athanasius was insolent and arrogant, and the author of discord and sedition. For these were the particular crimes that his adversaries cast against Athanasius, because the emperor had an extraordinary aversion to men of that sort. ^B When, therefore, the emperor learned that the Church was divided into two factions, and that some favored Athanasius while others favored John, he was extremely indignant and punished John with exile. This was the John who had succeeded Melitius, and whom the synod at Tyre had ordered to communicate with the Church, and that both he and those who followed his opinion should retain their own rank in the clergy. And this did not, in fact, turn out according to the wishes of the enemies of Athanasius. It happened nevertheless, and the decrees of the council of ^C Tyre were of no avail to John. For the prince could not be swayed by any prayer or excuse regarding a man whom he suspected of inciting the multitude of the Christians to discord and sedition.

CHAPTER XXXII.

The dogma of Arius, although it was defended by the zeal and favor of many in their debates, was not yet separated into a distinct sect named after its author. Rather, all held their assemblies together and communicated with one another, except for the Novatians, and those called Phrygians, and the Valentinians, and the Marcionites, and the Paulians, ^D and any others who followed other heresies already invented. Against all these, the emperor, having established a law, ordered that their houses of prayer be taken away and annexed to the churches, and that they should not congregate either in private houses or in public places. He suggested that it was better to communicate with the Catholic Church, and he counseled them to gather there.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (62) The emperor established a law. This law of Constantine exists in Eusebius, in the third book of the *Life of Constantine*, ch. 64.

VARIOUS * Still separated into a distinct and separate people. Here Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, contradicts Sozomen in his *Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople*, in Theodoret, *Hist.*, bk. 1, ch. 4, where he asserts that the Arians, following the example of the Colluthians, were holding assemblies without intermission in dens of thieves they had constructed for themselves.

^A And it was by this law that the memory of these sects has in great part perished. For in the times of the preceding emperors, whoever worshipped Christ, although they differed among themselves in their opinions, were nevertheless regarded by the pagans as being the same, and were all oppressed in the same manner; nor, because of their common calamities, was it permitted to them to inquire too curiously into one another. For which reason, individuals easily gathered together into one place, and they celebrated their assemblies separately; and because they were constantly conversing with one another, even though they were few in number, they were by no means broken up. But after this law, they could neither celebrate assemblies publicly, as the law prohibited it, nor privately, as the bishops and clergy of each city observed them with care. From this it came about that the majority, struck by fear, joined themselves to the Catholic Church. Others indeed, although they persevered in the same opinion, yet departed this life having left no successors to their heresy after them; for they were neither permitted to meet in one place, nor were they able to teach their fellows in the faith freely and without fear. For from the beginning the other heresies had very few followers, whether because of the absurdity of their doctrines or the ignorance of the authors who had devised and taught them. The Novatians, however, inasmuch as they had obtained good leaders and held the same views regarding the Divinity as the Catholic Church, were very numerous from the beginning, and thus they remained thereafter, suffering almost no detriment from this law. For the emperor himself also, on his own accord, weakened the force of the law, as he intended ^B to terrify his subjects rather than to destroy them. And Acesius, who was at that time the bishop of their sect in Constantinople, since he was very agreeable to the emperor on account of his holiness of life, likely contributed a great deal of aid to his own Church. The Phrygians, however, in the other provinces of the Roman Empire suffered the same things as all the other heretics, except in Phrygia and certain neighboring provinces, in which from the very beginning and from the times of Montanus himself they abounded in multitude, and even now still abound. About this same time, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognius, bishop of Nicaea, began to innovate in writing regarding the exposition of the faith by those who had gathered at Nicaea. And they did not dare openly to reject that article in which the Son is asserted to be consubstantial with the Father. For they knew that the emperor was of that opinion; but by publishing another formula of faith, they signified to the bishops of the East that the words of the Nicene council had been accepted with the addition of certain interpretations. From this expression and opinion, the prior question, which already seemed to have been put to rest, was recalled into dispute and stirred up anew. ^C I believe the memory of most of these heresies has through this law been effaced.

CAP. XXXIII. OF MARCELLUS, BISHOP OF ANCYRA, AND OF HIS HERESY AND DEPOSITION.

At the same time, the bishops gathered at Constantinople also deposed Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, as the author of a new doctrine, who claimed that the Son of God had taken His beginning from Mary, and would have an end of His kingdom, and ^D

^A having composed a book on this, they deposed him and cast him out of the Church. They committed the governance of the Church of the Galatians to Basil, a man most celebrated for his eloquence and learning. Furthermore, they wrote to the churches of that region to search out the book of Marcellus, to destroy it, and to convert any who were found tainted with the same error to the true faith. And they indicated that they had not submitted his entire book because it was too prolix; yet they inserted some passages taken from that book into their letter, by which they might prove that he held such opinions. ^B Some, however, said that Marcellus had spoken those things for the sake of inquiry, and that they had been calumniously reported to the emperor by those around Eusebius, as if Marcellus had asserted them as his own belief. For the Eusebians were extremely hostile to him, because he had not consented to the things decreed by them at the synod of Tyre, nor had he acquiesced in what had been determined at Jerusalem regarding Arius, nor had he participated in the dedication of the Great Martyrion, thereby avoiding their communion. Indeed, in writing to the emperor about him, they brought these matters forward to bring him into disrepute, as if the emperor himself had been insulted by him, because he had refused to honor with his presence the dedication of the basilica built at Jerusalem. ^C The occasion for the writing of this book by Marcellus was Asterius, a sophist from Cappadocia, who, having written discourses on the faith that consented to the opinion of Arius, went about the cities demonstrating them, and was present at the meetings of the bishops and the synods that were held. For as Marcellus strove to contradict him, whether voluntarily or because he did not understand the matter in that way, he slipped into the opinion of Paul of Samosata. But Marcellus later recovered his bishopric at the synod of Serdica, having shown that he did not hold such views.

Chapter XXXIV.

The emperor, having already divided the empire among his sons, who were Caesars, and assigned the western regions to Constantine and Constans, and the Orient to Constantius, fell ill in his body. In order to use the naturally warm waters there, he went to Helenopolis in Bithynia. But as the disease grew worse, he was carried to Nicomedia. There, while staying in the suburbs, he was initiated into the holy baptism; and upon this he was greatly

^A exhilarated, and gave thanks to God. Having then drawn up his will, he distributed the empire to his sons, as has already been said. Leaving certain privileges both to Old Rome and to that which bears his name, he gave the testament to that presbyter who was the originator of the Arian heresy—a man, however, who was good in his manner of life—whom his sister Constantia, when she was dying, had recommended to him. And having added an oath, he commanded him to deliver the testament to Constantius as soon as he should arrive. For neither he, nor any of his sons who were Caesars, was present with their father as he was dying. Having given these orders, he survived but a few days; and he died, having reached about the sixty-fifth year of his age, having reigned for thirty-one years. ^B He was a man who, in the highest degree, was a supporter of the Christian religion, so that he was the first of the emperors to begin to nurture the Church with the greatest zeal and to enlarge it by all means. He was also the most fortunate of all who have ever lived in the conduct of affairs, for he never undertook anything, as it seems to me, without divine guidance. For he was victorious in the wars that arose under him, both against the Goths and the Sarmatians; and he so easily transformed the form of the republic according to his own will that he established both a new senate and a royal city of his own name. Furthermore, he overthrew the superstition of the Gentiles, which had so long been cultivated by both rulers and subjects, at the very first onset. After his death, his body was placed in a golden coffin, brought to Constantinople, and deposited in the palace on a raised dais; and honor and homage were shown to him by the palace attendants just as if he were still alive. ^C When Constantius, who was then staying in the regions of the East, learned that his father had died, as soon as he was informed, he arrived in haste at Constantinople; and having celebrated his royal funeral, he buried him in the church which is called the Church of the Apostles, where Constantine, while he was still alive, had constructed a tomb for himself. From that time, as if a custom had started from a certain origin, all the Christian emperors who died thereafter lie buried in Constantinople. And likewise the bishops; for since the priestly dignity, in my judgment, is equal to the imperial, or indeed even superior within the sacred places.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (65) "Against the Goths": the word "against" should be deleted, as being superfluous and ill-repeated from what went before. (66) "Of the priesthood being equal to the empire": Sozomen closes the sentence according to this book, in which, commending the priestly dignity, he says that it seems to him equal to the royal power outside the Church, but even superior within the Church. And indeed regarding the first head of this sentence, one may justly doubt, since each power has its separate limits and boundaries. For as in the old proverb, "The boundaries of the Mysians and Phrygians," so I think the priesthood is equal to the empire... but it is not a matter of priestly power, but only of dignity. Now these two things differ greatly from each other. For the priestly power is nothing outside the Church, since it is contained within the boundaries of the Church; but the dignity of the priests is valid even outside the Church. Yet I would by no means concede that it is equal to the royal dignity, for the royal dignity admits no equal. However, I have supplied and amended this place from the Fuketian codex in this way, which was lacking in all editions, which nevertheless is not idle, but softens the whole sentiment with a certain tempering.

HERMIAS SOZOMENUS OF SALAMIS ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK III

CHAPTER I How after the death of Constantine the Great, Eusebius and Theognius again disturbed the Nicene faith.

Such were the events that occurred in the Churches during the reign of Constantine. After his death, however, the doctrine of the faith, as promulgated by the Fathers at Nicaea, began once more to be called into question. ^A For although not all approved of this doctrine while Constantine was still among the living, no one dared to openly reject it. But when he had died, many departed from that faith; these were the very ones who had previously been suspected of betraying it. But most of all, Eusebius and Theognius, the bishops of the province of Bithynia, exerted themselves to ensure that the opinion of Arius should prevail. They hoped to achieve this easily if they could prevent Athanasius's return from exile and commit the governance of the Churches of Egypt to one who favored their own, opinions. ^B Indeed, they were devising these things, having as their instrument that presbyter who, during the reign of Constantine, had been the cause of Arius's recall from exile. For he happened to be very dear to the emperor Constantius, because he had faithfully delivered to him his father's testament. And having attained, as a trusted man, authority and license, he had arrived at extreme familiarity with the Augusta herself and the most powerful of the chamberlain eunuchs. At that time, Eusebius was the superintendent of the royal house; he, being devoted to the Arian opinion, drew both the empress and many of the imperial palace into the same sentiment. Hence, once again, frequent discussions concerning the faith arose, both in private and in public, and along with these, insults and enmities. And the matter proceeded entirely according to the wishes of those around Theognius.

Chapter II. Concerning the return of the Great Athanasius from the Gauls, and the letter of Constantine Caesar, son of Constantine the Great. Also concerning the plot again schemed by the Arians against Athanasius; and concerning Acacius of Beroea; and concerning the war between Constans and Constantine.

At this same time, Athanasius returned to Alexandria from the Gauls ^A in the West. Constantine had indeed purposed to recall him while he was still alive, and it is even said that he had commanded this in his testament. But as he was taken off by destiny before he could accomplish it, his son of the same name, who ruled over the Gauls of the West, granted Athanasius permission to return, having written letters to the people of Alexandria. Finding these translated from the Latin tongue into Greek, I have appended them in this place. They are as follows:

Constantine Caesar to the people of the Catholic Church of the city of Alexandria.

I do not think that the information regarding your most holy intention has escaped your notice; for this reason, Athanasius, the interpreter of the worshipful law, was sent for a time into the Gauls, that, since the ferocity of his bloodthirsty and hostile enemies persisted in threatening his sacred head with extreme danger, he might not, by the perversity of wicked men, suffer irreparable harm. In order, therefore, to avoid this cruelty, he was snatched from the very jaws of those who threatened his life, and was ordered to reside within my dominion, in such a way that in the city where he was commanded to dwell, he might abound in all necessities; ^B even though his own eximious virtue, relying on divine protection, sets at naught the hardships of even a harsher fortune. Therefore, although our lord and parent of blessed memory, Constantine Augustus, my father, had purposed to restore the same bishop to his former place and to return him to your most holy piety, yet because he was overtaken by the human lot and departed from this light before he could fulfill his wish, I deemed it consistent that I, as heir, should carry out the purpose of that prince of divine memory. Furthermore, you shall recognize the reverence that has been shown to him by us, from the very fact itself, as soon as he ^C comes into your presence. Nor is it a marvel that anything should have been done by me for the sake of such a man. For both the image of your longing and the countenance of so holy a man moved and incited my soul to this. May divine providence preserve you, dearest brothers.

By means of this letter of the emperor, Athanasius, having obtained his return, directed the Churches in Egypt. But as many as held the opinions of Arius felt this grievously, and were unable to remain quiet. Hence, continuous disturbances were stirred up, ^D which provided a pretext for further plots against Athanasius. For those around [index: entries preserved]

^A Eusebius immediately slandered him to the emperor as a seditious man who had restored himself to his position, contrary to the laws of the Church, without the judgment of bishops. But how he was again driven out of Alexandria by their machinations, I shall presently relate in its proper place.

About this same time, Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, departed this life, and Acacius succeeded to the bishopric of Caesarea in Palestine. As he was a diligent imitator of Eusebius, and had been instructed by him in the Holy Scriptures, he became capable in thought and elegant in expression, so that he left behind many works not worthy of being despised. Not long after, the emperor Constantine, while waging war against his own brother Constans near the city of Aquileia, was killed by his own commanders. And so the portion of the Roman empire ^B towards the West fell to Constans, and that towards the East to Constantius.

Cap. III. Concerning Paul, bishop of Constantinople, and Macedonius the heretic.

At this same time, Alexander having died, Paul assumed the episcopate of Constantinople. Those who hold the opinions of Arius and Macedonius say that he procured this for himself against the will of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, to whom, as neighbors ^C, the ordination pertained. However, as the general report goes, he was ordained by the bishops who happened to be residing in the city, on the testimony of Alexander, whom he succeeded. For Alexander, when he was already ninety-eight years old, twenty-three of which he had served with great fortitude in the episcopate, was about to depart this life. When the clergy asked him to whom the Church should be entrusted after him, he said, "If you seek a man endowed with piety and at the same time apt to teach, you have Paul; but if you prefer a man skilled in secular affairs and in dealing with magistrates, Macedonius is more suitable." ^D That both were honored by the testimony of Alexander, even the Macedonians admit. However, they assert that Paul was better instructed for practical affairs and for speaking, but they attribute the testimony of a pious and religious life to Macedonius: while they slander Paul as having been given to luxury and an easy manner of living. It appears, therefore, from their own admission, that he was a man of note.

^A and that he taught in the Church with the highest praise. But the events themselves testify that he was not rightly prepared for the various turns of fortune or for dealing with more powerful men. For he failed to counter any of the plots of his adversaries, as those who are skilled in such matters are wont to do. Indeed, though he was exceedingly beloved by the multitude, he suffered harm through the plotting of those who at that time rejected the dogma established at Nicaea. And first, being accused of having lived an impure life, he was subjected to a formal charge and was cast out of the Church of Constantinople. Eventually, he was also sentenced to live in exile, if it is true, as is said, that he died a miserable death by strangulation, his enemies having contrived his murder. But these things happened at a later time.

CHAPTER IV.

Concerning the sedition that arose on account of the ordination of Paul.

Then, indeed, a huge tumult arose because of this ordination and took hold of the Church of Constantinople. For as long as Alexander was alive, the Arians had little confidence or liberty; ^B but the people, with their eyes fixed upon him, followed his guiding nod and gave praise to God, especially after the unexpected calamity of Arius, whom they believed to have perished by divine vengeance in the manner we have described, through the prayers of Alexander. But after the death of Alexander, the multitude was divided into two parts and proceeded openly to disputes over doctrines and even to combat. The Arians were eager for Macedonius to be ordained, while the supporters of the coessentiality of the Son with the Father strove for Paul to be bishop; and this latter view prevailed. But after the ordination of Paul, when the emperor had arrived in the city—for he had been away at the time the ordination took place ^C—he was very displeased, as if the episcopate had been entrusted to an unworthy man. Through the machinations, therefore, of those who were hostile to Paul, a council was convened; he drove Paul out of the Church, and delivered the see of Constantinople to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. ^D

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. [index: entries preserved]

VARIORUM. [index: entries preserved]

Cap. V. Concerning the particular synod gathered at Antioch, which deposed Athanasius and introduced Gregory in his place; and concerning the two expositions of the faith, and those who agreed with them.

Having done these things, he came to Antioch in Syria. ^A Since the church there, which was of extraordinary size and beauty, had already been completed—at which Constantine, while he was still alive, had begun to build, using his son Constantius as his minister—it seemed a convenient time to the party of Eusebius, who had long desired this, for a synod to be held. These men, therefore, together with others of the same opinion, convened at Antioch at that time, to the number of ninety-seven bishops, from many different places. Their pretext was the dedication of the newly-built church; but as the outcome showed, their real purpose was to change the decrees made at Nicaea. Flaccillus was at that time head of the Church of the Antiochenes, following Euphronius. ^B The fifth year was passing since the death of Constantine the Great. Now that all the bishops had assembled, and the Emperor Constantius himself was present, the majority began to be indignant and heavily blamed Athanasius for having despised the priestly law which they themselves had established, and for having taken back the Church of the Alexandrians before he had been permitted to do so by a synod. Consequently, they even declared him responsible for the deaths of citizens, since when he entered the city a sedition had been stirred up, and many were killed while others were delivered to the courts. When, by such speeches, a most serious slander had been woven against Athanasius, they voted for Gregory to oversee the Church of the Alexandrians. ^C After this, they turned to the inquiry concerning the faith; they found no fault with what was settled at Nicaea, but they sent letters to the bishops of each city in which they indicated that, being bishops, they did not follow Arius; for how, they said, could they follow him, being a priest? Yet, having become examiners of his faith, they were all the more inclined to accept him, declaring that they believed according to the faith delivered from the beginning. This was the [faith] which they appended to their own. ^D

in which there is no mention of the substance of the Father and the Son, nor of the word "consubstantial"; it is so ambiguous and vague in its formulations that neither the Arians nor those who followed the Nicene synod could take exception to the arrangement of the words, as if they were unknown to the Holy Scriptures. For, passing over the terms which both sides equally rejected, they placed in this writing the words that were admitted by both. They agreed, for example, that the Son is with the Father, that He is the only-begotten and God, and that He existed before all things; that He took on flesh and fulfilled the Father's will, and acknowledged other similar things. Whether, however, He is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father or the opposite, they did not write down. ^B Having afterward repented, as it seems, of this writing, they published another in its place, which in other respects agrees, as I believe, with the doctrine of those who gathered at Nicaea, unless there lies hidden in the words some meaning unknown to me. But I do not know why, while refusing to call the Son "consubstantial," they declared His divinity to be unchangeable and not subject to conversion, and proclaimed Him to be an image of the Father’s substance, will, power, and glory, differing in nothing, and the firstborn of every creature. They said that they had found this faith written in the hand of Lucian himself, who suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia, a man who was outstanding in other respects and thoroughly versed in the Holy Scriptures. But whether they said this truly, or whether they wished to commend their own document with the authority of the martyr, I cannot say. ^C There were present at this council not only Eusebius, who, after Paul had been expelled, left Nicomedia and held the see of Constantinople; but also Acacius, the successor of Eusebius Pamphili, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodore of Heraclea—which was formerly called Perinthus—Eudoxius of Germanicia—who later, after Macedonius, was entrusted with the Church of Constantinople—and Gregory, who had been chosen to preside over the Church of the Alexandrians. These men at that time all confessed that they held the same views; but indeed, Dianius, [bishop] of Caesarea in Cappadocia, also ^D migrated.

and George of Laodicea which is in Syria, and many others who presided over metropolitan and other notable Churches. ^A

CHAPTER VI.

Of Eusebius of Emesa; and how Gregory entered Alexandria; and Athanasius, having fled, escapes to Rome.

^A he would take him along. For it is said that the Divine performed many miracles through him, as Georgius of Laodicea testifies, recounting these and other things about him. But although he was such a man, he did not escape the envy of those accustomed to being pained by the virtues of others. He himself, too, endured reproach, as holding the opinions of Sabellius. On this occasion, however, he voted for the same things as those who had gathered at Antioch. It is said, moreover, that Maximus, the bishop of Jerusalem, deliberately avoided this council, having repented that previously, being led into deceit, he had agreed with those who deposed Athanasius. Nor did the one holding the Roman throne, ^B or any other among the Italians, or any of those from beyond Rome, come together here. At this time, while the Franks were ravaging the Gauls in the western parts, and the eastern provinces—and especially the city of Antioch—were being shaken by ^C the most severe earthquakes after the council held there, Gregorius came to Alexandria with a multitude of soldiers; these had been ordered to ensure an untroubled and safe entry for him into the city. The followers of Arius also assisted them, both in carrying out this task and in driving Athanasius from the city. But he, fearing that the people might suffer any evil because of him, ^D and when night had fallen, held an assembly in the church; and as soon as the soldiers had taken possession of the church, having completed the prayer, he ordered a psalm to be recited first. While the singing of the psalm was in progress, the soldiers remained quiet for the time being, thinking it inopportune to launch an attack at that moment. In the meantime, slipping through the midst of those who were singing, he escaped unnoticed and was carried by ship to Rome. Gregorius took possession of the Alexandrian see; but the people, moved to indignation, burned down the church that was named after Dionysius, who had once been bishop of that city.

CAP. VII. Concerning the bishops of the city of Rome and Constantinople, and how, after the death of Eusebius, Paul was restored to his see. Also concerning the murder of Hermogenes, the master of the soldiers, and how Constantius, arriving from Antioch, removed Paul, and was violently enraged against the city. Then, leaving the case of Macedonius in doubt, he returned to Antioch.

In this manner the designs of those who supported the contrary heresy met with success, after the bishops who throughout the provinces of the East pertinaciously defended the faith established at the Synod of Nicaea had been deposed. And having occupied the most distinguished sees—namely, Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, and the royal city situated upon the Hellespont—they held the bishops throughout those regions obedient to them. But the prelate of the Roman Church and ^B all the clergy throughout the West regarded these actions as a personal insult. For since they had approved the judgment of those who had convened at Nicaea from the very beginning, they persevered in that same opinion to this day. Accordingly, they received Athanasius, who had come to them, with kindness, and took upon themselves the adjudication of his cause. When Eusebius bore this with resentment, he wrote to Julius, wishing him to be the judge of those things which had been decreed against Athanasius at Tyre. But he, before he could learn the opinion of Julius, departed from this life a short time after the synod celebrated at Antioch. ^C Those, however, who at Constantinople patronized the Nicene faith, brought Paul into the church. At the same time, when those of the opposing multitude were being gathered together, the followers of Theognius, bishop of Nicaea, and Theodorus of Heraclea, along with others who held the same opinions as these and happened to be residing there, met in another church and, with the aid of the Arian multitude, ordained Macedonius as bishop of Constantinople. From this source, frequent seditions arose in the city, not unlike wars. For the populace rushing upon one another from both sides, very many perished; ^D and the city was full of tumult, so that the emperor, who was then staying at Antioch, was informed of this matter, and, moved to anger, commanded that Paul be driven out again. Hermogenes, the master of the equestrian forces, was charged with the emperor’s commands. Having been sent to Thrace at that time, he was passing through Constantinople, and attempted to eject Paul from the church by military force. But when the people by no means permitted this to be done—nay, rather, repelled force with force—and the soldiers pressed on more violently in order to carry out what had been commanded, the seditious people rushed upon the house of Hermogenes, set it on fire, slew him, and, having tied a rope to his feet, dragged him through the city. The emperor, having heard this, rode with haste to Constantinople, intending to punish the populace severely. But...

when he saw them meeting him in tears and as suppliants, he spared them; ^A however, he took away from the citizens about half of the grain which his father Constantine had annually bestowed upon them from the public revenues of Egypt, perhaps thinking that the multitude, being abundant in leisure and luxury, was prone to sedition. Directing his anger against Paul, he ordered him to be expelled from the city. He was also severely displeased with Macedonius, both for having been the cause of the murder of Hermogenes, the master of the soldiers, and many others, and because he had been ordained before his own consent had been obtained. Nevertheless, without either approving or annulling his ordination, he left him thus ^B and returned to Antioch. While these things were being done, the supporters of the Arian dogma removed Gregory, as he was indolent in establishing their doctrine and was hateful to the Alexandrians due to the calamities that had befallen the city upon his arrival, and especially because of the burning of the church. In his place was sent George, who was a Cappadocian by race; he was admired for being active, and zealous for that dogma.

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the bishops of the East who had been expelled, and what Julius, Bishop of Rome, wrote on their behalf. And how, by the letters of Julius, Paul and Athanasius recovered their own sees; and what the bishops of the East wrote to Julius.

^C Athanasius, fleeing from Alexandria, arrived in Rome. At the same time it chanced that Paul, the bishop of Constantinople, also arrived there, as well as Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza, who, because he was opposed to the Arians, had been deposed after enduring an accusation by certain men of the contrary faction that he had overthrown an altar. But in his place, Quintianus was permitted to rule the Church of the Gazæans. Lucius, moreover, the bishop of Adrianople, having been spoiled of his own Church on account of another charge, was living in Rome. Therefore, when the Roman bishop had learned the causes of each one, and had found that all were in agreement concerning ^D the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, he received them into communion as men holding the same opinion as himself. And since, because of the dignity of his see, the care for all belonged to him, he restored to each his own Church. He also wrote to the bishops of the East, reproving them for not having judged rightly in the aforementioned cases, and for disturbing the state of the Churches by not acquiescing to the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. At the same time...

he ordered a few from among their number to be present ^A at the appointed day, to demonstrate that the sentence they had pronounced was just; and he threatened that he would not suffer it in the future, unless they desisted from their zeal for innovation. And Julius indeed wrote these things. But Athanasius and Paul regained their own sees, and sent the letters of Julius to the bishops throughout the East. They, however, took this grievously, and having gathered at Antioch, they wrote back to Julius a letter ^B adorned with fine styling, and composed in a forensic manner, filled with much irony, and not lacking in the most severe threats. For they acknowledged in their letters that the Roman Church holds a place of honor among all, as it has been from the beginning a school of the Apostles, and a metropolis of piety; even though those who initiated the doctrine had come to it from the East. Yet they did not deem that on this account they should hold the second place, because they were not excelled by the size or multitude of the Church ^C, inasmuch as they believed themselves to be superior in virtue and intent. Accusing Julius of a crime—namely, that he had communicated with the followers of Athanasius—they were indignant as though their synod had been insulted, and its judgment abrogated. And they maligned this act as unjust and alien to ecclesiastical law. Complainant in these matters and protesting that they had suffered terrible things, they promised Julius peace and communication ^D if he were willing to admit the deposition of those who had been expelled by them, and the ordination of those who had been substituted in their place; but to those resisting what had been decreed, they prophesied the contrary. Since they also insisted that the priests before them throughout the East had nothing to say in opposition, when Novatianus was cast out of the Roman Church. Concerning the things done regarding the decisions... [index: entries preserved]

^A of the Nicene synod, they wrote nothing to him in return; indicating that they indeed had many necessary reasons by which they could defend their conduct, but that for the present they deemed it superfluous to institute a defense of these matters, since they were being accused of having acted unjustly in everything in general.

CAPUT IX. How Paul was cast out, and Macedonius was inducted into his place in the Constantinian see.

^B They wrote to Julius in this manner. But before Emperor Constantius they again slandered those bishops whom they had deposed. He, therefore, dwelling at that time in Antioch, wrote to Philip the praetorian prefect, who was then staying in Constantinople, that he should expel Paul from the city and restore the church to Macedonius. The prefect, fearing a tumult of the populace before the emperor's command could be made public, proceeded to a public bath, quite large and illustrious, which is called Zeuxippus, and summoned Paul to him, as though he were about to treat with him concerning public business. When he arrived immediately, Philip showed him the emperor's letter, and at the same time, secretly through the palace which is adjacent to the bath, ordered him to be led to the sea; he then had him placed upon a ship and sent to Thessalonica, from which city it was said his ancestors originated. He expressly forbade him from the regions of the East, but did not at all prohibit him from setting foot in Illyricum and the ^C further provinces. Departing then from the praetorium, he proceeded to the church, having Macedonius sitting with him in his chariot. But the crowd—for upon these things becoming known, they had gathered in countless numbers—immediately filled the church. For individuals, both from the faction of the Arians and from the supporters of Paul, were vying with the greatest zeal to occupy it. After the prefect had approached the doors of the church together with Macedonius, when the common people, urged by the soldiers that a passage might be provided for them, could not move back, inasmuch as the spaces further behind were crowded, the soldiers, thinking the populace was resisting on purpose, slaughtered many with their swords. Many also perished, trampled underfoot by one another. By this method, that ^D which the emperor had ordered was accomplished, and Macedonius obtained the churches. Thus Paul was unexpectedly despoiled of the Constantinopolitan church in this manner. Athanasius, however, having fled, remained in hiding, fearing the threats of Emperor Constantius. For the emperor had threatened him with death, moved by the calumnies of the Arians, who said that seditions were stirred up by him, and that upon his entering the city many had been killed. But that which especially stirred the anger of the emperor was the claim that he had sold the grain allowance which Emperor Constantine had donated to the poor of the city of Alexandria, and had turned it to his own profit.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (82) He writes to Philip the prefect. See what I have noted on book two of Socrates, chapter 16, where I have discussed at greater length this error of Sozomen, which he holds in common with Socrates.

CHAPTER X

But since the bishops of Egypt had written that these things were false, Julius, perceiving that it was not safe for Athanasius to reside in Egypt for the time being, summoned him to himself. As for those who had gathered at Antioch, for he had by that time received their letter, he wrote to them, rebuking them for clandestinely innovating regarding the faith of the ^B Council of Nicaea, and for not having called him to the synod, contrary to the laws of the Church. For there is a priestly law, he said, declaring null and void any acts performed contrary to the opinion of the Roman bishop. He also argued that the things done at Tyre and in the Mareotis were not performed in a proper trial against Athanasius; and he accused the former of being a calumny regarding Arsenius, and the latter, those in the Mareotis, of being void because of the absence of Athanasius. Furthermore, he rebuked the arrogance of their letters. From these points, and from all the evidence, he concluded that it was necessary to aid Athanasius and Paul. For not long after, he himself—Paul—arrived in Italy and lamented his own misfortunes. But since he achieved nothing by the letters he wrote about them to the priests in the East, he made their situation clear to the Emperor Constans. The latter wrote to his brother Constantius to send some of the bishops from the East, who might render an account of their deposition. And for this purpose they chose three: Narcissus, bishop of Irenopolis in Cilicia, and Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, ^C and Maris of Chalcedon in Bithynia.

Syria. When they had arrived in Italy and began to defend their actions, they endeavored to persuade the Emperor that the judgment of the Eastern synod had been just. But when it was required of them that they set forth their faith, they concealed the formula of faith which had been promulgated by them at Antioch, and offered instead another profession of faith comprised in a document, which nevertheless did not differ from the faith approved at the Council of Nicaea. Accordingly, Constans, perceiving that they had unjustly plotted against Paul and Athanasius—and that they had shunned communion with them not because of any crimes or moral turpitude, as the sentence of deposition claimed, but because of the disagreement regarding doctrine—sent them back to their own country, since they had been unable to persuade him of the matters for which they had come. ^A

CAP. XI.

Concerning the prolix formula of faith, and concerning those things which were done in the synod of Serdica; and how the Orientals deposed Julius, Bishop of Rome, and Hosius, the Spanish bishop, because they had communicated with Athanasius and the others.

Three years having now elapsed, the Eastern bishops again sent another document to the bishops of the West, which is commonly called the "long-lined" (macro-stichos) exposition, because it is written in a more prolix style than the preceding ones. In this, they made no mention of the substance of God. They did, however, excommunicate those who say that the Son is from things which are not, or from another hypostasis, and not from God; and that there was a time or age when He did not exist. When Eudoxius, who was bishop of Germanicia, along with Martyrius and Macedonius, had brought this document, the priests of the West refused to accept it; for they said that they were content with the decrees of the Nicene synod, and they did not believe that anything further should be investigated with excessive curiosity. ^B And when Constans Augustus, as a favor, had requested of his brother that he should restore Athanasius to his own see, and yet had accomplished nothing by his letters, due to the obstruction of the men of the heretical faction, Athanasius and Paul approached Constans and demanded that a synod be held, claiming that they had been plotted against for the purpose of subverting the doctrine of the right faith. By the common consent of both emperors, it was resolved that the bishops both of the Eastern and of the Western parts should meet on a set day at Serdica; this is a city of Illyria. ^C When they had first gathered at Philippopolis ^D

^A in Thrace, the Easterners wrote to those who had already arrived at Serdica that they should remove Athanasius from the council and from their communion, as one who had been deposed; they further stated that they would not meet otherwise. After this, when they had arrived at Serdica, they asserted that they would not set foot into the church while those who had been deposed by them were gathering there. To this, the bishops from the West wrote back that they had never departed from their communion, nor would they depart from it now; especially since Julius, the bishop of Rome, had examined their case and had not condemned them. They further stated that they [Athanasius and his party] were present and were ready to stand trial and to refute once again the charges brought against them. But since, by declaring these things among themselves, they achieved nothing, and the time appointed for the day on which they were to judge the matters for which they had assembled had already passed, they finally wrote these things to one another, by which they settled into a state of greater hostility than before. And having assembled by themselves, they cast opposing votes. ^B For the Orientals, having confirmed what had already been decided by them regarding Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, and Asclepas, deposed Julius, the bishop of Rome, for being the first to initiate communion with them; as well as Hosius the confessor, for the same reason, and because he had been a friend to Paulinus and Eustathius [(87)], who had presided over the Church of the Antiochians; and finally Maximinus, the bishop of Treves, because he was the first to communicate with Paul [(88)] and was the cause of his journey to Constantinople, and because he had excommunicated the bishops from the East who had come to Gaul. In addition to these, they also deposed Protogenes, the bishop of Serdica, and Gaudentius [(89)]. The former, because he fought on behalf of Marcellus, having previously cast a vote against him; and Gaudentius, because he exerted himself in a manner contrary to Cyriacus, whose successor he was, and made much of those who had been deposed by them.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

^A Having thus voted, they made it known to the bishops everywhere: that they should neither admit them to communion, nor write to them, nor receive what was written by them. Regarding God, however, they commanded that they should believe according to the way the writing subjoined to their epistle suggested: which made no mention of the *Consubstantial*, but declared those to be aliens from the Church who said that there were three Gods, or that Christ was not God, or that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were the same, or that the Son was unbegotten, or that there was a time or age when He was not.

CHAP. XII.

On the other hand, those who were gathered with Hosius declared them innocent: first, Athanasius, because the bishops assembled at Tyre had unjustly laid a snare for him; next, Marcellus, inasmuch as he confessed that he did not hold the views his accusers imputed to him; also, Asclepas, because he had recovered his bishopric by the judgment of Eusebius Pamphili and many other judges, and had shown ^B the record of the trial as proof that these things were true; and finally, Lucius, because his accusers had fled. And they wrote to the churches of each, that they should hold them as their bishops and await them shortly; but as for Gregory in Alexandria, Basil in Ancyra, and Quintian in Gaza, they were not even to name them as bishops, nor have any communion with them, nor even consider them Christians. They also deposed from the bishopric Theodore the Thracian, Narcissus the bishop of Irenopolis, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Menophantus of Ephesus, Ursacius of Singidunum in Mysia, Valens of Mursa in Pannonia, and ^C finally George, the bishop of Laodicea, even if this last one had not come to that council along with the bishops from the East. They deprived these men of their priesthood and communion because they separated the Son from the substance of the Father, and had received those who had long since been deposed on account of the heresy of Arius, and had promoted them to higher degrees of divine ministry. Because of these things, having excommunicated them and judged them to be aliens to the Catholic Church, they wrote to the bishops everywhere, [proclaiming] them to be so. ^D

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

to confirm the things decided by them, and to hold the same opinion as they regarding the dogma. ^A At that time they also set forth another confession of faith, broader than the one at Nicaea, yet maintaining the same meaning and not differing much from its words. Indeed, Hosius and Protogenes, who were then the presiding officers among those from the West who had gathered at Sardica, fearing perhaps that they might be thought by some to be innovating upon what had been determined by those at Nicaea, wrote to Julius and testified that they held those decrees to be valid; but that for the sake of clarity, they had expounded the same meaning more broadly, so that those who held the views of Arius, by abusing the brevity of the former document, might not be given an opportunity to draw the inexperienced into an absurd understanding through their endless disputations. Having done these things, both parties dissolved the assembly and each returned to their own homes. This synod was convened in the consulship of Rufinus and Eusebius, in the eleventh year after the death of Constantine. There gathered about three hundred bishops from the cities of the West; from the East, seventy-six. Among these was Ischyras, to whom ^B the bishopric of Mareotis had been entrusted by the enemies of Athanasius.

CHAPTER XIII.

How the Orientals and the Occidentals were separated from each other after the synod: and how the Occidentals rightly preserved the Nicene faith, whereas the Orientals, because of contention concerning the faith, were in disagreement among themselves.

After this synod, they no longer associated with one another as people of one mind, nor did they hold communion. Those of the West separated themselves as far as Thrace, and those of the East as far as Illyricum. As was to be expected, the state of the Churches was thrown into confusion by dissensions and slander. For if they had previously differed regarding doctrine, yet, by remaining in communion with each other, they did not make the evil great, and they were generally thought to hold the same view. For the ^C whole Church of the West, as it clung sincerely to the doctrine of the ancestors, was throughout almost entirely free from any contention or quarrel about these matters. Even if the subjects there were eager to turn toward the Arean opinion, Auxentius, who became bishop of Milan, and Valens and

Ursacius of Pannonia ^A, did not succeed in their attempt according to their desire; for the Roman bishop resisted, and other priests took diligent precautions and amputated the germs of that heresy. Although the Eastern Church began to be tumultuous after the Antiochene synod and openly dissented ^B from the faith of Nicaea, in truth, the greater part, in my judgment, conspired in the same opinion and confessed that the Son was derived from the substance of the Father. Some, however, driven by a spirit of contention, impugned the word "Consubstantial." For those who had been opposed to this term from the beginning considered it a disgrace—as I believe and as often happens to many—if they appeared to have been overcome. Others, having been led by frequent disputations on this subject to believe what they did about God, could not thereafter be moved from their opinion. ^C Others again, who saw the aforementioned contending perversely against what was proper, inclined toward what was pleasing to both sides, because of power or familiarity or other causes by which men are wont to be led to indulge things that should not be indulged, or not to use freedom and confidence where there is need for rebuke. Many, indeed, considering it foolish to waste time in altercations of this sort, silently acquiesced in the decrees of the Nicene bishops. But above all other Easterns, Paul, bishop of Constantinople ^D, and Athanasius of Alexandria, and the whole multitude of monks, and the Great Antony who was still alive, and those who were associated with him, and many others throughout Egypt and in the rest of the provinces of the Roman empire, were seen to adhere tenaciously to the decrees of the Nicene council. But since I have made mention of these men who were renowned during the reign of Constantius, I will briefly enumerate whomever I have taken note of.

CAP. XIV. Concerning the holy men who flourished at that time in Egypt, namely Antony, the two Macarii, Heraclius, Cronius, Paphnutius, Putubastus, Arsisius, Serapion, Pityrion, Pachomius, Apollonius, Anuph, Hilarion, and many others.

I shall begin from Egypt, and from the two Macarii, the most renowned leaders who were set over the region of Scetis and the mountain of that territory. Of these, one was called the Egyptian; the other, the Politicus, that is, the urban one. For he was by birth—

^A from the city of Alexandria. Both, moreover, were admirable for their divine foreknowledge and philosophy, and were fearsome to demons, and accomplished many wondrous deeds and miraculous cures. It is said that the Egyptian indeed brought a dead man back to life, to persuade a certain heretic that there would be a resurrection of the dead. He lived about ninety years, of which he spent sixty in the desert. As soon as he began to philosophize, while still in the prime of youth, he so excelled that he was commonly called by the monks a boy-elder, and at forty years of age he was promoted to the priesthood. The other became a priest much later. But he underwent almost all forms of ascetic discipline: some he had devised himself; others he had heard of from others, and he cultivated them with such zeal that from the excessive aridity of the skin, the hairs of his beard could not grow. At the same time, there were also philosophizing in the same region Pambo, Heraclides, Cronius, ^B Paphnutius, Putubastes, Arsisius, the great Serapio, and Pityrio, who had his dwelling near the Thebans; and finally Pachomius, who became the leader and founder of those called the Tabennensians. Their habit and manner of life differed in some respects from that of other monks; yet it was directed to virtue, and provoked the soul to despise earthly things and to look upwards, so that it might pass easily to heavenly things whenever it had to depart from the body. They clothe themselves in skins, after the example of Elijah the Tishbite, for this reason, as I suppose, so that, reminded by the skin garment of the virtue of that prophet, they might stoutly resist shameful desires, and, spurred on both by the zeal of imitating him and by the hope of similar rewards, more willingly pursue temperance. They say also that the other garments of the monks of Egypt are related to a certain form of philosophy, and do not differ from those of others rashly and without cause. They wear ^C tunics without sleeves, to teach that the hands should be restrained from doing injury. They wear on their head a covering they call a hood, so that they may live as simply and purely as the children nourished by milk, upon whom such caps are placed, covering their governing [reason] and...

bringing it to the recollection that they must be ready for the service of God and for labor. A girdle and a hood 2—the one constricting the waist, the other supporting the shoulders and arms—remind them to be prompt and prepared for the service of God and for the performing of works. I am not unaware that others have offered different explanations for these things. For me, it is sufficient to say this much: They say that Pachomius at first practiced this philosophy alone in a cave. But a divine angel appeared to him and exhorted him to gather together young monks and to live with them. For he had sufficiently mastered the philosophy of his own life, and it was necessary that, by presiding over communities, he should benefit many. He [the angel] commanded that he should lead them by whatever laws he might set down; and he gave him a tablet, which they still preserve. The writing contained therein ordered that he should permit each one to eat, drink, work, and fast, or not, as he was able. To those, however, who ate more vigorously, he should assign the more laborious tasks, and the easier ones to those who were practicing self-restraint. He ordered him to build many small dwellings, and that three monks should reside in each dwelling; but that all should partake of food under one roof; and that they should eat in silence, and sit at the tables with their faces covered, so that they might neither see one another, nor anything else except the table and the things set before them. No stranger was to eat with them, unless perhaps one was received into hospitality while passing through; but if anyone wished to live with them, he was, for the space of three years, to perform the more difficult tasks, and only then to be joined to their community. He ordered them to be clothed in skins, and to cover their heads with woolen caps. He also ordered that these caps be marked with certain purple studs. He ordered them to use linen tunics and girdles, and to sleep while girded in their tunics and skins, sitting on built-up chairs, enclosed on both sides in such a way as to contain each monk’s bedding. By the first and last day of the week, approaching the altar for the communion of the divine mysteries, they were to loosen their girdles and lay aside their skins. Furthermore, he ordered them to pray twelve times throughout the day: exactly six times in the morning, and similarly in the evening. Likewise at night, and at the ninth hour, a third time. Whenever they were about to eat, they were to chant a psalm before each prayer. He ordered the entire community to be divided into twenty-four companies, and to name these after the Greek alphabet letters; and that they should adapt the name to each company according to its manner of life and character. ^{B C D} [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]

According to these rules, Pachomius used to lead his disciples—a man most humane and extremely beloved of God, so that he could foresee future events and often conversed with divine angels. He dwelt on the island of Tabenna ^A in the Thebaid, from whence they are to this day called Tabennensians. Living under these rules, they became most celebrated, and in time increased in number so as to reach seven thousand men. For the community on the island of Tabenna, with whom Pachomius himself dwelt, contained about thirteen hundred, while the rest lived throughout the Thebaid ^B and the remainder of Egypt. But there was one and the same discipline for all, and all things were common to all; and they regarded the community on the island of Tabenna as a mother, and those who presided there as fathers and leaders. At this time also Apollonius was distinguished for his philosophical life [Note: [alt-version omitted]].

He is said to have embraced the monastic ^A philosophy in the desert at fifteen years of age, and attained forty years in that state, when by divine command he came to inhabited regions. He himself also had a residence in the Thebaid. He was most beloved of God, a worker of miraculous healings and signs, practical in what was necessary, and a good and charming teacher of those who came to philosophy. He was so effective in prayers that nothing he asked of God remained ungranted. For being wise, he asked wisely for those things to which the Divine is naturally ready to assent. I suppose the divine Anuph lived in these same times; I have learned that from the time he first confessed Christ in the persecutions raised for the sake of the faith, he neither spoke a lie nor coveted any of the things on earth. He obtained all he sought from God and was trained in every virtue by a divine angel. But let this suffice for now concerning the monks in Egypt.

Palestine, too, had already begun to philosophize in the same way, having learned from the Egyptians; and the divine Hilarion was then ^B flourishing there. His homeland was a village called Thabatha, situated to the south of Gaza by a torrent; this stream, which has its outlets into the sea, took its name from that very village in the local tongue. While he was studying grammar in Alexandria, he went into the desert to visit the great monk Antony. Having conversed with him, he decided to philosophize in a similar manner. He spent but a short time there and returned to his homeland. For he was not permitted to remain quiet according to his intention, as many were arriving daily to see Antony. Having returned home and finding his parents dead, he distributed his property to his brothers ^C and to those in need. Leaving nothing at all for himself, he spent his time in a desert place by the sea, about twenty stadia from his own village. His dwelling was a small hut, constructed of mud, chaff, and broken tiles; it was of such width, height, and length that it was necessary when standing to stoop, and when lying down to draw up one’s feet. For he accustomed himself in all things to endure hardship and to master sloth. Indeed, among those we know of unboastful and proven temperance, he left no one a possibility of excess, struggling ^D against lack of food and drink, against cold and heat, and against other bodily passions, and against the flatteries of the...

^A mind. He was diligent in his character, grave in his speech, and a precise and accurate seeker of the Holy Scriptures. And he became so dear to God that even now many who are sick or possessed by demons are healed at his tomb; and the most paradoxical thing is that this happens both among the Cypriots, where he was first buried, and among the Palestinians, among whom he is now. For it happened that he died while staying in Cyprus, where he was adorned by the locals with funeral rites and held in great honor and attendance by them. After this, Hesychius, who became the most distinguished of his disciples, stole the remains, transported them to Palestine, and buried them in his own monastery. And from that time, the locals there celebrate a public and very brilliant annual festival. For it is a custom for the Palestinians to honor the good men who have lived among them, as indeed they also did with Aurelius of Anthedon, Alexion from Bethagathon, and Alaphion from Asalea, who, living in the same period, under the present reign, piously and bravely practiced the philosophical life, and by their own virtues advanced the religion in the cities and villages here, which were very much given over to Hellenism. At that time, Julian was living the philosophical life near Edessa, setting out on a most exacting ^B and, so to speak, incorporeal way of life and conduct, such that he seemed to be composed of bones and skin, lacking flesh; and this became an occasion for Ephrem the Syrian author to compose a narrative of his life. And God Himself gave His approval to what men thought of him, bestowing upon him the power to drive out demons and to heal all kinds of diseases—not with any medicines, but by prayer. At this time, the subjects in these parts were also distinguished by other many ecclesiastical philosophers, both throughout the region of Edessa and in the city of the Amidians, around the mountain called Gaugaleus; among whom were Daniel and Simeon. But let this be said for now regarding the monks in Syria. And more fully, if God wills, it will be said in the following pages concerning them. As for the Armenians and the Paphlagonians, and those living towards the Pontus, it is said that Eustathius, who had the church in Sebastia of Armenia... ^{C D}

was the author of the monastic mode of life; and that he laid down precepts concerning the discipline of a more restricted life, regarding the foods that should be used or abstained from, the clothes that ought to be worn, and finally, concerning behavior and an exact mode of living. So much so that some affirm the ascetic book, which is commonly attributed to Basil of Cappadocia, to have been written by him. It is said, however, that through excessive severity, he drifted into certain absurd observances, which differed greatly from ecclesiastical laws. Others, however, acquit him of this fault, but accuse some of his disciples who condemned marriage, refused to pray in the houses of married people, and despised priests who had taken wives; and who fasted on the Lord's days, held gatherings in private houses, declared that the rich were absolutely excluded from the kingdom of God, and turned away from those who ate meat; and who refused to wear the common tunics and clothing used by everyone, but used strange and unusual dress, and introduced many other such innovations. Because of this, it is said that not a few women were misled into leaving their husbands; and when they could not subsequently contain themselves, they committed adultery; and some, under a pretext of piety, cut their hair and dressed in male attire, in a manner unbecoming to women. For these reasons, the neighboring bishops of Gangra, which is the metropolis of Paphlagonia, assembled ^D and decreed that they were alien to the catholic Church unless they renounced individually each of the things mentioned, according to the terms of the synod. From this, there is a story that Eustathius, demonstrating that he did not introduce these things or practice them out of self-will, but for the sake of the exercise according to God, changed his dress ^A and performed his processions in a way similar to the other priests. While he lived in such a manner, he was also admired for his words. To tell the truth, he was not a powerful speaker. For he had not trained himself in the skill of rhetoric. But his character was admirable, and he was most capable of persuading; so that he persuaded many of the men and women who went out to him to assume a temperate and serious life. They say that he, when a certain man and woman were pretending to practice virginity according to the custom of the Church, and were slandered for living together, strove to persuade them to cease from their association with one another. Failing in this, he lamented greatly and said that according to the law to a husband

a woman living with him, upon hearing his discourses on temperance, abstained from the intercourse that it is lawful for wives to have with their own husbands; yet he was unable to persuade those who were unlawfully cohabiting to cease from their practice. It is said that such a man was the author of the strict monastic discipline in this region. ^A The Thracians and Illyrians, and all who inhabit what is called Europe, although they were still inexperienced in monastic living, were not entirely destitute of philosophical men. At that time, Martin was well known among them; he was from Sabaria in Pannonia, of noble birth, and having served brilliantly in the army, he became a commander. But preferring divine things, he embraced the philosophical life. He resided first among the Illyrians; but because he contended zealously for the faith and detected some of the bishops there holding the opinions of Arius, he was plotted against and, having been publicly beaten many times, he was expelled. Coming to Milan, he lived a solitary life. He withdrew from there, having been plotted against by the bishop Auxentius, who also did not hold the correct view concerning the faith of those who had assembled at Nicaea. For a time, he lived content with roots and herbs, and inhabited an island which they call Gallinaria. ^B It is small and uninhabited, lying in the Tyrrhenian Sea. In time, he was entrusted with the bishopric of the church in Tarracina. It is handed down that he progressed so far in miracles ^C that he was believed even to raise the dead, and performed other signs not falling short of the Apostolic ones. In this context, we have also received that Hilary lived at that time, a man wondrous in life and speech, who shared in the exile of Martin because of his zeal for the faith. Concerning the men, therefore, who were then philosophizing in piety and the ecclesiastical discipline, these are the things I learned and have written. But many other very learned men were also flourishing in the churches at the same time. Most notable among them were Eusebius, who oversaw the priesthood of Emesa, and Titus of Bostra, and Serapion the Thmuite, and Basil of Ancyra, and Eudoxius of Germanicia, and Acacius of Caesarea, and Cyril, who oversaw the throne of Jerusalem. As a token of their learning, they have composed and left behind many works worthy of mention. ^D

CHAPTER XV.

At the same time, Didymus ^B also flourished as an ecclesiastical writer, being the head of the school of sacred disciplines in the city of Alexandria. He had filled his heart with every kind of knowledge; for he was skilled in poets and orators, in geometry, astronomy, and arithmetic, as well as in the theories of the philosophers. Of all these things, he had gained an understanding by the mind alone and by hearing. For while still a boy, at the first stage of learning his letters, he was deprived of his sight. But when he later reached the age of puberty, he was ignited with a desire for liberal studies; and, frequenting the teachers of these subjects, he lent only his ears to them. Yet he made such progress in every branch of learning that he even grasped the most difficult mathematical theorems. It is said that he learned the forms of letters by touching with his fingers those which had been deeply engraved on a tablet; and that, by the comprehension of his mind ^C and by assiduous listening and recalling the things he had heard, he subsequently learned syllables, names, and all the rest. This was no common miracle. Many, moved by his reputation, traveled to Alexandria: some for the sake of hearing him, others only to see him. He distressed the Arians not a little, as he defended the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea. For he persuaded them very easily, and this not through the violence of his speech, but through the faculty of persuasion in which he excelled, making each one of them, as it were, an arbiter of the controversy. All the Catholics, however, embraced him with singular benevolence. The hosts of monks also, who lived in Egypt, praised him highly, as did that great Antony. It is said that when Antony came to Alexandria at that time ^D to confirm the faith of Athanasius with his testimony, he spoke as follows to Didymus: "It is not a grievous thing, nor is it to be lamented, O Didymus, that you lack eyes, with which lizards, mice, and the lowliest of animals are gifted. But it is rather blessed and pleasant that you have eyes like those of angels, with which you clearly contemplate God and accurately perceive true knowledge." Moreover, among the Italians and those living under their sway, Eusebius and the aforementioned Hilary—who were distinguished for their virtue and their native eloquence—also flourished; of whom it is said that they delivered masterful discourses concerning the faith and against the heretics.

^A Lucifer, too, is reported to have been the founder of the sect that bears his name. At this same time, Aetius was also held in great admiration among the heterodox; he was a man skilled in dialectics and capable in syllogistic reasoning, one who had dedicated his leisure to rhetorical disputes and labored earnestly in these pursuits. Undeniably, because he discussed matters regarding God with such rashness, he was labeled an atheist by many. It is said that he was initially a physician at Antioch in Syria, and that by diligently frequenting the churches and discussing the Holy Scriptures, he became known to Gallus, who was Caesar at that time. Gallus, being greatly concerned with religion and taking immense pleasure in men who were devoted to piety, ^B became friendly with Aetius under the pretext of such discussions—as is likely the case—and Aetius trained himself in this type of discourse so as to be more pleasing to him. It was said, in fact, that he had delved into the teachings of Aristotle and had attended the lectures of his instructors in Alexandria. There were many others besides these in the churches, capable of teaching and arguing about the Holy Scriptures; but to enumerate them all is a difficult task.

Let no one find it burdensome that I have seen fit to praise certain individuals who were either leaders or proponents of the aforementioned heresies. ^C For I agree that they were admirable, for the sake of their eloquence and their cleverness in discourse, but concerning their doctrines, let those whose duty it is to judge such things render their decision. For it was not my intention to write about these matters, nor does it befit history, whose task it is to recount only the events that occurred, without adding anything of its own. Let all those who, having employed either the Latin or the Greek tongue, flourished at that time in the praise of learning and eloquence—so far as we have received information about them—be ranked in the number mentioned above.

CHAPTER XVI. On Saint Ephraim

^A exercised himself in the monastic philosophy from an early age. And although he had been taught by no one, nor had any hope ever been held out that he would become such a man, he suddenly attained such a degree of learning in the Syriac tongue that he could grasp even the most difficult theorems of philosophy; and by the ease and brilliance of his discourse, and the density and wisdom of his thoughts, he surpassed the most esteemed writers among the Greeks. Thus, at any rate, if one were to translate the writings of the latter into the Syriac or another language—taking away, so to speak, the seasoning of Greek eloquence—they are immediately detected, and lose their former grace. This does not happen, however, with the writings of Ephraim. For even while he was still alive, and still today, those things which he wrote are translated into the Greek tongue, and they fall little short of the excellence which they possess in their original language. ^B Indeed, even a Greek reader (23) finds him as admirable as one who is Syrian. Certainly Basil, who later became bishop of the metropolis of Cappadocia, admired the man and held his learning in high regard. Thus it appears to me that this testimony, uttered by the voice of Basil, was justly brought back by those among the Greeks who were then admired for their eloquence, as it is agreed that he had become the most learned of all his contemporaries. It is said that he wrote in total about three hundred myriads of verses (24), and that he had many students, who zealously emulated his learning. The most notable among these were Abbas, and Zenobius (25), and Abraham, and Maras, and Simeon, in whom the children of Syria take great pride (26), and all those who...

have been distinguished among the Syrians for a more profound knowledge of doctrine. They likewise commend Paulonas and Aranad ^A for their eloquence; but they say that they strayed from the sound doctrines of the faith. I am not ignorant that long ago there were also among the Osrhoenians men of great learning, namely Bardesanes, who founded the heresy named after him, and his son Harmonius. It is said that he, having been excellently instructed in the learning of the Greeks, was the first to subject his native tongue to meters and musical laws, and to entrust them to choirs; in which manner the Syrians even now frequently sing, not using the compositions written by Harmonius, but using his meters. For since he was not entirely alien to his father’s heresy, nor to those things which the philosophers of the Greeks believe regarding the soul, the generation and corruption of the body, and its regeneration, ^B he composed his own writings to the music of the lyre and inserted those opinions into his works. But Ephraim, seeing that the Syrians were captivated by the beauty of the expressions and the rhythm of the melody, and that they were by this means gradually being accustomed to believe as he did, although he himself was devoid of Greek learning, applied himself to the comprehension of the meters of Harmonius. He then composed other writings, consonant with ecclesiastical doctrine, to match the melodies of those compositions; such as those which he labored upon in divine hymns and in the praises of holy men. From that time forth, the Syrians have been accustomed to sing the writings of Ephraim according to the meters of the songs of Harmonius. From this, therefore, one may judge how great he was in natural ability. ^C As for his manner of life, he was no less regarded for his good works and his strict way of living; he was a great lover of quiet, and moreover, he was so grave and so fearful of slander that he would avoid even the mere sight of any woman. It is reported, indeed, that a certain woman of loose life, and perhaps of shameless character—whether moved by her own impulse to tempt the man, or whether she had been urged to do this by others for a price—met him by design in a narrow street, standing directly in his path and gazing at him with fixed eyes. He chided her and commanded her to look upon the ground. "And why," said the woman, "should I do so, I who was not born from the earth, but from you? For it is more just," she said, "that you should look upon the earth from which you have your origin, and I upon you, from whom I am." ^D Ephraim, moved with admiration for the woman, shaped the incident into a composition, which the learned among the Syrians have placed among the most excellent of his writings. It is said, indeed, that having previously been prone to uncontrollable anger, from the time he adopted the monastic life...

he was never seen by anyone to be angry. ^A Thus, on one occasion, having fasted for many days as was his custom, the attendant who brought him food broke the pot. Perceiving him to be overwhelmed by shame and fear, he said, "Be of good cheer; even we shall go to the food, since it has not come to us." And sitting down by the fragments of the pot, he ate his meal. How much he was above vainglory can be understood from this. Some had proposed him for the episcopate and were attempting to seize him, as if to lead him to ordination. Immediately sensing this, he rushed into the marketplace, and by walking in a disorderly fashion, dragging his garment, and eating in public, he displayed himself as if he were a madman. When those who had come to seize him saw this, thinking the man to be out of his mind, they ceased their efforts to capture and pursue him. Having found his opportunity, he fled and remained in hiding until someone else had been ordained. ^B For me, however, these things concerning Ephraim shall suffice; the local people know and recount many more. But that which he did shortly before his death, since it seems to me worthy of record, I shall set forth in this place. For when a famine had long been pressing upon the city of the Edessenes, he came forth after a long time from the cell in which he practiced philosophy and began to rebuke the wealthy, because they were neglecting their fellow tribesmen who were perishing from want of food, acting against the law of right, and were greedily hoarding their wealth to their own ruin and to the torment of their own souls—which he demonstrated by his philosophy to be more precious than all kinds of wealth, the body itself, and all other things—and by their deeds he exposed that they held their own soul of no value. They, respecting the man and his words, answered him thus: "We have little care for wealth, but we are at a loss as to whom its distribution should be entrusted, since almost everyone gapes after gain and abuses the matter for the sake of profit." Then he asked, "What manner of man do I seem to you to be?" ^C When they admitted that he was a man trustworthy, and truly good and upright, and altogether such as fame had reported of him, he said, "For your sake, therefore, I will gladly undertake this duty." Having received money from them, he set up about three hundred beds in the public porticos and began to care for those who had contracted illness from the famine. And he ministered to them, and welcomed strangers, and those who had arrived from the countryside due to the scarcity of necessities. ^D When the famine had ceased, he returned to the cell where he had dwelt before this. And having lived for a few days more, he died, having risen to the rank of a confessor, but having become renowned for virtue, no less than those who are admired for priesthood, for their conduct of life, and for their scholarly learning. These are the testimonies of the virtue of Ephraim. Although it would be worthy to speak and to describe for everyone how he and each of those who practiced philosophy at that time lived and acted, and under whom they did so, it would require a work of greater scale. But I see this as an impossible task for me, both because of the weakness of my words and because of my ignorance of them and of the deeds they accomplished. For some remained hidden in the deserts; others, while spending time in the throng of cities, offered themselves as appearing to be lowly and no different from the many; though they were cultivating virtue, they concealed the true estimation of themselves, so that they would not be praised by others. P

For, as they fastened their minds upon the reward of future goods, they made God alone the witness of their labors; and of external glory, they had no concern. ^B

Chapter XVII. Regarding the matters of that time, and how the Christian religion grew, through the cooperation of the emperors and the bishops.

In general, those who presided over the Churches at that time lived lives of strict discipline. Consequently, the crowds governed by such prelates applied themselves with great zeal to the worship of Christ; and the religion increased day by day, while by the fervor, virtue, and marvelous deeds of the priests and the ecclesiastic philosophers, the Gentiles were attracted to it and recalled from Greek superstition. The emperors themselves also contributed much to the advancement of these things, for they did not labor less than their father for the Churches; they honored the clergy, their children, and their servants with exceptional privileges and exemptions, and they confirmed the laws of their fathers, while at the same time establishing their own laws against those who presumed to sacrifice, or to worship idols, or in any way to practice Greek superstition. They ordered that the temples everywhere, whether in cities or in the country, be closed. Some of the temples they assigned to the Churches, provided they had need of the space or the materials for building. For they applied all their care and zeal to this: to restore those houses of prayer that had fallen into decay through age, or to erect new ones magnificently from the foundations. Among these was the Church of Emesa, most worthy of being seen and celebrated everywhere for its beauty. Moreover, they legislated that no Jew should purchase a slave of another sect; if he did so, the slave was to become public property. ^D If he were even to circumcise such a slave, as is allowed for the Jews, the danger was to be on his own head, and he would face the forfeiture of his goods. For since they wished to increase the religion on all sides, they took thought also for this, that

those who were not of Jewish extraction should not be enticed away to Judaism with impunity, but that [members of] the Church should be preserved, and also those who had hope of coming over to the Christian religion. For the religion was growing primarily from the number of the Gentiles.

Chapter XVIII. Regarding the faith of the children of Constantine, and the difference between the 'consubstantial' and the 'of-like-substance', and whence it came that Constantius strayed from the true faith.

^B Furthermore, concerning the dogma itself, at first they preserved their father's faith, for both were favorable to the faith [established] at Nicaea. Constans, indeed, remained thus until the end of his life. Constantius, however, stood by the same opinion for a time. But later, when the term 'consubstantial' was attacked with calumnies, he departed from his former opinion, though he did not on that account entirely cease to confess that the Son is like the Father in substance. But Eusebius and certain others of the bishops from the Eastern parts, who were at that time most celebrated on account of both their teaching and their sanctity, introduced a distinction, as we have learned, between 'consubstantial' and 'like in substance', which they called *homoeousion*. For they argued that the term 'consubstantial' is properly understood in relation to corporeal things—such as men and other animals, and trees and plants, whose participation and generation are from the like—whereas 'like in substance' has a place among ^C incorporeal things, such as God and the angels, where each is understood by itself according to its own substance. By such men as these, Emperor Constantius was misled. And in his own mind, as I conjecture, he held the same opinion as his parent and his brother; but he changed the term, and instead of 'consubstantial' he said 'of-like-substance'. For this seemed to these teachers to be a more accurate way of naming it; they claimed that if one does not speak thus, one is in danger of conceiving of the incorporeal as a body—a notion many thought to be foolish. For they asserted that one ought to borrow terms for describing intelligible things from things that fall under the senses, and that there is no danger in the word itself, unless there be an error in the meaning.

Chapter XIX. Again concerning the 'consubstantial', and the council at Ariminum, how and whence and for what cause it was assembled.

^D Nor is it any wonder that this should have happened to the emperor, since very many bishops also, who assented to the faith of the Council of Nicaea, admitted the same word without contention. Others, indeed, used both terms indiscriminately to signify one and the same thing. Wherefore it seems to me that the account which those who hold to the opinions of Arius have proclaimed everywhere differs greatly from the truth. For they say that after the synod at Nicaea, many of the priests, among whom were Eusebius and Theognius, no longer

refused to acknowledge the Son as consubstantial with the Father; and Constantine, moved to indignation, punished them with exile. Later, however, either a dream or a true vision appeared divinely to the sister of the emperor, by which she was warned that those men held the right view and had been unjustly condemned. ^A For this reason, the emperor recalled them from exile and asked them what the reason was for their dissenting from the decrees of the Nicene Council, especially since they themselves, along with the others, had subscribed to the faith set forth there. They answered that they had by no means consented with their heart, but were afraid that, if a contention were stirred up regarding this matter, he himself might condemn religion as doubtful and uncertain, and, having turned back to the superstition of the Gentiles, might persecute the Church; since he had only recently begun to worship Christ and had not yet received baptism. Upon this defense, they say that Constantine granted them pardon and formed a plan to convene another synod. But while he was contemplating these things, his death overtook him, and he gave instructions to the elder ^B of his children, Constantius, to carry this out, as his empire would profit him nothing unless God were worshipped by all with one and the same belief. Constantius, therefore, obedient to his father's command, convened the council at Ariminum. From this, the falsehood of these men is most clearly detected. For the synod was held in the consulship of Hypatius and Eusebius, when Constantius was passing the twenty-second year of his reign, long after the death of his father, Constantine. And in that intervening space of time, many synods had been gathered in which there was a dispute concerning the ^C *homoousion* and the *homoiousion*. But as for the Son being "dissimilar in substance" to the Father, no one at all dared to assert this, except Aetius alone at that time. Constantius the emperor, taking this hard, ordered the priests to meet at Ariminum and Seleucia at the same time in order to abolish that opinion. So it is that the truest cause of the Ariminensian Council was not the command of Constantine, but the disputation of Aetius. That these things are so, the following will demonstrate.

Chapter XX. How Athanasius, recalled by the letters of Constantius, received back his see; and concerning the bishops of Antioch; and concerning the questions of Constantius to him; and concerning the glorification of God in hymns.

^A Constans, on the other hand, having learned what had taken place at the Council of Sardica, wrote to his brother, requesting him to restore Athanasius and Paul to their own churches. When the latter delayed, he wrote again, telling him either to receive these men or to prepare for war. Constantius, therefore, having consulted with the bishops of the East, judged it foolish to undergo the risk of a civil war on this account. He summoned Athanasius from Italy, providing him with public carriages for his journey and urging him by frequent letters to return as quickly as possible. Athanasius, who was then staying at Aquileia, on receiving the letters of Constantius, came to Rome to take leave of Julius. The latter sent him away very kindly, giving him letters to the clergy and people of Alexandria, in which, as was fitting, he commended the man as someone ennobled by many tribulations, congratulated the Church of Alexandria on the return of so great a priest, and lastly exhorted them to be of the same mind as he. ^B Setting out from there, Athanasius traveled to Antioch in Syria, where the emperor was staying at that time. Leontius was then in possession of the churches. For after the exile of Eustathius, those of the opposing heresy had administered the see of Antioch: first Euphronius, then Flaccillus, and after him Stephen. When the latter had been stripped of the priesthood as being unworthy, Leontius at that time held the episcopate. Athanasius avoided him as a heretic, but he entered into communion with those called Eustathians, celebrating services in private houses. When Athanasius had experienced Constantius to be mild and benevolent toward him, and was requesting that he might receive his own church back, the emperor, having been warned by the bishops of the Arian sect, said: "But I, for my part, am prepared to fulfill all that I promised you when I summoned you. It is just, however, that you, in return, should willingly grant me whatever favor I might ask. And this is that, out of the many churches which are subject to you, those who refuse to communicate with you should hold one." Athanasius replied, "It is entirely just, O emperor, and indeed necessary, to obey your commands, and I shall not gainsay them. ^C But since in this city of Antioch, too, there are many who avoid the communion of the heretics, I ask a similar favor, namely, that they also may have one church, and may assemble in it without fear." The emperor, having considered that Athanasius spoke justly, thought it better for those of the other sect to keep the peace, ^D reflecting...

^A that their sect would never make any progress among the Alexandrians because of the one man, Athanasius; for he was sufficiently powerful both to keep those of his own mind in security, and to attract his opponents to himself. But if this were done among the Antiochians, he argued, first of all, the followers of Eustathius, who were numerous, would gather together; and then, as is likely, they would attempt new and radical actions, whereas they could now safely retain what they hold, since even while they [the Arians] are in control of the churches there, neither the whole clergy nor the people are entirely persuaded by their opinions. But arranged in choirs, as is the custom among them when singing praises to God, they would express their own preference at the end of the hymns. And some glorified the Father and the Son (34) as equal in honor; while others glorified the Father in the Son, by the insertion of the preposition indicating that the Son is secondary to the Father. ^B Truly, as events had turned out in this way, Leontius, who at that time was governing the see of Antioch from the opposing faction, was at a loss as to what he should do. He did not attempt to forbid those who sang hymns to God according to the tradition of the Nicene Council, for he feared that the populace might cause a disturbance. It is said, however, that he touched his own head, which was white with old age, and said: "When this snow has melted, there will be much mud," implying that after his death this disagreement in the hymns would end in a very serious sedition among the people, as those who would succeed him would not be as willing to accommodate and yield to the populace.

CHAP. XXI. What Constantius wrote to the Egyptians on behalf of Athanasius, and concerning the synod at Jerusalem.

The emperor sent Athanasius away to Egypt, and he wrote concerning him ^C to the bishops and presbyters in every city there, as well as to the people of the Church of the Alexandrians, testifying to the rectitude of his life and the virtue of his character. He exhorted them to be of one mind and, under his leadership, to worship the Divine with prayers and supplications. And if any ill-willed and seditious persons were found, he threatened that they would pay the penalty according to the laws established against such men. He also ordered that whatever had been written by him previously against Athanasius and those who communicated with him should be erased from the public records; ^D and that his clergy, as before, should enjoy exemption from public duties. He wrote also concerning this to the governors throughout Egypt and Libya. When Athanasius arrived in Egypt, those who...

held the opinions of Arius he removed from the priesthood; but to those whom he had himself examined, he entrusted the administration of the churches and commended to them the faith of the Nicene Council, admonishing them to retain it with all diligence. He is said to have done the same at that time while passing through other provinces, wherever it chanced that churches were held by Arian priests. Certainly his adversaries ^B cast this charge against him, that he had dared to perform ordinations in cities which in no way pertained to him. But seeing that he had obtained his return against the wishes of his adversaries, and because of his familiarity with the Emperor Constans he was not seen to be a person to be despised, he was held in greater honor among all men than before. Many bishops also laid aside the enmities which they had exercised toward him and entered into communion with him. Among these were the Palestinians, who received him kindly as he passed through their territory; and having gathered a synod at Jerusalem, Maximus and the others wrote concerning him in this manner.

Chapter 22. Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem in favor of Athanasius.

The holy synod gathered at Jerusalem, to our colleagues appointed throughout Egypt and Libya, and likewise to the presbyters and deacons, and to the people of the city of Alexandria, our most dear and most desired brethren, greeting in the Lord.

We do not suffice to give thanks as is worthy to the God of all things, beloved, for the marvelous works which He has always done, and which He has done now for the sake of your Church, in restoring to you our shepherd, and your lord and colleague, Athanasius. For who ever hoped to see with his eyes those things which you now possess in reality? But indeed your prayers have been heard by the God of all things, who cares for His own Church, and who looked upon your tears and your groanings, and for that reason assented to your petitions. For you were as sheep scattered and vexed, having no shepherd. Therefore the true Shepherd, who cares for his own sheep, looked upon you from heaven, and restored to you Him whom you were desiring. ^C Behold, we ourselves, who do all things for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, and who conspire with your love, have been the first to embrace him; and having entered into communion with him, we send these our greetings and congratulations to you through him, that you may understand that we are united to him by the bond of charity. It is right, furthermore, that you should also make vows to God for the piety of the most dear emperors, who themselves, having learned of your longing and ^D

the innocence of that man, have deemed it worthy to restore him to you with all honor. Receiving him therefore with open hands, take care to send up the required prayers of thanksgiving on his behalf to God, who has granted this to you, so that you may always rejoice in God and glorify the Lord in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom be glory to the Father for ages of ages. Amen.

CAP. XXIII. The Confession of Valens and Ursacius of the Arian faction, offered to the Roman Bishop, that they had spoken falsely against Athanasius.

And this is what the council of the bishops of Palestine wrote. But later, a most desirable event befell Athanasius, whereby it was clearly proven that he had been unjustly condemned by the bishops who had gathered at the council of Tyre. For Valens and Ursacius—who, together with Theognius and others, as has been mentioned before, were sent into the Mareotis to inquire whether Athanasius had broken the sacred chalice, as he was being accused by Ischyrion—having been led to repentance, wrote these things to Julius, the bishop of the city of Rome.

To the most blessed Lord Pope Julius, Valens and Ursacius, greeting.

Since it is evident that we have previously insinuated many grave things against the name of Bishop Athanasius by our letters, and being challenged by the letters of your Holiness, we have not been able to give an account of the matter of which we have given notification, we confess before your Holiness, all our brother presbyters being present, that all those things which have previously come to your ears concerning the name of the aforementioned Athanasius are false and fabricated by us, and are devoid of all force; and therefore we most gladly embrace the communion of the aforesaid Athanasius, ma-

^B and especially because your Holiness, according to your innate goodness, has deigned to grant forgiveness for our error. We also confess this further point: that if at any time the Easterners should wish, or if Athanasius himself should attempt to summon us to judgment regarding this matter with malicious intent, we will not proceed against the determination of your disposition. But the heretic Arius, and those who defend him, those who say "there was a time when the Son was not," and that Christ is from nothing, and those who deny that Christ is God and the Son of God before the ages — just as we formerly confessed in the document which we submitted in Milan — we anathematize now and forever; and, having written this with our own hands, we confess again that we have condemned the Arian heresy, as we said before, and its authors, forever. I, Ursacius, being present, have subscribed to this my confession by which I confessed to Pope Julius; these are the things which were also written to Athanasius. The contents are as follows:

CHAPTER XXIV.

A peaceful letter of the same bishops to the great Athanasius. Also, how the rest of the bishops of the East recovered their own sees, and how, Macedonia having again been cast out, Paul was restored to the throne.

To our lord and brother, Bishop Athanasius, the bishops Ursacius and Valens.

An opportunity has been given to us by our brother and fellow-presbyter Moyses, who is coming to your love, dearest brother, by whom we send you most abundant greetings from the city of Aquileia, and we pray that you may be in good health as you read our letter. For you will give us confidence if you also, in writing back, ^C will grant us the favor in return. Know that we are at peace with you and in communion with you.

^A And the token of this is the greeting sent through these letters. Athanasius, therefore, thus returned from the western regions to Egypt. Paul ^B also (42), and Marcellus, Asclepas, and Lucius, recovered their own sees; for indeed, the emperor’s letters had granted them the power to return. And while in Constantinople Paul’s entry caused Macedonius to withdraw and perform his own private assemblies, in Ancyra a very great tumult arose when, upon Marcellus’s entry, Basil was deprived of the church there. As for the others, their entry proved not to be difficult.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

^B Perhaps someone here might ask why Valens and Ursacius were not content with the former petition which they had offered to the Synod of Milan, and later offered another to Pope Julius. The reason for this is readily apparent: because, clearly, after the Synod of Milan, they had been condemned in the following year at the Council of Sardica and cut off from the communion of the Church. Wherefore, in order to be restored, they necessarily had to approach Pope Julius, who, alone, by the authority he possessed, received those condemned by the universal council into communion two years after the Council of Sardica. Hilary, in his *Fragments*, says that Julius did this deliberately, so as to weaken the forces of the Arians.

One seems to query these words: "What is this peace, most clement emperor, when there are, from those very regions, four bishops—Demophilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Martyrius—who eight years ago, when at Milan they refused to condemn the heretical opinion of Arius, left the council with angry spirits?" Petavius, indeed, in his *Dissertation on Photinus*, says this letter was written by Liberius in the year of Christ 355; from which he concludes the Synod of Milan was held in the year of Christ 347. Baronius and Sirmond, however, believe that letter was written in the year of Christ 354. Yet to me, examining the matter more accurately, that letter appears to have been written in the year of Christ 356. For Liberius there clearly testifies that George was at that time established in the Alexandrian episcopate. That occurrence, however, happened in the year of Christ 356, as is agreed among all. Wherefore, in the letter of Pope Liberius, for "eight years ago" it seems one should write "nine years ago." That expression, moreover, means the same as "in the tenth year from now," as I have noted in the place indicated above regarding Socrates.

(42) *And Paul also.* Paul was by no means restored by the Council of Sardica. Certainly, no mention of Paul is made in the synodical letter of the Council of Sardica. And Theodoret, in the second book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, clearly testifies that Paul was peacefully in possession of his episcopate at the time when the Council of Sardica was being gathered. Wherefore he had no need for the judgment of the Council of Sardica in order to be restored to his see.

HERMIAE SOZOMENI SALAMINII ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK IV

^A

CHAPTER I. On the murder of Constans the Caesar, and the events which took place in Rome.

These events took place in this manner. In the fourth year after the council of Sardica, Constans was killed in the regions of the Gauls. Magnentius, who had plotted his murder, brought the entire empire that had been under Constans under his own control. A certain Briton was proclaimed emperor by the Illyrian soldiers at Sirmium. The elder Rome also took a large share in these calamities, when Nepotianus, who was a nephew of the emperor Constantine ^A, gathered a band of gladiators around him and laid claim to the empire. But he was killed by the soldiers of Magnentius. Constantius, for his part, as sole possessor of the supreme power, having been proclaimed emperor, strove by every means to rid himself of the tyrants. In the meantime, Athanasius arrived in Alexandria and arranged for a council of the bishops of Egypt to be held, and caused those things which had been decreed concerning him at both Sardica and Palestine to be confirmed. ^B

Chapter II. How Constantius again expelled Athanasius and banished those who maintained the doctrine of the Consubstantial. Also concerning the death of Paul of Constantinople, and how Macedonius returned to the throne and committed most grievous deeds.

^AThe Emperor Constantius, giving credence to the calumnies of those of the opposite heresy, did not remain in the same mind; but ordered those who had been restored to their sees, contrary to the decrees of the Council of Sardica, to be expelled. At that time, Marcellus was again ejected, and Basilius obtained the Church at Ancyra; while Lucius was cast into prison and perished. Paul, having been sentenced to perpetual exile, was taken to Cucusus in Armenia, where he died. Whether he died of disease or by violence, I indeed do not know. ^BA report, however, still prevails even now that he was strangled with a noose by the partisans of Macedonius. After he had been carried away into exile, and Macedonius had seized the Church, he fortified himself with many monasteries which he established throughout Constantinople, and by making pacts with the neighboring bishops, he is said to have afflicted in various ways those who held the views of Paul. First, he expelled them from the churches. After this, he forced them to communicate with him, so that many died after being beaten; others were deprived of their property, others were disfranchised, and some were branded with marks on their foreheads so that they might be recognized by all as such. When the emperor learned of this, he disapproved of the matter and cast the blame upon Macedonius. This occurred at the time of the deposition of Macedonius himself, when they took from him the Church of Constantinople.

Chapter III. Concerning the martyrdom of the holy notaries.

^CFor the evil had advanced even to murder; indeed, some others were killed, and also Martyrius and Marcianus. It is said that these men, being members of Paul's household, endured death with great courage after Macedonius handed them over to the prefect, on the grounds that they were the authors of the death of Hermogenes and of the sedition against him, and finally of the deposition of Macedonius himself, at the time when the Constantinopolitan

^A church was built, as a monument to the martyrs, surrounded by an oratory. John first began to build this church, and Sisinius, who later became the bishop of the church of Constantinople, completed it. For they deemed it unworthy that those whom God Himself had honored should be deprived of the rewards and honors of martyrdom. Indeed, that place, where once those condemned to death were beheaded—a spot previously inaccessible on account of specters—was thereafter purified, and those possessed by demons were freed from their affliction, and many other miracles occurred at their tomb. Let this suffice for what we have said concerning Martyrius and Marcianus. If these things seem incredible to anyone, it is no trouble to learn of them more accurately from those who knew them; for perhaps they will relate things even more wondrous than these.

CAP. IV.

Concerning the expedition of Constantius into Illyricum, and concerning Vetranio and Magnentius; and how, having appointed Gallus as Caesar, he sent him to the East.

At about this same time, when Athanasius had fled, ^B George severely oppressed those in Egypt who refused to share his opinions. The emperor, having undertaken an expedition into Illyricum, came to Sirmium, and Vetranio came to the same place by virtue of certain agreements made between them. But when the soldiers by whom the emperor had been proclaimed changed their intent and proclaimed Constantius alone as Emperor and Augustus—for Constantius himself and those who favored him had worked with every effort to bring this about—Vetranio understood that he had been betrayed. Falling prostrate at the feet of Constantius, he became a suppliant. Constantius, however, having stripped him ^C of the imperial attire and purple, took pity on his misfortune and allowed him to live as a private citizen, and ordered that provisions be supplied to him abundantly from the public treasury; saying that it was more fitting for a man who was already old to be free from imperial cares and to live in quiet.

Having thus successfully concluded his affairs against Vetranio, ^A he sent a vast army into Italy against Magnentius; and having appointed his cousin Gallus as Caesar, he sent him into Syria to guard the regions of the East.

Chapter 5. How, while Cyril was governing the Church of Jerusalem after Maximus, the sign of the cross was again seen in the sky for many days, surpassing the sun in brightness.

At the time when, after Maximus, Cyril presided over the Church of Jerusalem, the sign of the cross appeared in the heavens, shining brightly, not as a comet shedding rays, but composed of an abundant light, dense and transparent. In length, it extended from the place of the Skull to the Mount of Olives, that is, about fifteen stadia, covering the entire sky above that region, and its width was proportional to its length. Because of such an unusual and unexpected wonder, ^B both amazement and fear seized everyone. Leaving their houses, the marketplace, and whatever work they were engaged in, they all, with their wives and children, flocked to the church, and with one consent, eagerly praised Christ and confessed God. The report of this event greatly disturbed all the provinces of the Roman world. In a short time, it was announced everywhere; for since, as was the custom, pilgrims from all parts of the world, as one might say, were present in Jerusalem for the sake of prayer or to visit the holy places, they afterward reported to their own people what they had seen with their own eyes. The emperor also became aware of this, having been informed by the reports of many others as well as by a letter written to him by bishop ^C Cyril. Those who were skilled in such matters asserted that these things had been long ago foretold in the holy books by a certain divine prophecy. And this event led many Greeks and Jews to embrace Christianity.

Chapter VI. On Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, and his heresy; on the synod gathered against him at Sirmium; and on the three formulas of faith. Also, how Photinus, after his deposition, being solicited, refused the bishopric, and how he was convicted by Basil of Ancyra of speaking emptily.

^A At that same time, Photinus, the prelate of the Church of Sirmium, who had already appeared as the author of a certain new opinion, did not hesitate to assert his error openly while the emperor was still residing in that city. And since he possessed a certain natural eloquence and was most apt at persuasion, he drew many to his opinion. He declared, indeed, that God is one, all-powerful, who had made all things by His own Word. But he did not admit the generation and existence of the Son before the ages; instead, he affirmed that Christ had his beginning from Mary. When this opinion became widely spread among everyone, the bishops of both East and West were troubled, and judged it to be a common innovation introduced against their respective faiths. For the dogma of Photinus was shown to differ sharply from both sides—from those who upheld the doctrine of the Nicene Council as well as from those who embraced the opinion of Arius. ^B The emperor was also not a little incensed by these things. As he was staying at Sirmium at that time, he convened a synod of bishops. And from the regions of the East, many others came together, including George, the bishop who had been entrusted with the Church of Alexandria, and Basil, the bishop of Ancyra, and Mark of Arethusa. From the western provinces came Valens, bishop of Mursa, and Hosius the confessor; who, although he had been a participant in the Nicene Council, attended this synod unwillingly. For he had been condemned to exile a little while before by the fraud and snares of those who held the views of Arius, and was then, by the zeal of those who had gathered at Sirmium, called to the synod by the emperor. For they believed that if they could make him consent to and support their doctrine, being such a celebrated man and one praised by all with one consent, they would have a most weighty witness for their own dogma. ^C When they were gathered together at Sirmium—this was the year after the consulship of Sergius and Nigrinianus, in which year no consul was announced either in the East or in the West, on account of the commotion raised in the state by the tyrants—they deposed Photinus, inasmuch as he held the same views as Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. After these things were finished, they issued three formulas, contrary to what had previously been decreed regarding the faith. One of these they wrote in the Greek language, and the rest in the Latin tongue; they agreed neither in words nor in sense, in most places, with ^D themselves or with what had been previously decreed. It is to be noted, however, that the Greek text neither called the Son consubstantial nor similar in substance to the Father; but those who called Him without beginning...

or who imagined that the Son was formed by an expansion of God’s substance, or that He was united to the Father but not subject to Him, these they declared to be aliens from the Church. ^B As for those formulas that were written in Latin, the one forbids any mention of the term "substance"—for thus the Latins translate what the Greeks call *ousia*—whether the Son is consubstantial with the Father or of similar substance; for these terms are neither found in the Holy Scriptures nor can they be grasped by human understanding. It prescribes that the Father must be confessed as greater than the Son in honor, dignity, divinity, and by the very name of Father; and it contends that the Son, along with all other things, is subject to the Father. And it holds that while the Father has no beginning, the generation of the Son is unknown to everyone except the Father. Now when this formula had already been published, it is said that the bishops who perceived that it was not properly composed labored with great zeal to have it corrected, and that the Emperor ordered the same, threatening penalties against those who might conceal it. But once it had been published to the world, it could no longer be kept hidden. The third ^C formula of faith agreed entirely in sense with the two others, but it removed the term "substance," and it offers the following reason for this in the text, as it was written in the Latin tongue: "The name of substance, which was set down by the Fathers in simplicity, but which is not at all understood by the people and is a cause of offense to many because it is not contained in the Scriptures, has pleased us to be removed entirely, and that henceforth no mention of substance should be made at all when speaking of God: since the Holy Scriptures nowhere say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one substance, but we say that the Son is similar to the Father, as the Holy Scriptures say." These things were decreed regarding the faith in the presence of the Emperor himself. Hosius, at first, ^D refused to consent to these things. But afterward, being compelled by force, and having endured stripes, as the story goes, though he was a man of decrepit age, he at length consented and signed. Furthermore, after the deposition of Photinus, the synod of bishops decided to test whether he could be moved from his former opinion. But Photinus, though the bishops urged him and promised him the restoration of his episcopal see, if his opinion—

^A when the struggle began, and the scribes took down the words of both sides, Basil prevailed. But Photinus, having been condemned to exile, did not even then cease from propagating his own dogma. He published books written in both the Roman and Greek tongues, by which he endeavored to demonstrate that all other opinions, except his own, were false. Let this suffice, then, for me to have said concerning Photinus and the heresy named after him.

CAP. VII. Concerning the death of the tyrants Magnentius and Silvanus; and also concerning the sedition of the Jews in Palestine; and how Gallus Caesar, being suspected of revolution, was put to death.

^B In the meantime, Magnentius, having occupied the elder Rome, put to death many of the senatorial order and of the common people. But learning that the generals of Constantius were already approaching against him, he retreated into the provinces of the Gauls. There, indeed, they clashed with one another many times; at one moment these were victorious, and at another those; until at last, Magnentius, having been defeated, fled to Mursa. This [is] a fortress of the Gauls. ^C Seeing his own soldiers despondent because they had been defeated, he stood in a high place and attempted to make them more courageous. But they, just as they were accustomed to acclaim emperors, and wishing to acclaim Magnentius as he appeared before their eyes, inadvertently proclaimed him Constantius Augustus instead of Magnentius. Taking this as a sign that it was not granted to him by God to reign, Magnentius attempted to leave that fortress and proceed further. But as the army of Constantius pursued him, a battle was joined near the mountain called Seleucum; he fled alone and reached Lugdunum in safety. ^D There, having slain his mother and his brother, whom he had established as Caesar, he finally killed himself. Not long after, Decentius, another of his brothers, ended his life by hanging. Yet the public disturbances did not even then find an end. For not long after, a certain Silvanus in the Gauls seized tyranny, whom the generals of Constantius immediately destroyed. But the Jews who inhabited Diocaesarea ravaged Palestine and the surrounding regions; and having taken up arms, they refused to obey the Romans. Gallus Caesar, learning of these things while he was sojourning at Antioch, sent an army, subdued them, and laid Diocaesarea waste.

But when he thought he was doing well, he could not bear his prosperity, but wished to play the tyrant. He put to death Magnus the quaestor and Domitian the praetorian prefect of the East, who had reported his revolutionary designs to the Emperor. Constantius, being indignant at this, summoned him. Being unable to refuse—for he feared Constantius—he set out on his journey. ^A And when he had already arrived at the island of Flavona, he was killed by order of the Emperor, during the third consulship of the former and the seventh of Constantius.

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the arrival of Constantius at Rome; and concerning the synod held in Italy; and concerning the things which happened to the great Athanasius through the plotting of the Arians.

When the tyrants were destroyed, and it seemed to Constantius that he was freed from the evils that had occurred, he left Sirmium and went to the elder Rome. For he wished there to celebrate a triumphal procession for his victory over the tyrants; and at the same time, thinking that he could bring the bishops of both jurisdictions to one and the same opinion concerning the faith, he ordered a synod to be held in Italy. meanwhile, Julius ^B died, having administered the Roman Church for twenty-five years. Liberius succeeded him. Those, however, who rejected the faith of the Nicene Council, thinking they had now found an opportunity to slander those who held the contrary opinion, exerted themselves with great diligence in the palace to have all those whom they themselves had deposed driven from the churches as being heterodox, and as having endeavored, while Constans was still alive, to stir up the empires against one another; for, as has been mentioned above, Constans had threatened war against his brother if he did not receive them. But they especially accused Athanasius, whom they hated so exceedingly ^C that, even while Constans was still living, and while Constantius was pretending to love him, they did not cease to persecute him in a hostile manner; but having gathered together at Antioch, Narcissus the Cilician, Theo-

^Adorus from Thrace, Eugenius of Nicaea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Menophantus of Ephesus, and about thirty others in all, wrote to the bishops everywhere. They asserted that Athanasius had returned to Alexandria contrary to the laws of the Church, not having been declared innocent in a synod, but rather by the contentiousness of those who held the same views as he did; and they exhorted them neither to communicate with him nor to write to him, but rather to maintain communion with George, who had been ordained by them. At that time, however, no one paid any heed 61 to these men concerning Athanasius. Yet he was about to undergo trials more severe than before. For no sooner had Magnentius perished and Constantius held the Roman Empire alone, than he devoted all his efforts to ensuring that the bishops of the West should agree with those who held the Son to be like the Father in substance 62. He did not do this openly at first ^B by using force, but by persuading them to vote for the decrees made against Athanasius by the bishops of the East. For he reasoned that if this man were removed by the common vote, he would easily be able to accomplish his own purposes regarding religion.

Chapter IX. On the Council of Milan and the Flight of Athanasius.

When, therefore, the emperor urged it, a synod was gathered at Milan, and a few came from the parts of the East, while the rest, as was natural, declined to attend either on account of illness or the long journey. As for the bishops ^C of the West, they were not yet in number sufficient to hold a significant meeting.

[VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS] ...it is necessary that the aforementioned synod should have been gathered long after the death of Constans. For Constans was taken away in the year of Christ 351. George, however, occupied the bishopric of Alexandria in the year of Christ 356, after the consulship of Arbæthion and Lollian, as the attestation of the people of Alexandria shows, which is cited by Athanasius at the end of his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, and which Lucifer of Cagliari mentions. Therefore, this Antiochene synod was gathered in the year of Christ 356, and in it George was ordained bishop of Alexandria; and immediately from the city of Antioch he was sent with a military escort to Alexandria, in the same manner as, fifteen years before, Gregory had been ordained bishop of Alexandria in the Antiochene synod held at the Dedication [Encaenia], and was sent thence to Alexandria, as Athanasius testifies.

...Eugenius succeeds Theogoniu^Ds, and held the Nicene bishopric until the times of Valens, as Philostorgius testifies in the ninth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 8... Moreover, among the bishops who attended this Antiochene council, besides those mentioned by Sozomen, were Leontius, bishop of Antioch, and George of Laodicea. For Athanasius lists these above the others in the beginning of his *Apology for his Flight*, which he wrote shortly after that synod. This correction appears to me absolutely necessary, since in the common reading there is no sense.

...[that] "they should agree" [must be] written... For the Western bishops indeed confessed with one accord that the Son is consubstantial to the Father. But the Easterners for the most part confessed the Son to be like the Father: a few asserted him to be unlike, along with Aetius, whom Constantius persecuted with a hostile spirit. But Nicephorus, because he did not understand this passage of Sozomen, interpolated it, as can be seen in book IX, chapter 33.

[VARIORUM] ...in his *Apology for Athanasius*, lib. 1, he testifies that George was ordained before the Council of Milan; and he addresses Constantius in these words: "You persecute him whom the Lord commanded you to hear, while He was acting in human affairs, to whom you are sending your heretical George as a successor; although, even if Athanasius had been released from the body, it would not have been permitted for you to send, etc." A little later: "Can God be with the enemy George? Can He be propitious to him whom He has not ordained, whom He has not chosen? etc."

To these, Valesius says that only Sozomen mentions this synod, although Nicephorus, lib. IX, cap. 33, makes express mention of it. Finally, George was not sent from the city of Antioch, as Valesius thinks, but from Cappadocia, as Athanasius teaches in his *Apology for his Flight*, and from him Theodoret, lib. II, cap. 14, although he may be said to have been sent from the city of Antioch, since he was ordained in it.

^A In the West, more than three hundred gathered. When the Orientals desired to condemn Athanasius, so that he might be entirely driven from Alexandria, the rest, whether through fear, deception, or ignorance of the truth, gave their consent. Only Dionysius ^B the bishop of Alba (which is the metropolis of Italy), Eusebius of Vercelli (a city of Liguria), Paulinus of Trier, and Rhodanus and Lucifer protested, witnessing that it was not right to condemn Athanasius so readily; for even if this were done, the evil would not stop there, but the intrigue would proceed against those who had rightly decreed concerning God. They claimed that these things were being pressed by the Emperor and those who favored the views of Arius for the purpose of overthrowing the faith of Nicaea. Having spoken thus boldly, they were condemned to exile in foreign lands; with them was Hilary also.

That the cause I have just mentioned was the true reason for the council of Milan was declared by the outcome of events. For not long after, the synod of Ariminum and Seleucia was convened, and each attempted to introduce a novelty against what had been established at Nicaea, as I will soon demonstrate.

Athanasius, being persuaded that an ambush was being prepared for him in the imperial palace, neither dared to go to the Emperor himself nor deemed it to his advantage. Having selected five of the bishops in Egypt, of whom Serapion of Thmuis—a man most admirable in sanctity of life and gifted in oratory—was one, he sent them to the Emperor, who was then passing his time in the West. He also sent with them three presbyters of the Church under him, to reconcile the ruler to him and, if it were necessary, to answer the slanders of his enemies, and to do all other things that they knew to be best for the Church and for him.

After they had sailed from the port, not long after he received letters from the Emperor summoning him to the palace. Because of this, Athanasius himself and the people of the Church were greatly disturbed and filled with anxiety, since they considered it neither safe to obey the Emperor, who was a heterodox believer, nor free from danger to disobey him. Nevertheless, he prevailed upon them to wait, and the man who brought the letters returned without accomplishing his mission. But in the following summer, another arrived from the Emperor together with the local magistrates, who pressed him ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

to leave the city ^A, and he treated the clergy with great severity. But when the people of the church took heart, seeing them drawn up for battle, and thus achieving nothing, he departed from there. Not long after, troops were called in from Egypt and Libya, which the Romans call legions. And when it was reported that Athanasius was hiding in the church called Theonas, the commander of the local regiments, together with Hilarius ^B (65), who had been sent again by the emperor to hasten these matters, unexpectedly broke down the doors at an untimely hour and entered the church. After searching everywhere, however, he did not find Athanasius inside. For it is said that he had often escaped many other dangers through divine warnings, and that God had forewarned him of this attack as well. Consequently, he had departed immediately, and the soldiers had occupied the doors of the church just an instant after his escape, missing his capture by a very short time.

CHAPTER X.

It is not allowed for anyone to doubt that this man was acceptable to God and clearly foresaw the future. For we have received accounts of him that are far more wonderful than those already mentioned, which testify that he possessed the most accurate knowledge of things to come. Thus, indeed, when the emperor first ^C (66) wished to maltreat him while Constans was still alive, he escaped by flight and hid with one of his acquaintances; and for a long period of time he remained in the depths of the earth, in a dwelling without sunlight, which ^D

^A had once served as a water cistern. No one was privy to this ^A except those with whom he was hiding, and a maidservant who was deemed sufficiently trustworthy to minister to him. But as the Arians were striving with all their might to capture him alive, the maidservant, having been enticed, as is credible, by gifts and promises, was on the point of betraying him. However, the plot having been revealed to him by God, he anticipated the snare and moved elsewhere. The maidservant subsequently suffered punishment, for having brought a false accusation against her masters, who had themselves fled. For the partisans of the opposing heresy did not treat it as a light crime for anyone to receive or conceal Athanasius; rather, they dragged such people before the tribunals of the judges, as though they were resisting the emperor’s commands and rebelling against the state.

I have heard that a similar incident occurred to Athanasius on another occasion. Once, when he was fleeing toward interior Egypt for the same reason and was sailing up the Nile, some people informed on him, and those sent to arrest him pursued him to capture him. But, being forewarned of the pursuit by God, he made it known to those sailing with him and ordered them to return immediately to Alexandria. While sailing down[stream], he passed the conspirators who were sailing up[stream] the river and reached the city in safety, where he remained in hiding, both because of the density of the population and the multitude of buildings. Because of these and many other such things which he predicted, he was slandered by his adversaries—by the Gentiles and the heretics alike—as having accomplished these things through magic. ^B

It is said, then, that on one occasion when he was walking through the city, it chanced that a crow flew overhead and croaked. A crowd of Gentiles who were present, mocking him as a magician, asked him to tell them what the crow was saying. He, with a gentle smile, said: "Cras," which in the Roman tongue means "tomorrow." By croaking this, he declares that tomorrow will be unpleasant for you. For it signifies that by an order from the Roman emperor, you will be forbidden tomorrow from celebrating your approaching festival. Athanasius’ prediction, although it seemed ridiculous to them, nevertheless proved true. For on the next day, letters from the sovereign were delivered to the magistrates, commanding them not to allow the Gentiles to approach their temples, nor to perform their customary religious rites and festivals. And thus the festival that had fallen on that day, which was wont to be celebrated by the Gentiles with the utmost religious observance and magnificence, was dissolved.

As for the fact that the man was prophetic, these things are sufficient to say. When, as has been said, he had escaped those who had come to arrest him, the clergy and people who were under his leadership remained for some time, keeping possession of the churches; until at last the governor of Egypt and the commander of the soldiers stationed there, having cast out those who obeyed him, delivered them over to those who were expecting George. And not long afterward George himself arrived ^C, and [on his entry] ^D.

and ^B reduced the churches to his own power. Because he had set out to rule with greater violence than befitted the custom and dignity of the priesthood, and showed himself terrible to all, but was especially harsh toward those who praised Athanasius—to the point that he subjected both men and women to chains and scourges—he was looked upon as a tyrant. Having for this reason fallen into the common hatred of all, the populace, stirred to anger, fell upon him while he was staying in the church, and they very nearly killed him. He, having fallen into such danger, was with difficulty saved and fled to the emperor. But those who were of Athanasius’s mind held the churches. Yet this did not last for a long time. For the military commander of Egypt, coming to Alexandria, again delivered the churches to the partisans of George. After these events, an imperial official from the order of those called notaries, having been sent to punish, tortured and abused many of the Alexandrians. Not long afterward, George himself returned, having become, as was likely, ^C more terrible from the aforementioned events and much more hated than before, inasmuch as he had incited the emperor to the vexation of many. Furthermore, he was accused by the monks of perfidy and arrogance—the monks whose judgment the multitude of the people followed, and whose testimonies they believed, because they cultivated virtue and their life was spent in philosophy.

CAP. XI. Of Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, for what causes he was banished by Constantius; and of Felix, who succeeded into his place.

And these things, in this order, though not at the same time, happened to Athanasius and to the Church of the Alexandrians.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

* Others say George was a Cilician. He was, however, illiberal and unlearned, commended by no gift of mind. Ammianus Marcellinus says he was the son of a fuller; who, having immediately followed the condition of a parasite and a Gnatho, was prepared to do anything for the sake of his belly and gullet. But afterward, having grown rich by the ruin of many, he was made a receiver of provisions, and at Constantinople applied himself to the receiving and distributing of pork; and when he had embezzled money, he fled as one accused of extortion. By these steps the illustrious man ascended to the episcopal dignity in the year of Christ 356. (Clar. Benedit. Athan., p. 66.)

^A occurrences of the Church after the death of Constans. But for the sake of clarity, we have recounted all these things together in this place. The council at Milan having been dissolved without result, the emperor put those who had opposed the partisans of Athanasius out of the way, condemning them to exile. Since he was very concerned that the Church everywhere should agree concerning the dogma, and that the priests should be in concord among themselves, he resolved to summon bishops from all parts to the West. But reflecting that this was difficult to accomplish due to the distance of land and sea between them, he was at a loss as to what he should do; yet he did not entirely abandon the project. Remaining in the same mind, before he entered Rome to perform the customary triumphal procession for the Romans over the conquered, he summoned Liberius, the bishop of Rome, and endeavored to persuade him to be of the same mind as the priests around him, among whom was also Eudoxius. When he opposed this and insisted that he would never do so, the emperor ordered him to be taken away to Beroea ^B in Thrace. It is said that there was another pretext for the exile of Liberius: that he chose not to deny communion with Athanasius, but rather boldly spoke against this to the emperor, who accused him of having injured the Churches, and of having caused the death of his own elder brother, and that, as far as lay in his power, he had made Constans an enemy to him. When the emperor brought forward the judgment of the bishops who had gathered everywhere, and especially those at Tyre who had assembled against him, Liberius replied that no credence should be given to them, as they had given their votes for the sake of hatred, favor, or fear. He requested that the faith which had been set forth at Nicaea be confirmed by the subscriptions of bishops everywhere, and that those who were in exile for this reason be recalled. He added that once these things were accomplished, so that they ^C would not seem troublesome or burdensome, no one should be provided with public carriages or money; but that all should come together at their own expense to Alexandria, where the one who had suffered injustice and those who had committed it, the proofs of the crimes, and the precise investigation of the truth concerning these matters, could be examined. And showing the document concerning Athanasius

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (68) To Beroea. I have found it written in the Fuketianus codex as Beroea. It is said as Beroea in Theodoret, lib. II, Hist., cap. 16, and in Theophanes in the Chronicle. The acts of the interrogation of Liberius in the consistory before the prince Constantius are in Theodoret, lib. II of his History. Where Constantius appears to reproach Athanasius for the death of his brother Constantine; although I do not see how responsibility for that death can fall upon Athanasius. (70) Those who voted for the sake of hatred, favor, or fear. I have no doubt that Sozomen wrote "for the sake of hatred, favor, or fear." For he brings forward three causes for which the bishops had given an unjust sentence against Athanasius: namely, private quarrels, and favor, or the fear of powerful men. The acts of the interrogation of Liberius, which Theodoret refers to in lib. II of his Ecclesiastical History, cap. 16, confirm this emendation.

VARIOUS NOTES. Liberius, prelate of the Christian law, was ordered by Constantius to [come to] the court (namely Milan, where Constantius was staying at that time), as if by the emperor’s command, and resisting the decisions of many of his own company, in a matter which I will recount in a brief text... Athanasius the bishop at that time at Alexandria, etc., as above. Liberius, admonished by the prince to cast him aside by subscription, and feeling the same as the others, was persistently held back; often exclaiming that it was the ultimate impiety to condemn a man neither seen nor heard, openly recalcitrant against the emperor’s will, for he, always hostile to Athanasius, although he knew it was accomplished, nevertheless desired it to be confirmed by the authority of the bishop of the eternal city; failing which, Liberius, with difficulty and in fear of the people who burned with love for him, was with great effort able to be taken away in the middle of the night. (Amm. Marcellinus, lib. XV, cap. 7. See also Theodoret, Hist. lib. II, cap. 16, and Athanas., Hist. Arian. ad monachos, p. 367.)

they begged for pardon, and denounced as false the acts they had committed in the Mareotis; he petitioned the emperor not to condemn him in his absence, nor to be persuaded by those who had at that time voted against him, since the conspiracy was evident. And as regards his brothers, he prayed that he would not seek to avenge himself by a priestly hand, which God has ordained, not for such base deeds, but for sanctification and every just and good work. Since, therefore, Liberius would not yield to his commands, the emperor ordered him to be taken away to Thrace, unless he should change his mind within two days. "But for me," said Liberius, "O emperor, there is no need for deliberation; for these things have long since been well weighed and decreed by me, and I am now setting out on my journey." It is said that when he was being led away into exile, the emperor sent him five hundred gold pieces; but that Liberius, refusing them, said to the messenger: "Go, and tell him who sent this gold, to bestow it upon the flatterers and actors whom he has with him, whom constant want, because of their insatiable greed, daily afflicts and torments, always desiring wealth but never satisfied. As for us, Christ, who in all things is like the Father, is our provider and treasurer of all good things." On account of this, Liberius was despoiled of the Roman episcopate, and its administration was entrusted to a certain Felix, a deacon of that clergy. ^B It is said that he remained steadfast in the faith of the Nicene Council, and that in matters of religion he was entirely blameless. The only thing for which he was blamed was that, before his ordination, he had consented to communion with heretics. When the emperor entered Rome, the Roman populace did not cease to petition him with frequent acclamations on behalf of Liberius, asking that he be restored to them. The emperor, therefore, taking counsel with the bishops who were with him, replied that he would recall him and restore him to those who petitioned, if he would agree to act in harmony with the priests in his company. ^{C D}

Chapter XII. Concerning Aetius the Syrian, and Eudoxius who became bishop of Antioch after Leontius, and concerning the consubstantial.

^A Around this time, Aetius began to teach openly the opinion he held concerning God. He was then a deacon of the Church of Antioch, having been ordained by Leontius. He held the same views as Arius, namely that the Son was a created being, that he came into existence from nothing, and that he was unlike the Father. But because he was excessively contentious and bolder in his arguments about God, and employed his logical propositions in a persuasive and varied manner, he was considered a heretic even by those with whom he agreed in judgment. Being expelled from their Church, he pretended to refuse communion with them on the grounds that they had held communion with Arius when they should not have. For he said that Arius had perjured himself when, led to repentance, he swore to Emperor Constantine that he held exactly the same views as those who had met at Nicaea. And these things are said in this way.

^B Furthermore, while the emperor was still staying in the parts of the West, news was brought that Leontius, the bishop of Antioch, had died. Since the Church there was in need of a guardian, Eudoxius requested of the emperor that he might return to Syria. Having obtained this, he traveled quickly to Antioch; and he took the bishopric of that place for himself, without the consent of George, the bishop of Laodicea, or Mark of Arethusa—who were at that time considered the foremost among the bishops of Syria—or of the other bishops in whom the right of ordination resided.

^C Report says that he did this according to the will of the emperor, with the support of the eunuchs of the palace, who together with Eudoxius followed the opinion of Aetius and maintained that the Son was unlike the Father. When, therefore, he had gained control of the Church of Antioch, having attained freedom of speech, he openly championed that heresy. And having convened in Antioch together with those who thought like him—among whom were Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and Uranius of Tyre—who, along with the likeness-in-substance, rejected also the name "consubstantial."

opinion, since they favored that view, among whose number was Acacius, ^A bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, and Uranius of Tyre; and he, together with the term "of similar substance," also rejected the term "consubstantial," claiming that the Western bishops had also decreed the same. For Hosius, together with certain bishops of those parts, in order to extinguish the stubbornness of Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, had been forced by violence at Sirmium, as I have said above, to consent that neither the term "consubstantial" nor "of similar substance" should be used, since those terms were nowhere to be found in the Sacred Scriptures, and the curious investigation of the divine substance far exceeded the capacity of the human mind. To them, therefore, as if they had expressed Hosius’s letters on that matter, Eudoxius sent a letter, giving thanks to Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, and attributing it to their ministry that the Westerners were thinking correctly.

CHAPTER XIII.

How Georgius of Laodicea sent a letter to Eudoxius to restrain him, and concerning the legates sent from the council of Ancyra to Constantius.

When Eudoxius was troubling matters in this way, many from the Church of Antioch who were resisting his efforts were ejected by him, and they, having received letters from Georgius, bishop of Laodicea, arrived in Ancyra of Galatia ^B.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

[...] ^C [...] ^D

^A For it happened ^B that Basilius was at the dedication of the church which he had built, having summoned many of the neighboring bishops, to whom he delivered the letter of Georgius. It contains the following:

"To the most honorable lords, Macedonius, Basilius, Cecropius, and Eugenius, Georgius sends greetings in the Lord.

The shipwreck of Aetius has seized upon nearly all of Antioch. For Eudoxius, having gathered up all the disciples of the detestable Aetius who were being held in contempt among you, is promoting them to the clergy, while holding the heretic Aetius himself in the highest honor. Seize, therefore, such a city, lest the whole world be swept away by its shipwreck. And having come to the same place, gather as many as can possibly meet, and demand subscriptions from the other bishops, with the intention that Eudoxius should expel Aetius himself from the Church of Antioch, and cut off those who are his disciples who have been advanced into orders. Or if he remains calling the Son 'unlike' along with Aetius, and prefers those who dare to say this above those who do not, the city of Antioch, as I have already said, is lost to you."

This is what the letter of Georgius contained. But the bishops who had met at Ancyra, since the innovation of Eudoxius had been clearly exposed by what he had written and voted concerning the doctrine with which he had gathered in Antioch, signified these things to the emperor; and they requested that some provision be made, so that the things defined at Serdica and at Sirmium ^C and in the other councils might remain firm and stable, in which councils it had been agreed upon by common consent that the Son is like the Father in substance. And they choose for this purpose to send an embassy to the emperor: Basilius himself, the bishop of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Sebastia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Leontius, a presbyter from the imperial Thalamepolis. When they arrived at the imperial palace, they...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

...[80] And to Cecropius and Eugenius. In the Fuketian codex and in Nicephorus, the name of Eugenius is added in this manner: Eugenius, moreover, was bishop of Nicaea, as I have noted above. Furthermore, this letter of Georgius of Laodicea against Eudoxius was indeed read at the Ancyran council, as Epiphanius teaches in his work on the Semi-Arian heresy; yet it was not written to the bishops of the Ancyran synod, as is evident from the names of the bishops which are read here in the title of Georgius's letter. For none of them were present at the Ancyran synod, except for Basilius.

[81] By the synod of Serdica, understand not that ecumenical synod of the Catholics, but the other pseudo-synod of Serdica of the Oriental bishops, whose synodical letter exists in Hilary's *Fragments*, and at the foot of the letter is attached a formula of faith in which no mention of *homousios* is made, yet those who say the Son of God is of a different substance, and not of God, are subjected to anathema. By the Sirmium synod, however, Sozomen here does not understand the one in which Hosius had written out his blasphemy. For the Ancyran synod had been assembled against that formula of Hosius. Therefore, one must understand that Sirmium in which Photinus was deposed, and the formula of faith dictated in Greek by Marcus of Arethusa. And this is openly confirmed by the synodical letter of the Ancyran council which Epiphanius reports in his work on the Semi-Arian heresy. For there the bishops who were gathered at Ancyra say that they desired and yearned with all their wishes that after the Antiochian formula of faith, and after the Serdica synod, which the Sirmium synod followed, all subsequent altercation and disputation should be removed. Furthermore, the Ancyran synod was gathered in the year of Christ shortly before Easter, as Petavius learnedly observed in his *Animadversions* on Epiphanius in the work on the Semi-Arian heresy. It is indeed strange that Sozomen makes no mention of the proceedings of this Ancyran council in this place. For he only commemorates the embassy sent to the emperor Constantius. But of the synodical letter, and concerning the formula of faith written by them, which is read in Epiphanius and Hilary, he says nothing.

[82] From the imperial Thalamepolis. Musculus and Christophorsonus translated this from the royal Thalamepolis.

VARIORUM.

* Ancyra, city of Asia Minor, primary city of Galatia, and on the very border of Paphlagonia, situated on an elevated site, archiepiscopal, and famous for the Ancyran council under Pope Sylvester I, in the year 514 (commonly 315), now called Angouri and Anguri, according to Leunclavius, to which the Turks also give the name Engouri. BAUDRAND.

^A Cyzici; and with those, a certain Leontius, a presbyter from the imperial palace. When they had arrived at the court, they found there Asphalius, a presbyter of the Church of Antioch, a most ardent supporter of the dogma of Aetius: who, having completed the business for the sake of which he had come, and having obtained letters from the Emperor, was already preparing to return. But the heresy having been pointed out by the legates who had come from Ancyra, Constantius indeed condemned Eudoxius with his followers: and he received his own letter back from Asphalius. And in his place he wrote these things:

CAP. XIV.

The letter of Emperor Constantius, by which Eudoxius and those who were with him are ordered to be expelled.

Victor Constantius, greatest Augustus, to the holy Church which is at Antioch.

Eudoxius did not arrive sent by us: let no one among you think so. We are far otherwise disposed than to wish to favor such persons. But if they craftily fabricate this also, as they do other things, they clearly show that they are mocking the divine will. For from what things would they of their own accord abstain, those who, inflamed with the desire for dominion, invade cities, and leap from one city to another, like certain wanderers, changers of their abodes, searching for every retreat for the sake of having more? Furthermore, there is a rumor that there are among them certain hawkers and sophists, whom it is not even lawful to name: an impious and most wicked workshop. ^B You understand the faction in question entirely of yourselves. You recognize Aetius clearly from his words, and the followers of that heresy: whose only task is this, to corrupt the ignorant multitudes. But those crafty men, prepared for any act of daring, have already impudently boasted to some that we are pleased with their ordination, by which they ordained themselves. These things are sung by those who are accustomed to babble about such matters. But the thing in no way stands as such, nor does it even nearly approach it. ^C Recall, I pray, to mind those first discourses, when we were inquiring about faith: in which our Savior was demonstrated to be the Son of God, and similar to the Father according to substance. But those noble fellows, who rashly put forward whatever comes into their mouth regarding God, ^D have advanced to such a degree of impiety, that they think certain things other than that which is, and attempt to teach them to others. That this will fall upon their own heads, we have firmly believed.

VALESIUS'S ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

^A For the present, it will suffice that they be restrained from ecclesiastical gatherings and the public assembly. For I would not desire to say at this moment what they will shortly suffer, if they do not refrain from this madness. And what indeed do they not add to their evil? Gathering the most wicked men as if by command, they enroll these very leaders and authors of heresies into the clergy, thus corrupting the venerable assembly, as if it were permitted to them to do and undo everything at their pleasure. And yet, who among mortals, if he be counted among the living, could tolerate these men, who fill the cities with impiety and cover the regions beyond with defilements, loving this one task alone, to be perpetually hostile to good men? Away with that cunning system that dares to seat itself upon divine thrones. Now is the time for the foster-children of truth to come forth into the light and into the midst, all who had escaped their habits and were formerly held fast by fear. For the crafty ways of these men have been exposed, and there will be no way or device left ^B by which they might be exempted from impiety. It is the duty of good men to live by the faith of the fathers, and to increase it as has been said; but beyond that, not to busy themselves curiously. I would also exhort those who, though late, have emerged from the abyss of this error, to subscribe to that verdict which the bishops, endowed with the knowledge of divine things, have rightly and orderly decreed concerning God. In this way, then, the heresy called that of the Anomoeans almost prevailed at that time.

CHAPTER XV.

Not long after, the emperor returned from the city of Rome to Sirmium, and, when the bishops from the West had sent an embassy to him, he summoned Liberius from Beroea. And when the legates of the Eastern bishops were present, having gathered the priests who were in the retinue, he began to compel Liberius to confess that the Son was not consubstantial with the Father. Moreover, Basilius, Eustathius, and Eleusius, who held ^D principal influence with him, insisted and urged the emperor to this end.

^A Having then gathered into one document the decrees against Paul of Samosata and Photinus of Sirmium, as well as the declaration of faith published at the dedication of the church in Antioch—acting as if certain men were trying to establish a private heresy under the pretext of the term "consubstantial"—they prepared Liberius, Athanasius, Alexander, ^B Severianus, and Crescens, who was a bishop in Africa, to agree to this. Ursacius and Germinius, both bishops of Sirmium, and Valens, the bishop of Mursa, along with all those present from the East, likewise concurred. In return, they received from Liberius a confession which declared those who did not assert that the Son is in substance and in all respects like to the Father to be aliens from the Church. For when Eudoxius and those who favored the opinion of Aetius with him at Antioch had received the epistle of Hosius, they spread rumors and gave out that Liberius had also rejected the "consubstantial" and declared the Son to be unlike the Father. When these matters had been thus successfully arranged by the legates of the West, the emperor granted Liberius liberty to return to Rome. The bishops who had gathered at Sirmium also wrote to Felix, who was then presiding over the Roman Church, and to the clergy of that city, that they should receive Liberius, and that both should govern the apostolic see and share the priesthood together in harmony, ^C and that they should in oblivion bury the disagreeable events that had occurred due to the ordination of Felix and the exile of Liberius. For, as the Roman people greatly honored Liberius, both for the other goods and virtues [he possessed] and because he had bravely VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (89) *Those who then gathered into one document.* He seems to understand the formula of faith which is attached to the synodical epistle of the Council of Ancyra, together with the anathematisms, as found in Epiphanius in the heresy of the Semi-Arians, and in Hilary in his book *De Synodis*. Or rather, he understands the new formula of faith, which Hilary in the *Fragments* calls the "perfidy" written at Sirmium, as I shall show below. (90) *The decrees against Paul and Photinus.* He understands the formula of the synod of Sirmium gathered against Photinus in the year of Christ 351. Indeed, Photinus had revived the heresy of Paul of Samosata. (91) *Athanasius and Alexander.* These appear to have been African bishops with Severianus and Crescens. Sozomen indeed indicates this. Furthermore, it is gathered from these that the legates of the Council of Ancyra, Basilius, Eustathius, and Eleusius, came to Sirmium in the year of Christ 358; and that at the end of that same year Liberius was recalled from exile, once he had subscribed to the same Ancyran formula. See Philostorgius, Book IV, Chapter 8. Baronius wrongly placed the restitution of Liberius in the year of Christ 357, in which year the Council of Ancyra had not yet been assembled. Moreover, it is manifest that all these things which are related by Sozomen in this chapter were done in a council of bishops. Indeed, the formula of faith was written there, to which the Eastern and Western bishops subscribed, as did Liberius himself while yet in exile. And the letter was written by them to Felix, the bishop, and to the clergy of the city of Rome, so that they might receive the returning Liberius, and that both simultaneously, namely Felix and Liberius, might administer the episcopate. These things could not have been decreed except by a synod, since it is repugnant to ecclesiastical rule and discipline that there should be two bishops together in one and the same Church. This synod of Sirmium of the year 358, therefore, is to be numbered among the other Sirmians, ^D which Baronius, along with others, appears to have confused with those preceding. There are four Sirimian synods found under Constantius altogether: the first, gathered by the Westerners against Photinus in the year of Christ 349, which Petavius first observed; the second was that of the Orientals, in which Photinus was deposed, in the year of Christ 351; the third, in which Hosius dictated that blasphemy, in the year of Christ 357; finally the fourth, in which Liberius was restored, in the year of the Lord’s birth 358, when he had subscribed to the formula written in that council. This is, in my opinion, what Hilary in the *Fragments* calls the "perfidy" written by the Arians, and what Liberius calls "catholic," and he says he received it as it was offered to him by Demophilus in the Epistle to the Orientals. On account of which act Hilary says "anathema" three times to Liberius. I know indeed that Nicolaus Faber, in the Preface which he prefixed to the *Fragments* of Hilary, understood this perfidy written by the Arians as the blasphemy of Hosius; but with all due respect to that most learned man, this opinion seems to me improbable. For if this had been the blasphemy of Hosius, Hilary would undoubtedly have added that it was written by Hosius and Potamius. For this is how he writes in the book *De Synodis*. Yet among the bishops who had written that perfidy at Sirmium, all of whom Hilary lists there, neither Hosius nor Potamius are named. Furthermore, why would Liberius write to the Orientals that he had accepted the perfidy of Hosius, which the Orientals themselves had rejected and spurned, and which the Synod of Ancyra had condemned? Does it not appear that a different perfidy than that of Hosius is designated by Liberius—namely the one which was then written at Sirmium by Basilius, Eustathius, and Eleusius, as Sozomen testifies in this place? See Petavius in *Animadversions*, p. 316. (92) *A confession from Liberius.* I understand the epistle of Liberius to the Orientals, which is referred to in the *Fragments* of Hilary.

^A without any dissension; and whatever trouble had occurred on account of the ordination of Felix and the absence of Liberius, they consigned to oblivion. For the Roman people loved Liberius intensely, as a man excellent in every respect, and one who had fought bravely for religion against the emperor; so much so that they had stirred up a most serious sedition on his account and had rushed even to ^B slaughter. But after this, when Felix had survived for a short time, Liberius alone administered the Church. This, indeed, divine providence so dispensed, lest the see of Peter should be dishonored by being governed by two prelates at the same time: which is a token of discord and is alien to ecclesiastical law.

CHAPTER XVI

And these things were indeed done at Sirmium; and at that time it seemed, because of the fear of the emperor, that the East and West were of one mind regarding the doctrine of the faith. But on account of the innovations that had been attempted at Antioch, ^C and ^D because of the heresy of Aetius, the emperor judged that he should celebrate a synod at Nicaea. But since Basilius and his adherents had refused this, because the inquiry concerning the doctrine of the faith had long ago been conducted there, it seemed good that the synod should be gathered at Nicomedia in Bithynia; and he ordered with all haste by imperial letters that on a fixed day there should be called from every province those bishops who were thought to be among the most prudent and who were endowed with the ability to understand and to speak, so that in place of all the priests of the province, they might participate in the synod and be present at its judgment. But when the greater part of the bishops had already begun their journey, a message was brought concerning the calamity of Nicomedia, namely, that the city had been entirely shaken by an earthquake. And since the rumor had spread far and wide that that city had been utterly destroyed, the bishops ceased progressing further. For rumor, as it is wont to do, had not only settled upon those who had suffered the evil, but it had announced that disaster to those situated far away. But it was also buzzed about that Nicaea and Perinthus, and the neighboring cities, and even Constantinople itself, had also come into the share of the calamity. Furthermore, this event affected those bishops who held the correct faith with no small grief, for the reason that the church there, also magnificently constructed, had collapsed; and that matter gave an opportunity to men hostile to our religion.

^A For at the second hour, on a day when there was no assembly, the earthquake struck. Of the bishops, only Cecropius, the prelate of Nicomedia itself, and another from Bosporus, were left outside the church. In a moment of time, the city having been shaken, it was not possible for those who wished to flee elsewhere to do so; but at the first onset of the encroaching danger, almost everyone was either saved or perished in the place where he happened to be standing. It is said, however, that a certain Arsaces had foreseen this calamity before it occurred. He was a Persian by birth, who, while serving as a soldier in charge of the emperor’s lions, had become a not undistinguished confessor during the reign of Licinius; having cast aside his military service, he was living in the citadel of Nicomedia, within the city walls, exercising himself in the studies of monastic discipline. ^B There a divine vision appeared to him and bade him depart from the city, as it was destined to suffer what it subsequently did. Thereupon, having quickly reached the church, he instructed the clergy earnestly to supplicate God and to offer up propitiatory prayers for the averting of the threatened wrath. But since he did not persuade them, but appeared ridiculous, as one predicting an unforeseen disaster, he returned to his tower, and falling prostrate on the ground, he prayed. In the meantime, the earthquake having struck, most perished; but those who were left behind fled into the fields and the desert. For as is the case in an opulent and great city, fire happened to be kindled in every house on hearths and in ovens, and in the furnaces of the baths, and among those who exercise their crafts by the aid of fire; and as the roofs of the buildings and the ceilings collapsed, the flame laid hold of the material, which, mixed, as is likely, with dry brushwood and whatever has an oily nature—being most apt to catch fire quickly—found abundant fodder. ^C Creeping everywhere, and joining and co-uniting itself, it rendered the entire city, so to speak, one funeral pyre. On this account, since the houses were inaccessible, those who had escaped the earthquake unharmed ran to the citadel. Arsaces was found dead in the tower that had remained unshaken, lying prone on the ground in the same posture in which he had stretched himself out when beginning his prayer. Men say, moreover, that before he died, he entreated God and chose to die rather than behold the ruin of the city in which he had first learned to know Christ and had partaken of the ecclesiastical philosophy. But since the account has led us to this man, it should be known that by his godliness he was powerful enough to expel demons and to cleanse those ^D who were troubled by them. Thus, indeed, a certain demoniac, having drawn a sword, was running through the marketplace; and while everyone was fleeing and the city was in an uproar, he met him, called upon the name of Christ, and by his word cast him down. Immediately he restored him, and healed him.

^A Many other things were also labored by him, beyond human power and skill, and indeed this one as well: There was a dragon, or some other sort of serpent, that destroyed passersby with its breath before it was seen. For it lay in wait beside a public road. Arsacius arrived there and prayed, and the serpent came forth from its lair of its own accord, and by dashing its head twice against the ground, it killed itself. These things, then, have been told, as those who heard them from men who had seen Arsacius himself reported.

The bishops, having their advance to the synod interrupted because of the disaster at Nicomedia, some waited for further instructions from the emperor; others signified their opinion regarding the faith by letter. The emperor, being at a loss as to what should be done, wrote to Basil ^B asking him what in the world ought to be done about the synod. He, as was fitting, praised the emperor for his piety in a letter, and having consoled him concerning the disaster at Nicomedia with examples from sacred history, urged him to hasten the synod and not to give up, since this work had been undertaken for the sake of piety, nor to send away the priests who had gathered for this purpose, who had already set out and were on their journey. He designated Nicaea as the place for the synod in place of Nicomedia, so that the matters concerning the faith might be settled there, where they had first begun to be examined. And Basil wrote back such things, having reasoned that he would thus declare what was pleasing to the emperor, inasmuch as he himself had resolved from the beginning that the synod should take place at Nicaea.

Having received the letter from Basil, the emperor first ordered them ^C to gather at Nicaea at the beginning of summer, except for those who might be infirm in body, but that these should send presbyters or deacons in their stead, whom they might choose, so that they might declare their opinion, deliberate on the disputed points, and be of one mind together concerning all things. And ten from the Western parts, and as many from the East, whom those gathering together should select by common consensus, were to arrive at the palace, so that they might report what had been resolved, so that he himself might see if they had agreed with one another according to the sacred Scriptures, and might effect as best he thought possible those things which needed to be done. ^D After this, he deliberated and ordered all to remain where they were, or in their own churches, until a place should be designated for the synod, and the aforementioned place should be made known to them.

^A He wrote to Basil, instructing him to inquire of all the bishops throughout the East by letter as to where it was fitting to celebrate the synod, so that by the beginning of spring this might be known to all. For he considered it not proper to hold the synod at Nicaea, as that region had been ravaged by earthquakes. Basil, having placed the emperor’s letter at the head of his own, notified the bishops throughout each province to consult with dispatch and to signify, without delay, the place which appeared to them most suitable. But, as is usual in such matters, since they did not all choose the same place, Basil traveled to the emperor, who was then staying at Sirmium. There he found certain other bishops who had come there for private needs, as well as Marcus of Arethusa, and George, who had been entrusted with the oversight of the Church of Alexandria. ^B And when it had already been determined that the synod should be held at Seleucia in Isauria, those who were with Valens—for he too was staying at Sirmium at that time—being favorable to the heresy of the Anomoeans, exerted their efforts to have the bishops who were then at the imperial court subscribe to a certain ready-made formula of faith, in which the term "substance" was not included. ^C While the synod was being urged on with great eagerness, Eudoxius, Acacius, Ursacius, and Valens, and those who were with them, having considered among themselves that of all the bishops everywhere, some steadfastly adhered to the faith of Nicaea, while others preferred that which had been published at the dedication of the church in Antioch—both of which contained the name of "substance" and declared the Son to be in all respects like the Father—they reasoned that if all were to assemble in one place, they would doubtless condemn the opinion of Aetius, which they themselves favored, as being directly contrary to both those formulas. They therefore succeeded in having the Western bishops assemble at Ariminum, and the Eastern bishops at Seleucia in Isauria. Their design, of course, was that since it is easier to persuade a few than all, they might, by being divided into two, draw both synods, if possible, to their own opinion, or at least one of them, lest their heresy be condemned by the common vote of all. To accomplish these things, they were aided by Eusebius the eunuch, the lord chamberlain, who was an intimate of Eudoxius and of the same mind as him, as well as by other leading men who were eager to curry favor with Eusebius. ^D

CHAPTER XVII.

De his quae gesta sunt in concilio Ariminensi.

The emperor, having been persuaded that it was advantageous neither to the public treasury on account of the expense, nor for the bishops themselves due to the length of the journeys, for all to gather in the same place, divided the synod. He wrote letters to the bishops who were gathered then at Ariminum and Seleucia, to previously resolve the matters in dispute concerning the faith; and finally, to determine according to the constitution of the Church the cases of those bishops who complained that they had been unjustly deposed or sent into exile—among whom was Cyril of Jerusalem—and to pass judgment upon the crimes charged against certain of the bishops. For some were accusing others; the Egyptians, for instance, were charging George with rapine and outrages. And it was determined that, with all things having been judged, ten from each synod should come to the court to report what had been done.

^A In accordance with these commands of the emperor, each party gathered in the place where they had been ordered. The synod that assembled at Ariminum was the first. More than four hundred were in attendance. As for Athanasius, those who were hostilely disposed toward him decided that nothing further need be done. But when the inquiry began into the manner in which one ought to believe, Valens and Ursacius came forward into the midst, joined by Germinius, Auxentius, Gaius, and Demophilus, and demanded that all the previous formulas of faith that had been written be abrogated; and that the one which they themselves had not long before written in Latin at Sirmium be held as valid, which taught that the Son is indeed like to the Father according to the Scriptures, but that no mention at all of substance be made regarding God. They said further that the emperor himself had approved this ^B formula, and that it necessarily ought to be accepted by the synod, and that in the future one ought not to scrutinize too curiously what each person felt, lest by calling words into dispute and precise examination, divisions and seditions should arise. For it was better, they said, to think correctly about God, even if speaking more unskillfully, than to introduce novelties of terminology, which were akin to dialectical quibbles. They hinted at, or rather openly attacked, the term "consubstantial," as unknown to the sacred Scriptures, and unclear to the many. Instead of this, they said, one should call the Son like in all things to Him who begat Him, according to the divine Scriptures.

^C When they had read this, and the formula brought forward by them which contained these things, the majority asserted that they felt no need of a new faith; but were content with those things which had already been accepted before them. They had gathered now, they said, to prevent if anything were being innovated against these; but if the things read did not innovate anything beyond these, they sought to identify the authors of this formula, and openly to denounce the doctrine of Arius, as the cause of the disturbance that even now had arisen from that time in the churches everywhere.

When Ursacius and Valens, Germinius likewise and Auxentius, along with Demophilus and Gaius, refused this condition, the synod commanded that the exposition of faith of other sects, as well as of those who had assembled at Nicaea, be read. This was done so that the other heresies might be rejected, but the decrees made at Nicaea might be confirmed; and so that in the future no one might find fault with them or request a new synod, but rather be content ^B with what had already been settled. For it was deemed absurd that, as if beginning to believe only now, they should write such things, and thereby disparage the tradition of the previous age, by which they themselves and their ancestors had governed the churches, many of whom had ended their days in confession and martyrdom. While they were bringing these things forward, they insisted that no innovation should be made. But because Valens and Ursacius would not acquiesce in these things, and persisted in demanding that the faith which they themselves had proposed should prevail, the synod deposed them, and declared the document they had read to be void. For it appeared absurd to them that the inscription prefixed to that formula should read: "Exposed at Sirmium, in the presence of Constantius the eternal Augustus, in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius," just as Athanasius writes in his letter to his friends; ^C adding that it was ridiculous to call Constantius "eternal emperor," but to refuse to call the Son of God "eternal," and to set a specific time to that formula, as if to find fault with the faith of the ancestors and of those who had been initiated before that time. When these events took place at Ariminum, Valens and Ursacius, taking their deposition with ill grace, immediately flew to the emperor.

CAP. XVIII. The Epistle of the Council of Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius.

The synod, having chosen twenty bishops by common vote, sent them as legates to the emperor; and through them it wrote the following, which have been translated from the Latin tongue into Greek: "By the command of God and by the order of your piety,"

we believe it has been ordained that we bishops of the West should travel from various provinces to the city of Ariminum, so that the faith of the Catholic Church might be made clear to all, and the heretics might be recognized. For while we, who hold the right judgment, were deliberating at length, it seemed good to maintain the faith that endures from antiquity—the faith which the prophets, the Gospels, and the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (who is the protector of your empire and the author of your salvation) have preached, and which we have always held. We have deemed it wicked and unlawful to mutilate in any way what has been rightly and justly established, and that which was determined in common at Nicaea, together with Constantine of glorious memory, your father, whose instruction and mindset have reached and been preached to the ears and minds of all men. ^B This faith remains the opponent and destroyer of the Arian heresy; through it, not only this, but all other heresies have been overthrown. In it, to add anything deceptive, or to take anything away, is dangerous; for if either one occurs, the enemies will have the license to do whatever they wish. Hence, Ursacius and Valens, because they had long been participators in and counselors of the Arian doctrine, were excluded from our communion. In order to be readmitted, they sought to obtain repentance and forgiveness for the errors they had committed against themselves, as the documents written by them also bear witness; through all of which, mercy was shown and their crimes were forgiven. ^C The time when these things were done was when the council was being assembled in Mediolanum, with the elders of the Roman Church also being present. They knew that Constantine, worthy of memory after his passing, had set forth the written faith with all precision and investigation; and since he, having been baptized as a man, departed to the rest of God, we think it wicked to innovate anything after him, or to slight so many holy confessors and martyrs, as well as the authors and originators of the doctrine, who remained holding all things according to the ancient custom of the Catholic Church. This faith, God has granted even to the times of your reign, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom it has been granted to you to reign and to rule over the inhabited world in our midst. But those wretched men, possessed of an unhappy mind, have again declared themselves heralds of the impious doctrine with a reckless audacity, and now even attempt to overturn what had been established with reason. For when your piety's letter commanded that the faith be discussed, there was offered to us by the aforementioned disturbers of the churches, ^D with Germinius, Auxentius, and Caius, some new thing I know not what for consideration, which contained much of the perverse doctrine. But when they saw that what they were offering publicly in the council was displeasing, they thought it should be written another way. And indeed, it is manifest that they have changed these things often in a short time. But that the Church might not be disturbed more frequently, it has pleased us to keep the ancient institutions established and inviolable, and that the aforementioned men be removed from our communion."

^B For as the council was being assembled according to your command, they revealed the design of their own deceit; for they attempted through some craftiness and confusion to introduce something new by offering up those who had been ensnared by such heresy, Germinius, Auxentius, and Gaius, who were the ones causing strife and division. Their teaching, never ceasing, went beyond a whole multitude of blasphemies; but when they perceived that we were not of the same heresy, nor of one mind concerning the things they wrongly held, they withdrew themselves into our council, as if to appear to be writing something else. And the time was short, which also tested their opinions. In order, therefore, that the affairs of the Church might not fall into the same state, and that trouble and disturbance might not seize everyone, rolling over them, it appeared firm to keep what had been long ago determined and is immovable; and that the aforementioned men should be separated from our communion; for which reason we have sent the legates to teach your clemency the opinion of the council through this letter. ^C We have commanded the legates, before all else, this: to attest the truth from those things which were justly determined long ago; who will also teach your holiness that, as Ursacius and Valens said, there will not be peace if any of the just things are overturned. For how is it possible to maintain peace by those who destroy peace? Rather, discord and disturbance will result from these things in the other cities, and in the Church of the Romans. Therefore, we entreat your clemency that you would behold and hear our legates with placable ears and a serene countenance; and may your clemency not permit the ancient laws to be overturned, nor any new thing to be introduced to the insult of those who have departed; but you will allow us to remain in those things which have been determined and legislated by our ancestors, whom we would affirm to have done all things with sharpness of mind and prudence, and with the Holy Spirit. For the things now being newly invented by them instill disbelief in those who believe, and cruelty in those who do not believe. We further entreat that you command the bishops who are detained in foreign lands, whom both the labor of old age and the lack of poverty exhaust, to make an easy return to their own [sees], so that the Churches may not remain destitute, with their bishops taken away. ^D Further, in addition to all this, we also ask that nothing be either lacking or exceeding of the things that existed before, but that all things remain unbreakable, preserved from the piety of your father to the present time; and that you no longer permit us to be worn out and removed from our own sees; but that the bishops, together with their own people, may dwell in peace and have leisure for feasts and worship, entreating for your health and kingdom and peace, which the Divinity shall grant you in perpetuity. Our legates carry both the subscriptions and the names of the bishops or the legates; who also shall teach your divinity from the divine scriptures themselves.

Chapter XIX. Concerning the legates of the council, and the letter of the emperor, and how those around Ursacius and Valens later consented to the formula which had been put forward by them, and concerning the exile of the prelates; and concerning the council held at Nicaea, and for what reasons the council was held at Ariminum.

These, then, are the writings of those who gathered at Ariminum. But those around Ursacius and Valens, having arrived...

^A at the council, showed the emperor the document they had read and slandered the council. The emperor, perhaps annoyed that they had refused to accept that faith which, in his presence at Sirmium, had been confirmed, held them in honor, but showed no regard for the envoys, and though they were worn out by the long delay, he took no thought for them. At length, he wrote to the synod, excusing himself on the grounds that an urgent expedition against the barbarians compelled him, and that for this reason he could not see the envoys. He ordered them to wait at Adrianopolis for his return, so that when public affairs were properly settled, he might, being free from cares, hear and examine the business of the envoys. For he argued that one who is to deliberate on divine matters ought to bring a mind free from other cares. And he wrote to this effect. To these ^B things, the synod replied, asserting that they would in no way depart from what had been decreed, and that they had already written this and instructed the envoys [accordingly]. They begged him to view them with kindness, to listen to what he had instructed them to convey, and to read the writings. For it would be a grievous thing, they argued, for such a number of churches to be without bishops during the time of his reign. Moreover, it was necessary, if it pleased him, for them to return to their own churches before winter. Having written such things, and having composed the letter in the manner and form of a petition, as was proper, they remained for a short time. But when nothing was written back to them, they returned each to their own cities. That the bishops who met at Ariminum had, at the outset, confirmed the decisions of the inhabitants of Nicaea, the aforementioned facts ^C bear witness. It remains, however, to tell how they later consented to the document brought forward by those around Valens and Ursacius. A different account of this matter has come to me. For some say that the emperor, taking the departure of the bishops from the city of Ariminum against his will as a personal insult, gave permission to Valens and those with him to manage the churches of the West at their own discretion, and to publish the formula of faith read at Ariminum; and that those who refused to subscribe to this formula were to be cast out of the churches, and others were to be ordained in their place. Having obtained this license, they used violence to compel [others] to subscribe to this faith; and those who would not be persuaded they drove from their churches, beginning first with Liberius ^D, the Bishop of Rome. And after they had done these things to those in Italy, they decided to treat the churches in the East in the same way. Journeying through Thrace, they arrived at Nice, a city of that province, and having convened a council there, they turned the document read at Ariminum into the Greek tongue and, having published it, confirmed it; and they spread the report that the faith at Nice had been dictated and honored by an ecumenical council. They did this intentionally at Nice, and gave it this name, so that the simpler folk...

^A might be easily persuaded to agree to this faith, being deceived by the similarity of the names and imagining it to be the very confession that was once ratified at Nicaea. This is what some say. Others, however, affirm that when the bishops of the Council of Ariminum were exhausted by excessive delay—because the emperor would neither deign to give them an answer nor permit them to return to their own sees—some who favored the Arian opinion were sent to urge upon them that it was not right that all the bishops everywhere should be at odds with each other for the sake of a single word, namely "substance," when it was possible to call the Son "like the Father" and thus remove the causes of the quarrel, since the Easterners would never be at peace unless the word "substance" was removed. When these conciliators had thus argued with charm, the council was persuaded to concur with the formula of faith so zealously proposed by the followers of Ursacius.

The Ursacians, however, fearing that the legates who had been sent from the council to the emperor might return and reveal the original stance of the Western bishops and the reason for the removal of the word "consubstantial," detained the legates at Nice in Thrace, pretending that their journey would be difficult due to the winter and the exhaustion of the public post-horses. They also persuaded them to translate the formula of faith they had recited from the Latin language into Greek, and to send it thus translated to the Eastern bishops. For they expected that in this way this formula, composed to suit their purpose, would accomplish what they were striving for, while their treachery ^B would not be detected by those who could prove that the synod at Ariminum had not departed from the word "consubstantial" of its own accord, but for the sake of the Easterners, who were known to reject that word.

This was, however, a manifest falsehood. For all of them, except for a very few, maintained that the Son is like the Father in substance; they differed only in that some called the Son *homoousion* (consubstantial), and others *homoiousion* (of like substance). Thus, these events are related in one way by some, and in another way by others. ^C

CHAPTER XX. Concerning the events that occurred in the Churches of the East: and how Marathonius, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Macedonius expelled those who held the doctrine of the consubstantial. Also concerning the church of the Novatians, how it was relocated; and how they communicated with the Orthodox.

While these things, which we have described, were taking place in Italy, ^D

^A gravest tumults were excited in the eastern regions before the synod of Seleucia could be assembled. For Acacius and Patrophilus, having driven out Maximus, entrusted the Church of Jerusalem to Cyril, which Macarius had originally ordained. ^B Macedonius, however, disturbed Constantinople and the neighboring cities when Macarius began to perform ordinations, having as his assistants Eleusius and Marathonius. The latter, whom he had previously established as deacon of the church under him, and an industrious curator of the poorhouses and of the monasteries of both sexes, he appointed bishop of Nicomedia. Eleusius, however, who had previously served with distinction in the palace, he promoted to the bishopric of Cyzicus. Both of these men are said to have been of a good life; yet both were very fierce in vexing those who proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, although not in the same manner as Macedonius. For he not only hunted down those who refused to communicate with him, but even cast them into chains and handed them over to judges. He also compelled others to communicate with him against their will. He would snatch away even children and women not yet initiated, and baptize them. Furthermore, he destroyed many churches in many places, pretending the emperor's command, by which the churches of those who asserted that the Son is consubstantial with the Father were ordered to be destroyed. ^C For this reason, the church of the Novatians in Constantinople, situated near the Pelargus, was also razed to the ground. At which time, it is said that the men of that sect performed a brave deed; perhaps they were also aided by those of the Catholic Church, as people who thought the same as they did. For when those to whom this business had been entrusted ordered the church to be torn down, all the Novatians gathered together: some began to tear down the materials, while others transported them to the suburb of Sycae, situated opposite. And that work was quickly brought to completion. For not only the men, but also the women and children ^D contributed to the work, each of them offering the toil to God, and they displayed an extraordinary eagerness; and through such zeal this church was in the same way rebuilt, and from that time it has been called Anastasia.

contributed their labor: for each of them, as if they were offering their own work to God, were carried along with incredible alacrity. With equal zeal and speed, that church was restored in the same manner, and from that time forward it was named Anastasia on account of that event. For after the death of Constantius, Julian, having obtained the empire, restored that place to the Novatians and permitted them to build a church there. ^B And this was indeed done, the multitude of the people working with a ready mind, and again transporting the same materials from the suburb of Sycae. And these things happened afterwards in this manner. At that time, however, the Novatians and the Catholics were very near to being united; for since they held the same views regarding the Divinity, and were harassed together, and suffered the same calamities, they embraced one another with mutual benevolence and would gather in the same place and pray together. For the Catholics had no houses of prayer at that time; but the Arians had taken everything from them. And since, from their constant association, it was natural that they should see they were at variance in vain, they had determined to communicate with one another. And this would indeed have come to pass, had not the envy of a few, I believe, hindered the alacrity of the multitude, asserting that it was an ancient precept to refuse to do so. ^C

CHAPTER XXI. Regarding those things which were done at Mantinium by Macedonius: and how on account of the translation of the bier of Constantine the Great, he was expelled from his see. Also how Julian was made Caesar.

At that same time, Eleusius also utterly destroyed the church of the Novatians in the city of Cyzicus. By evils of this kind, the rest of the Paphlagonians were harassed, and especially those who dwelt at Mantinium. For Macedonius, having learned that the most of the people there held to the sect of Novatus, and that the ecclesiastical force alone was not sufficient to expel them from there, persuaded the emperor to send four cohorts of soldiers for that purpose. For he expected that men unaccustomed to arms, as soon as they saw armed soldiers, would be terrified and immediately cross over to his own opinion. But the matter turned out otherwise. For the multitude from Mantinium, having gathered together, having snatched up scythes and axes and whatever kind of weapons each could find, advanced against the soldiers. A heavy battle having been joined, very many of the Paphlagonians fell; but almost all of the soldiers ^D were killed. For this reason, many of his intimates reproached Macedonius, as being the author of such great evils. The emperor also turned against him and was no longer of a benevolent mind toward him. For there was also another occasion for greater hatred of this kind: Macedonius wished to move the bier of the emperor Constantine elsewhere. For the house covering it threatened to fall. Of the people, some...

agreed that this should be done; others resisted, deeming it an impious deed, and no different from digging up a tomb. To these were joined those who followed the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, who would not allow the body of Constantine to be violated, inasmuch as he had held the same opinion as they; and they were, I believe, eager to oppose Macedonius. But he, without hesitation, moved the bier to the basilica in which the tomb of the martyr Acacius is located. The multitude, some praising what had happened, others finding fault, turned against one another in that very church. And finally, they filled both the house of prayer itself and the surrounding area with blood and slaughter. The emperor, who was still staying in the parts of the West, was deeply disturbed upon hearing these things; and, imputing the insult to his father and the wretched slaughter of the people to Macedonius, he became enraged against him. ^B And when he had decreed to go to the parts of the East, he immediately began his journey. And having summoned his cousin Julian, he appointed him Caesar and sent him to the Gauls.

CHAPTER XXII. De Seleuciensi concilio.

^C Meanwhile, about a hundred and sixty bishops from the East gathered at Seleucia in Isauria. This was the year in which Eusebius and Hypatius held the consulship. Leonas had also arrived with them, who performed a distinguished function in the palace. The emperor had ordered him to attend the council so that, in his presence, the doctrine of the faith might be investigated. Lauricius, the duke and governor of the province, was also present, in case there should be any need for him to provide assistance; for the emperor had commanded him by letter to perform this duty. At the first session, some other bishops were absent, as well as Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Macedonius of Constantinople, and Basil of Ancyra. And while they offered various pretexts for their absence, Patrophilus pleaded an eye ailment, and Macedonius a sickness. Yet there was a suspicion that they had absented themselves deliberately, lest they be accused of crimes. And because the others, on account of their absence, declined to examine the controversies concerning the faith, Leonas nevertheless ^D ordered that the questions should be agitated. From this point, some said that the doctrine of the faith should be examined before all else, whereas others declared it necessary to first hold an inquiry into the life and morals of those among them who were accused, of whose number were Cyril of Jerusalem and Eustathius of Sebastia. Indeed, the letters of the emperor gave them a pretext, as they indicated this at one time, and that at another. [alt-version omitted]

^A Having entered upon this contention, they were no longer well-affected toward one another, but divided into two parties. It prevailed, however, that the discussion concerning doctrine should be held first. But when they arrived at such arguments, it seemed good to some to remove the term "substance" entirely, putting forward the confession of faith which Marcus had composed not long before at Sirmium, and which those bishops who were then present in the retinue had accepted, along with whom ^B was Basil, bishop of Ancyra. But the majority preferred the creed that had been promulgated at the dedication of the church in Antioch. The first opinion was championed primarily by Eudoxius, Acacius, and Patrophilus, and also George of Alexandria and Uranius of Tyre, and thirty-two others. Of the second, George of Laodicea in Syria, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, whom the greater part of the bishops followed. But it was suspected that those around Acacius differed from the others on the doctrine on purpose, and by this pretext were evading the investigation into their crimes; for although they had previously written to Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, confessing the Son to be in all things like the Father, and of the same substance, they were now brazenly fighting against their former confessions. After many things had been agitated with great contention on both sides, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, ^C cried out that it was not to be tolerated that a new formula of faith should be introduced contrary to that which had been approved at Antioch; and that this one alone should be held valid. The Acacians, taking this amiss, withdrew from the council. The remaining party then read what had been decreed at Antioch. On the following day, meeting in the church, they closed the doors, and having gathered by themselves, they ratified those decrees by their votes. But Acacius censured what had been done in this manner. Privately, however, he showed the formula of faith for which he himself was contending to Leonas and Lauricius. On the third day the others met again, ^D and with them Macedonius and Basil, who had been left out. But Acacius and those with him refused to share in the assembly unless those who had been deposed and accused by them were first removed; and this was done. For those of the other party yielded, suspecting that Acacius was looking for this pretext to dissolve the council, just as they suspected he was also trying to escape the present inquiry into the heresy of Aetius.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(16) *The faith which not long before Marcus...* He understands the Sirmian formula of faith, which had the consuls Eusebius and Hypatius as signatories. For Marcus had dictated this, as I noted above from the letter of Germinius to Valens, which is reported in the Fragments of Hilary. Therefore Socrates is mistaken, who writes that Marcus dictated the formula of faith which was promulgated at the Sirmian council against Photinus. For I would believe that this was dictated rather by Basil of Ancyra, since he played the leading role in that council.

(17) *Along with whom was Basil.* See above in the chapter of this book, where Sozomen narrates how Basil of Ancyra came to the emperor's retinue, who was then staying at Sirmium; and there he found Marcus of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, Valens, and certain others. When they had written a certain formula of faith, in which the name of "substance" had been suppressed, they were eager that it be accepted by all the bishops and confirmed by their signatures. Furthermore, here it is startling to consider Basil, who in the Ancyran synod had so severely condemned those who had rejected the name of "substance" in the Sirmian assembly. The same man, however, later subscribed at Sirmium to the formula of faith dictated by Marcus, which did not have the name of "substance".

(18) *They voted for these.* It seems it should be "voted for them," as Christopherson reads. I found the conjecture annotated in the margin in the Savilian codex. But in the Fukelian codex it is written "voted for these," which however I do not approve.

^A And they themselves [are held accountable] ^B for the things of which they were accused. When all were present, Leonas said that he had a book which had been delivered to him by the followers of Acacius; it was a formula of faith with a certain proem, and it was unknown to the others—for Leonas, holding the same view as Acacius, had intentionally kept it hidden. When it was read, the assembly was filled with uproar. For it declared that, since the emperor had commanded that nothing be added to the faith beyond the Holy Scriptures, some persons, by bringing in those who had been deposed from various nations and those who had been ordained as bishops illegally, had disturbed the synod; some of them they had treated with insult, and others they had not allowed to speak. They further stated that they did not repudiate the faith set forth at Antioch, even though the members who had gathered there had composed this formula on account of the question that had been raised at that time. However, since the terms *homoousion* and *homoeousion* still troubled many, and some had recently attempted to introduce the *anomoion* [the "unlike"] of the Son to the Father, therefore they declared that the *homoousion* and *homoeousion* ought to be rejected as foreign to the Scriptures, that the *anomoion* should be condemned, and that the Son should be clearly confessed as "like" the Father. For he is, as the Apostle Paul says somewhere, the image of the invisible God (Coloss. 1, 15). Having prefaced these things, they appended a formula of faith that agreed neither with the views held at Nicaea nor with those at Antioch, but was so composed that even those who held the opinions of Arius and Aetius would not seem to be sinning if they believed in this way. For they bypassed the terms by which those gathered at Nicaea cast out the heresy of Arius; they were also silent about the fact that the Son is immutable in deity, and an image of the Father—inseparable in essence, ^C will, power and glory—as had been stated at the synod at Antioch. They confessed that they believe in the Father, and that they believe in the Son and the Holy Spirit. Having used for each some common epithets which did not conflict either with themselves or with those who held the opposite views, they voted that those who believed otherwise were aliens to the Catholic Church. Such were the contents of the book produced by Leonas, signed by Acacius himself (19) and those who obeyed him. After the reading of this, Sophronius of Paphlagonia cried out, "If the act of setting forth an individual confession every day is an exposition of faith, the precision of truth will fail us." When Acacius insisted that there was nothing to prevent another formula from being dictated, since the faith at Nicaea had been altered once—and after that, many times—Eleusius (20) took him up: "But ^D the synod," he said, "was convened now, not that it might learn what it had not learned, nor that the faith..."

should receive any other confession than that which has already been approved by those who gathered at Antioch; and that we must hold to this until death."

As the discussion proceeded in this manner, they passed on to another question. They asked those around Acacius in what respect they confessed the Son to be like the Father. When they replied that He was like Him only in will, and not in substance, all the others maintained that He was like Him in substance as well. And they convicted Acacius by means of the work he had written and published, showing that he had previously held the same opinion as they did. But as Acacius said that no one ought to be judged by his writings, and the discussion grew more contentious, Eleusius of Cyzicus finally said: ^B "If Basil or Mark have done anything on their own, or if they—and those around Acacius—are accusing one another privately, it is of no concern to the synod; nor is it necessary to inquire too curiously whether the faith they have set forth is correct or otherwise. We must, however, follow the faith that was confirmed at Antioch by the ninety-seven bishops who preceded them in age. If anyone introduces something beyond these things, let him be alien to religion and to the Church."

When all those who were with him cheered these statements with joyful acclamations, the assembly was dismissed for the time being. But on the following day, those who were with Acacius and George refused to come into the council any longer. Leonas, too, even though he was summoned, did not attend, for he was already openly supporting their position. Certainly, those who were sent to him found the Acacians in his house. Even though they begged and called upon him to come to the synod, ^C he did not listen, as if the synod were divided; he had been ordered by the Emperor to be present, with everyone in agreement and gathering in one place. But as time went by, the others repeatedly called for those around Acacius, while they, on one hand, requested individuals to meet at the house of Leonas, and on the other hand, insisted that others be judged, as they alleged 23 had been commanded by the Emperor. They did not even want to profess the same faith 24, nor would they consent to defend themselves regarding the charges brought against them, nor would they be present for the examination of the case of Cyril, whom they themselves had deposed. And there was no one to urge them on.

They deposed certain others, including George, the bishop of Alexandria; Acacius of Caesarea; Uranius of Tyre; Patrophilus of Scythopolis; and Eudoxius of Antioch. They declared the majority of them to be excluded from communion ^D until they should defend themselves against the charges brought against them. And the things...

which had been done were signified by letters to the churches of each. And in place of Eudoxius, they ordained Annianus as bishop of Antioch, who was a presbyter of that church. The Acacians, having soon apprehended him, delivered him to Leonas and Lauricius. They actually kept him for some time under military guard, but at length condemned him to exile. This, to speak briefly, was the outcome of the council of Seleucia. And if anyone desires to know each thing accurately, he will be able to learn them from the records of the proceedings which the notaries, who were present at the synod, wrote down. ^A

CHAPTER XXIII.

When these matters were thus transacted, the followers of Acacius journeyed with haste to the imperial court, while the others departed, each to their own homes. But ten men, as had been ordered, having been chosen by common consent to go to the emperor, came upon the ten delegates sent by those who had gathered at Ariminum; they also met the followers of Acacius, who had already brought over to their own way of thinking those in the palace who had influence, and through them had secured the goodwill of the sovereign. For it was said that some among them were of the same opinion as themselves; some had been corrupted by the wealth of the churches; ^B others had been deceived by the blandishments of words, and by the authority of the one persuading them. For Acacius did not seem a person to be despised; being by nature clever at thinking and speaking, and efficient and industrious in putting into action whatever he had determined; and he was in charge of a distinguished church, and boasted that Eusebius Pamphili, whom he had succeeded in the episcopate, had been his master, and by the fame of his books and the succession, he wished to seem more learned than the others. And since he was of such a character, he easily accomplished whatever he desired. And as there were twenty at Constantinople from each synod, and others who happened to be residing there, in the first instance, the task was delegated to them to judge regarding the inquiry into Aetius, with the leaders of the great council present, Honoratus (26), whom the emperor not long before, from the west, after he had returned, had appointed as the first prefect of Constantinople...

Afterward, however, when Constantius himself, together with the magistrates, had examined the same case, Aetius was found to hold false views concerning the faith, to such a degree that both the emperor himself and the others were offended by his impious sermons. They say, moreover, that the Acacians, while they initially feigned that they were entirely ignorant of such an error, had deliberately endeavored to have the emperor and his associates judge this matter, because they thought Aetius would be unassailable in his arguments, and competent, by the force of persuasion, to strike his listeners and establish his heresy even against the will of his adversaries. But when the matter resulted for them contrary to what they had hoped, then indeed they brought forward the formula which had been brought from Ariminum, and demanded that the legates sent from the Seleucian council accept it. And when these men firmly asserted that they would never repudiate the term "substance," the Acacians, with an oath, persuaded them that they by no means asserted the Son to be of a dissimilar substance, and were prepared to condemn that heresy. But because the Westerners at Ariminum had expunged the name of "substance," they affirmed that this formula was most acceptable to them. For, as they said, if this prevailed, the term "consubstantial" would also be involved in silence along with the name of "substance"; which, however, the Western bishops valued highly out of reverence for the Nicene synod. ^B Moreover, the emperor himself was induced to approve this formula, as he considered the multitude of those who had convened at Ariminum; and that he would not at all err who confessed "[the Son to be] like" and "consubstantial," and that it made no difference to him regarding the meaning if one did not use names unknown to sacred Scripture, provided that, with an equivalent and indisputable term, namely "like," one confessed the same sentiment. With such a mind, therefore, the emperor ordered the bishops to consent to the faith set forth by those who had gathered at Ariminum. And as he was preparing for the solemn consulship procession on the following day, as is the custom among the Romans on the Kalends of January, he spent the whole day and the greatest part of the following night with the bishops, arguing until the legates ^C who had arrived from the Seleucian council had subscribed to the formula of faith brought from the town of Ariminum.

Chapter XXIV.

The Acacians, having remained for some time in Constantinople, summoned the bishops from Bithynia; among whom was Maris of Chalcedon, and Ulfila, ^D

^A a bishop of the Goths. And when they were fifty in number, they gathered together and confirmed the formula of faith which had been recited at Ariminum, adding only that in the future no one should mention either substance or hypostasis in God; and that, beyond this formula, every other, whether already written or yet to be written, should be condemned. When these things were finished, they stripped Aetius of his diaconate, because he wrote books that were contentious and for the display of knowledge, composed in a manner alien to the custom and institution of the Churches, and because he used impious expressions in disputation; and finally was the author of tumult and sedition in the Churches. There are some who say that they did not depose Aetius willingly or from their hearts, but in order to clear themselves before the emperor of the suspicion that had been conceived regarding them. For they were accused of holding the same opinions as Aetius. After this, abusing the anger of the emperor, by which he was inflamed against Macedonius because of the things we mentioned above, they deposed Macedonius from his bishopric; and besides him, Eleusius the bishop of Cyzicus, Basil of Ancyra, Heortasius of Sardis, and Dracontium of Pergamus. And although they differed among themselves concerning the dogma of the faith, while they were deposing these men, they did not in any way censure their faith. They brought against them charges, in common against them all, that they had perturbed the Churches and had sinned against ecclesiastical laws. But privately they brought charges against individuals: against Basil, indeed, that he had taken away the papers of a certain presbyter of Alexandria, Diogenes, who was traveling through Ancyra, and had inflicted blows upon him; and that he had commanded the provincial governors that certain clerics from Antioch, and from the provinces situated near the Euphrates, as well as Cilicians, Galatians, and Asians, should be condemned without a hearing to exile and other kinds of punishments; so much so that they had endured iron shackles, and besides this, had given their property to the soldiers who were leading them away, in place of a ransom, so that they might not be subjected to outrages. ^B They also accused him of having persuaded the person who had been entrusted with the emperor’s command—when the emperor had ordered Aetius and some of his followers to be led to Cecropius to answer regarding the crimes with which he charged them—to do only what he himself wished; and that he had written to Hermogenes the prefect, and to the consular of Syria, explaining whom and to what place they should be deported; and that later, when the emperor had recalled them from their exile, he did not allow it, opposing the magistrates and the priests. They added that he had also incited the clergy in Sirmium against Germinius, and that by writing to him ^C and to Valens and Ursacius, he had slandered them to the bishops of Africa; and when accused of this, he denied it and perjured himself; and when he was caught, he tried to use sophistry regarding his perjury. And he became the cause of dissension and sedition among the Illyrians. ^D

Italians, and Africans, and of the events which befell the Roman Church. He had also endeavored to have a female slave thrown into chains, and forced her to make a false confession against her mistress; and he had baptized and deemed worthy of the ministry of God a man of shameful life, who was cohabiting with a woman not by legal marriage. He did not exclude from the Church a wandering physician who was the cause of many murders. And furthermore, he was accustomed to making conspiracies at the sacred table, invoking dire curses and compelling the clerics to swear not to accuse one another. They said that these things were done by him craftily, so that he, who was set over the entire clergy, might escape the accusations of his accusers. These, to speak briefly, were the causes for which they wrote that Basil had been deposed by them.

As for Eustathius, he was deposed first because, when he was a presbyter, his father Eulalius, who was bishop of the church of Caesarea in Cappadocia ^B, had previously condemned him and separated him from the communion of prayers. After this, he had been excommunicated by a synod at Neocaesarea in Pontus; and he had been deposed by Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, having been found wanting in certain administrations that had been committed to him. Then, because he was preaching, acting, and thinking otherwise than was fitting, he had been deprived of his bishopric by those who had gathered at Gangra. At the synod of Antioch ^C, he was convicted of perjury and of attempting to overturn the decrees of those who had gathered at Melitene. Although he was guilty of very many charges, he claimed the right to be a judge himself, and called others heterodox. They also deposed Eleusius, because he had deemed worthy of the ministry of God, without due consideration, a certain Heracleius, a Tyrian by birth, who had been a priest of the Heracles ^D of that place, a man who had been reported for sorcery and was a fugitive and therefore living in Cyzicus, and who was feigning Christianity; and even after learning that he was not what he pretended to be, he did not separate him from the Church. Furthermore, he had unadvisedly ordained men whom Maris of Chalcedon—a bishop who was in communion with that synod—had condemned and who had arrived in Cyzicus. They also deposed Eortasius, because he had become bishop of Sardis without the consent of the bishops in Lydia, and Dracontius of Pergamum, because he had previously been a bishop in Galatia.

They therefore invalidated both ordinations, as being illegitimate. After this, they assembled again and deposed Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia; likewise Elpidius of Satala, and Neon, bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. ^A They deposed Silvanus because he had been the instigator and ringleader of the madness for the rest, both at Seleucia and at Constantinople, and because he had set a certain Theophilus over the Church of Castabala, who had previously been ordained bishop of Eleutheropolis by the bishops of Palestine, and had sworn an oath that he would never undertake another bishopric without their consent. They deposed Sophronius as a grasping man, who attempted to trade in the offerings made to the Church, and because, after a first and second summons, he had appeared with great reluctance and refused to answer for the charges brought against him before them, choosing instead to appeal to outside judges. ^B They deposed Neon because he had striven intently to have Annianus ordained bishop of Antioch in his own Church; and because he had inconsiderately ordained persons as bishops who were ignorant of the holy Scriptures and the laws of the Church, and who were merely civil magistrates. These men afterwards preferred the possession of their own wealth to the priesthood, and chose in writing to retain their property and perform public duties rather than be stripped of their goods and hold the bishopric. Finally, they deposed Elpidius because he had taken part in a royal riot and had become a teacher of disorder; and because, contrary to the decisions of the synod at Melitene, ^C he had restored to the presbyterate Eusebius, a man who had been deposed, and had deemed worthy of the diaconate a certain Nectaria, who had been excommunicated for violating covenants and oaths, when she was not entitled to that honor according to the laws of the Church.

Caput XXV. For what reasons Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, was deposed; concerning the mutual dissensions of the bishops who were substituted in the place of others; and how Meletius was ordained bishop of Sebastia by the Arians in the place of Eustathius.

^A Together with these they also deposed Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, because he had held communion with Eustathius and Elpidius, who had endeavored to abrogate the decrees of the Melitinensian synod, at which he himself had also been present; and because, after his deposition in Palestine had taken place, he had entered into communion with Basil and George, the bishop of Laodicea. For after he had entered upon the bishopric of Jerusalem, he had stirred up a controversy concerning metropolitan rights against Acacius, the bishop of Caesarea, claiming that he held an apostolic see. From this it came about that they conceived enmities against one another and mutually accused each other of not holding correct views concerning the Divinity. For even before this, each of them had come under suspicion: Acacius, indeed, because he held the same views as Arius; but Cyril, because he followed those who asserted that the Son is similar in substance to the Father. Acacius, holding this opinion, along with the bishops of the province of Palestine who felt the same way, forestalled Cyril and deposed him for the following reason: When famine had seized the region of Jerusalem, the multitude of the needy, destitute of necessary food, turned their eyes upon Cyril as their bishop. ^B Since, however, there was no money with which the needy could be assisted, Cyril sold the treasures of the church and the sacred veils. It is said, therefore, that someone afterwards recognized his own donation upon a stage-player who was clad in it; that he inquired curiously whence she had it, and discovered the merchant who had sold it to the woman, and that the merchant had bought it from the bishop. Pretexting this cause, therefore, Acacius deposed Cyril; and these things, indeed, I have received by hearsay to have happened in this manner. Furthermore, the Acacians expelled from Constantinople those bishops whom we have reported above to have been deposed at that time. ^C They commanded of those ten who refused to subscribe to the depositions that they should remain by themselves for the time being, and neither perform their priestly functions nor administer the churches until they should subscribe to these things. If they did not repent within six months and assent to all the things that had been decreed and transacted in this synod...

they commanded that they also be deposed, and that the bishops of each province should assemble together and appoint others in their place. When these things had been consulted upon and brought to effect by them, they wrote to the bishops and clergy ^A everywhere, that they should observe and put these things into execution. Thus, not long afterwards, others were substituted in the place of others by the Eudoxians. And in the place of Macedonius, Eudoxius himself was installed; in the place of Basil, Athanasius; and Eunomius, who later founded the heresy that takes its name from him, was appointed in the place of Eleusius; finally, Meletius received the church of Sebastia to rule in place of Eustathius.

CAP. XXVI. On the death of Macedonius, the bishop of Constantinople; and what Eudoxius said in his first sermon; and how Eudoxius and Acacius endeavored with all their might to abolish the Nicene and Ariminensian formula of faith; and how great a tumult arose in the Churches from this matter.

But Macedonius, having been stripped of the Church of Constantinople, retired to a certain place near the gates of the royal city, and there he ended his days. Eudoxius, however, obtained the Church in his place, when Constantius Augustus was consul ^B for the tenth time and Julian Caesar for the third. At that very time, when he gathered the people for the first time at the dedication of the great church which they call Sophia, having ascended the priestly pulpit, as if about to preach to the people, he is said to have uttered these words at the very beginning of his discourse: "The Father is impious, but the Son is pious." When the crowd began to stir, he said, "Be quiet. The Father is impious, because He worships no one; the Son is pious, because He worships the Father." By this remark, he turned his hearers to laughter. ^C Furthermore, both he and Acacius, working together, labored with all their might to blot out from the minds of all the memory of the things decreed at Nicaea; and the formula of faith which had been recited at Ariminum, together with the additions which they themselves had added as if to correct it, they sent to all the provinces of the Roman Empire, and they ordered that those who refused to subscribe to this faith be punished with exile, in accordance with the command of the emperor. For they had been eager, he says, thinking that by this means they would easily accomplish what they wished. ^D But that matter became the cause of the most grave calamities. For a tumult not unlike those which we have related above arose throughout the entire Roman world, and a certain persecution, as it were, seized all the churches everywhere, of such a kind as once, under the pagan emperors...

^A had raged. For even if this, in what pertains to torments, seemed more mild, to prudent men on account of the infamy it was seen as more bitter. For both were of the Church, both he who persecuted and he who sustained the persecution. And the evil was so much the more shameful, as it is a graver thing to perpetrate against fellow tribesmen and kinsmen those things which enemies are wont to do; although the divine law prohibits us from having such a spirit even against strangers.

CAPUT XXVII. How, after Macedonius was cast out from his throne, he spoke impiously against the Holy Spirit; and in what manner Marathonius, together with certain others, increased his heresy.

Novelty, however, when it was praised, increased more and more, and daily advanced toward innovating; being puffed up with pride and arrogance, and having despised ancestral constitutions, it established private laws. Nor did it endure to think the same things concerning God as the ancients; but, daily devising foreign dogmas, it never ceased to accumulate new upon new. This indeed also happened then. For after Macedonius was exiled from the Church of Constantinople, he no longer held the same opinion as those around Acacius and Eudoxius. For he taught that the Son is indeed God, in all things and according to substance like to the Father; but he asserted that the Holy Spirit was devoid of the same honor and dignity: ^B calling Him a servant and minister, and one would not err in saying about Him whatever anyone says about the angels. Others who shared this opinion of his were Eleusius and Eustathius, and all those who at that time had been deposed in Constantinople by the upholders of the contrary opinion. To these a not insignificant part of the populace adhered, both in Constantinople and throughout Thrace, Bithynia, and the Hellespont, and the surrounding nations. For even their manner of life, to which the common people are most wont to pay attention, was in no way to be blamed. For their demeanor was indeed grave, and their discipline was similar to the monastic. In addition to this, their speech was not ungraceful, and their character was adapted to persuasion. Such a man as this is said to have been Marathonius: who, from being a public auditor ^C of the offices of the praetorian prefecture, having amassed great wealth for himself, when his military service was finished, took care of the sick and the poor living under one roof. But afterwards, at the persuasion of Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia, he embraced the monastic life: and he established a brotherhood of monks in Constantinople, which has persisted by continuous succession down to our own age. Moreover, he contributed so much zeal and personal wealth to this heresy, that by some it is even called the Marathonian, after Macedonius—in my opinion, not unreasonably. For he appears

to be the only one who, together with his associates, ensured that this heresy was not completely extinguished in Constantinople. Indeed, from the time that Macedonius was deposed, the Macedonians had neither churches nor any bishops until the principate of Arcadius. For the Arians by no means permitted it, and all those who held contrary opinions ^A were driven from the churches and afflicted with grievous punishments. It would be difficult, indeed, to enumerate one by one all the bishops who were at that time expelled from their sees. For no province of the Roman empire, I believe, was exempt from this calamity.

CAP. XXVIII. How the Arians, thinking the divine Meletius favored their own opinion, transferred him from the see of Sebaste to Antioch; and when he freely professed the Catholic faith, suffused with shame, they installed Euzoius in his place. Meletius, however, held ecclesiastical assemblies separately, since the Homousians avoided him, inasmuch as he had been ordained by the Arians.

About the same time, when Eudoxius held the church of Constantinople, many began to covet the see of Antioch, and, as is wont to happen in such matters, various contentions and seditions of the clergy and people arose therefrom. For every one chose for the governance of the Church him whom he hoped would agree with him in the faith. Since the dissensions ^B regarding the doctrine of the faith had not yet ceased among them, nor did they agree with one another in psalmody, but, as has been said above, individuals adapted the psalms to their own sect and sentiment. When, therefore, the Church of Antioch was in this state, the Eudoxians judged it would be advantageous for Meletius to be transferred there from Sebaste, inasmuch as he was first of all capable of speaking and persuading, and was approved for the integrity of his life, and had long been considered to be of the same opinion as themselves. For they hoped that by the reputation and authority of such a man, they would easily win over the citizens of Antioch and the neighboring cities to their own opinion; particularly the Eustathians, who held the same views regarding the divinity as had been delivered by the Council of Nicaea. But the matter was to turn out far ^C differently than they hoped. For when he had come to Antioch, it is said that an immense multitude of people assembled, as well from the Arians as from those who communicated with Paulinus; some wishing to see the man, whose fame was such that even ^D

^A before his arrival had spread abroad; others wishing to learn what he would say, and whose opinion he would support. For the report had already spread that he approved of the faith of the Nicene Council, and the outcome of the matter proved this to be true. For, in the beginning, he publicly expounded only moral precepts; but, in the end, he openly asserted that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. ^B It is said further that the archdeacon, who was then of the clergy there, immediately ran up and, laying his hand upon him while he was still speaking, stopped his mouth. But he signified his opinion with his hand more clearly than by his voice. For he held out only three fingers at first; then, drawing them back and compressing them, he held out only one, intending by the figure of his hand to represent to the multitude what he believed, and what he was prohibited from saying. When the archdeacon, in his agitation, released his mouth and seized the hand of Meletius, the latter, having gained freedom for his tongue, declared his opinion more openly in a loud voice than before, and exhorted his hearers to adhere to the decrees of the Nicene Synod, protesting that those who thought otherwise wandered from the truth. But when he did not cease saying these same things and signifying them with his hand by turns, while the archdeacon kept obstructing him and a contention arose between the two, not unlike a wrestling match, the Eustathians began to shout, to rejoice, and to leap for joy; the Arians, however, were cast down. When those around Eudoxius heard this, they were gravely disturbed, and endeavored to have Meletius expelled from the city. Yet they subsequently recalled him, on the pretext of correcting what he had said, as if he had been led by repentance to embrace the contrary opinion. But when he did not change his opinion, the Emperor ordered him to be expelled from the Church and sent into exile. Upon this, Euzoius, who had already been deposed long before together with Arius, assumed the governance of the Antiochian see. The supporters of Meletius, however, separating themselves from the Arians, held meetings apart. For those who from the beginning had followed the faith of the consubstantial, refused to communicate with them, because Meletius had been ordained by Arian bishops, and his followers had been baptized by such priests. ^C And so they were divided among themselves for this reason, although they agreed in the doctrine of the faith. But the Emperor, having received word that the Persians were planning hostilities, proceeded to Antioch.

CHAPTER XXIX.

The party of Acacius could not remain quiet again, but having assembled once more at Antioch with a few others, they ^D that he was of the dogma of those who had convened at Nicaea,

CHAPTER XXIX.

^A blamed what they had before decreed; and they resolved to excise the word "like" from the creed read at Ariminum and Constantinople. They held that the Son is in all respects, both in substance and in will, unlike the Father, and that he was made from nothing, as had seemed right to Arius from the beginning. To these were added those who held the views of Aetius, who was the first after Arius to dare openly to use these terms. Whence he was even named godless, and those who approved of his views were called Anomoeans and Exucontians (46). When those who followed the doctrines of Nicaea questioned them, asking how, while admitting the Son to be God from God, they dared to call him unlike and from nothing, contrary to their own profession, they replied that it was said by the apostle Paul, "But all things are from God" (1 Cor. 11, 12), and that the Son was also included in all. And they said that what they had set forth was to be understood in this way, "according to the Scriptures" (47). This is how they translated and caviled, but finally, since they were not able to offer a sufficient defense to those who accused or reviled them concerning these things, they again read the creed that had been approved at Constantinople, and then dispersed, and returned to their own cities. ^B

CAP. XXX. Concerning George of Alexandria, and the bishops of Jerusalem; and how, after three bishops had succeeded one another following Cyril, Cyril again received his own see.

At this same time, while Athanasius was still in hiding, George, having returned ^C to Alexandria, grievously ill-treated the Greeks [gentiles] and the Christians who did not hold the same views as he. For he forced both groups to worship the divine power as he pleased, and he persecuted those who refused. He was hated by those of rank because he was arrogant and gave orders to the magistrates; and by the common people, because he was tyrannical and possessed more power than all others. He was particularly offensive to the Greek element, because he prevented them from sacrificing and keeping their ancestral festivals, and because he brought soldiers and the commander in Egypt (48) with arms into the city, and seized the images, the votive offerings, and the adornments in the temples. This provided the pretext for his assassination later, as I shall presently relate. When Cyril had been deposed, as has been mentioned, ^D this later brought about the cause of his death, just as...

about to mention. But Cyril having been deposed, as I have said, Erennius received the Church of Jerusalem. To him succeeded Heraclius, and to Heraclius, Hilarius. For we have received that these men administered the Church of Jerusalem down to the principate of Theodosius; at which time Cyril recovered his see by right of postliminy. ^A

HERMIAS SOZOMEN OF SALAMIS: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, VOLUME V

BOOK V. CHAPTER I.

Concerning the defection of Julian the Apostate, and the death of the Emperor Constantius.

And such were the occurrences in the Churches throughout the East. Meanwhile, however, Julian Caesar, having defeated in battle the barbarians ^C living along the river Rhine, ^D

^A some he subdued, others he took alive. Having by this time become illustrious, and being very dear to the soldiers because of his modesty and gentleness of character, he was hailed by them as Augustus. ^B Making no excuse for this act to Constantius—as was fitting—he indeed changed the judges appointed by him, but he pointedly displayed the letters by which that monarch had invited the barbarians to war against Magnentius, and had brought them into the Roman provinces. And although he had previously seemed to be a Christian, he suddenly changed his religion, proclaimed himself Pontifex Maximus, entered the temples of the Greeks, sacrificed to the gods, and began to persuade his subjects to worship the gods with that same rite.

Further, since there was a fear that the Persians might invade the Roman territories, and Constantius was therefore lingering in Syria, Julian, realizing that he could occupy the Illyrian provinces without a battle, marched toward them; pretending, for the sake of offering an apology, that he was making the journey to visit Constantius, lest he appear to have accepted the imperial insignia from the soldiers of his own accord and against his [Constantius'] will. It is said that when he first stepped across the borders into this region, vines were seen to be full of sour grapes, after the time of the vintage, about the setting of the Pleiades; and that dew which had fallen from the air upon his mantle and the garments of those following him had imprinted the sign of the cross in every single drop. ^C He himself, and very many of his companions, took the grapes appearing out of season as a good omen; but they imagined that the dew had spotted the clothes upon which it had chanced to fall by some accidental occurrence. Others said that of these two prodigies, the one portended that the emperor would perish by an untimely death—just like those grapes—and that his reign would be of short duration; while the other foretold that the Christian religion was heavenly, and that all men ought to be signed with the mark of the cross. And in my judgment, those who augured ill for the emperor did not stray far from the truth; for the progress of time demonstrated that both things had been predicted by them with a happy conjecture.

As for Constantius, when he learned that Julian was bringing war upon him, he abandoned the military preparations against the Persians and hastened toward Constantinople. But while he was making the journey, he passed away at Mopsucrenae, a place between the Cilicians and the Cappadocians who dwell along the Taurus, having reached the age of about forty-five years. ^D Of these, he had reigned for thirteen years with his father, and for twenty-five years after him. When he had died, Julian already held Thrace. Not long after, he entered Constantinople and was proclaimed emperor. The Greeks, however, used to spread rumors that even before he left the Gauls, diviners and demons had stirred him up to this expedition, having foretold the death of Constantius and the change in affairs. But it was surely plausible to call this a foreknowledge, if it were not that his own end of life was also at hand, as if he had tasted of the empire in a dream. For it is foolish, I think

to say that when he had foreseen by the art of divination the fated death of Constantius and his own slaughter in Persia, he voluntarily hastened toward a death set before his very eyes; for it could have brought him nothing but the reputation of imprudence and military incompetence, while it would have brought such great danger upon the Roman Empire that it nearly went under entirely, or at least a large part of it would have been subjected to the Persians. But let these things be said by us, lest they seem to have been overlooked; let each person conclude about them as he wishes. ^A

CAP. II. On the life and upbringing and lifestyle of Julian; and how he came to the empire.

After the death of Constantius, the fear of persecutions invaded the Church. And the expectation of disaster made it more grievous to the Christians than the evil itself, since the long interval of time that had passed had rendered them unaccustomed to such dangers, and there was the remembrance of ancient tortures and the hatred of the prince toward their religion. For it is said that he immediately, from the beginning, so shamelessly denied the faith in Christ that he washed away the baptism of the Christians with certain sacrifices and invocations, which the Greeks call "depulsoria" (averting), and with the blood of victims, renouncing the sacraments of the Church: and from that time forward he made use of divination, and victims, and the other rites of the Gentiles, both privately and publicly. ^B Therefore on one occasion, when he was inspecting the entrails, they say that the sign of the cross appeared to him in the entrails, surrounded by a crown. And the others who were privy to and participants in that divination were struck with fear, inasmuch as they conjectured from this the strength of our religion and the doctrine that would endure forever. For the crown with which the cross was surrounded is a sign of victory; and taking its beginning from everywhere and ending in itself, it is nowhere terminated by the circumference of the circle. But the teacher of this science bade the emperor to be of good courage. For the entrails appeared ^C auspicious and according to their desire, inasmuch as they enclosed and narrowed the symbol of the Christian religion on every side; so that it could neither grow wide, nor roam freely wherever it wished, as it was circumscribed by the circumference of the circle. I have heard, moreover, that he once descended into a certain very illustrious and religious adytum, for the sake of some initiation or certainly to consult an oracle. And when suddenly the specters, which are accustomed to appear in such places through certain contrivances and magical illusions, were presented to him, terrified and struck with fear, he forgot what was being done—for he had ^D arrived at such learning late in his life—and, as one caught in inextricable dangers, he marked himself with the sign of Christ, induced by his former habit. And immediately the phantoms vanished, and that which was being attempted was hindered.

The priest of those rites was perturbed by this; and when he learned the reason why the demons had fled, he declared that what the emperor had done was a crime, and, exhorting him to be of brave spirit and neither to do nor think anything Christian, he led him back again to perform the sacrifice. Furthermore, the emperor’s zeal for such superstition struck no small grief and fear into the Christians, especially because he had been a Christian before. For, having been born of parents most strongly devoted to the Christian religion, he had been initiated as a boy according to the rite of the Church, instructed in the Holy Scriptures, and finally educated under bishops and churchmen. ^B For their father, both to him and to Gallus, was Constantius, the own brother of Constantine the emperor, and also of Dalmatius; whose son, called by the same name Dalmatius, when he had been proclaimed Caesar, was killed by the soldiers after the death of Constantine. At that time, they also, being orphaned of their father, were in danger of perishing together with Dalmatius. But Gallus was delivered from the plot because he happened to be sick and was expected to die before long of his own accord; while Julian, then a youth, was still in his eighth year. Thus, having been preserved beyond all expectation, they were ordered to reside in Cappadocia at Macellum. This is a public estate, situated at Mount Argaeus, not far from the city of Caesarea, which has a magnificent palace, baths, gardens, and perennial springs. ^C There both of them were educated and trained with royal care; there they were instructed in the disciplines and exercises suited to their age; and there, finally, they were so well educated by teachers of the liberal arts and by instructors of the Holy Scriptures that they were enrolled in the clergy and read the ecclesiastical books to the people. Moreover, they manifested their piety by their character and deeds, making much of the priests and others who were good men and diligent in doctrine, frequenting the houses of prayer, and honoring with the appropriate tributes the tombs of the martyrs. At that time, they say, while they were striving to enclose the tomb of the martyr Mamas ^D within an oratory, each of them strove to share the work. And as each one competed in ambition and honor to surpass the other, a result occurred which was marvelous and entirely incredible, had not many...

^A of those who heard it from the eyewitnesses survived even to our own time. For the part of the work that fell to Gallus proceeded and advanced according to his desire, but of the operations of Julian, some collapsed, some were thrust up from their foundations, and others could not even hold together to the ground from the beginning, just as if they were being pushed back by some opposing and violent force from below. To all people, the thing naturally seemed a marvel, and to the majority, it was judged by what happened later. But others concluded from this that the man was not sincerely disposed toward the faith, but was feigning piety, acting the part of a Christian because the emperor at that time was one, and thinking it was not safe to bring his own opinion out into the open. It is said that he betrayed his ancestral religion, having at first been influenced by the familiarity and conversations of soothsayers. For after some time had passed and Constantius' anger had subsided, Gallus went to Asia and stayed at Ephesus, where ^B truly he had the greater part of his property. Julian, however, having returned to Constantinople, frequented the lecture halls of the teachers who were there; being gifted by nature and making great progress in his studies, he did not remain hidden. For he led his life in a private capacity and associated with many. But since, as is wont to happen in the multitude of the people and in a royal city, as a cousin of the emperor and one who appeared capable of managing affairs, he was expected to reign, and such discourse regarding him prevailed, he was ordered to reside at Nicomedia. There, Maximus the Ephesian philosopher met him, and he taught him philosophy and hatred of the Christian religion; and as a soothsayer, he asserted that what was rumored about him was true. The other man, as typically happens to those who are distressed by the expectation of difficult situations, being enticed by auspicious hopes, made Maximus his friend. These things having been reported to the emperor, he was struck with fear, shaved his head, and ^C feigned a monastic manner of life. Secretly, however, he clung to the other religion. Since he had already arrived at manhood, he was more easily led on, and was excited about these things. Marveling if there were any art that could signify the future, and considering the learning of this—which is not for Christians—necessary, he was led to the trial, and from that time forth he used those who practiced these things as his friends. Being in this state of mind, he came to Asia from Nicomedia; and having associated with such people there, he became more eager regarding these matters. When Gallus, his brother, having been proclaimed Caesar, was charged with plotting revolution and executed, Constantius, assuming that he too was possessed by the desire for the throne, kept him under guard. But after Eusebia, the wife of Constantius, ^D had interceded for him, he allowed him to go, and he departed for Athens, under the pretext of Greek studies and education.

^B But in reality it was so that he might consult the prophets living there regarding his own affairs. Constantius, having summoned him from there, created him Caesar, and having betrothed to him his own sister Constantia (57), sent him to the Gauls in the West. For the barbarians, whom he himself had previously hired as allies against Magnentius, having been of no benefit for that purpose, were ravaging the Gauls. Since he was still young, he entrusted the management of affairs to the generals attending him. But as they were indolent, the Caesar himself ^C took thought for the war as much as he was able; he made the soldiers more eager for battle, both by exhorting them in other ways to expose themselves to dangers, and by fixing a specific reward for anyone who killed a barbarian. Having thus become pleasing to the soldiers, he reported the sloth of the generals to Constantius. When another had been sent in his place, he joined battle with the barbarians and performed well. And when they sent envoys regarding a peace, and presented letters from Constantius, which summoned them into Roman territory, he delayed on purpose to dismiss the envoy who had come about this matter, and, attacking the multitude of the enemy unexpectedly, he defeated them. It is said that Constantius, plotting against him, had entrusted this war to him. But to me this does not seem credible. For if he had been able not to make him Caesar in the first place, what reason is there why he should have done so, why he should have given his sister in marriage, and why, when he complained about the slothful generals, he should have listened and sent a vigorous man in their place, ^D so that they might bring the war to a successful conclusion, if he were not his friend? But as I surmise, Constantius was at first well-disposed toward him when he created him Caesar; but after he was proclaimed Augustus against his will—either from fear, because he had wronged him and his brother while they were still young, or driven by envy, as it seems, because he had attained an equal degree of honor—he prepared plots against him through the barbarians who dwell by the Rhine. But others think otherwise about these matters.

CAP. III. How Julian, having been raised to the empire, began gradually to undermine the affairs of the Christians, and cunningly to restore the superstition of the Gentiles.

When he truly gained possession of the empire alone, he opened the Gentile temples in the parts of the East as well. And those

^A things that had been neglected he ordered to be repaired, those that had been pulled down to be renewed, and the altars to be set up. And he discovered many revenues for them; he renewed the ancient customs, the national rites of the cities, and their sacrifices. He himself, openly and publicly sacrificing to the gods, offering victims and libations, held in great honor those who were zealous in these matters. Furthermore, he restored to the initiators of the sacred rites, to the flamens, to the hierophants, and to the ministers of the idols, their ancient honors, and he confirmed for them the privileges which had been established by the preceding emperors; their immunity from public duties and from other burdens, such as they had possessed before, he decreed for them. Moreover, he returned to the temple stewards the provisions that had been taken away. He also commanded that they should abstain from certain foods and from all other things from which it is becoming that those who wish to be—as the Gentiles say—in a state of purity, should refrain. He also commanded that the cubit of the Nile and the sacred symbols should ^B be carried to the temple of Serapis according to the custom of their ancestors. For by the command of the Emperor Constantine, they were being carried to the church. He wrote frequently to the cities; to those which he knew were devoted to the superstition of the Gentiles, he voluntarily exhorted them to ask for whatever gifts they wanted. But to those that were Christian he was openly hostile, not enduring that he himself should dwell therein, nor [allowing them to…]

admitting their delegates if they came to complain of any hardships. ^A Finally, when a Persian invasion was expected at that time, he threatened the people of Nisibis, who had sent deputies to him on this matter, that since they were all Christians and neither opened the temples of the gods nor attended the rites, he would neither bring them aid, nor admit a delegation, nor set foot in their city—which he branded as wicked—until he learned that they had converted to the religion of the Gentiles. Bringing the same charge against the Constantians in Palestine, he annexed their city to the Gazaeans. For this city of Constantia, as we have learned previously, having been the seaport of the Gazaeans and formerly called Maiuma, Constantine, understanding it to be very devoted to the Christian religion, had honored it with the status of a city, named it after his son Constantius, and ordained that it be governed independently, judging it unfair that it should be subject to the Gazaeans, who were overly addicted to the superstitions of the Greeks. But when Julian came to the throne, the Gazaeans lodged a complaint against the Constantians. Sitting as judge in this case, he awarded Constantia to Gaza, though it is situated approximately twenty stades away. And from that time, being shorn of its former name, it is called the maritime ^B quarter of the city of Gaza. Their civil magistrates, their duumviri, and their public affairs are common to both. However, regarding the Church, it is only in that respect that the two cities still appear as distinct. For each has its own bishop and its own clergy, its own feast days for its martyrs, and commemorations of the priests who have presided over them, as well as boundaries of the surrounding lands to which the altars belonging to each bishopric are defined. Therefore, in our own time, a certain bishop of the city of Gaza, upon the death of the presiding bishop of the Maiumitan Church, ^C endeavored to unite both bodies of clergy and subject them to himself, saying it was unlawful for two bishops to exist in one city. But when the Maiumitans resisted, the synod of the province, having heard the case, ordained another bishop; judging it to be altogether just that those who had obtained the rights of a city on account of their piety, but had been deprived of that right by the decision of a pagan emperor, should at least not be despoiled of privileges granted to them in matters concerning the priesthood and ecclesiastical order. But these things happened later, in the manner I have described. ^D

CHAPTER IV. The great evils Julian inflicted upon the Caesareans: and of the boldness of Maris, bishop of Chalcedon.

About the same time, the Emperor Julian determined to humiliate Caesarea, a large and prosperous metropolis situated by Mount Argæus.

^A He struck it from the list of cities and deprived it of the name of Caesarea, which it had formerly acquired under the Emperor Claudius, being previously called Mazaca. For he had long harbored an extraordinary hatred for its inhabitants, because they were almost all Christians and had long ago demolished the temples among them of Zeus, the tutelary god of the city, and of Apollo, their ancestral deity. But when he learned that the temple of the public Genius—the only one that remained—had been overturned by the Christians while he was already reigning, he was moved with the most intense indignation against the entire city. And he reproached the Gentiles who were there, who were very few in number, for not coming to the rescue and for not having willingly endured if it were necessary to suffer something in defense of the Genius. He ordered that all the property and money of the churches in Caesarea and under its mountains be searched for with torture and brought into the public treasury. ^B He immediately ordered the payment of three hundred pounds of gold into the treasury, and that all the clergy be inscribed on the roll of soldiers serving under the governor of the province; a duty which is considered very burdensome and shameful in the Roman armies. He ordered the multitude of Christians, together with their wives and children, to be registered and to pay taxes just as in the villages. He also threatened with an oath that, unless they quickly rebuilt the temples, he would not cease from his anger or from harming the city, and that he would not even allow the Galileans (for so he was accustomed to call the Christians in mockery) to keep their heads. And his threat might perhaps have been carried out, if he had not been snatched away by death. For even at the beginning of his reign, ^C though he was not merciful to the Christians, he appeared more humane than those who had previously persecuted the Church; but having learned from past events that there was no profit in punishments for the establishment of Hellenism—by which the Christian cause had for the most part increased and become more glorious—he changed his tactic.

Since he envied them their glory, but was not sparing them, he did not consider it necessary to use fire, or the sword, or bodily tortures, or drowning, or burying them alive—which had been the ^A former practice—to force a change of mind. He believed that he would persuade the masses to convert to Hellenism by means of reason and exhortations; and he thought that he would easily attain his purpose if, by not deigning to use force, he paradoxically appeared to be a philanthropist toward them. It is said that when he was once at the wall of Constantinople 70, Maris, the bishop of Chalcedon, approached him, publicly insulted him as an impious man, and called him an atheist and a renegade. The emperor merely reproached him for his blindness; for he had come led by a guide, being, as he was, an old man with his eyes clouded. When he then, mocking and blaspheming Christ as was his habit, said, “Your Galilean God will not heal you,” Maris replied, “But I thank my God for my blindness, in that I am spared from seeing one who has fallen away from piety.” The ^B emperor, making no reply, passed on. For he thought that he would establish Hellenism more firmly in this way, by unexpectedly showing himself to the multitude of Christians as long-suffering and mild.

CAP. V. How Julian granted freedom to the imprisoned Christians, with the design that the Church might be troubled; and what evils he devised against the Christians.

While he was focused on these things, he recalled from exile all those who had been banished by Constantius on account of their religion, and restored their property to those who had been proscribed by law. He forbade the city populace to wrong any of the Christians, or to insult them, or to drag them against their will to sacrifice. However, as for those who came to the altars of their own accord, he ordered that they should first propitiate those whom the Hellenes call “Averter” demons, and be purified by the cleansings customary to them. But from the clergy, he took away all their exemption from service, their honors, and their ^C allowances 72 of Constantius; and he...

abrogated the laws enacted in their favor; finally, he restored them to the curiae. He also ordered that from the women inscribed among the clergy on account of poverty, and from the virgins and widows, those things which they had received from the public treasury should be exacted. For when Constantine was regulating the state of the Churches, he distributed from the taxes of each city what was sufficient for the provision of necessities to the clergy throughout, and confirmed this by an enacted law, which indeed remains even now, carefully observed since the time Julian died. They say, moreover, that this exactment was most cruel and most troublesome. The documents ^B at that time delivered by the exactors to those who were compelled to pay serve as evidence for this, by which it was shown that they returned what they had received according to the law of Constantine. Nor did the prince's hatred against the Christian religion stop here. But as he had a mind hostile to this doctrine, he left no form of harm omitted by which he might subvert the Church. For he took away both their wealth and their offerings, and sacred vessels; and he forced those who had torn down the temples of the gods during the reign of Constantine and Constantius to rebuild them, or to pay the valuations for them. For these reasons, since they could perform neither of these two things, and since moreover sacred wealth was being studiously sought ^C, bishops together with clerics, and not a few of the Christian laity, were subjected to most grave tortures and thrown into prison. Whence, therefore, it is possible to conclude that, as far as concerns slaughter and new tortures of bodies, he was gentler than those who had persecuted the Churches before; but in other respects, he was sterner. For he is found to have vexed the Church in every part, except that he recalled from exile the bishops who had been banished while Constantius was reigning. Yet it is said that he did not order this impelled by mercy, but so that by mutual contentions among them, the Church might be conflicted by civil war, and might fall away from its own institutions; or certainly so that he might bring disgrace upon Constantius. For he hoped that he would stir up the hatred of almost all the Romans against him, although he was dead, if he were to treat the pagans—as like-minded—kindly, while ^D showing pity for those who, through Christ, had suffered5 ill under him, as men who had been wronged. Indeed, he cast the eunuchs out of the palaces, as being pleasing to him. And Eusebius the...

prefect of the palace he punished with death. He was privately embittered against him, as he suspected that his brother Gallus had been put to death by his counsel. But Aetius also, the founder of the Eunomian sect, who had been exiled by Constantius for that reason and was otherwise suspect to him because of his friendship with Gallus, he recalled to himself by letters full of kindness, having granted him the use of the public post. For a similar reason, he commanded Eleusius, the bishop of the Cyzicenians, under a very heavy penalty, to rebuild, at his own expense and within the space of only two months, the Novatian church which he had destroyed in the times of Constantius. One might find many other things which, out of hatred for the one who ruled before him, he either did himself or allowed others to do.

CAP. VI.

At the same time Athanasius, who had previously been hiding, no one knew where, upon the announcement of the death of Constantius, appeared by night in the Alexandrian church. This indeed was naturally a matter of wonder, as it happened suddenly and beyond everyone's expectation. For when, at the instigation of the friends of George and at the order of the emperor, the governor of the Egyptian military forces had attempted in vain to arrest him, as we have related above, Athanasius escaped by flight and until this present reign had hidden with a certain consecrated virgin in Alexandria. We have received accounts that she so surpassed other women in the beauty of her form that to those who looked upon her she was like a miracle; yet to men who professed modesty and chastity, she seemed a woman to be avoided, lest any stain of base suspicion should be cast upon them. For she was in the very flower of her youth, exceedingly grave and modest—qualities which, even if natural beauty is lacking, are accustomed to grace a body with an admirable charm. For in truth, it is not as some think, that the soul is such as the body is. But in the—

state of its pursuits, the character ^A of the body is reflected; and one who happens to practice such things, shows himself to be of such a sort according to the time in which he is practicing. And if anyone were to examine this theory accurately, I think no one would disagree. It is said that Athanasius, guided by a divine vision that warned him he would be saved in this way, took refuge with this maiden. And to me, as I look at the outcome of the whole affair, it seems that these things were ordained not without the will of God, but so that Athanasius’s kin might suffer no trouble if anyone should try to search them out and inquire curiously about him, or force them to swear; and so that he might remain hidden, living in secret with this maiden, whose beauty did not allow anyone to suspect that a priest was dwelling there; yet, out of strength of mind, she received him and saved him by her prudence. She was so faithful a guardian and diligent a servant, that she washed his feet, and provided the necessities for his sustenance and ^B all other things which natural necessity requires—when there was need—serving him all by herself; furthermore, she would bring him the books he needed, borrowed from others. And although these things went on for a very long time, nonetheless, not one of the citizens of Alexandria came to know of it.

CAP. VII. Concerning the slaughter and dragging of George, Bishop of Alexandria, on account of what happened in the temple of Mithras; and what Julian wrote regarding this matter.

And Athanasius was saved in this way, and having appeared in the Church contrary to everyone’s expectation, it was not known whence [c] he had emerged. But the Alexandrian people, exulting with great joy, surrendered the churches to him. The Arians, therefore, having been driven from the churches, held their assemblies separately in private houses, having set up a certain Lucius in place of George as bishop of their sect. For George had already been put to death. For as soon as the magistrates publicly announced that Constantius was dead and that Julian had been raised to the empire, the multitude of the Alexandrian pagans stirred up a sedition. And all of them, shouting and assailing him with insults, made an assault upon him, as if they were about to kill him then and there. But their assault being immediately repressed, they kept him in bonds for that time. And not long afterward, having rushed at dawn to the... ^D

prison, they murdered him; and having placed him upon a camel, and spent the entire day heaping insults upon him, finally, toward evening, they consumed him in a fire. I am not ignorant that those of the Arian heresy say that Georgius suffered this at the hands of the supporters of Athanasius. ^A But I myself believe the deed was rather one of the pagans; considering, namely, that they had more and weightier causes for hatred against him, especially on account of the insults offered to the temples and images, and the prohibition of their sacrifices and ancestral rites. Moreover, the authority he wielded in the imperial palace had increased the citizens' hatred of him; and, as the populace is wont to be disposed toward those in power, they found him intolerable to them.

^B Furthermore, something occurred in the place which the Alexandrians call the Mithraeum. For Constantius had long ago bestowed this place, which had been abandoned, upon the Church of the Alexandrians. But when Georgius was clearing it out to build a church there, an inner sanctuary was revealed in which were found certain images—I know not what kind—and instruments of those who in those times were initiating others into, or being initiated in, the mysteries there, which appeared ridiculous and foreign to those who saw them. The Christians, displaying these things publicly, began to ridicule and mock the pagans. But the latter, having gathered in a great crowd, attacked the Christians; some being armed with swords or stones, others with whatever weapon came to hand. And having killed many, and for the insult to their religion having even crucified some, they left the majority wounded. On account of this, the Christians left the work they had begun incomplete; and the pagans, when the reign of Julian began, murdered Georgius.

^C The emperor himself bears witness that this is how it is. He surely would never have confessed it, had he not been compelled by the truth itself; for he would have preferred, I suppose, if Christians or anyone else were the killers of Georgius, rather than pagans. Yet he did not conceal the truth. In the letter indeed which he wrote to the Alexandrians on this matter, he seemed to be gravely indignant. But he reproached them only in writing, and he remitted the punishment—out of regard, as he himself says, for Serapis, the guardian of their city, and for Alexander, its founder, and for Julian, his own uncle, who previously had presided over Egypt and Alexandria ^D itself; a man who took the greatest delight in paganism and hated the Christians beyond measure, to the extent that, as far as he was concerned, he acted contrary to the opinion of the sovereign, even to the point of causing the Christians to suffer evil to the shedding of blood.

Chapter VIII. Concerning Theodore, the keeper of the sacred vessels of the Church of Antioch, and how Julian—the uncle of Julian the Apostate—was eaten by worms on account of his violation of the sacred vessels.

It is said that when he was then endeavoring to plunder the church of Antioch and to transfer its many and most precious offerings to the emperor's treasury, and had ordered the houses of prayer to be closed, all the clergy are said to have fled; Theodore the presbyter alone remained in the city. As he was the keeper of these treasures and the one capable of revealing their whereabouts, Julian seized him and tortured him severely. Even when he was being tortured, Theodore answered with a brave heart, persisting in the confession of the Christian faith; finally, Julian ordered him to be put to the sword, inasmuch as he had answered bravely in the face of every torment and had acquitted himself well in his testimony on behalf of the doctrine. After Julian had plundered the sacred vessels, he turned them over and mocked them. Having uttered as many blasphemies against Christ as he wished, he sat upon them and heaped abuse upon them. Immediately his private parts and the surrounding areas necessary for nature were corrupted; the flesh in those parts began to rot and turned into worms, and the malady overcame the skill of the physicians. Notwithstanding their reverence for, and fear of, the emperor, they had recourse to every kind of medical treatment. They sacrificed many costly birds, and applied their fat ^B over the putrefied parts of his body, hoping to draw the worms to the surface ^A. But they accomplished nothing; for the worms, being hidden deep within, crawled toward the healthy flesh, and ceased not from gnawing until they had destroyed him. It was thought that he suffered this calamity by a visitation of God, just as the keeper of the emperor's treasury ^C, ^D [NOTE: this refers to the following section, which continues on the next page].

and certain others of those entrusted with authority in the palace, who acted insolently against the Church, met their end in a strange and pitiable manner, as if condemned by the judgment of an angry God.

Chapter IX. Of the martyrdom of the holy Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno, in the city of Gaza.

Since I have arrived at this point in the narrative, and have already related the killing of George and Theodore, ^A I deem it appropriate to make mention of Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno, the brothers. The people of Gaza, who hated them, apprehended them at that time while they were hiding in their own home. They first delivered them to prison and scourged them. They then gathered into the theater and raised many cries against them, saying that they had committed crimes against the sacred rites, and that they had abused the opportunity of previous times for the overthrow and insulting of the Hellenic religion. And while they were thus shouting and inciting one another to their slaughter, they became filled with fury. ^B And having encouraged one another, as a rioting mob is wont to do, they ran to the prison; and having led them out, they killed them most cruelly. They dragged them along, at times face down, and at other times on their backs, dashing them against the ground. Those who happened to be striking them used stones, some used clubs, others whatever implements were at hand. I have even heard that women left their looms, came out of their houses, and pierced them with the shuttles; and that some of the cooks who were in the marketplace snatched pots of boiling water from the hearths and poured it over them, while others pierced them with spits. ^C After they had torn them to pieces and crushed their skulls, so that even their brains flowed upon the ground, they dragged them outside the city to the place where they were accustomed to throw the carcasses of beasts of burden. There they lit a pyre and burned their bodies; and the remaining bones, which the fire had not consumed, they mixed with the bones of camels and asses lying there, so that they might not be easily found. Yet they did not remain hidden for long; for a certain Christian woman, not herself a native of Gaza, but who had fixed her dwelling there, collected them by night by divine direction, and putting them into a pot, gave them to Zeno, their cousin, to keep. ^D For God had so commanded in dreams, and had revealed to the woman the place where this man was living. Even before she had seen him, He had pointed him out to her; for he was unknown to the woman, and because the persecution had been recently stirred up, he was hiding. For he himself had also nearly been apprehended by the people of Gaza at that time and killed, while the multitude was occupied with the murder.

^A Finding an opportunity, he fled to the city of Anthedon upon the sea, which is distant about twenty stades from Gaza, and which at that time was equally addicted to the superstition of the Gentiles and devoted beyond measure to the worship of idols. Having been informed against there as a Christian, he was severely scourged on his back with rods by the Anthedonians and driven out of the city. Having betaken himself to the port of the Gazaeans, he lay hidden there in concealment. There a woman happened upon him and delivered the relics to him; and he kept them hidden at his home for some time. But later, having been allotted the bishopric of that Church—and this happened in the principate ^B of Theodosius—he built a basilica outside the city, erected a sublime altar within it, and deposited the relics of the martyrs near Nestor the confessor. He had associated familiarly with his cousins while they were living, and, having been seized together with them by the populace, had shared in their bonds and scourgings. But as they were dragging him along, those who were seizing him, seeing that he had a beautiful body, took pity on the young man and cast him outside the city gates, still indeed breathing, but expected to die shortly. Then certain persons, lifting him up, carried him to Zeno; in whose care, while medicine was being applied to his wounds and lashes, he gave up his soul. But the Gazaeans, weighing the gravity of their own crime ^C in their minds, began to fear that the emperor would not allow them to go unpunished. For a rumor had already spread that he was indignant and had resolved that every tenth man of the populace should be put to death. But this was false and merely a popular rumor, such as is likely to arise among the masses, circulated because of the fear and the conscience of the things they had committed. For the emperor did not even rebuke the Gazaeans by letter, as he had done to the Alexandrians on account of the murder of George. Nay, he even deposed the consular who was then governing that province, having held him under suspicion; and when he was brought to judgment, he wished it to be attributed to his own clemency that he did not impose death in any degree. However, he accused him because ^D he had seized certain of the Gazaeans, who were said to have been the authors of the sedition and the murder, and placed them in bonds, so that they might undergo judgment according to the prescription of the laws. "For," he said, "what need was there to take them away, seeing they had exacted vengeance upon a few Galilaeans for the many injuries which they had inflicted upon them and their gods?" And such are the things that are reported to have happened.

CHAPTER X

Of Saint Hilarion, and of the virgins at Heliopolis who were killed by swine, and of the most atrocious martyrdom of Mark, bishop of Arethusa.

During this same time, the monk Hilarion, being sought by the people of Gaza ^A, fled to Sicily. There he would collect wood from the desert mountains and, carrying it upon his shoulders, sell it in the city; and in this way, he procured his daily sustenance, enough to keep him alive. But being discovered as to who and what he was by a nobleman ^B who was vexed by a demon, and having delivered him from that unclean spirit, he went to Dalmatia. Having there also performed most great and marvelous things by divine power, such as even staying by prayer the sea ^C which was flooding and rushing over the dry land, he again departed from that place. For it was not agreeable to him to dwell among those who praised him, but by changing places he strove to remain unknown, and to dissolve the prevailing reputation about him through frequent migrations. Finally, while sailing past Cyprus, he put in at Paphos. Being invited by the bishop of the Cypriots at that time, he was pleased with his stay there, and lived a life of philosophy near a place named Charburis. Now, the cause of this man not attaining martyrdom was his flight; and he fled because it is a sacred precept not to await those who persecute us, but if we are captured while being pursued, to be brave and stronger than the compulsion of our persecutors. Nor were the things mentioned dared against the Christians only by the Gazans and the Alexandrians. For those who dwelt at Heliopolis near Libanus, and at Arethusa, appear to have surpassed these in the excess of their cruelty.

^A For those people—a thing indeed incredible to relate, had not some of the eye-witnesses at the time reported it—compelled sacred virgins, who were accustomed to be seen by the multitude only rarely, to stand in public, stripped of their garments, as a spectacle and mockery for all who wished. And after they had previously abused them with every kind of contumely, finally they ^B flayed them, and cutting them in two, invited pigs to devour their entrails; having covered the surface of the viscera with food familiar to them, so that the pigs might not easily distinguish them, but desiring their accustomed food, might of necessity tear to pieces human flesh as well. Now the Heliopolitans broke out into this cruelty against the sacred virgins for this reason, as I conjecture, because they had been forbidden to expose their virgins, according to ancestral custom, to be defiled by any chance person before they were joined in marriage to their lawful husbands. For Constantine, having destroyed the temple of Venus at Heliopolis, had for the first time built a church there, and by a law had prohibited them from committing their customary fornications in the future. As for the Arethusians, they killed my instructor, Mark, who had been their bishop—a man of great age, and venerable as much for his life as for his grey hairs—by a pitiable kind of death. They had long been embittered against him. For in the reign of Constantius, he had shown himself more zealous than those who prefer to persuade by words in bringing the Gentiles over to the Christian religion, and had destroyed the most sacred and magnificent temple among them. But when the rule passed to Julian, seeing the populace stirred up against him, and being at the same time condemned by the edict of the emperor either to pay the valuation at which the temple had been estimated or to restore it; and ^C considering that both were impossible, and that the latter was moreover unlawful for a Christian, and much more so for a priest, he at first took to flight. But learning that many were in danger on his account, and were being subjected to torments, courts, and the terrible things involved in these, he returned from his flight, and of his own accord presented himself to the multitude to do with him whatever they wished. And they, from whom it was fitting to praise him more as one who had exhibited an action worthy of a philosopher, instead...

regarding it as an affront that he had been slighted, all rushed upon him at once in a crowd. Laying hold of him in the streets, they began to strike and tear him, each one pummeling whatever limb he ^A could reach. Men and women, and people of every age, pursued this spectacle with eagerness and wrath, so that they even sliced off his ears with thin cords. Boys who were attending the schools made a game of the affair; they would hoist him aloft, rolling him toward each other, passing him back and forth, and stabbing him unsparingly with their styli. When his entire body had become a mass of wounds, but he was still breathing, they smeared him with honey and fish sauce (garum), placed him in a basket—a woven rush hamper—and hoisted him up on high. It is said that when wasps and bees swarmed upon him and began to devour his flesh, he said to the Arethusians that he, indeed, was placed on high, while he saw them as lowly and crawling upon the ground, and from this he conjectured what outcome would shortly befall both him and them. ^B It is also said that the prefect of the praetorium at that time—a man who was indeed a staunch Gentile, but of such noble character that his reputation holds firm even to this day—admiring the constancy of Marcus, spoke freely to the Emperor and chided him, saying that they deserved to be visited with shame and ignominy, having been overcome by an old man who had bravely withstood such great tortures. He added that they were in danger of becoming objects of ridicule, while those who were being so treated were becoming more glorious. The blessed man, therefore, withstood the fury of the Arethusians and their multifarious tortures with such nobility of spirit that he was even praised by those same Gentiles for this. ^C

CHAP. XI

Concerning Macedonius, Theodulus, Gratianus, Busiris, Basil, and Eupsychius, who suffered martyrdom in those times.

At that same time, Macedonius, Theodulus, and Tatianus, the Phrygians, also bravely suffered martyrdom.

^A For when the governor of the province had opened a temple in Mero, a city of Phrygia, and had cleaned it of the filth and dirt of long neglect, they entered by night and smashed the statues. When others were arrested as the authors of this deed and were about to pay the penalty, they denounced themselves. Although the governor could have allowed them to depart unharmed if only they would consent to sacrifice to the gods, and although he tried to persuade them to atone for their crime by this one act of satisfaction, he could not; he therefore tortured them in many ways. Finally, he placed them upon a gridiron and kindled a fire beneath it. While they were being burned, they said, "If you desire roasted meat, Amachius"—for that was the name of the governor—"turn our other side toward the fire, lest, when you taste us half-roasted, you find us unpalatable." And so, having behaved with such courage, they breathed their last in the midst of their torments. ^B They say, moreover, that Busiris in Ancyra of Galatia became illustrious for a strong and noble confession of our faith. While he was at that time a member of the sect known as Encratites, he was arrested by the governor of the province, who wished to punish him for having behaved haughtily toward the Gentiles. Having brought him out in public to the instrument of torture, he ordered him to be hoisted up. But Busiris, lifting his hands to his head, exposed his sides and said to the governor that there was no need for the executioners to weary themselves in vain by lifting him onto the rack and taking him down again. For, without this ministry, he would offer his sides to the torturers as long as he wished. The governor, marveling at this promise, was even more astonished by the actual experiment. For when his sides were lacerated with iron claws as long as the governor pleased, he persevered with his hands raised above his head, receiving the blows with a joyous spirit. After this, he was thrown into chains, but was released not long after when the death of Julian was announced; and he survived until the reign of Theodosius, having condemned his former heresy and betaken himself to the Catholic Church. At that same time, it is said that Basil, a presbyter of the Church in Ancyra, and Eupsychius, a Cappadocian of Caesarea, born of noble family, who had recently taken a wife and was still as it were a bridegroom, ended their lives by martyrdom. ^C And as far as I can conjecture, Eupsychius was put to death on account of the temple of the public Genius, for the destruction of which at that time, as has been said before, all the Caesareans together experienced the anger of the emperor. Those who were the perpetrators of the destruction...

were punished: some were put to death, others were punished by exile. ^A Basil, however, a most vigorous defender of the Christian faith, had resisted the Arians most stoutly as long as Constantius held the empire; and on this account, the followers of Eudoxius had forbidden him to assemble the people. But when Julian obtained sole possession of the empire, Basil, going about the region, exhorted the Christians openly and publicly to adhere tenaciously to their own doctrines and not to defile themselves with the sacrifices and libations of the Gentiles; nor to set great store by the honors bestowed upon them by the emperor, which he showed were momentary and to be compensated by everlasting destruction. Intent on these matters, and therefore suspect and hateful to the Gentiles, when he saw them one day offering sacrifice publicly, he stood still and, groaning heavily, prayed to God that no Christian might be caught by such an error. For this reason he was seized and brought before the governor of the province. Having endured many tortures throughout the whole struggle, he courageously completed his martyrdom. And although these things happened contrary to the will of the prince, they prove that there were not a few, nor obscure, martyrs who existed even in his times. ^B But for the sake of greater clarity, I have recounted them all collected together, although they each suffered martyrdom at different times.

CHAPTER XII

^C After the return of Athanasius, Lucifer, bishop of Caralis in Sardinia, and Eusebius of Vercelli—which is a city of Liguria in Italy—returned from the Upper Thebaid. For they had been ordered to dwell in perpetual exile there during the reign of Constantius. Having consulted together concerning the restoration of ecclesiastical affairs, Eusebius came to Alexandria in order to convene a council there with Athanasius for the confirmation of the doctrines of Nicaea. Lucifer, however, having sent a deacon with Eusebius, who stood in his place at the synod, ^D

^A arrived in Antioch and found the church there in turmoil. It was divided by the Arians, who were led by Euzoius. Furthermore, as mentioned before, the followers of Meletius were also at variance with those who were of the same faith as themselves, and before he had returned from exile, the latter had ordained Paulinus as bishop. In the meantime, the bishops of many cities had gathered in Alexandria with Athanasius and Eusebius to confirm the decrees of Nicaea. They confessed that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and they spoke of the Trinity. They also suggested that it ought to be believed that the man whom the Word of God assumed was perfect not only in body but also in soul, just as it seemed best to the ancient philosophers of the Church. Moreover, because the question regarding substance and hypostasis troubled the churches, and frequent altercations and debates were stirred up about these terms, they appear to me to have quite wisely decreed ^B that when speaking of God, these terms should not be used immediately, unless one might wish to refute the opinion of Sabellius, lest, for lack of terminology, one might appear to call one and the same reality by three names, but rather that each person should understand the distinctions to be made in a threefold manner. Such were the decrees of those who had convened in Alexandria at that time. Among them, Athanasius, in order to render a defense of his own flight, read the discourse which he had written upon that subject.

Chapter XIII. Concerning Paulinus and Meletius, bishops of Antioch; and how a dissension arose between Eusebius and Lucifer ^C and how Eusebius and Hilary upheld the faith of Nicaea.

When the council had concluded, Eusebius set out for Antioch and found the people there in discord. For the followers of Meletius refused to assemble with Paulinus, but held their meetings separately. Although Eusebius was troubled that Paulinus had been ordained in a manner that was not proper, without the consent of the whole people, he nevertheless made no public complaint out of respect for Lucifer. Having refrained from communion with either party, he promised that he would correct those matters of which both sides complained in a synod. While Eusebius was striving to recall the people to their former harmony, Meletius returned from exile. Upon finding that those who held his own views were separated from the others, he began to hold his ^D ecclesiastical assemblies separately with them outside the city, while Paulinus held services within the city with his own followers. For because Paulinus was gentle, and venerable both for the holiness of his life and his advanced age, Euzoius, the bishop of the Arian party, out of respect for him, not only did not drive him from the city, but even assigned him one church. Eusebius, failing in his efforts, departed from Antioch. Lucifer, however, having been insulted by him because he had not accepted the ordination of Paulinus, was enraged, and differed from him regarding communion; and

^A because he persisted in this endeavor to no avail, he left Antioch. But Lucifer, considering it an insult that Eusebius did not approve of the ordination of Paulinus, refused to communicate with him, and out of a desire for contention, attempted to find fault with those things which had been decreed in the synod at Alexandria; and this matter provided the occasion for the sect of those who are called Luciferians after his name. For those who were indignant along with him regarding these matters separated themselves from the Church. He himself, however, although he was completely embittered in spirit, nevertheless, because he had promised through the deacon whom he had sent along with Eusebius that he would consent to the acts of the Alexandrian synod, returned to Sardinia in agreement with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, Eusebius, going about the provinces of the East, began to correct those who had been more negligent in the faith and to teach what things ought to be believed. Then he traveled through Illyricum, intent upon the same work, and arrived in Italy. There he found Hilary, the bishop of the Poitiers, which is a city in Aquitaine, who had diligently performed the same duty before him. For he had returned earlier from exile, and had taught the Italians and the Gauls which dogmas should be accepted and which should be shunned. Indeed, he became proficient in the Roman language, and, as has been said, wrote highly worthy treatises, arguing against the dogmas of Arius. ^B In this way, this Hilary and Eusebius established the dogma of the Nicene synod in the West.

CHAPTER XIV.

During the same time, those who stood on the side of Macedonius, among whom were Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, who had already begun to be openly called Macedonians because they constituted a peculiar sect, having obtained license at the death of Constantius, gathered together those who had agreed with them at Seleucia, and convened certain synods, and they condemned the Acacians and the faith that had been confirmed in the Council of Ariminum. But that faith which had been promulgated at Antioch, and later confirmed by them at Seleucia, they approved with their decrees. And when it was objected to them why they dissented from the Acacians, with whom they had formerly communicated as being in agreement with themselves, they answered these things through Sophronius the Paphlagonian: that the Westerners had approved the *Consubstantial*, but that Aetius in the parts of the East had asserted a dissimilarity as to substance. And they said that those [the Westerners] had rashly confounded the distinct persons of the Father and the Son into one by the term *Consubstantial*; while this man [Aetius] had separated the kinship of the Son's nature with the Father's nature more than was fitting. ^D They themselves, however, were acting piously, they said, for they taught that the Son is like the Father *according to hypostasis*, and had chosen this middle way between both, whereas each of those others had swerved to the extreme of their opposites. And thus they attempted to purge themselves before those by whom they were criticized.

CAP. XV.

The emperor, indeed, having learned that Athanasius was holding assemblies in the Alexandrian Church and preaching fearlessly to the crowds, and that he was persuading many of the Gentiles to be converted to the Christian religion, ordered him to depart from Alexandria. He threatened him with the most severe penalties if he should remain there, making it a ground of accusation that, as he had been condemned to exile by the emperors who preceded him, he had taken possession of the episcopal throne without his imperial authority. For he insisted that Constantine had not permitted those who had been sent into exile to return to their churches, but only to their homelands. On account of this command of the emperor, when he was about to depart from Alexandria and saw the multitude of Christians weeping around him: “Be of good courage,” he said; “it is a little cloud, and it will quickly pass.” Having said these words, he bade them farewell and, having committed his Church to the most earnest of his friends, he departed from the city of Alexandria.

At that time legates from the Cyzicenes were sent to the emperor concerning their own affairs and for the restoration of the Hellenic temples. The emperor, having praised them for their concern regarding the sacred rites, granted them everything they required. He also forbade Eleusius, who was their bishop, from the city, on the grounds that he had ravaged the temples and offered indignities to the shrines; and furthermore, that he had constructed poor-houses and had established monasteries for sacred virgins, and was persuading the Hellenists to neglect their ancestral customs. ^B He forbade even the foreign Christians who were with him from entering Cyzicus, adding the reason, as is likely, that they would cause sedition on account of religion; ^C as the Christians who were in the city and the public wool-workers and the coin-smiths—who were a multitude, and were divided into two populous bodies—would join with them, being in sympathy with their mode of thinking regarding the Divine, from the ordinance...

of the ^A emperors before him, dwelled at Cyzicus with their wives and families, paying a fixed annual tax into the public treasury; some in military cloaks, others in newly minted coins. For since he had determined by every means to establish Hellenism, he considered it to be of the greatest imprudence to force or punish the common people if they were unwilling to sacrifice. For the magistrates in each city could with difficulty have merely registered their numbers; nor did he forbid them to assemble or to pray according to their own conscience. For he knew well that force and necessity are of no avail in these matters, which require a free will in order to stand fast. ^B He took care, however, to expel the clergy and the presiding officers of the Churches from the cities: aiming in effect to abolish the gatherings of the people by their absence, so that there would be no one either to assemble them, or to teach them, or to administer the sacraments, and so that in the course of much time they would fall into an oblivion of their own religion. Yet considering that the clergy lead the common people into discord, he commanded Eleusius and his companions to leave Cyzicus; and this, although no sedition had occurred, nor was one expected to occur. He also urged the Bostrenes by public proclamation to drive out of their city Titus, who was at that time the bishop of the Church there. ^C For as he threatened that he would lay upon him and his clergy the responsibility for any sedition the people might stir up, Titus sent a petition to the emperor, and testified that the Christian population was equal to that of the Hellenes; yet that they remained quiet, and, being led by his own exhortations, entertained no seditious thoughts. The emperor, however, wishing by such words to render Titus odious to the people, in the letter which he wrote to the Bostrenes, maligned him as a slanderer of the city, because he had said that they abstained from sedition not of their own inclination, but by his own exhortation; and he incited the people to expel him from their city as a public enemy. It is probable that many things of this kind occurred elsewhere as well; some by the emperor's command, others from the anger and rashness of the mobs; for which one would rightly lay the blame for what transpired upon the sovereign. For he did not prosecute ^D according to the law those who were acting unlawfully in this manner; but, seeming to complain in words out of hatred for the religion, he encouraged by his deeds those who were doing such things; whence it was that, even though he did not pursue them, they fled through the cities and villages.

^A Many of my ancestors took part in this flight, and my grandfather also. For although he was born of a pagan father, he himself, with his whole house and all those of the family of Alaphion, were the first to become Christians in the village of Bethelia, which is a village of the Gazans, populous and notable to those who dwell there for the antiquity and construction of its temples; and especially the Pantheon, which is situated as if on an acropolis on a man-made mound, and towers over the whole village on all sides. ^B I conjecture that the place derived its name hence, and that when translated from the Syrian language into Greek, it is called the "abode of the gods," because of the temple of the Pantheon. It is said that the monk Hilarion was the cause of Christianity for their houses; for when this Alaphion was vexed by a demon, certain pagans and Jews had long used incantations and certain magical arts, but accomplished nothing; but when Hilarion, invoking only the name of Christ, had expelled the demon, they changed over to the religion of the Christians. My grandfather excelled in the exposition of the sacred volumes, for he was of an elegant disposition and had the intelligence ^C to know what it was necessary to know; furthermore, he was moderately learned in the disciplines, so as not to be ignorant of arithmetic. Therefore, he was very dear to the Christians inhabiting Ascalon, Gaza, and the surrounding regions, as being useful and necessary to the religion, and one who easily dissolved the knots of the Holy Scriptures. As for those of the other family, hardly anyone could set forth their virtue; for they were the first to establish churches and monasteries there, and they adorned them with the sanctity of their lives and their kindness toward strangers and the needy. Moreover, from that generation, good men have survived even to our own time, with whom, since they were already advanced in age, I held converse when I was still a very young man. But it is necessary to make mention of these a little later.

CAP. XVI. Regarding the zeal which Julian had to establish the pagan religion and to abolish our own; and a letter which he sent to a certain priest of the pagans.

The Emperor, who had long since been studying above all else so that the pagan religion might hold sway throughout the entire Roman empire, was troubled ^D since...

he perceived that it was far surpassed by the religion of the Christians. ^A For although the temples of the gods were open, and the sacrifices and the ancestral festivals of the pagans were appearing to proceed in the cities according to the Emperor’s wish, he was nevertheless grieved, reflecting that these things would soon change if they should be deprived of his own care and diligence. He was furthermore not a little vexed when he heard that the wives, children, and servants of many of the pagan priests were professing the Christian religion. Assuming, therefore, that the Christian religion derived its stability from the life and conduct of those who followed it, he conceived a plan to decorate the pagan temples everywhere with the equipment and order of the Christian religion: with steps, and seats of honor, and with teachers and readers of pagan doctrines and exhortations, and with prayers appointed for specific hours and days; with cloisters for men and women who had resolved to live as philosophers, ^B and with hostels for strangers and the poor, and with that other philanthropy towards the needy, he aimed to make the pagan religion venerable, and to ordain a proportional discipline of repentance for voluntary and involuntary sins, according to the tradition of the Christians. He is said to have been no less eager to emulate the “credentials” (12) of the episcopal letters, by which it is the custom for strangers traveling anywhere, and to whomever they might arrive at, by all means to be received and deemed worthy of care, as being recognized and most dear, on account of the testimony of the letter. Pondering these things, he was eager to accustom the pagans to the practices of the Christians. But since this seems incredible perhaps to the many, I shall provide proof of the things said from none other than the very words of the Emperor himself. ^C He writes as follows (13) to Arsaces, the high priest of Galatia:

*To Arsaces, High Priest of Galatia.*

Paganism is not yet progressing according to our expectation, as far as we who pursue it are concerned. For the things pertaining to the gods are bright and great, superior to every prayer and every hope. And may Adrasteia be propitious to our words. For in a short time to witness such and so great a change, no one would have dared even to pray a little while ago. What, then, do we believe these things to be sufficient? We do not even look toward how especially (14) the “atheism” [of the Christians] has been increased by their philanthropy toward strangers, and the concern for the burial of the dead, and the feigned gravity of their life, each of which I believe we ought to practice truly. ^D And it is not enough that you alone be such, but all the priests in Galatia simply and without exception [must be so]. These you must either shame, or persuade to be diligent, or remove from the priestly ministry, if they do not attend with their wives and children and

^A servants to the gods, but endure that the Galileans, who are impious towards the gods, prefer godlessness to piety—or rather their wives, children, and servants. Furthermore, exhort the priest neither to frequent the theater, nor to drink in a tavern, nor to be engaged in any base or shameful trade or labor; those who obey, honor, but those who are disobedient, expel. Establish numerous inns in every city, so that strangers may enjoy our philanthropy—not only of our own people, but of others as well, whoever may be in need of money. As for where the funds for you will come from, I have already provided. For I have ordered that thirty thousand modii of wheat and sixty thousand sextarii of wine be given annually throughout all Galatia; of which I decree that a fifth part should be spent on the poor who perform services for the priests, and the rest be distributed by you to strangers and beggars. For it is shameful if, while no one among the Jews begs, and the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well, our own people are seen to be destitute of our help and relief. Instruct the Gentiles, therefore, to contribute something to such services, and let the Gentile villages offer the first-fruits of their produce to the gods. And habituate the Greeks to such acts of beneficence, teaching them that this was our custom of old. For Homer has introduced Eumaeus saying: ^B Stranger, I have no right to despise a guest, Even if one should come who is meaner than you; For all guests and beggars are from Jove; and the gift, Though small, is welcome. Do not let us allow our good things to be envied by others, [so that] we ourselves, through sloth, bring disgrace upon ourselves, or rather, betray our religion towards the gods. If I learn that you are doing these things, I shall be filled with joy. Visit the governors at home rarely; but send letters to them more often. When they enter the city, let no priest go to meet them. But when they go to the temples of the gods, let the priest meet them *within the vestibule*. And let no soldier precede them as they enter; ^C but let anyone who wishes follow. For as soon as he has crossed the threshold of the sanctuary, he becomes a private citizen. For you yourself, as you know, hold authority within the temple, since the divine law demands this. And those who obey are in truth pious worshippers of the gods; but those who take pride in arrogance and ostentation are vain and desirous of empty glory. I am prepared to assist the Pessinuntians if they render the Mother of the gods propitious to themselves. But if they neglect her, they are not only not blameless, but... ^D

^A what is bitter for me to say, they shall experience our indignation also. For it is not permitted to me to pity or favor ^B men who are also enemies to the immortal gods. Persuade them, therefore, if they wish to have my concern, to become, one and all, supplicants to the Mother of the gods.

Chapter XVII

How Julian, that he might not appear a tyrant, used deceitful methods to persecute Christians, removed the sign of the cross, and finally forced the soldiers to sacrifice against their will.

The emperor, whilst he was thus acting and writing, thought that he would easily and with a willing mind convert his subjects from the Christian faith. And while he was striving in every way to overthrow the Christian religion, he was not entirely able to persuade them; yet he was ashamed to offer open violence, lest he should appear a tyrant. Nevertheless, he did not remit any of his zeal; but he devised all means by which he might allure his subjects, and especially the soldiers, to the religion of the Gentiles, partly by himself and partly through his governors. Finally, that he might in every way accustom them to Gentile superstition, he decided to change into its original form that most noble standard of the Roman armies, which Constantine, by divine command, as we have related above, had converted into the form of the cross. ^C In public images, he took care that Jupiter should be represented as standing by, as if appearing from heaven, and offering him the crown and purple, the insignia of empire; or that Mars and Mercury should be looking at him, and, as if by a nod of their eyes, testifying that he was eloquent and skilled in military affairs. He ordered these things, and whatever others pertain to Gentile worship, to be inserted into his images, with the intention that, under the pretext of the honor usually paid to the emperor, the Romans might implicitly adore those who were painted alongside him; and, abusing ancient institutions, he labored with every industry to deceive the minds of his subjects. For he thought that if he could persuade them of this, he would subsequently attack the rest of what he desired with greater ease. But if he found them resisting, he intended to punish them without any pardon, as those who were innovating against the customs and laws of the Romans, and ^D sinning against the state and the emperor himself. A few, indeed, who even paid the penalty, understood his design and did not endure, as was the custom, to adore. The common people, however, as is their wont, either out of ignorance or simplicity, [index: entries preserved]

^A or through being drawn along by established custom, believed that they ought by all means to obey, and they approached the images quite inconsiderately. But the emperor, having tried this trick as well, did not accomplish anything. Yet he did not cease, but persisted in contriving and devising everything to bring his subjects to practice the same religion as himself. The scheme he devised at that time does not differ much from what I have already related. It was, however, undertaken more openly than the former, and with greater violence; and it provided an occasion for no small number of those serving in the palace to show their courage. For when the time arrived for the donative to be distributed by the emperor to the soldiers—a thing which usually happens during the Roman feast-days, and on the birthdays of emperors and royal cities—he, considering that soldiers are by nature simple and unthinking, and easily deceived by their innate desire for money, used a certain artifice to drive them to sacrifice. For it was a custom, from ancient times, that those about to receive a donative should sacrifice to the gods. When, therefore, they came forward one by one to receive the donative, those standing by the emperor would command each one ^B to burn incense. For frankincense and fire were placed nearby, as if this were an ancient Roman custom. Thereupon, some showed their courage fearlessly, and did not consent either to burn incense or to receive the gift from the emperor; others, under the pretext of law and antiquity, did not even take into their minds what they were doing wrong. Others, tempted by the prospect of gain, or overtaken by fear and perturbation on account of the spectacle which suddenly appeared before their eyes, even though they understood they were performing pagan rites, yet did not escape that sin. It is said, moreover, that some of those who had committed this sin unwittingly, while banqueting, as is the habit, and pledging one another for the sake of showing goodwill, mentioned Christ at every cup; and that one of the banqueters replied to them: "It is a strange thing you suffer, invoking Christ, ^C whom a little before you denied, when you received the gift from the emperor and threw frankincense upon the fire." When they heard this, and realized what they had done, they immediately leapt up, and crying out publicly, they went about weeping and calling God and men to witness that they were Christians and would remain so; and that it was in ignorance of what was happening, if it is possible to say so at all, that the hand alone performed the pagan rite, while the mind did not cooperate. And when they came to the emperor, throwing back the gold he had given, they demanded most courageously to receive their own gift back—or rather, that he should slay them; for they would not repent, if, for that which the right hand had done beyond the reach of providence, they should pay the penalty with their whole body for Christ. The emperor, although he took it ill, ^D refrained from slaying them, that he might not grant them the rewards of martyrdom; but, removing them from military service, he drove them from the palace.

CHAPTER XVIII.

He was of the same mind toward all other Christians whenever he found the opportunity. For those who refused to sacrifice, even if he had nothing else to object against them, he stripped of the rights of citizenship. He prohibited them from assemblies and from the forum, nor did he allow them to judge, to hold magistracies, or to enjoy offices and honors. He would not even allow the children of Christians to learn the Greek poets and orators, nor to frequent the schools of the pagan professors. ^B His mind was troubled not a little by Apollinaris the Syrian, who was equipped for every kind of knowledge and style of speech, and by Basil and Gregory the Cappadocians, who far surpassed the orators of that time; and by many other most eloquent men besides, some of whom followed the faith of the Nicene Council, while others had embraced the opinion of Arius. Since, therefore, he thought that the power of persuasion was derived only from this source, he did not permit Christians to be educated in the disciplines of the Greeks.

At that time, therefore, Apollinaris, whom I mentioned above, making timely use of his manifold erudition and the genius in which he excelled, instead of Homer's poetry, wrote the Hebrew history as far as the reign of Saul in heroic verse, and divided the whole work ^C into twenty-four parts, assigning to each book a name taken from the letters of the Greeks, according to their number and order. He also wrote comedies in the style of the fables of Menander. He imitated the tragedies of Euripides and the lyre of Pindar, and, to speak briefly, having taken the subjects of the so-called liberal arts from the holy Scriptures, in a short time he composed works equal in number and excellence to those who had achieved fame among the Greeks in this genre, whether you look at the genius, the diction, the form, or the arrangement of the work; so that, if men were not accustomed to venerate antiquity, ^D and to love most those things to which they have been accustomed, they would have praised and studied the books of Apollinaris just as much as those of the ancients, and would have admired the man’s genius all the more, because the ancients, indeed, each labored in one single [genre]...

...whose virtues were mirrored in each. Nor is it ignoble, for those who have been versed in only one kind of doctrine; but this man, embracing all things, expressed the power and excellence of each, where use demanded it. Nor is that book of his ignoble, which he composed against the emperor and the philosophers of the Gentiles, which is inscribed *On Truth*. In it, even without any testimony from the Holy Scriptures, he showed them to have been led astray from the truth in their opinions concerning God. For the emperor, mocking us, had written a letter of this sort to the bishops then most illustrious: "I read, I understood, I condemned." To which they are said to have replied thus: "You read, but you did not understand; for if you had understood, you would never have condemned." There are not wanting, however, those who attribute this epistle to Basil, the bishop of the Church of Cappadocia; and it is not unlikely. But whether it belongs to him or to another, it is right to admire the writer for his courage and learning. ^A

CAP. XIX. Of the book of Julian which he inscribed *Misopogon*; and of the suburb of Antioch, Daphne; and a description of it; and of the translation of the relics of Babylas the bishop and martyr.

The emperor, since he desired to wage war upon the Persians, came to Antioch in Syria. When the populace there cried out that while provisions were indeed in great supply, they were being sold too dearly, the emperor, desiring, I suppose, to win the favor of the people, ordered that the goods for sale in the market be sold at a lower price than was proper. And when the merchants had taken flight, the necessary means of subsistence began to fail. The Antiochenes, taking this gravely, heaped reproaches upon the emperor, and mocked his beard, because it was quite long; they also jeered at his coinage, because it bore the image of a bull. For they mocked that, under him as their leader, the world had been overturned, just as bulls are thrown on their backs. ^B The emperor, at first inflamed with anger, threatened that he would treat the Antiochenes badly, and began to prepare to move to Tarsus. But being wonderfully transformed from his wrath, he took revenge for the insult with words alone; he composed a most excellent and very witty discourse, which he inscribed *Misopogon* [“Beard-Hater”], against the Antiochenes. ^C

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

^C But his mind having been suddenly changed, he avenged his injury only with words, having composed a most elegant and very witty book against the Antiochenes, which he entitled *Misopogon*. Furthermore, he treated the Christians in that city in his customary manner, and endeavored to establish the pagan religion there. And indeed, what happened at that time regarding the shrine of Babylas the martyr, and in the temple of Apollo at Daphne, it will be worth our while to recount. I shall begin the narrative from this point.

Daphne, a noble suburban retreat of Antioch

Daphne, the famous suburb of Antioch, flourishes with a grove of many cypresses, but it is variegated also by other trees planted among the cypresses. Under these trees, according to the changing of the seasons, the earth brings forth fragrant flowers of every kind. Moreover, a ceiling, so to speak, rather than just a shade, covers the place on all sides, for the denseness of the branches and leaves does not allow the sun's rays to reach the ground; it is pleasant and highly desirable for the abundance and beauty of its waters, for the temperateness of its climate, and for the soft breezes that blow there.

In this place, the Greeks tell the myth that Daphne, daughter of the river Ladon, fleeing from Arcadia from Apollo, her lover, was changed into a tree of her own name; and that Apollo, not even then freed from his passion, wove a crown for himself from the branches of his beloved, and embraced her even though she was a tree, and honored this place with his presence and long-term residence more than any other place he loved.

Since Daphne was a suburban retreat of this kind, it was considered shameful for good men to set foot there. For both the site and the nature of the place were suited to pleasure, and the subject-matter of the myth itself, being erotic, seizing upon the slightest occasion, ignited a passion twice as fierce in corrupted youths. For they, putting forward the myths as an excuse for their own wickedness, were inflamed all the more, and rushing into dissolute acts with full license, they could neither conduct themselves modestly nor bear to see modest men there. For whoever tarried at Daphne without a mistress seemed stupid and boorish, and was to be avoided as though he were some sort of criminal or source of pollution.

Moreover, this place was revered by the pagans and held in great honor. For there was there a most beautiful statue of the Daphnaean Apollo, and a temple constructed magnificently and with great ambition, which tradition says was built by Seleucus, the father of that Antiochus from whom the city of Antioch received its name. It was also believed by those who worship and preach these things that a prophetic water flowed there from the Castalian spring, which possessed the same name and the same efficacy as that at Delphi. Finally, they also boast that, while Hadrian was still a private citizen, his empire was foretold to him in that place. For they say that having dipped a laurel leaf into the spring, he drew up knowledge of future events, which had been inscribed upon the leaf; but when he later attained to the empire, he is said to have blocked up the spring, so that it might not be permitted for others to foreknow the future. But these are things to be explained more accurately by those interested in such matters.

Since Gallus, the brother of Julian, having been appointed Caesar by Constantius, was living at Antioch—being a Christian and one who honored in the highest degree those who had suffered martyrdom for the faith—he decided to cleanse this place of Greek superstition and the insolence of licentious men. And imagining that he would easily succeed if he were to replace it with a house of prayer, he translated to Daphne the shrine...

^A of Babylas the martyr, who had once governed the Church of Antioch with the highest praise and had fallen in glorious martyrdom. From that time forth, they say, the demon ceased to give oracles as he was accustomed to do. And at first it was believed that he had become mute because he lacked the sacrifices and the worship with which he was previously honored. But from the events that followed, it became apparent that the martyr, who had been placed in the vicinity, had prevented him from giving responses. For when Julian was governing the Roman world alone, although libations and the savour and abundance of sacrifices were amply provided to the demon, he nevertheless remained silent. And at length, when a response was given, he himself disclosed the reason for his former silence. For when the emperor had decided to consult the oracle there regarding the matters he had in mind, he entered the temple, honored the demon with sacrifices and magnificent gifts, and prayed that he would grant him a response concerning the affairs ^B he was contemplating. But the demon, not indeed declaring openly that he could not give oracles because of Babylas the martyr, whose coffin was in the vicinity, said instead that the place was full of corpses, and that this was the impediment preventing him from issuing oracles. Since there were many other corpses buried at Daphne, the emperor nevertheless surmised that only the martyr was obstructing the oracles, and ordered his coffin to be moved. Accordingly, the Christians, assembling there, transported the coffin of the martyr into the city, for about forty stadia, to the place where he now lies, and which derives its name from him. ^C At that time, they say, men and women, youths and virgins, old men and children, who were drawing the coffin, exhorting one another, continued throughout the whole journey singing psalms. In outward appearance, this was to lighten their labor with song, but in reality, they were kindled by a certain zeal and heat of piety, because the prince did not hold the same opinion as they did concerning God. Those who were well-versed in psalms led the way for the others, and the multitude then responded in harmony, and sang this verse: All those who worship graven images are put to shame, those who boast in idols.

^A

CAP. XX. How Julian, on account of this translation, grievously harassed many of the Christians; and concerning Saint Theodore the confessor; and how fire, falling from heaven, burned down the temple of Apollo at Daphne.

For this cause the emperor, moved to anger as if he had been insulted, had determined to punish the Christians. Sallust, who held the prefecture of the praetorium, although a pagan, did not approve of the design. But, being unable to oppose it, he put the emperor's command into execution. And on the following day he arrested many of the Christians and threw them into chains; and having first brought forward a certain young man (Theodore was his name), he applied him to the rack. ^B He, though torn for a long time with iron claws, did not succumb to the tortures, nor did he beg mercy of the prefect; but, showing himself to be free from pain, as if he were a spectator of the things being done to him, he patiently endured the blows; and again singing the same psalm which he had on the day before, he proved by his deeds that he cared little for those things for which he was being judged. The prefect, struck with wonder at the constancy of the young man, having gone to the emperor, reported what had occurred, affirming that unless he desisted from his undertaking, they themselves would become ridiculous, while the Christians would become more illustrious. ^C This advice having pleased him the more, all who had been arrested were released from their bonds. It is said that when some asked him afterwards whether he felt those tortures, Theodore answered that he was not altogether free from pain, but that a certain young man standing by him eased his sufferings, wiping away his sweat with a very fine linen cloth and pouring upon him very cold water, by which he extinguished the inflammation and afforded him a solace for his torments. It seems to me that this is not possible for a mere man, however noble he might be, to so despise his body, unless he were assisted by divine grace. The martyr Babylas, then, for the reason mentioned above, was settled at Daphne, and was afterwards removed. ^D Not long after this had taken place, fire suddenly fell upon the temple of the Daphnean Apollo, and consumed the entire roof and the statue itself; it left only the naked walls and the surrounding precincts, and the columns which supported the vestibules and the rear part of the temple. It seemed to the Christians that, at the request of the martyr, fire sent by God had fallen upon the demon; but the pagans spread rumors that it was the work of the Christians. 30 While this suspicion prevailed, the priest of Apollo was led into court, so that he might reveal the one who had dared to set the fire; and as a prisoner...

having been bound [(31)], and having endured many scourges, he revealed no one. Whence the Christians most strongly insisted that the heavenly fire had not fallen upon the temple by human treachery, but by divine wrath. And these matters were thus. But as I think, having learned from the events that occurred at Daphne on account of the martyr Babylas, that there were houses of prayer to the honor of martyrs near the temple of the Didymean Apollo, which is located before Miletus, the emperor wrote to the governor of Caria, that if those churches had a roof and a holy table, they should be burned; but if the buildings were still unfinished, they should be razed from the foundations.

CHAPTER XXI.

^B Furthermore, among the things which occurred during the reign of Julian, this must by no means be passed over: for it is the greatest proof both of the power of Christ and of the divine anger against the emperor. For when the emperor had learned that in Caesarea Philippi (which is a city of Phoenicia, and which they call Paneas), there was a notable statue of Christ, which the woman who had long labored under an issue of blood had dedicated, having been delivered from her affliction, he tore it down and erected his own. ^C But a violent fire, having fallen from heaven, severed the parts around the breast of the statue, and brought down the head with the neck, and fixed it face-down upon the ground, in so far as the part of the breast was broken; and from that time even to the present it stands in such a form, filled with the soot of the lightning bolt. But the pagans at that time dragged the statue of Christ and broke it in pieces; yet afterwards the Christians gathered them up and placed them in the church, where it is preserved even now. And from the base upon which this statue stood, as Eusebius records, a certain plant sprang up which was most potent for the curing of all diseases and ailments, the species of which no one among the physicians or empirics known to us recognized. ^D Nor does it seem a wonder to me, that after God came to the earth, some new and unusual benefits accrued to men. For many other miracles, too, having been performed throughout cities and villages, are celebrated only, as is likely, by the inhabitants, who have received knowledge of these things handed down from their ancestors; and that this is true, I will immediately show from this. There is a city in Palestine, today called Nicopolis. This city, while it was still a village, the divine book of the Gospels knew, and calls it Emmaus. But the Romans, after the capture of Jerusalem, and their victory over the Jews,

^A gave it the name Nicopolis, naming the place from the outcome of the war. Before this city, near the junction of three roads, where Christ, walking after the resurrection from the dead, joined Cleopas and his companions as if hurrying to another village, there is a certain fountain of salvation, in which men and other animals suffering from various diseases are healed by washing. For it is said that Christ, when he came from his journey to this fountain with his disciples, bathed his feet there, and from that time the water became a very effective remedy for curing ailments.

It is said also that there was a tree called the Persea in Hermopolis of the Thebaid, which, as they say, banished many diseases, a twig or leaf or a small portion of bark applied to those who suffered being sufficient. For it is reported by the Egyptians that when Joseph fled on account of Herod, taking with him Christ and Mary, the holy ^B Theotokos, he came to Hermopolis. As he was entering the gate, this tree, being very large, could not endure the presence of Christ, and bowed down to the ground and worshipped him. And these things, having heard them from many regarding this plant, I have related. I think, however, that this happened either as a sign of the presence of God in the city, or—as is likely—the tree, which was worshipped by the inhabitants according to the Hellenic custom because of its height and beauty, was shaken as it ought to have been, because the demon being worshipped through it trembled when the destroyer of such things appeared; and that all the idols of the Egyptians were shaken automatically when Christ arrived among them, according to the prophecy of Isaiah. When the demon had been driven away, the plant remained as a testimony of what had happened, ^C healing those who used it with faith. And of these things, the Egyptians and the Palestinians are witnesses, each confirming what took place among themselves.

CHAPTER XXII.

The emperor, though he hated the Christians and was of a hostile mind toward them, nevertheless was well-disposed to the Jews,

^B and he wrote to the patriarchs, their leaders, and the entire multitude ^A, urging them to offer prayers on his and his empire's behalf. This he did, as I conjecture, not because he approved of their religion—for he knew that it was, so to speak, the mother of the Christian faith, making use of the same prophets and patriarchs—but because the Jews cherished an implacable hatred toward them; and by showing favor to the Jews, he was eager to grieve those whom he detested. Perhaps, too, he thought he might more readily draw them toward Hellenism and sacrifices, as they understood the sacred Books in a literal sense only, and not through the lens of spiritual speculation, as the Christians and the wisest of the Hebrews themselves did. He showed that this was his intention by what he attempted. For after summoning the leaders of the nation, he encouraged them to listen to the laws of Moses and reminded them of their ancestral customs. When they replied that, now that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, it was neither permitted ^B nor in accordance with the traditions of their ancestors for them, having been exiled from their metropolis, to perform their sacred rites elsewhere, he provided them with public funds and commanded them to rebuild the temple and to worship according to the practice of their ancestors, sacrificing in the ancient manner. They, therefore, not at all considering that what had been foretold by the sacred oracles could by no means come to pass, set about the work with zeal; and, having brought together the most skilled craftsmen, they began to prepare the materials and to clear the site. They applied themselves to the task with such enthusiasm that their wives even carried away the rubble in their bosoms, and they surrendered their necklaces and all their other female jewelry to contribute readily to the expenses of the work. All other things were secondary to this endeavor for the emperor, for the other Greeks, and for all the Jews. For the Greeks, though they otherwise felt little goodwill toward the Jews, took part in the work with them, supposing that they could succeed in this undertaking and thus prove the prophecies of Christ to be false; and the Jews, for their part, believed that they would at once succeed in this and that the time had come to raise up their temple. When they had taken down the remains of the old building, dug up the foundations, and cleaned the site, it is said that on the following day, when they were about to lay the first foundation stone, there was a great earthquake; and by the heaving of the earth, from the very depths...

^A the stones were cast out, and those among the Jews who were overseeing the work, and those who had gathered to witness it, perished. For the houses and public porticoes nearby, in which they were lodging, collapsed all at once; and the greater number of those trapped within were either killed instantly, or were found half-dead, with their hands or legs crushed, or otherwise physically disabled. When the earth ceased its agitation, those who had survived attempted the work again, as it was an inescapable duty on account of the emperor’s order, and it was also something they themselves desired. For the human nature is prone by its very desire to incline towards the disadvantageous, and to think that only what it wishes to accomplish will be beneficial; and, being captured by the deception that arises from this, it is neither able to foresee what is advantageous through any foresight, nor does it recover its senses through the experience of disasters; such is what I believe happened to the Jews at that time. For although the former hindrance was sufficient, and had clearly shown that the Divinity was displeased at what was taking place, they again strove in vain.

Therefore, at the same time as they undertook the work a second time, fire suddenly burst forth from the foundations of the temple and consumed many; and this is fearlessly spoken of and believed by all, and is doubted by no one. Only, some say that as they were forcing their way into the temple, ^B a flame met them and brought about the result we have mentioned; while others say it happened as soon as they began to carry out the earth. But whether one accepts this account or the former, each is equally marvelous.

Upon this,3 further, another thing occurred, even more evident and wondrous than the former. For the garments of all were automatically marked with the sign of the cross, and their clothes appeared as if decorated with stars, and as if they had been artfully embroidered by the skill of a weaver. As a result of this, it was immediately judged by some that Christ is God, and that he was displeased with the renovation of the temple. Others, not long after, attached themselves to the Church, were initiated, and by hymns and supplications propitiated Christ for the things they had dared to do. If these things seem unbelievable to anyone, let them be confirmed by those who have heard them from eye-witnesses of the events who are still alive. ^C And let both the Jews and the Gentiles themselves bear witness, who left the work unfinished; or rather, were not even able to begin the work. ^D

HERMIAS SOZOMENUS OF SALAMIS ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK SIXTH

CHAPTER I Concerning the Persian expedition of Julian, and how he was overcome and perished by a miserable death. And what Libanius wrote concerning his slayer.

^A Whatever I have learned to have happened to the Churches while Julian was reigning, has been related in the previous book. In the beginning of spring, ^B however, having decided to attack the Persians in war, he crossed the Euphrates with haste. And passing by Edessa, perhaps on account of the hatred of its inhabitants—since that city had from the very beginning entirely received the faith of Christ—he came to Carrhae; where indeed, having found a temple of Zeus, he offered sacrifices and made vows. From there, having selected twenty thousand armed men from the forces that were following him, he sent them to the river Tigris, with the intention that they should be a protection to those regions and be at his disposal whenever he might summon them. Furthermore, he wrote to Arsaces, the king of the Armenians and an ally of the Romans, to meet him near the borders of the Persians. In this letter, after he had boasted beyond measure and exalted himself as being fit for empire and acceptable to the gods whom he worshipped, and had reviled Constantius, his predecessor, as cowardly and impious, he threatened him with exceedingly insulting words. And because he had learned that he was a Christian, he intensified the insult, or desiring to speak impiously against Christ (for he was accustomed to dare this on every occasion), he boasted, intimating that the God whom he worshipped would by no means bring him aid if he did not perform what was commanded. When he thought these things were well-ordered, having taken up the Roman army, he led it through the country of the Assyrians. And some cities and fortresses, some by treachery, others by

force, he captured, and he advanced further without reflection, not looking out for those things which were behind him, nor thinking that he would need to return by the same way. But all that he had taken, he was utterly ravaging, and granaries and all other things he was partly tearing down and partly burning. Proceeding along the Euphrates, he arrived not far from Ctesiphon. This is a very great city, and now holds the palace of the Persians in place of Babylon; and the Tigris flows not far from it. Since he could not reach Ctesiphon with his ships through the intermediate land, and it seemed a necessity either to bypass the city or to abandon his ships, having questioned some of the captives, he found a navigable canal that had long since been blocked by time; and having cut through the barrier, he drew the Euphrates into the bed of the Tigris. By this means, having his ships sailing alongside his army, he advanced toward the city. ^B But with a great display of cavalry, and hoplites, and elephants, as the Persians appeared upon the banks of the Tigris, seeing that his army was being besieged in hostile territory between two great rivers, and was in danger of perishing by famine if they should remain there, or if they should retreat by the same road—since the cities and villages through which they had come had been razed and held no provisions—he offered prizes for the desultors and sat the soldiers down to watch the horse-racing. Meanwhile, he ordered those in charge of the ships to throw away the cargo and the army’s provisions, so that the soldiers, seeing themselves in danger, as I have learned, might, due to lack of supplies, be turned to boldness and fight more eagerly against the enemy. Having called together the generals and the tribunes after supper, the emperor embarked the soldiers onto the ships. And they, sailing the Tigris at night, were already at the further banks, and were disembarking. Of the Persians, those who noticed were defending themselves and signaling to one another. But the Romans fell upon those who were still sleeping. And at the break of day, they engaged in battle; and having lost and killed many, they crossed the river; and at that time they encamped before Ctesiphon. And it having pleased the emperor to proceed no further, but to the starting point...

^A of their return, they burned the ships, since many men would be occupied in guarding them and could not take part in the battles, and they began their return journey, keeping the Tigris river on their left. At the beginning, with the captives leading them, they obtained a fertile region which abundantly provided everything necessary for food. But afterwards, an old man who had devoted himself for the safety of all Persians, appearing to be captured on purpose, was brought to the commander as if taken against his will. Being questioned about the road, and seeming to speak the truth, he persuaded them that if they would follow him, he would bring the army to the Roman borders by the quickest route; he said the journey would be difficult for only three or four days, and that it was necessary to carry provisions for these days, because the land was deserted. The emperor, being swayed by the words of the wise old man, decided that they must proceed by that path. But when they had advanced further, and after three days had entered into rough places, the old captive, while being tortured, confessed that he had defected to his death for the sake of his fellow countrymen, and was prepared to endure any punishment willingly. As the army was distressed by the length of the journey and the scarcity of provisions, and was already worn out, a Persian force attacked them. A fierce battle having been joined, a violent wind suddenly arose, covering the sky and the sun with dense clouds, ^B and mixing the dust with the air. As darkness and much gloom surrounded them, a horseman rode quickly past and struck the emperor with a spear, dealing a fatal wound; and having thrown him from his horse, he departed, remaining unknown as to who he was. Some say this was a Persian, others a Saracen. There are some who insist that it was a Roman soldier who had struck him, because he was indignant that by his imprudence and rashness the emperor had cast the Roman army into so many dangers. Libanius the Syrian sophist, who was more familiar and friendly with the emperor than the rest, writes thus concerning the one who killed him: "Who, then, was the killer? Someone may desire to hear. I do not know the name; but that the one who killed him was not an enemy is a clear sign, in that no enemy was honored for that blow. ^C And yet the Persian, by heralds, called for the one who had killed him to receive a reward, and there were great things in store for the one who appeared; nevertheless, no one boasted for the sake of the rewards. And the gratitude of the enemies is great, because they did not claim the glory for things they did not do, but allowed us to seek the slayer among ourselves." For those who did not benefit while he was alive—and these were those who lived not according to the laws, and who had long been plotting and then did it when they were able—and because other injustice compelled them, having no power under his reign; and especially because of the honoring of the gods, of which the opposite was sought. ^D

^A

CAP. II. That Julian was destroyed by divine vengeance; and that his death was divinely revealed to certain men. Also concerning that response, that the carpenter’s son was fashioning a coffin for him; and how he cast his blood at Christ; and how many evils befell the Romans on his account.

Libanius indeed, writing in this way, hints that the slayer of Julian was a Christian; and the matter, perhaps, stands thus. For it is not unlikely that some one of those who were then serving in the Roman army might have reflected in his mind that the tyrannicides of old, both among the ancient Greeks and other mortals down to our own age, were celebrated with the highest praises, as having chosen to die for the liberty of all, and having willingly defended their own fellow-citizens, or kinsmen, or friends. ^B Hard indeed would it be for anyone to blame him, for having acted manfully for God and the religion which he praised. As for me, I know nothing certain about whoever it was that performed this slaughter, beyond what has been said. But as all affirm with one consent, the true account has reached us, that he was destroyed by divine vengeance; clear proof of which is a heavenly vision, which I learned was seen by one of his familiars. For it is said that, while he was making haste toward him as he was in Persia, he stayed in a certain place on the public road, and for want of housing, slept in the church situated there; and he saw, whether waking or in a dream, that many of the apostles and prophets had gathered together in one place, and were lamenting the insult offered by the ruler to the churches, and were deliberating what ought to be done. And when they had deliberated for a long time about this, and were as it were in doubt, two arose from the midst, ^C and exhorted the others to be of good courage; and as if setting out for the overthrow of Julian’s rule, they departed from the assembly with haste. The man who had become a spectator of these strange events, thereafter neglected his journey; and fearing what the end of such a vision would be, he slept there again, and saw the same assembly; and suddenly those who had set out against Julian on the previous night as if from a journey, arrived, and announced to the others that he had been slain. On that same day also, Didymus, the ecclesiastical philosopher, while residing in Alexandria, being much grieved—as was natural, since the emperor had gone astray in his religion—both because of him as one who had been misled, and because of the contempt shown to the churches, was fasting and entreating God concerning this matter. And through his anxiety, ^D [the text continues...]

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS.

^A Didymus also, an ecclesiastical philosopher residing in Alexandria, being deeply distressed—as one naturally would be—that the emperor was sinning against religion, gave himself over to fasting and prayer, both because the man himself was deceived by empty error and because of the insult offered to the Churches. And since, in his great anxiety, he had not taken food even when night came on, he fell asleep while sitting in his chair. And as if in an ecstasy, he thought he saw white horses running through the air, and those riding upon them crying out: "Announce to Didymus that today, at this very hour, Julian has been killed; and let him communicate this to Athanasius the bishop, and let him rise and eat." I learned that these things were seen both by a familiar friend of Julian and by the philosopher Didymus. And neither of them was mistaken in what he had seen, as was later made manifest. ^B If these things seem to some to be insufficient to demonstrate that he was destroyed by divine vengeance because he was ravaging the Churches of God, let them call to mind the prophecy of a certain ecclesiastical man. For when Julian was preparing his expedition against the Persians, and threatening that after the war he would treat the Christians harshly, mocking them by saying that the son of the carpenter would be able to afford them no help, the man answered and predicted: "This son of the carpenter is preparing a wooden casket for him for his burial." Furthermore, even he himself, after receiving the wound, perceived in some way from whom he had been struck, and was not entirely ignorant of the cause of his calamity. For it is said that when he was wounded, he scooped up blood from the gash and threw it into the air, as if he were looking at Christ, who was appearing to him, and blaming him for his own slaughter. Some say that, enraged at the sun because it had helped the Persians or had not saved him—though according to the lore of astronomers it was the ruler of his own birth—he showed the blood on his hand and threw it into the air. ^C But whether, when he was just about to die, as usually happens —when the soul is already departing from the body and is able to contemplate more divine things than a human can—he actually saw Christ, I cannot say; for this is not a widespread account. Yet I do not dare to reject it as false, since it is not unlikely that things even more marvelous than these should occur, to show that the religion named after Christ was not established by human exertion. Indeed, throughout the whole time of this reign, God appeared indignant, and crushed the subjects of the Romans ^D with all kinds of calamities in many nations. For the earth was constantly shaken by most violent earthquakes, and houses collapsed, so that it was not safe to stay indoors, nor to spend time in the open. I infer from what I have learned, whether it was during his reign, [cont.]

or while he was still holding the rank of Caesar, that this disaster befell the Alexandrians in Egypt; for the sea, after receding, suddenly returned with a powerful surge, passed its own boundaries, and flooded the mainland for a great distance, so that when the water receded, ships were found upon the roofs of houses. Indeed, the Alexandrians celebrate a festival every year to this very day on the anniversary of the day these things happened, which they call the "birthday of the earthquake." Lighting many lamps throughout the entire city and offering hymns of thanksgiving to God, they perform this celebration with great splendor and piety. Furthermore, excessive droughts also prevailed during his reign, which blighted all the fruits of the earth and the very state of the air. From the resulting scarcity of provisions, the famine drove men to consume the fodder of brute animals. A plague also followed, which brought about its own diseases and destroyed bodies. Such were the events under Julian.

Chapter III. Concerning the reign of Jovian, and what lawful acts he performed on coming to power.

After him, by the common consent of the army, Jovian received the empire. Now when the troops ^B in the enemy's territory were hailing him as emperor, he, declaring himself a Christian, refused the sovereignty and would not accept the imperial insignia until the soldiers, having learned the reason for his refusal, cried out that they too were Christians. ^C Since affairs were in extreme danger and turmoil due to Julian’s strategy, and the army was suffering from a lack of provisions, he saw that it was necessary to come to terms and to surrender to the Persians some of the regions that were previously tributary to the Romans. Having learned by experience that it was in consequence of the divine wrath against the one who reigned before him that the Roman Empire had suffered such ills, he did not delay, but wrote to the governors of the nations to assemble in the churches, and to ^D diligently worship the Divine.

^A and that the faith of the Christians alone was to be revered by those under Roman rule. He also restored the immunities to the churches and the clergy, to widows and to virgins, and whatever else had formerly been gifted or legislated by Constantine and his children for the benefit and honor of religion, but which had later been taken away in the times of Julian. He also issued a general constitution to Secundus, who at that time was performing the duties of the Praetorian Prefecture, in which he ordered that any man who dared to betroth a sacred virgin to himself as his wife, or even to contemplate her with unchaste intent, let alone attempt to abduct her, should be punished with the death penalty. He enacted this law because some wicked men, during the reign of Julian, had managed to contract marriages with such virgins, having corrupted them either by force or by persuasion—as is wont to happen when, with religion neglected and oppressed, the base lust of such men persuades them to attempt such things with impunity. ^B

Chapter IV

Furthermore, questions and disputes regarding the faith were again stirred up by the leaders of the churches. ^C

[VALESII ANNOTATIONS] ...for as much as the title itself declares it. This law of Jovian is designated by Majorinus in Novella 8, where he says: "If by chance the profane greed of wicked men should attempt to violate a mind devoted to God through the crime of abduction, he who has committed this shall be subject not only to the punishment of the imperial decrees, etc." Therefore, the law of Jovian was enacted against the abductors of virgins; but if a woman dedicated to God wished to marry after abandoning her resolve, she was not prohibited by this law.

(50) Concerning Secundus, who was then Praetorian Prefect, to whom numerous laws were addressed in the Theodosian Code, it is obscure who he was. Formerly in my Annotations to Book XI of Ammianus Marcellinus, I thought this was Secundus Salustius, whom Julian promoted to Praetorian Prefect through Gaul, and who later was consul with Julian. But now, having examined the matter more carefully, I think he must be distinguished from Salustius. Concerning whom there exists an ancient inscription recorded by Gruter in this manner: SATURNINIO. SECUNDO. V. C. PRAESIDI. PROVINCIAE. AQUITANIAE. MAGISTRO. MEMORIAE. COMITI. ORDINIS. PRIMI. INTRA. CONSISTORIUM. ET. QUAESTORI. PRAEFECTO. PRAETORIO. ITERUM. ITEM. ORDINIS. PRIMI. COMITI. OB. EGREGIA. EIUS. IN. REMPUBLICAM. MERITA. D. D. N. N. VALENTINIANUS. ET. VALENS. VICTORES. AC. TRIUMPHATORES. SEMPER. AUGUSTI. STATUAM. SUB. AURO. CONSTITUI. LOCARIQUE. JUSSERUNT. ^D In this inscription, there is no mention of the consulship which Salustius held. From which it appears that this Secundus is distinct from Salustius.

[OF VARIOUS AUTHORS] *In fact, Salustius Secundus is none other than Saturninius Secundus: which is rendered certain by the double Praetorian Prefecture of the East held by him before the death of Valentinian and Valens. For Salustius in the year of Christ 367 laid down his second prefecture, and received Auxonius as his successor, just as we learn from Zosimus, book IV, p. 741. But if Saturninius Secundus were different from Salustius Secundus

^A For when Julian was reigning, as the Christian religion was in the greatest peril, ^B all men had remained silent and had joined in praying to God that He might be propitious to them. This is, indeed, nearly the custom of mortals: that while they are being harmed by outsiders, they maintain concord with their own kin; but after they have been delivered from the fear of foreigners, they fall into dissension among themselves. Yet how many nations and cities this has befallen, it is not the time to recount.

About this same period, Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Silvanus of Tarsus, and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and those with them—who rejected the heresy of those called Anomoeans, and who accepted the term "like in substance" (homoiousion) instead of "consubstantial" (homoousion)—sent a letter to the emperor. They professed that they rendered thanks to God, because He had set him over the Roman empire. They requested that either those things done at Ariminum and Seleucia should remain in force, and that those things done by the zeal and power of certain men should be void; or, since the schism which existed in the churches before those synods remained, that the bishops everywhere might be permitted to assemble by themselves wherever they wished, with no one else joining their communion; and that the schemes of those who wished to act separately and to deceive others, as had happened in the time of the emperor Constantius, might in no way be allowed to reach their fruition. They signified, moreover, that they had not come to the imperial camp, so as not to appear troublesome; but if they were ordered to come, they would gladly do so, using their own baggage animals and at their own expense. And they wrote such things to the emperor Jovian.

Meanwhile, a synod having been held in Antioch of Syria, the faith of those who had formerly gathered at Nicaea was confirmed, and it prevailed so that the Son was glorified as consubstantial with the Father beyond all dispute. Meletius, who was at that time again presiding over the Church of Antioch, took part in this synod, along with Eusebius of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea in Syria, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Irenion of Gaza, and Athanasius of Ancyra. Having done these things, they notified the emperor of their decisions, writing as follows:

^A To our most religious and most God-beloved lord, Jovian, Victor, Augustus, the synod of bishops who have gathered at Antioch from various provinces.

That your piety has been the first to endeavor to reconcile ecclesiastical peace and concord, we ourselves well know, O emperor most dear to God. Furthermore, that you have rightly judged the character of true and orthodox faith to be the head of such unity, this also we do not ignore. Therefore, that we may not be thought to be numbered among those who adulterate the doctrine of the truth, we signify to your reverence that we both approve and retain the faith of those who were once gathered at Nicaea. For the term placed in that synod—which to some appears new and unusual, namely "consubstantial"—has received a most cautious interpretation from the Fathers, signifying that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, and that He is understood to be like the Father in substance. Nor is it intended that any passion be conceived in that ineffable generation, nor is the name of "substance" taken according to the usage and custom of the Gentiles, but it is to overturn that which Arius dared to assert: that the Son existed out of nothing. This, indeed, those who have recently appeared, the Anomoeans, proclaim openly with much greater boldness and impudence to the ruin of ecclesiastical concord. We have also attached to this our report the copy of that selfsame faith which was set forth by the same bishops gathered at Nicaea, which we also accept and approve. And these things, indeed, the bishops who were at that time staying in Antioch decreed, appending the faith set forth by the bishops once gathered at Nicaea, under the same words in which it had been written, to their epistle.

CHAPTER V.

Meanwhile, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, having shared his counsel with a few of his intimates, deemed it necessary to see the emperor, who was a Christian. And so, when he had come to Antioch, he set forth to the emperor what he requested. Others say that he was summoned by the emperor in order to suggest what ought to be done regarding religion and the doctrine of the right faith. When he had settled the affairs of the Church as far as it was possible for them to be settled, he began to think of his return. But Euzoius, who presided over the Arian sect at Antioch, was endeavoring with all his might to bring it about that Probatius the eunuch ^D was being suggested by...

^A a certain Lucius, a native of Alexandria and one of the presbyters ordained by George, approached the emperor. And, having blasphemed against Athanasius—as one who throughout the whole time of his episcopate had endured trials, and had been repeatedly condemned to exile by the emperors before him, and had been the cause of discord and disturbance concerning the Divine—he requested that another bishop be substituted in his place for the Church of the Alexandrians. But the emperor (for he knew of the conspiracies that had been organized against Athanasius at that time) did not give credence to the slanders against him. Instead, he threatened Lucius and ordered him to keep quiet; and he commanded that Probatius and the eunuchs around him, as the causes of such disturbances, should be chastised ^B. As for Athanasius, whom this encounter had rendered most dear to him, he sent him back to Egypt, ordering him to govern the churches and the peoples as seemed best to him. For it is said that he praised him exceedingly for the virtue he possessed, as well as for his life, his prudence, and his discourse. Thus, the faith of those who met at Nicaea, having been assailed during the intervening time, as has been said before, once more prevailed under this present government. But it was not long before it was to experience a similar disturbance. For it seems that the prophecy of Anthony the monk did not have its end solely in the events that happened to the Church under Constantius, but still further events remained that would take place in the time of Valens. For they say that while Constantius was reigning, before the Arians held the churches, Anthony saw in a dream ^C mules kicking the altar and overturning the holy table; and he immediately predicted that the Church would be seized by a disturbance caused by bastard and mixed doctrines, and by an insurrection of heterodox men. But that these things had been truly seen and spoken was demonstrated by what happened before and after these events.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.

But it is sufficiently declared from those things which happened before this time and those which occurred afterwards, that he had truly foreseen and predicted these things.

CAP. VI. The death of the Emperor Jovian: and concerning the life of Valentinian, and his brave spirit in maintaining piety: and how he was elevated to the empire, and chose his brother Valens as his partner in the empire: and concerning the difference in character between the two.

^A Jovian, having fulfilled about eight months of his reign, while journeying to Constantinople, died a sudden death at Dadastana, a village of Bithynia situated on the military road. This was either because he had dined too immoderately, as some say, or from the odor of the bedchamber in which he slept, which had been recently plastered with lime; for, because it was wintertime, many coals had been lit there for the sake of warmth, and a vapor was stirred up, and the walls had become excessively damp. When the army arrived at Nicaea in Bithynia, they proclaimed Valentinian emperor, a man who was excellent and most worthy of the empire. He happened to be present at that time, having returned from exile. For when Julian held the summit of the empire, he had stripped him of his military commission—as he was then a tribune of the Jovian legion—and had condemned him to perpetual exile. The pretext was that he had not correctly arranged his soldiers when they were about to engage the enemy in battle; but in reality, it was for a cause of this kind: While Julian was still lingering in the Gallic provinces, he entered a temple for the purpose of sacrificing. Valentinian was among those accompanying him. For it was an ancient custom among the Romans that the tribunes of the Jovians and the Herculians (these are the most noble units in the Roman army, one having received its name from Jupiter, the other from Hercules) should always follow the emperor closely from behind as a bodyguard. When he was about to cross the threshold of the temple, the priest, holding in his hand branches sprinkled with water, was performing the sprinkling upon those entering according to the pagan fashion. ^C When a drop fell upon the garment of Valentinian, he, being a Christian, took it ill and reviled the priest who had sprinkled him. They say also that, with the emperor himself looking on, he immediately cut away that part of the garment which had been sprinkled and cast it away along with the moisture itself. From that time Julian was incensed against Valentinian, and not long after condemned him to perpetual exile, banishing him to Melitene in Armenia; he brought against him the charge that he had been remiss with regard to the soldiers under his command. For he did not wish to appear to be punishing him on account of his religion, so that he might not seem to be a martyr or a confessor.

^A For he spared the other Christians for this same reason, observing that they gained glory and stability for their doctrine through these dangers, as has been said before. When Jovian was entrusted with the Roman empire, having been recalled from exile to Nicaea—and it so happened that he died—the army and those who held the great offices of that time took counsel, and by the vote of all, Valentinian was chosen as emperor. ^B When he had received the symbols of power, the soldiers cried out that he should make another man a partner in the empire with him. "To choose," he said, "that I should rule over you, O soldiers, was in your power. But since you have chosen, that which you now ask for is not in your power, but in mine. It is fitting that you, as subjects, remain quiet, and that I, as emperor, consider what is to be done." Having given this answer, he did not then yield to the soldiers. But not long after, having arrived at Constantinople, he proclaimed his brother emperor; and he entrusted to him those parts of the realm which face the sunrise, while he kept under his own authority those from Illyricum to the western ocean, and all the continent opposite, as far as the furthest Libyans. Both men were Christians by religion, but they were different in their opinions and character. For Valens, having been instructed by Eudoxius the bishop when he was baptized, pursued the opinion of Arius with most ardent zeal, and considered it a grievance that he could not by force compel all men to hold the same views as himself. Valentinian, however, holding the same views as those who had met at Nicaea, helped them, but he caused no annoyance to those who thought otherwise.

CHAP. VII. How the Churches were again disturbed, and a synod was held at Lampsacus; and how the Arians who were with Eudoxius prevailed, and expelled from the Churches those who held the right faith, among whom was Meletius of Antioch.

When he had left Constantinople and was traveling through Thrace toward Rome, the bishops in the region of the Hellespont and Bithynia, and all others who claimed that the Son is consubstantial ^C with the Father, chose Hypatianus, the bishop of Heraclea in Perinthus, to act as envoy on their behalf.

^A When he had approached the emperor and explained the instructions of the bishops, Valentinian replied: "For my part, being placed among the laity, it is not right for me to investigate such matters too curiously. But let the priests, to whom such things are a concern, meet by themselves wherever they wish."

After the emperor had answered the embassy of Hypatianus in this way, the bishops assembled at Lampsacus. After having deliberated for a space of two months, they finally decreed that everything that had been done at Constantinople through the zeal of the partisans of Eudoxius and Acacius should be null and void. They also decreed that the formula of faith, which the Eudoxians had brought forward as though it belonged to the Western bishops, and which they had induced certain men to sign upon the promise that they would declare anathema upon him who asserted that the Son is "unlike in essence" to the Father—a promise which they proved false—should be set aside. They decreed that the doctrine that the Son is "like in essence" to the Father should prevail; for they held that the addition of the word "like" was necessary to signify the distinctness of the hypostases. ^B They determined that the faith to be held in every church should be that which was confessed at Seleucia and set forth at the dedication of the church in Antioch. And as for those who had been deposed by the party that said the Son is unlike the Father, they decreed that these should recover their own sees, as having been unlawfully cast out of their churches. If anyone wishes to accuse them, let him do so at the risk of equal condemnation. They also decided that the judges should be the bishops who hold the orthodox faith in that region, along with those from the neighboring provinces, and that they should meet in the church where witnesses to the life of each one are present. Having defined these things, since they had summoned the party of Eudoxius and had offered them the opportunity of repentance, but they did not obey, they declared their decisions to the churches everywhere. ^C Supposing, as was likely, that Eudoxius would use his influence with the imperial court to slander them, they decided to lose no time in making known what had been done at Lampsacus. And this they did.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. ...inter se diviserunt. And Valentinian indeed returned to Milan, and Valens to Constantinople, as Ammianus Marcellinus writes in book xxvi. From which it is manifest that Valens returned from Thrace in the spring of the year of Christ 365, while he was already consul. For Ammianus Marcellinus says: "The princes, in the aforementioned cities, first assumed the consular robes." But it is doubtful which cities Marcellinus understands—whether Milan and Constantinople, which he named in the last place, or Naisus and Sirmium. However, it is clear from his narrative that Valens did not return from Thrace until A. Chr. 365, in which year he was first consul with Valentinian. ^D Furthermore, Baronius is mistaken, who puts the movement of Procopius in the year of Christ 364. For from Ammianus Marcellinus in book xxvi, and from the Fasti of Idatius, it is most certain that the rebellion of Procopius occurred in the year of Christ 365, on the fourth day before the Kalends of October. Wherefore the legates of the Lampsacene synod could have met Valens, already returned from Thrace, at Heraclea in Thrace in the month of June of the year of Christ 365, some months before the movement of Procopius. Now, as to the first point of the accusation, it is difficult to excuse Sozomen, unless we say that for the word [homoousion] should be written [homoiousion]. Which conjecture I like very much. Certainly Theodoret, in his books on heretical fables, says that the Macedonians, by whom it is established that this synod was collected, first introduced [homoiousion]. But Sozomen himself confirms this emendation; for he says that in this synod it was established that... Musculus interprets the addition of this word, "like." I, however, would prefer to interpret the addition of these words which were added to the word "like." For by these words the Macedonians said that the error of Sabellius, who confounded the hypostases, was overturned.

VARIORUM. [index: entries preserved]

^A They did so, meeting the Emperor Valens on his return from Thrace at Heraclea. For he had accompanied his brother, who was journeying to Old Rome, as far as a certain point. Now Eudoxius had already managed to bring the Emperor and his entourage to his own way of thinking. When the envoys from Lampsacus approached him, therefore, he urged them not to dissent from Eudoxius. But when they resisted, and blamed Eudoxius for the deception that had occurred at Constantinople, and for the schemes laid against the decrees of the Council of Seleucia, he was moved to anger, and ordered some of them to live in exile, and the churches to be handed over to those around Eudoxius. In this interval he reached Syria, for he suspected that the Persians might violate the thirty-year peace treaty made under Jovian. But as the Persians were attempting no new innovation, he stayed at Antioch. ^B At that time, indeed, he condemned Meletius the bishop to exile, but spared Paulinus, out of reverence for the sanctity of his life. Those who would not communicate with Euzoius he expelled from the churches, fined them money, subjected them to torture, and harassed them in other ways.

CHAP. VIII.

And truly, as one may conjecture, things even more grievous than this would have occurred at that time, had not the war of Procopius supervened. For he, having usurped the tyranny in Constantinople and having assembled a large army in a short time, pressed on against Valens. But the latter, having set out from Syria, joined battle with him near the city of Nacolia in Phrygia. When he had captured him alive through the treachery of his own generals, Agilo and Gomoarius, he put both him and his betrayers to death in a miserable manner. For it is said that, although he had sworn that he meant them well, he had them sawn in two. As for Procopius, having bent down two trees which were not far apart, he fastened one leg to each tree, and let them spring up; and they, straightening themselves to their natural position, tore the man asunder. When the war had reached its end, he came to Nicaea; and, being now in peace and at leisure, he again began to harass those who did not think the same as he did concerning the Divinity. ^C He was exceedingly angry with those who had gathered at Lampsacus, because they had anathematized both the bishops who held with Arius and the confession of faith which had been set forth at Ariminum. ^D

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (65) *Having bent down to the ground... fastened one leg to each tree.* Nothing could be more certain than this emendation, which Nicephorus confirms in part in book II, cap. 4.

VARIORUM. *Since Valens only arrived at Antioch at the beginning of the year 372, Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, was not sent into exile before that year.* Ant. Pagi, at the year 370, n. 28.

^A And being in such a state of anger, he summoned Eleusius from Cyzicus and, having convened a gathering of bishops of the same opinion as himself, he forced him to communicate with them in the faith. He, for his part, at first resisted bravely; but fearing exile to a remote region and the confiscation of his property (for these he threatened if he did not obey), he did what was commanded. Yet he was immediately overcome with remorse; and returning to Cyzicus, he publicly confessed his sin before the Church and exhorted them to ordain another bishop in his place, for it was not right that he should continue to hold the priesthood, having become a betrayer of his own faith. But the Cyzicenes, because they followed him with exceptional respect and benevolence due to the integrity of his life, did not wish to have another bishop. When Eudoxius, who presided over the Arian sect at Constantinople, learned this, he ordained Eunomius ^B as bishop of Cyzicus. For he thought that as he was a man formidable in speech, he might easily win over the Cyzicenes to his own doctrine by persuasion. But when he arrived at Cyzicus by the emperor’s command, Eleusius having departed, he took possession of the churches. Those, however, who followed Eleusius, having built a house of prayer outside the city, held their assemblies there. As for Eunomius, and the heresy named after him, I shall speak a little later.

CAP. IX.

How severely they were vexed at that time who professed the faith of the Nicene Council; and concerning Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians.

In the same way, those who followed the faith of the Nicene Council at Constantinople were also harassed, and together with them the Novatians. For the emperor commanded that all should be driven from the city, and that the churches of the Novatians should even be closed. The others, indeed, had nothing that could be closed; for their churches had already been taken from them long before, during the reign of Constantius. But he also condemned Agelius at that time to exile in a remote region, who had presided over the Novatian Church in Constantinople since the times of Constantius, ^C and who was said to live in a wonderful manner according to the ecclesiastical laws. For what is principal in philosophy, he lived always free from the possession of money; and his method of life sufficiently declared this, for he wore a simple tunic,

^A and always walked without shoes. Not long after, however, he was recalled from exile, recovered his churches, and celebrated his assemblies without fear. The cause of this was a certain Marcianus, a man admirable both for the integrity of his life and for his learning. He had previously served in the palace, but then, having become a presbyter of the Novatian sect, he instructed the emperor’s daughters, Anastasia and Carosa, in the precepts of grammar; from their names, certain baths at Constantinople are even now called. For, out of respect and favor towards him, the things I have mentioned were granted to the Novatians alone.

CHAP. X.

Of Valentinian the Younger and Gratian, and of the persecution stirred up by Valens, and how those who held to the homoousios, being oppressed by the Arians and Macedonians, sent legates to Rome.

At this same time, a son of the same name was born to the emperor Valentinian in the Western regions. Not long after, Gratian, whom he had received as a son before his empire, was proclaimed Augustus by him. At this time, although hail of unusual size, like stones, had fallen in many places, and the most severe earthquakes had damaged both other cities and especially Nicaea in Bithynia, ^B yet the emperor Valens and the bishop Eudoxius did not cease to persecute those Christians who dissented from them. And indeed, against those who followed the opinion of the Nicene prelates, the matter seemed in some degree to succeed to their satisfaction. For in the greater part of Valens’s realm, and especially throughout Thrace, Bithynia, the Hellespont, and even further than these, they had neither churches nor priests. But against those who held the opinion of Macedonius, who were more numerous than they in that region, they were incensed; ^C and having turned against them, they harassed them not a little. They, terrified by the fear of the impending evils, having sent embassies to one another through the individual cities, judged it better to flee to Valentinian and the bishop of Rome, and to be joined to their communion, rather than to share in the doctrine of faith with Eudoxius and Valens and their followers. When this had seemed to them to be well-advised, they chose three from among themselves for this purpose, Eustathius, the bishop of Sebasteia, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Theophilus, bishop of Castabala, and sent them to the emperor Valentinian, having written to Liberius, the bishop of Rome, ^D and to the priests throughout the West, such a faith as was approved and steadfast, derived from the apostles.

and they ought, before all others, to provide for the ^A religion, to assist their envoys with all their power, and with them to deliberate about the matters to be transacted, until they should resolve 70 to correct the affairs of the Church. And they, having arrived in Italy, learned that the emperor was staying in Gaul, waging war with the barbarians who dwelt therein. As the road to Gaul seemed difficult to them because of the war, they gave the letters to Liberius 71. And having shared with him concerning what they were sent to handle, they condemned Arius and those who held the same opinions and taught as he did. They further rejected every heresy opposed to the faith of the council at Nicaea; and they accepted the term "consubstantial," as signifying the same thing as "like according to substance." When Liberius received from them a written confession of these matters, he held communion with them; and he wrote to the bishops in the East, praising them for their concord and the agreement concerning the doctrine, and he made known what had been done with the envoys. Now the confession of those with Eustathius was as follows. ^B

CHAP. XI.

To our lord brother and fellow-minister Liberius, Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, greeting in the Lord.

On account of the insane opinions of the heretics, who do not cease to sow scandals in the Catholic Churches, we, desiring to remove every opportunity from them, confess and affirm the synod of the Orthodox bishops which was held at Lampsacus and Smyrna, and in other various places; to carry out the legation of which synod, we bring letters both to your benignity and to all the bishops of Italy and the West, that we hold and guard the Catholic faith, which in the most holy Nicaean synod in the times of ^C blessed memory Constantine, was approved by three hundred and eighteen divinely-inspired Fathers, and has remained even until now and perpetually continues in an integral and unshaken state, in which the term "consubstantial" ^D

^A is piously set forth, in opposition to the perversion of Arius. Similarly, we ourselves, along with those previously mentioned, acknowledge under our own hand that we have held and do hold the same faith, and that we shall observe it until the end; condemning Arius and his impious doctrine, together with his disciples, and all who share his sentiments; and condemning, moreover, every heresy of Patropassius, Marcion, Photinus, Marcellus, and Paul of Samosata, and their doctrine, and all who are of the same mind as they; and further, we anathematize all heresies opposed to the aforementioned holy faith, which was piously set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea. We especially anathematize Arius, and whatever was done in the synod of Ariminum against the aforementioned faith of the holy Nicene council; to which, having been ensnared by deceit and perjury, we subscribed at Constantinople, when it was brought from Nice in Thrace. Having confessed these things, and having attached the faith set forth at Nicaea with these very words to their private profession, and having received the letters of Liberius regarding the matters which had been transacted, they sailed to Sicily.

CAP. XII.

A council having been gathered there, when the ^C bishops of that island had decreed the same things, having completed these matters, they returned to their own countries. At that time, while a synod of bishops was assembled at Tyana (72), at which were present Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Athanasius of Ancyra, Pelagius of Laodicea, Zeno of Tyre, Paulus of Emesa, Otreus of Melitene (73), and Gregory of Nazianzus, and many others who, during the reign of Jovian, had gathered at Antioch and had decreed that the doctrine of "consubstantial" should be held, the letters of Liberius and of those throughout the West were read. Being filled with great joy on account of these, they wrote to all the Churches to study the decrees of the Western bishops.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(73) Otreus of Melitene. Otreus is mentioned by Basil the Great in epistle 316, and by the Emperor Theodosius in the third law of the Theodosian Code on the Catholic faith. Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus, who is named after Otreus in this place, is the father of Gregory Nazianzen, as Baronius rightly noted; who took his son as a coadjutor in the episcopate beyond the hope of succession, as Nazianzen himself declares in his eighth oration.

VARIORUM.

^A by the decrees of the bishops of the West, and by the letters of Liberius, and of the Italians, and of the Africans, and of the Gauls of the West, and of the Sicilians—for the legates sent from the synod of Lampsacus had also brought letters from these—and to consider ^B the total number of them all. For they were more numerous by far than those who had sat in the council at Ariminum; and [they were] to become of one mind and in communion with them; and [they were] to declare by a personal document that they were of this opinion. Moreover, [they were] to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia, as it was spring, on a certain day which they had appointed; and they were thus encouraging one another to gather there.

Now, when the synod in Tarsus was already about to be convened, some thirty-four of the Asian bishops, having met in Caria of Asia ^C, praised indeed the zeal shown for the concord of the Churches, but they declined the term *consubstantial*; and they insisted that the faith which had been promulgated at Antioch and Seleucia ought to hold valid, as it was that of the martyr Lucian, and had been validated by those before them at the cost of many dangers and much sweat. The emperor, however, at the instigation of Eudoxius, dissolved the council expected to take place in Cilicia, writing concerning this and adding threats. Furthermore, he commanded the governors of the provinces to expel from the Churches those bishops who had been deposed in the time of Constantius, but who had recovered their priesthood while Julian was reigning. Because of this mandate, a zeal arose in the authorities throughout Egypt to despoil Athanasius of the churches there and to drive him from the city. For no light penalty was contained in the imperial edict, should these things not come to pass: all the governors alike, and their officials and the town councilors, were condemned to the fine of a large sum of money, and threatened with bodily tortures if they did not do what was commanded. The multitude of Christians, having gathered together, requested the prefect not to expel the bishop rashly, but to weigh more carefully the phrasing of the imperial letters, which were valid only against those who had returned in the reign of Julian after their exile during the time of Constantius. They said that Athanasius had indeed fled in the time of Constantius, but had been recalled by him and had recovered his bishopric; and [they said] Julian [was] in Antioch of Caria.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (74) *And to consider*. Christophoronus translated [as] *to figure the number with himself*. Musculus, however, translated [it as] *to recount*, which I less approve; Epiphanius Scholasticus translated [it as] *to consider*. I have preferred to follow his interpretation, along with Langus, the interpreter of Nicephorus. (75) *In Caria of Asia*. Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read *in Antioch of Caria*. For he thus translates: *And when the synod was being prepared in Tarsus, about thirty-four Asian pontiffs meeting in Antioch of Caria*, and thus Nicephorus in ch. 9, lib. II, from the translation of Joannes Langus. For the Greek of Nicephorus is missing today. And for my part, I much prefer this writing to the common one. For what do these words mean? What need is there to add the name of Asia, as if one had to fear that we might understand another Caria outside of Asia? There was also another synod of Antioch in Caria, of which Sozomen speaks in book seven, chapter 2.

VARIORUM. ¶ This edict of Valens was issued before Easter in the year 367. From which we understand that the Tarsian council was to have been celebrated in the spring of that same year; and that Valesius in his notes on Socrates and Sozomen and certain other learned men incorrectly postponed the embassy of the Macedonians to Pope Liberius, and the Sicilian and Tyanian councils, until this year 367, whereas in that year Liberius was already dead, and before the Easter of that year the edict for the expulsion of the bishops after those councils had been celebrated had already been issued and sent for execution. (Ant. Pagi, at the year 365, n. 8.)

^A Athanasius, they said, had indeed been sent into exile under Constantius, but had recovered his bishopric when Constantius himself recalled him; and that while Julian had recalled all others from exile, he alone had persecuted him, whereas Jovian had then restored him. When they said these things, they did not persuade the prefect; nevertheless, they resisted, and did not allow force to be used against Athanasius. And when a multitude of the common people gathered, and a vast uproar and disturbance occupied the city, and a sedition was expected to occur at any moment, the prefect informed the emperor of what had happened, allowing Athanasius to remain in the city meanwhile.

But later, after many days had passed and the commotion had seemed to die down, Athanasius slipped out of the city in the evening and hid himself in a certain place. That same night, the prefect of Egypt and the commander of the military forces there occupied the church where Athanasius had his lodging. And when they had searched for him everywhere, even in the very roofs and gables, they departed, frustrated in their design. For they thought that since the people had now forgotten the former disturbance and everyone was overcome by sleep, they could, if they made an assault, easily carry out the emperor's command and preserve the city from sedition. ^B Great admiration, moreover, came upon all because Athanasius had not been found. For whether he escaped having been forewarned by divine revelation, or by the information of certain men, both amount to the same thing. And it seemed a piece of foresight beyond what is human, to have been able to foresee the plot at such a critical moment and to guard against it.

Others say that as he foresaw the irrational agitation of the people, and feared that he would be thought the author of the evils that might result from it, he spent all this time in his father's tomb. And Athanasius, having escaped in this way, remained hidden. The emperor, however, not long after wrote to him to return and resume his church. But I suspect that Valens did not write that from his own personal conviction, but either because he reflected upon the constant estimation all men had of Athanasius's virtue, and that for this reason Valentinian would undoubtedly have taken it ill—since he had embraced the doctrine of the Nicene Council; or because he feared the multitude of those who favored Athanasius, lest they should plot something to the detriment of the state. I also think it likely that the leaders of the Arian sect did not apply themselves to the matter with such vehement zeal, foreseeing ^{C D}

^A that he might, if driven from the city, once again petition the emperors and find an opportunity to approach them, and might carry Valens over to his own opinion: whereas Valentinian, being a follower of the same faith, would be provoked to anger. For since they had already witnessed the virtue of the man, evidenced by those events which occurred during the reign of Constantius, they were gripped by great fear. For even at that time he so completely overcame the snares of his adversaries that the Churches of Egypt willingly yielded to him; and he was with difficulty induced by the letters of Constantius to return from Italy on that condition. I conjecture that this is the reason why the Church was not taken away from Athanasius, as it was from the other bishops. Upon the rest, however, a persecution descended, not unlike that which had been raised of old by the pagans. For those who refused to follow their doctrine were punished with exile, and Churches were taken away from them and handed over to others. But Egypt, while Athanasius was still alive, was for a time free of these calamities.

CHAPTER XIII.

Meanwhile, the Emperor Valens determined to set out for Antioch, which is situated on the Orontes. While he was on his journey, Eudoxius departed this life, having served as bishop of Constantinople for eleven years. Demophilus was ordained in his stead by the Arians, and took over the administration of the churches of the royal city. But the champions of the Nicene faith, thinking that a favorable opportunity had presented itself to them, elected a certain Evagrius as their bishop. He was ordained by Eustathius, who had formerly ruled the Church of the Antiochenes in Syria. For he, having been recalled by Jovian from his exile, was living privately in Constantinople at that time, instructing those who held the same doctrines as himself and exhorting them to remain steadfast in their opinion regarding the Divinity. ^C Hence, therefore, those of the Arian heresy were stirred to sedition and began to persecute the supporters of the ordination of Evagrius with bitterness. Having learned of these things, the Emperor remained for a while at Nicomedia. Fearing that some evil might befall the royal city through the sedition, he decided to send soldiers to Constantinople in such numbers as he judged sufficient for that purpose. He ordered Eustathius to be arrested and relegated to the town of Bizye in Thrace, and commanded that Evagrius be taken elsewhere. And these events came to pass in this manner.

CAP. XIV.

The Arians, as is wont to happen to those in prosperous circumstances, became more insolent, and those who dissented from them they began to plot against with greater cruelty.

^A Since they were suffering bodily torture, being surrendered to presiding magistrates and prisons, and gradually wasting their substance through the frequent losses that befell them from these causes, they determined to petition the emperor, in order to find some relief from these sufferings. For this reason they chose eighty churchmen, among whom Urbanus, Theodore, and Menedemus held the principal place. When they arrived at Nicomedia, they presented a petition in which they had written down what pertained to their case. Valens, although he was enraged beyond measure, did not betray the gravity of his anger, but secretly commanded the prefect to arrest them and put them to death. The prefect, however, fearing that the populace might stir up a sedition if so many godly men who had committed no wrong were to be killed contrary to law and reason, pretended that he was condemning them to exile, and, as if they were to be sent into banishment, ordered them to be put on board a ship, which they were prepared to bear with a stout heart. ^B But when they had sailed to the middle of the gulf called Astacenus, the sailors, having set fire to the vessel as they had been commanded, jumped into a small boat and departed. The ship itself, driven by a favorable wind, reached as far as Dacibiza—this is a place on the coast of Bithynia. But as soon as it touched land, it fell apart and burned up with the men still on board.

CAP. XV.

Concerning the dissension between Eusebius of Caesarea and Basil the Great; and how the Arians, taking confidence from this, attacked the Caesarean Church, and were repelled.

^C After Valens had left Nicomedia, he traveled toward Antioch. At that time, when he had arrived in Cappadocia, he was eager, as he was accustomed to do, to harass the orthodox and to hand over the churches there to those who held the opinions of Arius. He hoped to accomplish this the more easily because a certain dissension and enmity existed between Basil and Eusebius, who at that time was administering the Church of the Caesareans. For this reason, Basil had withdrawn into Pontus and was passing his time with the monks who were practicing philosophy there. The populace, ^D and especially the best and most prudent of them, began to hold Eusebius in suspicion; and attributing to him the flight of a man most renowned for his life as well as his eloquence, they planned to desert him and to hold their assemblies separately. But Basil, indeed, in order that the Church might not be further disturbed on his account—a Church which was in no way free from tumults on account of the insults of the heretics—remained in quiet in the monasteries of Pontus at rest. But the emperor and the bishops who were with him, for they were always with him from the Arian heresy, were more eager

^A to make the attempt, inflamed by the absence of Basil and the hatred of the multitude toward Eusebius. But the outcome was contrary to their expectations. For as soon as it was announced that they were advancing toward Cappadocia, Basil left Pontus and arrived at Caesarea of his own accord. Being reconciled with Eusebius, he was well-disposed toward him; and he defended the Church at the opportune moment with his eloquence. Valens, therefore, frustrated in his design, departed at that time together with the bishops who were with him, without achieving his purpose.

CAP. XVI. How, after Eusebius, Basil undertook the rule of the Church of the Cappadocians; and concerning his notable boldness of speech before Valens.

Some time later, Valens returned to Cappadocia and found that, after the death of Eusebius, Basil had been appointed to rule the churches of that province. Although he had determined to expel him from there, he was compelled to desist from his undertaking. For as soon as he had set about this, it is said that his wife was terrified in her dreams the following night, and Galates, his only son, was snatched away by a sudden illness. All judged that God, as an avenger for the plots that had been structured against Basil, had taken the boy from their midst to punish the parents. Valens himself also judged this to be the case. Certainly, after the death of his son, he caused no further trouble to Basil. ^B But while the boy was still alive, and, oppressed by disease, was believed to be already dying, he sent to Basil, asking and imploring that he would pray to God for the sick child. When, however, the prefect of the praetorium had arrived at Caesarea, he immediately summoned Basil to him, and commanded him to embrace the same doctrine of faith as the prince, threatening death if he did not comply. It is said that Basil replied that this would be a great gain to him, and that he would give great thanks if he were liberated from the shackles of the body as quickly as possible. And when the prefect had ordered that he should deliberate on the matter during that day and the following night, and not to rush inconsiderately into an obvious danger, but to be present on the next day and declare his opinion, "For my part," said Basil, "there is no need for deliberation. For I shall be the same tomorrow that I am today. ^C For being myself a creature, I can never be persuaded to worship one like myself and confess him to be God, nor can I be a sharer in worship with you and the emperor. For even if you are very distinguished and hold control over no small portion of the inhabited world, you ought not on that account to compel men to ignore the faith in the Divinity, which I would never betray, though condemned to confession of property, exile, or death." ^D

Nothing of these can cause me pain. For indeed I have no riches, but only a cloak and a few books. And I dwell on the earth as one who is always passing through. For my body, because of its infirmity, is beyond the perception of pain and torment after the first blow inflicted upon it." ^A Having spoken thus with boldness, the prefect, having admired the man's virtue, reported the matter to the emperor. And he, when the festival of the Theophany was being celebrated, came to the church with his officials and guards, and brought his gifts to the holy table, and conversed with him, and praised his wisdom and the grace and good order observed in his priestly office and the assembly. Nevertheless, it was not long before he was compelled by the slanders of his opponents to live in exile. And the night was at hand in which this seemed likely to happen; but suddenly a fever seized the emperor's son, and brought him into a sudden and dangerous illness. And the father was thrown upon the ground, mourning for his son while he was still alive; and being at a loss and eager to have him sound from every side, he permitted his household to summon Basil to visit the one lying ill; for he himself dared not command this from him, whom he had lately insulted. ^B And as soon as he arrived, the boy felt easier, so that many at that time asserted that he would not have perished at all, had not Valens, along with Basil, also summoned heretics to pray for the child. It is also said that the prefect fell into a disease at that time; but when he besought and asked for pardon, he recovered his health. But these things perhaps will not seem very wonderful in the case of Basil, a man endowed with excellent philosophy and everywhere celebrated for his learning and eloquence.

CHAP. XVII.

They—that is, he and Gregory—being contemporaries and, so to speak, of the same zeal for the virtues, were known to each other. For as young men, they studied at Athens under Himerius and Proaeresius, the most renowned sophists of that time; and after this, in Antioch, under Libanius the Syrian. Having disdained to practice sophistry and plead legal cases, they resolved to philosophize according to the law of the Church. And having spent some time in the studies of the philosophers among the Greeks, and having thoroughly mastered the interpretations of the holy Scriptures from the works of Origen, and of those who, both before and after him, had gained distinction in the exegesis of the holy Books, they were a great benefit at that present time to those of the same belief as those at Nicaea.

^A For each of them stood courageously against those who held the opinions of Arius, and refuted them, showing that they held correctly neither on other matters, nor on the opinions of Origen, on which they chiefly relied. By a common agreement, or perhaps by lot, as I have heard from some, they divided the dangers between themselves. Basil, for his part, traveling around the cities near the Pontus, established many dwellings for monks there, and by teaching the crowds, persuaded them to hold the same belief as himself. Gregory, having obtained ^B the bishopric of the small city of Nazianzus after his father's death, resided frequently in Constantinople, both for the sake of changing his location and, most of all, for its own sake. Not long after, by the vote of many priests, he was entrusted with the care of the people there. For as there was neither a bishop nor a church in that place, the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea was in danger of no longer existing in Constantinople.

CHAPTER XVIII

Concerning the persecution which took place at Antioch by the Orontes; and concerning the basilica of the blessed apostle Thomas at Edessa; and concerning the assembly there, and the confession of the Edessenes.

Now when the emperor reached Antioch, he drove out all who adhered to the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers, both from the churches of that city and from those of the neighboring cities, and oppressed them ^C with every kind of punishment; insomuch that some affirm that many were put to death by his order in various ways, and that some were even cast into the river Orontes. Having learned that there was in the city of Edessa an illustrious basilica named after the apostle Thomas, he went there to visit it. Furthermore, when he saw the people of the Catholic Church holding their assemblies in a field near the city—for there too the churches had been taken away from the Catholics—it is said that he severely rebuked the prefect, and struck him in the face with his fist, because, contrary to his own order, he had allowed such gatherings. Now Modestus—for this was the name of the ^D

^A prefect, though he belonged to a different sect—privately warned the Edessenes to be careful not to assemble the next day at the usual place for prayer. He told them he had strict orders from the emperor to punish any who were caught. The prefect threatened these things, having in mind that no one, or at least very few, should come into danger, and being anxious to turn away the emperor's wrath from himself. But the Edessenes, making nothing of the threats, flocked together at early dawn with more zeal than before, and filled the customary place. When this was reported, Modestus was at a loss what to do; yet, though helpless in this state of affairs, he nevertheless set out for the field. Meanwhile, a certain woman, clutching a young child by the hand, and dragging her cloak in a disorderly fashion unbecoming to a woman, broke through the military guard which preceded the prefect, as though hastening to some matter of great moment. When Modestus saw this, he ordered the woman to be seized. Being summoned to him, he demanded to know the reason for her hurried running. She replied, "That I might arrive more quickly at the field where the people of the Catholic Church are gathering." Modestus then said, "Are you the only one, then, who does not know that the ^B prefect is about to go there immediately, and will kill all whom he finds?" "I have heard it," said the woman, "and for this reason more than any other I run, that I might not be behind the time, and so miss the testimony concerning God." "But why," asked the prefect, "are you leading this child along with you?" "So that he, too," she said, "may share in the common suffering, and be deemed worthy of the same reward." Modestus, marvelling at the woman's courage, ^C returned to the palace. Having shared the account of her with the ruler, he persuaded him that he ought not to carry out what he had intended, showing that such a course was neither honorable nor useful. In this manner the whole city of the Edessenes confessed the worship of Christ.

CAP. XIX. On the death of the great Athanasius, and the accession of Lucius the Arian to the throne, and the many evils that befell the Churches of Egypt, and how Peter, successor to Athanasius, having fled, went to Rome.

At this same time, Athanasius, the bishop of the Church of the Alexandrians, departed this life, having held the priesthood for about forty-six years. ^D When his death was quickly known by the Arian party...

Euzoius, who presided over the Arian heresy in Antioch, arrived without delay; and with him Magnus, the treasurer of the imperial ^A revenues, who had been sent by the emperor. They arrested Peter, to whom Athanasius had committed the bishopric, and cast him into prison, and delivered the Church of the Alexandrians to Lucius. Hence it came to pass that the Egyptians were more bitterly harassed than the other provinces; and calamities, falling one upon another, oppressed the people of the Catholic Church. For as soon as Lucius arrived in Alexandria, he undertook to seize the churches. But since the multitude openly resisted him, the clergy and the sacred virgins were accused as the authors of sedition. And—truly as if the city had been occupied by enemies—some fled, while others were seized by the pursuers, and being thrown into chains were kept in custody. Others, led out of prison, were tortured—some being torn with iron claws and ox-hide thongs, others being burned with flaming torches. It appeared ^B like a miracle that anyone survived such torments. Indeed, to die before such cruelties were inflicted, or to be condemned to exile, was considered desirable. And such things were done in this manner. But Peter the bishop, having escaped from prison, boarded a ship and sailed to the bishop of the city of Rome, as he was a supporter of the same faith as himself. The Arians, although few in number, obtained the churches. At that same time, an imperial edict arrived, commanding that as many of the followers of the Nicene Council as Lucius should designate should be expelled from Alexandria and all of Egypt. For such had been the command given to the prefect ^C of Egypt. Euzoius, having brought the schemes he had instituted to an end, returned to Antioch.

CHAPTER XX. On the persecution of the monks of Egypt, and of the disciples of Saint Anthony, who were deported to a certain island on account of their doctrine of the true faith, and of the miracles which they performed.

But Lucius, having taken with him the commander of the soldiers in Egypt, set out with a great force of troops against the monks living in the desert. For he supposed that if he should harass these men, who loved tranquility, he would be able to make them compliant, and by that means, most especially, turn the Christians living in the cities to his own side. For many admirable men were then presiding over the monasteries of those regions, ^D and all of them alike rejected the doctrine of Arius. And since the multitude followed their testimony, likewise

^A professing the same Christian doctrine—for they were neither willing nor able to dispute and quibble about dogmas, believing that the truth resided with those who manifested virtue by their very actions—we understand that the leaders of the Egyptian ascetics at that time were the two Macarii, of whom we have spoken before, as well as Pambo, Heraclides, and the other disciples of Antony.

Lucius, therefore, seeing that it was impossible for the Arians to become superior to the Catholics unless he could draw these monks over to the Arian sentiment, attempted to compel them by force, since he could not persuade them by words. But even in this he failed in his purpose, for they were prepared to die, if need be, and would rather offer their necks to the swords than violate the decrees of the council of Nicaea. It is said that at the very time the soldiers were about to make their attack upon them, a certain man was brought to them whose limbs had long been dried up and withered, such that he could not stand on his feet. ^B When they anointed him with oil, they ordered him, in the name of Christ, whom Lucius was persecuting, to arise and return home. The man, being suddenly healed, plainly demonstrated that one should assent to the doctrine of those with whom God had testified the truth to be, by hearing them even when they called upon Him in the accusation of Lucius, and by restoring the sick man to health.

Yet those who were plotting against these monks did not repent for this reason; but having seized them by night, they transported them to a certain island in Egypt, which was surrounded on all sides by marshes. The inhabitants of this island were completely ignorant of the Christian religion and devoted to the worship of demons; for they greatly revered a very ancient temple that stood among them. ^C It is said that upon their landing there, the daughter of the priest, who was possessed by a demon, came to meet them as they stepped out of the boat. As the girl was seeing and crying out, the people of that place were astonished at the sudden and paradoxical nature of the event, and followed the maiden. When she arrived at the ship which was carrying the holy elders, she began to lament and roll on the ground, supplicating and crying aloud: "Why have you come to us, O servants of the great God? For this little island is a long-standing dwelling-place for us. We trouble no one; unknown to all mortals, we lie hidden here, enclosed on all sides by these marshes. But if it pleases you, take our possession and make it your own; for we yield." ^D As she uttered these words, those with Macarius rebuked the demon, and the child became sane. Consequently, her father, along with his household and the whole island, converted to Christianity.

^A They demolished the temple that was among them and converted it into a church. When these things were reported in Alexandria, they caused Lucius no small grief. He feared lest he should fall into the hatred of his own people, inasmuch as he had declared open war not against men, but against God Himself. Therefore, he immediately gave secret orders that those who were with Macarius should return to their own abodes and to the desert. Indeed, Lucius troubled Egypt in this manner. At that time, however, the Church of Egypt was bright with distinction ^B—not only through Didymus the philosopher, who flourished at that season, but also through other most learned men. Fixing its gaze upon the virtue of these men and of the monks of whom I have spoken, the Church of Egypt resisted Lucius and his followers. And although it endured persecution, it still far surpassed the Arians in number.

CAP. XXI.

Enumeration of the provinces in which the Nicene faith was preached, and concerning the faith of the Scythians and the bishop Vetranio of that nation.

The same thing occurred at that time among the Osrhoenians, and likewise among the Cappadocians, since there had been granted to them a certain divine and most learned pair: Basil, the bishop of Caesarea, the chief city among them, and Gregory of Nazianzus. But Syria and the neighboring provinces, and especially the city of Antioch, were ^C involved in the greatest perturbation and tumult, since the Arians were more numerous there and held the churches; yet the Catholics were by no means few, whom they called Eustathians and Paulinians, governed by Paulinus and Meletius, as we have related above. By the help of these men, the Antiochene Church, when it had been very little short of embracing the entire Arian heresy, was barely able to resist the strenuous efforts of the emperor and of those who had the greatest influence at court. For wherever churches were governed by noble and strong men, the people, as is likely, did not change their prior sentiment. Indeed, they say that for this reason the Scythians remained in their original faith. ^D This province contains many cities, villages, and forts. Its metropolis is Tomis, a large and opulent city situated on the sea, to the left for one sailing into the sea called the Euxine. Even now, an ancient custom prevails there, of...

one single bishop governing all the churches of the ^A province. Vetranio was in charge of the churches at this time, when the Emperor Valens arrived at the city of Tomis. When the emperor had entered the church of that place and, according to his custom, began to persuade the bishop to communicate with those of the opposing sect, Vetranio spoke with great courage and boldness in the presence of the emperor regarding the doctrine of the faith defined at Nicaea; he then left him and betook himself to another church, and the people followed him. Almost the entire city had assembled, both to see the emperor and because it was expected that some new event would occur. Valens, being left behind with those in his company, took this affront ill. Therefore, he ordered Vetranio to be seized and led into exile: nor did he long after grant him permission to return. For, as I conceive, when Valens saw the Scythians ^B angered by the exile of their bishop, he began to fear lest they might attempt some revolutionary act. For he knew they were endowed with a strong spirit, and that because of the situation of their lands, they were useful and necessary to the Roman Empire, as a rampart placed against the neighboring Barbarians. In this manner, Vetranio overcame the attempt of the prince: a man distinguished in other respects, and conspicuous for his integrity of life, as the Scythians themselves testify. For these reasons, almost all the clergy everywhere experienced the wrath of the emperor, except for the Churches of the western parts. For in those regions reigned Valentinian, who both followed the doctrine of the Nicaean synod and was so piously affected towards the Divine ^C Power, that he would neither command the priests anything, nor otherwise suffer any innovation to be made in ecclesiastical affairs, whether it might seem to him better or worse. For he considered these matters to be beyond his own judgment, although he had been a most excellent emperor, and had proven himself capable of ruling in all affairs of state.

CHAPTER XXII.

How at that time, when the question concerning the Holy Spirit was stirred up, it was decreed that He should be called consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

In this matter again, a question that had indeed begun previously but had now gained greater increase, was whether the Holy Spirit ought to be glorified as consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Many disputations were held regarding this, with no less contention than there had been before concerning the Word of God. And in this controversy, those who maintained that the Son was unlike and of similar substance to the Father ^D were in agreement with one another.

For both parties insisted that the Spirit was a minister, and third in order, honor, and substance. ^A However, those who confessed that the Son was consubstantial with the Father held the same view regarding the Spirit. This doctrine was defended most vigorously in Syria by Apollinaris of Laodicea; in Egypt by Athanasius the bishop; and in Cappadocia and the Churches of Pontus by Basil and Gregory. As this inquiry was being agitated, and as the spirit of contention grew daily, as is natural, the bishop of Rome, having learned of the matter, wrote to the Churches of the East, along with those of the West, to profess the Trinity as consubstantial and of equal honor and glory. This having been done, as if the matter had been decided once and for all by the judgment of the Roman Church, each party remained quiet, ^B and such a controversy seemed to have reached its end.

CHAPTER XXIII.

About this same time, Liberius having died, Damasus took over the administration of the Roman see. Ursinus, a certain deacon who had been nominated by the votes of some, but who had suffered a setback, could not bear it; but having been ordained in secret by certain obscure bishops, he endeavored to rend the Church and hold assemblies separately. ^C The people being divided, some favored him, while others favored Damasus as bishop. From this, as is likely, a huge contention and sedition of the multitude flared up, so that the evil escalated even to wounds and murders, until the Urban Prefect, having punished many of the populace and the clergy, suppressed the attempt of Ursinus. As regards the doctrine of the faith, neither the Romans nor any others in the parts of the West were, at that time, and just as before, in disagreement among themselves; but all approved the opinion of the Synod of Nicaea, ^D and worshipped the Trinity as of equal honor and power. Only those around Auxentius, who at that time presided over the Church in Milan, along with a few others, attempted to introduce innovations and, against the common agreement of the priests of the West, to strengthen the doctrine of Arius, and to hold the same view as those who, according to the later inquiry, worshipped the Son and the Spirit as unlike.

^A But since the bishops of Gaul and Venetia reported that this same thing was being attempted by certain others, shortly thereafter the bishops from many provinces gathered in Rome and decreed that Auxentius and those who held the same views as he did were alien to their communion; and that the faith which had been handed down by the council of Nicaea should remain firm and stable, while the things which had been decreed in the synod of Ariminum against that faith were invalidated, because neither the Roman bishop nor the others had consented to those proceedings, and because many of those who had attended that synod had since disapproved of its decrees. ^B That these things were indeed so done and determined, is attested also by the letter of Damasus, the bishop of Rome, and of those who had then gathered with him, written to the bishops of Illyricum. It runs as follows:

The bishops who have assembled in the holy council at Rome, to the bishops stationed in Illyricum, Damasus, Valerius, and the rest, greetings to our beloved brethren in the Lord.

We believe that you hold our holy faith, which is founded upon the doctrine of the apostles, and that you preach this to the people; for this in no way dissents from the decrees of the Fathers. For it is not fitting that the priests of God should think otherwise, they by whom even the wise ought to be instructed. But through the report of our brethren in Gaul and Venetia, we have learned that some are striving to introduce heresy. This is an evil which bishops ought not only to be on their guard against, but also, whatever may have been written or done by some through inexperience or simplicity, they ought to ^C (Valesii Annotations omitted) ^D (Variorum omitted)

and offer resistance to their own interpretations; that we should not be led into error by those who devise diverse dogmas, but rather retain the decrees of our Fathers, whenever they ^A are rashly carried about by various counsels. Wherefore, they write that Auxentius of Milan was especially condemned in this matter. It is therefore just that all teachers in the Roman world should be in agreement with one another, and not defile the faith with discrepant doctrines. For when the wickedness of the heretics first began to flourish, just as now—which God forbid!—the blasphemy of the Arians flourishes, our Fathers, three hundred and eighteen chosen men, held a council at Nicaea and raised this wall against the weapons of the devil, and by this antidote repelled the deadly poisons; so that the Father and the Son might be believed to be of one divinity, one virtue, and one figure. But we must also believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance. We have decreed that anyone who thinks otherwise is to be an alien from our communion. ^B Some have attempted to violate this saving rule and adorable decree. Yet, at the very outset, it was corrected even by those who had been compelled to innovate or attempt this at Ariminum, insomuch that they confessed they had been deceived by some other disputation, which they had not at all noticed was contrary to the sentiment promulgated by the Nicene Fathers. Nor could any prejudice arise from the number of those who gathered at Ariminum: since, as we have said above, those very men who seemed to have yielded a little through fraud, afterwards, using better judgment, testified that it displeased them. ^C Your sincerity therefore perceives that this sole faith, which was founded in the city of Nicaea according to the authority of the apostles, must be held with perpetual firmness: and that both the Orientals, who profess themselves to be Catholics, and the Westerners may glory in it with us. We believe, however, that it will come to pass shortly that those who think otherwise will be separated from our communion, with the name of bishops taken away from them, so that the peoples, liberated from their error, may be able to breathe. For they will by no means be able to correct the error of the multitude, when they themselves are involved in error. ^D

Let your judgment, therefore, consent with the judgment of all of God’s priests, in which faith we trust that you remain stable and firm. And show us that we ought to believe in this way with you, by the mutual letters of your charity given to us.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning Saint Ambrose, the manner in which he was promoted to the episcopate, and how he taught the peoples to think piously. Also concerning the Novatians in Phrygia, and the day of Pascha.

In this way, the bishops in the West, having arrived there, carefully preserved the faith handed down to them from the beginning against those who were promoting changes among them. Thus, very few heterodox persons came to be there, and almost none except those around Auxentius. ^B Nor was he long in being removed; for upon his death, the multitude fell into discord, not all choosing the same person to oversee the Church of Milan; and the city was in danger. For the different factions, having failed to get their own way, were threatening to do what usually happens in such disturbances. But Ambrose, who was at that time the governor of the province, fearing the agitation of the people, came to the church and began to counsel them to cease from the strife, reminding them of the laws, and setting before their eyes the blessings of harmony and peace. He had scarcely finished speaking, when suddenly all, abandoning their anger toward one another, ^C bestowed the vote for the episcopate upon the counselor of harmony himself. And they urged him to be baptized; for he was still uninitiated. And they asked that he take upon himself the priesthood. And when he refused, and delayed, and simply avoided the matter, the people persisted; and

declared that they would not be at peace on any other condition. The matter was reported to the officials of the palace. It is said that the Emperor Valentinian, upon receiving this news, prayed to God and gave Him thanks that He was choosing for the office of the priesthood those whom he himself had appointed to govern the provinces. When he learned of the persistent zeal of the people and the refusal of Ambrose, he concluded that God was directing these events to bring about concord in the Church of Milan, and he ordered that he be ordained with all speed. Once he had been baptized and had received his ordination, he persuaded the Church under his care, which had been suffering for a long time from discord due to the administration of Auxentius, to be of one mind regarding divine matters. But what kind of man this Ambrose became after his ordination, and with what courage and truly divine spirit he discharged the priesthood, shall be told in its proper place ^A.

About this same time, the Novatians who dwell in Phrygia began, contrary to ancient custom, to celebrate the feast of Pascha together with the Jews. For Novatus, who was the founder of this sect, did not admit those who repented of their sins to communion, and this was the only novelty he introduced. But both he and his successors, no differently than the Roman Church, observed the day of the feast of Pascha perpetually after the vernal equinox. Finally, however, around those times, certain Novatian bishops throughout Phrygia gathered at the village of Pazi—this is a place in Phrygia from which the springs of the Sangarius river flow—and, as if not deigning to communicate even in this matter with those who held different opinions from them, they established a peculiar rule: that they should henceforth observe the feast of Unleavened Bread and celebrate Pascha with the Jews. This synod was not attended by Agelius, who was the bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople, nor by the bishop of Nicaea, nor of Nicomedia, nor of Cotyaeum ^B—for this is a city of Phrygia not without note—whom the Novatians indeed consider as lords and, so to speak, the finishing touch ^C of the affairs concerning their own heresy and their own Churches. ^D

But how these too arrived at dissension, and how, cutting themselves off, they held their gatherings separately, I shall tell in due time. ^A

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the two Apollinarii, father and son, and Vitalis the presbyter: through what occasion they were moved and lapsed into heretical beliefs.

At this same time, Apollinaris, the founder of the heresy named after him, stood forth openly; and, having cut off many from the body of the Church, he gathered them by themselves. Vitalis, a presbyter of Antioch belonging to the clergy of Meletius, assisted him in the establishing of his own doctrine; he was a man who, if any other was, was prominent for his life and manner of living, and diligent in the guidance of those over whom he presided, and for this reason was venerated by the people. But not long after, having separated himself from the communion of Meletius, he attached himself to Apollinaris; and he took the lead over those who held the same opinions at Antioch. Because of the sanctity of his life, he had not a few followers, who received their name from him and are to this day called Vitalians by the Antiochenes. ^B It is said that he came to this state out of grief, having been slighted by Flavian—who was afterwards entrusted with the throne of Antioch, but was his fellow-presbyter at the time—when he was prevented from seeing the bishop in the accustomed manner. For, having thought himself to be held in contempt, he suffered a human failing, and going over to Apollinaris, he joined in fellowship and friendship with him. From this time, in other cities also, they began to hold separate assemblies under their own bishops, and they employed customs alien to the Catholic Church, for in addition to the sacred hymns which are accustomed to be sung in the Church, they chanted certain short songs composed in verse, which had been devised by Apollinaris. For he, in addition to his other learning, was poetic and skilled in every kind of meter, and by the sweetness of these he persuaded many to attend to him. ^C Men would sing his compositions at their drinking parties and while at work, and women while at their looms. For he had labored over, and composed for every occasion—leisure, festivals, and all other times—short idylls, all tending toward the praise of God. Having learned, therefore, that this heresy was creeping among many, he first—

[VALESII ANNOTATIONS] ^D [index: entries preserved]

[VARIORUM] * Vitalis. When we were at Antioch, we came upon the chief men of those [Dimaritae], among whom was Vitalis the bishop, a man most religious in life, customs, and practice. And when we urged him strongly, and were advising that he should agree with the faith of the Catholic Church, etc. Epiphanius, in [the heresy of] the Dimaritae, p. 1014.

^A Damasus, bishop of the Romans, and Peter of Alexandria, a council having been held at Rome, declared it to be foreign to the Catholic Church. It is said that Apollinaris also, for a similar reason of faint-heartedness 16, introduced innovations concerning the doctrine, for the following cause: For when Athanasius, who governed the Church of the Alexandrians, after the exile he had endured under Constantius, was ordered to return to Egypt, as he was passing through Laodicea, Apollinaris became intimate and a great friend to him. But because communion with him was held to be wicked by those of the opposite heresy—among whom was George, the bishop of that place—he was reproachfully cast out of the Church, as having associated with Athanasius contrary to the canons and the laws of the priests. George upbraided him for these things, and reproached him with the satisfaction of old sins which had been loosed by repentance. For while Theodotus, his predecessor, was ^B governing the Church of the Laodiceans, at that time Epiphanius the Sophist 17 was reciting a hymn in praise of Bacchus. Apollinaris, who used him as a teacher—for he was still a youth—was present at the recitation, together with his father, who bore the same name as himself and was a grammarian of no small repute. And when Epiphanius, beginning his discourse, as is the custom for those who make such displays, ordered the uninitiated and profane to go outside the doors, neither Apollinaris the younger, nor the elder, nor anyone else of the Christians present departed from the hearing. Having learned these things, Theodotus the bishop was greatly vexed; and having rebuked the others who were ranked among the laity moderately, he [proceeded to…].

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ^C ...that it was indeed an error of Apollinaris that was condemned. Baronius refers this to the year of Christ 373, relying on this one passage of Sozomen. For Sozomen clearly testifies that Peter, bishop of Alexandria, took part in this Roman synod. But Peter had come to Rome at the end of the year 372. I myself, however, think that the Roman synod which Sozomen mentions here was gathered long after the year 373. First, because Sozomen reports it after the ordination of Ambrose of Milan, which took place in the year of Christ 374, as Baronius testifies. Then in the year of Christ 373, Vitalis of Antioch, a disciple of Apollinaris, having fraudulently presented a confession of faith to Damasus, was received by him into communion and sent back to Paulinus, the bishop of Antioch, with letters of communion. Soon, however, the same Damasus, the matter having been examined more carefully, when he understood that he had been deceived by Vitalis, wrote another letter to the same Paulinus, commanding under what condition Vitalis and the others were to be received by him into communion. In this letter are contained the anathemas against the heresy of Apollinaris, though his name was suppressed. But this letter is not synodical, but merely a decretal of Damasus himself. There is indeed a mention in it of a Roman synod, but of another one which is somewhat older than this synod of Baronius.

^D ...the words of the epistle are: "After the Nicene council, and the one that was gathered in the city of Rome by the Catholic bishops, they added concerning the Holy Spirit," etc. Where it seems the Roman council is understood which was celebrated against Auxentius in the year of Christ 370 [or 369], as I noted above. But someone here may say: What Roman synod then does Sozomen understand in this place? For my part, I think that synod is intended which was celebrated at Rome in the year of Christ 378 [or 380]. From which synod nothing has come down to us except a part of an epistle or exposition of faith which was transmitted to the Orient, and to which the Oriental bishops, having made a synod at Antioch, subscribed, as is read in the Roman Collection of L. Holstenius, p. 166. That, however, was done in the year of our Lord 378. And this is the Tome of the Westerners, of which mention is made in the canon of the Council of Constantinople, which neither Zonaras nor Balsamon understood. 16 "Or, because of faint-heartedness." That is, because of a small mind. For above, Sozomen said regarding Vitalis that when he could not bear that Flavian should be preferred before him, he was moved by anger to betake himself to Apollinaris. 17 "Epiphanius the Sophist." Eunapius makes mention of this Epiphanius the Syrian Sophist in his book *On the Lives of the Sophists*.

VARIOUS NOTES. * Regarding this Tome of the Westerners, see the most illustrious Petrus de Marca, *De concordia sacerdotii et imp.*, lib. 1, cap. 4; and Guil. Beveridge, *Annot. in canonem quintum concilii Constantinopolitani 2*, p. 97. Pagi refers this synod with Baronius to the year 374 in his *Critic. ad Baron.*, year 374, n. 2, 3, who criticizes Valesius for confounding this synod with another which was likewise celebrated at Rome in that year. W. Lowth. Cave says Baronius refers this council to the year 373, but Valesius to the year 378. *Hist.*, Vol. 2, p. 125. And indeed, the cited passage seems to contradict those things which he had written above regarding this synod in the year 369, n. 41.

^A regarding the intention he had. But having publicly exposed the sin of both the Apollinarii, he banished them from the Church; for both were clergy: the father was a presbyter, and the son a reader of the Holy Scriptures. After some time had passed, however, when they had performed penance for their sin, in tears and fasting, as was fitting, Theodotus received them again. But when George obtained that same bishopric, and Apollinaris, as has been said, had that meeting with Athanasius, George declared him excommunicated and a stranger to the Church. It is said that Apollinaris often begged him to be received back into communion. But since he could not move him, overcome by grief, he began to disturb the Church and introduced the aforementioned heresy, a novelty of dogmas—which he was able to do, I say, by the art of rhetoric—avenging himself against his enemy, and refuting him, as one who was not such a man in the instruction of ^B sacred dogmas, having cast down a better man than himself. Thus, the private animosities of the clergy of the time have greatly harmed the Church, and divided religion into many heresies. And a proof of this is that if George had received the repentant Apollinaris just as Theodotus had, the heresy called after him would not, I believe, exist today. For human nature is so constituted that when it is despised it becomes insolent and turns toward contention and innovation; but when it obtains its due, it is accustomed to be moderate and remain in the same state.

Chapter 26. On Eunomius and his teacher Aetius. What the life of each was, and what their dogmas were, and that they were the first to introduce a single immersion in baptism.

^C About this time, Eunomius, who held the Church at Cyzicus in place of Eleusius, and was a leader of the Arian heresy, introduced another heresy besides this one; which some name from him, and others call that of the Anomoeans. And some say that this Eunomius was the first of all to dare to introduce the notion that divine baptism should be performed with a single immersion, and that he corrupted the apostolic tradition which is still kept everywhere among all; and, for the most part, that he discovered a different kind of conduct for his own Church, which covered its novelty with a certain [air of] gravity and greater precision. He was also a craftsman of words, and eristic, and delighted in syllogisms; and one can see that most of those who think as he does are of such a character. For they do not praise a good life or manner of living, ^D or mercy toward the needy, more than they do those who hold the same dogmas; if anyone were to dispute contentiously, he would appear to win by syllogizing; for such a person

is considered pious ^A above all others. But others, whom I consider to state the truer account—such as Theophronius the Cappadocian and Eutychius, who were eager supporters of this heresy—say that, having cut themselves off during the following reign, they practiced innovations regarding other things that Eunomius held, and also regarding divine baptism, introducing the idea that one should be baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. They affirm, however, that Eunomius himself introduced nothing new concerning this, but from the beginning held the opinions of Arius, and remained thus; yet when he became bishop of Cyzicus, he was accused by the clergy under him as an innovator of new dogmas. At that time, Eudoxius, who led the Arian heresy in Constantinople, summoned him and permitted him to speak to the people about the dogma. When he condemned nothing in it, he advised him to return to Cyzicus. But he said that he did not wish to dwell further with those who were held in suspicion by him; and he made this the pretext for his secession. The truth, however, is that they did not accept Aetius, his teacher, and he remained by himself, having changed nothing at all of his former opinion. Some tell these things in this way, others in another way. But whether it was Eunomius or some others who introduced these innovations into the tradition of baptism, it is to be feared, in my opinion, that they alone of all people, according to this reasoning, might depart from this life devoid of divine baptism. For if they had been baptized from the beginning according to the established custom, they could not have rebaptized ^B themselves previously—they who introduced from the beginning that which had not happened to them. And that which they neither were themselves, nor had received through others, this they caused others to do; and having established this dogma from a certain non-existent beginning and their own personal conception, they have handed down to others what they themselves had not received. Which is foolish. For it is agreed even by them that those who are uninitiated are not able to baptize others; and he who has not been baptized in the manner of their tradition, to them appears unbaptized, as not having been duly initiated. And they themselves bear witness, those whom they are able to persuade to think as they do, by rebaptizing them ^C if they have already reached the point of having been initiated according to the tradition of the universal Church. [alt-version omitted]

^A This indeed disturbed religion not a little; and the diversity of the doctrines that kept arising was a stumbling block to those who wished to become Christians. For keen debates were constantly taking place, and, as is usual in the beginnings of heresies, they flourished, having masters who were not ordinary men but were endowed with zeal and power of speech; and, as one may infer, they would have drawn the majority of people into their own opinion, had they not found the Cappadocians, Basil and Gregory, to be their opponents. ^B And the reign of Theodosius, which came not long after, checked their enterprise and moved the founders of the heresies themselves from the more familiar places to more desolate regions.

In order that we may not be entirely ignorant of the doctrine of each of the two heresies, it should be known that Aetius the Syrian was the first inventor of the doctrine according to Eunomius, and he asserted after Arius that the Son is unlike the Father, and that He is a created being and made out of nothing. And those who held these views were formerly called Aetians. But when, as has been said in the account of the reign of Constantius, some maintained that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and others that He is of a similar substance, it seemed proper to those who were then in power at the time of the Synod of Ariminum to say that He is merely "similar." Consequently, Aetius was condemned to exile as one who spoke impiously against God. ^C The heresy which had been fashioned by him was for a time in a measure extinguished, as neither any other man of any importance, nor Eunomius himself, dared to advocate it openly. But when he took over the bishopric of the city of Cyzicus in place of Eleusius, he no longer restrained himself, but discoursing in public, he brought the opinion of Aetius back into the light. Men, however, as is wont to happen frequently, forgetting the one who had first invented that heresy, named those who thought this way "Eunomians," because after Aetius he had renewed that doctrine and had developed it with more audacity than he by whom it had first been handed down.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

^D because those of them who convert to us we do not rebaptize, but reconcile through the imposition of hands. They, however, if they can seduce any of ours, rebaptize them inconsiderately. The same is attested by the ancient author of the *Life of Saint Fulgentius*, chap. 21. Furthermore, the Arians not only rebaptized Catholics, but also ordained their clergy who came to them a second time. We have a remarkable example of this in the book of petitions of Marcellinus the presbyter, page 81, near the end: "This is that distinguished and most holy bishop who, having been first ordained bishop by Catholic bishops, was later reduced to the number of the laity by the impious George, yet was nevertheless ordained bishop by that same George, to the vexation of the faithful." And a little later: "Unless it be because Theodorus acted more atrociously, when from a Catholic bishop he became a layman, condemning the pious faith, and subscribing to the Arian impiety, only to be ordained bishop again by a heretic." Jerome also testifies to the same in his *Chronicon*, speaking of Cyril of Jerusalem: "Cyril," he says, "when he had been ordained presbyter by Maximus, and after his death the bishopric was offered to him by Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, and the other Arians, if he would repudiate the ordination of Maximus, he served as a deacon in the Church." In which the Arians appear to have imitated the Donatists, who practiced both.

(25) *Moved*: Savilio, who amended on the margin of his codex...

CHAPTER XXVII.

It must be acknowledged that Eunomius held the same opinions as Aetius. For Eunomius himself boasts that Aetius was his teacher, and he frequently testifies to this openly and freely in his own books. Gregory the Nazianzen bishop, however, accusing Apollinaris in a certain epistle to Nectarius, the bishop who presided over the Church in Constantinople, writes these words: "Our domestic evil, Eunomius, is no longer content to live in any fashion; but he judges it a loss if he does not drag everyone with him into the same ruin. And these things are somehow to be endured; but the license of the Apollinarists, amid the calamities of the Church, is the most bitter of all. I do not know how your holiness has allowed those who have procured for themselves the right to assemble, as we do, to enjoy an equal standing. (26) Indeed, since you have been instructed in the divine mysteries by the singular benefit of God, you not only know well those things which pertain to the defense of the Word of God, but also whatsoever things have been devised by heretics against the sound faith. Nevertheless, it will not be inopportune that your gravity should learn from our insignificance that a pamphlet of Apollinaris has fallen into my hands, in which the things that are asserted exceed all the wickedness of the heretics. For he affirms that that flesh which was assumed by the only-begotten Son of God through the dispensation ^B for the restoration of our nature was not adventitious, but that that carnal nature had been in the Son from the beginning. And by misinterpreting certain words from the Gospel, he brings them forward for the confirmation of this absurd opinion, saying: *No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man* (John iii, 13); as if before he descended, he were the Son of man, and upon descending he brought with him his own flesh—that, namely, which he already had in heaven, eternal and coalesced with his own substance. For he brings forward again a certain passage of the Apostle, in which it is read: *The second man is from heaven* (1 Cor. xv, 47). Then he asserts that this man who descended from heaven does not have a mind, but that the deity of the Only-Begotten, which filled the place of the mind, was the third part of the human composite; ^C since, while soul and body were in him according to human nature, the mind was not, but God the Word filled its place. Nor is this the only grave sin. But that which is by far the most serious of all is that he contends that the only-begotten God Himself, who is the judge of all, the author of life, and the destroyer of death, is mortal, and in his own divinity... ^D

^A suffered, and in that three-day death of the body, his divinity also died with the body; and that thus, at last, by the benefit of the Father, He was recalled from death to life. It would be tedious to recount the other absurdities he joins to such assertions. Therefore, whoever wishes may understand from what we have said what exactly and of what nature were the opinions of Apollinarius and Eunomius regarding God. But if anyone desires an accurate knowledge of such matters, he may learn more from what they themselves or others have written about them; for it is not easy for me either to understand or to expound these things. But that those dogmas did not prevail, and did not spread to many, is, in my opinion, largely to be attributed to the monks, in addition to the reasons I have mentioned above. For all who followed the monastic philosophy in Syria and Cappadocia and the surrounding provinces adhered tenaciously to the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. The provinces of the East, from Cilicia even to Phoenicia, were very nearly on the point of embracing the heresy of Apollinarius. The heresy of Eunomius, on the other hand, occupied almost everything from Cilicia and Mount Taurus to the Hellespont ^B and Constantinople; for each of them easily persuaded those among whom they dwelt, as well as their neighbors, to adopt their own way of thinking. And it happened to these men much as it had happened to the Arians before them. For the populace in those regions, because they greatly admired the monks mentioned above for their virtue and their deeds, believed that they held the correct opinions; and they turned away from those who thought otherwise, as men who were not pure but were tainted with spurious doctrines. Just as the Egyptians, following the monks among them, had stoutly resisted the Arians.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

When I have happened to mention those who philosophized among the Christians at that time, I think it opportune to commemorate as many of them as I can now. For at that time a vast number of men beloved of God flourished. Among those whom we have learned lived in Egypt, the most prominent was John, to whom God had granted the knowledge of future and hidden things no less than to those prophets of old; and He had given him the power to heal those suffering from incurable diseases. And Or, who had lived in solitude from his youth, ^D was always singing hymns in praise of God. He subsisted on certain plants and roots. He drank water wherever he found it. When he had reached an advanced age, at a divine command, he moved to the Thebaid, and presided over many monasteries there, being himself not devoid of miracles. For by prayer alone he drove away diseases and demons. And although he had not learned his letters, he stood in no need of books for the sake of memory; but whatever he received into his mind was beyond the reach of forgetfulness. He lived this life of philosophy in that region.

^A Ammon also, the head of those monks who are called Tabennesians, having about three thousand disciples, lived the life of philosophy in the same region. Benus and Theonas likewise presided over monastic companies, being endowed with the heavenly gift of foreknowledge and prophecy. Theonas, indeed—learned in the literature and disciplines of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans—is said to have practiced silence for thirty years. It is said that Benus was never seen by anyone to be angry, or to utter an oath, or a lie, or even an idle, bold, or negligent word.

At this same time lived Copres, Helles, and Elias. It is said clearly of Copres that he received from God the gift of healing various diseases and infirmities and of casting out demons. Helles, having been instructed in monastic discipline from his youth, performed many wonderful deeds, to such an extent that he would carry fire in his bosom without scorching his garment, and by this means he greatly encouraged the monks who lived with him, as if the performance of miracles were the companion of a good conversation. Elias, at that time, lived in philosophy not far from the city of Antinoopolis, being about one hundred and ten years of age. Before this, he said that he had lived in solitude in the deserts for seventy years; and although he had reached such an advanced age, he nevertheless persevered in fasts and an austere manner of life. ^B Besides these, Apelles flourished at the same time near the town of Achoris, performing many miracles in the monasteries of Egypt. Once, when he was working as a smith (for that was the craft he professed), a phantom of a demon, appearing at night in the form of a beautiful woman, began to tempt his continence. But he, taking the iron he was forging out of the fire, scorched the demon’s face; and the demon, shrieking and wailing, fled away.

Isidorus, Serapion, and Dioscorus were also the most illustrious fathers of the monks at that time. Isidorus, indeed, having enclosed his monastery on all sides, took care that none of those within should go outside, and that they should have all things necessary within. But Serapion lived near the Arsenoitic ^C prefecture, ruling about a thousand monks, all of whom he taught to provide their sustenance by their own labors and to supply the needs of others who were indigent. And in the summer, by reaping for wages, they would store away enough grain for themselves and share it with other monks. As for Dioscorus, no more than one hundred followed him. Being a presbyter, he conducted himself with all assiduity while officiating at the mysteries; he would examine and carefully question those approaching the mysteries, so that their minds were purified, and they were not conscious of having done anything evil. Eustathius the presbyter, whom they say was ordained, was also more exact at that time ^D regarding the administration of the divine mysteries.

^A At harvest time, they hired themselves out to reap the grain, kept enough to support themselves, and gave the rest to other monks for free. Dioscorus

^A was perhaps intent upon sleep, or the demon who stands in the way of earnest deeds. When someone approached him as he was laboring and said, "Why do you kill your body so much?" he answered, "Because it kills me." Piammon and John also at that time presided over the most notable monasteries near Diolcus in Egypt; and being presbyters, they performed the priestly office with the greatest care and gravity. It is said that once, when Piammon was performing the divine service, he saw a divine angel standing beside the sacred altar, who was writing the names of the monks who were present in a certain book, but blotting out those who were absent. To John, God granted such power and authority over ailments and infirmities that he healed many who were afflicted with pain in their feet and whose joints were dissolved. ^B At this time also, Benjamin, a man of advanced age, was philosophizing most brilliantly in Scetis, having received from God the gift, without any medicines, by the mere touch of his hand or by oil over which he had prayed, to free the sick from any disease. And this great man, having fallen into the sickness of dropsy, is said to have swollen in body to such an extent that he could not be carried out through the door of the cell in which he lived, unless the doorposts were torn down along with the door itself. During his illness, as he could not lie in a bed, he sat for about eight months in a very wide chair, restoring health to the sick in his usual manner, without even bearing it ill that he himself was not freed from his own disease; rather, he comforted those who visited him and asked them to offer supplications to God for his soul. For he said he had no care for his body. "For," he said, "when I was well, it profited me nothing, and now that I am sick, it has brought me no harm." At that time, in Scetis, there were dwelling the celebrated Marcus, and Macarius the Younger, and Apollonius, and Moses the Ethiopian. They say that Marcus, from his early youth, was extremely gentle ^C and temperate, and mindful of the Sacred Scriptures; and that he was so beloved of God, that Macarius himself—who was then the presbyter of the Cellia—asserted that he never once received from him what it is permitted for priests to give to those initiated around the sacred altar; but an angel gave it to him, whose hand he said he could see only as far as the wrist. To Macarius was given by God the grace to despise the demons. The beginning of his philosophy had been the occasion of an involuntary homicide. For while he was still a young boy, he was herding sheep near Lake Mareotis, and while playing, killed one of his playmates. ^D

^A Fearing to pay the penalty, he fled into the wilderness. After passing three years there, he constructed a small cell for himself, in which he spent twenty-five years. Those who had heard it from him reported that he used to give great thanks for this misfortune, and called the involuntary homicide a salvation, as it had become for him the cause of philosophy and a blessed life.

Apollonius, having spent the rest of his time in trade, was already verging on old age when he came to Scetis. Reflecting that, because of his age, he was unable to learn writing or any other craft, he purchased with his own funds various types of medicines and foods suitable for the sick, and went around to every monastic door until the ninth hour, looking after those who were ill. Having found this exercise suitable for himself, he lived in this manner. ^B When he was about to die, he entrusted what he had to another, and instructed him to perform the same duties.

Moses, who had been a slave, was driven from his master's house because of his wickedness and, having turned to brigandage, became the leader of a band of robbers. Having done many misdeeds and dared many murders, by a certain turn of events he passed over to the monastic life and plunged suddenly into the virtue of philosophy. Since, from his former way of life, he was vigorous and still stirred by the phantasms of pleasure, he wasted away his body through countless ascetic exercises: at times subsisting on a little bread without relish, at times finishing a great deal of work and praying fifty times, at times, for six full years, standing to pray every night, neither bending his knees nor closing his eyes for sleep. ^C Elsewhere, walking around at night to the cells of the monks, he would secretly fill each one’s water jar with water. This was extremely laborious, for the place from which they drew water was for some ten, for others twenty, and for others thirty or more stadia away. He continued for a long time to retain his former strength, even though he was striving to break it down through many ascetic exercises and by weighing his body down with hardships. It is said that once, when robbers descended upon the place where he was philosophizing alone, he seized them all, bound them, put all four of them on his shoulders, brought them to the church, and entrusted them to the brothers, saying that it was not lawful for him to treat anyone badly. They say that no one has experienced such a change from vice to virtue; for he reached the pinnacle of monastic philosophy, instilled an extraordinary fear in the demons, and became a priest of the monks in Scetis. Being such a man, he died at about seventy-five years of age, having left behind many excellent disciples. During this reign, Paul, Pachon, Stephen, and Moses—both Libyans—and Pior the Egyptian flourished. Paul, however, lived in Pherma, which is a mountain in Scetis containing no fewer than five hundred ascetics.

^B He did no work here, nor would he accept anything from anyone, except what he needed to eat. He was solely devoted to prayer, rendering three hundred prayers to God daily as a kind of tribute. And so that he would not inadvertently miss the count, ^C he collected three hundred pebbles in his bosom, and at each prayer he would cast a pebble away. Thus, when the stones were exhausted, it was clear that the number of prayers had reached the number of stones. ^B Pachon, too, was famous in Scetis at that time. Having lived in solitude from his youth until extreme old age, he never allowed himself to become lax in the abstinence expected of a philosopher, neither due to the condition of his body, nor mental distress, nor any demon. ^C Indeed, the same holds true regarding his own hardships; for when a serious and incurable ulcer afflicted him, he surrendered his decaying limbs to be cut away by the physicians, while he himself sat working, weaving palm leaves with his hands. He would advise those present not to grieve over his sufferings, nor to think anything other than that what God does always results in a good end; and that it would be to his own advantage to experience such sufferings, perhaps even for the sake of sins for which it is better to pay the penalty here than after this life. ^D Moses is also reported to have excelled in a supernatural degree in gentleness and love, and in obtaining the healing of ailments through prayer. ^B Pior, having resolved from his youth to live the philosophic life, entered into a covenant with God when he left his father’s house that he would never again see any of his kin. But after fifty years, his sister learned that he was alive. Overcome by the excessive joy of the unexpected news, she could find no peace until she saw her brother. The bishop in their region, taking pity on her as she lamented and implored in her old age, wrote to the superiors of the monks in the desert, instructing them to send Pior. Being ordered to go, he could not refuse, for it is not right for Egyptian monks—and, I believe, for others as well—to disobey what is commanded; so, taking someone with him, he arrived at his homeland. Standing before his ancestral home, he sent word that he had arrived. When he heard the door creaking, he closed his eyes, and calling his sister by name, he said, "I am Pior, your brother; but now feel free to look upon me as much as you wish." She, indeed, was delighted and gave thanks to God; but he, having prayed at the door, returned to the place where he lived. There he dug a well and, finding the water bitter, he endured using it until his death. ^D As for what occurred after this, [alt-version omitted]

the magnitude of his temperance was revealed in subsequent time; for after his death, although many desired to practice philosophy in the same place, no one could endure it. But as I persuade myself, it was by no means difficult for him to turn the water into a sweet flavor, had he not determined to practice philosophy in this way; for he had caused it to spring up when it did not exist at all. Certainly, it is related that the monks who were with Moses, when they were digging a well at one time, since neither the vein that was expected nor any depth yielded water, were despondent and wished to abandon the work. But Pior arrived around midday and, after first greeting the monks, reproached their lack of faith and faint-heartedness; then, descending into the trench, he prayed and struck the earth three times with a pickaxe. It is said that immediately the water gushed forth and filled the trench. And when Pior, having prayed, was departing, though those with Moses begged him to dine with them, he would not consent, saying that he had not been sent for that purpose, but that he had accomplished what he came for. ^A

CAP. XXX. Concerning the Monks in Scetis, Origen, Didymus, Cronion, Orsisius, Putubates, Arsion, Ammon, Eusebius and Dioscorus the brothers, who were called the "Tall Ones," and Evagrius the philosopher.

At this time, there were still flourishing in the monasteries of Scetis: of the aged, ^B Origen, who remained from among the disciples of the great Anthony; and Didymus; and Cronion, who was about one hundred and ten years old; and the great Orsisius, and Putubates, and Arsion, and Serapion, who were themselves contemporaries of the great Anthony. Having grown old in monastic philosophy, they were then presiding over the monasteries in that place. Of those who were of young and middle age, many excellent and good men were known along with them; and [there were] Ammonius, Eusebius, and Dioscorus, whom, as they were brothers to one another, they called the "Tall Ones" ^C because of their stature. ^D

They relate that this Ammonius attained to the pinnacle of monastic philosophy, and that he overcame pleasure and sloth with a courageous spirit. He is said to have been very studious, so that he diligently read the books of Origen, Didymus, and other ecclesiastical writers. ^A From his early youth until the last day of his life, he is said to have tasted nothing except bread, and that not cooked by fire. Once, when he was about to be seized for ordination as a bishop, and he could not persuade those who had come to seize him to depart by his entreaties, he cut off his ear and said, "Depart; for now the priestly law does not permit me to be ordained even if I wished; for it is necessary that a priest be of an unblemished body." Those who had come to seize him departed, but after they understood that such things were to be observed by the Jews, but that the Church did not care about the body, provided the priest was unblemished in his morals, they returned again to seize the man. Then he swore that he would also cut off his own tongue if they attempted to use force. Terrified by these threats, they went away. Hence it came about that this Ammonius was named Parotes—that is, the earless.

Not long after, in the times of the succeeding emperor, Evagrius the Wise lived familiarly with him, a man of great learning, and endowed both with the faculty of understanding and versatility in speaking; and he was most sagacious in distinguishing thoughts that tended either toward virtue or toward vice, and was a fit counselor as to how the former were to be cultivated and the latter to be avoided. ^B But as to his doctrine, the books which he left to posterity sufficiently declare of what quality and how great a man he was. He is said to have been of moderate character, and so far removed from all pride and arrogance that he was neither puffed up by praises when he was justly commended, nor did he bear insults with an impatient mind when he was unjustly berated. This man was born in the city of Iberis, which is situated on the Euxine Sea. He learned philosophy and the sacred Scriptures under Gregory, the bishop of Nazianzus, who, while he was administering the Church in Constantinople, had him as his archdeacon. And since he was elegant in appearance and fastidious in his dress, ^C an official who was jealous and thought him to be intimate with his wife, plotted his death. But before the work of the plot was to be carried out, as he was sleeping, the divine power sent him a terrifying and yet saving vision. For he seemed to have been arrested on a charge, and to have his feet and hands bound in iron. And as he was about to be led to the court ^D and to suffer punishment, someone approached and showed him the holy book of the Gospels...

and he promised that if he would leave the city, he would obtain his release from his chains, and he demanded an oath that he would do this. He, having touched the Book, swore ^A that he would indeed act in this way; and being released from his chains, he was immediately awakened. And being persuaded by the divine dream, he escaped the danger; and having taken into his mind that it was necessary to pursue the ascetic life, he departed from Constantinople to Jerusalem. And after some time, having arrived in order to see those living the philosophical [ascetic] life in Scetis, he found contentment in his sojourn there.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

^B*Iberon*. From this it appears that Ibera was the name of a city in Pontus. And perhaps it is the same as that which Constantine Porphyrogenitus calls Ibora in the first book *De Thematibus*, where he ascribes it to the third region of Cappadocia. Jerome, in his *Epistle to Ctesiphon*, calls this Evagrius Ponticus "Hyperborita"—corruptly, if I am not mistaken, for "Iborita." Certainly in the Council of Chalcedon, among the bishops who subscribed, Uranius Iborensis is listed as being from the province of Helenopontus. And in the first act of the same council there is mention of Paul, a presbyter, acting in place of Uranius, bishop of the Iberi. And so in following acts, although sometimes Latin codices use the name Iberorum or Imerorum. Among the bishops of the province of Pontus who subscribed to the Council of Constantinople, Pantophilus of the Iberi is listed. The same variety occurs in the Greek *Notitiae* which are read at the end of the *Sacred Geography*.

^C*Christianorum to swear having touched the Gospels.* We have an example of this custom in the 219th epistle of Gregory Nazianzen, and in his iambic poem against those who swear often. But because that epistle is filthily corrupted and could not be understood by the interpreter, I shall set it forth here for the favor of students. It contains a most beautiful question, and may deservedly be counted among the canonical epistles. Gregory had been consulted by Theodore, bishop of Tyana, concerning a certain oath of George Paspasenus, who lived in his parish. This George had negotiated a certain business with an adversary. In the instrument of the transaction, an oath had been written down for greater firmness of the agreement. George, after this transaction was firmed by an oath, backed out and had called his adversary to judgment, and had obtained his cause. The question was whether he was guilty of perjury. For he said that that oath was not properly an oath, inasmuch as he had not pronounced it with his living voice, nor with the Gospels brought and touched. Furthermore, he said that he had been compelled by force to place that oath in the instrument. Finally, he said his cause had been so just that sentence had been pronounced by the judge in his favor. Gregory nevertheless replies that George is guilty of perjury because he litigated against an adversary in a matter comprehended by a written oath. For those are deceived who think that oaths are only those which are pronounced by word of mouth while touching holy books, but that those which are written down without holy books are mere formalities and done for appearance's sake. For if a handwriting or instrument in which money lent is contained has greater force and firmness than a bare pact, why will not oaths produced in writing have the force of an oath, and indeed a greater one?

^D*I affirm that it should be written,* etc.; that is, in my judgment, those who suppose that oaths are only those which are pronounced with holy books set before them are deceiving themselves; but that those which are written down without holy books are a mere formality and not oaths. Gregory Nazianzen opposes written oaths to those which are pronounced, and those which are made touching sacred books to those which are conceived without sacred books, with only the name of God invoked. For the words mean this. But so that no place for doubt may remain, I shall provide Gregory himself as the author of this emendation. He, treating the same argument in his poem against those who swear often, says thus:

[Greek verses omitted: see facsimile]

Which verses Billius translated thus: *What if one should write an oath, not bring it forth from his mouth?* *What does this writing want for you?* *Bonds bind us no less tightly than handwritings.* *What if one does not bring forward the holy Book?* *Does the Book give veneration, or God?* etc.

The third verse in this interpretation lacks all sense. Billius was deceived by the vulgate reading which has it thus. I, however, for the word [Greek: desmōn] (chains), do not doubt that [Greek: logōn] (words) should be written. Which Gregory confirms in this epistle in the cited place. Furthermore, in that place I think [Greek: cheirographon] should be written. Which emendation Gregory himself clearly confirms in the iambic verses I just quoted. For he uses almost the same words in both places. And so it is clearly read in the manuscript codex which Emericus Bigotius saw. A little later in the said epistle of Gregory follow these words: which Morellus translates thus: *Not however that he says Nicanus was compelled by force to the deprecation. For the force was that which the law bound.* It is the duty of a good and learned interpreter, where he can elicit no sense from the author's words, to inquire how the place should be mended. And it was easy to mend this place, without a letter being changed, in this way: [Greek: ekein] (that is, But not even what George asserts, that he was compelled by force, suffices for an excuse). For the force was nothing other than the law and custom, to which...

^A he yielded, and having been freed from his bonds, he was immediately awakened from his sleep, and obeying the divine dream, he avoided the present danger. Furthermore, having determined with himself that he ought to cultivate the monastic life, he traveled from Constantinople to Jerusalem. Some time later, he set out to visit the monks who were practicing philosophy in Scetis, and decided to live there.

CAP. XXXI. Of the monasteries of Nitria, and of those which were called Cells; also of the monastery of the Rinocorura; and of Melas, Dionysius, and Solon.

This place is commonly called Nitria, because there is a village nearby in which they gather nitre. A not inconsiderable number of men practiced philosophy there. For there were about fifty monasteries, adjacent to one another: some of them had congregations of brothers, while others had men living separately. From there, ^B as one proceeds toward the inner desert, there is another place, distant about seventy stadia, which is called Cellia. In it are varied monastic dwellings, scattered here and there: whence the place obtained its name. They are so far distant from each other that the monks who inhabit them can neither see nor hear one another. Everyone assembles in the same place and celebrates the synaxis on the first and last day of the week. But if anyone is not present, it is evident that he is absent not of his own will, but is hindered by infirmity or disease. And they do not all go out at once to see and care for him, but each goes at a different time, bringing with him whatever he has that is suitable for healing the disease. Except for such a cause, they never converse with one another, unless perhaps someone goes to some expert in discourse, intending to hear from him words tending toward the knowledge of God or toward the profit of his soul. Those who have reached the peak of philosophy, and are able to rule themselves and remain alone, separated from the rest for the sake of quiet, dwell in the cells. And let these things be said by us briefly concerning Scetis and those who practice philosophy ^C there. For if I should endeavor to recount the particular details of their discipline, someone might perhaps find fault with the length of the writing. For having established their own way of life, they distributed tasks, morals, training, diet, and time for each age as was appropriate. And the Rinocorura [monastery] also excelled from that time, not with imported men, but with good men from its own origin.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

^D this refers to the reign of Valens Augustus. For Evagrius embraced the monastic life in the reign of Theodosius the Elder. And this is proven from Sozomenus himself, who says that Evagrius had been the archdeacon of Gregory Nazianzen in the Church of Constantinople, and from there had transitioned to the monastic life. But Palladius also in the *Lausiaca* clearly testifies that Evagrius was a deacon of Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, and had been entrusted to him by Gregory of Nyssa, by whom he had first been ordained deacon. This, indeed, I consider more true. For Palladius was a friend of Evagrius: and he knew the life of the latter far more certainly than Socrates and Sozomenus.

^A Having learned of those who practiced philosophy in this place, I recognized them as being of the highest order, namely Melas, who at that time was administering the Church there, and Dionysius, who had his cell in the northern part of the city, and Solon, the brother of Melas, who succeeded him in the episcopate. It is said that when the order had been given that the priests in every city who held contrary opinions to Arius were to be expelled, those who had come to remove Melas found him, as if he were the lowliest servant, preparing the lamps of the church, wearing a garment soiled by oil and a belt, and carrying the wicks. When they asked him about the bishop, he said, "He is here, and I will point him out to you." Immediately, since the men were weary from their journey, he led them to the bishop's residence, set a table for them, and entertained them with whatever provisions he had. After the meal, having washed their hands—for he himself waited upon those who were eating—he revealed who he was. The men were astonished, and although they acknowledged the purpose for which they had come, out of reverence for him they gave him the opportunity to flee. But he said that he would not decline to suffer the same things that the bishops who shared his faith and opinion were suffering, but was ready to go into exile of his own free will. He had cultivated every virtue of the monastic discipline, having practiced this manner of philosophy from his early youth. Solon, having been converted from a merchant to a monk, also derived no small benefit from living there. For, having been diligently instructed under the guidance of his brother and those who practiced philosophy in that place, he applied himself with the greatest zeal to the things of God and was found to be kind to his neighbor. The Church of the Rhinocolurians, having been blessed with such leaders from the beginning, did not cease from that time even to our own day to follow their institutions and to continue to produce good men. There, for the clergy, the dwelling and the table, and finally everything else, is held in common. ^{B C}

CAP. XXXII. Of the monks in Palestine, Hesychas, Epiphanius, who later became bishop of Cyprus, Ammonius, and Silvanus.

Moreover, Palestine also flourished with the dwellings of monks. For most of those whom I enumerated in the acts of Constantius were still living and were adorning this discipline with the highest praise. And others, instructed by their company and their discourse, attained to the highest pinnacle of virtue and were added to the monasteries established there, to the greater crown of glory. Among their number was Hesychas, the companion of Hilarion; and Epiphanius, who later ^D

^A became bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. Hesychas, for his part, pursued his philosophy in the same place as his master. Epiphanius, however, dwelt near the village of Besanduce, situated in the territory of Eleutheropolis, the place of his birth. Having been trained from early youth by the most excellent monks, and having for that reason spent a very long time in Egypt, he became most renowned in monastic philosophy, not only among the Egyptians and Palestinians, but also among the Cypriots, by whom he was chosen to administer the bishopric in the metropolis of the whole island. For this reason, he acquired, if I may so say, the greatest renown throughout the whole world. For since he discharged his priestly office in the midst of a multitude of people, and in a great maritime city, and applied himself to civil affairs with the virtue with which he was endowed, he became known in a short time to all, both citizens and strangers: to the former, because they had seen the man and ^B knew his pious manner of life by experience; to the latter, because they had learned of it from the others. Now, before he had come to Cyprus, while the principate of Valens Augustus still continued, he remained in Palestine. At that time, the brothers Salamanes, Phuscon, Malchio, and Crispio became famous in those monasteries. They lived near Betheleam, which is a village in the territory of Gaza. They were of noble birth among those people, and had had Hilarion as the master of this discipline. It is told that once, when they were returning home together, Malchio was snatched away and vanished from sight, only to reappear suddenly, walking along the same path as his brothers. Not long after, he departed from this life; though he was still a youth, he was in no way inferior to those who had grown old in monastic philosophy, in the integrity of his life and his love for the divine. Furthermore, Ammonius lived at a distance of about ten stadia near the village of ^C Chapharchobra in the territory of Gaza, from which he took his origin; he was a man who cultivated the monastic discipline with the greatest severity and fortitude. Silvanus, to whom it is said an angel appeared to minister on account of his exceptional virtue, was a Palestinian, and at that time, I believe, he was still practicing philosophy in Egypt. Afterward, however, having spent some time on Mount Sinai, he at length founded, near the torrent at Gerara, a very great and noble monastery of many good men living together. The admirable Zacharias presided over this monastery after him.

CAPUT XXXIII. Concerning the monks of Syria: Balthaeus, Eusebius, Barge, Hala, Abbo, Lazarus, Abdaleus, Zeno, Heliodorus, Eusebius who was of Carrhae, and Protogenes and Aon.

^D From there, we must pass on to the Syrians and the Persians who are neighbors to the Syrians; for they increased into an immense multitude, vying with those who practiced philosophy in Egypt. At that time, those who especially excelled among the Nisibenes were around the torrent

^A called the mountain, Batthaeus, Eusebius, Barges, Halas, and Abbo; and Lazarus, who became bishop; and Abdaleus, and Zeno, and the elder Heliodorus. They were also called "Boskoi" (that is, grazers), having recently initiated this type of philosophy. They are so named because they possess no dwellings, nor do they eat bread or meat, nor drink wine. Instead, they reside in the mountains, always glorifying God with prayers and hymns according to the custom of the Church. When the time for eating arrives, they behave like grazing animals, each taking a sickle, wandering over the mountain, and feeding on herbs. Thus, they lived as philosophers. At Carrhae, Eusebius distinguished himself, who lived as a philosopher by voluntarily shutting himself up; and Protogenes, who governed the Church there after Bitus—that most renowned Bitus ^B, whom they say Emperor Constantine, upon seeing him for the first time, confessed that God had often shown him this man in visions and had commanded him to obey everything he said. Aones, too, had his monastic cell at Phadana. This is the place where Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, coming from Palestine, met the maiden whom he later took as his wife, and having rolled away the stone from the well there, first watered her flock. They say that this Aones was the one who initiated this type of solitary and more rigorous philosophy among the Syrians, just as Antony did among the Egyptians.

Chapter XXXIV

Concerning the monks of Edessa, Julian, Ephrem the Syrian, Barses, and Eulogius. Also concerning the monks of Coelesyria, Valentinus, Theodorus, Merosa, Bassus, Bassonius, and Paul. And concerning the holy men in Galatia and Cappadocia, and elsewhere; and why the holy men of old were long-lived.

His companions were Gaddanas and Azizus, who were vying with one another to reach the same height of virtue. ^C Furthermore, in the neighboring city of Edessa and the cities situated around it, there were most celebrated monks at that time: Julian and the writer Ephrem the Syrian, who became known during the reign of Constantius; and Barses and Eulogius, who both subsequently became bishops, not of any particular city, but for the sake of honor, as a reward

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (58) *Bitus.* He was bishop in the time of Emperor Valens, as is shown by the letter of Basil the Great written to him under this title, *To Bitus, Bishop of the Carrhaeans.* From this it appears that for "Emperor Constantine" in this passage of Sozomen, "Constantius" should be written. For if what Sozomen says were true, it would follow that this Bitus was a bishop in the time of Constantine the Great. Yet this seems almost incredible, that the same bishop existed under both Constantine the Great and Emperor Valens. I know indeed that Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, continued from the beginning of Constantine's reign to the times of Valens. But as regards Bitus, I do not believe this. Add that Constantine the Great never came into Mesopotamia, and consequently could not have seen Bitus there. But his son Constantius, because of the wars ^D which he waged incessantly with the Persians, was frequently in those regions, as is evident from Ammianus Marcellinus. (59) *Still tied.* In the Fuketian codex it is written *was connected to the wife after this.* And in the margin it is noted by the same hand. Nicephorus, however, substituted the word *spoke* for this word. (60) *And the surroundings.* In the Fuketian codex it is written *of this, and the surroundings of this,* which is more correct. In Nicephorus we read *and the cities,* but I would prefer to write *and the cities,* supplying *of the city of Edessa,* as Basil the Great testifies in two letters which he wrote to him. Therefore he was not merely an honorary bishop, and in name only, as Sozomen writes in this place. Whom, however, we shall be able to excuse if we say that Barses and Eulo-

Eulogius were ordained in their own monasteries, just as was the aforementioned Lazarus. ^A Indeed, some of those who then lived the life of philosophy in a distinguished manner, both among the Syrians and the Persians who bordered upon them, have come to my knowledge. The common discipline for all of them, so to speak, was to take the utmost care of the soul and to keep it ready and prepared for the abandonment of the goods of this present life, through prayer, naturally, and fasting, and the singing of divine hymns; and in these things they spent the greatest part of their time, while they utterly despised money and the concern for civil affairs, as well as bodily ease and adornment. Some indeed advanced to such a degree of abstinence that, in the case of Batthaeus, because of excessive starvation, worms crawled out of his teeth; indeed, Alas did not taste bread for eighty years; while Heliodorus passed many nights without sleep, continuing for seven successive days in fasts.

Syria, both that which is called Coele and that which is situated above it, with the exception of the city of Antioch, turned to the religion of Christ somewhat later; yet it was not devoid of ecclesiastical philosophers. ^B And these were indeed the more strong and appeared so, in proportion as they were more hated by the inhabitants of those regions and were attacked by their frequent ambushes; yet they resisted them with a manly spirit, not by repelling force with force, nor by avenging themselves, but by willingly enduring the insults and floggings inflicted upon them by the pagans. Such as these I have learned was Valentinus, whom some say drew his lineage from the city of Emesa, and others from Arethusa; and another of the same name as he, Valentinus; and Theodorus. Both of these were from the Tittae, which is a village in the territory of Apamea. Moreover, Marosas, who was born from the Nechilae, and Bassus, and Bassones; and Paul, who was from the village of Telmisus, having gathered many in various places and instructed them in a fitting manner in the monastic philosophy, finally ^C in the place which is called Jugalum, established a very large and most noble congregation of monks. In which place also he died and has his tomb, having become very long-lived; so that he survived even to our own times, having followed an excellent and truly divine way of philosophizing. And the rest of the monks whom we have mentioned lived, almost all of them, a very long time. And it seems to me that God granted a long span of life to these men, so that religion might receive increase. For they brought almost all the Syrians, and very many of the Persians and Saracens, to their own religion, and drew them away from the superstitious worship of demons. And since they had initiated the monastic ^D philosophy in those parts, they manifested many others who were like them. I also surmise that many Galatians and Cappadocians, and those who bordered upon them, had many other ecclesiastical philosophers at that time, inasmuch as they had been zealous in professing that way of life long ago. But the majority dwelt in communities in cities or villages. For they were neither accustomed to the tradition of those who had gone before, nor by the harshness of the winter, by the nature of the region...

^A could they dwell in solitude. Furthermore, of the monks whom I found to have lived there, the most illustrious were Leontius, who later administered the Church of Ancyra, and Prapidius, who, being already advanced in age, performed the office of bishop in many villages. He was also the superintendent of the Basilias, which is a most famous poorhouse, constructed by Basil, the bishop of Caesarea, from whom it received its name at the beginning, and which it holds even until now.

CAP. XXXV. Concerning the wooden tripod, and how some inquired into the name of the future emperor after Valens from the first elements; and concerning the slaughter of the philosophers, and concerning astronomy.

But I have narrated, as far as it was possible for me to learn, regarding the ecclesiastical philosophers of that time. As for the pagans, nearly all of them in that period perished. For some who were thought to excel others in philosophy, being annoyed by the growth of the Christian religion, ^B resolved to foresee who would succeed Valens as ruler of the Romans, and they used all kinds of divinations concerning this. And finally, they constructed a wooden tripod out of laurel, and performed it with incantations and words, as they were accustomed. So that by a collection of letters, according to each element—which were indicated by the apparatus of the tripod and the divination—the name of the future emperor might appear. But while they were gaping at it, [the name] resulted in Theodorus, a man among those serving in the imperial palace with distinction, a pagan and a learned man; and the order of the letters, having progressed as far as the fourth element of his name, deceived the philosophers. And they expected that Theodorus would rule as emperor before long. ^C But the attempt having been denounced, as if his own safety had been attacked by treachery, Valens was inflamed with incredible anger. Therefore, Theodorus and the craftsmen of the tripod—some by fire, others by the sword...

were ordered to be destroyed. ^A Likewise, for the same cause, all those throughout the Roman Empire who were distinguished for their philosophy were similarly destroyed. And since the emperor’s anger was held back by no restraints, the slaughter spread even to those who were not philosophers, but merely wore the philosopher’s dress, so that not even those who were engaged in other pursuits would wear fringed cloaks, from suspicion of danger and fear, lest they should be thought to have occupied themselves with divination ^B and occult rites. Indeed, in the opinion of those who judge correctly, it is fitting, I think, to censure both the emperor for such immoderate anger and cruelty, and the philosophers for their rashness and an enterprise little becoming to philosophers. For the man who was so extremely foolish as to suppose that he would destroy the one who was to rule after him, spared neither those who had consulted the oracle, nor the one about whom the oracle had been consulted. And it is said that he did not even spare those who had the same or a similar name to his own, beginning with the letter T down to D, ^C as was the case with many noble men at that time. But the philosophers, as if it were in their power that the emperor should be deposed and another appointed in his stead, embarked upon this deed. Yet surely, if these things were to be attributed to the decrees of the stars, they ought to have awaited the future emperor, whoever he might be. But if that matter proceeds from the will and nod of God, what need was there to scrutinize it curiously? For it cannot be known by divination or human endeavor what God has decreed. Nor, if it were permitted, would it be right that men, however wise they might be, should consider themselves better able to advise than God. But if, ^D out of a mere desire of knowing future events, they were so imprudent as to cast themselves headlong into present danger, and to disregard laws long since established among the Romans, they were not of the same mind as Socrates—who, although he was about to drink the hemlock unjustly, and though it was in his power to escape, would not flee from prison, because of his reverence for the laws under which he had been born and bred.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

of the younger Valentinian; and concerning the persecution of the priests, and concerning the discourse of the philosopher Themistius, whereby he rendered Valens more humane toward those who differed from him.

But regarding these things, let each one think and speak as he sees fit. When the Sarmatians had overrun certain districts of the Western Empire, Valentinian led an expedition against them. They, upon hearing of the multitude of his troops and the magnitude of his preparations, sent ambassadors to sue for peace. Upon seeing them, he inquired whether all the Sarmatians were of such a sort. When they affirmed that the most noble of the entire nation were present and acting as an embassy, he flared up in rage ^B and, shouting in a loud voice, exclaimed, "It is a heavy calamity indeed that has befallen our subjects, and the Roman Empire is oppressed by adverse fortune, in that it has devolved upon us, when the Sarmatians—a barbarian nation, of whom these are the most eminent—are not content to remain within their own borders, but dare to invade my empire and presume to wage total war against the Romans." As he persisted for a long time in this state of fury, bellowing such things, by reason of his excessive indignation and the internal strain he suffered, a vein and an artery were simultaneously ruptured. A rush of blood ensued, and in a certain fortress in Gaul he breathed his last, having lived about fifty-four years and having administered the empire in a most excellent and distinguished manner for thirteen years.

On the sixth day after his death, his younger son, of the same name as himself, was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers. Not long after, Valens and his ^C brother Gratian confirmed his election by their own vote, although they were initially displeased that the soldiers had bestowed the imperial insignia upon him before their own consent had been obtained.

In the meantime, Valens, residing in Antioch of Syria, was burning with ever-increasing hatred against those who held opinions regarding God different from his own, and he ceased not to harass and persecute them most cruelly. At this time, Themistius the philosopher, in a discourse delivered before him, advised that one ought not to be astonished at the dissension of ecclesiastical dogmas, seeing that it was far smaller and less severe than that which is found among the dogmas of the Gentiles. For, he urged, the opinions among them are many times more numerous, and of necessity, in a multitude of dogmas, such difference must produce more contentions and debates. ^D Since perhaps it is also pleasing to God that He is not easily known, and is conceived of in diverse ways according as each one may the more reverently fear Him, the precise knowledge of Him being incomprehensible, reflecting upon

^A how far he thinks he can reach, and how great and what kind He is.

CAP. XXXVII. On the barbarians who dwelt beyond the Ister; how, expelled by the Huns, they fled to the Romans, and how they became Christians. Also concerning Ulphila, and Athanaric, and the things that befell the Goths, and for what cause they embraced the Arian opinion.

The emperor, being somewhat mitigated by this oration of Themistius, used less severity in punishing than before; however, he would never have completely laid aside the anger he had conceived against the priests of God, had not the ^B cares of public business, supervening, recalled him from such a pursuit. For the Goths, who formerly had their settlements beyond the river Ister and ruled over other barbarians, having been expelled by those called Huns, were transported to the Roman frontiers. This nation of Huns, as they say, was previously unknown to the Thracians living by the Ister, and even to the Goths themselves. They were unaware that they were actually neighbors to one another, because a very great lake lay in between them, and each thought that the part of the continent they inhabited was the end of the world, and that beyond it there was nothing save the sea and an immense body of water. But when it chanced that an ox, driven by a gadfly, crossed the lake, a herdsman followed it; and when he saw the lands situated ^C on the other side, he reported it to his countrymen. Others relate that a deer, fleeing from some Huns who were hunting, showed them this path, which was covered just beneath the surface of the waters. They, having admired that region, both for the temperate climate and the fertility of the crops, immediately returned and reported to the prince of their nation what they had seen. The Huns, indeed, at first attempted the Goths with a small band of soldiers, but later, having set out with huge forces, they overcame them in battle and occupied their entire region. The Goths, however, fleeing, crossed into the Roman territory, and having passed the river, they sent legates to the emperor, promising that they would be auxiliaries to the Romans for the future, and requesting that they might be allowed to dwell ^D wherever they wished. The head of this embassy is said to have been Ulphila, the bishop of the Gothic nation. This embassy having succeeded according to their wishes, permission was granted them to dwell in Thrace. Not long after, a sedition having arisen among them, they were divided into two parts. Over one of these Athanaric presided, and over the other, Phritigernus. Soon after they had warred against each other, Phritigernus having fared badly in the battle, he requested the Romans to assist him. The emperor having granted permission for the soldiers in Thrace to assist and ally themselves with him,

he engaged in battle once more, achieved victory, and put the forces of Athanaric to flight. As if to return the favor to Valens, and wishing to show himself a faithful friend in all things, he embraced his sect and communion, and persuaded the barbarians under him to hold the same views. ^B Nor do I think this was the only reason that the entire tribe has to this day remained perpetually attached to the dogma of the Arians. For Ulphila, who was then their bishop, at first differed in no way from the Catholic Church. But during the reign of Constantius, having—thoughtlessly, I believe—taken part with Eudoxius and Acacius in the synod at Constantinople, he continued for a time to communicate with the bishops of those who had assembled at Nicaea. But when he arrived at Constantinople, it is said that the leaders of the Arian heresy discussed the dogma with him, and promised that they would assist his petition to the emperor if he would think as they did. Compelled by necessity, or perhaps considering it a better way to think about God, he is said to have communicated with the Arians, and to have cut off himself and his whole tribe from the Catholic Church. For the Goths, having been educated in matters of religion under his teaching and having through him acquired a milder way of life, easily obeyed him in all things; for they were persuaded that nothing said or done by him was evil, but that everything contributed to the benefit of those who were led by zeal for God. ^C Moreover, he gave many proofs of his virtue, having endured innumerable dangers for the faith while the barbarians still practiced the rites of the heathens. He was also the first to invent letters for them and translated the sacred Books into their own language. Such, then, is the pretext for why the barbarians living by the Ister for the most part hold the opinions of Arius. At that time, a multitude of those under Fritigern were slain, witnessing for Christ. For Athanaric, indignant that they were becoming Christians through the persuasion of Ulphila—as if the ancestral religion were being altered—subjected many to various punishments. Some he brought to trial, and when they spoke courageously for the faith, he put them to death without so much as granting them a hearing. ^D It is said that when those who were ordered by Athanaric to do so led a certain idol, standing on a wagon, around every tent of those reported to be Christians, they commanded them to worship it and offer sacrifice. But when they refused, they burned the tents together with the people within them.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

^A I learned of another suffering that occurred at that time, which was even more pitiable. For many, utterly wearied by the violence of those compelling them to sacrifice, both men and women—some of whom brought little children while others were still nursing newborn infants at their breasts—took refuge in the tent which served as a church in that place. When the pagans set fire to it, all who were inside were consumed by the flames. Before long, however, the Goths agreed among themselves; and being emboldened by desperation, they began to maltreat the Thracians, and to ravage their cities and villages. When Valens heard of this, he learned by experience how greatly he had erred. For, having supposed that the Goths would be useful to himself and his subjects, and formidable to his enemies, inasmuch as they were always ready under arms, he had neglected the Roman legions. And in place of the recruits who were accustomed to be chosen for military service from the cities and villages of the Roman Empire, he exacted gold. But being frustrated in his hope, he left Antioch and arrived with haste in Constantinople, at which time the persecution which he had stirred up against those who held diverging views from his own on the Christian faith suffered a lull. Upon the death of Euzoius, ^B Theodore was appointed in his stead, and he presided over the Arian party there.

CAP. XXXVIII. Regarding Mavia, queen of the Saracens; and how, after the truce between the Romans and Saracens was broken, it was renewed by Moses, their bishop, who had been ordained by the Christians. Also an account of the Ishmaelites and Saracens, and of their gods; and how, through the efforts of Zocomus, their phylarch, they began to embrace the Christian faith.

At about the same time, upon the death of the Saracen king, their treaties with the Romans were dissolved. Mavia, his wife, who assumed the administration of the government of that nation, began to lay waste the cities of the provinces of Phoenice and Palestine.

She advanced as far as the Egyptians who inhabit the region called Arabia, situated on the left side of the Nile for one sailing against the current. Nor indeed could this war be considered slight, ^A seeing that it was directed by a woman. It is said that this conflict was so fierce and difficult for the Romans that the commander of the soldiers in Phoenice called upon the master of the infantry and cavalry of the entire East to bring him aid. The master of the soldiers, however, mocked him for the call and forbade him to participate in the battle. But he himself drew up his battle line and engaged Mavia, who was leading her forces from the opposite side; he was put to flight and was only with difficulty saved by the commander of the Palestinian and Phoenician soldiers. For when ^B he saw him in danger, he deemed it folly to remain outside the battle, as he had been ordered; he ran up, advanced to meet the barbarians, and provided the master with an opportunity for a safe escape. He himself, slowly retreating, shot arrows while fleeing and repelled the pressing enemies with his volleys. Many of the inhabitants of those regions still commemorate these events today; and among the Saracens they are commonly celebrated in songs. As the war intensified, the Romans decided it was necessary to send embassies to Mavia concerning peace. It is said that she ^C flatly replied to the envoys sent for this purpose that she would not strike a treaty with the Romans unless a certain Moses, who was then practicing philosophy in the nearby desert—a man illustrious for the sanctity of his life and for divine and extraordinary miracles—were ordained bishop of her people. The military commanders who had reported these things, having received authority from the emperor, apprehended Moses and led him to Lucius. But he, in the presence of the magistrates and the gathered crowd, said, "Wait; for I am not worthy ^D to bear the name and dignity of a bishop. But if God should grant this to me, unworthy though I am, I call the Creator of heaven and earth to witness that you shall not lay your hands upon me, stained as they are with the blood and gore of holy men." Lucius replied, "If you are ignorant of my faith, you act unjustly by turning away before you have come to know me. But if you have heard it from certain slanderers, come now, listen to me myself, and be the judge of what is being said." Moses, however, said, "Your faith seems all too manifest to me; the bishops, presbyters, and deacons—exhausted in exile and in mines—bear witness to what kind it is. These, then, you consider to be the proofs of regarding God, which are utterly foreign to Christ."

^A and to those who rightly hold opinions concerning God. When he had said these things, and had added an oath that he would never accept the priesthood if Lucius wished to lay hands upon him, the Roman magistrates, having rejected Lucius, brought Moses to the bishops who were living in exile. Being ordained bishop by them, he went to the Saracens. And when he had rendered them friendly and well-disposed to the Romans, he remained among them, performing the priestly office, and he brought many over to the faith of Christ, having found very few believers there.

For this race, drawing its origin from Ishmael, the son of Abraham, received also its name: the ancients called them Ishmaelites from the author of their race. But in order to avoid the disgrace of an adulterous origin and to wipe away the ignominy of Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, who was a slave, they named themselves ^B Saracens, as if they had sprung from Sarah, the wife of Abraham. Sprung, therefore, from such a lineage, all of them are circumcised after the manner of the Hebrews, and they abstain from swine’s flesh, and observe many other Hebrew rites. But the fact that they do not use the same customs as they do in all respects is to be attributed either to the long passage of time or because they have been mixed with the neighboring nations. For Moses, who lived many centuries later, gave laws only to those who went forth from Egypt. And their neighbors, since they were, as is probable, exceedingly superstitious, corrupted the ancestral discipline of Ishmael among them, which alone the ancient Hebrews formerly used; naturally, for before the laws were established by Moses, they were governed by unwritten custom. They certainly worshipped the same gods as their neighbors. And by worshipping them in a similar fashion, and calling them by the same names, they sufficiently declared the reason why the ancestral institutions were changed among them by this similarity of religion which they have in common with their neighbors. But, as commonly happens, ^C the succession of long time consigned some things to oblivion, while it caused others to be worshipped by them.

After this, some of them, having met with the Jews, learned from whence they drew their origin. And having returned to their kinsmen, they adopted the laws and rites of the Hebrews. And from that time, many among them still live even now after the Jewish manner. They also embraced the Christian religion not long before the present reign, and began to be Christians. They shared in the faith in Christ through the association of the priests and monks who lived near them—those who lived as philosophers in the neighboring deserts, living well and performing miracles. It is said that then even a whole tribe went over to Christianity, after the ^D Zocomus, the phylarch of this tribe, was baptized for the following reason. Being childless, he came according to the fame of a monk to meet him, and lamented his misfortune—for the procreation of children is held in great estimation by the Saracens.

^A The monk, however, bade him be of good heart, and having prayed, sent him away, promising that a son would be born to him if he would believe in Christ. When God had confirmed this promise by the event, and a son was born to him, Zocomus himself was initiated, and led those under him to this same faith. From that time forth, they say this tribe became prosperous and populous, and a terror to the Persians and the rest of the Saracens. This is what we have received concerning the manner in which the Saracens were first converted to Christianity, and concerning the first bishop among them.

CAP. XXXIX. That Peter, having returned from Rome, took possession of the Churches of Egypt, Lucius having departed; and concerning Valens' expedition against the Scythians into the West.

In the individual cities, those who maintained the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea began to recover their courage, especially the Alexandrians in Egypt. For when Peter returned at that time from Rome with letters from Damasus, confirming both the decisions of the Nicene Council and his own ordination, they delivered the churches to him. Lucius, having been driven out, sailed to Constantinople. But the Emperor Valens, as was to be expected, being occupied with other cares, could find no leisure to avenge these matters. For as soon as he arrived in Constantinople, the people began to hold him in suspicion and hatred. ^B For the barbarians, having devastated Thrace and advanced even to the suburbs of the royal city, were now attempting to assault the very walls, with no one to stop them. On this account, the city was greatly distressed and blamed the emperor for not going out to meet them, but delaying the war; they spread rumors that the enemies had been summoned and brought in by him. Finally, while they were watching the games in the Hippodrome, they openly shouted against him, declaring that he was neglecting the common good, and demanded that arms be given to them, as if they themselves were about to fight the enemies. ^C Valens, therefore, being stung by these insults, moved his standards against the barbarians; and he threatened that if he returned, he would punish the people, both for those insults and because they had previously joined the party of the tyrant Procopius.

CAP. XL. Concerning the holy monk Isaac, who prophesied regarding Valens; and how Valens, fleeing and having taken refuge in a granary full of chaff, was consumed by fire and perished.

When he was departing from Constantinople, a certain monk named Isaac, a man at that time... ^D

[Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 38]

[A] ...excellent in other gifts, and fearless in undergoing dangers for the sake of God: "Restore, O Emperor," he said, "to those who hold the right faith and keep the tradition of those who gathered at Nicaea, the churches you have taken away, and you will win the war." But the Emperor, inflamed with anger, ordered him to be seized and kept in bonds until he should return and exact punishment for his boldness. He replied: "You will not return, unless you restore the churches." And so it came to pass. For after he had set out for the war with his forces, the Goths indeed retreated, fleeing little by little. He, however, pursuing them, had already passed through Thrace and came to Adrianople. And when he was not far from the barbarians, who had encamped in a certain fortified place, he joined battle sooner than he should have, without having first arranged his line of battle as needed or where it was fitting. His cavalry having been scattered and his infantry put to flight, he was pursued by the enemy, and, dismounting from his horse along with a few who were accompanying him, he took refuge in a certain small house or tower, and there he lay hidden and concealed. The barbarians followed at full speed, as if they were about to capture him; and when they had already approached, they passed by, for they did not suspect that the Emperor was hiding in there. Furthermore, when the greater part of the barbarians had already passed, and a few of them had been left behind in the rear, some of those who were with the Emperor began to throw missiles from the roof at those who were passing by. Upon this, they shouted out that Valens was there. When those who were near heard this, they raised a cry and reported what they had heard to those who were in front as well as to those who were following. So much so that even those who were further away heard the matter, and all quickly flocked to him. Having surrounded ^B the house, and having collected a great quantity of material around it, they set it on fire. The flame, encouraged by a strong wind that had by chance risen then, immediately seized the whole mass of material. But also, whatever else was stored in the house provided fuel for the fire, and consumed the Emperor himself with all his companions. He died at about the age of fifty, having reigned thirteen years together with his brother, and three years after his death. ^C

HERMIAS SOZOMENUS OF SALAMIS -- ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY -- BOOK VII

CHAPTER I.

Such was the end of life that befell Valens. The barbarians, elated by their victory, ravaged all of Thrace; and finally, they made an incursion into the suburbs of Constantinople. At that time, when matters had been brought to the greatest peril, those who rendered outstanding service were a few of the federate Saracens, sent by Mavia, and a great many from the common people. For as Dominica, the wife of Valens, provided them with a fixed stipend from the treasury, individuals, as fortune had provided each with arms, went out to meet the enemy and, fighting bravely, drove the barbarians far from the city. Gratian, who by now ruled the entire Roman Empire along with his brother, ^B never having approved of his uncle’s harshness toward those who dissented from him in religion, granted a return to all who had been driven into exile on account of their faith. He also enacted a law that individuals might follow whatever religion they wished, and that all should have the opportunity to assemble, except for the Manichaeans and the followers of Photinus and Eunomius.

CHAPTER II.

Now when he had considered with himself that the barbarians who were around the Ister were harassing Illyricum and Thrace, it was fitting ^C

^A to repel them; but that it was also necessary to be present for those in the West, and especially because the Alamanni were devastating the Gauls there, he made Theodosius a partner in his rule at Sirmium—a man born of the race of those Iberians who dwell around the Pyrenees, of noble birth, and one who had often distinguished himself most excellently in wars, insomuch that even before his empire, he was deemed by the judgment of all the Romans to be worthy of the throne. At this same time, except for Jerusalem, the Arians held all the churches of the East. The Macedonians, however, and especially those in Constantinople, after their agreement with Liberius, did not differ greatly from those who lauded the doctrine of those who had gathered at Nicaea; but as if they were of the same mind, they mingled in the cities and communicated with one another. But after the law enacted by Gratian, certain of the bishops of this sect, having obtained freedom, occupied the churches of which they had been deprived under Valens. And having gathered at Antioch in Caria, they voted that it was not necessary to name the Son consubstantial ^B with the Father, but rather similar in substance, as before. From this time, some withdrew and held gatherings apart, while others, having condemned the contention and stubbornness of those who had voted these things, stood off from them and adhered more firmly to those who worshipped according to the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea.

Moreover, of the bishops who then returned from the exile they had suffered in the days of Valens in accordance with the command of Gratian, some did not concern themselves with the primacy. But, esteeming the concord of the people more highly, they entreated the leaders ^C of the Arian party not to desert them, nor to rend the Church with mutual dissensions—a Church which, having been left one by Christ and the apostles, had been divided into many parts through stubbornness and love of power. Among others, Eulalius, the bishop of Amasia in Pontus, was of this mind. It is said, indeed, that after his return, he found another man from among the Arian bishops presiding over his own church, whom not even fifty men out of the whole city followed. But Eulalius, looking to the unity of the whole people, besought him to retain his former place and to govern the church together with him, enjoying the primacy ^D as a prize for having preserved concord. But this man, having refused the condition, ceased not long after from leading those few; for they themselves joined the others.

^C A few, however, among the Luciferians still dissented, because Meletius had been ordained by heretics. When these things were done in this manner, Meletius set out for Constantinople; at which time, as other bishops were also gathered there, it seemed necessary that Gregory be transferred from the town of Nazianzus, and that the episcopacy of that city be entrusted to him to govern.

CAP. IV. Of the reign of Theodosius the Great, and how he was baptized by Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica: and what he decreed against those who impugned the faith of the Nicene council.

At about this same time, since the Alamanni were infesting the Gauls with frequent incursions, Gratian returned to the western parts of his paternal empire, which he had reserved for himself and his brother to govern, having entrusted Illyricum and the eastern parts to Theodosius. And he indeed managed the affair against the Alamanni according to his

own ^A situation, and having reached Thessalonica, he fell into a sickness there. Being instructed by Ascholius, the bishop of that city, he received the sacraments and was restored to health. For since he was descended from Christian ancestors who followed the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, he was at that time very pleased with Ascholius, who held this view; he was also pleased with all the Illyrians, because they were not infected with the stain of the Arian ^B dogma. Having inquired about the other provinces, he discovered that, as far as Macedonia, all the churches were in agreement and that all alike worshipped God the Word and the Holy Spirit as equal with the Father; but from that point onward, the provinces toward the East were in turmoil, so that the peoples were divided into various sects, and most especially at Constantinople. Considering it better to declare his own opinion about the Godhead to his subjects, so as not to appear to be using force by suddenly commanding them against their will to worship in a certain way, while he was at Thessalonica he sent forth a law to the people of the city of Constantinople. For he reasoned in his mind that from there, as from the citadel of the whole empire, his rescript would soon become known to the other cities as well. By this rescript he signified that he wished all his subjects to follow that religion which Peter, the chief of the apostles, had handed down to the Romans from the beginning; and which at that time Damasus, the bishop of the city of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria were observing; and that only the church of those who worshipped the divine Trinity with equal honor should be called catholic; but that those who thought otherwise should be named heretics and be infamous, and know that they were to expect ^C punishment.

CHAPTER V.

Having enacted these things, not long afterward he came to Constantinople. Now the Arians were at that time in control of the churches.

^A over whom Demophilus presided. But Gregory of Nazianzus was the leader of those who confessed the consubstantial Trinity. He held assemblies in a small building, which had been fashioned into a house of prayer by certain persons who held the same faith—both he himself and those who worshipped in the same manner. Subsequently, this place became the most distinguished of the churches in the imperial city, and it remains so even now, not only on account of the elegance and size of its structure, but also because of the manifest benefits and help received there through the presence of the Divine. For the divine power, appearing there openly both to those awake and in dreams, has often brought aid to many who were oppressed by either disease or the various accidents of life. It is believed that this is the holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, for it is to her that these apparitions appear. They call this church "Anastasia," ^B as I think, because the doctrine of the Nicene Council, having already fallen into decline at Constantinople and having, so to speak, died out on account of the power of the heterodox, was raised up and revived there through the discourses of Gregory. But as I have heard from some who asserted that they were telling the truth, while the people were assembled, a pregnant woman fell from an upper portico and died there; but after a common prayer had been made by everyone over her, she revived and was saved along with the child. As it was a divine marvel that occurred there, the place received this name from that time on. And the account that such is the reason for this matter is still reported by the conversation of many.

The emperor, however, having sent messengers to Demophilus, commanded him to worship according to the doctrine of the Nicene Council and to lead the people to concord, or else to withdraw from the churches. ^C He, having summoned the multitude, declared the emperor’s intention; and he announced that on the following day he would hold services outside the walls; for he said, "The divine law commands: 'If they persecute you from this city, flee into another.'" Having said such things, from that time on he held services outside the city; and with him was Lucius, who had long before been appointed by the Arians as bishop of the Alexandrian church. For, as we have mentioned, having been driven out, he had fled to Constantinople and was residing in that city.

When, therefore, Demophilus had withdrawn from the church along with his own people, the emperor entered into it and prayed. ^D And from that time on, those who professed the consubstantial Trinity took possession of the churches. This was the year in which Gratian for the fifth time and Theodosius for the first time held the consulship; and it was the fortieth year from the time when those of the Arian heresy had taken control of the churches.

CHAPTER VI.

The Arians, however, since they still abounded in numbers due to the patronage of the emperors Constantius and Valens, gathered together freely and spoke publicly about God and His substance. They persuaded those of like mind with them who were in the palace to tempt the mind of the Emperor. For they hoped that they would accomplish what they were attempting, considering the events that had occurred during the reign of Constantius. This same thing also stirred care and fear in those of the Catholic Church. To them a not insignificant terror grew from the fact that they dwelt upon how great was the power of Eunomius in disputation. For not long before this, on account of a dispute he had had with his own clergy at Cyzicus in the times of the Emperor Valens, he had broken away from the Arians and was living in private in Bithynia, opposite Constantinople; and a multitude was crossing over to him. Some gathered from elsewhere, partly to put him to the test, and partly to hear the things he said. The rumor of these things reached the Emperor, and he was already preparing to have a meeting with him. But the Empress Flaccilla ^B restrained him, beseeching him with great zeal. For being a most faithful guardian of the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, she feared lest the Emperor, as is natural, might be persuaded in the discussion and swerve into his opinion.

While this was being agitated on both sides with great intensity, the bishops who were staying in Constantinople entered the palace, as was their custom, to greet the sovereign. Among them, it is said that there was a certain old man, a bishop of an obscure city, simple indeed and unpracticed in civil affairs, but endowed with an intelligence for divine matters. The other bishops greeted the Emperor quite candidly and piously. ^C The old priest greeted the Emperor in the same manner. But to the son of the Emperor who was seated with his father, he did not assign the same honor; instead, approaching him as one would a child, he said, "Greetings, child," and stroked him with his finger. The Emperor being moved to anger, and irritated as though the child had been insulted because he had not been deemed worthy of equal honor, was—

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(90) *To have a meeting with him is ready.* I cannot believe that the Emperor Theodosius ever burned with the desire to see Eunomius. For how can that be, when at the beginning of his reign Theodosius expelled the Eunomians from the royal city, and rusticated Eunomius himself from the city of Bithynia, Chalcedon, where he was living, to Halmyris in Moesia, as Philostorgius teaches, who was most friendly to Eunomius. It seems to have been some Eunomian who told these things about Eunomius to Sozomen.

(91) *The Empress Flaccilla.* Gregory of Nyssa wrote a funeral oration about this queen, which exists to this day. She was called Flaccilla, as we learn from ancient coins. ^D Whence, from her name, a certain palace in Constantinople was called the Flaccillianum in the eleventh region of the city, as the *Description of the City of Constantinople* teaches, and Procopius in the first book of the *Persian War*, and the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle*. But he errs in this, that he says Flaccilla was Theodosius' second wife, and Galla the first. For Flaccilla, as is agreed by all, was the first wife of Theodosius; from whom he had three children: Pulcheria, who died before her mother, and Arcadius and Honorius, as Gregory of Nyssa testifies in the oration already cited, and in his funeral oration on the praises of Pulcheria. Flaccilla was, however, the daughter of Antonius, who was consul with Syagrius, as I learned from the manuscript oration of Themistius, which is entitled *An Act of Thanksgiving to Theodosius for Peace and for the Consulship of Saturninus*. For in that oration Themistius praises Theodosius for the fact that he first gave the consulship to his kin and relatives, but later deemed that his father-in-law should be honored with that same rank, etc., where the father-in-law mentioned is Eucherius, who was consul with Evagrius; but the father-in-law, that is, the son-in-law's father or the wife's father, can be no other than Antonius, who held the consulship in the East together with Syagrius, the consul of the West.

(92) *An old priest.* In the twelfth book, chapter 9, he says that this Amphilochius was bishop of Iconium. But the words of Sozomen do not agree with Amphilochius. For neither was Amphilochius bishop of an obscure town, nor was he endowed with a middling use of affairs; such as is the old man whom Sozomen writes of.

(93) *Simply, very much.* Nicephorus substitutes "gently" for this word. But Musculus translated it—having chosen the chapters—"badly," as it appears.

^A The emperor, however, did not show the same honor to the son who sat together with his father; but approaching him more closely, as if to a child, he said, "Hail, son," and began to stroke him with his finger. The emperor, being moved, and indignant as though an injury had been done to his son because he had not been treated with the same honor as he himself, ordered the old man to be contumeliously cast out. As he was being forced out, the old man turned and said: "In the same way, O emperor, consider the heavenly Father as being angry with those who worship His Son with unequal honor, and who do not hesitate to call Him inferior to Him who begat Him." The emperor, marvelling at this saying, called the priest back, asked his pardon, and acknowledged that he had spoken the truth. Becoming more cautious thereafter, he did not admit those who were of a different mind. He prohibited contentions and gatherings from taking place in the forum; and he brought it about, by issuing a law with a penalty for the matter, that it was in no way safe to dispute after the usual manner concerning the nature and substance of God. ^B

CHAPTER VII. On the second universal synod: whence and for what cause it was convened. And concerning the voluntary abdication of Gregory the Theologian.

departed. And to those who in individual cities adhered to their opinion, they wrote letters not to consent to the decrees of the Nicene synod. The remaining bishops, however, who had remained in Constantinople, consulted among themselves as to whom it was necessary to entrust the chair there. It is said, indeed, that the emperor, admiring Gregory for his life and learning, judged him worthy of this episcopate; and that the majority of the synod agreed, out of reverence for his virtue. Gregory himself, at first, had not unwillingly accepted the administration of the Church of Constantinople; but later, when he understood that some, and especially the Egyptians, were resisting, he refused it.

^A And it occurs to me, because of this, to admire this most wise man on all accounts, but not least for this present matter. For he was neither puffed up by pride on account of his eloquence, nor did he come to have a desire to rule the Church out of a love for empty glory—a Church he had taken over when it was nearly extinct and dead—but he returned the deposit to the bishops who requested it, complaining nothing of his many labors, nor of the dangers he had undergone while struggling against the heresies. And yet it would have been burdensome to no one if he himself had remained bishop of Constantinople, since there was no one else there. For another bishop had already been ordained for Nazianzus as well. Nevertheless, the holy synod, observing both the ancestral laws and the discipline of the Church, accepted from him what it had given, ^B respecting not at all the outstanding merits of the man.

As the emperor and the priests, considering it a matter of the greatest importance, were very anxious and solicitous, and as the sovereign himself urged that a diligent inquiry be made in order that the best and most upright man, to whom it would be necessary to entrust the high-priesthood of the greatest and imperial city, might be found, the synod did not have the same opinion. For everyone was demanding that someone from among their own associates be ordained. ^C When he perceived that some were opposing him, ^D and most especially those from Egypt, he resigned. And it occurs to me that this most wise man is worthy of admiration for all things, but not least for this present event. For he was neither filled with vanity by his eloquence, nor did he come to desire—out of a love for empty glory—to rule the church that he had received, which was no longer in danger. But he returned the trust to the bishops when they demanded it, not complaining of the many sweats or the dangers he had endured while wrestling against the heresies. And yet there was nothing to trouble him, as there was no one else there, from remaining as bishop of Constantinople. For another had already been ordained bishop of Nazianzus. Nevertheless, the synod, observing the laws of the fathers and the discipline of the Church, received back what it had given from him who was willing to relinquish it, having no regard for the man's pre-eminent virtues. And since the matter of the consultation was considered by the emperor and the priests to be of the greatest importance, and the ruler himself was exhorting them to perform an exact examination so that a man might be found as good and noble as possible, to whom it would be necessary to entrust the high-priesthood of the greatest and imperial city, the synod did not have the same mind. For each of them thought it proper that one of their own choosing be ordained.

Chapter VIII. Concerning the election of Nectarius as bishop of Constantinople: who he was, whence he came, and what were his manners.

^A At that time, a certain Nectarius, native of Tarsus in Cilicia, and of the most illustrious senatorial order, was residing in Constantinople. As he was already preparing to return to his homeland, he went to see Diodorus, the bishop of Tarsus, to ask if he wished to send any letters back with him. Diodorus, at that time, happened to be quietly debating with himself who should be chosen for the ordination that was being sought with such great ambition. Upon seeing Nectarius, he judged him worthy of the episcopate, and immediately, in the inner recesses of his mind, he cast his vote for him, considering the man’s white hair, his countenance befitting the priesthood, and the gentleness of his manners. Therefore, leading him to the bishop of Antioch under the pretext of other business, he praised him and urged the bishop to assist him with his support. The latter, however, in a matter of such gravity, where many ^B illustrious men were being proposed for selection, laughed at Diodorus’s choice; nevertheless, having summoned Nectarius to him, he told him to wait for a short time. Not long after, when the emperor had commanded the bishops to write down on a paper the names of those whom each judged worthy of the episcopate—having reserved for himself the power to choose one out of all of them—some wrote one name, some another. The head of the Antiochene church wrote down those whom he wished; yet, at the very end of all the names, he added Nectarius as a favor to Diodorus. The emperor, having read the list of those inscribed, paused at Nectarius. And becoming thoughtful, he sat in silence, pondering to himself, having placed his finger upon the last name. Returning again ^C to the beginning, when he had reviewed them all in order, he chose Nectarius. Then, indeed, astonishment seized everyone: they asked who this Nectarius was, of what profession, and from whence he came. When they learned that the man had not even been initiated into the holy mysteries, they marveled all the more at the unexpected judgment of the emperor. I believe that Diodorus himself was unaware of this, for had he known, he would never have dared to offer his vote for the priesthood to a man not yet initiated. But as is natural, thinking that he was already of a mature age, he assumed that he had been baptized long ago. Nor did this happen without God, for when the emperor learned that he was unbaptized, he remained of the same opinion, even though many ^D of the priests resisted.

But when they all yielded and approved the emperor’s opinion by their vote, he was baptized, and while still wearing the neophyte’s robe, he was proclaimed Bishop of Constantinople by the common calculation of the whole council. Many, furthermore, believed that these things were done by the emperor because God commanded and enjoined it upon him. Whether this is true or not, I certainly cannot affirm. For myself, however, I am persuaded that this was done not without divine providence, while I consider the miracle of that ordination and observe from those things which followed that God wished to confer this bishopric upon a man of the greatest gentleness, goodness, and integrity. And these events regarding the ordination of Nectarius happened as I have heard tell. ^A

CHAPTER IX. Concerning the decrees of the second universal synod; and concerning Maximus the cynic philosopher.

After this, Nectarius himself, as well as the other bishops, gathering together, decreed that the faith of the Nicene Council should remain in force, and that all heresies should be condemned by anathema: and that all churches in every place should be ruled according to the prescription of the ancient canons; and that bishops should remain in their own churches and not rashly set foot in foreign dioceses, nor intrude themselves, uninvited, into ordinations that in no way concerned them, as had often happened before while the Catholic Church was being vexed by persecutions; ^B but that those things which occurred in individual provinces should be ordained and decided by the synod of each province as might seem best. Furthermore, that after the bishop of the city of Rome, the Constantinopolitan [bishop] should hold the prerogative of honor, as he who administered the bishopric of New Rome. For already at that time the city had not only earned this designation, and possessed a senate and social orders and magistrates of similar kind; but the contracts of the citizens of that city were judged according to the laws of the Romans who are in Italy, ^C and it possessed all legal rights and privileges equal to those of senior Rome. They also decreed that Maximus was not, and never had been, a bishop, and that those ordained by him were not members of the clergy. They also decreed that the things done by him and regarding him were invalid. For he was of Alexandrian descent. ^D

^A For the bishops who had come from Egypt at that time had snatched the ordination and appointed him bishop of Constantinople, although he was a cynic philosopher by profession, and also because he was a man who, while a zealous defender of the creed of the council of Nicaea, was not of their number. And these things seemed good to the council; and the emperor gave his assent, and enacted a law that the faith of those who had assembled at Nicaea should be held authoritative, and that the churches everywhere should be handed over to those who confess one and the same divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in the subsistence of three persons of equal honor and power. And he defined these to be those who would communicate with Nectarius in Constantinople; in Egypt with Timothy, the bishop of Alexandria; and in the churches throughout the East, with Diodorus of Tarsus, and Pelagius, the bishop of Laodicea in Syria; and among the Asians, with Amphilochius, who presided over the church in Iconium; and in the cities around the Pontus, from Bithynia as far as the Armenias, with Helladius, the bishop of the church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and ^B everything finally done under him or by him, they decreed to be void. For this man, Egyptian by race, in profession indeed a philosopher of the cynic sect, but otherwise an ardent defender of the Nicene faith, the bishops who had arrived from Egypt had, by a furtive ordination, consecrated bishop of the city of Constantinople. And these things were established by the synod in this manner: the emperor confirmed them with his suffrage, and carried a law that the faith of those who had once assembled at Nicaea should be ratified, and that in all places the churches should be entrusted to those who would confess one and the same Deity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in the subsistence, honor, and power of three persons. Moreover, he defined these to be those who at Constantinople would communicate with Nectarius: in Egypt, however, with Timothy, the bishop of Alexandria: and in the provinces of the East, those who would communicate.

^A with Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Pelagius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria: in the diocese of Asia, with Amphilochius, prelate of the church of Iconium: in the diocese of Pontus, from Bithynia as far as Armenia, those who were joined in communion with Helladius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and with Gregory of Nyssa and Otreius of Melitene: and finally, in the cities of Thrace and Scythia, those who would communicate with Terentius of Tomi and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. For the emperor himself praised these men when he had seen them and spoken with them; and a good reputation prevailed concerning them, that they governed their churches piously. When these things were finished, and the council had reached its end, the others returned, each man to his own home.

CAP. X.

Concerning Martyrius the Cilician, and the translation of the relics of Paul the Confessor and Meletius of Antioch.

Nectarius, having used Cyriacus, the bishop of Adana, as his mentor, learned the priestly office. For he had requested Diodorus, the bishop of Tarsus, that the former might remain with him for a time. He also persuaded many other Cilicians to stay with him, and among them ^B was Martyrius, whom, because he had him as a capable physician and a confidant of the sins he had committed in his youth, he intended to ordain as a deacon. But Martyrius would not allow this to happen, asserting that he was unworthy of the divine ministry and bidding Nectarius himself, the witness of his former life, to judge. Nectarius said to him, "Do I not, who am now a priest, have a life from before that was much more negligent than yours, as you yourself can testify, having often assisted in my many debaucheries?" But he, replying, said, "O blessed one, you were recently baptized and cleansed, and for this reason you were deemed worthy of the priesthood. Yet God has ordained both methods for the purging ^C of sins. And it seems to me that you differ nothing from the newborn infants. I

however, who long ago received holy baptism, have persevered in the same manner of living as before." And this man, alleging such a cause, declined the ordination. I indeed greatly praise him on account of such a refusal, and for that reason I have inserted him into this history. ^B Moreover, the emperor, when he had been informed of the things which had happened to Paul, formerly bishop of Constantinople, took care to have his body transferred and buried in the church which Macedonius, his persecutor, had built, and which up to this present time is distinguished by his name, being a most great and illustrious temple. This is the cause why many who are ignorant of the truth, and especially women and the greater part of the populace, suspect that the Apostle Paul is buried there. About this same time, the corpse of Meletius was carried to Antioch, and was buried beside the tomb of Babylas the martyr. It is said that, by order of the emperor, it was received within the cities along the entire public way, contrary to the custom and institution of the Romans, and was honored by the singing of psalms, being received alternately in each place, until it was conveyed to Antioch.

CAPUT XI.

And Meletius indeed obtained such a burial. But Flavian was ordained in his stead, against the faith of the oath; for Paulinus was still alive. By reason of this, a vast disturbance once again seized the church of the Antiochenes; and very many separated themselves ^C from the communion of Flavian, and celebrated assemblies separately under Paulinus. The priests themselves were also divided among themselves on this account. And the Egyptians indeed, with the Arabians and Cypriots, grieved at the lot of Paulinus as if he had been wronged. But the Syrians, and the Palestinians, and the Phoenicians, and the greater part of the Armenians, Cappadocians, Galatians, and those in the region of the Pontus, favored the cause of Flavian. The bishop of Rome, however, and the rest of the priests of the Western parts were not a little indignant. And to Paulinus, indeed, as bishop of Antioch, they wrote their customary letters, which they call synodical; but to Flavian they sent no letters. ^D Nay, they even held Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beraea, the bishops who had ordained him, in blame, and considered them out of communion. So, in order to adjudicate matters concerning these men, they wrote

to the bishops of the East, summoning them to the West. ^A

Chap. XII. How Theodosius desired to unite all religious sects. Item, concerning Agelius and Sisinius the Novatians: what counsel was given by them. And how, when the synod was again assembled, the emperor approved only those who held the homoousian faith, and expelled those who thought otherwise from the churches.

At this same time, as the Catholics were taking possession of the churches, ^B grave disturbances occurred in many parts of the Roman Empire, occasioned by the opposition of the Arian sect. Emperor Theodosius, after a short time had elapsed since the former synod, again summoned the leaders of the sects that were then most flourishing, so that they might either provide or receive an account of the matters on account of which they dissented. For he hoped he would be able to bring it about that all might consent with one another, if he were to propose a common disputation for them regarding the points of controversy in the faith. When therefore they had assembled—and this was in the year in which Merobaudes for the second time and Saturninus were consuls, the same year in which Theodosius proclaimed his son Arcadius his partner in the empire—the emperor, having called Nectarius to him, consulted with him about the future synod; and ordered him to propose for discussion the questions from which the heresies had arisen: ^C so that there might be one Church of those who believe in Christ, and a concordant doctrine of the faith might be established.

Nectarius, having returned home and being troubled with various concerns, disclosed the emperor's plan to Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians, inasmuch as he held the same faith regarding the Trinity as he did. But Agelius, since he indeed professed holiness of life in his very deeds, but was little versed in speaking and disputing, proposed in his place someone else who was well skilled in discerning what needed to be done and in disputing, if it were necessary: Sisinius by name. He was at that time a reader under him, though afterward he became bishop of the Novatians in the same place. He was a man ^D endowed with the power of understanding and with a fluency of speech; one who had learned the expositions of the Holy Scriptures accurately, and who possessed a manifold knowledge of those things which had been written both by pagan and by ecclesiastical authors. This man, according to the place and the time.

author of the suggestion that they should avoid disputations with the heretics, as these are the kindling of contention and discord; rather, they should ask them if they would admit as teachers and interpreters of the Holy Scriptures those who had lived before the division of the Church. For he said, if they rejected the testimonies of these men, they would be cast out by their own companions. But if they should consider them competent for the resolution of controversies, their books must be brought forward. He well knew that the ancients who found the Son to be coeternal with the Father never dared to say that his generation had any beginning.

Since, then, this pleased Nectarius and the Emperor had been informed of it and approved the plan, he began to sound out the spirits of the heretics as to what they felt regarding the interpretations of the ancients. When they highly praised them, the Emperor inquired more openly of them whether they would decide the controversies by their words, and whether they judged them to be suitable witnesses of the doctrine. But since dissension had arisen ^B about this matter among the leaders of the sects—for not all felt the same regarding the interpretations of the ancients—the Emperor understood that, relying on the altercations of their own opinions, they were refusing the condition proposed. And, having condemned their strategy, he ordered that each sect should deliver to him in writing a formula of its own faith.

When the day dawned which had been appointed for this business, they gathered at the palace. For those who glorified the consubstantial Trinity, there were Nectarius and Agelius; for the Arian sect, Demophilus, the leader of that sect; for the Eunomians, Eunomius himself; and for those who are called Macedonians, Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus. Having received the written statement of each, the Emperor approved only the one that set forth the consubstantial Trinity. The others, as contrary, he tore to pieces. And for the ^C Novatians nothing came of this business beyond the declaration, for they feel the same as the Catholic Church regarding the Divinity. The others, however, were angry with their own bishops because they had spoken in the presence of the Emperor things that were conflicting and contrary to themselves, and had done so unskillfully. Many, indeed, even condemning them, transferred themselves to the faith which had been approved.

The Emperor, meanwhile, legislating (7), ordered that the heterodox should neither hold assemblies, nor teach concerning the faith, nor ordain bishops or others. He commanded that some should be driven from the cities and fields, and that others should be marked with infamy (8) and should likewise not participate in civic life with others. He inscribed harsh penalties in his laws, but he did not carry them out; for he was not eager to punish his subjects, but to strike them with ^D fear, so that they might become of one mind with himself concerning the Divine. For he even praised those who converted of their own accord.

Chapter XIII. Concerning Maximus the tyrant, and concerning the events that took place between Justina Augusta and Saint Ambrose; and how the Emperor Gratian was slain by treachery, and how Valentinian fled with his mother to Theodosius at Thessalonica.

^A At this same time, when Gratian was preoccupied with the war against the Alamanni, Maximus rose up in the regions of Britain and sought to bring the Roman Empire under his own power. Valentinian was then living in Italy, still a youth, and the administration of affairs there had been entrusted to the praetorian prefect Probus, a man of consular rank. At that time Justina, the mother of the emperor, who was attached to the Arian opinion, was causing difficulties for Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and was disturbing the churches, attempting to introduce innovations against those who held the doctrines defined at Nicaea, and regarding it as a matter of great importance to ensure the triumph of the faith of those who had convened at Ariminum. But because Ambrose strove against this, the woman, bearing it ill, slandered him to her son, as if she had been insulted. Valentinian, supposing the accusations to be true, and seeking to avenge his mother, sent a multitude of soldiers to the church. They, attacking the temple, entered by force through the doors and were about to seize Ambrose to drag him into exile. But the multitude of the Church, surrounding him, stood against the soldiers and chose rather to die than to abandon their priest. From this, Justina was inflamed with greater wrath and determined to confirm her undertaking by the authority of the law. ^B Having therefore summoned Benivolus, who was then in charge of the secretariate of the memory, she commanded him to draft a law with all speed for the confirmation of the faith that had formerly been read at the Council of Ariminum. But when he refused to do so (for he was of the Catholic communion), the queen did not persuade him; and Benivolus, removing his belt, cast it before the feet of the empress, not wishing to hold the dignity he possessed, nor to be considered worthy of greater honor at the cost of impiety. Since, therefore, the time was present, lest ^C anyone...

persuading him with a promise of promotion, he began to urge him. But he could not persuade him, for Benivolus threw the belt stripped from him at the queen’s feet, declaring that he would accept neither his present dignity nor any other greater one as the reward of impiety. When he constantly asserted that he would never do this, others were employed to dictate this law. Now, that law prescribed that whosoever held the same faith as those who had formerly been assembled at Rimini and afterwards at Constantinople, should freely convene in the churches; but if any should oppose these, or request anything contrary to this law, they should be punished with death. While the emperor’s mother was contriving this and striving to put the law into execution, news was brought that Gratian ^B had been killed by the treachery of Andragathius, who was a count of Maximus. For he, traveling hidden in an imperial chariot, had sent forerunners ahead to announce that the emperor’s spouse was coming. Gratian, however, as one who had recently taken a wife and was still a youth, burning with an immense love for her, in his eagerness to see her, suspecting no guile, rashly crossed the river flowing between them, and thus fell into the hands of Andragathius. Being captured, he was shortly after put to death, having lived about twenty-four years, and having reigned fifteen. Because of such a great calamity that had occurred, Justina laid aside her anger against Ambrose. In the meantime, Maximus, having collected a numerous army from Britain and the neighboring Gauls, and from the Celts and surrounding nations, set out for Italy: in appearance, indeed, as if he would not allow anything to be innovated ^C concerning the faith of the fathers and ecclesiastical discipline: but in reality, so that he might drive the suspicion of tyranny far from himself; as one aspiring to the government, and studying by every art to make it appear that he was claiming the Roman empire not by force, but by right. Valentinian, however, compelled by the necessity of the times, admitted the insignia of that reign. But fearing lest he should suffer any harm, he left Italy and fled to Thessalonica; and with him went his mother, and Probus, the praetorian prefect. ^D

CAP. XIV. Concerning the birth of Honorius: and how Theodosius, having left Arcadius in Constantinople, set out for Italy. Also concerning the succession of the Novatians and the other patriarchs: and concerning the audacity of the Arians. And how Theodosius, having slain the tyrant, celebrated a magnificent triumph in Rome.

At that same time, while Theodosius was preparing an expedition against Maximus, his son Honorius was born. When finally everything necessary for the war had been prepared, he himself departed from Constantinople, leaving his son Arcadius as Augustus there, and having arrived at Thessalonica, he found Valentinian there. And the ambassadors who had been sent by Maximus, he neither sent away publicly, nor

did he openly reject them, but taking up ^A his army, he marched into Italy. About this same time, Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople, being at the point of death, named Sisinius, one of his presbyters, as his successor. But when the people complained that he had not rather ordained Marcian, a man most famous for his piety, when he seemed to be in better health, he ordained Marcian, and addressed the people in the church with these words: "After me, let Marcian be your bishop; and after him, Sisinius." Having said this, he died not long after, having discharge the duties of the episcopate of his own sect for forty years with great praise. There are also those who affirm that this man was a confessor during the times of the persecutions. Not long after, Timothy and Cyril having departed from this light, Theophilus received the Alexandrian see, and John that of Jerusalem. At Constantinople ^B also, Demophilus, the bishop of the Arian sect, died. In his place, a certain Marinus from Thrace was substituted. But when Dorotheus had arrived from Antioch in Syria, he, as being considered more capable, presided over the sect there. In the meantime, while Theodosius had entered Italy, various rumors regarding the war became prevalent, according to each person's desire. Among the Arians, it was rumored that after many had been killed in the battle, the Emperor had fallen into the power of the tyrant. And as if the things they whispered among themselves were already fulfilled in actual fact, they took heart; and having made an attack, they burned the house of the bishop Nectarius, being aggrieved that he held the churches. But the Emperor concluded the war according to the resolve of his own mind. For the soldiers of ^C Maximus, either through fear of the war-preparations which Theodosius had brought against them, or led by treachery, seized the tyrant and killed him. And Andragathius, he who had killed Gratian, when he learned of these things, just as he was, fully armed, cast himself into a river flowing by, and thus perished. The war having been finished in this manner, when the Emperor had avenged Gratian, as was fitting, he came to Rome and together with Valentinian celebrated a distinguished triumph, and also rightly ordered ecclesiastical affairs in Italy. For Justina had conveniently departed from the living.

CAP. XV. Concerning Flavian and Evagrius, bishops of Antioch; and concerning those things which were done at Alexandria in the overthrow of the temple of Bacchus; and concerning the Serapeum and other temples ^D of the idols that were destroyed.

About the same time, Paulinus having died in Antioch, those who worshipped in the church under him persisted in rejecting Flavian, as one who had violated the faith of the oath taken under Meletius, although in doctrine they were not at variance.

^A Evagrius was ordained their bishop; but when he had lived for a short time, no one succeeded to his place, as Flavian resisted it. Yet those who refused communion with him held separate meetings. At this same time, the bishop of the city of Alexandria converted the temple of Bacchus, which was there, into a church, having requested it of the emperor and received it as a gift. ^B While the idols of that place were being torn down and the sanctuaries uncovered, the bishop, studiously seeking to treat the Hellenic mysteries with contempt, brought them out into the open; he publicly displayed for all to see the phalli and whatever else was in the sanctuaries that was, or seemed to be, hidden and ridiculous. The Hellenes, astonished at this truth and at the unexpectedness of what had happened, could not remain quiet; having prepared themselves among their own ranks, they rushed upon the Christians. Having killed some and wounded others, they seized the Serapeum. This temple was most illustrious for its beauty and size, situated on a small hill. From there, as if from a citadel, they suddenly burst forth and seized many of the Christians, and by torturing them, compelled them to sacrifice. If any refused to do this, they either crucified them, or broke their legs, or killed them in some other manner. ^C When this sedition had continued for a long time, the magistrates went to them, reminded them of the laws, and exhorted them to cease the warfare and leave the Serapeum. At that time, Romanus was the commander of the military troops in Egypt; Evagrius was the Augustal Prefect of Alexandria. As they achieved nothing, they reported what had happened to the emperor. Those within the Serapeum were rendered more eager by the consciousness of the crime they had committed; moreover, a certain Olympius, who was living with them in the habit of a philosopher and persuading them that they ought not to neglect the ancestral rites but, if need be, to die for them, when he saw them depressed by the destruction of the idols, advised them not to abandon their religion. He said that the statues were but corruptible matter and images, and that they had undergone destruction for that reason, but that certain powers had resided within them and had flown up to heaven. And he was dwelling in the Serapeum, offering such suggestions and having a multitude of Hellenes around him. ^D

^A When these events were reported, the emperor congratulated the Christians who had been killed, as having shared in the honor of martyrdom and as having struggled in defense of the faith. But as for those who had killed them, he ordered that they be pardoned, in the hope that, moved by the gratitude for such a benefit, they might more easily be converted to Christianity. He ordered, however, that the temples in Alexandria be razed, as being the cause of the sedition among the people. It is said that when the letters written by the emperor regarding these matters were read in public, the Christians raised a great shout, because from the very beginning he laid the blame upon the Hellenists. Consequently, those who were guarding the Serapeum, falling into fear, turned to flight; and the Christians, having seized the place, occupied it from that time forward.

Olympius ^B, as I have learned, a little while before, in the dead of the night preceding the day when these things happened, heard someone in the Serapeum singing "Alleluia." And since the doors were shut and all was quiet, he saw no one, but heard only a voice chanting that same psalm; he understood what this sign portended. And escaping the notice of all, he went out of the Serapeum, and happening upon a ship, he sailed away to Italy.

They say that when this temple was being destroyed at that time, certain of what are called hieroglyphic characters appeared, engraved upon the stones, bearing a resemblance to the sign of the cross. ^C When these were interpreted by those skilled in such matters, they were said to signify "the life to come." This became a pretext for many of the Hellenists to become Christians, because other writings also indicated that this temple would have its end when this character appeared. Thus indeed was the Serapeum captured, and after no...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(17) *That those who had killed them should receive pardon.* One must note the words of Rufinus, from whom Sozomenus derived these things: "He who, through the innate clemency of his mind, would prefer to amend those who are in error rather than to destroy them, writes that one ought not to seek the retribution of those who, by the blood shed before the altars, made martyrs; for in their case the glory of their merits far outweighed the pain of their death." The blessed Augustine feels the same, that the slaughter of martyrs should not be avenged with the sword, lest the passions of the servants of God, which ought to be glorious in the Church, be defiled by the blood of their enemies. His words are as follows in Epistle 158, to Marcellinus. Where he also adds, in the case of the Anaunensian clerics who were killed by the Gentiles and were venerated as martyrs, that when the emperor was requested that those who had killed them—and who were already held captive—should not be punished with a similar penalty, he easily conceded it. You have an illustrious example of the same custom below in chapter 15, where he treats of the slaughter of Marcellus, bishop of the Apamenes.

(18) *Olympius. That which follows, Sozomenus testifies he learned by hearsay alone.* Certainly these details are not read in Rufinus, from whom Sozomenus borrowed the rest of what he recounts concerning Olympius the philosopher, or Olympus, as Rufinus and Suidas call him in the entry "Olympus." ^D Where he brings forward a brilliant fragment concerning this Olympus from the Roman History of Eunapius of Sardis, as one can conjecture from the style. "Olympus," he says, "brother of Generosa, who came from Cilicia to Alexandria for the treatment of Serapion." The reader should be warned, however, that two philosophers named Olympus are confused here by Suidas: one who lived under Theodosius, and another in the times of Zeno Augustus. Concerning this latter one, there is a passage in Damascius in the *Life of Isidore*, which is cited in the first place by Suidas. Concerning the former Olympus, the passage of Eunapius is placed under him by the same Suidas.

(19) *Certain... characters, bearing a resemblance to the sign of the cross.* One must by all means read *emphereis* [bearing a resemblance]. For it follows *staurou sēmeiō* [to the sign of the cross]. Although in the Fuketianus codex I found *emphereis* written down, it is erroneous, as it appears. Soon it must undoubtedly be written *staurou sēmeiō emphereis, egkecharagmenous tois lithois* [similar to the sign of the cross, engraved on the stones]. Which is confirmed by Socrates in chapter 15 of book 5. Furthermore, it seems that both drew these details about the discovery of the sign of the cross among the hieroglyphic letters from Rufinus. Yet Rufinus does not openly say that the sign of the cross was discovered among those sacred letters at the time the temple of Serapis was destroyed; but he has only this in chapter 26: "When those of the pagans who had survived saw that this had come to pass, they are said to have recalled that it had been handed down to them from antiquity by tradition. For the Egyptians are said to have this sign of ours, the Cross of the Lord, among those letters which they call—that is to say—sacerdotal, as one element among the others of the characters that are among them. And the interpretation of this letter or word is said to be 'the life to come'." Furthermore, these sacerdotal letters were taught at Canopus by the priests, as the same Rufinus writes in chapter 26.

^A As this temple was being razed, they say that certain letters, called hieroglyphic, resembling the sign of the cross, appeared inscribed upon the stones; and when those skilled in such matters interpreted them, they said they signified "the life to come." And because of this, they say that many of the pagans were converted to the Christian religion, since other marks also signified that the temple would be destroyed when this sign, similar to a cross, should appear. And the Serapium was thus captured and taken by storm, and not long after it was transformed into a church, named after the emperor Arcadius.

Yet in some cities, the pagans were still fighting fiercely for their temples: in Arabia, the Petraeans and Areopolites; in Palestine, the Raphians and Gazaeans; in Phoenicia, the Heliopolitans. Among the Syrians, finally, were the citizens of the city of Apamea, which is situated by the river Axius; these, I have heard, in order to protect their temples, frequently employed the aid of Galileans and rustic men from the villages around Lebanon; and they finally proceeded to such a pitch of audacity that they killed Marcellus, the bishop of that place. For he, realizing that they could not easily be turned from their former superstition in any other way, destroyed the shrines that were in the city and in the country villages. And having heard that there was a very great temple in the Aulon (a tract of the Apamenean region), he took with him some soldiers and gladiators and proceeded there. When he had come near, he remained out of range of their missiles. For he was afflicted with gout, and could neither fight, nor pursue, nor flee. ^B While the soldiers and gladiators were occupied with taking the temple, some of the pagans, finding out that he had been left alone, issued forth from a part of the place that was free from the fighting, and coming upon him by surprise, they seized him and, throwing him into a fire, killed him. At the moment, the perpetrators of the murder remained unknown. But when, in the process of time, they were discovered, the sons of Marcellus wished to avenge their father's death. But the synod of the province forbade it, holding that it was not right to avenge a death for which one ought rather to return thanks to God—both the deceased himself and his sons and friends, inasmuch as he was held worthy to die for God. And these things were done in this way.

CAP. XVI.

How and for what cause the presbyter who presided over the penitents was removed from the Church; and an account of the manner and method of penance.

At that same time, Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, was the first to remove from the Church the presbyter who was set over the penitents. ^C Almost all the bishops everywhere subsequently followed his example. As to what this exactly is, where it began, or for what reason it was stopped, while some have perhaps said one thing and others…

^A relate, I, for my part, shall tell it as I conceive it. Since to be entirely without sin requires a nature more divine than that of a human being, and yet God has commanded that pardon be granted to those who repent, even if they sin often, it seemed appropriate to the priests from the beginning—it being a heavy burden for one to confess an offense ^B in the act of seeking pardon—that this be done in public, as if in a theatre, with the multitude of the Church as witnesses; and they appointed for this purpose a presbyter from among those best able to govern, one who was discreet and wise. The sinners coming to him would confess the things they had done; and he, having imposed a penance on each according to his sin, would absolve them so that they might exact the penalty for their crimes upon themselves. But among the Novatians, who have no theory of repentance, there was no need for this. Among other sects, however, this custom persists to this day. It is observed with special care in the Western Churches, and particularly among the Romans. ^C For there the place of those who are doing penance is conspicuous, and they stand there downcast, and as if mourning. ^D When the liturgy of God is already finished, not having been admitted to the mysteries which it is lawful only for the initiated to share, they cast themselves down on the ground with wailing and lamentation. The bishop, with tears in his eyes, runs to them, and in a similar [way]…