Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen

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]…

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(21) In the act of seeking pardon. Epiphanius Scholasticus translated this passage: "But those who shrink from confessing, acquire a greater burden of sins." Christophorsonus indeed translated it thus: "And to obtain pardon, it is necessary to confess sins." Bellarmine also followed this version. Musculus, however, following the version of Epiphanius, translated it thus: "And to those who refuse to confess their sins, their faults, as is credible, are aggravated." But this interpretation of Epiphanius and Musculus cannot be maintained, since it is against the meaning of Sozomen. For they interpret it as if those ancient priests of the Church had decreed from the beginning that the faithful should confess their sins publicly, as if in the theatre, with all standing by. But Sozomen says the exact opposite, and with good reason. For the Church, being a good and prudent mother, never commanded anything of the sort to her children. The interpretation of Christophorsonus therefore remains, not entirely to be rejected. But I cannot approve that he translates those words "to obtain pardon," when he should rather have translated it: "in deprecating," or "in seeking pardon." Yet the sense is the same in both cases.

(22) A heavy burden. I agree with Christophorsonus and Savilius, who added a sub-distinction after the term "offense." For unless we distinguish it thus, the sense of this passage can be understood by no one. Since Nicephorus did not see this, he interpolated this passage of Sozomen in this way: etc. Which Langus thus translated: "We, however, who through transgression have entered upon the inheritance of sinning, God has ordered that pardon for sins be granted to those who, having used a legitimate and convenient penance, henceforth both turn away from and confess the sin."

(25) Exacting the penalty. It is gathered from this passage that Sozomen thought that in the parts of the Western empire it was the accepted custom that a certain presbyter appointed by the bishop should preside over the penitents. For he says that this custom remained in the West, even after the constitution of Nectarius. Nowhere, however, as far as I know, is there mention of this presbyter, nor in the councils and canons, nor in the books or letters of ecclesiastical writers who formerly lived in the West; nor in the Lives of bishops, or other monuments of antiquity. But also what Sozomen adds about the city of Rome seems to show the contrary. For there, not a presbyter appointed by the bishop, but the bishop himself took care of the penitents, as Sozomen himself testifies; and he prescribed the time for them in which they ought to perform their penance, and he made the prayer for them, as Sozomen himself testifies in the same place. There was, therefore, no penitentiary presbyter at that time in the Roman Church: and Sozomen declares this even more openly a little later. For after he explained the rite of the Roman Church, which still persisted in his own time, he subjoined this: "The same custom also seems to have been in the Church of Milan, that is to say, that the bishop himself administered the whole rite of penance." Certainly Paulinus in the Life of B. Ambrose testifies to this, writing as follows: "For he was rejoicing with those who rejoiced, and weeping with those who wept. For as often as anyone had confessed his lapses to him for the purpose of receiving penance (in a manuscript 'his lapse'), he would weep in such a way that he forced him also to weep. For he seemed to himself to be lying with the one who was lying down. But as for the causes of the crimes which they confessed to him, he spoke to no one except the Lord alone, with whom he was interceding."

(26) § (26—marginal note) In the Epitaph of Fabiola: "Who would believe this," he says, "that after the death of her second husband, she returned to herself, and put on sackcloth; so that she might publicly confess her error; and in the Lateran basilica, which formerly was struck with the sword by Caesar, she stood in the order of penitents, with the bishop, the presbyters, and the whole people weeping together."

^A From the communion of the sacred rites which it is the custom to offer to the initiated, they cast themselves prostrate upon the ground, with groaning and lamentations. Then the bishop, meeting them from the opposite side with tears, himself also falls to the ground: and the entire multitude of the Church simultaneously confesses and is imbued with tears. After this, the bishop first rises and lifts up those who are lying prostrate; and having prayed as is fitting for the penitents who have sinned, he dismisses them. Privately, however, every one of them, mortifying himself of his own accord—either by fasts, or by neglect of bathing, or by abstinence from food, or by other means enjoined upon him—awaits the time that has been appointed for him by the bishop. And when the predetermined day arrives, as if he had paid some debt, he is freed from the punishment of his committed sin, and is joined again with the rest of the people of the Church. These things the bishops of the city of Rome have preserved from the earliest antiquity down to our own times. But in the Church of Constantinople, a certain presbyter was appointed who should preside over those doing penance. Eventually, a certain noble matron, on account of sins which she had confessed, having been ordered by this presbyter to fast and to supplicate God, while she was staying in the church for this purpose, revealed that she had been defiled by a deacon. Upon learning of this, the whole multitude was vehemently angered, as though the church had been insulted; and men of the sacred order were exposed to no moderate reproach. Nectarius, indeed, after having long and much doubted what ought to be done in this matter, removed the one who had committed the defilement from the diaconate. And when some suggested that he should give everyone the power to approach the communion of the sacred mysteries freely, as each might be conscious of his own heart and have confidence in himself, he abolished the presbyter who had been set over the work of penance. And from that time this has remained the prevailing custom; for, as I suspect, the ancient ways, and the dignity and precision regarding such matters, had already begun to slip little by little into an indifferent and neglected habit. For formerly, as I judge, the sins were fewer, both on account of the shame of those declaring their own faults, and on account of the precision of the judges set over this matter. And it is from this cause that I conclude that the Emperor Theodosius, caring for the glory and dignity of the Churches, enacted a law ^B that women, unless they had children and were over sixty years of age, should not be permitted the ministry of God, which also the Apostle confirms. ^{C D}

Furthermore, he ordered that women who had cut their hair should be excluded from the Church; and that bishops who dared to admit them should be deprived of their priesthood.

CHAPTER XVII.

^A *How Theodosius sent Eunomius into exile: and concerning Theophronius, the successor of Eunomius. Also concerning Eutychius and Dorotheus, and their opinions: and concerning those who are called Psathuriani. And how the heresy of the Arians was divided into various factions; and how those who were at Constantinople were more united among themselves.*

But let each person judge these things according to his own discretion. Furthermore, the emperor at that time condemned Eunomius to exile. For he was still residing at Constantinople, and in the suburbs or in private houses he was holding ecclesiastical assemblies apart, and reciting ^B the books he had written, and winning many over to his opinion, so that in a short space of time there was a huge number of those who followed the heresy that bore his name. But a short time after he had been sent into exile, he died, and obtained burial in his own country. This was a village of the Cappadocians, named Dacora, situated in the territory of Caesarea, by Mount Argaeus. Theophronius, however, also a Cappadocian, who had been instructed in the same doctrine by Eunomius as his teacher, afterwards defended his opinions. Having been moderately exercised in the philosophy of Aristotle, he wrote an introduction ^C helpful for grasping their arguments, which he entitled *On the Exercise of the Mind*. But having fallen into absurd disputations, he did not deign to remain in the same opinions as his teacher. For, reasoning too curiously, he attempted to prove from the words which are read in the holy volumes, that God, who foreknows future things, knows present things, and remembers past things, does not remain in the same state, but changes His knowledge according to the nature of the future, the present, and the past. Because of such doctrines, he seemed insufferable even to the followers of Eunomius, and having been cast out of their ^D Church, he created those who are called Theophronians after him. Not long after, a certain Eutychius...

one of the Eunomian sect dwelling in Constantinople, left behind another heresy named after him. For when there was a question as to whether the Son knew the last hour, and those words of the Gospel, by which the Father alone is said to know that hour, seemed to deny this of the Son, he asserted that the Son was not lacking even of this knowledge, inasmuch as He had received all things without exception from the Father. But when the leaders of the Eunomian sect at that time did not approve of his opinion, he separated himself from the communion of the rest and went to Eunomius, who was at that time living in exile. ^A However, when a deacon and certain others, sent from the city of Constantinople to accuse him or, if need be, to dispute with him, had arrived there before him, Eunomius, having learned the reason for their coming, approved of Eutychius’s opinion. He even prayed together with him, although it is forbidden among them to pray with those who arrive from elsewhere without letters which attest them to be of the same communion by means of certain marks inscribed upon the letters, which are unknown to others. Not long after this controversy, Eunomius having departed from the living, he who presided over the Eunomians in Constantinople refused to admit Eutychius, being embittered against him out of jealousy, because he had been unable to solve the question, being unable to sharply dispute the assertion of one who was not even a cleric. From that time, Eutychius, withdrawing with those who followed his view, formed a separate sect. ^B Furthermore, most people affirm that this man and Theophronius were the authors of that discrepancy which exists among the Eunomians in the administration of holy baptism. I have written these things as I have learned them, for a brief understanding of the causes for which the Eunomians were divided among themselves. To pursue all the arguments moved because of this would be tedious, and to me indeed difficult, since I am not experienced in such disputations.

About this time, a question also arose among the Arians in Constantinople, whether God could be called Father before the Son existed, since it is confessed by them that He comes from non-being. And Dorotheus, who had been transferred from Antioch in place of Marinus, and who presided over this heresy, declared that God was not to be called Father because the name was relative to something, [which did not exist] before the Son had come into being. ^C But Marinus, on the contrary, insisted and maintained that the Father is always the Father, even when the Son did not exist; whether he was of this opinion, or because he was at variance with Dorotheus. Regarding, however, the discrepancy about divine baptism, both he and Theophronius are blamed by common report. I have written what I have learned from them, for a brief account of the causes from which the Eunomians were divided. To go through all the arguments that were moved by this would be long, and for me not easy, since I am not experienced in such discussions. Moreover, regarding this time, a dispute also arose among the Arians in Constantinople, whether, before the Son existed, as he was confessed by them to be from things that are not, God could be called Father. And Dorotheus, indeed, who invited from Antioch in place of Marinus, presided over this heresy, declared that God was not called Father, as the name was relative to something, before the Son had come into being. Marinus, however, argued the opposite, and maintained that the Father is always Father, even when the Son did not stand; either having this opinion, or as he disagreed with Dorotheus.

CONCERNING THE DIFFERENCE REGARDING DIVINE BAPTISM

He also overturned the law of holy baptism handed down from of old by the Lord and the apostles, and openly sanctioned the contrary, saying that it is not fitting to immerse him who is baptized, nor to invoke the Trinity, but to baptize only once into the death of Christ. Those who baptize, however, wet [the body] with water up to the chest, but they forbid applying water to the other parts as though they were execrable. For this reason, when they were baptizing in a tub, placing the person outside it, they would submerge his head down to the chest once into the water. But after it happened that someone was injured by his head striking against the tub, they devised another kind of baptism. For, stretching the person prone upon a bench, and keeping his head outside it, they pour water [on him], which touches no other member. Some of them, however, found another mode of baptism as well. For, preparing a very long ribbon, and consecrating it, they wrap the person with it as far as the nails, beginning from the chest, and then thus they pour the water. But they say that they dare to do something else, which I would not dare to commit to writing. For the mere hearing of the nefarious act is enough to pollute the mind.

^A Around the same time, a question arose among the Arians living in Constantinople: whether, before the Son existed—since they indeed maintain that he was created from nothing—God could be called Father. Dorotheus, who had been summoned from Antioch to take the place of Marinus and preside over the Arians, declared that since this name is relative, God could not have been called Father before the Son subsisted. Marinus, however, asserted the contrary, and maintained that God is always Father, even when the Son does not subsist; whether he truly believed this, or because he was hostile to Dorotheus, who had been preferred over him in the governance of the Arian Church. On account of this, the Arian populace was divided into two parts. And while Dorotheus remained with his followers in the churches he had occupied, those who were with Marinus built other churches and held their assemblies separately. These were called Psathyrians, or Goths. They were called Psathyrians because a certain Theoctistus, a *psathyropoles* (which is a type of cake-seller), fought fiercely for this opinion; and they were called Goths because Selinas, their bishop, held the same opinion. For almost all the barbarians, following him, celebrated their meetings with them. They were, in fact, most willing to obey Selinas, since he had been the amanuensis and successor of Ulphila, their former bishop, and was competent to teach the people in church not only in their native tongue but also in Greek.

Not long after, a controversy regarding precedence arose between Marinus and Agapius, whom Marinus had ordained bishop of his sect at Ephesus; having separated from one another, they waged something like a war amongst themselves, with the Goths coming to the aid of Agapius. For this reason, it is said that many of the clergy there, condemning the ambition of their prelates, passed over to the communion of the Catholic Church. In this manner the Arians were first divided among themselves, and to this day, in the cities where they dwell, they assemble separately. Those, however, in Constantinople, who had disagreed among themselves for a space of thirty-five years, were later brought into harmony by Plintha, ex-consul and master of both militias, who at that time was very powerful in the palace. And when they had met together in one place, they decided by common vote that no one should ever again dispute about this question. And this matter eventually had this outcome.

CAP. XVII. How the Novatians formed another heresy, namely that of the Sabbatians. Also a long digression concerning the synod at Sangarus and the festival day of Easter.

^D In the times of the same emperor, the Novatians also, disagreeing among themselves regarding the Paschal festival, formed another sect, of those who are called Sabbatians,

^A Sabbatius, a presbyter who had been ordained by Marcian, along with Theoctistus and Macarius, fellow-presbyters, followed the decree of those who had assembled in Pazucome during the reign of Valens, and insisted that the feast of Easter should be celebrated at the same time as the Jews. Having separated from the Church, at first he gave as a pretext the cause of abstinence and stricter discipline, for he lived very holily, and because he suspected some to be unworthy of communion at the mysteries, he pretended to have withdrawn. But when it was discovered that he was stirring up novelties, Marcian lamented his own ordination of him; and he often used to exclaim, they say, that it would have been better to have laid his hands on thorns than on his head. ^B When, however, he saw the people of his church divided into two parties, he summoned the bishops of his sect to Sangarus. This is a place in Bithynia, situated on the sea, not far from Helenopolis. Being there gathered together, they sent for Sabbatius. And when he was required to declare the cause of his distress, he alleged the difference concerning the feast. The bishops, suspecting that he was inventing these things out of a desire for the episcopacy, exacted an oath from him that he would never accept the episcopate. When he had promised this under the faith of an oath, they, deeming this cause not sufficient reason for which communion should be rent asunder, decreed that all should indeed be of one mind and celebrate the synaxes together, but that each one should celebrate the feast according to his own judgment. And they established a canon concerning this, which they called the *adiaphoron*. Such was the decision of those who had met at Sangarus. ^C From that time on, Sabbatius followed the Jews; if it did not happen that all were celebrating the feast at the same time, he would fast beforehand as was the custom, and would celebrate the Passover privately according to the prescribed rites. But on the day of the Sabbath, from evening until the appointed time, he would spend the time in vigils and the accustomed prayers; and on the following day, he would assemble in the church with all the rest and partake of the mysteries. At first this escaped the notice of the multitude; but as time went on, because he became notorious for this reason, he had many imitators, especially among the Phrygians and Galatians, with whom it is a native custom to celebrate the feast in this manner. ^D Later, having openly apostatized, he received the episcopacy over those who were persuaded by him, as will be told in its proper time. But for my part, I am amazed at this man, and at those who followed him, that they introduced such a novelty: since the ancient Hebrews, as Eusebius records, citing the testimony of Philo, Josephus, Aristobulus, and many others, sacrificed the Passover after the vernal equinox, when the sun was passing through the first twelfth part of the zodiac, which the Greeks call the Ram, and while the moon was completing its course in opposition, on the fourteenth day. For the Novatians themselves, who care for accuracy, insist that this was not the custom previously, neither for them nor for the founder of the sect, but that it was newly devised by those who had assembled in Pazucome; and even now in elder Rome, the like-minded...

VARIORUM ANNOTATIONES

^A members of their party, along with the other Romans, celebrate this festival. And it has never been found that they celebrated it otherwise in earlier times, when they followed the traditions of the apostles Peter and Paul. Furthermore, the Samaritans, who are most zealous observers of the Mosaic law, do not suffer themselves to celebrate this festival until the new fruits have reached maturity. For this festival is called in the law the feast of the First Fruits; wherefore, while the new fruits are not yet seen, it is unlawful to celebrate the festival. Hence it is absolutely necessary that the vernal equinox should have passed. And I greatly wonder at those who in this matter imitate the Jews, that they did not rather prefer the ancient custom among them. Moreover, besides these and those who in Asia are called Quartodecimans, all other heresies, as I suppose, observe this holy day in the same manner as the Romans and the Egyptians. But the Quartodecimans, indeed, celebrate the festival on the fourteenth day ^B along with the Jews: whence they obtained this appellation. The Novatians, however, celebrate the day of the Resurrection. Yet they too follow the Jews, and fall into the same practice as the Quartodecimans, except that whenever the fourteenth day of the moon does not fall upon the first day of the week, they are later than the Jews by as many days as it happens that the coming Sunday lags behind the fourteenth day of the moon. But the Montanists, whom they commonly call Pepuzites and Phrygians, have devised a certain foreign method, according to which they celebrate Passover. For they find fault with those who in this matter observe the course of the moon too inquisitively; and they affirm that for those who desire to regulate these things rightly, only the solar cycles are to be followed. They define each month as consisting of thirty ^C days; and they decree that the first month begins from the vernal equinox, which according to the Romans is called the ninth day before the Kalends of April, because, they say, on that day the two luminaries were created, by which times and years are denoted. And this is demonstrated by the fact that the moon meets the sun by an octaeteris, and that the new moon happens for both at the same time. Insofar as the octaeteris of the lunar course is completed in ninety-nine months, and in two thousand nine hundred and twenty-two days, in which the sun completes its eight courses, reckoning three hundred and sixty days for each year, and in addition the fourth part of one day. For from the ninth day before the Kalends of April, ^D [the text continues without interruption].

VARIORUM ANNOTATIONES. (38) [Should it be read: “new fruits have not yet appeared” etc. ...] (39) [Variant reading in the Codex Fuketia: “happens” with a slight difference. In Nicephorus, however, it is read as “happens.”] (40) [James Ussher, in his Dissertation on the solar year of the Macedonians and Asians, ch. 2, writes that Sozomen is mistaken. For he contends that the Montanists used the months of the Asians, some of which had thirty days, others one day more.] (41) [Scholasticus seems to have read “the eighth.” Thus he translates: “And to begin first from the vernal equinox, which is according to the Romans the eighth day before the Kalends of April.” Nicephorus, however, changes nothing.] (42) [James Ussher, in the place cited above, long ago advised that the word “five” must be added, and that this error is not Sozomen’s, but of the scribes who omitted that word. Certainly Nicephorus, in book XII, describing this passage of Sozomen, has the word “five.” Moreover, the epilogism of the days of the Octaeteris sufficiently indicates that the word must necessarily be added here.]

VARIORUM. [Perhaps it should be read as "as by necessity... not exceeding," which reading agrees with Socrates, who, speaking of the same matter, says, book V, chapter 22: "The Samaritans always celebrate this feast after the equinox," W. LOWTH.]

^A and the year 306 are designated. And this is shown from the fact that the moon concurs with the sun every eighth year, and both contain the beginning of the new month at the same time. For the lunar octaeteris is completed in ninety-nine months, and in two thousand nine hundred and twenty-two days. In which span of days the sun completes the cycles of eight years, calculating three hundred and sixty-five days to each individual year, and in addition the quadrant of one day. For from the ninth day before the Kalends of April, as from the beginning of the creation of the sun and the first month, they calculate the fourteenth day of which mention is made in the holy Books: and this they say is the eighth day before the Ides of April. On which very day they perpetually celebrate the Pasch, if the day of the resurrection happens to fall on the same day. But if not, they celebrate the festival on the following Lord’s day. For it is written, as they say, from the fourteenth day to the twenty-first.

CHAP. XIX.

A narrative, highly worthy of knowledge, of the rites of different peoples and Churches, by the author.

These, then, were the discrepancies in the observance of this feast. Moreover, it seems to me that Victor, the bishop of the Romans at that time, and Polycarp of Smyrna, most wisely resolved the controversy that had formerly arisen regarding this matter. ^B For because the bishops of the West did not consider it right to dishonor the tradition of Paul and Peter; but those from Asia, ^C [followed] John the Evangelist...

^D [This section contains "VALESII ANNOTATIONES" and "VARIORUM" notes; refer to the provided instructions regarding apparatus and notes.]

from Asia, [followed] John the Evangelist... ^A It was decided by common consent that individuals, while celebrating the feast as they had been accustomed, should in no way separate from mutual communion with each other. For it was thought to be foolish, and not without reason, for them to be separated from one another for the sake of customs, when they were in agreement upon the essential points of religion. For indeed, it is not possible to find the same traditions in all things identical, even if they be of one mind, in all the Churches. Certainly, in the province of Scythia, although there are many cities, there is but one bishop for them all. In other provinces, however, there are sometimes bishops ordained even in villages, as I have learned is the case among the Arabs and the Cypriots, and among the Novatians and Montanists who are in Phrygia. At Rome, the deacons to this day are no more than seven, according to the likeness of those ordained by the apostles, from whose number was Stephen, the first to suffer martyrdom. ^B Among others, however, the number of these is not fixed. Furthermore, at Rome, the Alleluia is sung once every year, on the first day of the Paschal festival, so that many of the Romans are accustomed to use this as an oath, that they might be accounted worthy to hear and sing this hymn. Neither the bishop ^C nor any other person teaches in the church there. But at Alexandria, only the bishop of the city does so. They say that this custom did not exist previously, and only began after Arius...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(45) "Once at Rome." Baronius objects to this under the year 384, no. 28. But the arguments he attempts to prove this with seem to me of little substance. Therefore, I would prefer to follow the authority of Sozomen here, especially since Cassiodorus has recorded his words in the *Historia Tripartita*. He surely would never have done so had he not known that this was an ancient custom of the Roman Church, namely, that the Alleluia was sung in it only once, on the day of Easter.

(46) "Alleluia." Augustine writes thus concerning the Alleluia: "For it is the 'Hallelujah' which it is our custom to sing solemnly at a certain time, according to the ancient tradition of the Church. Nor do we sing 'Hallelujah' at these certain times without a mystery. We sing 'Hallelujah' on certain days, indeed, but we think of it every day." In his *Enarration on Psalm* 100, he clearly testifies that the Alleluia was sung after the days of Lent, from Easter until Pentecost. Likewise in his *Enarration on Psalm* 148, where he further indicates that Christians at that time said "Alleluia" to one another in greeting, as I suspect. "Now therefore, brethren, we exhort you that you may praise God. And this is what we all say to you when we say 'Hallelujah.' You say, 'Praise the Lord' to another; he says it to you. While all exhort you, all do what they exhort."

(47) "As an oath for many Romans." Who were accustomed to swear by their vows. Thus Julian, when addressing the army, used to swear: "So may I bring the Persians under the yoke: so may I restore the shattered Roman world," as Ammianus Marcellinus writes in book xxv, page 270. See the note I made on that passage, if you like. From these, furthermore, must be understood the passage of John Chrysostom in his homily *To the People of Antioch*, where he introduces Theodosius the emperor speaking thus... ^D that it was an act of constant prayer for me to see that city, and I made this an oath to everyone.

(48) "Neither the bishop, nor any other person teaches in the church at Rome." It is requested that it be understood, as Sozomen says, that at Rome, neither the bishop nor anyone else held a sermon for the people in church. And there is no reason for anyone to suspect that Sozomen is mistaken here. For Cassiodorus, who lived at Rome and had frequented the Roman Church, reflected this custom of the Roman Church in his *Historia Tripartita*. Which he surely would not have done if he had discovered it to be false. There exist, indeed, sermons of Pope Leo which he held at Rome to the people. But that is more recent than Sozomen. Nor do I think that the sermons of any Roman pontiff held to the people before Pope Leo can be produced. Perhaps someone will object to the sermon of Pope Liberius which he held at Rome in the church of the blessed Peter, on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, in the presence of the Bishop of Bologna, to Marcellina the sister of Ambrose and other virgins who were then virgins...

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

* "The number of these is not fixed." If, however, there is any credence to Abraham Ecchellensis, Severus of Alexandria, who collected the *Lives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, asserts that only seven deacons were appointed at Alexandria by divine Mark, as Beveridge noted on the xv canon of the Council of Neocaesarea.

* "Neither the bishop, nor any other..." The contrary is gathered from the Homilies of Gregory the Great on Ezekiel and the Gospels. Stillingfleet, *Casuum Ecclesiasticorum* part 1, p. 203. But these are more recent than Sozomen. The Rev. R. P. D. Hooper, in his *Dissertatio de Quadragesima*, part 1, cap. 9, amends by conjecture [the text] to read "or some other person." W. Lowth.

being a presbyter, introduced innovations in regard to doctrine. There is also another thing among the Alexandrians ^A which is strange. When the Gospels are being read, the bishop does not stand up; a practice which I have neither seen nor heard of anywhere else. And there, only the archdeacon reads that sacred book, whereas elsewhere it is the deacons, and in many churches, the priests alone. On feast days, however, the bishops read it, as in Constantinople on the first day of the Resurrection [(49)] festival. And as for the period called Lent, which precedes this, in which the multitude fast, some compute it as six weeks, such as the Illyrians and those of the West, and all Libya and Egypt together with those in Palestine. Others count seven, as in Constantinople and the surrounding nations as far as Phoenicia. Others, again, fast for three blocks of time intermittently within those six or seven weeks. Some unite three weeks together immediately preceding the festival; others only two, as those who hold to the views of Montanus. ^B Indeed, the time and manner of holding assemblies is not the same among all. For all assemble on the Sabbath even as on the Lord’s Day, as in Constantinople and almost everywhere; but not so in Rome and Alexandria. In many cities and villages of Egypt, contrary to the usage received by all, they assemble on the Sabbath evening; and, having already dined, they partake of the mysteries. You will also find that they do not all use the same prayers, psalms, and readings at the same time [(50)]. Thus, we have learned that the so-called Revelation of Peter, which was judged by the ancients to be entirely spurious, is even now read once each year in some churches of Palestine, on the day of Preparation, ^C which the people observe with great devotion in memory of the Savior's passion; while the work now circulated as the Revelation [(51)] of Paul the Apostle, which no ancient ever saw, is praised by most of the monks. Upon this…

^A Some, however, affirm that this book was discovered during the times of the emperor of whom we are speaking. They say that at Tarsus in Cilicia, in the house of Paul, a marble chest was found underground by divine revelation, in which this book was hidden. But when I inquired about this, a certain Cilician, a presbyter of the church at Tarsus—whose grey hair indicated that he was already of a great age—told me it was false. He said that he had learned of nothing of the sort having happened among them, and that he suspected it had been fabricated by heretics. But let it suffice to have said these things on this matter. Many other rites, moreover, are to be found throughout cities and villages, which those who have been nurtured in these customs deem it impious and intolerable to transgress, out of reverence for those who first introduced them, or for those who succeeded them. It must be supposed that the same thing happened to men regarding this festival, for the sake of which I have been led into this discussion about these matters.

CAP. XVI. Regarding the increase of the Catholic religion, and the complete destruction of the temples of the idols, and the rising of the river Nile which occurred at that time.

^B When the followers of other opinions were divided and distracted among themselves, as has been said, the Catholic Church was growing more and more daily; for very many were coming over to it, both from the heretics who were at variance among themselves, and especially from the multitude of the pagans. For when the emperor observed that, contrary to the custom of the preceding time, ^C his subjects were being drawn to the ceremonies of their ancestors and to the places worshipped by them, quite early in the beginning of his reign he forbade anyone to approach those places. At length, indeed, he destroyed many of them. Thus the pagans, being deprived of their sacred edifices, became accustomed with the passage of time to attend the churches. For it was not permitted to sacrifice secretly after the manner of the Gentiles without danger. But against those who dared to allow such things, a law had been proposed which threatened them with the penalty of death and the proscription of their property. ^D At this time, they say, the river of Egypt began to overflow more slowly than usual.

to sacrifice to the river according to the custom of their ancestors. ^A The prefect of Egypt, suspecting that they were preparing for sedition, reported the matter to the emperor. The Emperor, however, having learned the situation, said it was better to remain faithful to God than to prefer the flow of the Nile and the fertility resulting from it to piety. "May that river never flow," he said, "if it is truly possible for it to be induced by sorceries, to delight in sacrifices, and to pollute with the flow of blood the waters that descend from the divine paradise." ^B Not long after, the Nile, having overflowed greatly, spread its currents to the higher places as well. And when it had reached the degree that is full and rarely attained, yet the water continued to rise, the Egyptians fell into a contrary fear, and they feared that it might flood the city of Alexander and a part of Libya. It is said that at that time the Greeks of Alexandria, indignant at what had happened contrary to their expectation, mocked them by shouting in the theatres that the river, like an old man, had become senile and incontinent. For this reason, very many of the Egyptians condemned their ancestral superstition and turned to the Christian religion. And this, as I have learned, is how these things occurred.

CAP. XXI. Of the finding of the head of John the Baptist and Forerunner, and of the things that happened concerning it.

^C About the same time, the head of John the Baptist, which Herodias had once requested from Herod the Tetrarch, was brought to Constantinople. It is said that it was found among certain monks of the sect of the Macedonians, who at first had lived in Jerusalem, but afterwards had migrated to Cilicia. In the times of the previous emperor, when Mardonius the eunuch, who was the superintendent of the imperial palace, had reported the matter, Valens had ordered that the head be brought to Constantinople. And those who had been sent for this purpose, having placed it in a public vehicle ^D

^A began to transport it. But when they arrived at Pantichium, a place in the territory of Chalcedon, the mules which were drawing the vehicle refused to go any further; and this, despite the drivers threatening them and the coachman striking them severely with his whip. When they achieved nothing, and the matter seemed strange and altogether divine both to all the bystanders and to the emperor himself, they deposited this sacred head in the village of Cosilaus. For it happened to be in the neighborhood, and was the property of one Mardonius. About this time, whether by the impulse of God or of the prophet himself, the emperor Theodosius arrived at this village. And since he wished to take the relics of the Baptist, they say that Matrona alone opposed him; she was a consecrated virgin, and she followed the head as its minister and guardian. ^B Since, therefore, she resisted with all her might, the emperor deemed that she ought not to be compelled, but strove by entreaties to gain permission for the relics to be removed. When she had with difficulty consented, believing that the emperor’s attempt would be as fruitless as what had occurred in the times of Valens, the emperor took the chest in which the relics were deposited, wrapping it in the purple robe with which he was clothed, and carried it away with him. Returning, he deposited it in the suburb of the city of Constantinople which is called the Seventh, having built there a very large and most beautiful basilica in honor of God. But Matrona, although he had long and earnestly entreated her and promised her great gifts, he could never persuade to change her opinion. For she was of the sect of the Macedonians. Nevertheless, Vincentius the presbyter, ^C who was of the same sect as Matrona and observed the same reverence for the chest of the prophet, and was officiating [liturgically] near it, followed immediately, and communicated with those of the Catholic Church, although, as the Macedonians assert, he had previously declared on oath that he would never withdraw from their opinion, yet in the end he publicly decreed that if the Baptist chose to follow the emperor, he himself would also communicate with him without any delay, as there was no difference. This man was Persian by race; and under the reign of Constantius, when a persecution against the Christians broke out in Persia, having taken flight along with his cousin Addas, he came into Roman territory. And he indeed was enrolled in the clergy, and ascended to the rank of the presbyterate. Addas, however, having taken a wife, benefited the Church greatly, leaving behind him a son, Auxentius, a man most faithful ^D toward God and most earnest toward his friends; he was moderate in his life, and a lover of literature, and well-versed in the histories written by the Greeks and by ecclesiastical authors. His character was modest, even though he was agreeable to the emperor and those about him, and had obtained a distinguished military command. But there is a long account of this man among the most esteemed monks and serious men who had experience of him. But Matrona, until her death, remained in the village of Cosilaus.

and lived most holily and religiously, as a teacher of sacred virgins, many of whom I have learned are still living today, conducting themselves in a manner not at all unworthy of Matrona's instruction. ^B

CAP. XXII. On the death of the emperor Valentinian the Younger, and the tyranny of Eugenius. Also, on the prophecy of John, the monk in the Thebaid.

Theodosius, indeed, while he governed the empire of the East in peace, was intent on these matters, and sedulously worshipped the divine Being. In the meantime, news is brought that the emperor Valentinian had perished by the noose. It was said that this death had been prepared for him by the chamberlain eunuchs and certain others who were in the palace, and by Arbogastes, who was placed in command of his troops, because he found the youth opposing him in the administration of the government, and resenting many of the things which seemed right to those men. Others, however, believe that he caused his own death, as he was attempting things which were not right ^C in the heat of his youth, and being forbidden; and for this reason, he did not consider life worth living, because, being an emperor, he was not permitted to do what he wished. Indeed, they say that this youth, because of the beauty of his person and the excellence of his royal character, seemed worthy of the empire, and that in greatness of soul and justice he would have surpassed his own father, if he had attained to man's estate; and being such a one, he died in this manner.

Eugenius, a certain man not well-inclined toward the religion of the Christians, broke into the government, and put on the insignia of the empire. He hoped, moreover, that he would firmly retain the principate, being led on by the words of certain men who boasted that they knew the future from certain sacrificial victims, and the inspection of entrails, and the observation ^D of the stars. Many others, too, of those in positions of authority among the Romans were intent on these matters, and Flavianus, the then prefect, a man of letters, and one who seemed prudent in political affairs; furthermore, one who calculated future events with precision through a knowledge of every kind of divination. For by this he most of all persuaded Eugenius to prepare for war, [telling him that it was fated for him]

to possess the empire and that victory in battle would be his, and that there would be a change in the religion of the Christians. ^A Eugenius, beguiled by these hopes, raised a vast army and occupied and fortified the passes toward Italy—which the Romans call the Julian Alps—since they offered only a single narrow passage, fenced in on both sides by steep and very high mountains.

Theodosius, however, reflecting on how the war against him would turn out, and whether it was better to be the first to attack him or to await his coming, determined to seek counsel on this matter from John, a monk living in the Thebaid, whom I have mentioned above as having been very famous at that time for his foreknowledge of future events. He therefore sent Eutropius, one of the palace eunuchs, whom he trusted most, to Egypt, to bring him, if possible; but if not, at least to learn from him what was to be done. When he arrived at John’s [cell], he was unable to persuade him to go to the emperor. But upon his return, he reported that John had said that he would win the war, and that after he had destroyed the tyrant, he would depart from this life in Italy after the victory. ^B The outcome proved both of these things to have been truly spoken.

CHAPTER XXIII.

Concerning the exaction of taxes, the pulling down of imperial statues in Antioch, and the embassy of the archbishop Flavian.

In the meantime, ^C on account of the necessity of the impending war, it seemed good to the magistrates in charge of such matters that heavier taxes than usual be exacted from the provincials. For this reason, the populace of Antioch was incited to sedition and pulled down the statues of the emperor and his wife; and after throwing a rope [about them], they dragged them through the city.

adding, moreover, contumelious words, as is wont to happen ^A when a multitude is exacerbated. But when the emperor intended to destroy many of the Antiochenes, the populace was struck with terror at the mere rumor of this. And when their fury had subsided, they repented of their actions; and as if the evils that had been reported were already present, all groaned and wept, and besought God to appease the anger of the sovereign, using certain mournful melodies for that supplication. At which time also Flavianus, the bishop of the Antiochenes, discharging an embassy on behalf of his citizens, while the emperor was still moved by indignation, persuaded the youths who were accustomed to sing at the emperor's table to sing the chants which the Antiochenes used in their supplications. By this act, the emperor is said to have been swayed to clemency and overcome by pity, to have immediately cast aside his wrath and returned to favor with the Antiochenes, having bedewed with tears the cup which he happened to be holding in his hands. Furthermore, they say that on the night that preceded the day on which the ^B sedition took place, a female spectre was seen, of incredible magnitude and terrifying to behold, which, running along on high through the streets of the city, was lashing the air with a whip of harsh sound, such as those who labor in such spectacles are wont to use to incite beasts to fury. Thus did some destructive demon insidiously stir up this sedition. And a great slaughter would have surely followed, had not the emperor appeased his wrath, revering the priest's intercession for the sake of his own piety.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning the victory which the emperor Theodosius reported over Eugenius.

Now when he had prepared everything necessary for the war in abundance, he proclaimed his younger son, Honorius, Augustus. For he had already previously declared Arcadius Augustus. And having left both ^C in Constantinople, he himself, with his forces, set out from the eastern parts and hastened toward the provinces of the Western Empire. A ^D vast multitude of auxiliaries followed him, from the barbarians who dwelt near the Danube. And it is said that then, departing from Constantinople, when he had arrived at the seventh milestone, he prayed to God in the church which he had built there in honor of John the Baptist; and asked for a favorable outcome for himself and for his army.

and that he might call upon the Baptist as his ally. Having prayed these things, he set out for Italy. And having attacked the Alps, he captured the first outposts. After passing the summit of the pass, just as he was making his descent, he saw the plain filled with cavalry and infantry; and not far behind them, at the crest of the mountain, many of the enemy were remaining for the time being. When those who had first crossed began to engage with those on the plain, a fierce and doubtful battle was joined. ^B While the army was still in the field, the emperor, considering how few they were in the strength of men, and that they could not possibly be saved if they wished, with those who had occupied the height at their backs attacking them, flung himself face down upon the ground and prayed with tears. And God immediately heard him, as the event itself showed. For the commanders of those who were occupying the summit sent messengers to him, promising that they would be his allies if he allowed them to hold an honorable rank under him. Since he could not find paper and ink, he took a tablet which one of those standing by happened to have, and wrote for them the rank of a distinguished and suitable military command, which they would possess under him if they fulfilled their promise. And they, on these conditions, joined the emperor. But since neither side was yet yielding, and the battle was being fought fiercely on both sides with equal fortune, a huge wind, such as we have never known before, rushed against the enemies from the opposite side, ^C throwing their ranks into confusion. The missiles and javelins which were being thrown at the Romans, as if striking against solid bodies, were turned back onto the very bodies of those who threw them. Finally, their shields were snatched from their hands and hurled against them along with dirt and dust. Being thus stripped of their weapons, the majority were immediately destroyed, while some, having escaped in flight for a short time, were captured not long after. Eugenius, having run to the feet of the emperor, begged that his life be spared; but while he was supplicating, he was beheaded by one of the soldiers. Arbogastes, fleeing after the battle, took his own life. Moreover, it is said that at the very time when this battle was being waged, a certain demoniac in the temple of God which was at the Seventh [milestone], where the emperor had poured out his prayers before setting out for the war, was snatched up on high ^D by a demon and began to heap insults upon John the Baptist, taunting him as if he were the one whose head had been cut off, and shouting: "You are the one who defeats me and plots against my army." Those who were present, as is to be expected, since there was great anxiety among everyone concerning this war, and a desire to hear and say something new, were astonished and noted the day, upon which, not long after, they learned from those who had participated in the battle that these things had happened. And such is the account of how these things came to pass.

Chapter XXV. Concerning the boldness of speech of blessed Ambrose towards the Emperor Theodosius, and the massacre of the Thessalonians; and a narrative of other righteous deeds of this holy man.

^A After the overthrow of Eugenius, the emperor entered Milan and proceeded to the church to pray. When he had arrived at the doors, Ambrose, the bishop of the city, met him; and taking hold of his purple robe before the whole multitude, he said, “Stay your step. For it is not permitted for a man profane because of his offenses, and carrying hands polluted with unjust slaughter, to cross the threshold of the sanctuary before performing repentance, or to approach the communion of the divine mysteries.” The emperor, truly admiring the boldness of the priest, came to himself, and stung by the goads of repentance, he departed.

^B The occasion of the sin was as follows: Butheric, who was then the commander of the soldiers in Illyricum, had seen a cupbearer and, out of lust, had attempted to commit an act of abuse upon him. He was consequently seized and held in custody. But when a notable horse race was about to be held in the Circus, the people of Thessalonica demanded that he be released, as one necessary for the contest. When they achieved nothing, they fell into a grievous sedition, and in the end they slew Butheric. When this matter was reported, the emperor fell into a measureless rage and ordered a certain number of those who should happen to be met to be slaughtered. From this the city was filled with many unjust murders. For foreigners who had just arrived by sea, or had reached the city by land, were unexpectedly seized. ^C And many lamentable sufferings occurred, among which was this: a merchant, while his two sons were being seized, brought himself forward and begged that he himself be put to death, while those two be saved; and he offered as the reward for this favor all the gold he possessed to the soldiers. The soldiers, having compassion on the man in his calamity, accepted his plea in exchange for one of the sons, whichever he should choose; but they said that to release both, as the number would be deficient, was not without danger to themselves. The father, looking at both his sons, lamenting and weeping, could not endure the choice of either; but remaining in doubt, he persisted in dying along with them, being equally overcome by the affection for each one. And

I have heard that at that time, a good servant was also eager to be put to death in place of his master who was being led to execution. ^A Since such evils and many others, as is to be expected, had occurred, Ambrose blamed the emperor, barred him from the church, and left him excommunicate. Publicly, he himself also confessed his sin in the presence of the church; and during all that time which had been appointed for him for repentance, as one who was mourning, he did not use imperial attire. Moreover, he enacted a law (75) for those who carry out the emperor's commands to defer the punishment of those condemned to death until the thirtieth day, so that in the intervening time the emperor's wrath might soften, and as the anger subsided, there would be room for mercy and repentance. ^B Many other things also were accomplished by this Ambrose, worthy of the priesthood, which naturally are known only to the local inhabitants. Among his most notable deeds, I also learned of this: It was the custom for emperors to pray inside the sanctuary in the church, being separated from the boundaries of the people for the sake of honor. ^C Perceiving this to be a result of flattery or a corruption of discipline, Ambrose assigned a place to the emperor in the church—the one before the chancel rails of the sanctuary—so that the emperor might have precedence over the people, but the priests might sit before him. This excellent practice was praised by Emperor Theodosius, and those who came after him confirmed it; and from that time on, we see it being observed even to this day. It seems necessary to me to include this deed of this man in my writing: A certain Greek, one of those in authority, was slandering Gratian and calling him unworthy of his father; and having submitted a record concerning these things, he was condemned to death. While he was being led to his punishment, Ambrose came to the palace, intending to plead for him. But through the haste of those...

who lay in wait for their own purposes, Gratian was entertaining himself with a spectacle of hunting, such as emperors are accustomed to provide, for private rather than public amusement; and as none of those stationed at the palace gates would announce his arrival, considering it untimely, he departed. When he had come to the gate through which the wild beasts were being led in, he entered secretly along with the hunters; nor did he relax or yield to the entreaties of Gratian and his courtiers until he had extorted from the emperor the indulgence by which the man sentenced to death was set free. He was, moreover, most diligent in observing ecclesiastical laws and in the discipline of his own clergy. And of the many things that were excellently done by him, let these be mentioned by me as a demonstration of the boldness which, for the sake of God, he possessed towards those in power.

Concerning the holy Donatus, bishop of Eurœa, and Theotimus, prelate of the Scythians

^B At this same time, many men shone as bishops in various parts of the world, as did Donatus of Eurœa (78) in Epirus; of whom it is testified by the local inhabitants that many other miracles were performed, especially that concerning the destruction of the dragon which lurked near the road by the place called Chamægephyrae, and used to snatch up sheep and goats and oxen, and horses and men as well. For he did not approach this beast carrying a sword or a spear, nor bearing any other weapon. But when he perceived it, and as it reared its head to rush at him, he signed the sign of the cross in the air toward it with his finger, and spat upon it.

The dragon, having received the spittle in its mouth, immediately fell down; and as it lay dead, its size was seen to be no less than that of the serpents reported to exist among the Indians. Indeed, as I have been informed, the inhabitants of the region drew it off with eight yokes of oxen to a neighboring field and burned it, lest in decaying it should pollute the air and cause a pestilential disease. For this Donatus there is a notable church tomb, having received its name from him. Near the church is a very abundant spring, which God, consenting to his prayers, brought forth there, although it had not existed before. For this place was entirely dry. It is said that at one time, having arrived there from a journey, when those who were with him were tormented by a lack of water, he dug into the earth with his hand and prayed to God; and immediately upon his prayer, an abundant supply of water gushed forth, which has not ceased from that time. Witnesses to this fact are those who inhabit the village of Euroea in the region of Epirus, where these things took place.

At the same time, Theotimus, a man nurtured in monastic philosophy, governed the Church of the Tomitani and of all Scythia; the Hunnish barbarians who lived around the Ister, admiring him for his virtue, called him the God of the Romans. For they had indeed experienced divine miracles in him. It is related, certainly, that as he was once traveling near the region of the barbarians who were there, some of them who were traveling by the same road happened to meet him on the way to Tomi. And when his companions were lamenting as if they were about to perish, he himself dismounted from his horse and prayed to God. Then the barbarians, not seeing him, nor his companions, nor the horses from which they had dismounted, passed them by. Furthermore, when those barbarians were ravaging the Scythians with frequent incursions, he converted them, fierce though they were by nature, to gentleness, receiving them with banquets and soothing them with gifts. ^C For this reason, a certain barbarian, suspecting him to be wealthy, devised a plan to capture him by treachery. Having prepared a snare and resting against his shield—as was his custom when speaking with enemies—he raised his right hand and intended to throw the rope at him, as if to drag him toward himself and his fellow tribesmen. But in the very attempt, his hand remained extended in the air just as it was. Nor was the barbarian freed from those invisible bonds until, through the intercession of others, Theotimus prayed to God for him.

They say, moreover, that he remained long-haired, in the habit in which he had first begun to practice philosophy. His diet was quite frugal; and as for food, he did not always take it at the same time, but when he happened to be hungry or thirsty. For it is, in my opinion, characteristic of a philosopher to yield to these things out of necessity, not out of luxury. ^D

CHAPTER XXVII. Concerning the holy Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, and a certain portion of his history.

^A Around this same time, Epiphanius was bishop of the metropolis of Cyprus. He was a man whom not only his manner of life proved illustrious for his virtues, but also the many wondrous things that God performed for him, both while he was alive and in honor of him after his death. For, uniquely, after he died—which did not occur while he was alive—it is said that at his tomb even now demons are driven away and certain healings take place. While he was among the living, many miracles are attributed to him, of which this one has reached us: because he was liberal toward the needy—those who had been reduced to poverty by shipwreck or any other misfortune—when he had long since exhausted his own property, he used the goods of the Church lavishly for those in need. His church was indeed most opulent. For many from diverse parts of the world who desired to spend their wealth on pious uses provided these things to the church under his care while they were alive and left them to it when they died. They trusted that he, being a faithful steward and lover of God, would distribute the gifts donated by them in accordance with their own judgment and will.

^B It is said, then, that once, when but few funds remained, the steward of the church grew angry and rebuked him as a spendthrift; yet he did not even then relax his accustomed munificence toward the poor. When everything had been spent, someone suddenly approached the room where the steward stayed and handed over to him a purse containing many gold coins. Since neither the one who had given it nor the one who had sent it was known, and it seemed extraordinary that any unknown person should offer himself to give such a sum of money, everyone then concluded that the deed was divine.

^C But I wish to recount another story told about him. I hear that Gregory the Wonderworker, who once governed the Church of Neocaesarea, performed miracles, and I quite believe it. But one should not, for that reason, disbelieve that the same thing was done by Epiphanius. For not only the Apostle Peter raised the dead, but also John the Evangelist at Ephesus, and the daughters of Philip at Hierapolis. And we find that many of the men of old, as well as those of our own memory who are beloved of God, have performed the same things many times.

What I propose to say is of this kind: Two beggars, having watched for Epiphanius as he was approaching, and attempting to obtain something more, arranged ^D that one of them, having stretched himself out on the ground, pretended to be dead; meanwhile, the other stood by weeping, as if lamenting the death of a companion, and complaining of his poverty, saying that he was unable to bury him. Epiphanius prayed that the one lying there might be at rest, and having provided the necessities for the burial, he said to the weeping man, "Take care of the burial, and stop crying, my son. For he will not rise again now."

^A What has happened is inevitable, and must be endured with fortitude." And Epiphanius indeed went away after saying these words. But when no one was any longer in sight, the beggar stood up and began to kick the one lying there with his foot, praising him for having pretended to be dead so remarkably, and said, "Get up, and let us spend this day happily from your labor." But as he continued to lie there just the same, and neither heard him shouting nor felt him moving him with all his might, he ran quickly and overtook the bishop, confessed the fraud of them both, and weeping and tearing his hair, begged that his companion might be recalled to life. But Epiphanius dismissed the man, urging him to bear with an equal mind what had happened. For God did not wish to undo what had been done; desiring, I think, to persuade men absolutely that those who behave in such a way toward His servants are contriving a fraud against Him who hears and sees everything. ^B

Chapter 28. On Acacius, bishop of Beroea, and on Zeno and Ajax, men illustrious for their virtue.

But as for these things, I have heard them in this way. From that same time Acacius also became distinguished among the bishops, having already long before been entrusted with the episcopate of Berœa in Syria. Concerning him many things worthy to be known can be told; for, having been trained in the monastic life from his early youth, he lived most blamelessly. Yet he gave this greatest proof of virtue, in that he kept his episcopal residence perpetually open, ^C so that it was permitted for strangers and citizens alike, whenever they wished, to see him even at the time of food and sleep. I admire this most of all; for he lived either in such a way as to possess confidence in himself, or, fortifying himself against the inclination of nature toward vice, he devised this: that by being constantly suspicious that he might be caught by those who might arrive unexpectedly, he kept constant watch over himself, and might never deviate from his duty, but always be intent upon honorable deeds. At the same time, Zeno and Ajax, brothers, were famous; who in the beginning did not pursue philosophy in solitude, but in the city of Gaza by the sea, which place is also called Majuma. Moreover, both were very fierce defenders of the Catholic faith, and confessed God courageously, so that they were often ^D treated most harshly and cruelly by the pagans. It is said that Ajax married a most beautiful woman, but that he only came together with her three times in the whole of his time, and fathered three children.

After this, separating himself from his wife for the sake of such intercourse, he lived a monastic life; and he trained two of his sons for divine things and celibacy, but the third for marriage. He governed the Church of Botolius quite excellently and temperately. Zeno, ^A while still young, having renounced the world and marriage, became most diligent in the ministry of God. Indeed, they say—or rather, we ourselves have seen him—while he was governing the Church at Majuma, though he was already aged and about one hundred years old, he never once absented himself from matins or vesper hymns or any other divine service of God, unless illness prevented him. Leading his life in monastic philosophy, he would weave linen garments on a solitary loom, and from this he obtained necessities for himself and provided for others; and he did not cease that work until the end of his life, although he surpassed all the other bishops of that province in antiquity, and presided over a Church most distinguished in both the multitude of its people and its wealth. But I have mentioned these men as a proof of the clerics of that time; for it would be a laborious task to go through them all, since the majority were good men. And God bore witness to their lives by readily hearing their prayers and working many miracles through them. ^B

CAP. XXIX. On the finding of the relics of the prophets Abacuc and Michæas, and on the death of Emperor Theodosius the Great.

The Church everywhere, being led by such men, ^C raised up both the laity and the clergy to harmony, virtue, and zeal. And not only did these things dignify our religion, but also the finding, about this time, of Abacuc and, not long after him, Michæas—men who were among the foremost prophets. As I have learned, the bodies of both were revealed in a divine dream to Zebennus, who at that time held the bishopric of the Church of Eleutheropolis. ^D For indeed, the name of this place was Cela, the city formerly called Ceila, near which Abacuc was found. And Berathsatia is a place about ten stadia from the city.

^A which place was the tomb of Micah: which the inhabitants indeed, not knowing what they were saying, called a "faithful monument," naming it in their native tongue Nephsameemana. And these things, suitable for magnifying the glory of the Christian religion, came to pass in the times of this emperor. But after the victory won over Eugenius, Emperor Theodosius, while staying at Milan, was seized by illness; and having immediately recalled to mind the prediction of John the monk, he concluded that he would soon die. Therefore, he summoned his son Honorius from Constantinople with all speed. Having seen him present, he appeared to feel better, so much so that he went forth to the spectacle of the circus games. But after lunch, as the illness suddenly worsened, he ordered his child to preside over the exhibition of the spectacles. In the following night he migrated from this life, when Olybrius and Probinus were brothers residing in the consulship.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ...dixisset. Although Epiphanius in his book *On the Lives of the Prophets* says that Micah had a tomb in the village of Morathi, from whence he was born, which was well-known even in his own age. ... I found written, yet the Vulgate reading is confirmed by Epiphanius the Scholastic, who says that this tomb was called by the natives [the tomb] of Micah, "O faithful memory!" From which it appears that Epiphanius read here [Greek text]. For thus he expressed this passage of Sozomen: ^B ...

HERMIA SOZOMEN OF SALAMIS ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK VIII.

^C CAP. I.

Concerning the successors of Theodosius the Great: and how Rufinus the praetorian prefect was slain. Also concerning the bishops of the greater cities, and concerning the dissension of the heretics: and an account of Sisinius, bishop of the Novatians.

In this manner did Theodosius, having greatly enlarged the Church, depart from the living, being about sixty years old.

and he reigned for sixteen years. He left as successors to his empire, in the eastern parts, his elder son Arcadius, and in the western parts, Honorius. Both held the same faith as their father. At that time, Siricius presided over the Roman Church after Damasus, ^A Nectarius over that of Constantinople, Theophilus governed the Alexandrian Church, and Flavianus and John held the bishoprics of Antioch and Jerusalem respectively. During this same time, the barbarian Huns devastated Armenia and certain regions at the beginning of the East. It was said, however, that Rufinus, the Praetorian Prefect of the East, had secretly summoned them to disturb the state of the empire, since he was even otherwise suspected of desiring to seize power. But he was destroyed not long after for this very reason. For when the army had ^B returned from the war against Eugenius, and the emperor, as was the custom, had gone out to meet it before the city of Constantinople, the soldiers, without any delay, killed Rufinus. Moreover, for this reason, the Christian religion received even greater increase. For the emperors were persuaded that it was to be ascribed to piety that their father had indeed gained the victory over the despots, and that Rufinus, who had plotted against their rule, had been so easily extinguished. And therefore, they confirmed with a more willing spirit those things which had been decreed by former emperors for the benefit of the churches, and added their own gifts and benefits. The subjects, conforming themselves to the example of the princes, passed easily—the pagans to the Christian religion, and the heretics to the Catholic Church. ^C But the Arians and the Eunomians, because they dissented among themselves for the reasons I have previously mentioned, were diminished more and more every day. For from their mutual discord, many judged that they did not think rightly concerning God, and turned themselves toward those who were of the same faith as the emperors. Those in Constantinople who held the opinions of Macedonius were also hindered at that time by not having a bishop. For from the time that they were deprived of the churches under the reign of Constantius by Eudoxius and those around him, they were led by presbyters alone.

But the Novatians, although some of them were disturbed by the question concerning Easter, which Sabbatius had shortly before stirred up, remained for the most part in ^A their own church in tranquility. For they were not subject to the same penalties and laws as the other heresies, since they confessed that the Trinity is consubstantial, and at that time, due to the excellence of their bishops, they were bound together by a firmer concord. For after the episcopacy of Agelius, they had obtained Marcian as their prelate, an excellent man. Upon his death, which happened at that time, ^B Sisinnius received his bishopric; he was a man who was most learned, skilled in both philosophical doctrines and the sacred Scriptures, and ready for debate, to such a degree that even Eunomius, who was celebrated for that reputation and cultivated this art especially, often refused to engage in discussions with him. In his life he was chaste and upright, so that he was above all slander, yet his manner of living was delicate and luxurious; so much so that those who did not know him could not be persuaded that he was nevertheless temperate in the midst of such luxuries. Furthermore, he was pleasant in his manners and agreeable in his associations; and for this reason he was beloved by the bishops of the catholic Church and by magistrates and every learned man. Indeed, he possessed an exquisite skill in joking with grace, in ^C patiently accepting jokes, and in doing both without giving offense; moreover, he was clever at answering questions facetiously and quickly. Therefore, being asked once why, when he was a bishop, he bathed twice a day, he said: "Because I do not manage to bathe three times." Again, because he always wore white clothing, he was mocked by a certain man of the catholic Church. To whom he replied: "Where, indeed, is it written that one must put on black clothing?" When the man was at a loss, Sisinnius added: "You could never show that. But for me, the most wise Solomon instructs me, saying: *Let your garments be always white* (Eccl. ix, 8). And Christ himself is seen in the Gospels in white robes, and he showed Moses and Elias to the apostles clothed in such a garment." Not only this, but I think the following of the things Sisinnius said is also graceful. Leontius, the bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, was staying at Constantinople. Having been deposed ^D from the churches of the Novatians in those parts (96), he came to Sisinnius asking to recover them. When he did not give them back, and was railing against the Novatians as being unworthy to hold church services, saying that they abolished repentance and the mercy of God, "But indeed," said Sisinnius, "no one repents as I do." When Leontius asked in what manner, he answered, "Because I have seen you." And they remember many other things said by him quite aptly. They say that many of his pointed remarks are in circulation.

[index: entries preserved]

^A Indeed, as he was most excellent at acting, he was capable of capturing his audience with his voice, his steady gaze, and a most graceful countenance. But let this be said about the kind of man he was, as a demonstration of the nature he possessed, as well as his training and way of life.

CAP. II. On the training, way of life, conduct, and wisdom of the great John Chrysostom, and how he was raised to the Constantinopolitan throne, and how Theophilus of Alexandria opposed him.

^B At about this time, Nectarius having died, and while there was deliberation as to who ought to be ordained in his place, some men were voting for one person and others for another, and the same did not seem right to all; thus, time was being wasted to no purpose. There was a certain presbyter in Antioch by the Orontes named John, born of a noble family, a man of integrity, a skilled master of speech and persuasion, and the most preeminent of the orators of his time, as Libanius, the Syrian sophist, attested. For when he was about to die, and his friends were asking him who would succeed in his place, it is said that he replied, "John, had not the Christians stolen him away." ^C He influenced many of those who heard him in the ^A Church toward virtue, and made them like-minded with him regarding the Divine. For because he lived a divine life, he instilled within his hearers an emulation of his own virtue. And he easily moved them to this, in such a way that he did not compel them to hold similar opinions to his own through any artifice or power of rhetoric, but rather because he held the truth, he explained the holy Scriptures sincerely; for speech that is adorned by deeds naturally appears worthy of belief. But without these, it proves the speaker to be a hypocrite and a denouncer of his own words, even if he is diligent in teaching. Now, he excelled in both of these respects. For he practiced a temperate way of life and a precise conduct, while his speech was clear and possessed of brilliance; for he had an excellent nature. As for teachers, he had Libanius for the training of rhetoricians, and Andragathius for philosophical discourse. ^D and he easily overcame the majority from that point, and indeed persuaded them to hold opinions similar to his own; he did not bring them to himself through some artifice or force of speech, but because it was the truth, namely that he sincerely explained the holy Scriptures.

^A He had as teachers of this philosophy those who were at that time presiding over the renowned monasteries in those parts: Carterius, and Diodorus, who was the leader of the church in Tarsus. I have learned that he left behind many books of his own writings, and that, in regard to the literal sense of the holy oracles, he produced commentaries while avoiding allegorical speculations. He did not frequent these men alone; he also persuaded his companions from Libanius’ school, a certain Theodore and Maximus, to follow the same course of action. Of these, the former later became bishop of Seleucia in Isauria; Theodore, however, became bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia—a man who was quite learned in the holy Scriptures and in other studies of orators and philosophers. ^B Now, when Theodore first encountered the divine laws and associated with these holy men, he approved of this way of life and condemned worldly affairs. Yet he did not endure in the same zeal; moved by repentance, he was drawn back to his former manner of living. As is to be expected, having adorned the life he now pursued with contrary arguments drawn from the examples of the ancients (for he was a man of manifold learning), he returned to the city, judging it to be better, as he thought, to obtain what he desired. But when John learned that he was occupied with business and was thinking of taking a wife, he composed an epistle with such words and thoughts as to exceed the grasp of the human mind, and sent it to him. Upon receiving it, he was struck with repentance; once again leaving behind his possessions and renouncing marriage, he was saved by John’s counsel and returned to the philosophic life. ^C From which it seems to me easy to infer that a powerful persuasiveness blossomed in John’s words. For he prevailed in this, as well as in those matters where he was able to speak and persuade in like manner. From this, too, he drew the multitude, especially since he was diligent in rebuking those who sinned—whether in church or toward those who were wronged—outspokenly indignant as though he himself had been the one wronged. This, indeed, was for the many an occasion ^D [of]—

^A of great affection, but for the rich and powerful, those by whom most sins are committed, it was grievous. Since, therefore, he had become most illustrious—to those who knew him by experience, and to those who did not by his reputation—both for his discourses and his deeds throughout the whole Roman Empire, he appeared suitable to govern the Church at Constantinople. When the people and the clergy had decreed this by consensus, the emperor also agreed, and sent men to bring him. He also convoked a synod, thereby rendering his ordination more solemn. Not long after, Asterius, the Count of the East, having received the emperor’s letters, invited John to himself, as if seeking to ask something of him. When he arrived, Asterius immediately placed him in a carriage with himself, and driving with speed, arrived at Pagrae, a station so named. There, having handed him over to those sent by the emperor, he returned. He was considered to have managed this business prudently, before the Antiochenes—who were harsh regarding insurrections and were clearly such that they would never have let John go of their own accord—could learn of it, lest they should do or suffer something evil.

When he arrived in Constantinople, and the summoned priests had gathered, Theophilus (4) ^B became an obstacle to the ordination, being zealous for Isidore. He was at that time a presbyter under him, and the overseer of the strangers and the poor in the city of Alexandria. He had, from his youth, practiced philosophy excellently at Scetis, as I learned from men who had associated with him. Others, however, say that he became a friend to Theophilus because he had been a confidant and participant in a certain dangerous affair. For they say that when the war against Maximus was breaking out, Theophilus, having given him gifts, and letters to the emperor and the tyrant, instructed him to reach Rome and wait for the outcome of the battle, and to give the gifts along with the letters to the victor. He, having done these things so as not to remain hidden, and having become afraid, fled back to Alexandria. From that time, Theophilus made him one of his most trusted men, thinking it time to repay the debt for the dangers braved on his behalf, if he should establish him as bishop of Constantinople. But whether or not for this reason, or because Theophilus wished to ordain him as a good man, he ultimately agreed to the decisions regarding John; and so, by this ^C… ^D

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.

^A regarding the opposition to Maximus, they say that Theophilus, having given Isidore money and letters—sent to the emperor at one time and to the tyrant at another—had charged him to remain in Rome and await the outcome of the war, and to present his letters along with the gifts to the victor. But after he had done this, the fraud was uncovered, and fearing for himself, he fled back to Alexandria. From then on, Theophilus, since he held Isidore among his most faithful men, deemed it fitting to repay the reward for the labors he had sustained for him, if he could establish him as bishop of Constantinople. But whether for this reason, or because he wished to ordain him as a good man, Theophilus eventually gave his assent to the election of John, fearing Eutropius, who was then the chief chamberlain of the imperial palace, and who greatly favored John’s ordination. For it is said that he had openly warned him that he must either accede to the votes of the other priests or answer those who wished to accuse him. For indeed, many were present at that time who had accused him before the synod.

CAP. III. How John, once promoted to the episcopate, immediately applied himself more vehemently to the business of the Church, and corrected the Churches everywhere; and by sending legates to Rome, resolved the offense of Flavian.

^B Furthermore, as soon as John was installed in the episcopate, he studied before all else to amend the life of his clergy. And by diligently inquiring into their conduct, their manner of living, and the rest of their daily habits, he rebuked and corrected them. Some he even cast out of the Church. For since he was prone by his own nature to rebuke, and was moved to righteous indignation against those who had committed injury, he increased these inclinations all the more in the episcopate. For nature, having gained license, easily drove his tongue to rebuke, and more readily stirred his anger against wrongdoers. ^C Nor did he endeavor to correct only his own church, but, as a good man endowed with a noble spirit, he strove to correct the churches everywhere. Therefore, at the very beginning of his episcopate, when the Western and Egyptian priests were still at odds with the Eastern bishops on account of Paulinus, and a certain public schism on this account held the churches of the entire Roman Empire, he requested Theophilus to lend him his cooperation, and to reconcile the Roman bishop to Flavian. And when this had been agreed upon, Acacius, bishop of Beroea, and Isidore—he for whose sake Theophilus had opposed John’s ordination—were chosen for this task. Having arrived at Rome, and because the embassy had turned out according to their wishes, they sailed to Egypt; from there Acacius returned to Syria, ^D bringing to Flavian the pacific letters of the Egyptian and Western prelates. Long afterward, in this manner, the Churches were freed from this schism and received back communion with one another. But the multitude of those in Antioch called... [(5)] You yourself also know the man, when he came with Acacius, and brought the communion of Flavian with Theophilus, which had been severed for twenty years on account of Evagrius.

^A Thus [the church] was delivered from that dissension, and returned to its former concord; but at Antioch those who were called Eustathians continued for some time to hold assemblies apart, even without a bishop. For Evagrius, who had succeeded Paulinus, survived but a short time, as we have already said. Wherefore, as I suppose, conciliation was easy for the bishops, since no adversary remained. The people, however, as is the way of the multitude, gradually joining themselves to those who held ecclesiastical gatherings under Flavian, in the progress of time grew together into one for the most part.

CAP. IV.

Regarding Gaina the Goth, and the evils perpetrated by him.

^B At the same time Gaina, a barbarian who had deserted to the Romans ^C and, contrary to all expectation, had risen from a common soldier to the rank of master of the soldiers, attempted to claim the Roman Empire for himself. While planning this, he summoned his own kinsmen, the Goths, from their own regions into the Roman dominions, and appointed those who were friends to him as centurions and tribunes. Furthermore, when Tirbingilus had stirred up a rebellion—who, being related to him by kinship, commanded a numerous body of soldiers in Phrygia—it was by no means obscure to prudent men that Gaina had engineered these things. Yet, because he feigned that he was much troubled by the devastation of the cities of that province, he was commissioned to go to their assistance. ^D But when he arrived in Phrygia, surrounded by a multitude of barbarians as if he had come for war, he brought to light the intention which he had previously concealed: and the cities which he had been ordered to protect, some he devastated, while others he meditated invading. Proceeding thence into Bithynia, he halted in the borders of Chalcedon and there threatened war. When affairs were in this crisis, and especially since the cities of Asia and the East, and all those situated between them and the Euxine Sea, were in peril, the emperor, taking counsel with his advisors, concluded that it was by no means safe to be in an unprepared state when facing men who had already despaired of life; so, having sent to Gaina, he announced that he should ask for whatever he wished—for he was ready in all things to be compliant toward him. He then sent Saturninus and Aurelian, men of consular rank...

whom he suspected of opposing him, and requested that they be handed over to him; and when he had received them, he spared them. Having proceeded to an interview with the prince in the church which is near Chalcedon, where the tomb of the martyr Euphemia is, and having given and received mutual oaths of friendship, he laid down his arms and crossed over to Constantinople, being made by the emperor master of the cavalry and infantry. ^A But since his affairs appeared to have succeeded more prosperously than he deserved, he did not bear that good fortune with moderation. Truly, since his former rashness had resulted according to his desire, he set out to disturb the Church as well. For he was a Christian, of the sect of the barbarians who follow the opinion of Arius. Persuaded, therefore, by the bishops of his sect—or rather, led by his own ambition—he requested of the prince that one of the city churches be handed over to the men of his sect. For he complained that it was unjust, and also indecorous, that he who was the master of the Roman military should have to go outside the city walls for the sake of prayer. When John learned of this, he no longer remained quiet. Taking up the bishops who happened to be staying in the city then, he came into the palace; and in the presence of the prince, with Gainas also standing by, he inveighed against him with many words—objecting to him his homeland and his flight, and calling to mind how, having been saved at that time by the emperor’s father, he had sworn that he would be a friend to the Romans, and would remain forever faithful to him, to his children, and to the laws which he was now attempting to abrogate. ^B While saying these things, he brought forward the law enacted by Theodosius, by which he had forbidden heretics to celebrate assemblies within the city walls. After this, turning to the emperor, he persuaded him to keep valid the law that had been established against other heresies; arguing that it was better to yield the empire than, by betraying the house of God, to commit such an impiety. And John, having spoken thus with constancy and boldness, prevented anything from being changed in the churches committed to his care. But Gainas was now intent on violating his faith and the oath, and on pillaging the city. ^C When a count announced this plot, there appeared over the city a star of immense size, stretching down almost to the earth itself, and such as is said never to have occurred before. He attempted first to attack the silversmiths, hoping to collect a quantity of wealth from them. But when the rumor spread that this had been planned, and the silversmiths had hidden their ready wealth ^D and no longer displayed their silver on their tables openly as was their custom, by night a multitude...

^A of soldiers of immense stature appeared to them. ^B Imagining that this was a newly arrived army, they reported it to Gaina; but he (knowing full well that no more soldiers than usual were situated in the city) did not deem their reports worthy of belief. When, on the following night, others were sent and reported the same things as the former, he went himself and became an eye-witness of the miraculous sight. Thinking that the soldiers from other cities had gathered for his sake to guard the city and the palace by night and hide by day, he feigned to be possessed by a demon. And as if to pray to God, he proceeded to the church which the Emperor's father had built in honor of John the Baptist at the Seventh ^C milestone. Of the barbarians, some remained inside, while others left with Gaina. Secretly they carried out arms in women's carriages and jars of missiles [(13)]; but when they were discovered, they slew the guards of the gates who had attempted to prevent the removal of the arms. From this, the city was filled with such disorder and tumult that it seemed as if it were about to be captured immediately. But a sound policy prevailed against the present evils. For the Emperor, without any delay, declared Gaina a public enemy and ordered the barbarians who had remained in the city to be put to death. The soldiers, therefore, attacking them, killed the greater part of them and set fire to what was called the Church of the Goths, for they happened to have gathered there as if it were a familiar house of prayer, from which they were no longer able to escape [(14)], the doors having been shut. ^D When Gaina learned of these things, having ridden through Thrace he arrived at the Chersonesus and was eager to cross the Hellespont. For he reasoned that if he could gain control of Asia on the other side, he would easily bring under his own power all the regions to the east. But these things also turned out against his expectations, the fortune of the Romans having intervened there by divine influence. For an army had arrived by land and sea, sent by the Emperor, led by Fravitas [(15)], a man barbarian by race, but good in character and skilled in generalship. The barbarians, having no ships, attempted to cross the Hellespont to the continent opposite on rafts. Suddenly a strong west wind blowing up destroyed the rafts with

^A Roman ships violently driven into them. Most of the barbarians were consequently drowned, together with their horses, while others were killed by the soldiers. Gainas, having been saved at that time with only a few men, not long after, while wandering and fleeing through Thrace, fell in with another army and was destroyed along with the barbarians who were about him. Such was the end of Gainas, of his wicked designs, and of his life. Fravita, however, having rendered excellent service in that war, was made consul. Around the same time, while the aforementioned Fravita and Vincentius were consuls, a son was born to the emperor, named after his grandfather, who, at the beginning of the following consulship, was proclaimed Augustus.

CAP. V.

How John attracted the minds of the multitude with his sermons; and concerning the Macedonian woman, whose bread was turned into stone.

^B Meanwhile, John, presiding over the Church of Constantinople in an excellent manner, attracted many both from among the pagans and from the sects of the heretics. A multitude flowed to him daily, some desiring to learn useful things from him, and others wishing to put him to the test. He captured the minds of all, and persuaded them to hold the same opinions as himself concerning the Divine. Moreover, the people were so intent upon his sermons, and could in no way be satiated by them, that, since they were in danger by pushing and pressing one another while each strove to advance nearer so that they might hear him speaking more accurately from close by, ^C he placed himself in the middle of all of them and taught while sitting upon the lector’s pulpit. Here, it seems appropriate to me to insert into our history a miracle that occurred in his time. A certain man of the sect of the Macedonians had a wife of the same sect. When he had once heard John teaching how one ought to think concerning the Divine, he embraced his faith and began to exhort his wife to wish to believe the same as he did. But since she was held as if captive by her previous habit and by the gatherings of her familiar female companions, and her husband accomplished nothing by frequent admonitions, he at last said: "Unless you will communicate with me in the divine mysteries, you shall no longer be a companion of my life." ^D Thereupon, the woman, agreeing to do this, confided in one of her female servants whom she thought faithful, and took her as an accomplice in the deception of her husband. As the time of the mysteries approached (those who are initiated know what I mean), she kept to herself what she had accepted and bowed her head as if about to pray...

^A The maid who waited upon her secretly gave her what she had brought in her hands; and the stone became fixed between her teeth. Trembling for fear that she might suffer some harm, as so divine a thing had occurred to her, she ran quickly to the bishop and confessed herself. She showed him the stone, which bore the marks of the bite, though it was of an unknown substance and exhibited a strange color. ^B Having asked for forgiveness with tears, she thereafter lived in harmony with her husband. But if these things seem incredible to anyone, the stone itself is a witness, which is still kept today among the treasures of the church of Constantinople. Socr., lib. vi, c. 11.

CAP. VI.

Concerning the things which John did in Asia and Phrygia; and concerning Heraclides of Ephesus and Gerontius of Nicomedia, bishops.

Now John, having learned that the churches in Asia and the surrounding regions were being governed by unworthy priests—some being corrupted by bribes and gifts, others by favor—and that they were selling the priesthoods, went to Ephesus. Having deposed thirteen bishops, some in Lycia and Phrygia, and some in Asia itself, he appointed others in their place. For the church of the Ephesians (as it happened that the bishop who was there at that time had died), he appointed Heraclides, a man by birth a Cyprian, a deacon of the monks under him ^C from Scetis, and a disciple of the monk Evagrius. Moreover, he also expelled Gerontius from the church of the Nicomedians. For when he had been a deacon under Ambrose, the bishop of the church of Milan, he had—I know not what happened, whether he was acting as a charlatan, or was misled by the art and vain imaginings of a demon—reported to some that he had by night caught an Onoscelis, shaved its head, and cast it into a mill. For this reason Ambrose, because he had uttered things unworthy of a deacon of God, commanded him to stay by himself for a time, and to be purified by repentance.

^A Now Gerontius, being an excellent physician and most diligent in speaking and persuading, and capable of procuring friends, as if mocking Ambrose, went off to Constantinople. In a short time he made friends of some of those who had most power in the palace, and not long after he was entrusted with the bishopric of the Nicomedians. Helladius 22, the bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea, ordained him, returning him this favor because he had been the agent of a brilliant military career for his son in the palace. When Ambrose learned of this, he wrote to Nectarius, the prelate of the Church of Constantinople, to strip Gerontius of the priesthood and not to look on while he and ecclesiastical discipline were insulted. But for Nectarius, even though he strove earnestly for this, it became impossible, as the Nicomedians as a whole were resisting him manfully. John, however, having deposed him, ordained Pansophius in his place; he had been the tutor of the emperor’s wife and was a pious man, moderate and gentle in character; yet he was not at all pleasing to the Nicomedians. Thus, having frequently stirred up sedition, both privately and publicly, they recounted the benefits of Gerontius, and the abundant utility they received from his medical skill, and finally the dexterity and diligence with which he treated everyone equally, both poor and rich. To these they added his other virtues as well, as is natural for those who love someone. And just as in times of earthquakes, or droughts, or other divine scourges, going around in the streets, they sang psalms throughout their own city and Constantinople, and supplicated God that they might have him as their bishop. Finally, being compelled, they parted with him with grief and lamentations, and received the other with fear and hatred. From that time on, those who had been deposed, and those associated with them, blamed John, as if he were the instigator of revolution in the Churches, and had innovated against the ancestral laws regarding the rites of ordination; and out of grief, they even slandered the deeds worthy of mention that he had done, according to the opinions of the many. Indeed, the incident involving Eutropius at that time was also brought into the mix 23.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

22 Helladius ordained him. I wonder how it came about that Helladius, the bishop of Caesarea, ordained Gerontius as bishop of Nicomedia. For Nicomedia was not subject to the diocese of the bishop of Caesarea. Indeed it was subject to the bishop of Constantinople. For Eudoxius, the bishop of Constantinople, ordained Eugenius as bishop of Nicaea, as Philostorgius writes. Add to this that Sozomen here openly testifies that Ambrose wrote to Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, so that he might strip Gerontius of the Nicomedian bishopric. Wherefore, it must be said that Helladius did this by the mandate of the bishop of Constantinople; or certainly he did it before the ordination of Nectarius, while the Church of Constantinople did not yet have a bishop. Which indeed I think is truer. It can also be said that the bishop of Caesarea, as primate of the Pontic diocese, claimed for himself the ordination of the bishop of Nicomedia.

23 Eutropius incident... I have found it written in the Fukelian codex... which reading I believe to be truer. The word which preceded must be understood. Certainly it does not seem to be capable of being said in Greek... Furthermore, the slaughter of Eutropius happened in the year of Christ 399.

CAP. VII. Concerning Eutropius, the Chief Eunuch, and concerning the law which he established; and how, having been torn from the church, he was killed. And concerning the murmuring against John.

^A This man, being the greatest of the emperor's eunuchs, and the only one and the first that we have seen or heard of, was honored with the rank of consul and father of the emperor. But since, in the present power, he did not foresee the future, nor place before his eyes the vicissitudes that are wont to occur in human affairs, he attempted to drag away from the church the suppliants of God who were tarrying there because of him, and especially Pentadia, the wife of Timasius. ^B Him, a general who had become powerful and most fearsome, he had punished with perpetual exile to the Oasis in Egypt, bringing upon him the accusation of tyranny. But he, either pressed by thirst, as I heard from a certain man, or fearing lest he suffer something worse, wandering in the sands of that region, was found dead. By Eutropius's zeal a law was set forth, enjoining that no one should take refuge in the church, and that those who had already fled there should be expelled. But not long after, having been attacked by a calumny, as if he had offered insult to the emperor's wife, he was the first himself to transgress the law. And having fled from the palace, he reached the church as a suppliant. When he was lying under the holy table, ^C he, Timasius, [saying]: "Where are the consuls? Count those of yesterday and the day before: was not one of them beheaded, like the criminals? And the other, after his generalship, having obtained this same honor, perished miserably in the extremities of Egypt and Libya, fleeing the punishment of his condemnation, and then dying in the sands, since all the country through which he was escaping was waterless and uninhabited?"

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(24) And father of the emperor. Patrician dignity is understood. For the emperors' fathers were called Patricians, as is most well-known from Claudian and others. Moreover, this dignity was first instituted by Constantine the Great, as Zosimus testifies.

(25) But since the. It should be written, without doubt, ἑπέ δὲ τῆς, which I am surprised the Interpreters did not see.

(26) The [wife] of Timasius. Baronius refers the deportation of this Timasius to the island of the Oasis to the year of Christ 395, after the slaughter of Rufinus, the praetorian prefect. It would have been better, in my own judgment, to have referred it to the following year. For it is not likely that so many and such great men, to wit Rufinus, Timasius, and Abundantius, were oppressed by Eutropius in one and the same year. Certainly that matter would have brought the most grave invidiousness upon Eutropius. Add that Eunapius, in Suidas under the word Timasius, writes that Eutropius, the praepositus of the bedchamber, had summoned him from Asia, that he might place him over affairs: ^D that Timasius had come to Constantinople with such pomp, as if he were about to hold Eutropius, and the Emperor himself, in derision. From which it is manifestly gathered that Timasius did not come to Constantinople until after the slaughter of Rufinus. Since, therefore, Rufinus was slain in the year of Christ 395, the deportation of Timasius could not occur sooner than the following year. There is an illustrious passage concerning this same deportation of Timasius in Asterius in his sermon against the festival of the Calends, which he said was a year after the consulship of Eutropius, etc. He understands Rufinus: Which are thus to be translated: "But another, after the command of the armies, when he had obtained the same honor, perished miserably in the borders of Egypt and Libya, with the capital punishment with which he had been condemned, wanting to flee, he was extinguished in sandy places: since the whole region which he was traversing in his flight was waterless and uncultivated." He speaks of Timasius, as you see, of whom Zosimus and Sozomenus narrate the same things.

(27) Under the holy table lying. Musculus translates, at the holy table. It is indeed possible that the suppliants who had fled to the church lay under the table of the altar itself. Yet by these words I think it is indicated only that they lay at the feet of the altar. Thus Socrates, in book one, chapter 6, speaking of Alexander entering the church to pray...

^A John, casting down the arrogance of those in power, by showing to the people that nothing of human affairs is wont to remain in the same state. Those, however, who were hostile to him, even criticized this, as if he, who ought to have pitied one in danger of his life, refuted him and trampled upon his misfortunes. But Eutropius indeed paid the deserved penalty for this impious attempt, being beheaded; and the law that had been promulgated was utterly effaced from the public records. The Church, meanwhile, flourished greatly, as God had speedily avenged the injuries inflicted upon it; and it increased in the services paid to the Divine. The people of Constantinople were then even more eager to use the morning and nightly hymns, for the following reason

CHAPTER VIII.

For since the Arians, who had been deprived of the churches in Constantinople during the reign of Theodosius, were holding ecclesiastical assemblies outside the city walls, they used to gather first at night in the public porticoes, and dividing themselves into groups, they would sing responsively, adding certain clauses composed according to their own dogma ^B; at daybreak, however, singing these same things in public, they would go to the places where they held their assemblies. They were accustomed to do this on all the more notable festivals, and on the first and last day of each week. Eventually, they also added canticles which were directed toward strife and contention. "Where are they," they would say, "who call the three one power?" and other things of this sort into their hymns.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(28) "Adding clauses": Salfridus, who translated the last three books of Sozomen into Latin, translated it "corollaries." I preferred to translate "clauses." Sozomen understands the doxologies of the Arians, which they were wont to sing at the end of hymns in this manner: "Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit," as Philostorgius teaches in his History. Although Nicephorus thinks that what were then sung by the Arians were not Psalms, but certain canticles which they themselves had composed. I, however, prefer to think that Psalms are understood here, as the word *akroteleutia* indicates, that is, the clause of the Psalms. Which word Nicephorus, without doubt, did not understand. The same word is read in Eusebius, in the second book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 17, at the end: "And as one sings with rhythm in an orderly manner, the rest listening in silence, they join in the *akroteleutia* of the hymns." Which words are taken from Philo's book, *On the Contemplative Life*. ^C

(29) "And on the first and last." Nicephorus thinks that by these words the Lord’s day is understood by Sozomen, which is the first and last day of the week. But I by no means agree with Nicephorus. For the Lord's day is never called the last day of the week. The Lord’s day is indeed the first and the eighth, because of the circular course of the weeks, as I have observed in my *Eusebian Annotations*; but it is never called the last day of the week. Furthermore, if Sozomen understood only the Lord's day, it would be superfluous to add "and," since by the fact that he said the "first day of the week," he had sufficiently designated the Lord’s day. Therefore, I think something else is understood in this place. For by the "first of the week," he undoubtedly understands the Lord’s day. By the "last," however, he understands the Sabbath, on which day many of the Christians were accustomed to hold their assemblies. Therefore, on the night that precedes the Sabbath day, the Arians used to come together and sing the nightly Psalms, and at early dawn they would proceed to the church outside the walls. They did the same on the following night which preceded the Lord's day. For this reason, they sang the nightly hymns and Psalms in the public porticoes, because the gates of the royal city being closed, they could not proceed to their own church, which was outside the walls. ^D Among the Christians, too, the same custom existed, as Nicetius the bishop teaches in his treatise *On Vigils*, which was incorrectly edited among the works of the blessed Jerome. But Lucas Dacherius.

a most learned man, restored it a few years ago to its true author in the third volume of his *Spicilegium*. It is, however, wrongly inscribed in the manuscript codex as being *On the Vigils of the Servants of God*. For it does not treat of the vigils of monks, but of laymen; nor is this a sermon of an abbot to monks, but of a bishop addressing the people, as is clear even from these words: "Nor indeed should it seem burdensome or difficult, even to delicate or infirm bodies, to devote a portion of two nights in the week, that is, of the Sabbath and the Lord's day, to the service of God; for this is, as it were, a purification of the five days or nights in which we grow heavy with carnal stupor, or take pleasure in being obsessed by worldly activities," and so on. John, however, regarding the freedom of speech he used toward them, ^A mixing in other things of this sort in their hymns? John, therefore, fearing lest any of those worshiping under him should be led into deception by these means, exhorted his own people to the same manner of psalmody. In a short time they became more prominent, and surpassed those of the opposing heresy both in multitude and in the splendor of their preparations. For silver standards for crosses, attended by burning tapers, went before them; and a eunuch of the empress, who was appointed to this office, provided the expense for these things and prepared the hymns to be sung. Hence the followers of the Arian heresy, whether out of jealousy or desire for vengeance, engaged in battle with those of the Catholic Church. And some were slain on both sides. Briso (for this was the name of the imperial eunuch) ^B was struck on the forehead with a stone. The emperor, being moved to anger, forbade such assemblies of the Arians thereafter. But the Catholics, having begun to sing in the manner we have described for this cause, have continued to do so even to this day. From these events, and from his discourses in church, the affection of the people for John increased daily. But the hatred of powerful men and of the clergy toward him grew, because of the freedom of speech he used against them. For as often as he saw them acting unjustly, he rebuked them; and those who were corrupted by wealth, impiety, and indecent pleasures, he drew back toward virtue.

CAP. IX. Concerning Serapion the archdeacon, and the holy Olympias; and how certain arrogant men behaved toward John, calling him cruel and irascible.

The hatred of the clergy against him was increased by Serapion, ^C whom he himself had appointed archdeacon: a man who was an Egyptian, quick to anger, and ready for insult; nor were his counsels to Olympias of the least impact. For she, being most noble by birth, although she had become a widow while still young, and was a great philosopher according to the discipline of the Church...

Nectarius had ordained as a deaconess. ^A John, however, seeing that she was bestowing her wealth upon those who asked, and while neglecting other things, was applying herself only to divine things, said to her: "I praise your resolve, but anyone who desires to reach the summit of virtue according to God must be a wise steward of her affairs. You, by adding wealth to those who are already wealthy, act just as if you were pouring your own resources into the sea. Are you unaware that you have voluntarily dedicated your wealth to God for the sake of the needy, and that, as if you had stepped out from the ownership of your own money, you have been appointed a steward and are liable to render an account? If you will listen to me, you will, from now on, measure your giving according to the need of those who ask; for in this way you will benefit more people, and you will receive from God rewards for your mercy and most diligent care." ^B He also had some disagreement and contention with several monks, and especially with Isaac. For those who lived philosophically in their own monasteries, staying quietly, he would praise highly, and he took great care that they should not be wronged and that they should have the necessities of life. But those who went outside and appeared in the city, since they were bringing disgrace upon philosophy, he would rebuke and turn back. From such pretexts, the clergy and many of the monks grew hostile toward him, and they called him harsh and irascible, perverse and arrogant. They even attempted to slander his life to the—

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

(33) *Measure your giving according to the need of those who ask.* I emended this from the Fuketian codex, in which it is read as follows.

(34) *That they should have the necessities.* Sozomenus speaks of the monks who were living either in the city of Constantinople or in other towns and villages of the diocese of John Chrysostom. For there were many monasteries throughout that whole diocese, built already from the times of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who built many monasteries in Constantinople, supported by the aid of the monks dwelling in them. ^D

VARIOUS NOTES

and sought to persuade them ^A that they were telling the truth, that he ate with no one, nor did he answer when invited to a banquet. I have no other explanation for this to offer, except that a man who, I believe, was not at all a liar, told me when I inquired about this, that because of his assiduous exertion in the pursuit of virtue, he was suffering from an ailment of the head and stomach, and therefore avoided the gatherings and crowds at meals. From this they particularly wove the gravest calumnies against him.

CHAPTER X.

Concerning Severianus of Gabala, and Antiochus of Ptolemais; and of the matters that transpired between Serapion and Severianus, and how the empress reconciled them to one another.

^B Another cause of enmity against the empress also came to him, through Severianus, bishop of Gabala in Syria. This man, as well as Antiochus of Ptolemais (this is a city in Phoenicia), both came forth at the same time, being learned and capable of teaching the people in the church; but the one spoke with ease and a very pleasant voice, so that he was called "Chrysostom" by some; whereas Severianus retained the harshness ^C of the Syrians in his speech, though he seemed better in his thoughts and in his explanations of the passages of Scripture. Antiochus, having come to Constantinople first, was praised for his speeches, and having collected wealth, he returned to his own city. Following his example, Severianus later arrived, and having found favor with John, he often spoke in the church and was admired; he was in honor and had much influence, and he became an acquaintance to the emperor himself and to the empress. When John departed for Asia, he entrusted the Church to him; for he considered him a sincere friend, as he treated him with flatteries. But he, ^D being more concerned with pleasing the listeners, led the popular assembly with his words. John, having learned of these things, became jealous, as they say, because Serapion instigated him against him.

^A For when Severianus was passing by upon his return from Asia, 38 Serapion saw him but did not rise—showing those who were present, on purpose, 39 that he despised the man. Severianus, moved by this, cried out immediately with these words: "If Serapion dies a Christian, Christ never became man." Because of this, Severianus was accused by Serapion and expelled from the city by John as one who was insolent and had spoken blasphemy against God. For some were brought forward to testify to these things, but some of Serapion's familiars, suppressing the whole statement, testified only that he had said that Christ did not become man. John, however, brought both charges against Severianus. For, he said, if Serapion does not die a cleric, it does not follow from this that Christ did not become man. The empress, as soon as these things had happened, learned of them through the partisans of Severianus, and she immediately recalled him from Chalcedon. But John, although many entreated him, refused to speak with him, ^B until the Augusta, in the church of the Apostles, placing her son Theodosius upon John’s knees, and supplicating and repeatedly adjuring him, 40 with difficulty reconciled him to friendship with Severianus. And I have learned that these things happened in this way.

CHAP. XI.

On the question that arose in Egypt as to whether God is endowed with human form; and concerning Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria; and the books of Origen.

At that same time, a question that had arisen not long before was being agitated in the parts of Egypt, whether one ought to believe that God is endowed with human form. ^C The majority of the monks in that region held this opinion, because, owing to their lack of learning, they accepted the words of the holy Scripture simply and incautiously, and had grown accustomed to hearing of the eyes, the face, and the hands of God, and other things of this sort. Others, however, looking to the meaning hidden within the words, held the contrary view, and declared that those who spoke in such a way were speaking with absolute impiety against the Divine. Theophilus taught publicly in the Church that this opinion was to be embraced; and in the epistle which he wrote according to custom concerning the Paschal festival, 41 he insisted that God ought to be understood as incorporeal and alien to human shape. ^D When the monks of Egypt learned of this, they came to Alexandria. And, having gathered in one place, they caused a disturbance, and they were intent on killing Theophilus as one who was impious.

^A But he, having appeared among them while they were still in a state of tumult, said, "I have seen you as the face of God." This remark sufficiently restrained the men. And having abated their anger, they said, "Since you truly hold these convictions, then renounce the books of Origen, as those who practice them are taught to think in this way." But he said, "This had long been my resolve, and I will do as you see fit; for I, no less than you, am indignant at those who hold the opinions of Origen." And so, having beguiled the monks in this manner, he dispersed the sedition.

^C CAP. XII.

Concerning the four brother ascetics, called the Long, against whom Theophilus became hostile.

And perhaps this controversy would have been totally extinguished then, had not Theophilus, for the sake of a private enmity, stirred it up again when it had already been laid to rest, while laying snares for Ammonius, Dioscorus, Eusebius, and Euthymius, who were commonly called the Long. We learned from the foregoing that they were brothers, and that they had become famous among those who practice philosophy at Scetis. ^D For they were more favored by him than the rest of the monks in Egypt, and he held them in frequent congress and lived with them for the most part. Finally, he even appointed Dioscorus as Bishop of Hermopolis. But he conceived a hatred against them out of the enmity he had contracted with Isidore, whom, after the death of Nectarius, he had been eager to promote to the bishopric of the city of Constantinople. For some say that a certain woman from the sect of the Manichaeans had transferred to the Catholic Church. Theophilus, however, as though that woman had rashly and inconsiderately partaken of the sacred mysteries before she had renounced her former heresy, scolded the man who was then archpresbyter; for he was hostile to him on other grounds as well. But Peter—for that was the name of the archpresbyter—asserted that the woman had communicated according to the rule of the Church and with the consent of Theophilus himself. And he said that Isidore was a witness to these things. Now he was away at that time, having been sent to Rome by Theophilus; but having returned later, he testified that Peter spoke the truth. Then Theophilus, having been angered, as though he had suffered calumny, cast them both out of the Church. And these things are indeed said by some. But I learned from a certain man worthy of trust, who with the aforementioned monks

had been living at that time, that there were two causes for Theophilus’s hatred and enmity against Isidore: ^A one which Isidore had in common with the presbyter Peter, because both refused to testify that the sister of Theophilus had been made heir by I know not whom; the other a private one, because Isidore, out of the monies which were brought to him in his capacity as curator of the poor, refused to grant anything to Theophilus, who endeavored to take them for the building of churches, saying that it was better to restore the bodies of the sick—which are more properly to be thought of as temples of God, and for whose sake the money had been provided—than to build walls. But whether for this reason or another, Isidore, having been deprived of communion by Theophilus, went to the monks of Scetis as to his own companions. Then Ammonius, having taken some with him, went to Theophilus and requested that he restore communion to Isidore. He is said to have promised quite readily at that time that he would do so. But time having passed, and as nothing more was being accomplished for them, and it had become evident that Theophilus was doing nothing but deceiving them, they approached him and demanded more insistently that he fulfill his promises. But he handed over one of the monks to public custody, so that he might strike fear into the rest. But his hope deceived him. For Ammonius and all the monks who were with him, when the prison guard thought they had come to provide necessities to those in chains, were easily admitted inside; and having entered, they refused to leave. When Theophilus learned of this, he made it known that they should be summoned to him. ^B Indeed, at first they demanded that he come in person to bring them out, for it was not right that those who had been publicly insulted should be released from prison in secret. But later, yielding, they betook themselves to him. And he, having asked their pardon, dismissed them as if he would cause them no further trouble henceforth. Internally, however, he was fuming with indignation and pondering how to do them harm. And when he was at a loss as to what evil he might do to them—since they were destitute and cared for nothing except wisdom—he decided to damage their peace. And because he knew, from the discussions they had with him, that they blamed those who conceive of God as having a human form—as holding the opinions of Origen—he stirred up the monastic multitude against them, which held a different opinion. From this a terrible strife prevailed among the monks; and conducting their debates with one another in an unseemly manner, they did not deign to persuade one another, but descended into insults. And they, ^C on the one hand...

called those who defined God as incorporeal “Origenists,” while those who held the opposite view called them “Anthropomorphites.”

CHAPTER XIII

Having learned of the intrigue, those around Dioscorus and Ammonius departed for Jerusalem, and from there they arrived at Scythopolis, ^B judging that place to be a suitable habitation due to the abundance of palm trees, the leaves of which the monks used for their customary tasks. For some eighty men followed them. At that time, Theophilus sent certain men to Constantinople, both to prepare slanders against them and to hinder them should they request anything from the emperor. When Ammonius and those with him learned of this, they sailed to Constantinople, accompanied by Isidore. Together they strove to have their case heard before the emperor as judge, and before Bishop John, so that the intrigues plotted against them might be exposed. For they believed that, being a man fond of righteous liberty, he would be able to assist them in matters of justice. ^C John received the men kindly as they approached him, held them in high regard, and did not forbid them from praying in the church. However, he did not deem it proper to permit them to communicate in the mysteries, as he thought it unlawful to do so before the case was examined. He wrote to Theophilus to restore communion to them, inasmuch as they held correct beliefs concerning God; or, if he thought their case needed to be examined in court, to send someone to sustain the part of the accuser. Theophilus, however, sent no reply.

When a long time had passed, as the Augusta was going out in public, those around Ammonius approached her and complained of the intrigues which Theophilus had set against them. ^D Knowing well that they had been ensnared by intrigues, she stopped out of respect. Looking out from the imperial carriage, she inclined her head and said, “Bless me, and pray for the emperor, and for me and my children, and for the empire. I will take care that a synod be convened shortly, and that Theophilus come hither.” And the Augusta indeed busied herself with these matters. In Alexandria, however, when a false rumor had prevailed that John had communicated with those around Dioscorus and was eager to assist them in every way, Theophilus began to contemplate how he might, if possible, depose even John himself from the episcopate.

CHAPTER XIV

While he kept these designs hidden within the recesses of his heart and was busy contriving them, he wrote letters to bishops in all parts of the world, in which he censured the books of Origen. And considering that it would be of great advantage to him if he could secure as a partner in his efforts Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, a man who, on account of the reverence for his virtue, was the most renowned of his time, he joined him to himself as a friend, although he had previously rebuked him for holding the opinion that God was endowed with a human form. But then, as if repenting and having finally recognized the true opinion, he wrote that he shared the same view as he, and began to calumniate the books of Origen as the author of such doctrines. Moreover, Epiphanius, who had long detested the books of Origen, readily gave his assent to the letters of Theophilus. Having gathered a council of the bishops of Cyprus, he prohibited the reading of Origen’s works. Then, having sent letters both to others and to the bishop of Constantinople, informing them of the decrees of the synod, he urged them to convene synods and to decree the same things. Seeing, therefore, that he could safely follow Epiphanius—inasmuch as he was praised by many, and his opinion was held in regard because of the sanctity of his life—Theophilus himself likewise, with the bishops who were under him, decreed what Epiphanius had decreed. But John considered their zeal in these matters to be of no great importance, and disregarded the letters of Epiphanius and Theophilus. However, those among the powerful and the clergy who were privately hostile to John, having learned that Theophilus was striving to deprive John of his episcopate, also gave their own aid and zeal, and managed for a very great synod to take place at Constantinople. When these things became known, Theophilus became even more focused, and ordered the bishops of Egypt to sail to Constantinople, while writing to Epiphanius and others ^B throughout the East to assemble with all haste; he himself traveled by land. Before long, Epiphanius was the first to sail from Cyprus and arrived at the place before Constantinople called the Hebdomon. Having prayed in the church there, he came into the city. John, as he was entering, honored him by going to meet him with all the clergy. Epiphanius, however, was clearly ^C acting in hostility ^D

to John, having believed the slanders fabricated against him. ^A Although he was invited to stay in the ecclesiastical residence, he would by no means agree. And while he altogether refused to meet with John, he privately gathered the bishops who were then residing in Constantinople and showed them the decrees that had been enacted against the writings of Origen. Some he persuaded to subscribe to the decrees, but most refused to do so. Indeed, Theotimus, bishop of Scythia, openly rebuked Epiphanius. For he said it was neither pious to insult one who had long been dead, nor, without slander, to rebuke the judgment of the ancients and to set at naught what had been approved by them. ^B While saying this, he produced a certain book of Origen’s and read a passage from it. And when he had shown that what was read was useful to the Churches, he said, "They act absurdly who disparage these things. For they are in danger of insulting the very things about which the books were written." Nevertheless, John still showed respect to Epiphanius, and exhorted him to celebrate the services with him and to be his guest. But Epiphanius replied that he would neither use his house nor pray with him, unless he first condemned the books of Origen and expelled Dioscorus and his companions. But since John considered it by no means just to do this before the cause was heard, ^C and was putting it off, on the day when the service was to be performed in the Church of the Apostles, John’s enemies arranged for Epiphanius to go to the church and publicly, in the presence of the people, anathematize both the books of Origen and Dioscorus and those who were with him, on the grounds that they held the same views as Origen; and at the same time to rebuke the bishop of the city, as one who was devoted to them. These men were striving for this, for they thought that by this means they would alienate the populace from him. The following day, therefore, as Epiphanius was proceeding to do this and was already approaching the church, Serapion met him, having been sent by John (for John had sensed what had been planned the day before), and openly warned Epiphanius that he was doing things that were neither just nor privately useful to himself; ^D for if a tumult and sedition of the people were stirred up, he himself, as the author of that event, would be in danger. By this reasoning, the impulse of Epiphanius was restrained.

CHAP. XV. Of the empress's son and the blessed Epiphanius; and how the Tall Monks came to speak with him, and how Epiphanius returned to Cyprus. Also some things concerning John and Epiphanius.

In the meantime, it happened that the emperor's son, while still a very young boy, was seized by illness. His mother, being anxious lest he should suffer any harm, sent—

^A a message to Epiphanius, asking him to pray to God for him. He replied that the boy would live if the Empress turned away from the heretics who were with Dioscorus. But the Empress said: "If God," she said, "wills to take my son from me, so be it. For the Lord who gave him, also takes him away. But if you were able to raise the dead, your archdeacon would not have died." For it so happened that Crispio, the brother of Fuscon and Salamanas (53)—those monks mentioned by us when we recounted the events of the times of the Emperor Valens—had not long before departed this life; he whom Epiphanius had lived with and had appointed to be his archdeacon.

Ammonius and those who were with him went to Epiphanius; for this had also been pleasing to the Empress. When Epiphanius asked who they were, Ammonius replied: "We are the 'Tall' ones, ^B Father. And I would gladly learn if you have ever encountered our disciples or our writings." Upon his saying that he had not, he asked again: "Whence then have you judged us to be heretics, having no proof of our opinion?" Epiphanius then saying that he had heard it by report, Ammonius said: "We, however, have undergone the complete opposite. For we have often met your disciples and read your books, among which is the one entitled the *Ancoratus*. And when many wished to speak ill of you and slander you as a heretic, we defended you, as was fitting for a father, and undertook the defense of your cause. Therefore, you ought not to have condemned those who were absent on hearsay alone, whom you yourself had not been convinced of by certain arguments ^C to be condemned; nor [ought you] to have returned such favor to those who praise you." Afterwards, Epiphanius spoke more mildly to them and then sent the men away.

Not long afterward, he sailed for Cyprus, either because he repented of his journey to Constantinople, or because God had instructed him by an oracle, and, as is likely, forewarned him of his own death. For he died while sailing, before he could reach Cyprus. It is said, at any rate, that as he was about to board the ship, he said to the bishops who had accompanied him to the shore: "I leave you the city, the palace, and the stage. I, however, am departing; for I am in a hurry, I am in a great hurry."

I have also heard something else which is still circulated in the speech of many: that John had foretold to Epiphanius that he would die on the voyage, ^D and that Epiphanius had foretold to John his removal from the episcopacy. For while they were at odds with one another, Epiphanius is said to have written to John: "I hope that you will not die a bishop." And John wrote back to Epiphanius: "And I do not hope that you will enter your city."

CAP. XVI. Regarding the Empress's hostility toward John, and how Theophilus arrived from Egypt; and concerning Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon.

^A When Epiphanius had sailed away, John, while preaching in the church, delivered a general denunciation against women. The multitude perceived this to have been figuratively composed against the wife of the Emperor. But those who were hostile to the bishop, seizing upon this discourse, carried it to the Empress. She complained grievously to the Emperor concerning her own insult, and urged Theophilus to arrive more quickly and to convoke a synod. Severianus of Gabala also contributed to and promoted these things, not yet having forgotten his former injury. ^B Now, whether John was moved to this discourse by chance, or, as some say, because he suspected that the Empress had persuaded Epiphanius to plot against him, I cannot say for certain. Not long after, Theophilus himself also arrived at Chalcedon in Bithynia, and with him were many bishops, some invited by Theophilus, others summoned by the Emperor's command. But those who gathered with more zeal than the rest were both those whom John had deprived of their bishoprics in Asia, and all those who, for one reason or another, were hostile to him. Ships from Egypt which Theophilus was expecting had already arrived at Chalcedon. ^C When all had gathered there together and were deliberating how their attempt against John might succeed according to their desire, Cyrinus, who at that time governed the Church at Chalcedon, and perhaps granting a favor to Theophilus on account of their kinship—for he was an Egyptian, and was otherwise at variance with John—loaded him with many insults and reproaches. But divine justice soon exacted from him the penalty for those insults. For Maruthas from Mesopotamia, who was there with the bishops, accidentally stepped on one of his feet. Being affected by pain, he was unable to cross over to Constantinople with the rest of the bishops, although he seemed to be quite necessary for the plotting of schemes against John. ^D Afterward, however, as he was in a bad condition from that wound, his leg was cut off by the physicians more than once. For a putrefaction supervening, it feasted upon his whole body, so that the other foot also suffered the same fate from the sympathetic communication of the pain. And Cyrinus indeed expired shortly thereafter in his agonies.

CAP. XVII. Concerning the synod held by Theophilus at the Rufinianae, and the accusations against John. And how John, having been summoned and not appearing, was deposed by him.

Now when Theophilus had crossed over to Constantinople…

no one of the city's clergy went out to meet him; for it was already evident that he was hostile to the Bishop. The Alexandrian sailors, however, who happened to be present in Constantinople, gathered together from other ships, and especially from the grain transports, and ^A welcomed him with joy and favorable acclamations. Passing by the church, he went to the imperial residence, where lodging had been prepared for him. And when he observed that there were many who hated John and were prepared to accuse him, having prepared everything as seemed advantageous to him, he proceeded to the Oak . This is a suburb of Chalcedon, now named after the consular Rufinus, in which there is a palace and a very large church, which Rufinus himself had built in6 honor of the apostles Peter and Paul, and for that reason had named it the Apostoleum. He also settled monks nearby, who performed the office of the clergy in that church. ^B Accordingly, when Theophilus had taken his seat in this place with the rest of the bishops, he made no further mention of the books of Origen, but invited the monks from Scetis to repentance, promising that he would consign the past to oblivion and do them no wrong. And when the supporters of Theophilus called out to the monks to ask for pardon, and pretended to be entreating the synod on their behalf, the monks, being troubled and thinking that this must be done, as so many bishops were sitting, spoke the words that are customary for them to say, even if they have been treated unjustly: "Spare us," they said. And since Theophilus readily received them into favor and restored communion to them, the examination of the injuries of the monks of Scetis was ended. ^C Which, in my judgment, would not have happened if Dioscorus and Ammonius had been present with the other monks. For the former had already died earlier and was buried in the church named after the martyr Mocius. But Ammonius, shortly before the synod was being prepared, was seized by an illness; and having crossed to the Oak, as the malady grew worse, not long after he closed his life; and he merited a splendid burial among the neighboring monks there, where his body lies. Theophilus, however, when he heard this, is said to have shed tears and to have said to all who were listening that there was no monk among those of his time like Ammonius, even though he had been a cause of trouble to him. Nevertheless, this also proceeded according to his wishes. The ^D synod called together all the clergy of Constantinople, threatening deposition against those who disobeyed. It also called John to appear for his defense. And with him, he ordered Serapion and Tigrius to be present.

and Paul the reader. John, however, having sent certain of his clergy who were familiar to him, and Demetrius, bishop of Pessinus, announced to them that he did not evade judgment; instead, he was prepared, provided he first learned who his accusers were and inspected the indictment, to defend his cause before a larger council. For he did not wish to ^B commit a foolish and rash act, by submitting to the judgment of those who were clearly his enemies. But since the bishops were indignant at John, as one who refused to obey the synod, some of those who had brought these messages, struck with fear, did not return. Demetrius, however, and all who preferred John’s company to all else, returned to him. On that same day, a courier and a notary arriving from the palace urged John to appear before the bishops, and exhorted the others to hasten the judgment. Furthermore, when he had been called four times and had appealed to an ecumenical synod, since they objected nothing else against him except that when called he had not obeyed, they deposed him.

CAP. XVIII. How the people stirred up a sedition against Theophilus and the rest of the bishops, and railed against the rulers. And by what means John was recalled and recovered his throne.

The Constantinopolitan populace, when they learned of these things toward ^C evening, broke out into sedition. And at first light, having gathered at the church, they voiced many other things, and also that a greater synod ought to investigate this case. And when those to whom the order had been given by the emperor to lead him into exile pressed the matter, the people resisted them. John, however, fearing lest another crime be fabricated against him—either that he was disobedient to the emperor or that he was inciting the populace—on the third day after the sentence of deposition, when the crowd had dispersed, quietly slipped away from the church around mid-day. ^D Even as he was being led away, the people stirred up a grave tumult, and railed against the emperor and the entire synod, and especially against Theophilus and Severian. For both of these had been the authors of the plot. Severian, indeed, when preaching a sermon in the church at that time, praised the sentence of John’s deposition, as one rendered against an arrogant man, even if there were no other crime. For the other faults, he said, God pardons in men, but He opposes the proud. On account of this, the populace was indignant and renewed their anger; nor would they remain quiet any longer from sedi-

sedition. Finally, they proceeded as far as the very palace, and with shrieks and lamentations ^A begged that John be recalled. The empress, therefore, overcome by the supplications of the people, persuaded her husband to consent; and having quickly sent Briso, the most faithful of all the eunuchs she had about her, she brought John back from the town of Bithynian Prenetus, writing that she was in no way a participant in the plots that had been constructed against him, and that she honored him as a priest and initiator of her own children. But John, having returned, settled in a suburban estate of the empress herself, around Anaplus. And he would not endure to enter the city before the judgment of a larger synod, so that it might be clear that he had been unjustly deprived of the episcopate. But when the people were indignant again, and were reviling those in power, he was constrained and eventually entered. The populace met him, singing psalms composed for the present occasion (most of them carrying lighted tapers), and they led him to the church. Although he declined, and frequently insisted that it was first necessary for those who had voted against him to rescind their vote, as befits priests, they forced him to pronounce peace to the people and to sit upon the episcopal throne. Being thus constrained, he also delivered an extemporaneous address. Taking his cue from an elegant ^B comparison, he indicated figuratively that Theophilus had indeed attempted to offer violence to his Church, just as once the Egyptian king did to the wife of the patriarch Abraham, as the books of the Hebrews record. Having then duly praised the people for their zeal, and the rulers for their benevolence toward him, he stirred the multitude to such great applause and acclamation in praise of the emperor and the Augusta, that he was forced to break off his speech unfinished.

Chapter 19. On the wickedness of Theophilus, and on the enmities between the Egyptians and the Constantinopolitans: and on the flight of Theophilus. Also on the monk Nilammon: and on the synod gathered for John.

Theophilus ^C indeed, uncertain as to what ought to be done—although he wished to accuse John publicly on the grounds that, against the prescriptions of the laws, he was exercising the priesthood after his deposition—did not, however, have sufficient confidence. ^D

^A For he knew that by this action he would offend the emperor and the nobles, who, because of the popular sedition, had forced him to return against his will. Therefore, for the accusers of Heraclides, he established a trial against the absent party, thinking that from this matter he would find a more plausible reason for deposing John. But when his friends contradicted this, affirming it was neither just nor ecclesiastical to judge a man in his absence, while Theophilus and his party insisted on the contrary, the remaining crowd of Egyptians and Alexandrians on one side, and the people of Constantinople on the other, began to quarrel and made an assault upon each other, to such a degree that many were wounded and some even killed. Thus, Severianus and the other bishops, terrified by fear—except for those who adhered to John—all fled from the city. ^B Theophilus himself, also, without further delay, as winter was now beginning, fled together with the monk Isaac and sailed to Egypt. It happened by chance that the ship, with a favorable wind, put in at Geras, a small town, about fifty stadia distant from Pelusium. The bishop of that place having died at that time, the citizens, as I have learned, had voted to appoint Nilammon as the presiding officer of their Church—a good man who had reached the summit of monastic philosophy. He was living near the city in a cell, in which he had shut himself up and blocked

out the entrance, and he had appointed as bishop of Heraclea in Thrace one who had once been presiding officer ^A of that same church.

CAP. XX. Concerning the statue of the Augusta, and concerning the discourse of John, and concerning the synod which was again assembled against him, and concerning his deposition.

Not long afterward, when a silver statue of the emperor's consort was dedicated, placed upon a column of porphyry—which is still to be seen today toward the southern side of the church, before the hall of the Great Senate ^B—on a lofty tribunal, applause and public spectacles of dancers and mimes were performed there, as was the custom at that time at the inauguration of imperial images. John inveighed against this in a sermon to the people, declaring that it was done to the outrage of the Church. The empress, however, as the memory of her previous grievances was still fresh, acting as if she had been insulted, was once again inflamed with anger and set herself to ensure that another synod should be gathered. John, however, did not yield; but by rebuking her even more openly in church, he incited her to wrath. At that time, indeed, he delivered that famous oration, beginning in this manner: "Again Herodias rages; again she dances; again she seeks to receive the head of John on a platter."

After a short space of time had elapsed, other ^C bishops arrived at Constantinople, including Leontius of Ancyra and Acacius of Beroea. And when the day of Christ's nativity was at hand, the emperor, as was his custom, did not go to the church; but he signified to John through messengers that he would not communicate with him until he had cleared himself of the charges brought against him and proved his innocence. But when John responded that he was prepared to speak in his own defense, his accusers, struck with fear, did not dare to pursue the accusation. It seemed to the judges that one who had been deposed in any manner whatsoever should not be admitted to a second trial. And regarding the other crimes, they held no investigation at all. To this one point alone they required John to reply: that he had taken his seat upon the episcopal throne after having been deposed, and before a synod had authorized him to do so. He, however, pleaded the vote of those who had communicated with him after the first synod, urging that more had voted against his accusation ^D and for that reason he was bound by ecclesiastical law.

But they deposed him, while he constantly asserted that this was a canon of heretics. For when the Arians, having fabricated slanders against Athanasius, had stripped him of the Alexandrian church, fearing a change in times, they established that rule: studiously ensuring, namely, that the things which they had plotted against him should remain unexamined.

CHAPTER XXI

How many evils befell the people after the expulsion of John, and concerning the plot against him by assassins.

John, having been deposed by the sentence of the bishops, no longer went to the church, but remained quietly in the episcopal residence. Now, when the quadragesima was ending, on that very holy night in which the annual festival in memory of the resurrection of the Lord is celebrated, those who held his views were driven out of the church, as soldiers and certain of John’s enemies made an attack upon them while they were still performing the sacraments of baptism. Since this occurrence was unexpected, a great tumult arose in the baptistery: women were wailing and in a state of confusion; children were crying; priests and deacons were being beaten, and were being driven out violently, in the state of dress and adornment ^C in which they were. The other things which it is likely happened in such a disturbance, the initiated do not need to be told. I, however, will necessarily be silent, lest perhaps some uninitiated person might happen upon this writing.

The rest of the multitude of the people, having perceived the plot, on the following day abandoned the church and celebrated the Pascha in a very spacious public bath, which is named after the Emperor Constantius, under bishops and presbyters and other such men to whom it is right and lawful to administer church matters; these men were at that time with the people, as they favored John. Having been driven from there, they gathered outside the city in a certain place which the Emperor Constantine had leveled for the spectacle of the circus games before he had yet populated the city; from that time, sometimes here and sometimes elsewhere where it was permitted, they held their own assemblies and were called Johannites. Around this time, a certain man who was possessed by a demon, or was thought to be, a dagger—

as though prepared to kill John, although he had not yet attempted the crime. He was seized by the multitude—who suspected he had been hired to commit the murder—and brought to the city prefect. But John, having sent some of the bishops from among those he had about him, rescued the man before he could be subjected to torture.

After this, a slave of the presbyter Elpidius, who was an open enemy of the deacon, rushed into the episcopal residence. One of those who happened to be there recognized him and blocked his path, asking the reason for his running. The man, giving no answer, immediately struck the person with a dagger, and then wounded another who had cried out when the first was struck. He also pierced a third person besides these. When the bystanders, in an uproar, raised a great shout, he turned and began to flee. Those who were pursuing him cried out to people further off to stop the fugitive; a man who was returning home after bathing in the baths ran up, caught hold of him, but was struck a fatal blow and fell down dead. Finally, being surrounded by the people on all sides, he was with great difficulty captured and led into the palace. The citizens testified that this was a plot by John’s enemies, and they shouted that both the assassin and those who had instigated him to this act ought to pay the penalty. The city prefect, taking charge of him as if to bring him to justice, calmed the fury of the populace. ^B

Chapter XXII. How John was unjustly driven from his see; concerning the tumult that followed; concerning the fire sent from heaven upon the church; and how he was sent into exile at Cucusus.

From that time on, the more fervent members of the populace began to guard John, keeping watch in turns by night and by day around the episcopal house. ^C Furthermore, the bishops who had gathered against John, complaining that the ecclesiastical laws were being trampled upon, said that they took upon themselves the sentence of condemnation passed against him as being entirely just, and they ordered him to depart from the city; otherwise, they warned, the people would never remain quiet. But when an officer arrived who had been sent by the emperor, and commanded John with threats to comply, he went out secretly, without the knowledge of the people who were guarding him. He voiced only this complaint: that he was being driven out by force in violation of the laws, being denied the trial that, according to the statutes, is granted even to murderers, sorcerers, and adulterers. Being placed on a small boat, he immediately ^D

fearing that the people would pursue and force him to return, they quickly closed the doors of the church. When those in the streets learned of this, some ran to the sea as if to intercept him; others, seized by fear, took to flight, expecting that after such great tumult and disturbance, there would be rioting and the wrath of the Emperor. But those who were in the church blocked the exits even more thoroughly, streaming toward the doors and pushing one another. With great difficulty, they eventually forced open the doors, some having broken them in with stones, while others pulled them toward themselves and pushed back the crowd that was behind them. Meanwhile, a fire suddenly started and consumed the church from all sides; and after rushing through the entire building, it also burned down the very large hall of the senate house, which was situated to the south of it. They blamed each other for this event: John’s enemies accused his supporters of being resentful toward the synod’s decree, while the supporters asserted that they were being slandered and that the crime of ^B those who had wished to burn them along with the church was being imputed to them. While the fire spread from evening until dawn toward the outer areas and crept along the structures that were still standing, those who were escorting John led him to Cucusus in Armenia, where he had been sentenced by the Emperor’s letter to reside. Others took the bishops and clergy who had traveled with John to Chalcedon; they arrested those who had been reported as favoring John and handed them over to custody. Other men went about the city, seized those who were denounced for being of his mind, held them in custody and forced them to pronounce an anathema against him.

CAP. XXIII. Concerning Arsacius, who was elected after John, and the many evils he inflicted upon those who favored John. Also concerning the blessed Nicarete.

Not long after, Arsacius was consecrated bishop of Constantinople. He was the brother of Nectarius, who had presided over ^C this bishopric before John; he was a mild man and devout toward God. But certain clerics diminished the reputation for excellence he had acquired by the consent of all while he was a presbyter, for they did whatever they pleased and imputed their actions to him. They especially brought him into disrepute through the events that later happened to John’s supporters. For as they could no longer bear to communicate or pray either with him or with his associates, because they saw that John’s enemies were mingled with them, and had therefore, as we said, assembled apart in the outskirts of the city to hold their services, he communicated this to the Emperor. And when they were gathered, a commander was ordered to attack them with soldiers; he drove the multitude [from their meeting place].

a tribune commanded his soldiers to attack the assembled people; they fell upon the plebeians with clubs and stones, compelling them to flee, while they handed over the more prominent ones and those who championed John’s cause more ardently into custody. Then, as typically happens when soldiers are given license to act, the women were forcibly stripped of their finery, while some soldiers plundered necklaces, golden girdles, and collars; others tore off earrings, along with the earlobes themselves. Although a great disturbance and lamentation had arisen in the city, the people did not, even so, abandon their affection for John. They no longer met in public; many would not even go into the market or the baths. For some, it was not even safe to remain at home; they imposed exile upon themselves and departed from the city, among them many other good men and honorable women. ^B Among these was Nicarete the Bithynian, born of a noble family among the Nicomedians, and celebrated for her perpetual virginity and the holiness of her life. She was the most modest of all the pious women I have known, maintaining restraint and order in her character, speech, and way of life. Until the end of her life, she always preferred divine things over human ones; she was endowed with such strength of soul and prudence for tolerating the turns of adverse fortune that, even when she was unjustly despoiled of a very extensive patrimony, she was not in the least indignant. Rather, with the few things left to her, through excellent management, though she was already advanced in age, she had all that was necessary for herself and her household, and provided abundantly for others. Furthermore, being very gifted and ^C prompt in her kindness toward all, she prepared medicines of various kinds for the needs of the poor who were ill. By these, she frequently helped many of her acquaintances who had derived no benefit from their usual physicians. For by a certain divine impulse, whatever she undertook met with a happy outcome; and, to speak concisely, I have known no other among the pious women of our time who attained such a pinnacle of modesty, gravity, and other virtues. Yet although she was such a person, she remained unknown to the many, for because of the modesty of her disposition and her pursuit of philosophy, she strove always to remain hidden; so much so that she never sought the rank of deaconess, nor, even though John often urged her, would she consent to lead the ecclesiastical virgins. ^D Since a great terror had fallen upon all, and it was evident that the multitude was no longer rioting, the prefect of the city came out in public, as if to conduct an inquiry regarding the fire and the burning of the senate house, and punished many severely. For, being a Greek, he had taken pleasure in the event, as though it were a herald of misfortune for the Church. When, therefore, a great panic had been cast upon all, and it finally appeared that the people were no longer tumultuously rallying, the prefect of the city, proceeding into public view as if to hold an inquiry concerning the fire and the conflagration of the Curia, subjected many to severe punishments.

CHAPTER XXIV. On Eutropius the reader, and on the blessed Olympias, and on the presbyter Tigrius, regarding what they suffered for the sake of Bishop John. Also on the patriarchs.

At that same time, a certain reader named Eutropius was brought into court to identify those who had set fire to the church. Although he was beaten with leathern thongs and cudgels, and his sides and cheeks were lacerated with iron claws, and though he endured having flaming torches applied to his body—and this while he was still a youth of tender frame—he confessed that he knew nothing. After these tortures, he was cast into prison, where he died not long afterward. It is worth while to insert into this work the dream that occurred concerning him. For it seemed to Sisinius, bishop of the Novatian sect, while he was sleeping, that a man of most distinguished beauty and stature, standing at the altar of their church—which they had built in honor of Stephen the protomartyr—appeared to be distressed at the scarcity of good men; for he had traversed the whole city on this account and had found no one except Eutropius. Struck with wonder at the sight, Sisinius, after relating his dream to one of the presbyters whom he most trusted, ordered him to seek out who the man might be. ^B Having correctly conjectured that this was likely one of those whom the prefect had ordered to be tortured shortly before, he went around the prisons and inquired whether there was any Eutropius among them. When he found him, he spoke with him and recounted the bishop’s dream; Eutropius wept and begged him to pray for him. And these were the events concerning Eutropius.

Courage in these calamities was also displayed by the deaconess Olympias. For when, on this same charge, she was brought before the tribunal, and the prefect asked her why she had set the church on fire, she replied: "This is not the purpose of my life. For I have spent a great and vast fortune on the restoration of the temples of God." When he said that he was well acquainted with her way of life, she rejoined: "Do you, therefore, take the place of the accuser, and let someone else judge between us." As the accusation was destitute of witnesses, and the prefect had no lawful grounds for blame, he turned somewhat more mildly to another charge. ^C As if offering counsel, he reproached her and the other women for their folly in refusing communion with their bishop, saying that it was permitted for them to repent and free themselves from all these troubles. But while the others yielded to the prefect's command, Olympias said, "It is not just that one who has been caught in a web of slander before the multitude, and yet has been proven guilty of none of the charges in the courts, should be dragged into a defense against groundless accusations. Allow me, therefore, to follow my former... ^D

[as it was claimed—or acting under false pretenses], and having been taken in the crowd, though convicted of no crime in court, I am being dragged to the defense of charges that have not even come to trial. Allow me, therefore, to employ advocates against this prior accusation; for if I am forced, contrary to justice and the laws, to communicate with those with whom it is not proper, I will not do what is wicked for the pious to do." When the prefect could not persuade her to communicate with Arsaces, he dismissed her for the time being so that she might procure her advocates. On the following day, however, when he had ordered her to be brought forward, he fined her a great weight of gold, thinking that he would thus force her to change her mind. But she, scorning the money, did not yield in the least; and leaving Constantinople, she took up residence in the city of Cyzicus. ^B At that same time, Tigrius the presbyter was stripped of his garments and lashed upon his back; then, with his feet and hands bound and stretched upon the rack, his joints were dislocated. He was a barbarian by race, not a eunuch from birth, but after having served in the house of a certain powerful man and having been approved by his master, he had earned his freedom. Having advanced to the rank of presbyter, he appeared in time to be of most excellent character, and was gentle, and as hospitable toward the needy and strangers as anyone else. And such were the events at Constantinople. Meanwhile, Siricius having administered the episcopate of the Roman city for fifteen years, and Anastasius for three, Innocent succeeded them in that succession. ^C At Antioch, Flavianus died, who had by no means consented to the deposition of John. In his place, Porphyrius assumed the priesthood of the Church of Antioch. And since he had voted with those who had used measures against him, many in Syria separated themselves from the communion of that Church; and holding their assemblies apart, they suffered many tribulations and hardships. For, for the sake of communion with Arsaces, and this Porphyrius whom we have mentioned, and Theophilus the bishop of Alexandria, by the zeal of those who were most powerful in the palace, a law was passed that the orthodox should not meet outside the churches, and that those who did not communicate with them should be expelled. ^D

CHAPTER XXV. How the Church was troubled, the state was also badly affected, and concerning Stilicho, the general of Honorius.

^A, having gathered in a great multitude, ravaged the cities and villages lying between Caria and Phoenicia. Stilicho, the general of Honorius—a man who was, if ever there was one, the most powerful of his time, holding the youth of both Romans and barbarians in his service—having fallen into enmity with the ministers of Arcadius, determined to set the two empires against each other. Having procured from Honorius the rank of general of the Romans for Alaric, the leader of the Goths ^B, he incited him against the Illyrians; and having sent ahead Jovius, who had been appointed praetorian prefect, he made a pact that [Alaric] should join with the Roman soldiers, so that he might, supposedly, bring those who were subject there under the rule of Honorius. Alaric, taking those under his command from the barbarian land where he was living, which is near Dalmatia and Pannonia, came to Epirus; and having remained there for a long time, he returned to Italy. For being about to

depart, as Stilicho had agreed, he was delayed by the letters of Honorius. And these things were in this state. ^A

CAP. XXVI. Two letters of Pope Innocent: one to John Chrysostom, the other to the clergy of Constantinople regarding John.

Now Innocent, the bishop of the city of Rome, upon learning of the things which had been perpetrated against John, was vehemently moved; and he indeed condemned them. But since he was anxious to assemble an ecumenical council, he wrote to John, and separately to the clergy of the city of Constantinople. Finding both letters translated from the Latin language into Greek, I have thought fit to append them here. They are of this sort:

^B To his beloved brother John, Innocent: Although an innocent man ought to expect all prosperity and to seek mercy from God, nevertheless, from us also who counsel patience, fitting letters have been sent through the deacon Cyriacus: so that abuse may not have more power to oppress than a good conscience has to confirm hope. For you, the teacher and shepherd of so many peoples, ought not to be taught that the best men are always and insistently tested as to whether they remain in the vigor of patience and do not succumb to any labor or annoyance: and because conscience is an altogether most firm thing against all things which unjustly happen. For if one does not overcome these by tolerance, he provides others with a proof of an evil opinion regarding himself. For one must tolerate all things who trusts first in God, and then in his own conscience. Indeed, a good man can be exercised toward tolerance, but he cannot be overcome, since the divine Scriptures protect and guard his mind. For the sacred lessons which we interpret to the peoples abound in examples, which bear witness that almost all the saints were vexed in various ways and, as if in a certain examination, were proven, and so reached the crown of patience. Therefore, let your own conscience of soul console your charity, dearest brother, which amidst calamities is accustomed to be a consolation of virtue. For while the Lord looks on... ^C

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS. But that he might not fulfill his promise, two things were an impediment: the irruption of Radagaisus, who was seeking Italy with four hundred thousand armed men: then ^D the rumor of the death of Alaric, as Zosimus writes in Book V, p. 802 and following. This is what Sozomen writes a little below: Stilicho, namely, when he was at Ravenna, and was already preparing for his departure, so that having joined forces with Alaric he might invade Illyricum Orientale, received letters from Honorius Augustus from the city of Rome, by which it was announced that Constantine had seized the tyranny in Gaul. These words are wanting in the Fukelian codex, and in their place this title is read: To beloved brother John, Innocent. Which title ought not to have been omitted. But in the margin these things are inscribed: Letter of Innocent.

Doubtless, one must write, "in the crushing of the good conscience," or "the good conscience in hoping." It is to be written, "in the crushing," with the words transposed as is truly the case, so that it may be referred to what precedes. If, however, this conjecture displeases anyone, I for my part will not be greatly angered. In the Fukelian codex I found written, "trusting in his own conscience."

VARIORUM. Innocent II became Roman Pope in the year 402. That Chrysostom, being cast down from his see, appealed to him, Baronius writes from the letter of the Emperor Honorius to Arcadius. He rescinded the sentence of deposition, as is clear both from Palladius and from the testimony of Innocent himself in Palladius.

The Epistle of Innocent, Bishop of Rome, to the Clergy and People of Constantinople.

^A of virtue. For when the Lord Christ oversees, the conscience, purged in the harbor of peace, shall stand firm.

Innocent, bishop, to the presbyters and deacons and to all the clergy and the people of the Church of Constantinople, who are under our fellow-bishop John, beloved brothers, greeting. From the letters of your charity, which you sent by the hand of Germanus the presbyter and Cassianus the deacon, I have learned with anxious solicitude of the scene of evils which you have set before our eyes; and through frequent reading, I have perceived with what great calamities and labors the faith is struggling. A matter which the consolation of patience alone can heal. For our God will shortly put an end to such tribulations, and it will be profitable to have endured these things. But indeed, we have recognized, while praising your purpose, that this very necessary consolation, which you placed at the beginning of your letter, ^B is confirmed by many testimonies exhorting to patience. For you have anticipated by your own letters the consolation which we owed to send to you by our own letters. For our Lord is accustomed to provide this patience to those who are laboring, so that the servants of Christ, even while in tribulations, might console themselves, reflecting within themselves that what they suffered has happened to holy men in the past. And we, too, are able to derive consolation for ourselves from your letters. For we are not alien to the fellowship of your sorrow, since we also are afflicted in you. ^C For who can endure those things which have been perpetrated by those who, above all others, ought to have been students of tranquility, of peace, and of concord? Now, in a preposterous manner, innocent priests are thrust out from the sees of their own churches. A matter which our brother and fellow-minister, your bishop John, has been the first and foremost to suffer unjustly, having attained no hearing. No crime is brought forward, none is heard. And what is this desperate design? That there might be, or that there might even be sought, no semblance of a trial, but others are substituted into the places of living priests: ^D as if those who have initiated this outrage could, by any means, be judged by anyone as having acted correctly or having done anything good. For we have never learned that such things were ever done by our fathers; rather, they have been prohibited, since license has been given to no one to ordain another in the place of a living person; for a perverse ordination cannot take away the honor of a priest, since that person...

who is unjustly substituted ^A cannot even be a bishop. As concerning the observance of the canons, we say that those only must be obeyed which were defined at Nicaea; the Catholic Church ought to follow and acknowledge these alone. But if others are brought forward by some, which differ from the Nicene canons and are argued to have been composed by heretics, these must be rejected by Catholic bishops. For it is not permitted to append to Catholic rules those things which have been devised by heretics. Indeed, they perpetually act to undermine the counsel of the Nicene Fathers. We say, therefore, that those canons not only are not to be followed, but rather that ^B they, along with the dogmas of heretics and schismatics, are to be utterly condemned, just as they have already been condemned in the Serdican synod by the bishops who were before us. For it would be better for those things which were rightly done to be condemned, than for those things which were done against the canons to hold any firmness, most dear brothers. But what shall we do at present against these things? A regular synodal inquiry is necessary, which we have long since said must be convened. For this is the only thing that can calm the movements of such tempests. In order to obtain this, it will be useful in the meantime to await the remedy for these evils ^C according to the will and nod of God the best and greatest, and of Christ our Lord. For all things which are now disturbed through the envy of the devil for the testing of the faithful shall be calmed. We ought to be firm and stable in faith, and hope for nothing less from the Lord. For we also have long and much deliberated on how an oecumenical synod might be convened, so that by the will of the celestial Deity, turbulent movements might at last be quieted. Let us therefore endure for a little while, and, fortified by the rampart of patience, let us hope that all things will be restored by the help of our God. Furthermore, everything which you said you were suffering, ^D and which those of our fellow-bishops who fled to Rome—though at different times—previously [related...].

to us, namely Demetrius, Cyriacus, Eulysius, and Palladius, who are with us, we have learned through thorough questioning.

Chapter XXVII. Concerning the calamities that occurred on account of John, the death of the Empress Eudoxia and of Arsaces; and also concerning Atticus the patriarch, who he was and what his character was like.

These are the letters of Innocent, from which it is possible to understand what opinion he held regarding John. During this same period, hail of immense size fell upon Constantinople and its suburbs; and on the fourth day after this, the wife of the Emperor ended her life. ^A Most people believed that these things happened because God was angered on account of John. For indeed, Cyrinus, the bishop of Chalcedon, who had vilified him more than all others, had shortly before this—following the misfortune that happened to his foot—had one leg amputated by physicians and had died in a miserable state. Arsaces also died after having administered the Church of Constantinople for only a short time. ^B While many were seeking his succession, in the fourth month after his death, Atticus was ordained, who was a presbyter of the Constantinople clergy and one of those who had conspired against John. He was by birth from Sebastia in Armenia. From his youth, he had been taught to practice the monastic philosophy by monks of the Macedonian heresy—who at that time were flourishing in Sebastia in this philosophy, originating from the school of Eustathius, whom we have noted previously as having been bishop there and a leader of the most excellent monks. When he had already reached manhood, he transferred himself to the catholic Church. ^C Being more prudent by nature than by training, he possessed great dexterity in the conduct of affairs, and was most skillful in devising and avoiding intrigues. In his manners, moreover, he was affable, so as to be pleasing to most people. In ecclesiastical discourses, however, he was mediocre, so that his sermons seemed to the hearers neither worthy of being written down nor entirely devoid of learning. For since he was studious of elegance, if [he occasionally] led [his thoughts astray], he used to practice the writers who were most esteemed among the Greeks. And with the appearance of being an unlearned man, by conversing on these matters, he often escaped the notice of the experts. He was said, toward those who were of his own opinion, [to be...] ^D[alt-version omitted]

zealous and industrious, but terrible toward those who followed a different sect. Thus, whenever he wished, he would strike fear into them; then, changing his demeanor, he would appear gentle toward them. This, those who knew him well say, is what he was like.

John, however, became even more famous while living in exile. For as he abounded in money, which was brought to him by many others and also sent by the deaconess Olympias, he ransomed many captives from the Isaurians and restored them to their own people. He also provided the necessities to many in need. Those who had no need of money, he won over with his discourse. He was exceedingly dear both to the Armenians among whom he lived and to all the neighboring peoples. Great numbers flocked to him daily from the city of Antioch and from the rest of Syria and Cilicia.

CAP. XXVIII. How Innocent, Bishop of Rome, exerted himself with all his might to gather a synod to recall John; concerning the legates sent by him for an investigation; and concerning the death of John Chrysostom.

^B Innocent, bishop of the city of Rome, as he had written before, was striving with all his might that John might be restored. Together with the bishops who had come to him as legates from the East, he sent five bishops and two presbyters of the Roman Church to the Augusti Honorius and Arcadius, to request a synod and to determine the time and place for its celebration. But those at Constantinople who were hostile to John began to slander these acts, as if they were an insult to the Eastern Empire. And these men, inasmuch as they had been troublesome to the foreign emperor, they saw to it that they were dismissed with ignominy. Furthermore, they brought it about by an imperial edict that John himself should be transferred farther away to the town of Pityus. Soldiers therefore arrived immediately and carried the edict into execution. However, they say that John, while he was being led away by the soldiers, foresaw on the journey the day of his death, the martyr Basiliscus having appeared to him in the town of Comana in Armenia. In which place, when his strength for continuing the journey failed him—for he was suffering from a headache and could not endure the rays of the sun—he died of the affliction. [Soc. Ib. VI, c. 21.]

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

HERMIAS SOZOMEN OF SALAMIS ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK IX

CHAPTER I. On the death of Arcadius, and the empire of Theodosius the Younger, and his sisters. Likewise concerning the piety, virtue, and virginity of Pulcheria Augusta; and of her religious acts: and how rightly she educated the Emperor Theodosius.

The matters concerning John were thus. But not long after his death, while Atticus was in the third year of his episcopate at Constantinople, in the consulship of Bassus and Philip, Arcadius ended his life, leaving as successor to his empire his son Theodosius, who had just recently been weaned; and, as daughters, leaving Pulcheria, Arcadia, and Marina, who were still quite young. ^A In this matter, it seems to me, God demonstrated most of all that piety alone is sufficient for the salvation of those who rule; for without it, neither armies, nor the strength of an emperor [(5)], nor any other provision is of any profit. Since, therefore, the divine power, which is the guardian of all [(6)], foresaw that the emperor would be most religious, it appointed his sister Pulcheria as guardian of him and of the empire. Although she had not yet completed her fifteenth year, she possessed a wisdom and divine understanding beyond ^B her age. And first, she consecrated her own virginity to God, and instructed her sisters in the same way of life, so that she might not introduce any other man into the palace, and might remove every occasion for jealousy and conspiracy. And in order to confirm more fully what she had decided, and, having God himself, and the priests, and all her subjects as witnesses of her deliberations, she [prepared] an object of wondrous beauty, made of gold and precious stones ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (5) *And the strength of the emperor.* See if "the administrator of all" might be better [written] instead of "strength of the emperor." (6) *The divine power, which is the guardian of all.* Thus Robert Stephanus edited it, when in the Royal codex which he printed with his fonts, "overseer of all" was read. But in the Fukelian codex it is written "guardian of all," which is most excellent. And indeed, I marvel that Robert Stephanus did not see this.

^A a wondrous gift of stones, the most beautiful by far of the works that are to be seen, she dedicated as a holy table in the church of Constantinople; and on the front of the table, so that it might be conspicuous to all, she inscribed these same words. Having taken upon herself the care of the government, she administered the Roman world excellently and with great order; for she took counsel rightly, and executed and wrote down what was to be done with speed (7). For she was skilled in speaking and writing correctly in both the Roman and Greek tongues. She referred the praise of all that was done to her brother, and took pains that he should be raised in a royal manner, as befitted his age, with the disciplines for which he was being instructed. Indeed, she had him instructed by experts in the art of horsemanship, as well as in the science of arms and letters. But that he should conduct himself gravely and with imperial dignity in public appearances, he was instructed by his sister: how he ought to wear his robes; how it behooved him to sit and to walk; how to restrain his laughter; to be gentle or formidable as the time and place required; and to listen with propriety to those who sought anything from him. ^B But especially she informed him in piety, accustoming him to pray assiduously and to attend the churches, and to adorn them with gifts and precious offerings; that he should hold in esteem the priests, all good men, and those who lived according to the laws and institutions of the Christians. Furthermore, when religion seemed in danger of being disturbed by adulterated dogmas, she looked to it with diligence and wisdom. Certainly, we shall find that she was the reason why new heresies have by no means prevailed in our age, as will be known more openly in what follows. Moreover, since she worshipped God with the greatest religion, it would be a long task to recount among whom she built, and how many churches she constructed magnificently; how many hostels for the poor and for strangers; how many monastic communities she established, with perpetual expenses designated for these, and provisions for the feeding of those who remained there. But if anyone should prefer to examine the truth from the things themselves, rather than to believe my words, he will surely find that I am writing these things neither falsely nor out of favor, when he reads the record of these things written by the stewards of her goods, and explores from the writings whether the facts themselves agree with our words. ^C If, however, these things alone do not suffice for anyone, let God himself give him faith, who holds her so dear and acceptable for the holiness of her life, that he hears her quickly when she prays, and frequently foretells to her what is to be done. For God’s love and benevolence toward men ^D

^A I should not say what I have said, unless they had rendered themselves worthy of that love by their own works. And indeed I gladly pass over here the individual things by which it can be demonstrated that the emperor’s sister is dear to God, lest anyone perhaps slander me for having turned aside to praises and encomia, when I had taken up a different subject for my writing. But that which by itself seems to me to be appropriate to ecclesiastical history, and a clear argument of the divine love toward her, I shall relate here, although it happened somewhat later. It is of this kind.

Chapter II

Concerning the finding of the relics of the holy forty martyrs.

A certain woman named Eusebia, a deaconess of the Macedonian sect, had a house and garden not far from the walls of the city of Constantinople. There she kept the sacred relics of those forty soldiers who had formerly, in the time of Licinius, endured martyrdom at Sebastia. ^B When she was about to die, she left the aforementioned place to monks of the same sect, and bound them by an oath to bury her there, and to hollow out a separate tomb for themselves over her head at the top, and to place the relics of the martyrs together with her, and to disclose the matter to no one. And the monks did what they had been commanded. But that the martyrs might be treated with the due veneration, and the matter nevertheless remain hidden from outsiders, just as they had promised Eusebia, they built a subterranean oratory around the woman’s tomb; above, however, they constructed a dwelling, the floor of which was paved with baked bricks, ^C and from it a hidden descent to the martyrs. After this, Caesarius, a man who was very powerful in those times, and who had attained the rank of consul and prefect of the praetorium, buried his wife, who had died, next to Eusebia’s tomb. For it had been agreed between them while they were still living, because they loved each other greatly and agreed with one another in doctrine and religion. Hence an opportunity was given to Caesarius to buy that place, so that he himself might also be buried next to his spouse. The aforementioned monks moved to another place, indicating nothing about the martyrs. After this, when the building had collapsed, and earth and rubble had been cast over it, that whole place was leveled; for Caesarius himself, in honor of the martyr Thyrsus, ^D built a magnificent church to God there. And as it seems, the aforementioned place was carefully hidden in this way, and having been so...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(9) *The words "but what I say regarding him"*. Henricus Savilius underlined the last two words as though they were suspect and difficult to understand. The sense, however, is clear if we read *according to him*, as it appears in my translation. It could also be written not inappropriately as *at the same time* or *at the same*, which reading I prefer.

VARIORUM. * The names of these martyrs may be seen in Theod. Ruinart, *Acta Martyrum*, p. 581, and in the Bollandists. They suffered (as all agree) under the Emperor Licinius, at Sebastia in Armenia, around the year 320, at which time the persecution of Licinius raged, as Antonius Pagi proves. Shortly after their death, churches were built in various provinces in their honor. The opportunity for building these was provided by their relics, which, as Gregory of Nyssen testifies, were so divided throughout the world that almost every province participates in the blessing from them. The finding of the relics at Constantinople, of which Sozomen treats here, is commemorated by the author of the *Paschal Chronicle* at the year 451. Of the various homilies of the Holy Fathers that exist concerning the XL martyrs, the one written by Basil the Great, which Ruinart presents in the place cited above, seems to be preferred over the others.

^A For God wished that some time pass, preparing a more marvelous and illustrious discovery of the martyrs, and a more manifest declaration of the piety of her who found them. That discoverer was Pulcheria Augusta, the sister of the emperor. For when the admirable Thyrsus had appeared to her a third time, he gave notice of those who were hidden under the earth, and ordered that they be transferred to himself, so that they might share in the same location and honor. At the same time, the forty martyrs themselves, clothed in bright robes, also appeared to her and made themselves known. The thing seemed to exceed all belief and to be utterly impossible. For neither the older clerics of that Church, though often questioned, nor anyone else, could point out the martyrs.

Finally, when everyone was now in despair, God brought to the memory of a certain presbyter, Polychronius, who had formerly been one of the intimates of Caesarius, the monks who had once inhabited that place. He, therefore, went to the clerics of the Macedonians and inquired of them concerning the monks. And when everyone was already deceased, having found the only one among them who was still alive—who seemed to have been preserved for this very purpose, that he might point out the sought-after martyrs—he begged the man to tell him whether he knew if the sacred relics were hidden in the aforementioned place. But when Polychronius saw him hesitating somewhat because of the pact they had made with Eusebia, he explained the divine revelation to him, ^B and the urgency of the Augusta, and the despair of them all.

Then he confessed that those things which God had revealed to the Augusta were true. For he, who at that time had been just a youth, and had learned the monastic discipline under the elder superiors there, knew for certain that the martyrs lay beside the coffin of Eusebia; he did not know, however, whether they were buried beneath the temple or elsewhere, because much time had passed, and the former appearance of the place had been changed into that which is now seen. To this Polychronius replied: "But the same has not happened to me. For I remember being present when the wife of Caesarius was buried; and, judging from the adjacent public road, I conjecture that she lies near the ambo (10), which is the pulpit of the readers." Therefore, the monk replied and said, "The coffin of Eusebia must be sought beside the spouse of Caesarius; for while they lived, they were for the most part together, and when they died, they agreed to have their coffins together." And since it was necessary to dig according to what had been said and to trace the sacred relics, the Augusta, having learned these things, ^C ordered the task to be undertaken (11). As the space around the ambo was dug up, the coffin of the wife of Caesarius was found, just as Polychronius had conjectured.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

(10) *Περὶ τὸν ἄμβωνα*. Sozomen gives the interpretation of this word, which the Latins call the pulpitum, which is in the middle between the altar and the body of the church. Sometimes, however, the Latins call it the ambo. It is nonetheless a Greek word, and is said to be derived from "to ascend," as the author of the Etymologicum teaches. Therefore, Walafrid Strabo is mistaken, who thought it was named *ambionem* from *ambiendum* (going around). Furthermore, it should be noted that Sozomen says the sepulcher of the wife of Caesarius was in the church near the ambo, that is, outside the altar. For within the altar, which we commonly call the choir, usually only priests or martyrs were buried. The laity, however, were accustomed to be buried outside the city in cemeteries. Only founders of churches, such as Caesarius was, were buried in the churches which they had founded. Thus the emperor Constantine was buried in the basilica of the Apostles which he had built at Constantinople, and indeed at the door of the basilica, as I have observed in the Eusebian annotations.

(11) *Ἡ βασιλὶς προσέταξεν*. It is not permitted to disturb the sepulchers of the dead. For that was considered a most grave crime, and next to sacrilege. Wherefore it was necessary that Pulcheria Augusta should order it to be done.

^A Since it had been said that the place was to be dug up, and the relics of the martyrs were to be sought, the Augusta, having understood this, ordered them to commence the work. The place around the *ambones* having been dug up, the coffin of the wife of Caesarius was found, just as Polychronius had conjectured. At a small interval, there was a pavement of baked bricks separated from the side, and a marble slab equal in size to the surrounding enclosure, under which appeared the small sarcophagus of Eusebia herself; and the oratory which was around that sarcophagus was quite elegantly covered with slabs of white and purple marble. The cover of the sarcophagus was fashioned like a sacred table. ^B In the upper part where the martyrs lay, a small opening appeared. Then indeed a certain person standing by from the emperor's palace let down through the opening a thin rod which he happened to be holding; and having drawn it up, he brought it to his nose and caught the scent of a most sweet ointment. This event gave spirit both to the workmen and to those who were standing by; and having uncovered the sarcophagus with haste, they found Eusebia. That part which stood out of the sarcophagus toward her head, hewn into the shape of a chest, was covered from within by its own lid; and on both sides, iron was laid upon the lips, held fast, bonded with lead. In the middle, the same opening appearing again showed still more clearly that the martyrs were stored within. ^C When these things were announced, the Augusta and the bishop immediately ran to the martyr's shrine; and forthwith, by the efforts of skilled workers, the iron fastenings being removed, the cover was easily subsequently extracted. Under it, a great quantity of ointments was found, and in the ointments two silver caskets, in which the sacred relics were hidden. And then indeed the Augusta, having offered prayer, gave thanks to God that she had been deemed worthy of so great a vision, and that she had at last found the sacred relics. Afterward, indeed, when she had honored the martyrs with a most precious shrine, she deposited them beside the wondrous Thyrsus; and the event was celebrated with a public festival, as was fitting, and with the proper honor and procession, accompanied by psalmody, at which I myself was also present. ^D And that these things came to pass in this manner, those who chanced to be present at the festival will bear witness; for almost all of them are still alive, since they happened much later, when Proclus was administering the Church of Constantinople.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

(12) *Τρύπημα μικρόν*. There was a double opening over the relics of the martyrs. The one was outer, in the altar or in the pavement, under which the relics were stored. The other was inner, in the chest or sarcophagus in which the relics were enclosed. Through these openings, which stood opposite one another, Christians were accustomed to lower veils so that they might touch the relics of the saints, which they received as a great blessing. Evodius calls them "little windows" in the first book *On the Miracles of Saint Stephen*, ch. 12. And Gregory of Tours in the first book *On the Miracles of the Confessors*, ch. 28. In the suggestion, however, of the legates to Pope Hormisdas regarding the petition of Justinian, they are called *cataractae* (slats/grates). See Baronius, ad annum Christi 416, cap. 21; and ad annum 461, cap. 5; and ad annum 519, cap. 93. Regarding this opening, the passage of Nicetas of Paphlagonia in his eulogy of the martyr Hyacinth of Amastris seems to be understood, which says: This mouth of the tomb and the structure covering it in the form of a sarcophagus, is filled with... The passage is to be referred to that which covers it, composed in the manner of a sarcophagus (meaning the chapel), filled with holy dust and that venerable ash. To this opening is also to be referred another place of an uncertain author in the *Description of the Church of Saint Sophia*, which was recently published by Fr. Combefis, p. 255.

(13) *Μύρου εὐωδίας*. I do not doubt that it should be written *μύρων εὐωδίας*. For the laws of grammar require it.

(14) *Συνέδραμον εἰς τὸ μαρτύριον*. Baronius refers the translation of the forty martyrs to the year of Christ 438; and adducing this passage of Sozomen, he says it is what we call a *confessio*. Indeed, the *Confessio* of Blessed Peter occurs more often in the lives of the Roman pontiffs for the sepulcher of Blessed Peter. But in this place, it is the basilica built in honor of the martyr Thyrsus.

CHAPTER III. Further concerning the virtue of Pulcheria and her sisters, and how dear they were to God.

^A It is said that God frequently foretold to the Augusta what was to come in other affairs as well, and that many things happened to her and to her sisters which bore witness to the love of God toward them. For they lived the same kind of life and followed the same rule. Toward priests and sacred buildings they were prompt and zealous, and they were bountiful toward needy strangers and the poor. Their table and their manner of life were, for the most part, the same for all of them; and both by night and by day they sang hymns to God together. As is the custom for honorable women, they occupied themselves with weaving and similar tasks. They regarded idleness and sloth as unworthy of the holy virginity to which they had committed themselves—even though they were ^B Augustae, born and reared in the imperial palace—and they banished these far from their lives. Because of this, as God was manifestly gracious and protected their house by His guardianship, the emperor’s age and his empire increased day by day. In fact, any plots and wars that were formed against him were dissolved of their own accord.

CHAPTER IV. Concerning the treaty of the Persians, and concerning Honorius and Stilicho, and the events that took place in Rome and Dalmatia.

For at that time, although the Persians had moved toward war, they entered into a hundred-year truce with the Romans. But Stilicho, the magister militum of Honorius, having come under suspicion that he wished to declare his own son Eucherius emperor of the East, was killed by the soldiers who were in Ravenna. This man, even ^C beforehand, while Arcadius was still alive, had entered into enmity with his leaders and had intended to pit the two empires against one another. When he had obtained for Alaric, the leader of the Goths, the dignity of magister militum from Honorius, he had exhorted him to occupy Illyricum. And having sent ahead Jovius, who had been appointed praetorian prefect throughout Illyricum, he promised that he himself would also hasten there with the legions of Roman soldiers, so that he might bring the subjects in those parts under the dominion of Honorius. And Alaric, indeed, from the barbarian region near Dalmatia and Pannonia where he was living, having taken up the Goths who obeyed him, led them into Epirus; ^D and having remained there for a considerable time, he returned without having accomplished anything.

[index: entries preserved]

^A And having set out for Italy, while he was intending to depart in accordance with the prior agreements, he was held back by the letters of Honorius. But when Arcadius had died, Honorius hastened to return to Constantinople out of affection for his nephew, and to appoint faithful officials for the sake of his own safety and kingdom. For regarding him as being in the place of a son, he feared that he might suffer something on account of his youth, being in a state ready for treachery. And as he was already preparing to set out on the journey, Stilicho persuaded Honorius to remain in Italy, saying that this was necessary, inasmuch as a certain Constantine had recently seized power in Arles. But he himself, having taken the one of the scepters which the Romans call the Labarum, and letters from the emperor, which entrusted the expedition to the East to him, was already preparing to depart, having taken with him four divisions of soldiers. In the meantime, however, when a rumor had spread that he was plotting against the emperor and was preparing to seize the sovereignty for his own son, having brought those in power into the conspiracy, the soldiers, having staged a mutiny, killed the praetorian prefect of Italy and the one of the Gauls, as well as the generals and the other men who held the chief offices in the palace. He himself ^B was also put to death by the soldiers at Ravenna—a man who, if anyone ever was, had been raised to great power, and who had, so to speak, all Romans and barbarians obeying him. Thus, therefore, Stilicho, having fallen under suspicion as being ill-disposed toward the empires, perished in this manner; and his son Eucherius was also killed.

CAP. V. Of the diverse nations that waged war against the Romans, and which were defeated by divine providence, or who made a treaty with the Romans.

At the same time, it also happened that the Huns, who were encamped in Thrace, with no one attacking or pursuing them, retreated in disgrace after having lost the greater number of their own men. For Uldis, the king of the barbarians who were around the Danube, having crossed the river with a vast army, had encamped within the borders of Thrace. And having captured the city of Moesia, which is called Castra Martis, ^C by treachery, he made raids into the rest of Thrace from there, and he scorned, out of arrogance, to make an agreement with the Romans. And when, at one time, the master of soldiers of Thrace was speaking with him about peace, pointing to the rising sun, he said that it was easy for him to destroy, if he wished, the whole earth which that sun illuminated with its rays. And as he was boasting in this way, and [demanding] tribute... ^D

as he pleased from the Romans, and ordering them to have peace on those terms or else await war—the situation being an impossible one—God demonstrated what care and concern He has for the present imperial rule. For not long after, in a private conversation with the domestic officials and captains of Uldis, talk arose about the Roman republic and the emperor’s kindness, and how great and how many are the rewards with which he honors good and brave men. Not without divine providence did they become possessed by a desire for these, and they defected to the Romans and camped together with them, along with the barbarians who were stationed under them. Uldis barely escaped to the far side of the river, having lost many of his own, while the so-called Sciri—a ^B barbarian tribe, quite numerous before they met with such a disaster—were utterly destroyed. For, having been late in their flight, some of them were slaughtered, and others were taken alive and sent off in chains to Constantinople. It seemed good to the magistrates to distribute them so that, being a multitude, they might not stir up any revolt; some they sold for small sums, while others they handed over to serve for free, on the condition that they should never enter Constantinople nor set foot in any regions of Europe, but that they should be separated from places known to them by the divide of the sea. Of these, a not insignificant number remained, namely those for whom no buyer had been found; others were ordered to dwell in various places. I have indeed seen many in Bithynia near the mountain called Olympus, living scattered about, and cultivating the hills and the valleys lying beneath them.

CAP. VI.

Concerning Alaric the Goth, and how, attacking Rome with a sudden assault, he afflicted it severely.

Itaque, the empire of the East was completely liberated from its enemies and was governed with the greatest dignity, beyond everyone’s expectation, ^D while the emperor was still quite young. The parts of the West, however, were in turmoil, as many tyrants were arising one after another. It was at this time, after the slaughter of Stilicho, that Alaric, the leader of the Goths, having sent an embassy...

to Honorius regarding peace, was rebuffed; and having seized Rome, he besieged it, having stationed many barbarians at the river Tiber, so that supplies might not be imported to those in the city from the Portus—for this is what they call the Roman harbor. ^A Since the siege was prolonged, and famine and pestilence were pressing upon the city, and many slaves—and especially those who were barbarians by race—were deserting to Alaric, it seemed necessary to the pagans in the Senate to offer sacrifices in the Capitol and other temples. For certain Tuscans, summoned for this purpose by the Prefect of the City, promised to drive away the barbarians with lightning and thunder. They boasted that they had done such a thing at Narnia [(24)], a city of Tuscany, which Alaric had passed by when he was marching against Rome, and had not taken. But the outcome proved that there would be no benefit to the city from these things. For those who were right-minded ^B perceived that these things were befalling the Romans due to the wrath of God, as a penalty for the evils they had formerly committed unjustly against citizens and foreigners [(25)] alike out of excessive indolence and profligacy. Indeed, it is said that a good man, one of the monks in Italy, advised Alaric as he was hastening to Rome to spare the city and not be the cause of such great evils. Alaric is said to have replied that he was not undertaking these things of his own accord, but that someone was constantly bothering and urging him, and ordering him to plunder Rome; which he finally did. ^C While he was besieging it, having received many gifts, he lifted the siege for a time, with the Romans agreeing to persuade the emperor to accept him into friendship.

CHAPTER VII

When an embassy regarding this matter had taken place, those in the imperial palace who were acting in opposition to Alaric hindered the peace. But after this, when Innocent, the bishop of the Romans, had sent ambassadors, Alaric, summoned by letters from the emperor, came to the city of Ariminum, which is two hundred and ten stadia distant from Ravenna. ^D There, having pitched his tents before the walls, Jovius, the Prefect of Italy, came to speak with him...

^A and reported Alaric’s request to the Emperor, suggesting that he be honored with the appointment of Master of both services. The Emperor granted Jovius, as Prefect, the authority to provide the money and rations which he requested, but replied that he would never grant him the dignity. Jovius, however, having remained in Alaric’s tent awaiting the envoy sent from the palace, quite imprudently ordered the Emperor’s instructions to be read out in the presence of the barbarians. Then Alaric, indignant at the denial of the dignity, as if he had been insulted, immediately sounded the trumpet and marched on Rome. Jovius, fearing that the Emperor might suspect him of favoring Alaric, acted even more rashly than before; he swore by the safety of the prince himself, and compelled the other nobles to swear, that they would never make peace with Alaric. But the barbarian, not long after being led to repentance, indicated that he had no need of official dignities; rather, he would be an ally to the Romans, provided that a moderate amount of grain was supplied to him and places for habitation which the Romans did not consider of great importance.

CAP. VIII. Of the rebellion of Attalus, and of Count Heraclian, and how Attalus later threw himself at the feet of Honorius and obtained pardon.

When the embassy of the bishops had been sent and repulsed twice in this matter, he returned to Rome and besieged the city again. And having captured Portus on one side, he forced the Romans ^B to vote for Attalus, who was then Prefect of the city, as Emperor. And when the Romans had been promoted to the remaining dignities, Alaric was appointed Master of both services, and Ataulfus, the brother of his wife, as Count of the domestic cavalry. Attalus then convened the senate and delivered a long and very eloquently crafted speech, promising that he would preserve the ancestral laws for the senate, and would bring Egypt and all the eastern provinces under the control of the Italians. And this man boasted so magnificently, he who was not to retain the name of Emperor for even a single year. But, led on by certain seers who promised him that he would gain Africa without a fight, he neither believed Alaric, who advised that a moderate force of soldiers be sent to Carthage to dispatch the leaders of Honorius if they resisted his command, nor did he believe John, whom he himself had created Master of Offices, who advised that it was necessary for Constans, whom he had decided to send into Libya, to be sent as if by Honorius, with the customary letter which they call an ^C edict ^D.

^A to Heraclianus, who was at that time established as Count of Military Affairs for Africa, so that he might strip him of his authority. And this might perhaps have succeeded, for the Africans were not yet aware of anything concerning the reign of Attalus. But when Constans, according to the response of the prophets, had sailed to Carthage, Attalus, who was so far bereft of his senses that he did not wish to doubt, but considered it a certainty that the Africans were subject to his rule, just as had been predicted to him by the prophets, marched his army toward Ravenna. When it was announced that he had already arrived at Ariminum with the Roman and barbarian troops, Honorius immediately sent letters to him as if to an emperor, and sent legates from among those who held the most important offices in his palace, signifying that he would willingly have him as a sharer of the empire. Attalus, however, refused the partnership of the empire, but informed Honorius that he might choose an island or any other place he wished, in which he might live as a private citizen, while retaining all imperial honor nonetheless.

^B While affairs were in this state for Honorius, such that he had ships prepared to sail to his nephew if necessity should constrain him, six ships, containing about four thousand soldiers, arrived unexpectedly at Ravenna by night from the East. He entrusted the guardianship of the walls to these men, fearing the readiness of the local soldiers for betrayal. Meanwhile, Heraclianus, having killed Constans, stationed guards in the ports and on the shores of Africa, and prevented merchant ships from sailing to Rome. When, by reason of this, famine began to weigh heavily upon the Romans, they sent legates to Attalus. He, being at a loss as to what should be done, returned to Rome, as if to consult with the senate about the matter.

^C When the famine had prevailed to such a degree that the citizens were using chestnuts in place of wheat, and there was even a suspicion that some had tasted human flesh, Alaric advised that five hundred barbarians be sent against Heraclianus, but it seemed to the senate and to Attalus that Africa ought not to be entrusted to barbarians. When it was evident that God was opposing the reign of Attalus, Alaric, perceiving that he was laboring in vain in a matter that was not within his power, agreed with Honorius for the abolition of his reign, having first received a pledge of safety from him. Therefore, when all had gathered outside the city [(28)], Attalus laid aside the symbols of dominion; his officials also laid aside their ^D belts, and Honorius granted pardon to all for what had happened, that each should retain the rank of honor [(29)] and the dignity they previously held. Attalus, however, along with his son [(30)], for a time considering it not entirely safe to live among the Romans.

CHAPTER IX.

Regarding the hope that pagans and Arians had entertained on account of Attalus; also regarding Sarus, a most valiant leader; and how Alaric took Rome by treachery, while keeping the sanctuary of Saint Peter inviolate.

The pagans and those Christians who followed the Arian sect were greatly distressed by this turn of events. For the pagans, judging from the character and previous upbringing of Attalus, hoped that he would openly embrace the superstition of the Gentiles and restore to them their ancestral temples, festivals, and sacrifices. The Arians, for their part, believed that they would again obtain control of the churches, as had occurred in the times of Constantius and Valens, if Attalus firmly secured the empire. For he had been baptized by Sigesarius, the bishop of the Goths, and for this reason he was most agreeable to them all and to Alaric. ^B Not long after, Alaric, having occupied the Alps—a place approximately sixty stadia distant from Ravenna—entered into negotiations with the emperor for peace.

Now, a certain man named Sarus, a barbarian by birth and most expert in military matters, who had about three hundred soldiers with him—all of them loyal and warlike—being suspected by Alaric because of a prior enmity, considered that a treaty between the Romans and the Goths would in no way be to his advantage. Therefore, rushing out suddenly with his men, he killed some of the barbarians. Alaric, moved by both anger and fear because of this, returned by the same route he had come. He besieged Rome again and took it by treachery. He permitted his troops to plunder the wealth of the Romans as each was able, and to despoil all the houses. ^C However, out of reverence for the Apostle Peter, he ordered that the basilica, which is large and very spacious around that tomb, should be kept inviolate. This fact served as a hindrance to the total destruction of Rome; for those who had been saved there—and they were a vast multitude—remained to rebuild the city.

CHAPTER X.

Regarding the Roman woman who provided an excellent specimen of chastity.

Since, as is likely in the sacking of so great a city, many things occurred, I will record here what at that time seemed to me worthy of ecclesiastical history. For it reveals the pious act of a barbarian man, and the fortitude of a Roman woman in protecting her chastity. ^D

^A Both were Christians, though not of the same sect; for the barbarian held the opinion of Arius, while the woman followed the faith of those at Nicaea. Having seen her to be very beautiful, a certain young man among the soldiers of Alaric, overcome by her beauty, sought to drag her into association with him. But as she resisted and struggled, fearing to suffer anything shameful, he drew his sword and threatened to kill her; yet, out of restraint—being, as it were, amorously inclined—he wounded her neck but slightly. Drenched in much blood, she nonetheless offered her neck to the sword, believing it more choiceworthy to die in chastity than to survive after having experienced another man besides him to whom she was lawfully joined. When the barbarian, having attacked her again even more fearfully, achieved nothing, he marveled at her chastity and led her to the sanctuary of Peter the Apostle. And having handed her over to the guardians of the church, and having given six gold pieces for her sustenance, he commanded that she be protected for her husband.

CHAP. XI. Of the tyrants who rose up in the West at that time against Honorius, and how they were utterly destroyed on account of the Emperor's love of God.

mountains ^A which divide Gaul from Italy, which the Romans call the Cottian Alps. Then, having proclaimed his elder son Constans, whom he later clothed in the imperial habit, Caesar, he sent him into Spain; and he, taking possession of the nation, established his own governors there. He also ordered that Didymus and Verinianus, the kinsmen of Honorius, be brought to him in chains. These men, who had previously disagreed with one another, as soon as they were in danger, returned to their former harmony, and having collected a multitude of peasants and servants, and joined them to their own forces, they gave battle in Lusitania, and slew many of the soldiers who had been sent by the tyrant to capture them.

CAP. XII.

But afterward, when the adversaries had been increased by auxiliary forces, Didymus and Verinianus were captured, and carried off together with their wives, and were not long after put to death. Theodosiolus and Lagodius, their brothers, who were living in other provinces, left their native land. And Theodosiolus indeed fled into Italy to the Emperor Honorius; but Lagodius betook himself to the Eastern parts to Theodosius. These things having been done, Constans returned to his father, having established a guard of his own soldiers to keep the approaches to the Spains; and although the Spaniards sought that the custody of these approaches be granted to them according to ancient custom, he by no means permitted it. Which circumstance was the cause of ruin to the inhabitants of those regions thereafter. For when the forces of Constantine had been broken, the barbarian nations, namely the Vandals, Suevi, and Alani, having recovered their confidence, occupied those narrow passes: and they took many cities and fortresses of Spain and Gaul, and also the leaders and counts of the tyrant. Now Constantine, when affairs seemed to be succeeding to his mind, having raised his son Constans from the dignity of Caesar to the imperial height, ^C deliberated on taking Italy; and having passed the Cottian Alps, he arrived at the city of Libero in Liguria.

^A But intending to cross the Eridanus, he turned back along the same road, having learned of the death of Alaric; who, being a general of Honorius, and suspected of plotting with Constantine to transfer the entire Western empire to him, happened to be killed at that time, preceding, as was the custom, the ruler returning from an excursion. At which time the emperor immediately dismounted from his horse and publicly offered thanks to God for having been delivered from an open conspirator. Constantine meanwhile, taking flight, occupied Arelate, and at the same time his son Constans also fled from Spain. For when the power of Constantine had collapsed, the Vandals, Suevi, and Alani, having recovered their courage, hurriedly occupied the Pyrenees mountains, having heard that this was a fertile and highly wealthy region; and as those to whom Constans had entrusted the guard of the passage were negligent, they crossed over into Spain.

CHAP. XIII.

Regarding Gerontius and Maximus, and regarding the army of Honorius, and regarding the capture of Gerontius, and of his wife, and how they were slain.

In the meantime Gerontius, the most excellent of Constantine’s generals, became hostile to him; and deeming Maximus, his own intimate, ^B fit for tyranny, he dressed him in imperial robes and allowed him to reside in Tarraco. He himself then set out in an expedition against Constantine, and while on his way he arranged for his son Constans, who was in Vienna, to be killed. When Constantine learned of the situation regarding Maximus, he sent his general Edobichus beyond the Rhine to solicit the alliance of the Franks and Alamanni. He entrusted to his son Constans the protection of Vienna and the cities in that region. Gerontius meanwhile, having marched upon Arelate, besieged the city. But not long after, when the army of Honorius arrived against the tyrant, led by Constantius, who was the father of the Emperor Valentinian, ^C he immediately fled with a few soldiers. For the majority had joined the forces of Constantius; and the soldiers in Spain, deeming Gerontius contemptible because of his flight, took counsel to kill him; and—

^A having formed a phalanx, they surrounded his house by night and attacked him. But Gerontius, with one Alanan companion and a very few servants, shooting from the upper part of the house, killed over three hundred soldiers. When their arrows ran low, the servants fled, letting themselves down from the house secretly. Gerontius, though he could have escaped in the same way, chose not to do so, being held by his love for Nunechia, his wife. ^B At daybreak, when the soldiers set fire to the house and he saw that no hope of safety remained, he cut off the head of his Alanan companion, who was willing to accept this. Afterwards, he performed the same act for his own wife, who was lamenting, and with tears offered herself to the sword, asking to die by her husband's hand before she could fall into the power of others, and beseeching him to grant her this final favor. Thus the woman, having shown herself worthy of her religion—for she was a Christian—died there, bequeathing a memory of herself to posterity that is better than oblivion. Gerontius himself, having struck himself twice with the sword and feeling that he had not received a mortal wound, drew the dagger he had at his thigh and plunged it into his heart.

CAP. XIV. Concerning Constantine and the army of Honorius; and of Edobichus the general; and the defeat of Edobichus by Ulphilas, the general serving with Constantius, and his murder.

While the army of Honorius was besieging Arelatum, ^C Constantine was still sustaining the siege when he was informed that Edobichus was arriving with a great body of reinforcements. This also greatly terrified the generals of Honorius, so much so that they were already preparing to return to Italy and wage war there. And when this plan had been decided upon, upon the immediate announcement of Edobichus’s arrival and the news that he had pitched camp nearby, they crossed the river Rhone. Constantius, who was leading the infantry, awaited the arrival of the enemy, while Ulphilas, the colleague of Constantius, remained hidden with his cavalry not far away. ^D When the enemy had passed beyond the army of Ulphilas and were about to come to blows with the men under Constantius, a signal was given, and Ulphilas suddenly appeared and charged the enemy from the rear. A rout immediately took place: some fled, others were killed, and the majority, throwing down their arms, begged for pardon and were granted quarter. Edobichus, mounting his horse, fled to a certain field belonging to one Ecdicius, who had formerly been treated with many benefits by Edobichus and was considered his friend. But he, having cut off his head, presented it to the generals of Honorius in the hope of great rewards.

of gifts and honors. Constantius, however, ordered the head to be received, saying that the Republic gave thanks for Ulfila’s action ^A, but because Ecdicius was eager to remain with him, he ordered him to depart; for he judged that the company of a man who treated his own guests so poorly would be advantageous neither to himself nor to his army. And so he, having dared the most unholy slaughter of a man who was both his friend and a guest in distress, departed with nothing to show for it—gaping in vain, as the saying goes.

Chapter XV. How Constantine laid down his imperial insignia, and was ordained a presbyter; his death, and that of others who had rebelled against Honorius.

After this victory, having crossed back toward the city, the army of Honorius returned to the siege, and Constantine, having learned that Edobichus had been slain ^B, of his own volition laid down the purple robes and the symbols of imperial power; and having arrived at the church, he was ordained a presbyter. The men inside the walls, having previously obtained sworn protection, opened the gates and all were granted pardon. And from that time forward, these provinces returned under the governance of Honorius and obeyed his appointed rulers. Constantine, however, was sent away to Italy together with his son Julian, but before he could arrive, he was slain on the way. Not long after, the aforementioned tyrants Jovius and Maximus were unexpectedly killed, as was Sarus and many others besides, who had conspired against the empire of Honorius.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

[...] [It] is well translated by Musculus. But Suffridus Petrus interpreted it thus: "Constantine, indeed, ordered the head to be received, and thanks to be given to Ecdicius in the name of the Republic, who had performed Ulfila’s duty." But he did not attain the sense. The joke of Constantius against Ecdicius is indeed elegant. For when Ecdicius hoped he would receive the greatest reward for the head of Edobichus, Constantius responded to his surprise that the Republic gave thanks to Ulfila for the deed of Ecdicius. For if Ulfila had not routed the forces of Edobichus, Ecdicius would never have cut off his head. Therefore, the words were transposed in the Greek, and they must be restored as I have said. Nicephorus, however, not ^C understanding this place, expunged the word. It ought to be written [as indicated]. This is the Jovinus who seized the tyranny in the Gauls with his brother Sebastian, in the consulship of Honorius for the ninth time and Theodosius for the fourth, as is gathered from Frigeridus. For Frigeridus writes that while the tyrant Constantine was being besieged by the generals of Honorius at Arelate, news was brought from the Gauls that Jovinus had assumed the royal regalia. In the following year, when Honorius was consul for the tenth time and Theodosius for the fifth, Marcellinus writes that Jovinus was killed with his brother in the Gauls; Prosper and Idatius, however, refer this to the following year, under Lucius alone as consul. But Prosper writes that life was granted to Maximus, because the modesty and insignificance of the man did not merit the envy of one who had usurped the empire. Yet long afterward, the same Maximus was killed during the tricennial celebrations of Honorius, as Marcellinus writes in his Chronicle, in the consulship of Honorius for the tenth time and Theodosius for the tenth: *The tyrant Maximus and Jovinus were bound in irons, brought from the Spains, and killed.* Where it is unknown who this Jovinus is. For he cannot be that Jovinus who assumed the purple in the Gauls with Sebastian; for he had already been killed long before, as witnessed by Marcellinus and Prosper. [Sarus] indeed had stood by the side of Honorius, and had fought strenuously against Alaric, king of the Goths; then, having been sent into the Gauls against the tyrant Constantine, he had defeated Nebogast, the master of soldiers, in battle against Constantine. But later, incensed at Honorius because the murder of his servant Belleridus had not been avenged, he had abandoned the side of Honorius and had betaken himself to Jovinus, who was wielding the tyranny in the Gauls. ^D

VARIA

b Valesius makes mention of the ninth consulship of the Emperor Honorius twice, and in different years. Antonius Pagi explains it thus: Theodosius held the fourth consulship without a colleague; Honorius deferred his ninth to the following year.

^A

Chapter XVI. On the benevolence of the Divine Power toward Honorius; and on his death. Likewise, concerning his successors, namely Valentinian and his daughter Honoria. And on the peace that existed everywhere in the world at that time.

It is not the place here to recount these matters in detail. Yet I thought it worth mentioning in passing, so that we might perceive from them that it is sufficient for an emperor, for the protection of his empire, to be a diligent worshipper of the Divine Power; such, indeed, was this emperor. With him dwelt Galla Placidia, his sister born of the same father, who herself also took the greatest care for religion and for the churches. She was taken as wife by Constantius, the man who had extinguished the tyranny of Constantine, a very valiant man and highly skilled in warfare. The emperor, rewarding him, honored him with the marriage of his sister, and with purple and diadem, and with a share in the empire. ^B But he, having lived only a short time thereafter, died, leaving children: Valentinian, who later succeeded to the empire, and Honoria. During this same time, the empire of the East was entirely free from enemies, and, contrary to everyone's expectation, public affairs were managed there with the greatest order. For the emperor was still of a tender age. But God seemed to take manifest pleasure in the reigning government, seeing that He not only brought military movements to an end in such a way, contrary to the opinion of all, but also revealed the sacred bodies of many who had formerly been renowned for their holiness. Of such a kind is that which happened at that time regarding Zacharias, the most ancient prophet, and Stephen the deacon, who had been ordained by the apostles. Since the discovery of both was paradoxical and divine, it is necessary to relate the manner of it. ^C

Chapter XVII. On the discovery of the prophet Zacharias and Stephen the Protomartyr.

I shall begin with the prophet. Chaphar-Zacharia is a village on the borders of Eleutheropolis, a city of Palestine. Its steward was a certain Calemerus, a man bound to the soil, faithful indeed to his master, but harsh and morose, and unjust toward the neighboring peasants. Although he was of such a character, the prophet appeared to him while he was awake and revealed himself; and, pointing to a certain garden, he said, "Dig here," having measured two cubits from the wall into the garden, ...

along the road that leads to the city of ^A Biththeresin. You will find a double coffin, the inner part of wood, the outer of lead; and around the coffin, a glass vessel full of water, and two snakes of moderate size, gentle and harmless

HENRY VALOIS' OBSERVATIONS ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES OF SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN. BOOK ONE.

^A CAPUT PRIMUM. De anno quo primum restitutus est Athanasius.

Caesar Baronius in his *Annals*, and Dionysius Petavius in his *Rationarium Temporum*, and Blondel in his book *On the Primacy of the Church*, and others, write that Athanasius was recalled from exile in the year of Christ 338, that is to say, the year after the death of Constantine, who, having seen that the aforementioned bishop was being pressed by the calumnies of his adversaries, had relegated him for a time to the Gauls. I, however, contend that Athanasius was restored in the year of our Lord 337, the very year in which Constantine died: and this I shall prove by a most certain argument, as I believe. For Athanasius writes in his *Second Apology against the Arians*, page 805, that he was released from exile and restored to his country by the younger Constantine, who also gave him letters to the people and clergy of the Alexandrian Church. Athanasius refers to these letters therein, the inscription of which is as follows: "Constantine Caesar to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria." Moreover, the subscription is of such a form: "Given at Trier on the 15th day before the Kalends of July." Both the inscription and the subscription of these letters teach what I have said, namely, that Athanasius was released from exile immediately after the passing of Constantine the Great, in the year of Christ ^B 337. For if he had been restored the following year, the younger Constantine would not have called himself Caesar, but Augustus. And Athanasius would not have been restored by Constantine the younger, but by Constantius, to whom the empire of the East had been allotted. Wherefore, since Constantine himself in those letters calls himself only Caesar, and since Athanasius testifies that he was restored by Constantine the young, it is apparent that this was done before the sons of Constantine the elder had been proclaimed Augusti by the soldiers. For indeed, after Constantine's death there was a certain interregnum; and the Roman world remained without an emperor for nearly three months, until the brothers, who were governing diverse provinces in the name of the Caesars, had come together to divide the total of the Roman empire. Constantine died on the 11th day before the Kalends of June, and in that very year the three Augusti—Constantine, Constantius, and Constans—were proclaimed on the 5th day before the Ides of September, as is read in the ancient *Fasti*, which Jacques Sirmond published falsely under the name of Idatius. This is the very thing which Eusebius writes in Book IV of *On the Life of Constantine*, that he reigned after his death, and all his diplomas and edicts were marked with his name as if he were still alive. For this reason, therefore, Constantine the younger in his letters to the Alexandrians calls himself only Caesar, since he had not yet been called Augustus. For the letters were given on the 15th day before the Kalends of July. But he was proclaimed Augustus with his brothers on the 5th day before the Ides of September. Furthermore, at that time, while the brothers were called only Caesars, the highest authority lay with the younger Constantine, since he was the eldest of the brothers by birth.

^C CAP. II. Quo anno Julius Romanæ urbis episcopus, missis in Orientem presbyteris, Athanasium et Eusebianos Romam ad synodum evocaverit.

Athanasius having returned to Alexandria, which we demonstrated in the chapter above to have occurred in the year of our Lord 337, the Eusebians, taking it ill that he had been restored, began to harass him with new accusations before the three Augusti. For they wrote letters both to Constantine and Constans, the emperors of the Western parts, in which, besides those old crimes so often sung, they accused him additionally of having stirred up many seditions in the city after his return, and of having caused many citizens to be cast into prison, to be afflicted with blows, and to be put to death by a judge. The same things they also wrote to Julius, the bishop of the city of Rome, having sent to him Macarius the presbyter, and the deacons Martyrius and Hesychius. Wherefore Athanasius was compelled to send his own presbyters with his letters, both to the emperors and to the Roman pontiff, to repel their calumnies. When, therefore, Athanasius' presbyters had come to Rome, and before Pope Julius and many other bishops of the West who were then at Rome had convicted the delegates of Eusebius in all things, at last, the delegates of Eusebius themselves asking for it, it was decided that a synod of both Eastern and Western bishops should be gathered at Rome, and that Julius should write to the Eusebians and to Athanasius, that they might be summoned to a council; so that with all present and arguing their own cause, a just sentence might be brought forth, and with the causes of discord removed, the peace of the Church might be established for the future. Therefore, Julius wrote according to the petition of the delegates to Eusebius through Elpidius and Philoxenus, presbyters of the Roman Church. He wrote also to Athanasius, commanding that they be present at Rome by a certain day to plead their case. But there is a difficulty as to what year this legation of Pope Julius set out for the East. Baronius, indeed, in his *Annals*, whom almost all others follow, assigns these accusations of the Eusebians against Athanasius, of which I spoke above, to the year of Christ 539. This I would indeed readily concede. For since Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops testify in their synodical letter that the Eusebians wrote letters to all three Augusti at once, it could hardly have happened later. For Constantine the younger, to whom they gave the letters, was killed in the year of our Lord 340. But Baronius says that that legation sent by Julius was in the year of Christ 340, in which I cannot agree with him. For if we admit that, it would be necessary that they had spent nearly two whole years on their legation, since they returned from their legation in the year 342, as Baronius admits. But it is not likely that such a space of time was wasted by the delegates; and if they had been detained so long by the Easterners, Julius would not have omitted that in the epistle which he wrote in the name of the Roman synod to the bishops of the Council of Antioch. Nor indeed would Athanasius have been silent about it, who accurately commemorates all the wiles and frauds of his adversaries. Certainly, Pope Julius complains of one thing regarding the Easterners: that they detained his delegates until the month of January, so that the day by which the synod had been appointed would pass by. But Athanasius in his *Epistle to the Solitaries* only says that the legates of Julius were detained by the Eusebians beyond the day appointed by Julius. Wherefore I believe it to be more true that this legation by Pope Julius...

was sent at the beginning of the year of our Lord 541, a little before the synod of Antioch was gathered. ^A This very thing, moreover, may be gathered from the epistle of Pope Julius to the bishops of the synod of Antioch. For in that epistle, Julius plainly testifies that those bishops complained in their letters, among other things, that Julius had sent letters not to them, but to Eusebius alone through Elpidius and Philoxenus. Therefore, the synod of Antioch was already gathered, or at least called, at the time when Julius sent those letters to Eusebius. Otherwise, the Eastern bishops would have had no cause for complaint, and Julius could have justly responded to them: "By what reasoning could I write to you, who had not yet gathered together? Could I have divined that you were coming to Antioch for the dedication, and would hold a synod there?" But Julius wrote nothing of this to them. He says only this, that he wrote to Eusebius alone, because he alone had sent the first letter to him. And Athanasius himself, in his epistle to the solitaries, signifies this same thing quite clearly. For after he said that he had set out for Rome as soon as he heard that Gregory would shortly be sent to Alexandria with a military force to invade his bishopric, he adds this: Julius sent his presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus with letters to the Eusebians, etc. The same he relates in the second Apology against the Arians, page 739: "When we had gone up to Rome," that is, when I had already gone to Rome, Julius, as was fitting, also wrote to the Eusebians, having sent his two presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus. Truly, a difficulty arises here. For if Elpidius and Philoxenus were sent by Julius into the East, with Athanasius already having entered Rome, or at least setting out for there; how can that which Julius writes in his Epistle to the Orientals stand, that Athanasius did not come to Rome of his own accord, but was summoned by his letters? I reply that Athanasius was indeed summoned by the letters of Pope Julius, but not through the legates Elpidius and Philoxenus; rather, through certain others who had delivered the letters of Julius to him before Elpidius and Philoxenus were sent to the Eusebians. For it was consonant with reason that one who is accused should be summoned first to plead his case. Certainly, Athanasius in his epistle to the solitaries explicitly distinguishes these two citations. And in the first place, he says that Julius had written letters to him, in which he commanded that a synod ought to be held, wherever Athanasius wished, so that the Eusebians might then prove the crimes they imputed to others, if they could, and firmly defend those imputed to themselves. "But the bishop of Rome, Julius, wrote that a synod ought to be held where we wished," etc. Then, on the following page, he adds that he had sailed to Rome having heard of the arrival of Gregory: that Julius had sent his presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus with letters to Eusebius; and had fixed a certain day on which he was to present himself for judgment, unless he wished to be held as a slanderer. The same Athanasius, in the second Apology against the Arians, not far from the beginning, clearly testifies that he was summoned first to the synod of Pope Julius. But the words themselves are better quoted, because they were wrongly translated by the interpreter: ^B "For it has been judged not once, nor twice, but often: first in our own country, when a gathering of nearly a hundred bishops met; second in Rome, when Eusebius had written, and both they and we were called, and more than fifty bishops gathered there as well." For judgment was passed on us not once, nor twice, but often. First, in our province, when nearly one hundred bishops had come together for that purpose. Second, at Rome, when Eusebius had written letters, and then when he himself and his companions were called by us into judgment, with more than fifty bishops gathered there as well.

CAP. III.

In what year Athanasius came to Rome.

Baronius, who says that the presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus were sent into the East by Pope Julius in the year of our Lord 340, consequently also affirms that Athanasius came to Rome in the same year, summoned, of course, by the letters of Julius. Petavius, Blondellus, and others have followed the opinion of Baronius. But I shall demonstrate, by the testimony of Athanasius himself, that they are mistaken. He, in his epistle to the solitaries, not far from the beginning, says that the Eusebians who had been summoned to Rome by the letters of Julius for ecclesiastical judgment, because they were overcome by the consciousness of their crimes, feared for themselves and dreaded the outcome of the Roman judgment, and [thus] solicited Constantius to openly undertake the protection of their sect and to persecute the Homousians, and especially Athanasius. And at first, he says, they did this: that Philagrius, being created prefect of Egypt for the second time, should be sent to Alexandria; then that Gregory, the bishop, having expelled Athanasius, should be substituted in his place. Therefore, immediately by the emperor's command, a persecution was excited at Alexandria, and Gregory, having entered with a military force, with Philagrius and the eunuch Arsatius aiding him, seized the church of Quirinus. Then some were killed, others thrust into prison; some were fined by the proscription of their goods; others had their provisions removed: for this purpose, indeed, that all might be compelled to accept Gregory, even against their will. "Athanasius, however, even before these things happened and only having heard of it, sailed to Rome," that is, even before these things occurred, Athanasius, when he had only heard of the matter, sailed to Rome. "Only having heard," that is, of the arrival of Gregory with the soldiers. Is it not clearly gathered from these things that Athanasius did not come to Rome until after the ordination of Gregory? For since he was constituted bishop at the synod of Antioch, that is, in the year 341, it is necessarily concluded that Athanasius did not come into the city before this year which I have mentioned. There is added the testimony of Socrates, who specifically writes in the second book that, after the ordination of Gregory and after his bloody entry into the city of Alexandria, Athanasius betook himself to Rome to Julius.

CAP. IV.

In what year the Roman synod was gathered in the cause of Athanasius.

Since Athanasius has marked the time of the Roman synod so distinctly, and in more than one place, it is indeed a wonder that very learned men could have been mistaken about the time of this synod. And Baronius indeed assigned this synod to the year of our Lord 341, whom others have subsequently followed. Except that Blondellus, in his book *On the Primacy of the Church*, affirms that it was celebrated in the same year, but a few months before the synod of Antioch. For he says that the letters of Pope Julius, by which he had summoned the Orientals, provided the cause for the Roman synod, while the Roman synod gave the occasion for the one at Antioch. But Baronius, even if he assigned the Roman synod to the same year as the one at Antioch, nevertheless makes the former later than the latter. For since it is clear from the epistle of Julius given to the Orientals that Athanasius remained at Rome for a year and six months while he awaited the arrival of the Eusebians; Baronius, who had written that Athanasius came to Rome in 340, found it necessary to cast the Roman synod, in which Athanasius was absolved, to the end of the following year. I, however, think it much safer to follow the faith of Athanasius in that matter than that of Baronius. Certainly Athanasius, in his epistle to the solitaries, writes explicitly that the Roman synod was celebrated after the legates of Julius, Elpidius and Philoxenus, had been dismissed by the Eusebians. The passage is on page 816, where, after he related that Elpidius and Philoxenus, the presbyters, had been sent by Julius to cite the Eusebians to plead their case, he adds that the Eusebians, having heard the name of ecclesiastical judgment, trembled to such an extent that they completely lost heart. To their usual arts, therefore, they

held fast, he says, and kept the presbyters of Julius beyond the day set for the synod, and provided vain excuses, claiming that for fear of the Persian war it was not permitted for them to set out for Rome. At length, however, he says, they dismissed the presbyters of Julius: ‘Undoubtedly, having dismissed the presbyters on this implausible pretext,’ etc. He then recounts the bloody entry of Gregory into the city of Alexandria, and the killings and exiles of bishops. And then at last he commemorates the Roman synod, p. 818: ‘At Rome, however, having gathered, bishops were about fifty,’ etc. That is, at Rome were gathered about fifty bishops, who repudiated the Eusebians indeed as suspicious, having feared to stand in judgment, and refuted the things that had been written by them. But us they received, and embraced us in communion. Does it not appear clearly from this narrative of Athanasius that the Roman synod was held only after the return of the legates? Certainly, before their return it could not have been held legitimately, nor ought it to have been. For it would be absurd if Julius, who had sent his own legates into the East in order to summon the Eusebians to his synod, had celebrated the synod before their return and before the response of the Orientals. For the principle of both law and equity demanded that the return of the legates be awaited, so that it might be known what they had done, and whether the Orientals would bring a suitable excuse for their absence: so that when all had been examined and discussed, a just sentence might be rendered according to the laws against the contumacious accusers who had not appeared when summoned. This, therefore, is absurd in the opinion of Baronius and those who have followed Baronius, in that they assert that the Roman synod—I mean that in which Athanasius was acquitted—was held before the return of the legates who had been sent into the East to cite the Eusebians. There is, moreover, another passage of Athanasius which proves what I have said more manifestly. It is held in the Second Apology against the Arians, p. 739: ‘Finally, therefore, having joined together, bishops numbering more than fifty, where Bito the presbyter assembled,’ etc. Which passage, since it was poorly translated by the interpreter, shall be placed here as it has been rendered by us. ‘Finally, bishops numbering more than fifty, having gathered in the basilica in which Vito the presbyter gathered the people, received our defense with an equal mind, and decreed that communion and love with us ought to be fostered: but against the Eusebians they were indignant, and asked Julius to write these things to them, since they had written to him first.’ Julius therefore wrote, and sent the letter by Gabianus the count. Then follow the letters of Julius, the beginning of which is this: ‘Julius to Danius, Flaccillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and those who are with them, the most beloved brothers who wrote to us from Antioch. I have read your letter which my presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus brought to me,’ etc. Finally, after the letters of Julius have been recited, Athanasius adds these things: ‘When the Roman synod had written these things through Julius the Roman bishop,’ etc. From these things we gather three points primarily which contribute to our purpose. First, that the Roman synod in which Athanasius was pronounced innocent was celebrated after the return of Elpidius and Philoxenus. Second, that the letters of the bishops of the synod of Antioch to Pope Julius, which the aforementioned legates had brought, were read in the same Roman synod. Third, that Pope Julius was asked by the bishops of the Roman synod to write back to the bishops of the Antiochene synod, and to signify to them the decree of the Roman synod. Lastly, that that letter of Julius which Athanasius reports there, and of which we have only written the beginning, is the very one which Julius wrote at the request and in the name of the Roman synod which had acquitted Athanasius. But if anyone should take the letter of Julius itself into his hands, he will discover all the things which I have said to be confirmed in it much more openly and clearly. For Julius plainly testifies in the beginning of his letter that the letters of the bishops of the synod of Antioch were indeed read in the Roman synod; and he indicates that that synod was celebrated not only after the return of his legates, but also long after the ordination of Gregory, and after his violent entry into the city of Alexandria. Certainly, he commemorates the killings and exiles of bishops, the proscriptions and imprisonments of citizens, and other crimes and sacrileges perpetrated at that time by Gregory, whom Julius does not even deign to call by the name of bishop, as can be seen on page 749; and Julius the Pope says he had received these things, as much from the letters of the bishops who had written these things to him from Egypt, as from the presbyters who had come to Rome from Alexandria. But he also writes on page 743 that a certain Carpones, formerly condemned by Alexander, bishop of the city of Alexandria, on account of the Arian heresy, together with some others condemned by him for the same perfidy, had been sent to him by Gregory, someone who was to bring the pacific, or rather, the communicatory letters of Gregory. The same thing was attempted long afterward by Georgius the Arian, when he had been substituted in the place of Athanasius. For he sent his own legates to Pope Liberius, seeking communion with the Roman Church, as we learn from the letter of Pope Liberius. Since, therefore, this legation of Carpones occurred in the year of our Lord 342, the Roman synod which was held after that legation could not have been celebrated before the year 342.

CAP. V. The opinion of Baronius is refuted, who creates two Roman synods.

I know what Baronius responds. For he says that that letter of Pope Julius, of which we spoke above, does not pertain to that Roman synod in which Athanasius and Marcellus were acquitted, but to another which was held in the year following, when Elpidius and Philoxenus had returned from the parts of the East, bringing with them the letters of the Orientals to Julius. For Baronius distinguishes two Roman synods: the one of fifty bishops, who pronounced Athanasius and Marcellus innocent in the year of Christ 341; the other held in the following year, in which the letters of the Oriental bishops which Elpidius and Philoxenus had brought were read. And Severinus Binius has followed this opinion of Baronius, as he is accustomed to do, in his edition of the councils. But we oppose to Baronius the authority of Athanasius, who acknowledges only one Roman synod, and who writes that in it he was judged innocent by the sentences of all the bishops, and that Pope Julius was asked by the bishops to respond to the Orientals who had written letters to him, just as we showed in the previous chapter. Either, therefore, Athanasius is false, who affirms this so clearly, or Baronius, who denies it. But no one will ever believe that Athanasius could have been mistaken or willing to deceive in his own cause. For to what advantage would he have done that? But let us see what reasoning compelled Baronius to distinguish two Roman synods, and to say that the letter of Pope Julius to the Orientals, which is reported by Athanasius, was written not at the request and in the name of the Roman synod which had acquitted Athanasius, but of another synod which was gathered in the following year. Baronius brings only one reason for this matter: that Julius, in the aforementioned letter, testifies that the Orientals, in the letters which they had written to him through the presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, had gravely complained that Julius had received Athanasius into communion. But Athanasius was received into communion only by the Roman synod in which fifty bishops sat. Therefore, the letters of the Orientals were written to Pope Julius after the Roman synod in which Athanasius had been acquitted of every crime and admitted to communion. From which it follows that that letter of Pope Julius which he wrote back to the Oriental bishops, not from the person of the Roman synod

by whom Athanasius had been absolved, but by the request of another synod, was given. This is Baronius’s reasoning, as can be seen in the acts of the year 341, chap. 47. But it is very easy for anyone to refute it. For, in the first place, we can deny that the Orientals in their letters to Julius complained that he had received Athanasius into communion. Certainly, in the whole of Julius’s epistle, there appears no trace of such a complaint. The Orientals had indeed complained in their letters that Julius was acting against the canons, and that he had kindled the flame of discord. But not a word is read here concerning the communion entered into with Athanasius. Pope Julius also excuses himself for having kindly received fleeing bishops, for having grieved together with grieving brethren, and for having wept with those who wept. But he says nothing more. However, let us grant to Baronius that the Oriental bishops in their letters to Julius had complained by name that he had received Athanasius into his communion. What then? Does it follow from that that the letter of Pope Julius was not written in the name of the Roman synod in which Athanasius had been absolved? Not at all. Baronius, of course, and whoever followed him, was deceived while they think that Athanasius was only received into communion in the Roman synod. Which I consider not only false, but alien to all reason. Athanasius remained in Rome for sixteen whole months, awaiting the arrival of his adversaries before the Roman synod recognized his case. Is it, therefore, credible that Pope Julius abstained from the communion of Athanasius for all that time? Yet the contrary is stated by Athanasius himself, who writes eloquently in his Apologia to the Emperor Constantius that he had come to Rome to entrust himself and all his own matters to that Church. At which time, he says, I was assiduous in the synaxes. If Athanasius was assiduous in the synaxes at Rome, then he was in communion with the Roman bishop. Furthermore, Pope Julius had summoned both Athanasius and his adversaries to Rome to plead their case. Julius, therefore, could not have refused Athanasius’s communion before the hearing of the case, lest he create a prejudice for the case. For reason of equity does not permit that. And Julius indeed fostered communion with Athanasius’s adversaries, and with Eusebius himself, since he received their letters and wrote back to them in turn. Why, therefore, would the same Julius have been more unkind to Athanasius, especially since he had immediately obeyed when summoned by Pope Julius’s letters and was present on the appointed day, while the adversaries rejected the judgment of the Roman See? Yet Julius had kindly received the presbyters of Athanasius himself, whom Athanasius had sent to Rome a little earlier to refute the calumnies of the Eusebians, and had admitted them to his communion. For Julius himself signifies this quite openly in his Epistle to the Orientals. What, therefore, could have been the reason why he would not extend the same to Athanasius himself? Finally, Athanasius, in his second Apology against the Arians, speaking of the Roman synod, clearly declares that the Roman Church had always been in communion with him. For he does not say that the fifty bishops who had gathered for the Roman synod received him into communion, but that they confirmed the communion and charity with him by their own judgments. Therefore, they were already in communion with him beforehand. Athanasius’s words are: «Καὶ ἐκύρωσαν εἰς ἡμᾶς τήν τε κοινωνίαν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην.» In his Epistle to the Solitaries, indeed, he reports the judgment of the same Roman synod in these words: «Ἡμᾶς δὲ ἀπεδέξαντο, καὶ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς κοινωνίαν ἠγάπησαν», that is: "But they approved of us and cherished communion with us." Therefore, the whole argumentation of Baronius collapses to its foundations, by which he tries to prove that two Roman synods must be distinguished, and that the letter of Pope Julius pertains to a later Roman synod, not to that earlier one in which Athanasius had been absolved. And these things could suffice to overthrow Baronius’s opinion. But lest I seem to rely on the testimony of Athanasius alone, I will prove it by the authority of Pope Julius himself. In the epistle to the Orientals, page 745 of the Parisian edition, he eloquently testifies that he is writing to them in the name of the whole synod, although not the names of all the bishops, but only his own, is prefixed to the letters. For even when he was writing his prior letters to them, by which he summoned them to the synod, he wrote in the name of all the Westerners: "And now," he says, "on the appointed day all were present, and all were of the same judgment, which I signify to you again in writing." What could be more manifest than these words? Julius says all the bishops were present on the day appointed on which he had called the synod. Can this be understood of any other synod but that Roman one in which Athanasius was heard and absolved? Let the adversaries, therefore, point out another synod which Julius called at Rome; but they will surely never be able to point one out. Furthermore, Julius adds that he is signifying the judgment of that synod to the Orientals in these later letters. This is the very thing which Athanasius had said before, that Pope Julius had been requested by the synod to write to the Orientals. You see how well the testimonies of Athanasius and Julius agree with one another; so much so that Baronius, who denies that these letters of Julius were sent to the Orientals after the Roman synod in which Athanasius was heard, seems to speak against not only Athanasius, but Pope Julius himself.

CAP. VI. Whether Athanasius came to Rome twice. The opinion of Socrates and Baronius is refuted.

Baronius writes in his Ecclesiastical Annals that Athanasius, after the judgment of the Roman synod by which he had been absolved from the crimes of his adversaries, immediately sailed to Alexandria in the year of our Lord 341, or just at the beginning of 342. And he confirms this by the authority of Socrates. But a little later, when Gregory, having been girded with armed men, had occupied the Alexandrian Church, [he says Athanasius] came to Rome again. Our Petavius followed Baronius’s opinion in his *Rationarium temporum*, as did Blondellus in his book *De primatu papæ*, and almost everyone else, to whom Socrates seems to have given grounds for error. But Athanasius himself most manifestly refutes this. For since he has spoken quite often in his books about his journey to the city of Rome, he writes that he only came to Rome once from the city of Alexandria. First, in his Apologia to the Emperor Constantius, responding to the calumnies of the adversaries who had accused him before the Emperor Constantius of having incited the Augustus Constans against his brother by his speeches, he says that he set out from Alexandria, not to the court of the Augustus Constans, but made his journey to Rome: and when he had entrusted himself and all his own matters to that Church, he was assiduous in the ecclesiastical collections and gatherings. Then, in the fourth year following, he was summoned from Rome by a letter from the Augustus Constans to Milan. But it is better to set out the Greek words of Athanasius himself, since they confirm our opinion more openly: «Ταῦτα τοίνυν εἰ καὶ ἱκανὰ πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν ἐστι, συγχώρησον ὅμως διηγήσασθαι ὅλως καὶ ἐν λογῷ παρεπιδημίας», that is: "These things, then, even if they suffice for a demonstration, allow me, nevertheless, I pray, to give you an account of my whole journey, so that you may know how rashly the adversaries slander me." Athanasius then adds: «ἐξ ἐλθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας, οὐκ εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, οὐδὲ πρὸς ἄλλους τινάς, ἢ μόνον εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἀνῆλθον», etc. Since, therefore, Athanasius testifies that he would give an account to Constantius of his whole journey and pilgrimage, if he had come to Rome twice from the city of Alexandria, he certainly ought to have mentioned it at this place, lest he seem to have concealed the truth while knowing it in the presence of the prince. Furthermore, in

the *Apology against the Arians*, he writes that he came to Rome only once to plead his case, when the Eusebians had requested of Julius that a synod be assembled at Rome to examine Athanasius's case. But of a second journey, not a single word exists in that entire *Apology*. Finally, in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, the same Athanasius, carefully recounting everything that had happened to him, makes mention of only one journey of his to the city of Rome, specifically the time when he was summoned by the letters of Pope Julius to the Roman synod. He says that after that synod, the bishops who had attended the council reported by letter to Constantius Augustus what had been done in the synod; and also signified to him everything that had been perpetrated at Alexandria by Gregory. But if Athanasius had returned to Alexandria after the judgment of the Roman synod, and had then returned again from there to the city of Rome, Athanasius would never have omitted this in this place. For this would have served his purpose most significantly, to subject to the eyes of all the evils and hardships and calamities which he had suffered at the hands of his adversaries. To this is added that Athanasius could not return from Rome to Alexandria without the consent and letters of the Emperor Constantius. It was indeed permitted for Athanasius, in order to consult for his own safety and escape the snares of his enemies, to leave Alexandria and sail to Rome. For any method of achieving safety is honorable. But to return from Rome to Alexandria under the jurisdiction of another prince, and that after a stay of two years, this was not permitted without the command of the prince. Certainly, after the Council of Serdica, that is, after the ecumenical synod by which Athanasius was judged innocent and his adversaries, on the contrary, were judged to be calumniators and heretics, Athanasius hardly dared at last to return to Alexandria; nor did he do this before he had been summoned to the comitatus by very frequent letters of Constantius. But also before this, when after the death of Constantine the Great he returned from the Gallican exile into Egypt, he had been restored by the letters of three Caesars. Therefore, if Athanasius returned to Alexandria after the Roman synod, it is necessary that then too he was fortified by the letters of Constantius. Why, therefore, does Athanasius nowhere mention these letters of Constantius, he who was accustomed to include so ambitiously and so carefully the rest of the epistles of the same prince pertaining to his own case and restoration? Socrates deceived Baronius, who writes in book two of his *History* that Athanasius, when after the violent ordination of Gregory he had betaken himself to Rome to Pope Julius, his case having been examined, was restored by Julius and returned to Alexandria with letters of the same Julius: and then, a little while later, Gregory having been removed and George substituted in his place, he fled to Rome again. But that entire narrative of Socrates and Sozomen abounds with countless errors. The greatest part of which Baronius himself as well as Blondellus have long since observed: wherefore the testimony of Socrates in the affairs of Athanasius is of no weight, inasmuch as he has said things that are contradictory and contrary among themselves. Leaving aside, therefore, the authority of Socrates, let us examine the other argument of Baronius. Thus, therefore, Baronius reasons in the deeds of the year 541, ch. 49: that Athanasius did return from Rome to Alexandria in this year, or at the beginning of the following year, can be easily understood from the fact that it is established that at the time of the aggression of the Arians against the Church of Alexandria which occurred in the following year, he was found to be there, which he himself testifies in his *Letter to the Orthodox*. Baronius repeats the same in the deeds of the year 342, where he transcribes almost the entire letter of Athanasius to the orthodox. From which it is manifestly gathered that Gregory occupied the Alexandrian Church around the solemnities of the Paschal festival, and that Athanasius, in fear of the Arians rushing into the church, secretly withdrew himself from the midst. Since these things could not have happened in the year 341, because the Antiochene synod in which Gregory was appointed bishop of the city of Alexandria, and to whose deeds he subscribed as bishop of Alexandria, occupied the greatest part of that year, it is necessary that they be assigned to the following year. This is the reasoning of Baronius. Whose opinion not only Petavius and Blondellus, but all whom I have seen thus far, have embraced.

CAP. VII.

But I, on the contrary, affirm that Baronius has fallen into a most grave error, who believed that that letter of Athanasius to the orthodox was written concerning Gregory the ^A, when it expressly bears the name of George the Arian who, long after Gregory, in the year of Christ 356, invaded the Alexandrian Church. I admit indeed what Baronius says, that these two names, to wit, of Gregory and of George, are accustomed to be confused with one another. But this confusion occurs in Latin codices only, not likewise in Greek. Since therefore that entire letter of Athanasius everywhere bears the name of George, why, with that name erased, do we substitute the word 'Gregory'? Especially since the things which are narrated there by Athanasius fit the invasion of George rather than that of Gregory. For first, Athanasius says in the said letter that George (for so it is commonly written) was requested as bishop by the Arians who were at Alexandria; which is nowhere said of Gregory. Then, George is said in the same letter to have entered Alexandria at the time of Lent. Athanasius testifies the same thing regarding his entry expressly in the *Letter to the Solitaries*. But regarding Gregory, we find this said by him nowhere. Furthermore, Athanasius writes in the same letter that the people of the city of Alexandria, when they saw the Arians at the entry of George raging with such force against the Catholics, publicly protested before the acts. Athanasius reports the same in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, at the end of which is affixed the very protest of the Alexandrians. But regarding Gregory, we find nothing of this kind done. But why do we linger in these conjectures, when it is permitted to convince by a most manifest and most certain argument that that letter of Athanasius to the orthodox was written against George, and not against Gregory? Let us therefore hear Athanasius himself clearly testifying to what I have said. Furthermore, we shall necessarily put his Greek words here, for the reason that the Latin interpreter has not in the least attained the sense of his author: which was a cause of deception for Baronius and the others. After, therefore, Athanasius said that George, being an Arian, had favored only the Arians, but was accustomed to persecute the Catholics as though they were strangers and aliens, he subjoins these things: Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ Γρηγόριον, ὅνπερ πρότερον οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον τοῖς Ἀρειανοῖς κατέστησαν, μετὰ τὸ γράψαι ἡμᾶς περὶ αὐτοῦ, πάντες ὑμεῖς οἱ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπίσκοποι ἐπίστασθε, ὡς διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν εἰκότως αὐτὸν ἀνεθεματίσατε καὶ ἀπεκηρύξατε· τούτου ἕνεκα Γεώργιον νῦν τοῖς αὐτοῖς Ἀρειανοῖς ἀπέστειλαν. Εἶτα ἵνα μὴ καὶ δεύτερον αἰσχύνην ὀφλήσωσι, γραφόντων ἡμῶν πάλιν κατ' αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο τῇ ἔξωθεν βίᾳ καθ' ἡμῶν ἐχρήσαντο, etc. Which words I translate into Latin thus: *For since Gregory, whom formerly the Eusebians had constituted bishop for the Arians, after I had written concerning him, all you bishops of the catholic Church justly and deservedly struck with anathema and deposed for his impiety, as you well know: for this cause they have now sent George to the same Arians as bishop. Then, lest they be afflicted again with shame and disgrace, when we were writing letters against them, they used external force against us, so that, the churches having been reduced to their power, they might seem to remove from themselves every suspicion of Arianism, etc.* What is more manifest than these words of Athanasius? Does he not most openly distinguish George from Gregory? And he says that Gregory was indeed formerly condemned and deposed by the orthodox bishops, namely in the synod of Serdica: George

on the other hand, was not, it seems, sent into the Church of Alexandria by the same Arians at this time. And the Arians, fearing lest George might likewise be condemned by the orthodox bishops, craftily disguising their incursion, used foreign force to occupy the churches of the city of Alexandria, that is, the help of Gentiles and Jews. For Athanasius himself writes this in the same letter and in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, where he describes the entry of George. Wherefore the aforesaid circular letter of Athanasius to all the orthodox was not written against Gregory, who had died long before, but against George, who had recently intruded himself into the Alexandrian see. Against whom also another circular letter was written by the same Athanasius to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, which in the common editions is wrongly entitled *First Oration against the Arians*, although the letter is encyclical, as I have said, to all the bishops throughout Egypt and Libya, and it ought to be joined to the circular letter of the same Athanasius to all the orthodox. For both are of the same subject matter. Furthermore, it is not necessary to respond to the remaining arguments of Baronius, by which he has attempted to strengthen his opinion. For after the truth has once been established, all the arguments that can be brought against it easily crumble. First, Baronius says that in that letter of Athanasius to the orthodox, Philagrius is named as governor of Egypt, who, he says, brought the bishop in question into the Alexandrian see; but this Philagrius led Gregory into Alexandria, as Athanasius attests in the *Letter to the Solitaries*. But what prevents the same Philagrius, who had previously introduced Gregory into Alexandria with a military force, from also having introduced George some years later? Philagrius was certainly the chief minister of the Arians. Being governor of Egypt, he had lent his aid to Valens and Ursacius and the other legates of the council of Tyre sent to the Mareotic region in the year of our Lord 335. The same man, afterwards made governor of Egypt by the emperor Constantius, introduced Gregory into the Alexandrian see: which I believe took place in the year of Christ 341. Why then could not the governor of Egypt have been created for a third time, with the support of the Arians, who were doing everything at their own discretion before the emperor Constantius, so that George, as the patron of the Arian sect, might be brought to Alexandria by a judge who was most faithful to the Arians and most suited for carrying out these things? Certainly Athanasius, in the said letter to the orthodox, page 945, says that this Philagrius had long before been abusive to the Church and the virgins. I ask, therefore, when first did Philagrius harm the Church and the virgins, if not when he led in Gregory? Therefore, the same Philagrius led in both Gregory first, and afterwards George. And Athanasius fully confirms this in the *Apology concerning his flight*, page ^B 703. As to what Baronius says in the aforementioned letter of Athanasius, that the bishop in question is said to have been appointed by Eusebius, he was deceived by the Latin translator, since in the Greek text of the letter it is not attributed to Eusebius, but to τοῖς περὶ Ευσέβιον, that is, to the Eusebians. But it is established that the Eusebian faction persisted for a very long time even after the death of Eusebius himself. Certainly Athanasius names the Eusebians everywhere in his books, although he relates things that happened a long time after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia.

CHAPTER VIII. Of the Synod of Antioch, and of the bishops who gathered there.

Thus far we have treated, with as much care and diligence as possible, the matters pertaining to Athanasius, having noted and refuted all the errors that were occurring in the *Ecclesiastical Annals*. But since, in writing of the affairs of Athanasius, we have often spoken of the synod of Antioch which was celebrated there at the dedication of the great Church, in the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the year of our Lord 341, it is pleasing to note a few things about it for the sake of those who study ecclesiastical history. In that synod sat ninety and more bishops, as is evident from Athanasius and Hilary. Baronius observes that they were for the most part Catholics and orthodox: but he affirms that there were thirty-six Arians, by whom Gregory was substituted in place of Athanasius, and those various formulas of faith were written, but not by the remaining orthodox. Blondell also followed the opinion of Baronius in his book *On the Primacy of the Pope*. But let us see, if you please, upon whose authority Baronius asserts this. He praises one author for this matter, Pope Julius, who in his *Letter to the Oriental bishops*, namely those who had gathered in this synod of Antioch, writes as follows: "Who then are they who act against the canons? Is it we, who have received the man with such proofs of the facts, or those who, solely by the thirty-six votes of those who were at Antioch, have saluted an external man as bishop, and led him to Alexandria with a military force?" This testimony of Pope Julius would be most grave and valid, if it were certain that Pope Julius said so. This letter of Julius exists in Athanasius's *Second Apology against the Arians*, written in the Greek language, as it is to the Greeks, who used no other language than Greek. Nor is there any reason for anyone to suppose that this letter was first written in Latin by Julius and then translated into the Greek language. For since Athanasius did not say this, we cannot believe it without an author. Indeed, whenever Athanasius cites any document that is translated from the Latin language into Greek, he is accustomed to warn the reader about it. Add to this that that letter of Julius is written in Greek so purely and elegantly, that it is clearly apparent that it was not translated into Greek from a foreign language. For we find that whatever has been translated from the Latin language into the Greek is always barbarian and obscure, and abounds with many errors, as students will easily observe both in Eusebius and in Socrates and the rest of the writers of ecclesiastical history. Nor is it to be wondered at that Pope Julius wrote in the Greek language to the Orientals, when he also wrote a letter in the same language to the Alexandrians, which Athanasius reports. Thus the letter of Pope Cornelius exists, written in Greek to Fabian, Bishop of Antioch. For the Roman pontiffs, since because of the authority of the apostolic see they found it necessary to respond to the embassies of the whole world, always had men skilled in the Greek language who were their secretaries. The words, therefore, of Pope Julius to the Orientals are these: Σκοπεῖτε τοίνυν τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ παρὰ κανόνας πράξαντες; Ἡμεῖς οἱ μετὰ τοσούτων ἀποδείξεων τὸν ἄνδρα δεξάμενοι, ἢ οἱ ἀπὸ τριάκοντα καὶ ἓξ μονῶν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ὀνομάσαντές τινα ὡς ἐπίσκοπον ξένον, καὶ ἀποστείλαντες εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν μετὰ στρατιωτικῆς ἐξουσίας; that is, "Who then are they who act against the canons? Is it we, who have received the man with such proofs of the facts? Or those who, from thirty-six stages, saluted at Antioch a certain man as a kind of external bishop, and sent him to Alexandria guarded by a military force?" Pope Julius rebukes the ordination of Gregory and asserts that he was made bishop of Alexandria against the ecclesiastical canons, in that he had not been ordained in the city of Alexandria, with the support of the clergy and people, but in the city of Antioch, which is distant from the city of Alexandria by thirty-six stages, that is, a journey of thirty-six days. Athanasius also observes the same flaw in the ordination of George in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, page 860, who was sent from the fiftieth stage to Alexandria to hold the bishopric of that place. But also in the *First Oration against the Arians* he objects to the very same thing to the Arian bishops, namely Cecropius, Auxentius, and Epictetus, that although they were separated by eighty stages, they nevertheless sought the bishopric of those cities to which they were unknown. 'Απὸ ὀγδοήκοντα μονῶν τυγχάνοντες, καὶ μὴ γινωσκόμενοι παρὰ τῶν λαῶν, etc. Therefore, a perverse interpretation

drawn Baronius into error. For Julius does not say that Gregory was greeted as bishop in the city of Antioch by only thirty-six bishops, but rather that since he had been designated bishop of Alexandria at Antioch, he was sent to Alexandria by thirty-six stations. For there are so many stations from Antioch to Alexandria, as is gathered from the Itinerary of Antoninus. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks in the same manner in book XVI, where, stinging the vanity of Constantius Augustus, who ascribed to himself the deeds performed bravely by Julian Caesar in Gaul, he says that he had written in a certain letter that he was present at the battle of Argentoratum and fought in the front rank, although at the time of that battle he was fifty stations apart from those places. For thus speaks Ammianus, for what others might call a journey of fifty days. Nor is Cosmas accustomed to speak otherwise in the books of *Christian Topography*, excerpts of which the most learned Emericus Bigotius, a man who has deserved very well of me, most kindly shared with me. Let this error, therefore, be removed from the *Ecclesiastical Annals*, as well as from the minds of those who, induced by the authority of Baronius, have until now held it as certain and indubitable that thirty-six bishops of the Arian faction and communion sat in the Council of Antioch. I know that many among the ancients held the opinion that they believed this Council of Antioch, of which we are now speaking, to have been collected by Arians. Thus, among others, Palladius in the *Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom*, where he writes that Elpidius, a bishop most skilled in canon law, openly affirmed before the Emperor Arcadius that the canons of the Council of Antioch had been composed by Arians. For the adversaries of John Chrysostom relied chiefly upon a certain canon of that council. When Elpidius saw this, he offered Severianus, who was a most intense enemy of Chrysostom, this condition: that he subscribe that he was of the same faith as the bishops of the Council of Antioch who had composed that canon. This, indeed, Severianus then refused to do. Yet this must be understood not as if those bishops who attended this synod had openly and clearly professed an Arian opinion. For they were Catholics by profession, as is evident both from the testimony of Hilary in his book *On the Synods* and from the letter written by Pope Julius to them themselves. Certainly the Catholic Church would never have accepted their faith and canons if they had been promulgated by Arians. How, therefore, should this passage of Palladius be understood? Doubtless, that those bishops, even if they were openly Catholic, nevertheless secretly favored the Arians. And so we must interpret Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, and others who name Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Eusebians everywhere as Arians. For it is certain that Eusebius of Nicomedia, even though he always fostered the cause of the Arians, nevertheless retained peace with Julius, the bishop of the Roman city, and communion with the Catholic Church until his death. For he even sent letters of peace to Pope Julius a little before his death, and received such in return, as Julius testifies in his *Letter to the Orientals*. Julius certainly, in that aforementioned letter which was sent to all the bishops who had attended the Council of Antioch, calls both Eusebius himself and the rest ^A *most beloved brothers*. For thus is the title of the letter conceived in Athanasius: ^B

"To Danius, Flacillus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and to those with them who wrote to us from Antioch, our beloved brothers in the Lord, greeting."

BOOK SECOND.

CHAPTER FIRST.

^A more corrupt and faulty. But in amending the affairs of Athanasius and reducing them to the norm of truth, Athanasius himself confers the greatest help to us in his books, which have reached us in great numbers and are most eloquent. In the affairs of Paul of Constantinople, however, we are destitute of this help, because, apart from the writers of ecclesiastical history, very few have made mention of him. But we shall endeavor to supply this defect by the care and diligence of ancient writers. And first, indeed, we shall inquire into the year in which he was ordained bishop of Constantinople. Socrates and Sozomen affirm that Paul was raised to the priesthood of the Constantinopolitan see during the principate of Constantius Augustus: and Baronius, Blondellus, and others, following them, refer the death of Alexander of Constantinople and the ordination of Paul to the year of Christ 340, in the consulship of Acindynus and Proculus. I, however, shall prove by two most certain arguments that Paul was already bishop while Constantine the Great was reigning. For first, Athanasius, in his Epistle to the Solitaries, not far from the beginning, where he recounts the exiles of Paul, says that he was first relegated by Constantine to Pontus. Then, in the synodical epistle of the Eastern bishops at Serdica, which Hilary reports in the fragments of his book On Synods, it is explicitly written that Paul subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius in the synod of Tyre together with the remaining bishops. He was therefore already a bishop when the synod of Tyre was gathered: which is established to have been held in the year of Christ 335, two years before the death of Constantine. The words of the synodical Epistle are as follows: "Paul, however, was present at the deposition of Athanasius, and writing his sentence with his own hand, he himself also condemned him with the rest." I know what Blondellus answers in his book on the primacy of the pope in the Church. For he says that both testimonies, both that of Athanasius and that of the Eastern bishops at Serdica, ought to be understood of Paul while he was still a presbyter. But this answer, in my judgment, is inept and futile. For if Paul was present at the Tyrian synod while still a presbyter, and subscribed to it, he must have done so in place of his bishop, Alexander. But if that is so, Paul himself is not to be said to have condemned Athanasius, but rather Alexander, whose place Paul was taking. But who would believe that of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, that he subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius? Since, therefore, Paul himself is said to have condemned Athanasius together with the rest of the bishops who had gathered in the synod of Tyre, it is necessarily concluded that he was already a bishop at that time. But as for the passage of Athanasius, it can in no way be understood of Paul while still a presbyter. For in the said Epistle to the Solitaries, Athanasius recounts from the beginning all the orthodox bishops whom the Arians had expelled from their sees. And in the first place, he names Eustathius of Antioch, then Eutropius, Euphration, Cymathius, Asclepas, Cyrus, Diodorus, Domnion, Hellanicus, Marcellus. Finally, he writes thus concerning Paul: "Concerning Paul, however, the bishop of Constantinople, I think it is unknown to no one. For the clearer the city, the less the deed can be hidden. A crime was objected to him also. And that this was false you may gather even from the fact that he who made him a defendant, Macedonius, who is now ordained bishop in his place, communicated with his defendant, whose presbyter he was, while we were present at that accusation. But since Eusebius had cast the eyes of greed ^B thither, hastening to seize the bishopric of that city: for in the same way he leaped from Berytus to Nicomedia: the accusation against Paul nevertheless remained. Nor did they cease from their snares, but persevered in slandering. And first, indeed, he was relegated by Constantine to Pontus, etc." I have deliberately placed the whole passage, diligently translated by me, here, because I shall use its testimony more often below. Furthermore, from this passage it is manifestly gathered that Paul was already a bishop when he was accused by Macedonius at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia. But that this was done while Constantine the Great was still reigning, Athanasius himself teaches, when he says that he was then present at Constantinople. Otherwise, Athanasius did not come to Constantinople until after the synod of Tyre, when he saw himself being oppressed by the faction of his enemies in that council. Nor did he come to Constantinople after that time, while Eusebius of Nicomedia was still alive. Add that Athanasius explicitly writes that Macedonius, who was accusing Paul, had communicated with Paul at that very time, and had been a presbyter under him. If Macedonius was a presbyter under Paul then, Paul must have been a bishop then. And therefore it is most true what I said, that Paul was bishop of the city of Constantinople in the times of Constantine the Great. Moreover, by the authority of two excellent writers, we learn that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, died while Constantine was still reigning. For thus Philostorgius writes in the second book of his Ecclesiastical History, page 15, where, shortly after the dedication of the city of Constantinople celebrated by Constantine the Great, he writes that Alexander, bishop of that city, departed from life: ^C Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερέως Ἀλεξάνδρου, τὸν Νικομηδείας φησὶν Εὐσέβιον εἰς τὸν τῆς νεοκτίστου πόλεως ἀρχιερατικὸν μεταστῆναι θρόνον, that is, Philostorgius says, after the death of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the bishopric of the newly founded city. Theodoret writes the same in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 19. And indeed I am not disputing for the present about Eusebius, whom Theodoret and Philostorgius affirm was substituted in the place of Alexander. While I contend that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, died during the principate of Constantine Augustus, and therefore that Paul held the priesthood of that Church while Constantine was still reigning. Eusebius Pamphili had also written the same, as Theophanes testifies in his Chronicle. Nor, as Eusebius alone of all historians narrates, did Eusebius of Nicomedia hold the Constantinopolitan see when he was plotting against Athanasius at the dedication. For this is proven false even by the collation of times, etc. It seems, however, that Theophanes' memory slipped, and he put Eusebius in place of Theodoret.

CAP. II.

Whether Arius the heresiarch was received into communion by the Synod of Jerusalem.

But in this place a most valid argument is opposed to us. For since it is certain that Arius was received into communion in the synod of Jerusalem, which was gathered shortly after the synod of Tyre, or rather was transferred from the city of Tyre to Jerusalem in the year of Christ 335, it is necessary that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, was still alive even then. For Alexander departed from this life some time after Arius. For this is the Alexander who, by his prayers, obtained from God that Arius, whom the Eusebians were threatening to introduce into the church the next day, frustrated in his hope, ^D would be extinguished by a most foul kind of death, as Athanasius testifies both in his Epistle to Serapion concerning the death of Arius, and in his circular Epistle to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, which is commonly inscribed the First Oration against the Arians. From which it is concluded that Alexander was still administering the bishopric of Constantinople in the year of Christ 336, and therefore that what I wrote above is false, that Paul, bishop of Constantinople, subscribed against Athanasius in the council held at Tyre. This is truly a most grave reason, and one which overturns our opinion from the foundation. But it must be inquired into more diligently and examined, that upon which the adversaries rely: namely, whether Arius himself was received into communion by the council of Jeru-

rerosolymitano, which was celebrated in the year of Christ 335 at the dedication of the Constantinian basilica. The synodical letter of this council is extant, reported by Athanasius in his book [i]De Synodis[/i]. Yet in that synodical letter, it is not said that Arius himself was received into communion, but rather those [i]around Arius[/i] (οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἄρειον), that is, the associates of Arius—namely, the presbyters and deacons of the Alexandrian church who had followed Arius. Certainly, the same Athanasius, speaking elsewhere of this synod, perpetually says that it was those [i]around Arius[/i], or the Arians, who were received in it. For he speaks thus both in his [i]Apology against the Arians[/i], page 801, and in his [i]Letter to the Solitaries[/i], not far from the beginning. For the beginning of that letter is missing in common copies. Someone might say that Athanasius is speaking of Arius himself. For indeed, in the book [i]De Synodis[/i], after he has reported the synodical letter of the Council of Jerusalem, which was given to the presbyters and deacons of the Alexandrian Church, he immediately appends that it had been decreed by those bishops that Arius and his followers were to be received. But I think this should be understood in such a way, not as if Arius himself were still living, but rather Athanasius spoke thus because, with the associates of Arius being received, Arius himself appeared in some way to be received. I think the same response should be given to those who object to us the synodical letter of the Council of Antioch, in which the bishops who sat in that council affirm that they received Arius into communion because they had discovered his faith to be correct. For this must be understood either in the way I have mentioned—namely, regarding the associates of Arius—or, if it is accepted as regarding Arius himself, we shall say that this did not happen at the Synod of Jerusalem, but in some earlier assembly. Certainly, Athanasius testifies in the aforementioned book [i]De Synodis[/i] that Arius and his companions had been received into communion by the Eusebians long before the Synod of Jerusalem. Furthermore, from the synodical letter of the Council of Jerusalem, it is gathered quite clearly that the bishops spoke not of Arius himself, but only of the companions of Arius. For they write in that letter that they had received letters from the Emperor Constantine by which he urged them to restore peace and concord in the Church, and to receive the comrades and followers of Arius with a placid and peaceful mind—whose faith was correct and sincere, as he had recognized both from their living voice and from the document presented to him by them. Which document Constantine himself attached to his letters to the synod. But if Constantine and those bishops were speaking of Arius, why would Constantine have later summoned Arius to Constantinople to inquire about his faith, and that after a synodical judgment and after his own approval? Why would Bishop Alexander have refused to admit Arius into the Church after these things, he who had been admitted into communion by the judgment of a most celebrated synod and approved by the judgment of the emperor? Besides, Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, testifies that he had been consulted by Serapion about a certain question that had arisen in Egypt, whether Arius had ended his final day in the communion and peace of the Church. Athanasius denies this in said letter. But if Arius had been admitted to the peace and communion of the Church by the Jerusalem council, surely Athanasius would never have denied it, nor could Serapion have been ignorant of it. Nor was the fame of the Synod of Jerusalem obscure; rather, it was by far the most celebrated of all and worthy to be compared with the Nicene synod, if we believe Eusebius, since it had been gathered from all the provinces of the Roman Empire for the dedication of the royal basilica. Finally, Athanasius, in the said letter to Serapion, mentioning the death of Arius, says that he himself was not present in Constantinople at that time when Arius was removed from the living, but that Macarius the presbyter, who was present there, wrote everything to him. Yet Macarius, the presbyter of Athanasius, was in the city of Constantinople at the time when the Eusebians, having formed a conspiracy with the Meletians against Athanasius, accused him before the Emperor Constantine regarding the canon of the linen vestment. Athanasius testifies to this in his [i]Second Apology against the Arians[/i], page 778, and after him Socrates in the first book of his [i]Ecclesiastical History[/i]. Nor do we read that Macarius the Alexandrian, the presbyter, came to Constantinople after that time. Moreover, this first accusation of Athanasius preceded the Synod of Tyre by several years. To repel and refute this, Athanasius sent his presbyters Macarius and Arius to Constantinople. Baronius, in his [i]Annals[/i], reports that this was done in the year 323 of the Nativity of the Lord.

CHAPTER III. On the first exile of Paul of Constantinople.

After the death of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, whom we believe to have died in the year of Christ 331, Paul succeeded into his place. And although he had subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius at the Synod of Tyre, nonetheless he was sought after by the Arians, and especially by Eusebius, who burned with desire for that see, through fraud and calumny. And at first, indeed, they incited Macedonium, a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, against him, so that he might object I know not what trumped-up crime to Paul. Moreover, the charge brought by the accuser was so light that, while the accusation was pending, the accuser nonetheless communicated with the accused. But the Eusebians did not cease to urge the matter, because Eusebius of Nicomedia was striving to seize that see for himself. Therefore, they did not cease to slander Paul before the prince Constantine, until he, giving ears too ready to the Eusebians, relegated Paul to Pontus, just as we reported above from Athanasius in his [i]Letter to the Solitaries[/i]. This was done in the year of Christ 356. For it could not have happened sooner, since Paul was present at the Council of Tyre in the year 335. To this Athanasius writes that he was present at that time when Paul was accused by Macedonium. But this accusation, as is gathered from the narrative of Athanasius, continued for a quite long time. Hence, it seems that Paul was not sent into exile before the year of the Lord 356. Add to this that Athanasius, in said letter, recounting in order all the bishops who were driven into exile by the fraud and calumnies of the Arians while Constantine the Great was reigning, ends his account with Paul, bishop of Constantinople. For he begins from Eustathius, bishop of the city of Antioch, whom we have demonstrated in our annotations to have been relegated in the year of Christ 329 or certainly 330. After him, Eutropius, bishop of Hadrianopolis, was driven into exile through the efforts of the Eusebians, with the support of Basilina, who had been married to Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great. After these, Euphration, bishop of Balanea, Cymatius of Paltus, another Cymatius of Antaradus, Asclepas of Gaza, Cyrus of Beroea in Syria, Diodorus of Naissus, Domnio of Sirmium, Hellanicus of Tripolis—bishops [driven into exile] because they had merely appeared to pursue the Arian heresy with hatred—some for trumped-up crimes, others with no crime objected to them, were driven from their churches by the rescript of the prince, with those who favored Arian perfidy being substituted in their place. Then Marcellus is recounted by Athanasius, and last of all, Bishop Paul of Constantinople. Marcellus, indeed, was relegated in the year of Christ 336 after the Synod of Constantinople, in which he had been deposed and condemned. Athanasius enumerates the aforementioned bishops relegated by the Arian faction in almost the same order in his [i]Apology concerning his flight[/i], where he names Carterius instead of Cymatius of Antaradus. But although Athanasius does not expressly say that Paul was condemned at that time by episcopal judgment, nevertheless from the fact that he writes that he was accused by the presbyter Macedonium, he sufficiently intimates that Paul had been condemned by a synodical sentence. Certainly Constantine, being a most religious prince, would never have sustained sending him into exile unless he had first been condemned by an ecclesiastical judgment. For thus Eustathius, thus

^A Athanasius was banished, after sentence was passed against them by the bishops. Now Paul had been accused by Macedonius, *as ou chri biokôs* [that he had lived not as he ought], as Sozomen says in Book II, chapter 3, which is to say, that he had lived basely and wickedly. Finally, the Eastern bishops in the synodical letter of the pseudo-synod of Serdica clearly testify that Paul had been condemned by episcopal judgment. For thus they speak of Maximinus, bishop of Trier: "He himself was therefore the cause of such great homicides, who had recalled to Constantinople Paul, who had long ago been condemned." Where the diligent reader will note in passing that Paul is said to have been recalled not by Pope Julius, but by Bishop Maximinus.

CAP. IV. On the first restoration of Paul.

After the death of Constantine the Great, his three sons restored to their sees the Catholic bishops whom Constantine, spurred by the Eusebians into being deceived, had banished, having given letters both to them and to the individual cities, by which they commanded that each should be received peacefully by their own citizens and clergy. Athanasius testifies to this in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, where, after listing those bishops whom I have mentioned—whom the Arians, while Constantine was reigning, had ejected from their churches and cities—he adds the following: "Seeing these things, the three brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, after the death of their father, caused everyone to return to his homeland and church, having written regarding the others to their own church," etc. Philostorgius reports the same in the second book of his *Ecclesiastical History*. But in Athanasius, these words are to be noted: *epoêsan pantas epanelthein*, "he ordered," he says, "all to return." Therefore, Eustathius of Antioch and the rest of the bishops also returned to their sees. Concerning Eustathius, however, we read this nowhere. And perhaps he may have been unwilling to use the permission and opportunity to return that was granted to him, because he saw his church besieged and occupied by the Arians. Certainly Flacillus, who had succeeded Euphronius, held the bishopric of the city of Antioch permanently, from the time of the Council of Tyre even to the Council of Antioch. Therefore, Paul, along with the others, returned from his exile in the Pontic region and recovered his Constantinopolitan see by right of postliminy. Eusebius of Nicomedia once again attacked him, having returned, with his former deceits and arts, by sending Macedonius to accuse him. That certainly seems to me to be what Athanasius hints at in that place from his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, which I quoted above, when he says, "And yet the pretext against Paul remained, and they did not neglect their intrigue, but continued to make accusations." For Athanasius wishes to say that the Eusebians, who had previously slandered Paul to Constantine, slandered him in the same way afterward to the Emperor Constantius, and finally succeeded in having Paul sent into exile by Constantius as well. Constantius, therefore, trusting in the slanders of the Eusebians, ordered a council of bishops to be held at Constantinople: by whom Paul was condemned and deposed, and Eusebius of Nicomedia was substituted in his place. So Socrates in Book II, chapter 6. ^B Who, when he says that those bishops who attended this synod were supporters of the Arian heresy, sufficiently indicates that among their number were Theodorus of Heraclea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicaea, and Ursacius and Valens, who led the Eusebian ranks. And Socrates indeed says that Paul was only deposed at that time, and not also banished. Wherefore, since Paul had at that time the free faculty of wandering, he joined himself with Asclepas, Lucius, and Marcellus, whom the Arians had, as soon as they were restored, again expelled from their cities and churches. Joined to these, Paul traveled through many cities and provinces of the Western empire, everywhere seeking the support and aid of the bishops, so that he might be restored to his see. This is taught by the synodical letter of the Eastern bishops at Serdica in these words: ^C "Then, regarding Paul and Lucius and those who are joined to such, wandering about external regions together, they were persuading the judges that those who had justly passed sentence against them were not to be believed." They speak of Marcellus, Asclepas, and Athanasius. Furthermore, I do not know whether Paul came to Rome at that time. But if it is true that Paul came to Rome at some point, it is appropriate that he came at this time. For he could not have come to Rome at any other time, as we shall see later. However, the first among the Western bishops to receive Paul into communion was Maximinus, bishop of Trier, as the Eastern bishops testify at Serdica in the Synodal [letter] cited above.

CAP. V. At what time Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the bishopric of Constantinople.

Philostorgius and Theodoret say that Eusebius of Nicomedia, upon the death of Alexander, took up the bishopric of the city of Constantinople during the reign of Constantine the Great. But Athanasius refutes them, who clearly testifies in his *Epistle to the Solitaries* that Eusebius of Nicomedia did not succeed Alexander upon his death, but invaded the place of the living Paul through force and ambition. Furthermore, Jerome writes in his *Chronicle* that Constantine, shortly before his death, was baptized at Nicomedia by Eusebius, the bishop of that place. Finally, Ammianus Marcellinus is an authority that the prince Julian was educated at Nicomedia by Bishop Eusebius, to whom he was related by blood at a distance; for so speaks Marcellinus. Now, when Julian was handed over to Bishop Eusebius to be educated, he must have been at least seven years old. For boys are not accustomed to be commended to tutors before this age. Yet Julian had scarcely completed his seven years when Constantine the Great departed from this light. Therefore, Eusebius retained the Nicomedian bishopric until the death of Constantine. ^D Certainly Constantine greatly disapproved of such transfers of bishops, as we learn from his letter to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who had constantly refused the priesthood of the city of Antioch that had been offered to him. Therefore, the opinion of those is truer who say that Eusebius of Nicomedia crossed over to the bishopric of the city of Constantinople while Constantius was reigning. Thus Socrates, Sozomen, Cedrenus, and Theophanes. And Cedrenus indeed writes that the bishopric of the city of Constantinople was offered to Eusebius by Constantius in the place of a reward, because Eusebius had first of all delivered to Constantius the testament which Constantine, dying, had entrusted to him. Socrates, however, reports this transfer of Eusebius a little after the death of the younger Constantine, that is, in the year of Christ 340, with which Baronius also agrees. But Baronius disagrees with himself, and says things which are mutually pugnacious and contrary. For when he admits that the synodical letter of the bishops of Egypt to all orthodox bishops everywhere in the world, in which they respond to the slanders of the Eusebians against Athanasius, was written in the year of our Lord 339: and yet it is established from that same synodical letter that Eusebius of Nicomedia had already by then been transferred to the bishopric of the city of Constantinople: it is absolutely absurd to defer this transfer of Eusebius to the following year. That the bishops of Egypt in that synodical letter of theirs clearly testify to that which I have said, appears from their words, which I will append here: "Although Eusebius, hindered by nothing in this matter, vituperates the creation of Athanasius: a man who himself was not created a bishop at all, and if he ever had the right of a bishop, he rescinded it himself, in that he acted as bishop for Berytus from the beginning, and having left Berytus, moved himself to Nicomedia: abandoning that chair against the laws, and invading this one by no law: of his own flock without any charity."

^C A deserter, and one who occupies another's see for no reasonable cause, he spurned the charity of his former episcopate for the sake of another's cupidity. Yet he did not even retain this same episcopate, which he had occupied with such avidity. For behold, already leaping down from there too, he obtains another's episcopate anew. Where these words are to be noted, *ἰδοὺ γὰρ κ' ἐκεῖθεν ἀποστὰς, ἀλλοτρίαν πάλιν κατέχει*, for that term *ἰδοὺ*, declares that this translation of Eusebius from Nicomedia to Constantinople had been made very recently, and shortly before these things were written. Wherefore, if this circular letter was written by the priests of Egypt in the year of our Lord's Nativity 359, as Baronius thought, Eusebius's translation to the Constantinopolitan see must have occurred in that same year or the year prior.

Chapter 6. On the second restoration of Paul, and on his second and third exile.

In the year of Christ 342, Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, died, whom not only Philostorgius but also Eusebius of Caesarea calls the Great Eusebius in his book *Against Marcellus*. Against whom I do not know why Baronius has inveighed so greatly, since it has been shown by us above that he retained peace and communion with the Roman Church until his death. After his death, the citizens of Constantinople recalled Paul to his see; the Eusebians, however, substituted Macedonius in the place of Eusebius. This matter stirred up a great tumult in the royal city, as Socrates reports in his second book. Having heard these things, Emperor Constantius, who was kept occupied in the East by the Persian war, commanded Hermogenes, master of the soldiers, that by entering Constantinople, he should drive Paul from his seat and city. For the emperor bore it with difficulty that Paul had received his Church without his consent. But the people, who burned with love for Paul, having been moved against the master of the soldiers, burned his house, seized him, and dragged him by the feet, and having miserably mangled him, threw him into the sea. This was done when Constantius and Constans were consuls for the third and second times respectively. When these things were reported to Constantius, he, being gravely moved, suddenly mounting his horse, came to Constantinople. And he indeed punished the city itself with a levy of grain; but Paul, as the author of the sedition, he deported, bound in iron chains, to Singara, a fortress of Mesopotamia. ^D Libanius speaks of this great sedition in his *Basilicus*, page 126, where he testifies that Emperor Constantius used admirable speed in making his journey, and that neither snows nor rains deterred him from his intended travel. And he says that indeed the guilty were punished by him, but that no one was put to death, since the senate of the city of Constantinople had interceded for the accused before him. Socrates indeed, and Baronius following him, say that Paul at that time came to Rome. But I would prefer to follow Athanasius, who, in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, says that Paul was relegated by Constantius to Singara, and some time later transferred thence to Emesa, for fear, likely, of a Persian incursion. The words of Athanasius are these: *Τὸ δὲ δεύτερον παρὰ Κωνσταντίου δεθεὶς ἁλύσεσι σιδηραῖς, εἰς Σίγγαρα τῆς Μεσοποταμίας ἐξωρίσθη, καὶ ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν Ἔμισαν μετηνέχθη*. That is: "And the second time, having been bound by Constantius in iron chains, he was exiled to Singara of Mesopotamia, and from there was transferred to Emesa." Since Athanasius states this so clearly, it cannot be assigned to any other time than this one of which I spoke. For that great sedition in the royal city, and the slaughter of the master of the soldiers, and Paul's restitution having been done without the emperor's consent, had not undeservedly moved Constantius to send Paul, bound in iron, into such a distant exile. From which exile, however, not long after he transferred him to Emesa, whether to gratify the Constantinopolitans, who were especially devoted to Paul, or, as I said, for fear of the Persians, who were constantly threatening Singara. Certainly, not long after, the Persians clashed with the Romans in a great battle near that fortress. Furthermore, the Arians ascribed that sedition of which I spoke, and the slaughter of men done in it, to Paul alone, as the synodal letter of the pseudo-synod of Serdica testifies: "But even regarding Paul, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, if any have heard of his return from exile, he shudders; and much later: Asclepas, however, when he had come to the city of Constantinople because of Paul, committed, after the barbarity of events, an atrocity, which was done in the middle of the Constantinopolitan Church after a thousand homicides which stained the very altars with human blood, after the killings of brothers and the extinctions of Gentiles, and to this day he does not cease to communicate with Paul, for whose sake these things were done."

CHAPTER VII. On the third restoration of Paul of Constantinople.

Baronius writes that Paul, having been driven from his city and Church, betook himself to Julius at Rome: and when he had received letters from him by which he was restored to his see, those letters lacked effect, since Paul recovered his Church only after the Serdican council. But I cannot agree with Baronius. For first, it is false that Paul came to Rome at that time, as I demonstrated in the previous chapter. Nor is it truer what Baronius asserts, that Paul was restored by the sentence of the Serdican synod. Certainly, in the synodal letter of the Serdican council, no mention of that matter is made. Indeed, Theodoret in his second book of *Ecclesiastical History* clearly affirms that Paul did not participate in the Serdican council at all. For the citizens of the city of Constantinople had opposed his setting out for it, having feared, namely, that he would be killed by the Arians through ambushes on the journey. But also the Eastern bishops at Serdica openly signify in their synodal letter that Paul was absent from that synod, as Blondel rightfully observed in his book *De primatu in Ecclesia*. Therefore, Paul had already recovered the place of his episcopate before the Serdican synod. Which indeed I believe was done by Constantius, either for the sake of the Constantinopolitans, who followed Paul with a certain special love and zeal; or out of fear of Constans Augustus, who in frequent letters sent to Constantius had demanded that Paul, Athanasius, and the rest of the Eastern bishops be restored to their sees. It was surely consonant with reason that, since it had finally been agreed between the two brothers, the Augusti, that a general synod should be assembled at Serdica to adjudicate the cause of the bishops, all the bishops should be released from chains and exile, so that the power of coming to the council might be available to them freely. For this reason, therefore, if I am not mistaken, Paul returned from his Singarene and Emesan exile to Constantinople. Whence, when he wished to set out for the Serdican council, he was detained by the Constantinopolitan citizens, as Theodoret teaches.

Chapter 8. On the final exile of Paul and his death.

After the death of Constans Augustus, which occurred in the year of Christ 350, the Arians, now free from all fear, rose up against the Catholic prelates much more gravely than before. And first of all, having attacked Paul, they persuade Constantius to cast him into exile, and to induct Macedonius into the Constantinopolitan Church in his place. The emperor, therefore, who had openly undertaken the patronage of the Arian perfidy, commands Philip, the praetorian prefect for the East, to drive Paul from his seat immediately. Who, having received the prince's mandate, warned by the case of Hermogenes, the master of the soldiers, decided to approach the matter more prudently. Having entered, therefore, the bath of Zeuxippus, he summoned Paul to himself, as if to consult with him concerning some public business. Who, when he had arrived, the prefect secretly let him out through a certain window, and ordered him to be snatched away to the palace. And thence, by ship

[implied continuation from previous page:] ...imposed upon him, he sent him into exile to Cucusus, a town of Cappadocia, which was later assigned to Lesser Armenia. There the Eusenians shut him up in a most restricted and dark place, depriving him of food entirely, so that they might destroy the man of hunger. After the sixth day, having entered and finding him still breathing, they strangled him with the twisted ends of a cloak, just as Athanasius writes in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*. Athanasius indeed calls this the fourth exile of Paul, though I would prefer to call it the third. For Singara and Emesa, although they are different places, must be taken as a single exile, because Paul was later translated to Emesa from Singara, to which he had first been banished.

That Socrates and Sozomen state that Paul was banished to Thessalonica by the prefect Philip is a double error, both in the identification of the place and in the notation of time. For they write that this was done shortly after the death of Hermogenes, that is, in the year of Christ 342, at which time Philip was not the praetorian prefect. Nor could Philip at that time have relegated Paul to Thessalonica, which city was then subject to Constantius Augustus, not to Constantius [Gallus], under whom Philip held the prefecture. Therefore, it is more true what Baronius writes, that these things were done against Paul by Philip in the year of our Lord 351, in which year Philip was indeed the praetorian prefect, as I have noted from the laws of the Theodosian Code in my remarks on Ammianus Marcellinus. But at that time, as I said, that is in the year 351, Paul was not banished to the city of Thessalonica, but to Cucusus, as Athanasius testifies. For how could he have been banished to Thessalonica, which was his own homeland, as Sozomen and Socrates admit? What is more contrary than homeland and exile? Therefore, Paul must have been treated kindly when he was sent to Thessalonica. What then? Someone will say: is it entirely false what Sozomen and Socrates say, that Paul came to Thessalonica and, pretending from there to set out for Corinth, sailed to Rome? I believe this to be entirely true, but it happened at a different time: namely, when Paul was first deposed and condemned, with Eusebius of Nicomedia having been substituted in his place. For at that time, Paul, having free power to wander, could have set out for Thessalonica, Rome, and other cities of the Western empire as he pleased, just as I observed above.

CAP. IX. Why Athanasius did not number Paul of Constantinople among the orthodox bishops.

One might not unreasonably wonder what the reason is why Athanasius, in his *First Oration Against the Arians*, when drawing up a list of orthodox bishops who had steadfastly asserted the Nicene faith, omitted the name of our Paul, whom it is nevertheless established fought valiantly against the Arians for the doctrine and faith of the Nicene Council. Athanasius certainly mentions Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, in the aforementioned oration. Why then did he not add to it Paul, the successor of Alexander? Nor is it the case that one should object that Athanasius in that place mentioned only those bishops who had already fulfilled their destiny, and that Paul was passed over by him because he was still living. This response might perhaps be accepted if Paul of Constantinople had still been living at the time when this first oration against the Arians was written by Athanasius. But before Athanasius wrote that oration, or rather that epistle, Paul had already departed from the living. For he died in the year of our Lord's birth 351 or 352, as I observed in the history of Socrates. This *Oration Against the Arians*, however, was written by Athanasius after the enthronement of George, in the year of Christ 356, as I noted in the previous book. Another reason for this matter must therefore be sought. For I would not believe that it was done by Athanasius without a cause or through negligence. I think, therefore, that Athanasius deliberately omitted the name of Paul in that place because, while mixed with the Arians at the council of Tyre, he had subscribed to his condemnation, as we saw above. For the same reason he also kept silent there about the name of Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, even though he had mentioned Macarius of Jerusalem. Which, indeed, is not to be believed to have been done by Athanasius out of a spirit of revenge. For Athanasius was far from such a feeling. But since Athanasius had decided to commemorate in that place only those bishops who had remained far from any crime and had always been free from every stain of Arian communion, he therefore did not wish to include in that number Paul and Maximus, whom he knew to have been polluted by the communion of the Arians at that synod at Tyre.

BOOK THREE. CHAPTER ONE.

About forty years ago, a serious controversy arose among the learned concerning the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea. Many things were then brought forward by many for its exposition, while each individual sought to draw that canon to their own side. But because very learned men were contending more fiercely with one another concerning the *suburbicarian* Churches and regions, they expounded the interpretation of Rufinus rather than the words of the canon itself. Later there arose John Launoy, a theologian of great name, who not so long ago published a book, *On the Right Interpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea*. But here, too, he struck against the same stone as those before him, and he was unable to fulfill in two editions what he had promised in the title of his work. The cause of his error was provided by the wrong path and method which he used in the exposition of this canon. For when the canon of the Nicene Council should have been explained just as it was issued by the Nicene Fathers, and after the explanation of the Greek words, the progression should have been made in order to the explanation of the interpretation of Rufinus: John Launoy, on the contrary, first investigated the meaning of Rufinus, then expounded the very words of the Nicene Fathers according to the meaning he had attributed to the words of Rufinus. We, however, omit the interpretation of Rufinus for the present, since it is more truly a paraphrase than a version. But putting forward the canon itself, as it was promulgated by those three hundred bishops, we shall attempt to explain it. Thus, therefore, the sixth canon stands: "Let the ancient customs be held, those in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the bishop in Alexandria may have authority over all these; since this is also customary for the bishop in Rome. Likewise also in Antioch and in the other provinces, let the prerogatives be preserved to the Churches; but in general it is clear that if anyone should become a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great synod has determined that such a one ought not to be a bishop." Which words Dionysius Exiguus translated into Latin thus: "Let ancient custom be preserved throughout Egypt, Libya and Penta-

Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these; because there is a similar custom for the bishop of Rome. Similarly, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the Churches. Moreover, it is generally clear that if anyone has been made bishop contrary to the judgment of the metropolitan, the great synod has defined that such a one ought not to be a bishop." ^A

CAP. II.

There are two things especially to be noted in this canon: the first is that it deals with patriarchs; the second is that it does not deal only with the ordination of these, but with the entire patriarchal right. And indeed, the former can be demonstrated thus: The Fathers of the Nicene Council, when they were looking to the peace of the Churches, decreed in the fourth canon the rite by which the election of bishops should be celebrated, and they wished them to be confirmed by the metropolitan bishops. Since, therefore, the power of the metropolitans was abundantly established in that fourth chapter, what need was there to speak again of metropolitans in the sixth? Such a repetition would be entirely pointless and superfluous, which cannot be said of men so grave. Furthermore, this sixth chapter deals with bishops who govern a diocese, not, however, with those who govern a single province. Yet metropolitans govern only one province. For they each preside over the bishops of their own province. But the patriarchs govern a diocese, that is, many provinces joined together at once, and have many metropolitans subject to them. Therefore, this canon is to be understood as concerning them, not simple metropolitans. Otherwise, the constitution of the Nicene Fathers would be mangled and imperfect. For since they had abundantly provided for the ordination of bishops, which they decreed was to be confirmed by the metropolitans, it remained for them to determine the ordination of the metropolitans themselves. This they do explicitly in canon 6, ordering that those who are "metropolitans of metropolitans" be ordained by the patriarchs. Thus, these words of our canon are to be understood entirely: "Moreover, it is generally clear that if anyone has been made bishop contrary to the judgment of the metropolitan, the great synod has defined that such a one ought not to be a bishop." Certainly, Joannes Zonaras interprets "metropolitans" in this place as "patriarchs," who are greater metropolitans. For since Alexandria is the metropolis of all Egypt, and since Antioch was called by the ancients the metropolis of the whole Orient, the bishops of those cities can be called metropolitans by right. And since the name of "patriarchs" had not yet begun to be used, the Nicene Fathers seem to have used "metropolitans" for patriarchs. ^B

CAP. III.

Certainly everyone, both the ancients and those more recent who wrote before Launoi, understood this canon as concerning patriarchs. For first, Pope Innocent, in his epistle to Alexander, understood this Nicene canon in this way: for he says that the Church of Antioch was established by the Nicene Fathers by this decree not over one province, but over its own diocese. Then he adds that the bishop of Antioch was accustomed to ordain metropolitans by a certain special right, namely by the authority of this Nicene canon. Yet these things apply only to patriarchs. For they alone have a diocese, and they ordain metropolitans, as we shall see below. ^C

To Innocent is added Jerome, in his epistle to Pammachius regarding the errors of John of Jerusalem, writing thus: "You who seek ecclesiastical rules and use the canons of the Nicene Council, and strive to usurp for yourself the clergy of others, and those who are staying with their own bishops, answer me: what does the Palestine of the bishop of Alexandria have to do with [the matter]? Unless I am mistaken, it is decreed there that the metropolis of Palestine is Caesarea, and of the whole Orient, Antioch. Either, therefore, you should have referred the matter to the bishop of Caesarea, with whom you knew how to communicate while spurning your own communion, or, if a judgment was to be sought from afar, letters should rather have been sent to Antioch." Launoi admits that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council is designated here by Jerome. Since, therefore, Jerome says that the bishop of Antioch held right over the Church of Palestine by the decree of that canon, and indeed over a metropolitan bishop, it is necessary that he understood that canon to be about patriarchs. For patriarchs were above metropolitans, and were as it were "metropolitans of metropolitans," as I said above. Whence also Jerome calls the bishop of Antioch, just as [he calls] the [bishop] of Caesarea, a metropolitan; for he adds below: "But I know why you did not wish to send to Caesarea or to Antioch. You knew what you were fleeing, what you were avoiding. You preferred to annoy occupied ears than to render the honor due to your metropolitan." Rightly, therefore, Petrus de Marca observed that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council was understood by Jerome to be about patriarchs and patriarchal right. ^D

Furthermore, Joannes Scholasticus, who was patriarch of Constantinople during the reign of Justinian, in his *Collection of Canons* recently published in Paris, understands this sixth canon to be about patriarchs. For in the first title of his *Collection*, which is "On Patriarchs," he places this sixth canon of the Nicene Council in the first position. Now Joannes Scholasticus was a patriarch, as I have already said; and consequently, he could not have been ignorant of the rights of patriarchs. Launoi's attempt to diminish his authority is entirely in vain, when he objects that he placed the seventh canon of the Nicene Council under the title "On Patriarchs," in which the honor of the bishop of Aelia is treated. For firstly, it can be answered that this was added by a more recent hand and was not written by Joannes Scholasticus himself. For why, I ask, would Joannes of Antioch have chosen to begin with the seventh canon of the Nicene Council rather than the sixth? Then it can be said that that seventh canon, although in truth it does not treat the patriarchal right of the bishop of Jerusalem, yet seems to have provided the occasion for that right to him. For by the authority of this canon, the prelates of Jerusalem gradually began to raise themselves higher.

But the eighth synod also understood this canon in no other way. For it holds this in the tenth action, chapter seventeen, "Concerning the power of the patriarchs and the advent of metropolitans to them": "The holy and universal first Nicene synod orders ancient custom to be preserved throughout Egypt and the provinces that are under it, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these, saying that such a custom has prevailed in the city of the Romans: for which reason this great and holy synod decrees that the ancient custom be preserved in all, both in elder and new Rome, as well as in the see of Antioch and Jerusalem, so that their prelates may have power over all the metropolitans who are promoted by them, and who receive the firmness of episcopal dignity either by the laying on of hands or by the giving of the pallium: namely, to convoke them in urgent necessity to a synodal assembly, or even to coerce and correct them when fame may have perhaps accused them of certain crimes." And a little later the same Fathers write concerning the councils of the patriarchs thus: "But this holy and universal synod, while not forbidding the councils that are held by metropolitans, knows much more that those are more reasonable and useful [which are] the councils of the metropolitans that are gathered by the patriarchal see; and therefore it demands that these be done. For by a metropolitan the arrangement of one province indeed is elicited: whereas by a patriarch the cause of a whole diocese is often dispensed." By which words our opinion is most openly confirmed. For the most holy Fathers say that in the sixth canon of the Nicene Council—for they designate no other canon—it is a question of patriarchs and of patriarchal right. They confirm be-

besides that which I observed above: that a patriarch differs from a metropolitan ^A chiefly in this, that a metropolitan indeed presides over one province, whereas a patriarch governs an entire diocese.

The authority of the general council, which it is sacrilege to oppose, could have sufficed. All the Greek interpreters of the canons have certainly explained this canon of ours concerning the patriarchs. Thus Zonaras and Balsamon, who certainly understood the canons better than Launoius. Nor is there any reason why one should object that the Greeks were alone in that opinion. I deny that there has ever existed anyone, whether Latin or Greek, who has accepted that canon otherwise.

CAP. IV.

CAP. V.

CAP. VI.

CAP. VII.

of this discussion we promised: that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council treats of patriarchs in so far as they are patriarchs; and that it is not to be understood solely regarding ordination, but concerning the entire patriarchal right. Now let us proceed to the rest. The said canon continues: "Because also for the bishop of Rome there is a like custom." The Greek text has it thus: ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν τῷ Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύννηθές ἐστιν. Since these words are most manifest in themselves, they have nevertheless been twisted by the various expositions of many into a most absurd sense. Inhering to the words themselves, we shall strive to investigate the opinion of the Nicene Fathers. The most holy prelates therefore offer two reasons for their decree as to why the bishop of Alexandria should have full power throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. The first is the ancient custom of those places. For thus they say: "Let the ancient custom be preserved throughout Egypt," etc. Then they offer a second reason: the example of the Roman bishop. For the words *ἐπειδὴ καὶ*, etc., have this force. Where two things are to be noted: first, that the Roman bishop is proposed as an example and norm for the remaining patriarchs; second, that nothing is set down in this canon regarding the Roman bishop, whereas something is set down regarding others, for instance, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Hierosolymitan. ^B Rightly, therefore, does Pope Nicholas write thus in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael: "Finally, if the institutes of the Nicene synod are diligently inspected, it will verily be found that the same synod conferred no increment upon the Roman Church, but rather took an example from its form for what it attributed specifically to the Alexandrian Church." Although this has been most truly said by Nicholas, Launoius nevertheless censures it in his Dissertation. For he contends that nothing was attributed to the Alexandrian pontiff by the Nicene Fathers, and he inculcates this on almost every page. But he himself is far mistaken. For when the Alexandrian pontiffs before the Nicene Council defended the power which they held over the churches of all Egypt by custom and antiquity alone, the Nicene Fathers confirmed that possession by their decree. Therefore, they did grant much to the Alexandrian pontiff, since they stabilized his power by a special canon, so that no one could henceforth oppose him. It is therefore the same as if you were to say that when the Parliament of Paris adjudicates the possession of some estate or right to one of the litigants, it grants him nothing. After the Nicene Council, the bishops of Alexandria claimed for themselves by the authority of a universal council that which they previously usurped by custom alone. Their right was therefore sanctioned and confirmed by the Nicene synod, and that by the example of the Roman bishop. For this is what these words mean: "Because also for the bishop of the city of Rome there is a like custom." It is the same as if they were saying: "The bishop of Alexandria has full power in all Egypt, because for the Roman bishop also there is the same custom." By these words the Nicene Fathers ^C manifestly acknowledge the primacy of the Roman See. For that is without doubt primal, which is the norm and rule for the others. Hence it happened that in certain ancient collections this canon is inscribed: "On the Primacy of the Roman Church." Certainly, Pope Gelasius feels this way in his Epistle to the Orientals regarding the name of Acacius (p. 183) with these words: "For by what reason or consequence must it be defended for other sees, if the ancient and venerable reverence is not deferred to the first See of Blessed Peter, through which the dignity of all priests is always strengthened and confirmed, and by the undefeated and singular judgment of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers was judged most ancient in honor?" But even before Gelasius, Pope Boniface in his Epist. to the bishops of Thessaly had observed the same, saying thus: "The precepts of the Nicene synod attest nothing else, so much so that there was no opportunity to constitute anything over it, when it saw that nothing could be conferred above its own merit. Finally, it knew that all things had been granted to it by the word of the Lord," etc. But this primacy was established much more openly in the Constantinopolitan synod, which ordained that the bishop of Constantinople should have the second place after the Roman bishop. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the Nicene Fathers, who had defined the diocese of the Alexandrian bishop, did not define that of the Roman bishop. Which was done prudently by them. For since that synod consisted almost entirely of bishops from the East, and had been gathered only to order the affairs of the East and of Egypt, it decreed nothing concerning the Roman diocese: either because it did not sufficiently know its boundaries, or because it thought that this had nothing to do with itself and the present question. Moreover, when the Fathers of the Nicene synod compare the power which the the Alexandrian pontiff had throughout the whole Egyptian diocese with that power which the Roman pontiff had, they understood entirely the power which the Roman bishop has in his diocese. For both ought to respond to each other equally: and just as the Alexandrian is compared with the Roman, so the diocese must be compared with the diocese. Otherwise, the comparison would be inept and imperfect if, in speaking of the Alexandrian pontiff, the bishops encompassed his entire diocese or patriarchate, but did not do so in regard to the Roman pontiff, instead understanding only his Roman province, which is most absurd. The Nicene Fathers, therefore, compare bishop with bishop, diocese with diocese, power with power, and custom with custom: to wit, the custom of the regions of Egypt with the custom of the Roman diocese. According to these rules, the exposition of Rufinus is to be understood, who interpreted this canon thus: "That at Alexandria and in the city of Rome an ancient custom be preserved, that either the former might have the care of the churches of Egypt, or the latter that of the suburbicarian churches." For by suburbicarian churches Rufinus understands those which are under the bishop of the city of Rome. For suburbicarian churches are spoken of in the same way as suburbicarian provinces. As, therefore, the provinces which were under the vicar of the city of Rome are called suburbicarian, so by Rufinus those churches are called suburbicarian which were subject to the bishop of the city of Rome. And just as the suburbicarian provinces constituted the peculiar diocese of the vicar of the city of Rome, so the suburbicarian churches constitute the diocese of the Roman bishop. But who the boundaries of this diocese were in the times of the Nicene Council, it would not be easy to affirm. Yet it seems most safe to me to follow the opinion of the Greek interpreters, who ascribe the whole West to the Roman patriarch, although this may displease the Romans. Certainly, the Fathers who were present at the Council of Arles do not seem to have understood the patriarchate of the Roman bishop otherwise. For thus they speak in the synodical letter which they wrote to Pope Sylvester: "It also pleased us that, before you who hold the greater dioceses, it be insinuated to all [by you] primarily." For what are those greater dioceses which the Roman bishop is said to hold, if not the provinces of the West? Which, if they are compared with the Alexandrian or Antiochene patriarchate, are found to be far larger and more extensive.

CAP. VIII. The canon of the Nicene Council having been expounded, it is now time that we refute in a few words the arguments by which Joannes Launoius strives to firm up his opinion. Launoius therefore says that the rashness of Meletius gave cause for this canon. For when Meletius had presumed to make ordinations in many regions of Egypt, the Fathers suppressed his audacity by this canon and confirmed the ancient right of the Alexandrian prelate. This is the argumentation of Launoius in chapter 1 of his Dissertation on the sixth Nicene canon. But Launoius ought to have proven before all else that this was the cause for the establishing of the canon. Of which matter, however, he brings no...

testimony, but demands that it be believed upon his own assertion. But we, especially in these matters, believe nothing without a witness. In this canon, there is question not only of the bishop of Alexandria, but also of the bishop of Antioch and other metropolitans. What did the schism of Meletius have to do with them? But if you contend that there was no other cause for the promulgation of this canon, let us grant this to you, if you please. Does it follow from this that which you desire, that in this canon one is dealing only with ordination? By no means. For a singular affair can sometimes provide the cause for a general constitution. Nor is that which you write in the same chapter any more firm, that this 6th canon is a kind of exception to the 4th canon, by which the right and power of confirming ordinations in individual provinces is attributed to the metropolitan. You, however, think that in the Alexandrian and Roman diocese the metropolitans possessed no right, in which point I cannot agree with you. For the Nicene Synod, in the said 6th canon, took nothing away from the metropolitans. This is manifestly confirmed by the clause of the canon itself, which holds thus: "That thing, however, is generally clear, that if anyone has been made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great synod has defined that this man ought not to be a bishop." Therefore, the sixth canon is not an exception and restriction of the fourth, since it rather confirms it; nor does it take away anything from the power of metropolitans, but it joins to the metropolitans the patriarchs, who are metropolitans of metropolitans. [I]

CAP. IX.

You are accustomed to say many things which you do not prove. Such is that which you say on the fifth page, that it was received by ancient custom that the Alexandrian bishop should ordain or permit to be ordained bishops, presbyters, and the remaining ministers throughout all Egypt. I readily grant you indeed regarding the bishops, that they were ordained by the Alexandrian pontiff: yet not without the consent of the metropolitan. Otherwise, what right would the metropolitans have possessed in Egypt? For it should not be thought that the metropolitans of Egypt were of a worse condition than others. But regarding presbyters and other clerics, I deny it. You bring forward, in truth, no testimony for this thing. For as to what you adduce from the first book of Sozomen, where Meletius, in the absence of Peter, who had fled during the time of persecution, is said to have laid claim to himself for the ordinations of ministers which pertained solely to Peter, that is to be understood manifestly concerning the presbyters and deacons of the Church of Alexandria, whom Meletius had instituted in the absence of Peter. And Athanasius confirms this plainly in his *Apology*, page 788, where he writes that Alexander, after the Nicene synod, having used prudent counsel, had demanded from Meletius that he give him a list containing the names of those who had been ordained by him at Alexandria: which list Athanasius indeed brings forward there. In it are recited the names of all the bishops who were of the faction of Meletius throughout Egypt. Then follow the names of the presbyters and deacons whom Meletius had ordained in the city and in the Alexandrian territory. But if Meletius had also had presbyters and deacons elsewhere, and their ordination had fallen to the bishop of Alexandria alone, Alexander would have demanded a list of them also from Meletius, as is apparent. Since Alexander did not do this, it must be said outright that either Meletius ordained none but Alexandrian presbyters and deacons, or that the ordination of clerics who were outside the parish of Alexandria pertained in no way to the Alexandrian bishop. Therefore, from that passage of Sozomen you can conclude nothing: likewise nothing from the other of Socrates, which is in book vi, chapter 7. Regarding which passage you observe thus: that Theophilus did two things. First, he constituted a bishop at Hermopolis, then he joined the clerics ordained by him to the bishop. For you believed that Ammonius and his brother, ordained by Theophilus, were clerics of the Hermopolitan Church. I see that the author of the *Geographia Sacra* was also of the same opinion. ^B But you are indeed largely mistaken. For Theophilus kept Ammonius and his brother with himself and ordained them clerics of his own Church, that is, of the Alexandrian Church. And Socrates says this so clearly that I am surprised that it was not noticed by you, a man of such great sharpness. But who could persuade himself that the presbyters and deacons of all Egypt were ordained by the Alexandrian bishop? What then would have remained for the bishops, if the ordination of clerics had been taken away from them? For a bishop, once the power of ordaining is taken away, seems in some manner to have been reduced to the order of presbyters, since a bishop differs most from a presbyter in that he has the power of ordaining, as Jerome testifies. ^C

CAP. X.

You must also note your observation which you placed in this chapter, page 8, where you inquire in what places Meletius presumed to perform illicit ordinations. For you say, "At Eleutheropolis," says Epiphanius, "Basa and Aelia, etc." You seem to have taken these cities entirely for cities of Egypt. For you wish to prove that Meletius ordained bishops and presbyters throughout the whole of Egypt. Therefore, you attributed these cities, which nevertheless are in Palestine, to Egypt. Otherwise, why did you name them? Furthermore, you name Basa for Gaza, as is rightly read in the edition of Petavius. Moreover, from this testimony of Epiphanius, it appears that Meletius celebrated illicit ordinations not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine. For when he had been condemned to the mines of Palestine which were called Phonesia, on the journey, that is, both in going and in returning, he ordained clerics. But if you wish to know in which cities of Egypt Meletius ordained bishops, you have the names of the cities and bishops in the List of Meletius which Athanasius reports. Had you read it, you could have omitted the testimony of Epiphanius. ^D

CAP. XI.

In your fourth Corollary you say that, among the ancient customs which are mentioned in the sixth canon of the Nicene council, the custom by which the Roman bishop delegated his own powers to the bishop of Thessalonica can rightly be placed. In which you are doubly mistaken: first, when you think that in the aforementioned Nicene canon certain ancient customs regarding the governing of churches are to be understood. For the Nicene Fathers understand no other custom than that which is immediately subjoined by them, namely, that the bishop of Alexandria should have power over all throughout Egypt: similarly the bishop of Antioch in his diocese, and individual metropolitans in their provinces. But that which you think, that that custom of the Roman pontiffs who mandated their powers to the bishop of Thessalonica was older than the Nicene council, the Roman council, which was recently published by Lucas Holstenius, refutes you. For there, when the origin of that custom is traced from the furthest antiquity, no evidence of it is brought forward before the pontificate of Damasus.

CAP. XII.

In your fourteenth Corollary, where you refer to the epistle of Pope Innocent to Alexander the bishop of Antioch, you wrongly criticize the most learned prelate Petrus de Marca, who had rightly noted that Innocent in the said epistle spoke concerning the patriarchal right of the bishop of Antioch and understood the aforementioned Nicene canon in that sense. The words of Innocent are: "Revolving, therefore, the authority of the Nicene synod, which explains the one mind of all priests throughout the whole world, which judged concerning the Antiochene Church [that it was] necessary for all the faithful, not to say priests, to observe, in which we know that Church was constituted over its own aforementioned diocese, not over any province." I confess that in all editions it is read *constitutum*. But if you had consulted the rules of the grammarians, they would have taught you indeed that it ought to be read *constitutam*.

^A Otherwise, to what would those words "the aforementioned Church" refer, unless perhaps you think it is a Church of a generic sort? Peter de Marca therefore acted correctly, who published this passage in that way, since it could neither be read nor should be read otherwise. Furthermore, from these words of Innocent it is completely concluded that Innocent was of the opinion that the Nicene Council had attributed patriarchal right to the Antiochene pontiff. For he says that the bishop of Antioch was established by the decree of the Nicene Council not over some province, but over his own diocese. But those who are above a diocese are called patriarchs; those who are over a province are metropolitans. Therefore, when Innocent says that the bishop of Antioch was not established over some province, ^B he sufficiently indicates that he is not a simple metropolitan. You will perhaps say that there are many who have a diocese, who however are not patriarchs: such are exarchs or primates. But I respond that these are lesser patriarchs who had metropolitans under them. Whence they also sometimes usurped the name of patriarchs. Then, it matters not whether the bishop of Antioch is called a primate or a patriarch in this passage. For your opinion is abundantly refuted if I show that Innocent does not say that the right and honor of a metropolitan were attributed by the Nicene Council to the bishop of Antioch. This is most certainly demonstrated from the things I have already said. But also the words of Innocent which follow clearly prove this. For he adds: “Whence we learn, that this was attributed to him not so much for the magnificence of the city, ^C as because it is shown to be the first see of the first apostle, where the Christian religion also received its name, and which deserved that a most famous meeting of the apostles should be held at it, and which would not yield to the see of the City of Rome, except that the latter deserved it in transit, while the former rejoices in having it received and consummated at itself.” Do you not see that Innocent is speaking here of a certain special honor and privilege, which would correspond to the magnificence of the city of Antioch, and which was almost equal to the honor and majesty of the Roman see? Innocent would be completely inept and cold if he said these things about a metropolitan right, which is common to the Antiochene with innumerable other bishops. He must therefore understand some other special right: which can be nothing other than patriarchal. You still resist, and contend ^D that the bishop of Antioch is called a metropolitan by Innocent in these words: “Therefore we think, most dear brother, that just as you as metropolitan ordain by singular authority, so you also allow the other bishops to be begotten not without your permission and knowledge,” etc. Here you, as you are wont, have embraced the error of the Mainz edition as the correct reading, and from it have concluded a false assertion that is contrary to the mind of Innocent. But if you had consulted the remaining editions—namely, the two Cologne editions, one of Crabbe, the other of Binius; the Hispanic edition of Antonio Agustín in book III of the *Epitome of Canon Law*; and the newest of all editions, the Parisian *Bibliothèque du droit canonique*, which the most learned man Guilielmus Voellus recently published together with the most illustrious man Henricus Justellus—you would have seen indeed that it should not be written *metropolitanus*, but *metropolitanos*: just as Nicolaus Faber had also emended it in the margin of the Mainz codex. Indeed, what sense would there be in your reading: “Just as you as metropolitan ordain by singular authority, so [do] you [allow] the others not without permission,” etc. If we follow your reading, the prelate of Antioch would have ordained no bishop. For Innocent commands, or rather advises Alexander, that he order the bishops positioned further away to be ordained by metropolitans or others by means of given letters, but if it so pleased him, to order the neighboring ones to come to Antioch to receive the laying on of hands. Then, what do those particles mean: “just as you as metropolitan ordain, so [also for] the rest,” etc.? Do you not see that Innocent is distinguishing here between two classes of bishops: namely, metropolitans and the rest of the provincials who are commonly called suffragans? And he says that metropolitans are indeed ordained by the bishop of Antioch with singular authority, that is, patriarchal [authority]. For only patriarchs have the right of ordaining metropolitans, as the Eighth Synod adduced above teaches. They ordain them, moreover, in two ways, as the aforementioned synod says, either by the laying on of hands, or by the sending of the pallium. Which later custom prevailed more in the West, having been introduced, as it seems, on account of the excessive distance of the places. Hence it is that in canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, by which patriarchal right was granted to the bishop of Constantinople, it is decreed by name that he should have the power of ordaining metropolitans throughout the diocese of Pontus and Asia and Thrace, but in the Barbarian territory he should also ordain bishops. The reason, however, why they gave him this power in Barbarian territory is this: that among the Barbarians there was no metropolitan, and consequently the Constantinopolitan patriarch performed the office of metropolitan in those regions.

CAP. XIII. In your seventh corollary you say that the bishop of Carthage appeared to have the same right throughout all Africa that the bishop of Alexandria had through Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that is, that he had the right of ordaining presbyters and bishops throughout all Africa. For this was the right of the Alexandrian bishop throughout the whole Egyptian diocese, as you indeed asserted in many places of your dissertation. But the canon of the Council of Carthage, from which you conclude this, does not say this, but only that it is lawful for the bishop of Carthage to take clerks from whatever Church he wishes, so that he may ordain them as presbyters or bishops for the Churches by which they were requested. Whence also the title of the canon is thus conceived: “That it is lawful for the bishop of Carthage to ordain a clerk from wherever he wishes.” He does not say *wherever* he might wish, but only *from wherever* he might wish. It was therefore lawful for the bishop of Carthage to take foreign clerks, whom he might ordain as either presbyters or bishops. But only in his own province, that is, in the Proconsular, which was also called Carthage. Outside of this province it was not lawful for him to ordain them. For the Carthaginian canon does not grant this power to him. But you will say that Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, states clearly in this canon that he bears the solicitude of all the Churches, and that therefore all ordinations pertained to him. I respond that when Aurelius says that the solicitude of all the Churches lies upon him, he is speaking of the Churches of his own province, not of all Africa. Certainly, a little before, the same Aurelius only said that he bore the solicitude of many Churches and of those to be ordained. For many and very great were the Churches in the Proconsular province; and in the city of Carthage itself, which was one of the greatest cities of the Roman empire, there were many Churches and many presbyters and deacons. But if we grant to you that the Bishop of Carthage, as primate, had care of the Churches of all Africa, it does not follow from this that he celebrated ordinations in all of Africa. For the Roman bishop also, although he bears the care of the whole Church, does not for that reason claim for himself the ordinations of all Churches.

CAP. XIV. Having set forth the sixth canon of the Nicene Council, in which we argued abundantly, as I think, about the right of patriarchs, it is pleasant now, in place of a corollary, to add certain things which pertain to the same patriarchs. It should be known, therefore, that patriarchs were accustomed to be ordained in a synod of bishops. For after the death of a patriarch, many bishops, as well metropolitans as provincials, were accustomed to assemble at the patriarchal church, as much for the sake of celebrating the funeral, as for substituting someone in the place of the deceased patriarch, by which means both his burial and his ordination would be more illustrious. So John Chrysostom, so before him Nectarius, and the rest.

^A Bishops of Constantinople are read to be ordained in a synod of bishops, as can be seen in the *Ecclesiastical Annals*. Furthermore, as soon as they had been ordained, they would send synodical letters to the other patriarchs, by which they both announced their ordination to them and set forth the formula of their faith, requesting that they, in turn, might receive from them letters of peace or communion. Indeed, even the Roman bishop, after he had been raised to the summit of the pontificate, was accustomed to send letters of this kind to the other patriarchs, his colleagues, setting forth his faith to them and asking that he be assisted by their prayers and counsel. There exists an epistle of Pope Gregory, written after this same model to all the patriarchs, in the first book of his epistles. Moreover, two synodical letters were sent at the same time. For both the bishops who had gathered for the ordination of the new patriarch wrote a synodical letter in their own name to all the patriarchs, which contained the proclamation of the patriarch newly ordained by them; and he who had been created patriarch sent his own synodical letter separately to his other colleagues. We have an illustrious example of this in Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople. For when the bishops by whom the patriarch of Constantinople had been ordained had written a synodical letter to Pope Hormisdas, he himself sent a separate synodical letter to the same Hormisdas by his own legates. And that first one was properly a "synodical" letter, seeing that it had been written by the synod and had prefixed to it the names of all the bishops who had taken part in the synod, except for Epiphanius himself. The latter, however, can only be called synodical in an improper sense. Both of these letters are found in Baronius in his *Ecclesiastical Annals*, in the year of Christ 520.

It is further to be observed that the legates of the patriarchs who brought the synodical letters were accustomed to proceed to the altar along with the patriarch to whom they had been sent and to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass. And this was a token of mutual communion between the patriarchs. We have two testimonies to this effect. The first is that of the deacon Liberatus, who in the beginning of chapter 18 of his *Breviary* writes as follows concerning Misenus and Vitalis, legates of the Roman Church to Acacius, bishop of Constantinople: "They went to Constantinople. And the aforementioned bishops were placed in custody, their papers having been taken away, so that they might not be delivered to the Catholics to whom they had been written. These, after this, Acacius expelled from custody and caused to proceed with him, so that they might be dismissed as if the priesthood of Peter had been confirmed." The second testimony is that of Gregory the Great, who in epistle 31, book VI, writes as follows to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, bishops: "The representatives of our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus, upon arriving, brought me his synodical epistle. And indeed, between us and him, as your beatitude knows, there is grievous discord on account of the claim of a profane title. But in the cause of the faith, I judged that his representatives who had been sent should be received, lest from the fault of pride, which has arisen in the Church of Constantinople against almost all priests, I should cause dissension in the faith and ecclesiastical strife for the sake of unity. But the same representatives, because they themselves most earnestly requested this, I caused to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass with me; because, just as I have striven to signify to our most serene lord the emperor, the representatives of our brother and fellow-priest Cyriacus ought to communicate with me, who, by the grace of God, have not fallen into the error of pride." ^B Here you see that, in place of what the deacon Liberatus had said, "to proceed," Pope Gregory said "to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass." Yet in the same place Gregory uses the word "proceed" in the same sense. For he thus subjoins: "But my own deacon ought not to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass with the aforementioned Cyriacus, who either has committed or follows the fault of pride by means of a profane word. Lest, if—which God forbid—he proceeds while he is placed in such pride, we should seem to confirm the vanity of a foolish title." The same Gregory, in epistle 30 of the same book, which he wrote to the Emperor Maurice, says the following on the same matter: "I have honored them more than ancient custom had been, and have caused them to celebrate the sacred solemnities of the Mass with me; because just as my deacon ought not to minister to him in exhibiting the sacred mysteries, he who either has committed the fault of pride or does not himself correct it when committed by others, so his ministers ought to have been present with me in the celebration, for I, with God keeping me, have not fallen into the error of pride."

Finally, the patriarchs themselves, if by chance they had gathered in one place, would celebrate the solemnities of the Mass together. Thus, while Basil Porphyrogenitus was emperor, Agapius, archbishop of Seleucia in Syria, having been made patriarch of Jerusalem, when he had come to Constantinople, celebrated the solemnities of the Mass together with the patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas, and with the sacred synod; as is read in the fourth book of the *Juris Græco-Romani*, page 294. The Greek words are: "Os εἰσελθὼν ἐνταῦθα, συνελειτούργησε τῷ μακαριωτάτῳ καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ πατριάρχῃ κυρίῳ Νικολάῳ, καὶ τῇ ἱερᾷ συνόδῳ." Later, while Alexius Comnenus was emperor, Sabas, bishop of Caesarea Philippi, was made patriarch of Jerusalem, who, coming to Constantinople, celebrated the solemnities of the Mass together with the most holy patriarch Nicholas and the sacred synod, as is read in the same book of the *Juris Græco-Romani*: "Συνελειτούργησε τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ πατριάρχῃ Νικολάῳ καὶ τῇ συνόδῳ." I know that Leunclavius, the most learned interpreter of the *Juris Græco-Romani*, translated the word *sulleitourgein* into Latin as "to perform the sacred ministry." But our interpretation is better, seeing that it is confirmed by the authority of Gregory the Great, as we saw above. We have an illustrious example of the same custom in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, at which the four patriarchs were present together, and in the great church of Saint Sophia they celebrated the solemnities of the Mass together; as Eustathius writes in the *Life of the blessed Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople*: "They form, he says, a certain fourfold and, in a way, golden chain: they entered into the great church, and offered the divine and unbloody sacrifice," etc.

VARIE LECTIONES.

AD SOCRATEM,

Quas exhibet Liber quondam Merici Casauboni, nunc autem eruditissimi Viri Dn. Joannis Jones, qui mecum eumdem e Museo suo perhumaniter communicavit.

N.B. C. codicem Domini Castellani episcopi cum nostro collatum denotat. Revocatur lector ad numeros typis grandioribus textui insertos.

5 Ηπερ τοῦ ἀκρ. Ib. ἐπὶ τὸ χρι... ἐληλύθη C. 12 γινώσκει ὁ λόγος τὸν C. Ib. οὐ μιμήσει τούτ. C. 13 τοῦτο τοίνυν 16 ὅτ' ἂν γὰρ C. Ib. ἐπυνθάνου Ib. ἀντιδότωσαν 17 τοῦ δόγματος ἑνώσει 18 στενοτέραν C. 19 τοιοῦτον μόνος C. κοσίων al. leg. πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίων. 21 μέμφεται τε τῇ C. 26 οἱ πάντες C. 27 κατ' ἐκεῖνον C. 29 φανερὸν καθίσταται C. 32 ἐκείνων ἔθους Ib. οὗ συμφώ. τῆς αἰσχρᾶς ἐκείνης C. 33 ὡς δὴ ἀεὶ Ib. ἐκείνων ἔθους 34 ἀσμένως δέχεσθε C. 37 καὶ τῷ τῆς εἰρωνείας sic et C. 38 ὦ Ἀκέσινε C. 40 παραθήκην C. 43 ἐναγαγόμενον C. 48 τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους sic et C. Ib. κατεσκεύασε C. 53 στύλους ἀνορθοῦντες ἐπ. sic et C. 56 παρεισήγαγε 59 ἐπαναγαγεῖν C. Ib. πάσης ἁπλῶς τῆς οἰκ. 66 ἐστερῆσθαι C. 69 Ἀρείου τε καὶ Εὐζ. C. 70 ἡμετέρας ἡμερότητος ἐπ. C. 79 ὅσα αὐταῖς ταῖς λέξ. sic et C. 80 ἐὰν ὑπονοστήσῃ C. 81 ἀποστῇ C. 82 φρατρίας συνίστασαν 85 γνώμη καινοῦ συν. 87 τὸν πάντων C. 88 ἀληθῶς C. 89 τοὺς... Ῥωμαίους C. 90 διὰ Μακεδόνιον C. 94 ἐκβάλῃ, ἀντεισαγάγῃ C. 97 τὰ κατ' αὐτοὺς C. Ib. ἐπιδεδώκασι C. 99 ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν. 105 διὰ τοῦτο C. 110 σπουδάσῃς, ἵνα τῆς σαυ. C. Ib. δῷ, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἀμφ. C. 112 παρ' ἡμῶν μόνον. μόνον deest C. 113 ἁλυσιτελῆ C. 116 κατεκωκύσαντο C. 120 πείσας τε τὸν 124 ἀρεστὸν C. 125 εἴ τις λόγον θεὸν C. 128 σουσταντίας. in C. est σου-σταντίας. Ib. ἢ τὸ λεγόμ. C. 130 προέφερον C. ἐκδοθείσαις C. Ib. τοιόνδε πρᾶγμα συμβ. C. 138 pro ἀθεῖον, ἀμαθίαν C. 141 τοὺς ἀναδειχθέντας πρέσβεις C. 144 ἐκβαλόντος C. 147 ὁ τῆς ἐπίσκ. C. 148 φόνος ἀνθρώπων πολύς C. 149 ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν C. 150 ἔχειν διάγ. C. 153 ὅσων μικρὸν C. Ib. πρὸ αὐτοῦ C. Ib. πατραλοίαις C. 154 ἐπὶ τῷ παρεῖναι 155 ἐπὶ τῷ διδάξαι C. 156 προσκεῖσθαι C. Ib. προστεθείκεισαν C. 160 ἐπὶ τούτῳ C. 161 προσῆγε C. Ib. ἐδίδασκε C. 163 παρ' αὐτόν. 168 ἐρρύσατο C. 169 εὐδαιμονήσειν C. 170 συνοικίσας C. 171 ἠλαύνοντο C. 172 πρῶτος τὴν συγκλήτου C. 175 δὲ τὸν ἀνίατα C. Ib. pro εὐνομ. εὐλαβεῖσθε C. 176 δήμου ἴδοι C. Ib. εἴπερ ἐστὲ C. 180 ἐτύρευσαν C. 181 Ἡσαν C. Ib. Ἀχαΐα C. 182 δύνασθε C. 185 πρότερον C. 186 περὶ τούτου. C. 187 οὐδ' ὁ Γαλιλ. θεραπεύσεις σε C. 188 συναγαγεῖν C. 189 αὐτοῦ ἤ που C. 191 τῷ ἡρωικῷ μέτρῳ C. Ib. ἀνοίκειος ἡ C. 195 τελετοῦ 195 οἱ περὶ sic et C. Ib. ἐπὶ τῷ 197 βασιλέα Περσῶν C. 198 Ῥωμαίων στρατῷ C. 200 προέκρινεν ἂν C. Ib. πάλαι μὲν γὰρ C. 201 ἑκατέρου C. Ib. παρέστηκε C. 202 αὐτοῦ φρον. C. Ib. εἰς τὸ C. 205 ἁπλούστερον C. 204 Ἄττιν C. et hic et postea. 205 Ζάνα C. Ib. τιμᾷθ' C. 206 προσελεύσεις C. 208 Ἰσακίκις C. Ib. μηδέ τι 214 Οὐαλεντινιανὸς γὰρ, τοὺς μὲν οἰκ. C. rectissime. Ib. διακριθέντες τοῖς. C. 217 Ἀγελῶνος C. 219 κατ' αὐτὴν C. Ib. προσιόντος C. 220 πολλὰ χαλεπὰ δράσ. C. Ib. μαργαίροντα C. 221 μοι deest C. 223 ἐν Ἑλλησπόντου C. 224 ἀλλὰ καὶ κοιν. C. 225 γράμματα κομίζ. C. Ib. τὲ καὶ κρατεῖν. φυλάξειν C. Ib. Λαμψάκου C. 226 Ἀρσενικῷ C. Ib. Μάκαιρι C. 228 μάλιστα δέ. abest δὲ a C. Ib. ἐπὶ τῷ C. 229 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐν C. 231 ἀνατρέψῃ Ib. πλοίου ἐμπλησθέντας C. 232 Δακίβυζος C. Ib. τὴν τῆς Συρ. C. 233 ὑπάρχου C. 254 εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸ σύνθ. C. 256 ἐξωθηθέντων C. Ib. ἐκέλευε C. 258 ἡγιούς διαθ. C. Ib. δύο με C. Ib. ὅσην αὕτη C. Ib. Πιτηροῦς C. Ib. γεγόνασι C. 240 σταθερὰν C. 241 σπέρμα C. 243 περιερχόμενοι C. et mox καχουχούμενοι Ib. ἐντεῦθεν C. 244 εἰλήφεσαν C. Ib. πιστὸν ἂν ἔδειξεν C. 247 ἀσπάζεται C. 248 παιδίου C. 254 ἐν πολλοῖς C.

VARIE LECTIONES.

1669 258 receiving, C. 259 seeking from Const. C. 260 two hundredth, 207 the Thessalonian, G. 268 upon the, C. 272 perceived, C. 273 religion, G. 276 under their own peoples it had happened. 277 fell in, C. 279 not even the, C. 280 later became, G. 282 upon this, C. 511 at that time indeed, C. 313 phratries, 313 would be borne, 316 one another, C. Ibid. was seen, G. 317 for "until" MS. has "end." Ibid. having sent forth, C. 323 not besides, C. 328 which he inscribed, C. 329 books, C. 350 arranged, C. 331 blame commonly against, C. 333 in a suburb also 8, C. Ibid. that not even the one statue had been moved, so that upon, C. 285 those passing by, C. 290 compared, C. 292 left, C. 295 the number of the fasts differing, G. 297 Heliodorus the cleric of Trikke, G. 298 do not receive, G. 300 being from, C. 501 of the Arians, 502 affairs again disturbed, G. Ibid. having crept in, C. 504 two hundredth, 308 to the laws of history, C. 335 the customary, 741 from which, C. Ibid. Atticus indeed, gladly indeed, 364 all, C. 365 had been transferred, C. Ibid. to stand, C. 368 to desire, C. Ibid. to be silent, 369 persistent, G. 374 in such time indeed, C. Ibid. he was able, C. Ibid. wide open the, G. 372 as it seems, 374 in words indeed wondrous, G. 375 the city, if you wish me, C. 1670 376 Julian’s books against Christians, C. 342 after six months adds G, end of the 6th book. Ibid. of pantology, Ibid. upon the hand, C. 343 it is not useful, G. 348 at Synnada, C. 350 having instructed, G. Ibid. of the baptistery having been taken up, G. 351 in the rustic (way), G. 352 by him, G. 352 Abundantius, C. 353 thinks, C. 354 with Ablia, G. 359 were running together, C. 360 for he quenched this, G. 361 agreeing, C. 363 Barazanes, C. 379 having instructed, G. 381 in words published, C. soon naturally. Ibid. of interpreters, G. 382 having made (him) a wounded man, C. 383 were stirring up the question, C. Ibid. instead of Christ has Jesus, 386 Selymbria, G. Ibid. concerning Silb., C. 388 the indeed then, C. 390 for to this, Ibid. the of the other, C. 392 Rongas, C. Ibid. Mosoch, G. 394 under him, G.

VARIAE LECTIONES AD SOZOMENUM E Codice Jonesiano supradicto.

4 And Severus, 5 you force, Ibid. and where it is pleasing, 6 having met, 8 concerning a stranger, C. 9 it would seem paradoxical, 10 to heaven, C. Ibid. upon his own, C. 11 having returned, 12 he wished, Ibid. concerning Christ, 23 of the dying, 40 of Nicomedia, Ibid. to those going forward, of as many as they were in need, to obtain, C. Ibid. having seen the place, 25 of accusation, 28 to the measure, Ibid. he can, 29 Amous, C. 30 to release, C. Ibid. of a spectacle, Ibid. as towards the, C. 31 he was accustomed, C. 33 the presbyters, Ibid. as until, C. 54 they might agree, C. 35 of his own church, G. Ibid. of the day, Ibid. for which, C. 36 with artistic speech, Ibid. he who all these, Ibid. of his own word, C. 37 sat, he who indeed for him, C. 38 like-minded, G. Ibid. voted for, C. Ibid. the to the contrary, C. Ibid. corrupting, C. 13 purification, Ibid. to build, Ibid. labarum, laboum, Ibid. some to labor concerning this, C. 14 to accuse, 45 through letters, Ibid. concerning kings, 16 having turned, Ibid. Kibadas, Ibid. concerning the Ister, Ibid. was detested, G. 17 he asserted, 19 for "haste" write "honor", 20 before the week, 21 to take care, 22 as Hosius the, C. Ibid. persuaded, 41 having risen in the midst, Paph., 42 to Nicaea, C. 43 of priests, Ibid. to find the wood, C. 44 to this, Ibid. these to declare, C. Ibid. of the divine wood, C. Ibid. around it, C. Ibid. having been placed, C. 46 to Christ, C. 47 to deem worthy, C. 48 with many and others, C. 49 of his own child, 51 was carried, C. Ibid. temple, 52 to very, G. 53 these same, C. Ibid. and Theophilus very much, Ibid. in no way, C. 54 suspecting, C. Ibid. having prepared, Ibid. to be easy of, C. 50 traitor, Ibid. some elder, 58 inquired, C. Ibid. of the pious indeed friends, ("and" expunged), C. 59 eagerly upon the, 39 needing these things to say, C. Ibid. the of Chalcedon, Ibid. Annina, 40 being released/dissolved, who is, C. Ibid. instead of "to be killed" C has "to fall", 60 and the others, C.

VARIOUS READINGS

1671 ^A Ibid. for *to transmit*, C. 60 Of the Adiabeni, C. 61 appearing as traitors, C. Ibid. he related, C. 62 he emulated the Church. Ibid. upon the proposal, C. 34 Arius indeed regarding, 65 instead of *precisely* read *judged*, Ibid. being brought up. Ibid. and to us prayers, etc. 60 such as. 67 bishops. Ibid. to lead through. 68 him well. Ibid. pretext. 69 they sought, C. 72 indeed concerning these things, C. Ibid. concerning precisely. Ibid. having become religion. 73 false accusation. Ibid. he exhorted. 74 they dissipated, C. Ibid. by the same slanders. 75 Arsenius. Ibid. both as toward, C. 76 and as he wills. 78 as a mystery. 79 according to the woman, C. Ibid. and each writing, C. Ibid. of one having announced. Ibid. not to be so. 80 but they condemn him, C. Ibid. not having been read, etc. Ibid. of as many, C. (al. by as much). 85 to our emperor Constantius, C. 85 these things of God he removes. 89 of those distressed. Ibid. plotting. 90 of the same heresy. 91 of Ancyra, C. 92 as also the first, C. Ibid. his surname, C. 94 I found and added, C. 95 having managed these things for himself. Ibid. of him of Heraclea in Thrace, C. 97 to the curses of Alexander. 98 confessed by both, C. 99 he of near Cappadocia. 100 the of the Alexandrians, etc. 101 and that concerning. 103 Novatus, C. Ibid. contrary to what seemed, C. 103 Julius as not, C. Ibid. who [is] invalid, C. 106 he sent away, etc. Ibid. of those having passed, C. Ibid. and of thoughts concerning the. Ibid. and not from God, C. Ibid. the Sardican. 108 of Singidunum, C. Ibid. were leading the, C. 110 from the condition, C. Ibid. to the deserts, C. 114 of almost a dwelling. Ibid. Pontoudastes. 112 Concerning the habits. 114 concerning the torrent, C. Ibid. and mindful and intelligent. 115 and also God. Ibid. of monastic philosophy. 115 not having been together, adultery. 116 of those committing fornication, C. 117 as also dead, C. Ibid. each of his. 120 in writings. 121 they have brought upon him, C. Ibid. upon this, C. Ibid. from the famine, C. 122 whose he. 123 of such a race. Ibid. the consubstantial, C. Ibid. which is unaccustomed. Ibid. to seize. 124 he may turn and he may pursue. 126 according to the order. Ibid. is not even able, C. 156 of the presbyters, C. 159 having seated, C. 160 perhaps regarding the cause, C. 162 having supervened, with sickles, C. 164 to these, C. Ibid. to dissolve it, C. 165 he was fighting. Ibid. to be foreign to the, C. Ibid. to be forbidden, C. 166 to them... of those insisting, C. 1672 Ibid. instead of *nor the* C has *which [is] nor the*. Ibid. all the clergy and people were thinking. 167 they who encountered. 127 this zeal. Ibid. as shepherd for you. Ibid. our prayers. 128 through these things, C. 129 defending him, C. Ibid. of their own writing. 130 both also entirely, C. 131 of generals, C. Ibid. and having voted. 132 others also some, C. 135 for those having changed. 134 about ten, C. 155 of such having happened. Ibid. both beside. 136 to attempt, C. 137 in this. 158 to have a synod again, C. Ibid. he announced, C. Ibid. he would accept, C. 159 to be consubstantial to the Father. 140 being persuaded, C. 141 to appear beforehand. Ibid. he dwelt, C. 142 under him. Ibid. form. 143 he returned. 144 pretext, C. Ibid. being accused, C. Ibid. concerning Athanasius, C. Ibid. golden. 146 of Hosius the affairs, C. 147 emperor. 148 to such, C. 149 having founded, C. 150 to prepare. 151 of governors. 153 from the, C. 154 to the outer country. 155 he reaches, C. Ibid. having come together, C. 156 as where also Athanasius, C. 157 unwritten. Ibid. companies, C. Ibid. having permitted, C. 158 of piety and to. Ibid. bloodlessly. Ibid. having been carried over. Ibid. in the name the like, C. 168 and concerning the, etc. 169 where it is necessary. Ibid. ruling both and, C. Ibid. of Africa, C. 170 nothing such. Ibid. from Maris the Chalcedonian bishop. 174 because it was permitted. 171 because money, C. 179 will agree, C. 173 more shameful the evil, C. Ibid. novelty, C. 174 church. Ibid. and equally honoring. Ibid. thus but to serve, C. 175 in both ways, C. Ibid. having come together, C. 176 the Hellenists, C. 177 his again, C. Ibid. with Magnentius. 178 opinion but, C. Ibid. from which twenty with the. 179 in the being sacrificed. Ibid. upon this. 180 the other the holy. 181 for to the order the. Ibid. because but, C. Ibid. under guard, C. 182 being about to, C. Ibid. may succeed, C. 185 to be near of kin. Ibid. to Constantius. 184 and upon the same of times, C. 185 to use fire, C. 105 by exhortations or by persuasion to persuade. Ibid. at least to the one being sacrificed to him, C. Ibid. in the Tychaeum, C. 186 which also now. 188 to such extent, C. Ibid. was accustomed, C. 189 of paternal, C. 190 to deposit. Ibid. whom also guardian. Ibid. concerning all. 191 of Nestaros. Ibid. I inquired then, C. Ibid. going out. 192 which the in-dying, C. 195 were receiving in turn, C. 196 we may become unpleasant. 197 declaring, C.

197 prayed that no one, C. Ibid. for they are not base, C. 197 of the Ligurians, C. 199 withdrew from the church, C. Ibid. to deliberate, C. 239 as much then, 239 together with Basil, C. Ibid. having been rebuked, C. [1673] Ibid. on the occasion of Basil the most philosophical man observing, C. Ibid. both of them, indeed, C. Ibid. of the ecclesiastical books, C. 240 since, C. 242 to appoint after him, 243 and to the earth, C. Ibid. here, C. Ibid. concerning the two missals, C. Ibid. not only, C. Ibid. how, C. 247 having been snatched away. They did not consider, C. 248 and the same, 249 passed over the priesthood, 252 with strangeness, C. 253 it was agreed by conspiracy, C. 254 of the first, C. 255 the nature of the same, C. Ibid. he decided to observe, 256 is wanting in others, C. 257 to the monasteries, so that, 258 distortion, 260 intentionally, C. 260 the house in, 264 to cast out, Ibid. from afar, C. Ibid. destroyed, C. 213 as also upon, C. Ibid. of Persia, C. Ibid. having, C. 214 using the same, C. Ibid. more readily, C. 215 out of these, C. 216 of measure, Ibid. being neglectful, 217 of necessity, Ibid. the Tigris, C. 218 the river, C. Ibid. of the mountainous desert, Ibid. yet no one, neither, 219 to become, he indicates, C. Ibid. having become, they praise, Ibid. since toward, Ibid. and the same, C. 220 let him take to mind, C. 221 of the nations freely in, 222 of the religion, C. 224 having partaken with, C. Ibid. as he himself, C. 225 of Constantine, C. Ibid. kicking, overturning, Ibid. at Dadas, C. 226 of the soldiers, 228 and was of the Western, Ibid. having brought, C. 230 he himself, C. Ibid. is established, C. 231 to have been managed correctly, C. Ibid. in Galatia, 232 scandal, C. Ibid. both the Italians and, C. Ibid. suitable, C. 235 brought. From here, what is held as far as "to meet," line 29, is missing in codex C. 234 of the king's letters, C. 236 and also to the body, C. 237 the way, C. Ibid. at that time, C. Ibid. by the Pontus, C. 238 calling him of the body, C. 299 he enjoined this to be agreed upon, C. [1674] 304 to have been placed upon thorns, C. 305 as if from a resurrection, C. Ibid. worthy of wonder, C. Ibid. might happen, the next, Ibid. to be behind the fourth, C. 306 thus commonly, C. 307 indifferently, C. Ibid. or from which, C. 309 especially from that, C. 310 upon this, C. Ibid. followed him, C. Ibid. deemed, C. 312 he found, C. Ibid. such is the magnanimity, C. Ibid. toward the gates of Italy, Ibid. by foreknowledge, 315 Ardogades, 318 but the greatest, C. 319 attacking, they were committing outrages, C. 321 of Bitolius, C. 322 similar, C. Ibid. in this was the Kila, C. 323 John in Jerusalem, C. 324 to have been managed correctly, C. Ibid. were guarded, is wanting in C. Ibid. on his, C. 325 of those on the, Ibid. who from him, C. 326 of Mopsuestia, C. 327 but he in this, Ibid. before learning, 328 having supposed, Ibid. for examination, C. Ibid. everywhere, 329 I suppose, also, C. 334 standing against them manfully, C. Ibid. were adding, Ibid. from here, C. 335 in the, C. Ibid. the word, 336 under him, C. Ibid. of the church of Arius, C. 337 and from the, C. Ibid. he was giving back, C. Ibid. against them, C. 339 and to many of those in, C. Ibid. to make sweet, C. Ibid. by John, C. Ibid. for not even, C. 340 and of human, C. 341 they turned aside, 343 about Dioscorus, C. Ibid. to hold a council, Ibid. thinks, C. 345 we encountered, C. Ibid. in a somewhat more moderate way, Ibid. he sent away, C. 346 he persuaded, C. Ibid. necessary, C. 347 of the clergy, is wanting in C. Ibid. settled together, C. 349 of Penetus, C. Pinetus al. 350 he set before, C. Ibid. to him, C. 354 is filled, C. 352 of remembrance, 353 having settled together, C. Ibid. was hunted, C. 354 to one another, 355 coming together, C. 358 by Honorius, C.