B the vena cava, it proceeds thence, having been warmed, as if through certain channels of the scattered veins, it runs through all the parts of the body. And wherever it arrives, it not only irrigates, but also warms like fire, and fosters the body better than soft garments. For tunics, and cloaks, and wraps do not provide heat to the body, as some suppose; for they would have warmed even logs and stones to which they were applied. But no one has ever seen a log or stone become warmer from garments. Therefore, neither do these provide heat to the body, but they merely preserve the body’s heat; they ward off the onsets of cold air, take in the vapors emanating from the body, and are warmed by them, and thus convey something warmer to the body. Experience is witness; for we often enter a cold bed, and by the contact of our body we make the bedding that was cold a moment before, warm. Therefore, food warms the body more than any garment; and those who partake of it to satisfaction have a sufficient defense against the onset of the cold. For they arm the body with it and prepare it to resist this season of the year. C But those who neither eat nor drink daily, and even when they do, do not await satisfaction, but rein in their burning appetite, and partake of items not at all suited for warming the body—eating only herbs like animals devoid of reason, or consuming only soaked legumes—what warmth can they draw from such food? And what, or what kind of spring of blood would arise from it? Therefore, the way of life of the others is not in any way similar to theirs. For neither is their clothing the same; as their clothing is very rough and least able to warm; nor is their nourishment the same, but diametrically opposed. For to shepherds and others like them, every time is a time for eating; for they measure time by their appetite, and when hunger attacks them in the morning, they take food immediately; and they take whatever is at hand, since there is no set rule for them—to eat this but not that—but they freely enjoy whatever they wish. D Yet for these others, there are days, times, types of food, and measures; and satiety of this kind is excluded. Therefore, let no one of the complainers, by bringing forward farmers, shepherds, and sailors, attempt to belittle the struggles of these greatest of athletes. For the farmer, having labored during the day, finds relief at home at night, with his spouse providing him with every care and service. And the shepherd likewise partakes of all those things we have mentioned; and the sailor, though he exposes his body to the sun’s ray, yet brings to his body a remedy from the waters; for he swims as much as he wishes, and against the flame of the B
sun’s ray he opposes the coolness of the waters. But these men have no one from whom they may obtain relief. For wives do not dwell with them, who provide every kind of solace for their husbands. Nor, when the sun’s ray strikes more hotly, do they provide themselves with the cooling refreshment of the waters; nor in the winter season do they array food against the frost; nor do they use the rest of the night as a sort of medicine for the labors of the day—for their sweats of this kind are greater and more numerous than those during the day. For during that time they grapple with sleep, and they do not allow themselves to be overcome by its sweetness; instead, they overcome that most delightful tyranny, and spend the whole night praising the Master. No one, therefore, who is a stranger to their philosophy has demonstrated such endurance. If, however, no other person has been able to resist such toils, it is manifest that love for God has made them surpass the boundaries of nature; and, inflamed by the fire from above, they gladly bear the onset of the frost, and by the dew from there they mollify the flame of the sun’s ray. This love both feeds them, and waters them, and clothes them, and gives them wings, and teaches them to fly, and prepares them to transcend the heaven, and displays the Beloved as far as is possible, and by the vision of contemplation it sets the desire on fire, and rouses the love, and kindles the flame more strongly. For just as those who are in love with bodies derive material for their passion from the sight of those they love, and make that sting more grievous; so those who have received the goads of divine love, by picturing to themselves that divine and unsullied beauty, make the stings of love sharper, and the more they desire to enjoy it, the more they banish satiety. For the pleasure of bodies is followed by satiety, but divine love does not admit the laws of satiety. Such was Moses, the great legislator; who, although he was often deemed worthy of divine contemplation—as far as was permitted to man—and had often heard the blessed voice, and had spent forty days at once within the darkness and had received the divine legislation, not only did he not experience satiety, but he acquired a desire that was more intense and more fervent. For, as if having received a sort of intoxication from that love, and being utterly frenzied by the passion, he became oblivious of his own nature, and desired to see things that are not lawful to see; for, as if forgetting the lordship of God and revolving only the love in his mind, he said to the God of all: "Behold, you say to me: You have found grace before me, and I know you above all. If, therefore, I have found grace before you, show me yourself, that I may know you." He had drunk such intoxication from divine love; yet it did not quench his thirst, but rendered it more vehement; and the addition of the draught became an intensification of the longing, and the enjoyment increased the appetite. And just as fire, the more fuel it receives, exerts the greater force, for it is increased
by the addition of fuel and is not dulled; so too, love for God is set ablaze by the contemplation of divine things, and from this, it receives a more vigorous and warmer energy. And the more one dwells on divine things, the more one kindles the flame of love. A And not only did the great Moses teach us this, but also the holy bride, concerning whom the inspired Paul says: "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (II Cor. xi, 2). For she cries out to the bridegroom in the Song of Songs: "Show me your face, and let your voice sound in my ears; for your voice is sweet, and your face is fair" (Cant. ii, 14). For being captured by love for him from those things she had heard said about him, she is not content with words, but desires to hear his very voice; and from those things which she had heard recounted regarding his beauty, as if carried aloft by others, she desires to enjoy his very appearance, signifying the force of love by that praise: "Show me," she says, "your face, and let your voice sound in my ears; for your voice is B sweet, and your face is fair." Fired by love for this beauty, her sponsor and bridesmaid—the inspired Paul, I say—let loose that amorous cry: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or famine, or persecution, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: 'Because for your sake we are killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter'" (Rom. viii, 35 seq.). Then he also shows the cause of this endurance: "For in all these," he says, "we more than conquer through him who loved us." For when we consider what kind of people we were and what sort of goods we have enjoyed; and how we did not first love, but having been loved, we loved in return—and though we were objects of hate, we were loved, and while we were enemies, we were reconciled (Rom. v, 10)—not ourselves pleading for reconciliation, but having the Only-Begotten as our intercessor, and receiving C consolation from the very one we had injured, despite the injury we had inflicted; and in addition to these, contemplating the life-giving cross, him who was crucified for our sake, the saving passions, the end of death, and the hope of resurrection given to us—considering these things and others of this kind, we easily overcome all the heavy trials that beset us. And by comparing the memory of these good deeds with the temporary affliction of the body, we willingly endure the incursions of grievous things: for when we weigh all the weariness of life against the love of the Lord, we find those things to be very light. And if we should gather into one all things that seem pleasant and delightful in this life, divine love, balanced against them, shows them to be D weaker than any shadow and more corruptible than the flowers of spring. He makes this manifest partly by what has been said, and partly by what is yet to be said: "For I am sure," he says, "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height,
A nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." For because he had set down above only the gloomy things—and had enumerated tribulation, and distress, and persecution, and famine, and nakedness, and danger, and the sword, that is, violent slaughter—rightly here he also adds the joyful things to the painful ones: life to death, things intelligible to things sensible, invisible powers to those that are seen, things to come and things that remain to those present and passing away; in addition to these, the depth of Gehenna and the height of the kingdom. And having examined all these things, and having found that all things yield to love—both the painful and the joyful—and that the deprivation of love is more bitter than the punishment in Gehenna; and having shown that, if it were possible, he would choose the threatened punishment together with the divine love, rather than the promised kingdom of heaven without it, he persists, in his longing, in seeking things that do not exist, and contends to compare them with the divine love. "For neither altitude," he says, "nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Not only, he says, do I prefer the love for the Saviour and Redeemer to all things visible and invisible combined, but also if any other creature, greater and more beautiful than this, should appear, it will not persuade me to exchange [my] love. But even if someone provides joyful things without this, I will not accept them; and even if he brings on gloomy things for its sake, they will appear desirable to me, and very lovely; and the famine endured for its sake is more delightful to me than all luxury, and persecution is sweeter than peace, and nakedness is more graceful than purple and gold-threaded garments; and danger is sweeter than any security, and violent slaughter is more desirable than any life. For the cause of the sufferings becomes a source of consolation for me. For on account of the Lover, who is also the Beloved, I welcome the storms of these things. B "For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake, that we might become the righteousness of God in him." "Who, being rich, for our sake became poor, that we by his poverty might become rich." And: "He redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us." And: "He humbled himself, having become obedient even unto death, and death upon a cross." And: "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Considering these things and such like, I would not accept the kingdom of heaven without the love regarding them; I would not flee the punishment in Gehenna, if it were likely that one who possessed this love could undergo any punishment. This he also teaches clearly elsewhere: C"For the love of God constrains us, judging this, that one died for all, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again for them." Those therefore who do not live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again for them, everything for his sake and D
A for his sake they willingly endure to do and to suffer. And things which by nature are great and grievous sufferings, when compared with love, he calls small and easy to bear. "For our light affliction," he says, "which is for the moment, prepares for us beyond measure an eternal weight of glory." Then he also teaches how one must compare: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." For it is fitting, he says, to set the things to come against the present things, the eternal against the temporal, and glory against affliction; for the one has the momentary, but the other the eternal; for this reason the one is light and easy to bear, but the other is precious and most valuable. For this reason also he added "beyond measure" to both, both to the lightness of the affliction and to the weight of the glory. For these, he says, are beyond measure small, and light, and momentary; and those likewise are beyond measure glorious, and magnificent, and precious, and eternal. And elsewhere he cries out in the same way: "I am well content in weaknesses, in insults, in distresses, in persecutions, in anguish for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
B To this, the great Peter too, goaded by desire, even though he had foreseen his future denial, would not yet conceal himself; but he thought it better to follow and deny, than to flee and confess. For that it was out of love, and not out of boldness, that he followed, the facts themselves bear witness. For he could not be induced to leave the Master even after his denial; but he wept bitterly, as history teaches, and lamented his defeat, yet bound by the fetters of love he showed himself persistent. Indeed, even when he had received the joyful news of the Lord’s resurrection, he was the first to reach the tomb; and again in Galilee, when he was fishing, and then learned that it was the Lord who was standing on the shore and speaking to them, he did not endure that the boat should cut the back of the sea too slowly, but he longed to become winged so that by the air he might reach the shore as quickly as possible. But because his nature was destitute of wings, he uses the waters instead of the air, and his hands instead of wings. Swimming across, he reaches the one he loved, and gains the reward of his race—that he was preferred in honor before others. For when he commanded them to recline, and distributed the food that had been found, he immediately began to converse with him, questioning and inquiring how much love he had, but revealing to the others the love of the great Peter: "Simon, son of John," he said, "do you love me more than these?" But he called him to be the witness of his love: C "Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." For you search into the souls of men, and you clearly know the movements of the mind, and nothing of human affairs remains hidden from you: for you know everything, you know...
A all things, the final things and the ancient ones. To these the Lord added: "Feed my sheep." For I, he says, am in need of nothing, yet I consider the care of my sheep to be a very great benefit, and I take upon myself the guardianship over them. It is fitting, therefore, that you should share with your fellow servants the providence which you yourself enjoy, and that you should feed them just as you are fed, and rule them just as you are ruled, and repay through them the kindness that you owe to me.
The Lord asked these things again, and the great Peter answered twice, and twice he received the commission of shepherd. But when the third inquiry was presented, the blessed Peter did not answer with the same confidence and fearlessness as before; rather, he was filled with fear, he admitted confusion into his soul, he agonized in his judgment, and he was afraid, suspecting B that the Lord, foreseeing another denial, might be mocking the words of love. For his mind ran back to what had happened before and reminded him of how he had already many times insisted that he would not abandon the Master even unto death—yet he had heard, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And he found not his own promise being fulfilled, but the Lord’s prediction being confirmed. The memory of these things struck him with fear and did not allow him to answer the appropriate response with confidence.
But although he felt the sharp and bitter stings, he nevertheless yielded the knowledge to the Lord, not resisting as before, nor saying, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." Rather, he declared that the Lord himself was a witness to his love, and he confessed that true and certain knowledge of all things belongs to Him alone, the Creator of all: "For, Lord," he said, "you know all things, you understand all things, you know that I love you." That I love you, you both know and bear witness. But whether I shall remain in that love, you yourself know more clearly; for I cannot say anything about the future, nor will I contend C about things I do not know; I have learned by experience not to contradict the Lord. You, however, are the fountain of truth, you are the abyss of knowledge; I have been taught to abide by your decrees.
The Lord, seeing this fear of his and knowing his love thoroughly, dissolved his fear with the prediction of his death, and bore witness to his love, and confirmed Peter’s confession, and applied the medicine of confession to the wound of the denial. For this reason, I believe, he demanded this threefold confession, so that he might apply remedies equal in number to the wounds, and might reveal to the disciples who were present the flame of love.
The prediction of death, therefore, both comforted Peter and taught the others that the denial had been a matter of providence, not of deliberate intent. And the Savior and our Lord himself hinted at this, saying to him: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." For just as I, he says, did not despise you when you were wavering, so also
become a support for your own brothers who are shaken, and share the help you enjoy. And do not push aside those who are slipping, but lift B up those who are in danger. For this reason, I even allow you to stumble, and I do not permit you to fall, contriving a footing for those who are shaken through you. In this way, this great pillar sustained the surging world, and did not allow it to collapse entirely, but raised it up, rendered it firm, and having been commanded to shepherd the divine sheep, he endured being insulted on their behalf, and rejoiced in being scourged. And departing from the wicked council with his fellow-apostle, he rejoiced that he had been deemed worthy to suffer shame for the name of the Master. And being cast into prisons, he exulted and was glad. And when he was condemned by Nero to death by the cross for the sake of the Crucified, he begged the executioners not to be crucified in the same manner as the Master, but to be suspended in the opposite way, fearing, as was natural, that the identity of the passion might bring him an equal reward in the eyes of the foolish. For this reason, he begged that his hands be nailed below and his feet above. For he had learned to choose the lowest place, not only in honor, but also in C disgrace and ignominy. And if it had been permissible to suffer this death ten and fifty times, he would have accepted it with all pleasure, being kindled by divine love. This, too, the divine Paul proclaims, now saying: "I die every day, I protest by my pride which I have in Christ Jesus"; and now: "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."
Therefore, whoever receives divine love holds all earthly things for nothing, and tramples upon all the pleasures of the body. He despises wealth and glory and human honor; he considers royal purple to differ in no way from spider webs, and equates precious stones with pebbles on the shore. He does not judge the health of the body to be a blessing, nor does he label sickness a calamity or call poverty unhappiness, nor does he measure happiness by wealth and luxuries; but he rightly judges each of these things to resemble the trees planted on the banks, which the river waters flow past without resting on any of them. For in like manner, poverty and wealth, health and disease, honor and dishonor, and all other things that pass by human nature are seen D not to remain always with the same people, but they exchange their possessors and pass perpetually from some to others. For many fall from abundance into extreme poverty; and many, conversely, rise from poverty into the register of the wealthy. And disease, and health, pass through all bodies, so to speak—both those pressed by hunger and those who indulge in luxuries.
A Virtue, however, and philosophy is a stable and permanent good. It conquers the hands of robbers, the tongues of slanderers, and the tempest of hostile missiles and spears; it is not consumed by fever, nor overwhelmed by waves; it does not perish by shipwreck. Time does not diminish the power of this, but increases it. The stuff of this is love for God. For it is impossible for one who has not become a fervent lover of God to attain philosophy perfectly; or rather, this very thing is called philosophy. For God both is and is called Wisdom. For regarding the God of all, the blessed Paul says: "To the immortal, invisible, the only wise God" (1 Tim. 1, 17). And regarding the Only-Begotten, he says: "Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1, 24). And again: "Wisdom was given to us by God, both righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1, 30). He, therefore, who is truly a philosopher may rightly be called a lover of God. And the lover of God, despising all other things, and looking only to his Beloved, prefers His service above all things whatsoever, saying, and doing, and thinking only those things which please his Beloved and are acceptable to Him, and detesting all things which He forbids. Adam, having made light of this love, and having shown himself ungrateful toward his Benefactor, reaped thorns, and labors, and calamities as the reward of his ingratitude (Gen. 3, seqq.). B Abel, having kept this firm toward the Giver of good things, and having despised the pleasures of the belly, and chosen the service of God, was adorned with unfading crowns, and he journeys through every generation, harvesting the fruit of praise through memory (Gen. 4, seqq.; Hebr. 11, 4). Enoch, possessing this true and genuine love, both sowed well and reaped still better, and as the reward for divine service obtained his translation into paradise, and an immortal life—for a time—and a glorious and immortal memory throughout all ages (Gen. 5, 23, 24; Eccl. 44, 16; Hebr. 11, 5). But who could speak worthily of the love for God of Noah, which even the corruption of lawless men did not prove false? But when all turned aside and chose the contrary path, he alone walked the straight way, preferring the Creator above all at once (Gen. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). For which cause, he alone with his sons attained salvation, and a seed was left for nature, and a spark was preserved for the race. Thus Melchisedech, the great high priest, abhorring the folly of those who chose to worship idols, dedicated his own priesthood to the Creator of all. For which cause, he received that great reward, becoming a type and shadow of Him who is in truth without father, without mother, and without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Gen. 14, 18-21; Hebr. 7, 3). C But the discourse, proceeding in its path, has reached him who was called the friend of God, who both kept and taught the laws of friendship with exactness. For who, among those who are in any way versed in divine things, is ignorant of how Abraham, that great patriarch, obeyed God when He called, how he left his ancestral home, and preferred a foreign land to his fatherland (Gen. 12, et 15; Hebr. 11; Galat. 3; Act. 7)? Since once
A he was captivated by the love of Him who had called him, he judged that all other things ought to be postponed to His love; and though entangled in many difficulties, he did not abandon his beloved, as one who had not put an end to his promises. Moreover, even when pressed by thirst and forbidden to drink water from the wells he had dug, he was neither indignant at Him who had called him, nor did he take vengeance on those who had injured him. He underwent the onset of famine, and yet did not extinguish the torch of charity. His wife, also, was taken from him—a woman of outstanding beauty, of distinguished continence, and one who in every way rendered his life sweet and pleasant—yet he was not despoiled of his love for God along with his spouse. But with God helping him, and long-suffering training him, and permitting him the incursions of injuries, he remained always steadfast in love. He became an old man, and yet he was not a father, and he maintained the same disposition toward Him who had promised indeed that He would make him a father, but had not yet done so. When, however, late in time he finally obtained the promise, and He overcame the nature of Sarah, and he crossed the boundaries of old age, and became the father of Isaac, he was refreshed by this joy for but a short time: when the child had already become a youth, he was commanded to offer him as a sacrifice to the Giver, and to return the gift to the Bestower, and to become the sacrificer of him who was the fruit of the promise, B and to offer as a victim the great fountain of the nations, and to stain his hands with the blood of an only-begotten child. Nevertheless, although the sacrifice contained all these things, and many more besides, the patriarch did not resist, nor did he oppose the rights of nature, nor did he bring forward the promises, nor did he mention the care of his old age and his burial. But, casting aside every human calculation, and setting desire against desire, and law against law—the divine, that is, against the natural—he ran to the sacrifice, intending, without doubt, to strike the blow, had not the Great Giver of gifts, quickly accepting his readiness, prevented the slaughter. But indeed I do not know if any speech could suffice for the recounting of this love. For he who did not spare even his only-begotten son, since the Beloved commanded this, what would he not have despised for His sake? But the great Isaac also possessed the same charity toward the Lord, C and his son, the patriarch Jacob, as well. Divine Scripture proclaims the love of both toward God; and the God of all nowhere separates the branches from the root, but calls Himself the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. The pious fruit of these men is also Joseph, who was an old man among the young, and a noble man among the elders; whose love for God neither envy destroyed, nor did slavery extinguish; the flatteries of his mistress did not dissolve it, nor did threats and fear cause it to wither; neither calumny, nor prison, nor length of time wore it down; nor did power, and dominion, and luxury, and wealth cast it out of his mind; but he remained the same, even while looking upon the beloved D
A and keeping his laws. Moses, having obtained this love, contemned the life in the royal palaces, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.
And what need is there to prolong the discourse and extend it beyond measure? For the entire company of the prophets, having used and been adorned by divine love, attained unto the most perfect virtue and left behind a fame that is remembered forever. Nay, even the choir of the apostles and the hosts of the martyrs, having received this fire, cast all visible things into contempt, and chose to die ten thousand deaths rather than enjoy the sweetest life. For being captivated by the love of divine beauty, and having considered the love of God toward us, and pondering his ten thousand benefits, they thought it shameful neither to desire that ineffable beauty, nor to become ungrateful toward the Benefactor. For this reason, they kept their covenants with him unto death. B Captivated by the love of this beauty, the recent athletes of virtue also—whose life we have written in summary—advanced to those great struggles that surpass human nature. The divine Scriptures clearly instructed them in this. For they sing with the great David: "O Lord my God, you are very great. You are clothed with confession and majesty, clothing yourself with light as with a garment; stretching out the heaven like a curtain," and all the other things which teach of his wisdom and power. And again: "The Lord has reigned, he is clothed with beauty; the Lord has clothed himself with power, and bound it on himself; for he has established the inhabited world, which shall not be shaken." And here, likewise, wisdom, beauty, and power are proclaimed. And elsewhere: "Beautiful in form beyond the sons of men." Here it also praised the human beauty of the Word of God. C It also praises his wisdom: "For grace," he says, "is poured out upon your lips." He also points out the power: "Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one; in your beauty and your comeliness, draw it, and prosper, and reign, for the sake of truth, and meekness, and righteousness." These are surely his—both beauty, and wealth, and power. And Isaiah cries out: "Who is this who comes from Edom? The reddening of his garments from Bosor? This one is beautiful in his garment, with violence and strength." For the human garment did not cover the divine beauty; but even when clothed in this, he sends forth splendors from his beauty, so that he compels and charms those who see him into love. This is also what the holy Spouse, speaking to him in the Song of Songs, says: D "Your name is oil poured forth. Therefore the maidens loved you; they drew you; after the scent of your perfumes they ran." For the youthful
A souls, receiving your fragrance, run, longing to overtake you; and, being held by your scent as if by a certain chain, they do not endure to break the bond, for it is sweet and voluntarily wraps around them. The words of the divine Paul also harmonize with these: "We are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one a fragrance from death unto death, to the other a fragrance from life unto life." Taught, therefore, by the divine Scripture that he is beautiful, and that he possesses unspeakable riches, and is the fount of wisdom, and can do all things which he wills, and exercises immeasurable loving-kindness, and pours forth rivers of gentleness, and wills for this one thing: to heap benefits upon men through all things; and imbued by men inspired by the divine Spirit with the infinite and numberless types of his benefits, they are wounded by the sweet arrows of charity; and being members of the Bride, they cry out with her: "We are wounded by love." For the great John cries out: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." The prophet Isaiah foretold things that were to come as if they had already occurred, saying: B "He himself was wounded for our iniquities and has been bruised for our sins: the discipline of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed," and the other things which he pursues concerning the saving sufferings. Paul also preaches, crying: "He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also with him give us all things?" And again: "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were exhorting through us; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For him who knew no sin he made to be sin for our sake, that we might become the righteousness of God in him." C Finding these and such things among the ministers of the divine Word, they receive from every side the goads of divine charity, and, despising all things, set before their eyes the one whom they love, and before the hoped-for immortality, they have rendered their bodies spiritual. Let us also embrace this love, and enticed by the beauty of the Bridegroom, and captured by the desire for the promised goods, and reverencing the multitude of his benefits, and fearing the punishments for ingratitude, let us show ourselves lovers and keepers of his laws. For this is the sum of friendship: to love the same things and to hate the same things. For this cause he also said to Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you." And David says D to him: "But to me, O God, your friends have been held in great honor." And again: "Did I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and pine away over your enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred; they have become enemies to me." And in another place: "I have hated the unrighteous, but I have loved your law." And elsewhere: "How I have loved your law, O Lord! All the day it is my meditation." A manifest proof, therefore, of [charity] toward
God is the keeping of his divine laws. For "He who loves me will keep my commandments," A said the Lord Christ; with whom to the Father be glory, honor, and adoration, together with the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, now and always, and for the ages of ages. Amen.
HENRI VALOIS' ANNOTATIONS ON THE FIRST BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THEODORET
*In the first chapter.*
PAGE 5. *Zoographoi men.* In the edition of Robert Stephanus, and in the Basle edition which preceded Stephanus' edition by nine years, the first chapter of this book does not begin with these words, but with those which are read below, *tōn anosiourgōn*, etc.: which distinction Joachimus Camerarius, and long after him Jacobus Sirmundus, both followed in their version. But I preferred to follow Christophorsonus, who began the first chapter with the words that I have placed in the first position. From those words, *tōn anosiourgōn*, he made the beginning of the second chapter. And indeed, this distinction is confirmed by the titles of the chapters which have been prefixed to this book, both in the Basle edition and in that of Robert Stephanus.
*Tes ekklesiastikes Historias ta leipomena.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is written *ta leipomena*; the remaining codices, however, change nothing. But the sense of this word can be twofold. For either Theodoret wishes to say that he is about to write things which had been omitted by others who in his age had written ecclesiastical history, namely, Socrates and Sozomen. Or he only wishes to say that he will narrate things which Eusebius had left untouched. And this sense indeed seems truer and simpler. For Theodoret adds a little later that he was beginning from those things where Eusebius ended his writing. But he says not even a word about Socrates and Sozomen. It seems to me, however, that he has tacitly indicated them by these words. Certainly, the whole History of Theodoret contains nothing else but the *ta paraleipomena* of Socrates and Sozomen. For just as John the Evangelist, when he had read through the Gospels of the other three, is said to have been impelled to write, with the intention that he himself might supply what had been omitted by them; so too, it seems to me, did Theodoret betake himself to write a history of ecclesiastical affairs after Socrates and Sozomen, in order to hand down to posterity those things which had escaped their diligence.
*Euloumenon.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is read *souloumenon*, just as Jacobus Sirmundus also edited it. Conversely, however, two lines later, where *stathmoumenos* is read, the Savile codex has *stathmoumenos*.
*In the second chapter.*
PAGE 6. *Tautēn autois eprutaneue.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is written *autēi*, just as Jacobus Sirmundus also edited it. But *Ekklēsia* is understood. But also a little before, where it is read *tōn kai galēnēs loipon apēlaue statheras*, *hē Ekklēsia* must necessarily be supplied. For *eprutaneue*, it is better written in the Savile codex as *eprutaneuse*.
*Katalusai philoneikōn.* I corrected this passage from the codex of Leo Allatius, in which *katalusai* is written, correctly without a doubt. It had thus also been printed in the Basle edition. Therefore I wonder why Jacobus Sirmundus preferred to follow the vulgate reading in his edition. But the words that follow clearly convince one that Theodoret wrote as I have said: for he compares the Church to a ship, whose governor is God. Thus the holy Fathers are accustomed to compare the Church to a ship, as can be seen in Clement in the Epistle to James the brother of the Lord.
PAGE 7. *Libuōn tōn pros Aigupton.* I would prefer to write *pros Aiguptō*, B as it is read in the Basle edition. *Proustē, kai.* These two words are absent from the Basle edition, nor do they seem very necessary.
*Tes hierōsutēs egcheiristhenta.* In the Savile codex *tēs archierōsutēs* is read, just as Jacobus Sirmundus also edited it.
*Ek tōn ekeinou suntagmatōn.* In the codex of Leo Allatius and in the Basle edition *grammatōn* is better written. Theodoret understands the letters of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to all the bishops, concerning the condemnation of Arius, which are contained below.
*Tē gar apostolikē Alexandrou didaskalia.* In the codex of Leo Allatius and in the Basle edition it is read in the plural number, *tais gar apostolikais Al. didaskaliais*.
*Pōs metapōisein.* In the Basle edition this passage is read much more elegantly in this manner: *prōton men autēn parainēsesi metapōiein epeira to kai sumboulais*. Savile also recorded in his codex that *metapeithein* was written.
*In the third chapter.*
PAGE 8. *Vitalios.* Regarding this Vitalis, Jerome writes thus in his Chronicle in the 22nd year of Constantine: "At Antioch, after the tyrant, Vitalis is ordained as the twentieth bishop; after whom, Philogonius is the twenty-first." Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, mentions the same in his Chronographia, and attributes six years of episcopacy to him.
*Tēn en tē palaiā.* Epiphanius Scholasticus wrongly translates this place of Theodoret in this way: "Who also rebuilt the church in the ancient city, which had been destroyed by the tyrants over many times." Camerarius interprets it better in this way: "Vitalis having been substituted, he built [the church] in the ancient city which had been destroyed by the tyrants."
A
What Marcus Tullius said in the fourth *Verrine* regarding Syracuse—that it consisted of four cities—can also be said of Antioch. Triptolemus the Argive first founded it and called it Ione after his own name, as Libanius writes in his *Antiochicus*, and Stephanus in his book *On Cities*. Later, Casus the Cretan frequented it with colonists and built the city of Cassiota. Afterwards, Greeks setting out from the Peloponnese founded Heraclea. Finally, Seleucus Nicator enlarged it and desired it to be named Antioch, as Libanius writes in the same place. It seems, therefore, that the old city is the one which Triptolemus the Argive built under the mountain. Theodoret mentions the same place again in Book II, ch. 27, and in Book III, ch. 2, where we shall say more. Furthermore, in that region of the city of Antioch, there were two basilicas: the one, great, which Philogonius built; the other, smaller, which Theophanes mentions in his *Chronicle*, page 60. This church the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* calls *palaian ekklēsian*, page 688, that is, *tēn en tē palaiā* (the one in the old [city]).
*Kai meta tēn teleutēn* (And after [his] death). I have corrected this passage from the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, in which it is read thus: *kai meta tēnde tēn autou ge Areiou*, etc. Just as it is also written in the codex of Leo Allatius. James Sirmond likewise edited it thus. Finally, it appears from his version that Epiphanius the Scholastic had read it in his codex in this way.
*In Chapter IV.*
Page 9. *Eite di' allōn* (Whether by others). Christophorsonus omitted these words in his version, and James Sirmond does not have them, nor are they in the Basle edition. Wherefore it is no wonder that Camerarius omitted them in his interpretation. They are, however, contained in the other copies, namely the Royal, Savile’s, and Allatius’s. Moreover, Epiphanius the Scholastic had also read them in his exemplar. For he translates thus: "Lest anyone perchance presume to enter into your parishes, whether by himself or by others."
*Areios goun kai Achillas* (Arius, then, and Achilles). In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition, it is written *Achillas*, just as Epiphanius the Scholastic also reads it. This name is also written thus in the epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to all the Churches, where all the followers of Arius who had been excommunicated are enumerated in order: and first of all is named Achilles. For it is written thus in many copies and in Gelasius of Cyzicus. And indeed, Gelasius of Cyzicus passed over this epistle of Alexander to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, in silence; regarding which, I for one cannot sufficiently marvel. Cassiodorus, in his *Historia Tripartita*, placed this epistle of Alexander to Alexander of Constantinople after the epistle of the same Alexander to all the Churches. I think, however, that this epistle to Alexander of Constantinople was written in the previous place. I see that Nicephorus thought the same in Book VII, ch. 7 and 8; but we shall speak more of this matter below in the annotations to page 19.
*Ho men gar autois toutois enkalon* (For he who accuses them of these very things). Christophorsonus took these words *autois toutois* in the neuter gender. For he translates thus: "For he, although he endeavored to refute those very things which they were doing, yet he seemed to have had at least a feigned cause for his own wicked undertaking." The other interpreters, however, namely Epiphanius the Scholastic, Joannes Langus, Joachim Camerarius, and Sirmond, took them in the masculine and understood it concerning the Arians, whom Colluthus was accusing. I indeed approve of their opinion more. For I see no sense in Christophorsonus’s interpretation. For what are those things which Arius and Colluthus were accusing? It is much truer that Colluthus was accusing Arius and his followers. For since he was a presbyter of one of the parishes of Alexandria, just as Arius and Carponas and Sarmatas were, he himself preached a certain perverse doctrine in his own parish, just as Arius did, as Epiphanius reports in ch. 28.
*Mochthēras proaireseōs* (Of wicked purpose). In the codex of Leo Allatius, *proaireseōs* is written. Epiphanius the Scholastic also seems to have read it thus. For he translates thus: "For he, blaming these very men, found the occasion for his own most wicked will."
*Tēn ekeinou Christemporeian* (His Christ-trafficking). Colluthus, when he was a presbyter of Alexandria, carried away by arrogance and rashness, had acted as a bishop and had ordained many presbyters and deacons. However, in the synod gathered at Alexandria, all his ordinations were afterwards rescinded, and whoever had been ordained by him were reduced to the order of laymen, as Athanasius testifies in his *Second Apology against the Arians*. Hence it is apparent why Alexander calls Colluthus a *Christemporos* (Christ-trafficker)—namely, because he sold ordinations and made gain from the laying on of hands and the other sacraments.
*Doxēs alektou* (Of unspeakable glory). In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition, *alēktou* is read. The other codices, however, and the interpretation of Epiphanius the Scholastic, defend the vulgate reading. And indeed, in the edition, *para tou patros* (from the Father) is read instead of these words *para tō patri* (with the Father).
*Di' entuchias gunaikariōn* (Through the entreaties of little women). I embrace the interpretation of Camerarius who translates thus: "through the interpellations of little women," etc. Nor does Epiphanius the Scholastic interpret the *aditiones* badly. For he understands the libels of accusation which women suborned by the Arians presented to the judges against Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. Indeed, *entuchia* is taken for a supplicatory libel by Athanasius, as I have observed in my Eusebian annotations.
Page 10. *Pamphēfei... tēs Ekklēsias exēlasomen* (We shall drive out with a unanimous vote... from the Church). From these words it is gathered that this epistle of Alexander was written after the Alexandrian synod, in which Arius had been condemned with his associates. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, however, convened two synods of the bishops of Egypt against Arius and his associates, as we shall show at greater length below, at page 19.
*Hoia kai pāsin einai pephuken anthrōpois* (Such as it is natural for all men to be). This is also read in the Basle edition, except that *hoion* is written for *hoia*. But in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the other Royal copy, it is more correctly written in this way: *hoios kai pas pephuken anthrōpos*, as James Sirmond also edited it. In the codex of Leo Allatius, however, it is read in this way: *Hoios kai pas einai sumbebeken anthrōpos*. Just as Epiphanius the Scholastic had also read it in his codex, as is apparent from his interpretation. For he translates thus: "Because also at some time he was made such as it happens every man to be."
Page 11. *Erēmōsantes touto phasi* (Having desolated, they say this). After these words, these things are added in the codex of Leo Allatius: *oute tina echonta idiotēta pros auton, alla kai auton treptēs tunchanonta phuseōs* (nor having any property toward him, but that he himself also happens to be of a mutable nature). Wrongly, indeed. For these words have their place below, as we shall see. Epiphanius the Scholastic, however, reads the same words in his codex in this place. For he translates thus: "Stripping themselves of all reverence, they say: Neither has he any property toward him: but since he is himself mutable by nature, God knew of him by foreknowledge and forethought," etc.
*Egeneto oude ho gegonen* (Whatever has come into being, it did not exist). The last two words are missing in the edition of Robert Estienne and in the Basle one. They are, however, contained in the codex of Leo Allatius and in the version of Epiphanius the Scholastic. But also...
A Christophorsonus had found these in his books, as appears from his interpretation.
Page 12. *And transcending the thought of those who have been brought into being.* I think *genēton* (begotten/brought into being) should be written with a simple (vowel); and Epiphanius seems to have read it this way, who translates it thus: *And transcending the universal intelligence of the creatures.* For *hyperairon* (transcending), in the Basle edition *hyperēron* is read, and in the Allatian codex, more correctly, I think.
*Neither by elements in line.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition it is written *homostoichois*, somewhat less correctly, as I indeed believe. Certainly Camerarius, who translated the Basle edition into Latin, reads *homostoikois*, as appears from his interpretation. For he translates thus: *Nor daring to use the composition of the same elements in the voice of the Creator or of things made.* The sense of this rather obscure passage is as follows: When the evangelist John wished to explain the origin of the Son of God, he distinguished it far from the production of created things, and took the strictest care, in declaring the essence of the Son, not to use the same words by which he explained the origin of created things. For in declaring the essence of the Son, he used the word *was*. But in explaining the origin of created things, he said *were made*, that is, *facta sunt*. Alexander then adds, *Not that the Son of God is unbegotten; for there is one who is unbegotten, namely the Father.* That is: Not that the Son of God has no origin of His generation, for He truly has an origin of generation, the Father from whom He was begotten. But because He has no beginning of time, inasmuch as He was begotten of the Father from all eternity, *achronos kai amesiteutos*, as the Greeks say, that is, without any time or interval.
*But that the thought with the...* I corrected this passage from two manuscript codices, that of Allatius and that of Savile, in which it is read thus: *...of the evangelists, and perhaps also the understanding of the angels.* The Basle edition agrees with these, except that it has *exōsmenēs* written incorrectly for *exesthenēs*. The adverb also which follows, *hyperekkeina*, I changed to *hyperekkeina*, following the script of the Allatian codex and the Basle edition.
*I do not think the pious*, I believe this passage is also to be corrected from the aforementioned codices of Allatius and Savile, which the Basle edition supports, except that it has *tolmōntas*, not *tolmōntos*. Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, seems to have read in the plural: *the pious [accounted] those who dare.*
*The pillars of all those in the world.* After these words James Sirmond in his edition added these four words, *tous theēgorous phēmi apostolous* (the divinely-speaking, I mean, the apostles), I know not having followed which codices. Certainly they are not in our copies or in the Basle edition, and they savor rather of a scholium of some learned man, who had noted it to the side of his book, that the divine apostles were signified by *pillars*. Certainly in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Peter and James are said to have been pillars of the Church. Moreover, at the beginning of this period it should be written: *For also our Savior*, etc.
*The knowledge concerning these.* In the codex of Leo Allatius and in the Basle edition it is written *peri toutou* (concerning this), more correctly, if I am not mistaken. Nor does Epiphanius Scholasticus read it otherwise. For he translates this passage thus: *For the Savior Himself, wishing to provide for all the pillars in this world, hastened to relieve them of the knowledge of this.*
*And to my own.* James Sirmond in his edition has expunged these words. Certainly they are not in the codex of Leo Allatius, and they seem superfluous here. Moreover, this passage B is taken from the twenty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, where Jerome notes those words: *And I said: My secret to me; my secret to me,* as not being in the Septuagint, but added by Origen from the translation of Theodotion. Procopius of Gaza, however, says it was supplied from the interpretation of Symmachus.
*Having the temporal projection.* In the Basle edition *echonta* is read very well. The word *uion* (son) is understood. In the Savile codex it is written *echōn tautēn probolēn*, indeed incorrectly, but in such a way that the traces of the true reading are preserved. For the word *probolēn* in the codex of Leo Allatius there is *hyperb-.v.* But in the other Royal codex, whose variant readings Robert Estienne noted at the foot of his edition, it is read *probases*, very poorly. Which, however, the most corrupt reading, Sirmond embraced in his edition.
*From here is shown that "from non-existence."* James Sirmond edited this passage thus: *From here it is shown from the "from non-existence."* And he interpreted the whole passage thus: *That truly it is the utmost madness to think the Son sprung from non-existent things, and produced in time, is manifest from the same, that is from non-existent things, etc.* But since no codices have it written thus, I deem it sacrilege to change the vulgar reading. But if it is permitted to propose our own conjecture, I believe these words *to ex ouk ontōn* are to be deleted, which, having been ascribed to the margin in place of a scholium, were afterwards translated into the text. Moreover, Epiphanius Scholasticus translates this passage thus: *I do not think the wise are ignorant, that it is insane to think the Son was made from non-existent things, when he indeed has a temporal beginning which is shown to have been made from non-existent things.* From which it appears Epiphanius read *chronikēn echōn tēn probolēn to ex ouk ontōn*.
Page 13. *For it is senseless.* In the codex of Leo Allatius *anontōn* is written, which I approve more. And so Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it. For he translates thus: *For it is foolish, and full of all sin, etc.*
*On account of which He is entitled Father.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile *di' hon* (on account of whom) is read, just as Epiphanius Scholasticus also reads it.
Page 14. *Even unto the thought.* In the Allatius codex *mechris ennoias* is read, with the other preposition omitted. Both words, however, are recognized by Epiphanius Scholasticus, who translates thus: *It is impossible even unto an opinion to find the ways of a serpent.*
*And by lawful commands.* In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written *kai nomimous entolas*. Which reading James Sirmond embraced in his edition, and he interpreted this passage thus: *But whoever are His creatures, men and angels, both received a blessing, that they might profit by exercising virtue, and the laws of commandments, that they might not sin.* And this reading, having examined it more attentively, I judge to be the truer one. For he says Alexander, that God handed down two things to men and angels, so that they could make progress in virtue. First, blessings; then, the laws of the commandments. And indeed the laws of the commandments are useful for this, that they might not commit crimes which are prohibited by law; but the blessing is useful for this, that they might profit daily in the exercise of virtue. But a difficulty occurs in this place. For he attributes progress to the angels, whose nature, however, seems to have little capacity for it. For the angels apply themselves wholly to that which they have once embraced, and they do not progress little by little to that which they choose, but with the first impulse they arrive at the highest summit, so that they are able to progress no further, nor can they turn back. For they are devoid of matter, which generates infirmity and inconstancy. It must, however, be said that the angels were so created at first by God, that they were mutable, and capable of virtue and vice, and so that they could progress for the better, or fall into the worse. That this was the opinion of the ancient theologians C is evident both from Alexander, and from the fact that Arius and the others asserted that the Son of God was mutable and capable of virtue and vice. Nor did any of the Catholics ever object to them that the angels were not of a mutable nature. For they knew that this was peculiar to God alone, who says explicitly in the Holy Scriptures: *I am and I do not change.* Angels D indeed, though they change with difficulty, are nonetheless subject to change.
A *Τῆς πατρικῆς γεννήσεως*. In the manuscript codes of Savile and Allatius, the reading is more correctly *παιδοποιΐας* [procreation], as Jacob Sirmond also published it. It was also read this way in another Royal copy.
Page 15. *Ὃν διαδεξάμενος Λουκιανός.* Baronius, in the year of Christ 318, chapter 75, attempts to excuse Alexander for writing these things about the martyr Lucian. And indeed, Baronius is to be commended for attempting to free the martyr of Christ from the suspicion of a heinous heresy. However, we must place the truth before all things. If Baronius brought forward the testimony of any ancient writer to confirm his opinion and overturn the testimony of Alexander, I would gladly agree with him. But since he offers nothing beyond conjectures, I prefer to believe the testimony of Alexander, who lived in the times of Lucian and knew his doctrine and disciples—who called themselves "Lucianists"—very well. Certainly, Theodoret, after having quoted this letter of Alexander, expressly affirms that he did not lie in any matter, but stated the truth candidly. There is also the testimony of Epiphanius in the 43rd heresy, that of the Lucianists, where he writes that this Lucian, of whom Alexander speaks, gave patronage to the Arian heresy and was considered a martyr by the Arians. Certainly, his disciples whom Philostorgius enumerates were all infected with the stain of the Arian error. But let us see what Alexander says about him. He says therefore that Lucian first succeeded Paul of Samosata; that is, he was the successor of that error. Certainly, it is credible that he was familiar with Paul of Samosata. For he himself was born in the city of Samosata, as is read in his *Life*. And since Paul was raised from that city to the see of Antioch, Lucian was also a presbyter in Antioch. The age of both also falls into almost the same time. For Paul was deposed during the times of Aurelian, and lived for a long time after his deposition. Let us suppose, therefore, that he reached the times of Carus. From that time to the martyrdom of Lucian, there are more or less twenty-five years. From which it appears that Paul and Lucian were born in the same town, were priests of the same city, and also lived at the same times.
*Ἀποσυνάγωγος ἔμεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων.* The interpreters did not understand the force of this word. Following them, Baronius, in the year 318, writes that Lucian was ejected from the Church by three bishops succeeding one another continuously. But Alexander does not say this; he only says that Lucian caused a schism in the Church of Antioch and held separate gatherings under three bishops who succeeded one another continuously. For that is what *ἀποσυνάγωγος* signifies. Thus, Epiphanius Scholasticus did not interpret this place badly: "Succeeding whom, Lucian remained outside the synagogues of the three bishops for a very long time." Basil, in his first epistle to Amphilochius, uses *παρασυναγωγή* in the same sense, where he distinguishes between heresy, schism, and *παρασυναγωγή*. He says that *παρασυναγωγαί* are illegitimate assemblies, which are made by insubordinate priests or bishops and laypeople. For example, if someone convicted of a crime and suspended from the sacred ministry does not obey the judgment, but wishes to perform his ministry and gathers the people. There is little difference between a *παρασυναγωγή* and a schism. Moreover, the cause of the schism for Lucian was the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, which he defended, as Alexander teaches. On account of which he separated himself for a long time from the three bishops: Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyril. But at last, he returned to the unity of the Church, as is gathered from Alexander. For Alexander does not write that he remained in schism until the end of his life, but only that he was separated for a long time.
*Ἐν Συρίᾳ χειρ. ἐπίσκοποι τρεῖς.* He means Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine; Theodotus of Laodicea; and Paulinus of Tyre. For Arius, in his letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, which is recounted below, testifies that these men were condemned by the anathema of the Bishop of Alexandria. Furthermore, it is gathered from this place that this letter was written by Alexander before the letter to all the Churches, before Eusebius of Nicomedia had undertaken the patronage of Arius. For if this letter had been written at a later time, Alexander would certainly never have omitted mention of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
B *Ὑπανακείσθω.* In the codex of Leo Allatius and in the Basle edition, it reads *ἀνακείσθω*. As it is also written in Nicephorus.
*Τὰς τῇ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις.* Alexander says two natures, not simply and absolutely two, but two personally, in that one nature exists in two persons. Wherefore *φύσις ἐν ὑποστάσει* is the same as person.
Page 16. *Ὃν ὅμοιον ἐν Ψαλμοῖς.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition, it is written *ὧν ὅμοιον*, that is, "to whom the most holy Fathers sing similar things in the Psalms." Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, confirms the vulgate scripture. Camerarius also, although he followed the Basle edition, reads *ὧν* and refers it to the Father. Christophorson, however, preferred to refer it to the Son. For he translates thus: "The Son, moreover, similar to the Father, is decreed in the Psalms by the most holy men," etc.
*Τιμῶν τὸν Πατέρα.* Epiphanius Scholasticus adds certain things here that are not read in the Greek. For he has it thus: "Wherefore also he who honors the Father, honors also the Son; and he who honors the Son, honors also the Father, and rightly." The following parts confirm this reading. Thus, it seems to be an error of the copyists, who omitted this pericope, deceived by the similarity of the words.
*Καὶ μελαγχολικῆς ἠρμοσμένης δόξης.* I read *μελαγχολικοῖς*, just as Jacob Sirmond published it. Yet I cannot approve his action, in that he did not hesitate to admit into the text a reading supported by the authority of no manuscript codex: which was more fitting to reject to the side of his edition or to refer to in the notes. In Nicephorus, in Book VIII, chapter 7, it reads *καὶ μελαγχολικῆς δόξης*, omitting the word *ἠρμοσμένης*.
*Ἀποσκιρτήσαντος.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is written *ἐνσκηνώσαντος*. Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read *ἀποσκιρτήσαντος*, for he translates it thus: "The wisdom of Satan, vehemently leaping upon their most wicked souls."
*Ἠμαύρωσεν.* The codex of Leo Allatius has *ἡμέρωσεν*. And Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it thus, as is apparent from his interpretation. For he translates it thus: "The harmonious reverence of [his] fellow-ministers toward Christ did not tame their ferocity."
*Ἐπιπορείσθω.* I corrected to *ἐπαπορείσθω* from the edition of Jacob Sirmond. In the Savilian codex and the Basle edition, it is written *ἐπηπορήσθω*, which I prefer more: for it is in the past tense.
*Ἀπαιδεύτῳ ὕλῃ.* So he calls the dialectical arguments which Arius used against the divinity of Christ. However, in the Allatius codex, instead of *ὕλῃ* it reads *ὑλακῇ*, that is, "by barking," which I do not approve.
Page 17. *Ὧν μεσιτεύουσα φύσις μονογενής.* It is to be understood favorably what Alexander says in this place, that the unbegotten nature is intermediate between the unbegotten Father and creatures. Where he takes "nature" for "person." For he understands *φύσιν ἐν ὑποστάσει*, as Alexander spoke a little before. But he calls the unbegotten nature intermediate, not because the Unbegotten is inferior to the Father, but because through Him the Father makes all things, as John the Evangelist says. Whence, *δι' οὗ* is properly attributed to the Son, just as Basil notes in his book *On the Holy Spirit*.
*Πάσῃ τῇ γεννητῇ φύσει.* I would prefer to write *γενητῇ*, just as Epiphanius seems to have read.
It translates: "Omni creatæ naturæ imperscrutabili," etc.
A *Yion te emphere* (Υιόν τε ἐμφερῆ). In the codex of Allatius and in the Basilian edition, the particle *te* is missing. However, Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms the Vulgate reading.
*Panton gar einai ten eikona* (Πάντων γὰρ εἶναι τὴν εἰκόνα). In the Savilian codex and in the Basilian edition, the word is inserted in this way: *panton gar einai dei ten eikona plere* (πάντων γὰρ εἶναι δεῖ τὴν εἰκόνα πλήρη). And it seems Epiphanius Scholasticus read it thus. For he translates: "And altogether it is fitting that the image be full of those things, so that there may be nothing lacking from the equality of Him whose image it is." But Christophorson had also found the same wording in his books, except that *dei* was read in those exemplars, perhaps better. For it refers to the word *delon* (δῆλον), which follows. But if we prefer to read *dei*, then it must be written *deloutai* (δηλοῦται), as it is read in the codex of Leo Allatius, *delon* (δῆλον).
Page 18. *Ta ek merous autois gnoristhenta* (Τὰ ἐκ μέρους αὐτοῖς γνωρισθέντα). In the manuscript codices of Allatius and Savile and in the Basilian edition, it is written *gnosthenta* (γνωσθέντα). Alexander seems to be alluding to the passage of the Apostle Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "We know in part, and we prophesy in part." Certainly, Epiphanius Scholasticus expounded this passage thus.
*Hoper d' an e, ouk esti tauta* (Ἅπερ δ' ἂν ᾖ, οὐκ ἔστι ταυτά). In the same exemplars of Allatius and Savile, and in the Basilian edition, it is written *hoper d' an e, ouk esti tauton* (ὅπερ δ' ἂν ᾖ, οὐκ ἔστι ταυτόν), etc. And thus Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it, as appears from his interpretation. For he translates thus: "Therefore it was, and always is, and persists before the ages, whatever it is. Yet it is not that which is unbegotten." I nearly forgot to warn the reader that in the codex of Leo Allatius it is written *ouk eti tauton to agenneto* (οὐκ ἔτι ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ), which is undoubtedly more correct. Otherwise, unless you read it thus, the article must be added in this way: *ho hoper d' an e* (δ ὅπερ δ' ἂν ᾖ).
*To Patri monon idioma* (Τῷ Πατρὶ μόνον ἰδίωμα). In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written *mono* (μόνῳ). But the rest of the codices uphold the Vulgate reading.
*To kineisai* (Τὸ κινεῖσαι). In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written *kinesei* (κινήσει), which reading, although the remaining codices refute it, I do not think should be spurned.
*Aute polemein bouletai* (Αὐτῇ πολεμεῖν βουλεύηται). In the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basilian edition it is written *bouletai* (βούληται).
*Eutharseis hemas kataskeuasantos* (Εὐθαρσεῖς ἡμᾶς κατασκευάσαντος). This reading pleases me more than what I found in the Allatian codex and in the Basilian edition, *kataskeuazontos* (κατασκευάζοντος). Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms this reading, for he translates thus: "The father of the family making us secure," etc.
Page 19. *Toutous anathematisthentas* (Τούτους ἀναθεματισθέντας). He means Arius and Achillas and the rest of their associates and supporters. For these he named a little above, writing thus: "To whom those around Arius and Achillas became adversaries, and [so did] the champions of the truth together with them." By these words, Alexander denotes not only the presbyters and deacons of the Alexandrian Church who favored Arius, but he also understands those three bishops of the province of Syria who defended the opinion of Arius, of whom he spoke above. Therefore, not without cause did Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, and Paulinus of Tyre, and Theodotus of Laodicea, complain that they had been anathematized by Alexander, as Arius writes in the letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia which Theodoret records. For in this passage, even though their names are suppressed, they are anathematized by Alexander. But Alexander says nothing of Eusebius of Nicomedia in this synodal letter to Alexander of Constantinople, nor does Arius, among the bishops who were anathematized by Alexander, nominate Eusebius of Nicomedia: he surely would not have omitted it if it had been done by Alexander. From which it can be understood that B this synodal letter was written by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, before that letter of Alexander to all the Churches, which Socrates and Sozomen record. For in this later one, Eusebius of Nicomedia is deposed by Alexander as the patron and standard-bearer of the Arians. Whence it appears that this letter was written in a later place, since Eusebius of Nicomedia had openly undertaken the patronage of the Arian dogma. But it can also be proved from elsewhere that this letter, which Alexander wrote to all the bishops of all the Churches, was written after that letter to Alexander of Constantinople. For in the letter to Alexander of Constantinople, only ten presbyters and deacons are named as having been anathematized. But in Alexander’s letter to all the bishops of all the Churches, twelve clerics are recounted as having been struck by the anathema; and, besides, two bishops, Secundus and Theonas. Indeed, after that former synodal [letter], when Carponas and Caius, clerics of Alexandria, and Secundus and Theonas, bishops, had joined themselves to Arius, that was added concerning their names in that later synodal [letter] which Socrates and Sozomen record. Alexander therefore convened two synods at different times against Arius and his associates. In the former, only ten Alexandrian clerics were condemned, and three bishops of Syria were noted. A synodal letter was also written by Alexander to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium. In the second synod, at which nearly a hundred bishops of Egypt sat, twelve Alexandrian clerics were condemned, and in addition two bishops, Secundus and Theonas; and Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was noted. Finally, a synodal letter was written to all colleagues throughout the world. In what year, however, each synodal [letter] was written, is obscure. Baronius indeed thinks that both were written in the year 518 of Christ. For he reasons as follows. These letters were written by Alexander before Constantine had written that letter to Alexander and Arius. But that letter of Constantine was written in the year 318, when Constantine, having defeated Licinius, had entered Nicomedia, as Baronius himself testifies, chapter 69. But the answer is easy. For Licinius was defeated in the year 324 of Christ, as is clear from the Fasti of Idatius and the Chronicon Alexandrinum and other writers: who, if they had been published in the age of Baronius, he would never have admitted so many errors in commemorating the affairs of Licinius.
*Tosouton ep' autois* (Τοσοῦτον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς). I have corrected from the codex of Leo Allatius and from Nicephorus *to hoson ep' autois* (τὸ ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς). In the same way Jacob Sirmond also edited it.
Page 20. *Kai to tomo synypograpthanton* (Καὶ τῷ τόμῳ συνυπογραψάντων). Who this *tomus* or libellus might be, to which Alexander says that several bishops had already subscribed, is obscure. Baronius writes that it is a libellus of faith written by Alexander, at the year 318 of Christ. Which he seems to have drawn from the version of Christophorson. For thus Christophorson interprets this passage: "Who subscribed to the libellus published against them." I, however, think that by this word *tomo* (τόμῳ), this very letter is to be understood, which Alexander had sent to other bishops as well. For this is an encyclical letter, as Baronius rightly notes.
*Apionos tou diakonou* (Ἀπίωνος τοῦ διακόνου). In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Nicephorus, it is read *tou archidiakonou* (τοῦ ἀρχιδιακόνου). And thus also Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it, as appears from his version.
*Peithomenon kai tais* (Πειθομένων καὶ ταῖς). The particle *kai* is placed in the wrong position, and should be restored to its own place thus: *peithomenon tais ton sylleitourgon hemon synkatathesei, kai eis* (πειθομένων ταῖς τῶν συλλειτουργῶν ἡμῶν συγκαταθέσεσι, καὶ εἰς), etc.
*Syn te par' hymon adelphoteti* (Σὺν τῇ παρ' ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι). In Nicephorus it is read *par' hemon* (παρ' ἡμῶν), which seems to me to be more correct.
*Ten Berroian* (Τὴν Βέρροιαν). I found it written more correctly in the codex of Leo Allatius, *ten Beroieon* (τὴν Βερο (ι)έων), which reading Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms.
*Kai tois allois* (Καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις). Alexander also wrote a letter of the same argument to Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, as Pope Liberius teaches in his letter to Constantius, in these words: "The letters of Alexander, bishop of blessed memory, formerly destined to Silvester, remain, in which he signifies, before the ordination of Atha-
- nasius, eleven presbyters as well as deacons, that they had followed the heresy of Arius, and had cast themselves out of the Church," etc.
*On Chapter V.*
Page 21. *Ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀνθρώπους ἀθώους.* I have corrected this to *ὡς ἀνθρώπους ἀθέους*, as it is read in the codex of Allatius, and in Nicephorus, and in the edition of Jacques Sirmond. So also Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it, as appears from his version.
*Ἀγεννής ἐστιν.* Here also the passage has been restored from the codex of Leo Allatius, in which *ἀγεννής* is read, just as Jacques Sirmond published it. In Nicephorus, however, it is written *ἀγενὲς* with a simple *ν*, as it is read also in Epiphanius in the heresy of the Arians.
*Ἀνάθεμα ἐγένοντο.* These things are to be understood not as if Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus, and Theodotus, and the rest were specifically anathematized by Alexander, but because Arius, with his associates and the supporters of his error, had been anathematized by Alexander, and Eusebius, Paulinus, and Theodotus, who defended the opinion of Arius, seemed to have been struck by the same sentence, as I observed above in the notes to the epistle of Alexander. Baronius holds the same view regarding the year of Christ 318, chapter 50.
*Καὶ Ἑλλάνικον.* This was the bishop of Tripolis, as Theodoret presently testifies, and who afterwards, by the command of the Emperor Constantine, was driven from his bishopric by the fraud and snares of the Arian party, a certain Theodosius being put in his place, as Athanasius writes in his epistle to the solitary monks, not far from the beginning.
*Τῶν τὸν Υἱὸν λεγόντων.* The former article is missing in the codex of Allatius and in Epiphanius and Nicephorus, whom Jacques Sirmond follows in his edition—rightly, in my judgment. For *οἱ μὲν*, etc., follows, where the learned will note a solecism. For it should have been said *τῶν μέν*.
*Παραπειλήσωσιν.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition I found *ἐπαπειλήσωσιν* written, just as it is read also in Epiphanius and Nicephorus.
*Φιλόγονος.* This is he of whom Theodoret spoke above in chapter 3 of this book. To him Athanasius bears an outstanding testimony of orthodox faith in his first oration against the Arians; he is called Philogenes by the patriarch Nicephorus in his *Chronographia*.
*On Chapter VI.*
Page 22. *Ἡ ὑπὲρ ἀληθοῦς λόγον.* In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Nicephorus it is read: *σπουδὴ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς*, etc. Shortly after, where *οὔτε δύο ἀγέννητα ἀκηκόαμεν* is read, the codex of Allatius adds the adverb *πώποτε*, which reading Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms.
*Ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς.* The codex of Allatius and Nicephorus are in agreement in adding the word *τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς*. This reading is acknowledged even by Epiphanius Scholasticus.
*Καὶ γεννητὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ.* I would prefer to write *γενητὸν* with a single *ν*. For this is more in agreement with the dogma of the Arians, who used to say that the Son of God was made and created. Certainly, it is so read in Nicephorus, although the Latin interpreter of Nicephorus translated it as *genitum* ("begotten"), as if he had read *γεννητόν*.
*On Chapter VII.*
Page 25. *Οἶκον μέγιστον ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις.* Theodoret took these things from the third book of Eusebius, *On the Life of Constantine*, chapter 10, for which place, if you please, see what I have noted. For I have not decided here to repeat those things that were sufficiently dealt with at length in that place.
*Πρῶτος ὁ μέγας Εὐστάθιος.* The first word is missing in the codex of Leo Allatius, nor does it seem to be very necessary. See what I have noted on chapter 11, book III, *On the Life of the Emperor Constantine*.
A 1532 *Φιλόγονος γάρ.* It is to be noted what Theodoret says, that Eustathius was the next successor to Philogonius in the bishopric of the city of Antioch. Jerome, however, in his *Chronicon*, interposes a certain Paulinus between Philogonius and Eustathius. Concerning whom, see, if you please, what I have observed on book V of Sozomen, where he deals with the Council of Sardica. The patriarch Nicephorus agrees with Jerome in his *Indiculus* of the bishops of Antioch, where, after Philogonius, he names Paulinus, and then Eustathius.
*Ηὐξήσατο.* After this word in the Allatian codex these words are added: *μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ πάλιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ ἐπίκλην Παμφίλου*. The same words had been read by Epiphanius Scholasticus in his codex, as appears from his version in book II of the *Historia Tripartita*, chapter 5. See what I have noted on book III of Eusebius, *On the Life of Constantine*, chapter [..]. And the codex of Allatius has *παυσαμένων δὲ τούτων*, just as Epiphanius reads.
Page 26. *Θεωνᾶς ὁ Μαρμαρίτης.* I prefer *Μαρμαρίτης*, as it is read in the codex of Leo Allatius. Firstly, because this Theonas is called bishop of Marmarica by all writers. Secondly, because *Μαρμαρίτης* cannot be said to be an inhabitant of the region of Marmarica: *Μαρμαρικεύς* would rather be used. Certainly Epiphanius Scholasticus calls this Theonas a Marmaricene. The region of Marmarica, which was also properly called Libya, seems to have had only one bishop, because there were only villages and harbors within that tract, as is gathered from Ptolemy.
*Πίστεως διδασκαλίαν.* He understands the form of faith which Eusebius of Caesarea had first proposed to the synod, as he himself writes in his letter to the Caesareans which Socrates and Theodoret relate. And Eustathius of Antioch confirms this in the oration which he wrote on that passage of Proverbs: *The Lord created me*, etc. His words are related by Theodoret in the following chapter.
*On Chapter VIII.*
*Βαδιοῦμαι δὲ ἐντεῦθεν.* The passage of Eustathius from his homily on that text, *The Lord created me*, etc., begins with these words. Therefore, chapter 8 must begin from the same words.
*Τὸ γράμμα τῆς Εὐσεβίου βλασφημίας.* Christophers, and Sirmond following him, translated this passage thus: "Eusebius's blasphemies were clearly detected from his letters." Joachim Camerarius, however, interpreted it thus: "A document of Eusebian blasphemy was brought forward." This interpretation is indeed to be preferred by far to the former one. For it answers better to the words of Eustathius, and is confirmed by the authority of Theodoret himself. For Theodoret writes in the previous chapter that the bishops of the Arian faction had offered to the council a formula of faith composed by them, which was rejected by all with one consent. Concerning which place, I observed that it is that formula that is understood which Eusebius of Pamphilus says he had proposed in his letter to the Caesareans. This, therefore, is what Eustathius calls *γράμμα Εὐσεβίου* in this place. For *γράμμα* and *γραφή* are very often used for a formula of faith, as I remember reading in book IV of Sozomen. Thus Eustathius says *συμφώνοις γράμμασι* shortly after, speaking of the formula of the Nicene faith. Furthermore, he understands Eusebius of Caesarea in this place, and not of Nicomedia, as I gather from Socrates. For he in the first book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 23, says that Eustathius of Antioch had in his books gravely censured Eusebius of Pamphilus, as one who was depraving the faith established at the Nicene council.
Page 27. *Ἐξωστρακισθεῖεν.* The interpreters took this word as referring to exile, for fear of which the bishops of the Arian faction anathematized the blasphemy of Arius and subscribed to the Nicene faith. Nevertheless, this word can be understood simply to mean excommunication, such as Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have taken it. For he translates thus: "But the Arians, by..."
running to and fro to gain their bishoprics, were discovered to be supporters of the Arian blasphemy." A Indeed, Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and the other prelates of the Arian faction, when they had seen the formula of their faith exploded at the Council of Nicaea, and had realized that they were exposed as supporters of the Arian blasphemy, fearing that, as heretics, they might be stripped of their bishoprics, besought the Emperor Constantine, imploring his aid and suffrage so that they might not be cast down from their rank. Constantine himself testifies to this in his letter to the Nicomedians, which Theodoret reported a little further down. No more illustrious passage can be brought forward for an exposition of the words of Eustathius. For Eustathius and Constantine say the same thing.
PAGE 28. *Alenathinou logou tou Patros*. I prefer the reading which I found in the codex of Leo Allatius, *alethinou gonou*. For from the fact that the Son is the Word of the Father, it does not follow that He is from the Father’s substance. But from the fact that He is the offspring of the Father, it is established that He is begotten from the Father’s substance.
*Tous dokountas oligous Areianous*. The last word is missing in the codex of Leo Allatius and in the Basle edition, nor is it found in Nicephorus, nor in the common editions of Athanasius. Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, recognizes it.
*Exelthe gar, phēsi, pasa hē dynamis*. In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written, *kai exelthe pasa hē dynamis*. And so it is read in Nicephorus. But in the Basle edition it is read *kai elthe* without *pasa*, as the common editions of Athanasius also prefer. So too does Epiphanius Scholasticus read it, as appears from his version.
*Antilēptōr hēmōn ho Theos Iakōb*. These words are missing in the codex of Leo Allatius and in Epiphanius Scholasticus. They are, however, contained in the other exemplars.
*Genomenos gar alēthinos alēthinos estin*. The word *alethinos* which is placed in the former position must be deleted. Certainly it is contained neither in the codex of Allatius nor in the Basle edition. Nor is it read in the common editions of Athanasius and Nicephorus. Therefore, I wonder why Jacob Sirmond retained it in his edition. B
PAGE 29. *Ennooumenōn lexeōn*. Christophorson and Sirmond translated this passage very poorly, interpreting it as "devised expressions." Yet the Nicene Fathers devised no expressions, but used terms that were either found in Sacred Scripture or had been used by ancient teachers. But if they had consulted the manuscript codices, they would have discovered the true reading of this passage. Certainly, in the codex of Allatius and in the Basle edition, it is read *nooumenōn*. So, too, is it read in the common editions of Athanasius and Nicephorus. But Epiphanius Scholasticus also read it thus. For he translates: "Therefore they were condemned because of terms not written, yet piously understood." Now Athanasius understands the word *homoousion*, which, although it does not exist in the Holy Scriptures, had been used by ancient writers, as Eusebius shows in his letter to the Caesareans.
*Pro etōn engys pou hekaton*. He understands Dionysius, Bishop of the city of Rome, and the other Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria; who in their books condemned those who said that the Son of God was a product and a creature, as Athanasius testifies in the book *On the Opinion of Dionysius Against the Arians*. Furthermore, from the beginning of the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome up to the pontificate of Damasus, at which time Athanasius wrote this letter to the Africans, it is a hundred years and more. For Dionysius began to sit in the year of Christ 261. But the letter to the Africans was written in the year of Christ 369, or a little before, as Baronius thinks. Therefore, at this place, I think one should write *hekaton triōn* instead of *triakonta*.
*Hoi ētidzanto*. In the codex of Leo Allatius and in the common editions of Athanasius and Nicephorus, the postpositive article is missing. If we admit that reading, the *he* which precedes must be expunged. Certainly that word is not found in Athanasius and Nicephorus, nor does Epiphanius Scholasticus recognize it, as is gathered from his interpretation.
*Egrapsen kai tois idiois*. I prefer the reading of the Allatian codex, in which this passage is read thus: *Egrapsen de kai tois idiois*. Certainly Epiphanius Scholasticus had found it so written in his codex. For he translates thus: "He wrote also to his own citizens," etc.
*In Chapter IX.*
*Zanēs enetypa*. In the best Basle edition I found it written *venenda*, more correctly, if I am not mistaken.
*Meta tas Alexandreōn proedrias*. Correctly in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is read *Alexandrou*. And the Basle edition exhibits it written thus.
PAGE 31. *Mēte cheirothetein*. In the Savile codex and in the Basle edition it is read *cheirotonein*, and so it is also written in Gelasius of Cyzicus, who nevertheless retained the other reading as well, but Epiphanius Scholasticus C also seems to have read *cheirotonein*; for he thus translates: "To have no power whatsoever, neither of choosing nor of ordaining."
*Mystikōtera cheirotonia*. In my annotations to the first book of Socrates, chapter 9, I explained this passage regarding episcopal ordination. Afterwards, a learned man appeared who, in his notes to the life of the blessed Athanasius which he wrote in French, observed that *cheirotonian* in this place should be understood not as ordination, but as a simple benediction. For he says that neither the Eastern nor the Western Church ever approved of reordinations: and he endeavors to prove this by adducing several testimonies. I remember also that this had been suggested to me some time ago by a certain learned theologian. However, I cannot approve of their interpretation for many reasons. First, because *cheirotonia* means nothing other than ordination. Secondly, *mystikōtera* sufficiently shows that the sacrament of ordination is understood here. For a simple benediction would not correctly be called "more mystical." Indeed, the holy Fathers compare the ordination of bishops which had been performed by Meletius with the legitimate ordination which they order to be performed by Alexander. And they say that this is far more sacred than that ordination which had been presumed by Meletius. Finally, it is false what those most learned men assert, that the Church in those times did not approve of the reordinations of bishops and presbyters. Certainly Marcellinus the presbyter, in the petition which he offered to the Emperor Theodosius, expressly testifies that Theodorus, the Catholic bishop of the city of Oxyrhynchus, reordained the presbyters of the Meletian party. For he writes thus on page 83: "Indeed, from this he wishes to seem Catholic, because he himself now makes certain presbyters or deacons of Apollonius into his own by some persuasion, and ordains them again, so that he may seem to return the service of that most base ordination which he himself suffered." Therefore, Theodorus the Catholic, along with the Meletians, reordained the presbyters; in this he seems to have followed the decree of the Council of Nicaea. Add that the Nicene Fathers in the sixth canon expressly define that those who were ordained bishops without the consent of the Metropolitan are not to be held as bishops. Since, therefore, the bishops of the Meletian party had been ordained without the consent of Alexander, who was the Metropolitan of all Egypt, D
A it was necessary for the Nicene Fathers to decree that they be ordained anew by Alexander, if indeed they wished to retain their episcopacy. *Tois meta ton Ioudaion.* We have deleted the last three words, which the Genevan printers had rashly supplied from the History of Socrates. For they are missing both in our manuscripts and in the printed editions. PAG. 33. *Phrenoblapeia symbainousin.* In the manuscript codex of Savile, and in the Basel edition, I found *symbainonta* written, so that it refers to *synthmata*. However, the vulgate reading can be tolerated if it refers to the noun *epitēdeumasi*.
*In Chapter X.* *Pephyke charis.* In the codex of Allatius it is written *pephyken hē charis*. And immediately it reads *touton te pro pantōn*, etc. Just as it also reads in the Basel edition. But in Eusebius, in *De vita Constantini*, book III, chapter 13, it reads *touton pro ge pantōn*. *Hekastou te tōn prosekonton.* The particle *te* is lacking in the codex of Leo Allatius, and in Eusebius and Nicephorus: it does not seem very necessary. PAG. 33. *Pantōn ephorō Theō.* In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written as one word *pantēphorō*. A little later, where *kai phanerō logō* is read, in the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basel edition I found *logismō* written. *En hē kairō tēs.* I have corrected this passage from the codex of Leo Allatius, in which it is written thus: *ēn ek prōtēs tou pathous hēmeras*, etc., just as it is also read in Socrates and Nicephorus. *Kai prepon kai nomimos.* In the Basel edition it reads *kai nomimos kai prepon*, which is undoubtedly more correct. For thus Eusebius and Socrates have it. Nicephorus, however, has interpolated this passage. *Ouk ēmen hikanoi.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it reads *ouk ēimen*, which is also read in Eusebius. PAG. 34. *En mēdenos homoiōmati.* So it also reads in the Basel edition. However, the codex of Allatius has written *homoiotēti*. This reading is confirmed by Eusebius, Socrates, and Nicephorus. Shortly after the verb *koinōnein* I added *dokein* from the codex of Leo Allatius and from the Basel edition, which Eusebius supports. In Socrates, however, and in Nicephorus, two words are added in this manner: *koinōnein ē dokein*, which has the same meaning. *To kephalaiōdestaton.* In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Eusebius in book III *De vita Constantini* it is read *kephalaiōdesteron*. *En hē oude mia estin.* In the codex of Allatius and in Socrates, it reads *oude mia estai*, etc.
*In Chapter XI.* PAG. 35. *Pros tous tōn ethnōn prostateuontas.* He refers to the Praetorian Prefects, who administered many provinces at the same time. For these were in charge of the grain supply, both civil, military, and palatine: inasmuch as they collected the taxes through their own officials, which were paid in kind; not, however, in gold and silver, as we learn from the Theodosian Code. I have noted these things for this reason, lest anyone might think he meant the provincial governors. *Oligēn epoiei tote tēn eisphoran.* Camerarius and Sirmond, who followed him, wrongly translated this passage in this manner: That at that time, because famine was raging, the taxes were diminished. For Theodoret is speaking here of the grain allowance which the Emperor Constantine donated to the Churches. But this does not pertain to the taxes, but to the function of the tribute, as can be seen in the title of the Theodosian Code concerning the *annona* and tributes. *Eisphora* is the same as the tributary function and payment. Taxes, however, are properly port duties, and those which are called *tēle* by the Greeks.
PAG. 36. *Prophasin enteuthen labontes.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it reads *lambanontes*, which is more pleasing. Furthermore, this narrative of Theodoret is similar to the one that Rufinus has in book X B of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 2. It differs, however, in that Rufinus says that the bishops, quarreling among themselves for various reasons, offered to Constantine booklets of accusations against their colleagues. Theodoret, however, says that those booklets were offered by laymen, who were accusing the bishops for various reasons. Then, the eulogy of Constantine burning the booklets offered to him is different in Rufinus and in Theodoret. *Katalabein hekaston.* Here also the Savile codex and the Basel edition have *katalambanein* written.
*In Chapter XII.* *Ton peri tōn prattomenōn akribē logon.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basel edition it reads *pepragmenōn*. PAG. 38. *Hopōs eirētai authis.* In Socrates in book I of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chapter 8, it reads *hopōs eirētai autois*, etc., which I approve of more. A little later, where *ebasanizeto ho logos* is read, it must be corrected from Socrates as *basanizē te ho logos*. PAG. 39. *Kai autoi syntithemetha.* In the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basel edition it reads *synetithemetha* and a little later, instead of *paraitoumetha*, the same Savile codex has written *paraitoumenoi*, as it is read in Socrates. *Exetazomenos ho logos synistēsin.* The codex of Henry Savile and the Basel edition have written *synistēsin*, which is more preferred. For it responds to the verb which was placed above, *synetithemetha*. *Pros ta gennēta ktismata.* I would rather write *genēta* with a single *n*, as Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read. For thus he translates these words of Eusebius, because the Son of God has no equality with created things, etc. *Monō de tō Patri.* In the Basel edition it reads *monōn de tō Patri*, etc., which does not displease me. Certainly it is so read in Nicephorus in book VIII, chapter 22. PAG. 40. *Prin energeia gennēthēnai.* In these words of Constantine or Eusebius the error is manifest. For the Word was not in the Father by potentiality before He was actually begotten from the Father. For first, act and potentiality are not distinguished in God. Then, it would follow from this that the Word was not from eternity. For the other creatures also, before they were actually created, were in God by potentiality. Yet they are not on that account said to be eternal. Furthermore, it must be observed that this whole section is not had in Socrates, nor in Epiphanius Scholasticus. Certainly it seems to me that Socrates deliberately omitted it because it contained a heretical meaning. *Aei te kai kata ta auta.* In Nicephorus the particle *kai* is absent, correctly, in my judgment. *Phanera kathistantas.* In the Basel edition it is written *kathistōntes*, as it is also read in Socrates. *Emphanē sympraxin echein edoxe tois.* This passage is read far differently in Socrates, namely in this way: *ephanē syntrechein tois*, etc., which, as it is briefer, so it also seems more correct.
*In Chapter XIII.* *Legei de hopōs.* The passage of Eusebius which Theodoret cites here is found in book III *De vita Constantini*, chapter 13. Furthermore, Theodoret in this chapter corrects the error of Socrates and Sozomen: modestly, however, with the names of both suppressed. For Socrates and Sozomen write that five or six bishops refused to subscribe to the formula of faith written in the Nicene synod; and that for that reason they were condemned. On the contrary, Theodoret says that all the bishops who had gathered at Nicaea consented to the same faith, except for two, namely Secundus and Theonas. And he demonstrates this first from Eusebius in his letter to the Caesareans: then from the same Eusebius in book III *De vita Constantini*.
A Page 41. *Glukeros tis ēn* (he was some kind of sweet person). This is also read in Eusebius. However, in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition, it is written *glukeros de tis ēn*. Instead of *elaunōn*, the same codices have *elaunen*.
*In Chapter XIV*
Page 42. *Pleiston houtos en Alexandreia* (He [stayed] longest in Alexandria). Theodoret does not relate the death of Arius correctly in this place. For that death certainly occurred after the Nicene Synod. But it is also not true what Theodoret says here, that Arius remained in Alexandria for a very long time after the Nicene Council. For how could he have remained there for a long time after the Nicene Council, when he was sent into exile by the Emperor Constantine almost immediately after the council finished, and after he was recalled from exile, Athanasius never wished to receive him back into the Church, as he himself teaches in his second *Apologetic against the Arians*? I know, indeed, that Rufinus in chapter 12 of book X of his *History*, and Socrates and Sozomen, write that Arius returned to Alexandria after his exile. But since Athanasius nowhere says this—nay, rather, explicitly affirms that he resisted most constantly the letters of Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Emperor Constantine that were menacingly ordering it—I would rather believe the testimony of Athanasius.
*En tois pros Apiona* (In the items to Apion). This letter of Athanasius is inscribed in common editions *pros Serapiona* (to Serapion).
Page 44. *Mathein didaskaliaν* (to learn the teaching). In the manuscript codices of Allatius and Savile, *metamathein* (to learn in turn) is read, which pleases me more. Theodoret uses that word not once.
*In Chapter XV*
*Tou Sōtēros Christou* (Of the Savior Christ). In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Nicephorus, book VIII, chapter 27, *Theou* (of God) is read instead of *Christou*, which I approve more. In Eusebius, however, in book III *De vita Constantini*, neither word is found.
*Elattona tēs axias* (of less value). The Basle edition has *elatton* as an adverb, which does not displease me. A little later, instead of *ekdiōchthentos*, in the manuscripts of Savile and Allatius, and in the Basle edition, as well as in Nicephorus, *diōchthentos* is written.
*In Chapter XVI*
Page 46. *Ekekorphēnai*. It is written more correctly in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile as *ekekorēsthai*. The codex of Allatius, however, has *ekphorēthēnai*, just as Jacques Sirmond published it.
*In Chapter XVII*
Page 47. *Autois synopseōs genomenēs*. In the manuscript codex of Leo Allatius, it is written *autēs* (of it)—without a doubt more correctly. In Eusebius, however, in book III *De vita Constantini*, and in Nicephorus, book VII, chapter 28, *autēs synopseōs* is read, etc., which Joannes Langus translates as follows: "...which you might judge to be most excellent and most convenient, once the form of the work itself has been summarized, see that you write to us." See what I have noted on book I of Eusebius' *De vita Constantini*. For it is not necessary to repeat here what has been noted there.
*In Chapter XIX*
Page 49. *Tas tēs pisteōs homologias synethento* (they composed the confessions of faith). Far more correctly in the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basle edition is this passage written in this way: *tē tēs pisteōs homologia synethento tais chersin* (they agreed to the confession of faith with their hands). Joachim Camerarius translates this as follows: "For this reason they did not withdraw their hands from the concord of the faith, in which, dressed in sheep's clothing, they might act like wolves." But Sirmond, following the vulgate reading, translates it thus: "Inasmuch as they confirmed the confessions of faith with their own hands, etc." Which interpretation can in no way be borne. For to seal is not the same as to subscribe. This, therefore, is what Theodoret means: that those Arians did not consent to the Nicene faith in good faith nor with their hearts: and though they approved it by the subscription of their hands, they were actually averse to it. For they had subscribed to it for this reason: that under this pretext they might later deceive the simpler-minded. Furthermore, our correction is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus. For he translates it thus: "For this cause they even consented with their hands in the confession of faith, etc."
B *Theios ekeinos Alexandros* (That divine Alexander). Socrates and Sozomen assigned the death of Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople, to the time of the Emperor Constantius. But Philostorgius, just like our Theodoret, relates the death of Alexander to the reign of Constantine the Great. Concerning this, see what I have noted in book II of my *Ecclesiastical Observations* on Socrates and Sozomen. And in this part, indeed, Theodoret is to be reproved, since he has other supporters. But that he adds that Eusebius of Nicomedia immediately invaded the Constantinopolitan see after the death of Alexander, that cannot be excused. For Paul succeeded Alexander, and after he was driven out through the fraud of Eusebius, Eusebius invaded his bishopric, as Athanasius, a most certain author, teaches.
*Deuteron dia grammatōn pepoiēken* (He has done [this] a second time through letters). I do not see what the word *deuteron* (second) signifies here. For it is nowhere read that two letters were written by Constantine to the Nicomedians against Eusebius. Therefore, Jacques Sirmond expunged this word in his edition. Which decision of his I cannot applaud. For it is permitted to a translator to omit some word in his version which disturbs the sense. But in the author's own text, nothing is to be changed or deleted without the authority of ancient copies; for if this license is once granted, we are going to have no pure and sincere edition of ancient writers. Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, favors Sirmond, for he likewise omitted this word in his version. I myself, however, would more gladly have written *husteron* (later) for *deuteron*.
*To telos tēs epistolēs* (The end of the letter). I know that there will be many who, when they have read the end of this letter of Constantine, will desire the earlier part of it which was omitted by Theodoret. For this is an outstanding monument of antiquity, from which we can learn many things which, without this letter, we would undoubtedly be ignorant of. The reader is therefore to be warned that this letter of Constantine is held in the *Annals of Baronius* for the year of Christ 329, but not in its proper place. For this letter was written before Eusebius and Theognius were sent into exile. But they were sent into exile when three months had already passed from the Nicene Synod, as Philostorgius reports in book I near the end, that is, in the year of Christ 325, in the month of September. But Baronius thinks this letter was written in the year of Christ 329, and that Eusebius and Theognius were recalled from exile in the following year. But we have already abundantly refuted this in the annotations to book I of the *History of Socrates*, where we showed that Eusebius was recalled by Constantine in the year of Christ 328, and that in the year of Christ 329 he gathered a council of bishops at Antioch against Eustathius of Antioch. There is also another error of Baronius that must not be omitted. For he reproves Theodoret because he believed this letter was written by Constantine after Eusebius of Nicomedia, upon the death of Alexander, had occupied the Constantinopolitan see. But Theodoret does not say that: but only says that Eusebius, having long since left Berytus, of which he was bishop, had crossed over to the Nicomedian Church, and after that time was cast out from that Nicomedian see, as Constantine testifies in the letter to the Nicomedians.
*In Chapter XX*
*Ho tauta didaxas* (He who taught these things). Here someone will ask what those evil dogmas are which Eusebius had taught the Nicomedians. We learn that, indeed, from the initial part of the letter of Constantine, which I shall append here, as it was published...
A Baronio: "What then do you understand, beloved brethren? For you accuse yourselves. We are Christians, and we dissent in the midst of the struggle. Is this our faith? Is this the doctrine of the most holy law? But what is the cause on account of which the destruction of the present evil has been stirred up? O shameful deed! O hatred beyond measure, exceeding the magnitude of all indignation! What was the atrocity of this robbery, which denies that the Son of God proceeded from the individual substance of the Father? Is not God everywhere, when we surely feel that He is always present with us? Does not the ornamentation of all things consist through His virtue? Since it surely lacks separation and dissipation. Has anything, therefore, been done by you?" O beloved brethren, consider now, I beseech you, the torments of the present grief. You promised to be confessors of Him whom you deny; while a teacher lost in all things persuades you to this.
Then follow those things which Theodoret related. From those things which I have brought forward, it manifestly appears that Constantine objects to Eusebius of Nicomedia that he had taught openly in the Church, against the decrees of the Nicene faith, that the Son of God is not from the substance of the Father, nor consubstantial with the Father. But if anyone wishes to read the Greek words of the first part of this letter of Constantine, they are found in Gelasius of Cyzicus at the end of book III.
B *Symmystes* (summystēs). Epiphanius translates this as "excultorem" [cultivator], which he does not prove. Jacobus Sirmondus interprets it as "consortem" [partner], but Christophorsonus as "administrum" [administrator]. Joachim Camerarius, however, translated it thus: "Indeed, Eusebius initiated into tyrannical cruelty." I would prefer to interpret it as "conscium" [confidant]; *summystēs* is properly one initiated into the same mysteries, whom the Latins call a "consecraneus" [fellow-initiated].
"For the holy [men] everywhere of the tyrant" (*ti ton hagiōn pantachou tou turannou*). The last two words are missing in the Basilian edition and in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile. Which, however, no one fails to see are necessary. Certainly, Gelasius of Cyzicus and Epiphanius Scholasticus, and the ancient translator in Baronius, acknowledge them. Rather, the two words which precede *tōn hagiōn* ought to be deleted, which disturb the sense and are not found in the codex of Leo Allatius, nor in Gelasius of Cyzicus, nor in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus. Moreover, I greatly approve that Epiphanius and that ancient translator cited by Baronius translated *prosphuga* as "clientem" [client]. Camerarius translates it as "transfugam" [deserter], very badly indeed, deceived, of course, by the faulty reading of the Basilian codex.
"They transacted conspiracies" (*epragmateusanto sundromai*). The ancient translator translates this passage thus: "For I shall say nothing now of the wrongs done to me, through which, while the incursions of the opposing parties were most intense..." Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, interprets it thus: "Through which, when the ambushes of the opposing parties were wandering about most, he also had his eyes fixed against me." From these it appears that each read *hote malista* in this place, not *hoti* as is commonly read. Joachim Camerarius also reads it thus, as appears from his version. For he translates it thus: "For I shall not speak now of his insults toward me. When the incursions of the adversaries were raging most, he himself directed his spying eyes against me." Nor do I doubt that this is the truest writing of this place. For so the following things agree excellently with the preceding. Sirmondus, however, and Christophorsonus, following the common text, translated it thus: "For I shall say nothing now of the wrongs done to me, through which the assemblies of the opposing parties were most procured." But *pragmateuesthai* does not have a passive meaning.
"Spying eyes" (*ophthalmous kataskopous*). He understands the presbyters and deacons of Eusebius, whom Eusebius, at the beginning of the war between Constantine and Licinius, had sent to Constantine, that, under the pretext of an embassy, they might explore Constantine's plans and military apparatus, as Constantine indicates a little later in this letter. For Eusebius was under the dominion of Licinius. Nor does Constantine truly reproach him because he had adhered to the sides of Licinius. For since he was under the dominion of Licinius, as I have already 1540 said, he ought to have favored his emperor entirely. But he reproaches him because he had set spies against him, and had almost utilized military service for Licinius. Which are totally unworthy of a priest.
"Which it was also necessary" (*hoper kai palin echrēn*). In the Basilian edition, it is read *hoper kai palin*. But far more correctly, it is written in the codex of Leo Allatius and in Gelasius of Cyzicus *kai palai echrēn*, etc., without the article, which is omitted more elegantly than repeated. And so the ancient translator of this letter in Baronius reads; for thus he translates: "And it was already necessary long ago to depend on your judgment."
"Terribly of those then" (*deinōs tōn tote*). In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Gelasius of Cyzicus, it is written *deinōs*. Truly, that a word is missing in this place which corresponds to this adjective is indicated by the interpretation of both Epiphanius Scholasticus and the unnamed translator. For Epiphanius translates it thus: "Unless the aforementioned Eusebius had come here with the foul protection of his accomplices." The unnamed translator, however, translated it thus: "Unless the aforementioned Eusebius had come here with the turbulent magnitude of those who followed him; and had impudently disturbed the rectitude of the order." By which words Constantius signifies that Eusebius arrived at the Nicomedian episcopate, not by the election of the clergy and people, as the order of the Church demands, but by the force and power of those who favored Eusebius. He therefore exhorts the Nicomedians that they should recover their right, and, having expelled Eusebius the teacher of impiety, they should elect another orthodox bishop.
*Sunepeprakhei* (had acted in concert). A corrupted word: for which *sunetarakhei* [had disturbed] seems to be substituted. And so it is clearly read in Gelasius of Cyzicus.
"Your forbearance remembers" (*Memnētai hē hymetera anexikakia*). Above I noted that this letter was written to the Nicomedians by Constantine, not yet three months having elapsed from the Nicene synod. But this passage seems to refute our opinion. For the Emperor Constantine, addressing the Nicomedians, recalls to their memory the Nicene synod, at which he himself was also present. But that cannot be said of a matter so recent, and done before three months. Wherefore it is necessary that this letter was written by Constantine, at least a year having elapsed after the Nicene council. And thus Philostorgius would be false, who says that Eusebius was cast into exile three months after the Nicene synod was celebrated.
PAG. 51. "Certain Alexandrians" (*Alexandreas tinas*). Baronius indeed thinks these were Melitians, whom Constantine, after the Nicene synod, when they were exciting riots in Alexandria, had summoned to himself at Byzantium. But I would rather believe they were Arians. And the bishops of Egypt clearly testify to this in the synodical letter which they sent to all the bishops of the Catholic Church for the defense of Athanasius. Their words are these: "For you know accurately that Amphion was established in Nicomedia, and Chrestus in Nicaea, in their place, on account of their own impiety, and their communion with the Ariomanites, who were rejected by the ecumenical synod." That is: "For you are well aware that Amphion at Nicomedia, and Chrestus at Nicaea, were established as bishops in their place on account of the impiety and communion which they had with the Arians who were rejected by the Nicene council." But the words also which follow in this letter of Constantine sufficiently indicate what I have said, that those Alexandrians were Arians, not Melitians. For there follows "who had departed from our faith" (*tēs hēmeteras pisteōs anachōrēsantas*). Which indeed applies very well to the Arians: but it cannot be said of the Melitians; since they were only schismatics, but not heretics; and at the time this letter was written, they had not yet joined themselves to the Arians.
"To the truth of the synod" (*Tē tēs sunodou alētheia*). I have corrected this passage from the manuscript codices of Allatius and Savile, with which also...
Gelasius of Cyzicus and the Basel edition agree, in this manner: "Whom the truth of the synod had kept for repentance." This correction is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus and the anonymous interpreter; for they translate thus: "But those good and very excellent bishops, whom the truth of the council once kept for repentance, A he understands to be Eusebius and Theognius, who, having undertaken the patronage of Arius before the Nicene synod and during the synod itself, the Fathers of the Nicene synod had at first wished to condemn together with Arius. Afterward, however, upon the intercession of Constantine on their behalf, when they had subscribed to the Nicene faith in appearance, the synod had spared them, "keeping them for repentance," as Constantine says. Furthermore, the *dia* in this place signifies the sincerity of faith, *orthodoxian*; and it is opposed to the fraud and simulation of Eusebius and Theognius. "I decided to do these things" (*Toutois ekrina praxai*). In the Basel edition it is printed: "I decided to do this" (*touto ekrina praxai*). It is best that we retain both words at the same time. "And to perform thus pure" (*Kai diapraxasthai houtōs hagnous*). B Jacob Sirmond distinguished this passage in his edition differently, in this manner: "And we rejoice that we have performed thus pure and orthodox and humane bishops." And he interpreted the passage thus: "And thus we rejoice that the holy and orthodox and humane bishops have accomplished [the work]." But this interpretation cannot be borne. For Sirmond struck out the word *echontes* (having), against the faith and authority of all the codices. But it was far easier to restore the passage without any change in this manner: "And that we rejoice 'having' performed thus, as pure and orthodox and humane bishops." And thus the anonymous interpreter of this epistle, so often praised by us, reads it. For he translates this passage thus: "Now it is your part to look toward God with that faith by which it is certain that [you] always have been and it is C fitting that [you] be; and so to act that we may rejoice in having pure, orthodox, and clement bishops."
*In Chapter XXI.*
"And walking near the king" (*Kai engus basileōs phoitōn*). In the Savile codex the preposition is added in this way: *kai engus para*, etc. But in the Basel edition it is read thus: *kai tham para basileōs phoitōn*, which pleases more. But Theodoret errs here, who thinks that Eusebius was bishop of Constantinople at the time when he forced Eustathius of Antioch from his see. For Eusebius remained in the bishopric of Nicomedia until the death of Constantine; for he baptized Constantine, who was still bishop of that city, a little before his death at Nicomedia, as Jerome testifies in his *Chronicle*. The same can also be proven from Ammianus Marcellinus, who writes in book XXII that Julian D was educated at Nicomedia by Eusebius, bishop of the same place, to whom he was related by kin. But Julian was born in the year of Christ 331, as I noted on Book XXII of Marcellinus. How, therefore, could he be educated at Nicomedia by Bishop Eusebius if Eusebius had already, before this year, left the bishopric of Nicomedia and moved to the see of Constantinople? I omit the passage of Athanasius in the *Epistle to the Solitaries*, from which it is manifestly proven that Eusebius succeeded not Alexander, but Paul, in the bishopric of Constantinople.
*In Chapter XXII.*
Page 53. "Eulalius" (*Eulalios*). After Eustathius, Paulinus was made bishop of Antioch, who was at that time bishop of Tyre, as I noted in Book X of Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical History*. He was succeeded by Eulalius, as Philostorgius testifies in Suidas under the word *Aetius*. "To transfer Eusebius" (*Eusebion metathesai*). I cannot agree with Theodoret, who says that Eusebius of Caesarea was called to the bishopric of the city of Antioch after the death of Eulalius. For Eusebius himself, in Book III of *The Life of Constantine*, openly indicates that this was done immediately after the deposition of Eustathius. But the letters of the Emperor Constantine mentioned therein by Eusebius indicate this same thing not obscurely. Jerome, however, in his *Chronicle*, places Eusebius after Euphronius, although Eusebius was never bishop of Antioch. "Flaccillus" (*Flakkillos*). The name of this bishop is written in various ways. For sometimes he is set down as *Plakitos*, alias *Phlakitos*, as I noted on the *History of Socrates*. But his true name was *Flaccillus*, as it is written in Eusebius in the books *Against Marcellus*, and in Athanasius in his *Apology*. From which we learn that he was present at the Council of Tyre, which took place in the year of our Lord 335. Therefore it is necessary that he was made bishop of Antioch before this year. This indeed agrees excellently with the reckoning of the years which Theodoret and Philostorgius attribute to Eulalius and Euphronius. For Paulinus, who was the first substituted for Eustathius, performed that duty for only six months, according to Philostorgius in Book I. Theodoret also testifies that Eulalius died shortly after his election. But he assigns a year and a few months to Euphronius. Thus those three bishops administered that see for a space of about three years. Since, therefore, Eustathius was stripped of his bishopric in the year of Christ 329 or 330, as I demonstrated regarding Eusebius: Flaccillus seems to have been promoted to the bishopric of Antioch about the year of our Lord 333. Patriarch Nicephorus attributes 12 years of episcopate to him, who calls him *Phakellios* and writes that he was present at the Antiochene synod which was celebrated at the dedication in the year of Christ 342, which Socrates also testifies in Book II, Chapter 8.
*In Chapter XXV.*
Page 57. "With firm hopes" (*Bebaiais elpisi*). I supplied this passage from the codex of Leo Allatius, with which the Savile codex and the Basel edition agree: except that in them is read "with firm hopes of salvation" (*bebaiais sōtērias elpisi*), but the reading of the Allatian codex is better, which Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms. "Terrestrial flame" (*Geōdē lampēdona*). Epiphanius Scholasticus translates this passage thus: "And I avoid all terrestrial flame too much." See what I noted on Book IV of *The Life of Constantine*, where this epistle to Sapor is related. But although I explained this passage there concerning the incantations and mysteries of the pagans: yet now, having examined the matter more attentively, I would prefer to interpret these words of Constantine concerning the fire which the Persians worshipped, as everyone knows. "That many nations" (*Ola genē katerēxe*). In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written: "many of the nations and all the races were broken."
Page 58. "Constraining" (*Antastelai kataphēgnus*). The codex of Allatius has *katangus*, that is, restraining. "I am persuaded myself" (*Hēmin autois pepeismai*). It is so read also in Eusebius in Book IV of *The Life of Constantine*. Truly, this locution is clearly barbarous. And so the codex of Leo Allatius substitutes *pepeistha*. But the reading of the Basel edition is better, which the Savile codex confirms: *pepisteutai*. "Which is to you and to them" (*Ho esti soi kakeinois*). In the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basel edition it is read: *hoti soi kakeinoi*. Truly, in the codex of Leo Allatius it is written: *hoti soi kakeinoi*, that is, "for also they are yours." Which reading seems to me the most correct of all. In Eusebius in Book IV of *The Life of Constantine*, it is read *hoti soi kakeinō*, where see if it pleases what I have noted.
Page 59. "Appropriately of his own" (*Harmodiōs tēs autou*). More correctly in Nicephorus in Chapter 38 of Book VII it is read: "Appropriately to your own humanity" (*Harmodiōs tē sautou philanthrōpia*). In Eusebius also it is written *seautou*.
*In Chapter XXVI.*
"After five months" (*Meta mēnas pente*). The same Athanasius writes in his second *Apology Against the Arians*, page 777 of the Parisian edition: "For not yet had five months passed."
A "And the blessed Alexander has died." Page 60. "Leading the choir of the deacons." That is, archdeacon. Moreover, from this passage it is clearly gathered that archdeacons were not accustomed to arrive at that position by order of stipends, but were promoted by the judgment and will of the bishop. For Athanasius is said by Theodoret to have been quite a young man at the time when he was archdeacon of the Alexandrian Church. This is perhaps why the archdeacon was commonly called the *corepiscopus*, as Abbot John writes in his book *On the Translation of the Relics of Saint Glodesind*, where he says: "When the novelty of this matter had reached the notice of the aforementioned pontiff, impatient of delay, he immediately directed the ministers of the sacred rites the next day to inspect this with the greater archdeacon, whom they call the 'heart of the bishop'." Formerly, however, I thought that *chorepiscopus* should be written in that place. But nothing should be rashly changed in ancient books, whenever the vulgate scripture can be defended not inconveniently. "Since Meletius." In the Basle edition, the adverb is lacking. Which reading I highly approve. "Some of the soldiers." The emendation of this passage is owed to the codex of Henry Savile, in which it is read thus: "Having hired some of his factionaries (*stasiōtōn*)," etc. The Basle edition also has this, except that it prefers *stasiōtōn*. But the writing of the Savile codex is better. For Greeks call those *stasiōtai* who are of the same faction in civil dissensions, as Hesychius and Favorinus teach. Thus speaks Herodotus in book 1, where he writes about Pisistratus. Certainly the vulgate reading cannot be borne. For the Eusebians did not hire soldiers, but certain clerics from the faction of Meletius, just as Athanasius testifies in his second *Apology against the Arians*, from which source Theodoret drew these things. Theodoret himself confirms this emendation in chapter 28 of this book. "He levies taxes on Egypt." The first accusation against Athanasius made by the Meletians was concerning linen tunics, the canon of which they feigned had been imposed and exacted upon the Egyptians by Athanasius, as Athanasius writes in the aforementioned *Apology* in these words: "They fabricate a first accusation concerning linen sticharia, as if I were imposing a canon upon the Egyptians." Theodoret therefore spoke improperly. For *telōnein* is properly said concerning taxes. But this tribute was of linen garments, which Athanasius was said to have imposed. For he himself calls it a canon: "voice" is used only for tributes.
*In chapter XXIX.*
Page 62. "Thus then of the bishops." In the codex of Leo Allatius, this passage is fuller by a few words in this way: "Thus then of the bishops gathered around sixty," etc. True, these words are not of Theodoret, but of Theodore the Lector, who supplied them from the History of Socrates and Sozomen; which he was accustomed to do elsewhere in his tripartite History.
*In chapter XXXI.*
Page 65. "And the temples built by him." Constantine had built only one basilica at Jerusalem: to whose dedication he summoned the bishops who were then assembled in the city of Tyre, as Eusebius testifies in book IV of the *Life of Constantine*. Theodoret therefore spoke improperly, who says that churches in the plural number were built by Constantine. Unless perhaps he took the *Anastasis* and the *Martyrium* or the basilica of the Holy Cross for two churches. Thus certainly he seems to distinguish them in his *Commentaries on Ezekiel*, ch. xlviii: "Even now in Jerusalem are the church of the Cross and the *Anastasis* and the *Ascension*, and the church in Sion, and holy Bethlehem," etc. And a little later: "What then of the houses of prayer is more than that of the Cross or the *Anastasis*?" See, if you please, our letter about the *Anastasis*, which I published at the end of the Eusebian annotations. B "And he dismissed." In the Basle edition it reads *synapesteile de*, etc., which pleases more. C "And the thirtieth to this one." See what I have noted on book V of Eusebius' *Life of Constantine*, p. 248.
*In chapter XXXIII.*
Page 66. "They hide the truth." More pleasing is the writing which I found in the handwritten codices of Savile and Allatius, and in the Basle edition: "They hide the wickedness."
*In chapter XXXVI.*
"The things now concerning the sepulchre and the statue." Interpreters have not understood this place. For Joachim Camerarius indeed translates: "To whom if any do not give faith, having contemplated the monument and his statue, they might believe not only the writings, but also the Lord who said," etc. Jacob Sirmond followed the version of Camerarius in his edition. But Christophorson interprets this place thus: "To whom if anyone renders no faith, when he has seen with his eyes that magnificent work which is seen today around his sepulchre and statue: let him believe at least the sacred Letters and the Lord saying: 'I glorify those who glorify me,' etc." But Theodoret does not say this; rather, he warns those who are unwilling to believe Eusebius and others who have written about the honors bestowed upon Constantine after his death, that they might be willing to contemplate the things which are done at his sepulchre and statue. But what those things were which were done at the sepulchre and at the statue of Constantine, Philostorgius teaches us in book II of his *History*, ch. 18: "This God-fighter, and he accuses the Christians of propitiating the image of Constantine standing on the porphyry column with sacrifices, and of honoring it with lamps and incense, and of offering prayers as to a God, and of performing the supplications to avert evils." Thus also the enemy of God accuses the Christians, as if they were propitiating the image of Constantine standing on a porphyry column with sacrifices, honoring it with lamps and odors, and offering prayers as if to God, and suppliantly beseeching it to dispel evils. Add to these the things which the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* writes, pp. 665 and 667; for they are of excellent note. Moreover, this procession was celebrated every year on the eleventh day of the month of May, which was the birthday of the city of Constantinople, as the author of that *Chronicle* writes in the same place and Hesychius in the *Origins of Constantinople*. D