The Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia: Letter on the Martyrdom of Saint Andrew

OF THE PRESBYTERS AND DEACONS OF ACHAIA: EPISTLE CONCERNING THE MARTYRDOM OF SAINT ANDREW THE APOSTLE. TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS.

(GALLAND., *Veterum Patrum Biblioth.*, vol. I. Venice, 1765, in-folio, p. 145.)

I. DAMASUS, or whoever the author may be, *Carm.* IV, from the edition of Sarazani, Rome 1638.

Andrew, apostle of Christ, By this very word You are marked by that name, And likewise adorned mystically. Whom the cross carries to the heights, Whom the blessed cross loves, To whom the bitter cross prepares The joys of future light. In you the mystery of the cross Distinguishes itself with a twofold mark, While you conquer shame through the cross, And reveal the blood of the cross. *Epist.* ch. x.

II. JEROME, *Epist.* LIX, otherwise CXLVIII, to Marcella, no. 5, vol. I, p. 328, Veron. ed. 1734.

In all places was he (Jesus) present: with Thomas in India, with Peter in Rome, with Paul in Illyricum, with Titus in Crete, with Andrew in Achaia. *Ch.* II, etc.

III. GAUDENTIUS of Brescia, in a sermon delivered at the dedication of a church.

John in the city of Sebaste in the province of Palestine, Thomas among the Indians, Andrew and Luke in the city of Patras of Achaia, are reported as having met their end. *Ch.* XII.

IV. PAULINUS OF NOLA, *on Saint Felix*, *Natal.* IX, lines 406, p. 637, Veron. ed. 1736.

Here is father Andrew, here he who as a fisherman was sent To Argos, and taught empty-talking tongues to be silent: He, who after he had extricated peoples by breaking The nets of iniquitous error, and drew them to the nets of Christ, Condemned the Thessalian Patras by the shedding of his blood. *Ch.* X.

THE SAME, *ibid.*, *Natal.* XI, lines 76-356, pp. 440, 468, and 659.

Thus God, bestowing pious gifts on the remaining lands, Scattered his great members everywhere throughout the cities. Thus he gave Andrew to Patras; then he carried Andrew to the Achaeans.

V. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS, *Serm.* CXXXIII.

The cross which they (Peter and Andrew) had fled, they afterward ardently attacked with joined forces. For Peter sought the cross, Andrew mounted the tree. *Ch.* X.

[VI.]

An Unknown Author, lib. De vera et falsa poenitentia, cap. 8, num. 22, in Append. ad tom. VI Opp. S. Augustini, p. 236, edit. BB. Paris. 1685.

[VII.]

From the Book of Sacraments, among the works of St. Gregory the Great, Vol. III, p. 143, Paris edition, 1705.

[VIII.]

Ex Missali Gothico apud Mabillonium Liturg. Gallic. lib. III, num. 17, p. 221, 222.

[IX.]

Venantius Fortunatus, Poems, Book VII, On the Senate of the Celestial Court, from the Library of the Fathers, Paris, Vol. VIII, p. 817, E.

[X.]

Gregory of Tours, On the Glory of the Martyrs, Book II, chapter xxxi, p. 754, Paris edition, 1699.

[XI.]

Auctor Incertus, lib. De miraculis B. Andreae apostoli, cap. xxxvi, in Append. opp. Gregorii Turon. p. 1264.

[XII.]

Menologium of the Greeks, edited in Greek by order of Emperor Basil, for the 30th day of November. Part I, p. 221, Urbino edition, 1727.

^A This man, being the true brother of the great apostle Peter, after the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, preached throughout the entire seacoast of Bithynia, and of Pontus, and of Thrace, and of Scythia. After these things, he went to the great Sebastopolis. Then he went to Patras of Achaia in the Peloponnese. And he was crucified by Aegeas the proconsul; and thus he was made perfect.

XIII. ETHERIUS Uxainensis and BEATUS the presbyter, book 1, against Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo. From the Parisian Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. IV, part ii, page 526, A.

That Lamb hath cast off the prey which thou didst hold, and by the innocence of His own simplicity hath utterly destroyed the arguments of thy philosophy. This is the immaculate Lamb, who daily, as the blessed Andrew says, is sanctified on the altar of the cross: Whose flesh, after the whole people of believers have eaten it and drunk His blood, the Lamb who was sacrificed remains entire and living: and although He is truly sacrificed, and His flesh is verily eaten by the people, and His blood is verily drunk: yet, as I have said, He remains entire, and immaculate, and living. Cap. vi.

XIV. FLORUS, in the Supplement to the Martyrologium of BEDE. From the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists. March, vol. II, page xl,

In Achaia, in the city of Patras, the passion of the holy apostle Andrew: who, having been crucified for the name of Christ, completed his martyrdom. Cap. x.

XV. MILO, monk of Elnon, in the Life of St. Amandus, bishop of Maastricht, book 1, cap. 1. From the Bollandists, Feb. vol. 1, page 874.

Thence Andrew, with manly haste, seeks Achaia, And manfully fulfills the fulfilling of his own name.

XVI. WALAFRIDUS STRABO, Poem on St. Andrew. From the Thesaurus of Canisius, vol. II, part ii, page 258.

Straightway Andrew, pricked by the voice of the Thunderer, Believed in the King who saves the ages: Contemning the hanging nets of his forgotten capture, And swifter than word he executes Christ’s precepts. Who can count the cities with their populous crowds, Which, through his eloquence, were scraping away profane shrines, Opening their hearts as believers to Christ the King? Truly he was paying back his debt to the Lord with bloody heel, When, hung upon the open timber of the cross, the martyr Closed the final breath of his mortal life, Taking up purple crowns while Christ reigns.

XVII. RHABANUS, in the Martyrologium for the day of Nov. 30. From the Thesaurus of Canisius, vol. II, part ii, page 348.

The birthday of the holy apostle Andrew. — He preached in Scythia and Achaia, and there in the city of Patras he died, having been hung upon a cross. Cap. x.

XVIII. USUARDUS, in the Martyrology for Nov. 30, page 193, edition of BB. Paris, 1718.

In the city of Patras of the province of Achaia, the birthday of the holy apostle Andrew, who also preached in Scythia. This most blessed man, having been apprehended by the proconsul Aegeas, was first shut up in prison, and then most severely scourged; but at the last, having been hung upon a cross, he survived there for two days. Caps. viii, ix, x, xii.

XIX. REMIGIUS, monk of Auxerre, Commentary on Psalm XXI. Existing in the Bibliotheca Patrum Lugdunensis, vol. XVI.

Although this sacrament is received by many, it is not, however, as it seems, divided into parts, but the whole is undivided to each individual, as the apostle Andrew testifies: The Lamb, although He has been sacrificed, remains entire and living. Cap. vi.

XX. JOANNES EUCHAITENSIS, in his Poems, page 70, edition of Eton, 1640.

Σταυροῦσί τε τρεῖς ἄνδρες ὁμῶς ᾿Ανδρέαν. Three men together crucify Andrew.

^A XXI. Metrical Martyrology of the Greek Church, for the day of Nov. 30, from the edition of Siber, Leipzig, 1727. Andrew bears an antistrophic crucifixion, Having appeared truly, not as a shadow, being a mystic. Antistrophæ fixus cruci fuit Andreas, Sacerdos Christi verus, non umbratilis.

XXII. LANFRANC, Abp. of Canterbury, book *On the Body and Blood of the Lord*, ch. x, p. 239, Paris ed., 1648. It is, therefore, a sacrament and the reality of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. Christ, however, rising from the dead, now dies no more; death shall no longer have dominion over him (Rom. vi, 9). But as the apostle Andrew says: "Although his flesh is truly eaten on earth by the people, and his blood is truly drunk; yet he himself, until the times of the restoration of all things, remains entire and living in heaven at the right hand of the Father." Cap. vi.

XXIII. WOLPHELM, Abbot of Brunwiller, in his *Epistle to Abbot Meginhard of Gladbach, on the Sacrament of the Eucharist against the errors of Berengarius*. Extant in Mabillon, 6th century, Benedict. part ii, p. 682. But this body, after the communion has been completed according to the Catholic custom, remains sound and unharmed, living and entire, as it returns to the Father. For thus the Church of Achaia testifies that the blessed apostle Andrew says: "After all the people of believers have eaten the flesh of the Lamb and drunk his blood. The Lamb who was sacrificed remains entire and living; and although he has been truly sacrificed, and his flesh truly eaten by the people, and his blood truly drunk, yet, as I have said, he remains both entire and immaculate and living." Cap. viii.

XXIV. IVO of CHARTRES, *Sermon on the agreement of the old and new sacrifice*. From the Paris *Bibliotheca Patrum*, vol. x, p. 806, A. Behold, the words of the blessed apostle Andrew ^B come to mind, by which he asserts that the body of the Lord is in heaven, and also that the body of the Lord is able to be taken from the altar: "Whose flesh," he says, "although eaten on earth by the people, and his blood drunk; yet he himself, until the times of the restoration of all things, remains entire and living in heaven at the right hand of the Father." Cap. vi.

XXV. BERNARD, Abbot of Clairvaux, *Sermon on the Vigil of the Apostle St. Andrew*, no. 3, works vol. I, p. 1064, Paris ed., 1719. Andrew was a man like us, passible, and he thirsted for the cross with such vehement ardor of spirit, and exulted with such joy, unheard of for ages, that when he had caught sight of the gibbet prepared for him at a distance, he said: "O cross, long desired and now prepared for my longing soul! Secure and rejoicing I come to you, so that you also may exultantly receive me." And a little later, no. 4: Egeas thinks to frighten him by threatening the torture of the cross: but it is not so. He is inflamed all the more by this word, and openly shouts: "If I were to fear the gibbet of the cross, I would not preach the glory of the cross." But when he looked upon the wood prepared for him, from this he was already entirely glowing; he applauded it and made much of it as his beloved; he greeted it most officiously, received it most devoutly, magnificently raised it up, and boasted in the proclamation of it, shouting more with affection than with voice: "Hail, precious cross, which hast received beauty and loveliness from the members of the Lord? Hail, cross, which hast been dedicated in the body of Christ, and adorned from his members as with pearls." Chapp. viii, x.

THE SAME, *Sermon I, on the feast of St. Andrew*, no. 1, p. 1065. When the blessed Andrew himself was being led to the cross, the people, who were grieving that a holy and just man was being unjustly condemned, wanted to prevent his being punished; but he himself, by most insistent prayer, restrained them, lest he should not be crowned, nay, lest he should not suffer. For indeed he desired to be dissolved and to be with Christ, but he desired to enter the kingdom upon the cross which he had always loved, and ^C through the gibbet. For what does he say to his beloved? "Through thee," he says, "may he receive me, who through thee redeemed me." Cap. vii.

THE SAME, *Sermon II, no. 3, same place, p. 1069*. You have certainly heard, when the blessed Andrew had reached the place where the cross was prepared, how he was comforted in the Lord, and by the Spirit, whom he had received together with the other apostles in tongues of fire, he spoke words truly of fire. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth has spoken"; and the charity which burned in his heart emitted from his voice, as it were, certain most ardent sparks. For what was the blessed Andrew saying when he saw the cross prepared for him, as I have said, at a distance? "O cross," he says, "long desired, and now prepared for my longing soul! Secure and rejoicing I come to you; so that you may exultantly receive me, the disciple of him who hung upon you: because I have always been your lover, and have desired to embrace you." Cap. x.

THE SAME, *in Sermon XVI, on various subjects, no. 6; same place, p. 1122*. Had not this blessed apostle Andrew, whose solemnity is at hand, transcended nature, who was saying: "O good cross, long desired, and now prepared for my longing soul! Secure and rejoicing I come to you." Cap. x. ^D

[XXVI] GAUFRIDUS, abbot, in his 58th Declamation. Exists in vol. II of the Works of S. Bernard, p. 324, A. Joy, indeed, not only in the hope of glory, but even in tribulations. This is a virtue from on high, which made Andrew embrace the cross. Cap. x.

[XXVII] NICOLAS of Clairvaux, sermon on the feast of S. ANDREW. Exists in vol. II of the Works of S. Bernard, p. 728, A. Our Lord, whose school is on earth and whose chair is in heaven, from among all those whom He chose and pre-elected, chose Andrew as the apostle whose solemnity we proclaim with both voices and hearts. O sweet apostle, and primal vocation of the Lord Savior: whose passion distills with such devotion of the spirit that it appears to fill the minds of the hearers with fatness and richness. Whence, not undeservedly, he was received into the singular citadel of authority, which those who saw wrote for the world, and were ministers of the Word. Cap. 1. This sermon, which Mabillon and others attribute to NICOLAS of Clairvaux, appears also among the sermons of B. PETER DAMIAN, and it is number LVIII, tom. II, p. 138, Paris edition, 1642.

[XXVIII] PETRUS BEESENSIS, sermon IV, on the feast of S. Andrew, p. 174, Paris edition, 1657. Andrew, as if forgetful of his own condition, supremely preached the sweetness and gentleness of the cross. Out of the excessive ardor of faith and love, he greets the cross and says: "Secure and rejoicing I come to you." Andrew deems it the chief pleasure if he is sent to the gibbet until he is consumed upon it; and what transcends all the strength of human capacity, as if now journeying from the body, he does not feel the torture on the cross. Andrew cries out: "Hail, precious cross! Secure and rejoicing I come to you; receive the disciple of Him who hung upon you, my master Christ." Most ardently Andrew desires to ascend the cross: that within it he might despise the world and the prince of the world; that from there, as if from a most eminent tower, he might securely receive the darts of the enemy. Cap. x.

[XXIX] AUTHOR uncertain. Book of the Soul's Soliloquies to God, cap. XXII. In the Appendix of the Works of S. Augustine, tom. VI, p. 95. Andrew went secure to the cross and rejoicing, because he was hastening toward Thy sweetness. Cap. x.

[XXX] LUCAS of Tuy, against the Albigenses, Book III, cap. XXI. From the Parisian Library of the Fathers, tom. IV, part II, p. 710, B. Although we read that many martyrs rejoice in their passion, as is read of the blessed apostle Andrew, who, when he was being led to death, was saying: "Secure and rejoicing I come to you"; this must be understood of the joy of the spirit, not of bodily joy. Cap. x.

[XXXI] THOMAS AQUINAS, sermon II, on S. Andrew. From the Roman edition of 1570, tom. XVI, towards the end, p. 48. There are seven steps of ascending to the palm, that is to the cross. The first step, the assailant's attack. The second, the devout procession of martyrdom; concerning these two, in his Life (S. Andr.). The third, the devout preaching of the cross; in the Legend, there: "O if you knew the virtue of the cross!" etc. The fourth, the endurance of prison, there: "He ordered him to be thrust into prison." The fifth, the restraint of the peoples wishing to liberate him, there: "Do not, holy one," etc. The sixth, the flogging with ropes, there: "He ordered him to be beaten with ropes." The seventh, the prayer that he might merit to suffer, there: "O blessed cross." Concerning the passion, it is to be noted that he suffered it desirously, there: "Now prepared for my longing soul"; confidently, there: "Secure"; joyfully, there: "Rejoicing I come to you"; constantly, because he never ceased from preaching; long-sufferingly, there: "For two days"; thankfully, by giving thanks; perseveringly, because he never wished to descend unless dead. Chaps. II, VII, IX, X, XI, XII.

[XXXII] BONAVENTURE, sermon II, on the apostle S. Andrew. From his Works, Lyon edition, 1668, tom. III, pp. 223, 224. The blessed Andrew, as his Legend says, suffered the material cross in his body. Thus, when he ascended the cross, this holy apostle showed that he possessed this humility, when he said [this] to Aegeas from the cross: "I am the servant of the cross of Christ, and I ought rather to love than fear the trophy of the cross." Whence it is said in the Legend that he stripped himself, and delivered his garments to the executioners. Which the apostle, while he attends to it, did not fear to die for Christ, but approached the cross with full joy of heart. Whence, seeing the cross, he did not fear, he did not flee, he did not turn his eyes from it, but exclaimed and said: "O good cross, long desired, solicitously sought, and therefore prepared for my longing soul! Joyful and rejoicing I come to you, so that you may joyfully receive me, the disciple of Him who hung upon you. Save me," he said, "precious cross," etc. Chaps. IV, x. THE SAME, sermon III, ibid., p. 225. Pierced by this fraternal compassion, the apostle said to Aegeas: "I grieve for your destruction, I am not troubled by my own passion. For my pain is of one day, or two, or three; but your destruction cannot reach an end even through thousands of years." Cap. ix.

LETTER ON THE MARTYRDOM OF ST. ANDREW. — PROOEMIA

XXXIII. SOPHRONIUS, as is reported, *De vitis apostolorum*, chap. 1. In Fabricius, *Biblioth. Eccles.*, p. 224. ^A Andreas, the brother of this man (Simon Peter, as our ancestors have handed down), preached the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Scythians, the Sogdians, and the Saccas; and he preached in Sebastopolis, which is called the Great, where the Apsarus incursion is and the river Phasis, where the interior Ethiopians dwell. He is buried in Patras of Achaia, having been delivered to the cross by Egeas, the governor of the Edessenes. The Anonymous author in Oecumenius, in *Acta apostol.* and *Epistolae Pauli*, has almost the same; yet with him the final words are more correctly as follows: "having been crucified by Egeas the proconsul."

XXXIV. HIPPOLYTUS, or whoever the author may be, *De duodecim apostolis*. In Combefis, *Auctar. nov.*, vol. II, p. 831. Andreas, having preached to the Scythians and Thracians, was affixed to the cross in Patras of Achaia, upright upon an olive tree, and is buried there. Cap. x.

XXXV. PSEUDO-DOROTHEUS of Tyre, in *Synopsis*, etc. From the edition of Fabricius, *De vita et morte Moysis*, p. 471. Andreas… was buried in the city of Patras in Achaia, when he had been driven to the cross by Egeates. Cap. x. To these add Pseudo-Abdias in *Histor. apostol.*, lib. III, no. 39 and following, p. 507, in the edition of J. A. Fabricius in *Cod. apocr. Nov. Test.*, vol. II; and ISIDORE OF SEVILLE the Younger, as they claim, in the aforementioned Fabricius, *De vita et morte Moysis*, p. 545. One must also consult NICETAS PAPHLAGO, *Orat. in S. ANDREAM*, in Combefis, vol. I, *Auctar. noviss.*, p. 333.

XXXVI. NICEPHORUS, *Hist. Eccles.*, lib. II, cap. xxxix, pp. 199 and 200, Paris edition, 1630. Andreas, the brother of the coryphaeus Peter... was also driven to the cross by the proconsul Egeates: the charge having been brought against him by the latter, that he had taught his wife Maximilla and his brother Stratocles to detest his impiety and had led them to the faith of Christ. Cap. x.

XXXVII. LAURENTIUS JUSTINIANUS, *serm. in festo S. Andreæ apostoli*, from the Venice edition, 1606, p. 294, col. 4. Observe from his sermons the magnanimity of this most robust leader, his fearless mind, his longing for passion, and his spiritual light. For when he was being led to be placed on the scaffold of the cross, catching sight of it from afar, he exclaimed, saying: "O good cross, long desired and now prepared for a longing soul; I come to you secure and rejoicing, so that you in turn may exultantly receive me, the disciple of him who hung upon you. Hail, O good cross, which has been sanctified by the body of Christ, and adorned by his members as by pearls, receive me from men and restore me to my master, that he who redeemed me through you may receive me through you." Cap. x.

DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN also, *sem.* I and IV, *de laudibus S. Andreæ*, describes more things from the Epistle of the presbyters and deacons of Achaia.

GALLANDIUS' PREFACE

To the Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning the martyrdom of St. Andrew.

SYNOPSIS.

^A I. What we have received above in the general preface among those who study ancient ecclesiastical matters, that we were to collect the Acts of the martyrs, to be arranged according to the chronology of the times; we now begin to perform this act, presenting the encyclical Epistle of the presbyters and deacons of Achaia concerning the martyrdom of the apostle St. Andrew. For although this Epistle has not until now been reckoned by the judgment of learned men among the sincere Acts of the martyrs, we have nevertheless considered it a matter of religion not to omit it altogether: whether because, from ancient times, it was deemed by the judgment of the Catholic Church worthy to be publicly used in the celebration of divine offices; which was a matter especially to be regarded: or because the Greek text, by which the most ancient version, long approved by the Church, is confirmed more and more, has only recently come to light: or because, finally, learned men, although alienated from the Catholic communion, have, a few years ago, published this same Epistle in Greek and Latin, and championed it as a sincere offspring of sacred antiquity. If, however, anyone should think that this Epistle has been incorrectly placed among the Acts of the martyrs for us, he will surely not deny that it should at least be held as an ancient ecclesiastical work; and on that account alone we have judged it worthy to be rightfully brought into our library. ^B

II. But it is discovered that Boninus Mombritius, a Milanese patrician, was the first to bring it to light in his *Lives of the Saints*, with types set at the end of the fifteenth century; for no note of place or time appears anywhere. Since, however, a work of this kind is considered among the rarest, in two folio volumes—[the edition of Venice, 1581, folio, which I use. But the first edition, which I also have in my hands, but which is mutilated, the first five volumes were produced in quarto—we think it not inappropriate to describe here the beginning of our Epistle, so that which deviates somewhat from other editions, and indeed from the Greek exemplar itself, may be distinct. But it is thus:

PASSION OF THE BLESSED APOSTLE ANDREW.

In the following century, the sixteenth, running on, Aloysius Lipomanus, bishop of Verona, published the same Epistle again in his work, *Lives of the ancient Fathers*; but he used another exemplar than that of Mombritius, at least as far as the beginning of the Epistle concerns us. And it is of this kind (1): The Passion of the holy apostle Andrew, which we have seen with our eyes, all the presbyters and deacons of the churches of Achaia write to all the Churches which are in the East and West, and in the South and North, established in the name of Christ: Peace be to you and to all who believe in one God in the perfect Trinity... the true Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, remaining in the Son, so that it may be shown that one Spirit exists in the Father and the Son; and this is, etc. Everything almost to the exact precision of the Greek context.

In the same century, the sixteenth, Laurentius Surius, a Carthusian... [at Venice "at the sign of Hope" in the years 1551-1556, but the three later volumes in Rome by Antonius Bladus, in the years 1558-1560.]

^A in his collections from every quarter, as much from manuscript codices as from published authors, and the approved Lives of the saints, as the title of the work suggests, and arranged by the sequence of the year, followed the Lipomanus edition (2). Later, after the middle of the following seventeenth century, Andreas du Saussay, Bishop of Toul, also consigned the same to print in a work not easily found, entitled: *Andreas, brother of Simon Peter; or, On the glory of the apostle St. Andrew, in twelve books* (3). And the French writer did not only present our Epistle, as the other preceding editors had done, but he also provided it «as clearly asserted as it was accurately vindicated against the various arguments of the innovators; which Edmund Aubertin collected and expanded in a book published in French at Geneva, in the year 1633, titled: *The Eucharist of the ancient Church*.» Thus the author on the front of his work.

Then, indeed, in the year 1731 of the current century, Ludovicus Andruzzi Santandrea (4) arranged for the same Epistle to be reprinted at Rome; preferring to describe the Mombritius text rather than the Lipomanus exemplar, which had been passed over; nay, even following Saussay for the most part, he confirmed the sincerity of the Epistle with the weightiest testimonies (5).

III. Now, indeed, to speak of the ancient version of this Epistle: there is certainly no firm enough character available by which we might rightly define how long ago it was produced. But that it is older than is commonly thought, anyone is able to argue from the ecclesiastical writers whose testimonies we have placed before the Epistle itself. For some seem not obscurely to have derived from it the place of the passion or the manner of death. Others indeed describe some passage word-for-word, sometimes inciting the history of the Acts themselves, or even at times referring to it while silently omitting its name; for it was deemed, as Saussay rightly says (6), as a sure and explored monument encountered everywhere. Nor, however, would I wish to deny that some of the cited writers could have consulted the Greek text rather than its ancient interpreter. But, however that may be, their testimonies, brought forward in continuous chronological order from the fourth to the fifteenth century, are considered to contribute not a little toward establishing either the antiquity of the version or the sincerity of the Epistle itself.

But of the five editions thus far reviewed, published only in Latin, a sixth finally appeared, which saw the light at Leipzig in the year 1749 by the care and study of Carolus Christianus Woog. The learned editor transcribed the Greek text from the Huntingdonian codex 457 of the Bodleian Library; with which Grabe had also collated the *Martyrdom of S. Thecla*, and by whose aid he had polished it in his second revisions, as we are informed by the anonymous preface ^C to the new Oxford edition of the *Spicilegium of the Holy Fathers*. Furthermore, the learned man professes that diligent effort was applied by him in editing and adorning this excellent monument of sacred antiquity. Indeed, he did not change a single stroke of the letter, except where the nexus of the discourse, the carelessness of a copyist, or the correct method of constructing and writing demanded it; where, however, he found some word corrupted by the mutation, addition, or subtraction of one or two letters, he introduced his own emendations into the text, yet submitting all the faulty readings of the manuscript codex. He appended a new version to the Greek text and illustrated it with richer notes. We omit recounting the rest, which the distinguished man placed either at the beginning or at the end of the work; for these do not pertain to our undertaking. We have therefore followed this Leipzig edition for the most part. To the new interpreter we have added the old one—though not Mombritius, but Lipomanus, who is found to adhere more strictly to the Greek. We selected the notes of the editor, primarily those regarding the text, and condensed the more prolix ones; to which we have also added some observations, intending to add many more, perhaps not to be despised, had it been permitted us more opportunely to unroll the manuscript codex, which we discovered only late. There is, moreover, a Greek codex on bombycine paper, number CLXXV, 4, executed in the fourteenth century and inscribed: *Heortology, or Sermons and homilies on the annual feasts*; which was provided to us by the rich library of the once most distinguished senator, Bernardus Nanus*.

^D IV. Now, as to the authority of this Epistle, no one is ignorant that there are various opinions among learned men. For some reject it entirely as supposititious and fabricated; others call its authority into doubt; others at last acknowledge it as a sincere product of sacred antiquity. For there are many things, and not light ones, which are accustomed to be objected in order to undermine its authenticity. It is our intention, however, to recall the more important ones here for examination; and especially those that are known to have been either entirely omitted by others or discussed with a light hand.

Therefore, first: whether St. Andrew the apostle truly suffered martyrdom in Achaia and in the city of Patras, Florentinius raised a doubt (7), moved indeed by the authority of John Chrysostom, in whom we read as follows (8): «The sepulchers of Peter, and of Paul, and of John, and of Thomas are manifest;

but for the others, though there are so many, they are nowhere known.» Hence indeed, someone might conjecture, says that learned man, that the feast of Andrew at Patras was rather a commemoration of his preaching, or the institution of his episcopate, or his birthday, than the celebration of the martyrdom performed in that same city; since Chrysostom—who was located no further from Greece, and indeed was the patriarch of the Greeks—could hardly have been ignorant of the sepulcher of Andrew, which was so widely known in Achaia. These are the words of Florentinius, whose doubt, if it indeed has any force, must necessarily cause the authority of our Epistle to collapse entirely.

^B This difficulty, which it is surprising that Tillemont especially and Woog overlooked, Lequien thought could be removed with little effort (9), if we say that Chrysostom made no mention of Andrew—whose body had been translated to Constantinople by the Emperor Constantius—because he delivered his homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews not in the imperial city, but at Antioch. But the learned man seems to have conjectured this less aptly, and so the objection still stands. For Montfaucon, following Tillemont (10), proves (11) that Chrysostom held these homilies at Constantinople when he was already bishop. We therefore think it more likely that the passage is corrupted, or that the holy doctor suffered a lapse of memory. And the former conjecture leans on the fact that these same homilies, drawn from note-signs (ἀπὸ σημείων), were published only after the death of Chrysostom; from the notes, I say, or from the shorthand pen-strokes by which shorthand writers recorded voices and words, as experts know; from which shorthand notes the work, having been handed down in writing in a plain and common manner, was thereafter brought to light. Added to this is the fact that there were various manuscripts of these homilies, in the collection and transcription of which others at that time are said to have used less fortunate diligence than Constantine; regarding this matter, the very learned editor of the works of Chrysostom says more (12): so that it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that the text provided is flawed through the fault of copyists; primarily for the reason that while no one doubts the sepulchers of Peter, Paul, and John, the sepulcher of Thomas is not so certain, as Montfaucon correctly notes in that place.

But if this opinion should please someone less, it will be permissible to think that the holy Father suffered a lapse of memory here: examples of which you might not rarely find in his other works (13). And this conjecture is more pleasing. For how could Chrysostom have been ignorant of the sepulcher of the apostle Andrew, when it is clear that the translation of his body from Achaia to Constantinople, carried out by Constantius in the year 357, could not have escaped his notice? For thus he says (14): «Christ’s servants indeed have glorious sepulchers, just as they occupy the most excellent and royal city; and days that are known and clear, which are celebrated by the whole world... And one might see that this happens not only at Rome, but also at Constantinople. For here too, the son of Constantine the Great (Constantius) deemed that he would only show him great honor if he buried him in the vestibule of the fisherman (Andrew);» in the vestibule, that is, of the Church of the Apostles, where the bodies of the saints Andrew, Luke, and Timothy are reported to be buried. The ancient author of the homily on that text, *In the beginning was the Word*, among the works of Chrysostom himself (15)—delivered, it seems, in the year 381—certainly looking back to this, has this to say: «The Trinity of the apostles (Andrew, Luke, and Timothy) is a witness of the heavenly Trinity.»

In exactly the same sense and to the same effect, Gregory Nazianzen (16) also: Μοῦνον δ' ἄλγος ἔμεινεν ἐμοὶ, καὶ γῆρας ἀνιγρόν. Ὠ μοι ἐμῆς τριάδος. And to me alone remained pain and burdensome old age. Woe to my trias.

Who also elsewhere (17), pointing his finger to the translation of the bodies of these same saints, elegantly said: «Farewell, apostles, the illustrious colony of my teacher’s struggle.» Since these things are so, who then would rightly say that Chrysostom was ignorant of what Gregory Nazianzen, what Paulinus, what Jerome, and what the remaining ancient ecclesiastical writers handed down in writing concerning the body of the holy apostle Andrew, Father of Achaia, translated into the royal city? It remains, therefore, what we were just saying, for us to suspect that the passage objected to us is either faulty; or, if you prefer, that the holy doctor suffered a lapse of memory while he was delivering those words from the pulpit.

V. Among the objections of greater weight, however, the one considered more valid is that which is taken from the word *triados* (Τριάδος) occurring at the beginning of the Epistle; which, the censors say, you might find with difficulty, or perhaps not find at all, in the most ancient ecclesiastical monuments; just as if all the writings had survived for us which the apostolic writers or those near the apostolic age—Papias, Quadratus, Aristides, Agrippa Castor, Aristo of Pella, and others—handed down in writing. But the name *triados* is older than is generally supposed; for it is found to have been used in the third, and indeed even in the second century of the Church; which I am indeed surprised escaped Suicer (18). Dionysius Alexandrinus (19): «Thus indeed do we expand the indivisible Monad into the Trinity; and again, we gather the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into the Monad.» So indeed do we expand the indivisible unity into the Trinity; and the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, we gather into the unity.

^A And the same Dionysius uses this term again and again in Basil (20). A contemporary of this Alexandrian bishop was Gregory Neocaesariensis (21): «A perfect Trinity, not divided in glory, eternity, and kingdom, etc.» Origen, who is older than both (22), says: «For perhaps also some of the blessed powers, when compared to the many created beings, are those below the primal Trinity; the whole present age holds towards their life such a ratio as a day among men holds towards the entire time that a man can possibly live.» Thus, perhaps, the present age has the same ratio to the life of certain blessed powers—which, when compared to many created things, have turned out superior to those which are placed beneath the governing Trinity of all things—that a day of human life has to the whole time to which a man's life can extend. Nor only here, but you may see the same word used by him repeatedly elsewhere (23). Older still than Origen is Clement of Alexandria (24): «I understand the holy Trinity to be signified in no other way; for it is the third, the Holy Spirit; and the second, the Son, through whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.» Indeed, I accept these words only regarding the holy Trinity, and by the name of the third I understand the Holy Spirit; by the second, the Son, through whom all things were made according to the will of the Father. Eusebius also copied this passage of Clement (25). Finally, let Theophilus of Antioch be added, who in age precedes the others (26): «Similarly, the three days which existed before the luminaries are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.» You have, therefore, both Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church by whom the term Τριάς is found to have been used since the end of the second century. But if the monuments of even older writers still survived, we might perhaps have the opportunity—not only to the age of Theophilus or Tertullian, but to an even earlier one—to assert the usage of the same word.

What, indeed, prevents us from adding to the writers of the Greek Church already reviewed, two of the most ancient Latin Fathers? Tertullian (27): «Let the economy be preserved, the sacrament which disposes the unity into the Trinity, setting forth the three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit... They assume the number and disposition of the Trinity, the division of the unity: when the unity, deriving the Trinity from itself, is not destroyed by it, but administered.» And after a few words intervening: «The Trinity, flowing from the Father through linked and connected degrees, does not obstruct the monarchy, while it protects the state of the economy.» Behold another light of the African Church, Cyprian (28): In celebrating prayers we find he observed ^B victorious with Daniel, three boys strong in faith and captive, the third, sixth, and ninth hour; namely, in the sacrament of the Trinity, which was to be manifested in the last times.» Finally, it is fitting to add another illustrious testimony from the sincere Acts of the holy martyrs Fructuosus, Augurius, and Eulogius, handed down to memory in the age of Cyprian. And thus it stands (29): «They were like Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, so that even in them the divine Trinity might be seen.»

VI. But now, in order to establish the integrity of the Greek text, it is also of interest to weigh that kind of objection ^C which is repeated from the words constituted at the beginning of the Epistle, as they exist in the Lipomanian version which is presented here, where a profession is announced concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. We cited the passage above in §2. Baronius indeed does not seem to have touched upon the matter in its actual state, when he conjectured (30) that in that version a Grecism had crept in concerning the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and remaining in the Son; and therefore that the reading of the Mombritian edition, by which it is stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is to be preferred. But the eminent father of the ecclesiastical Annals would surely not have descended to this opinion if it had been permitted to him to examine with his own eyes those two Greek exemplars of which we made mention above, the Huntington and the Nanian, for which we have no reason to assert that this passage is corrupted or vitiated. Furthermore, both these exemplars confirm the Lipomanian reading, displaying the Holy Spirit, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ Πατρὸς, καὶ ἐν Υἱῷ διαμένον. But if, as Baronius himself testifies, ancient exemplars vouch for the Mombritian reading, there certainly are not lacking those upon which the Lipomanian also leans. For there exists in our library (31) a distinguished parchment codex, most elegantly written, and adorned with gold and skillfully delineated pictures, which is a Breviary according to the custom of the Roman curia. In it, however, after the middle, where the festivals of the saints begin, there are six lessons in the feast of St. Andrew the Apostle, taken word for word from the Epistle of the Church of Achaea; in the first of which the Lipomanian reading occurs.

What are you asking? This reading possesses a sound and Catholic sense; for even though it does not explicitly state the dogma of the Latin Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, yet it does not in any way insinuate the error of the Greeks regarding the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Therefore, many Greek Fathers are found to have used this mode of speaking or one akin to it, the testimonies of whom John Veccus has mostly collected in his *Epigraphai* ^A. Nor, indeed, do more recent orthodox Greeks speak differently, as is quite easy to gather from the Orations of Constantine Meliteniotes. Furthermore, it is known that some Latin Fathers have used this same expression; as, among others, Gregory the Great, who says in his *Dialogues*, book II, ch. 38, following the Greek version of Zacharias: *Φανερὸν οὖν ὑπάρχει, ὅτι τὸ Παράκλητον Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προέρχεται, καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διαμένει.* That is, if one translates word for word: "It is manifest, therefore, that the Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son." This is the very sentiment of the Epistle of Achaea, of which we are speaking; a fact which, until now, has gone unnoticed by everyone.

Since the inference logically dictates that the Spirit never withdraws from the Son, he appears to have said entirely that the Spirit remains in the Son; just as, indeed, in his *Morals*, book II, no. 92, where he speaks of the manner in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the just, he concludes by saying: "Therefore, he remains differently in him (the Son), from whom he does not retire by nature." By saying this in the *Dialogues*—that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son—he does not in any way dissent from Vigilius Tapsensis, who in his *De Trinitate*, book XI, had gathered all these things: "I believe," he says, "the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son; also the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father, and belongs to both the Son and the Father, because he proceeds from the Son as well." And a little later: "That the same Spirit is of the Son, we have proven by many testimonies of the Scriptures, and that he remains whole in the Son; and as he proceeds from God the Father, so he proceeds from the Son, so that the whole Trinity may be believed to be one God." So far the most learned man.

Nor, indeed, should Jacob Basnage be heard here (just to note this in passing), who contends that Pope Zacharias, in rendering Gregory I’s Latin into Greek, completely altered the sentiment of his predecessor; and who, which is even more serious, asserts that Gregory the Great—if you please—adjudged the opinion of his own fellow Greeks regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, contrary to his own intention ^B. But who, finally, could ever induce himself to believe this about such a holy and grave Pontiff? It would be better to say that if his Greek version truly differed from the Latin text of Gregory, it had been corrupted some time ago by some Greek; especially since it is known that John the Deacon had already complained of this long ago. But the opinion of the illustrious Lequien seems more likely to me in this matter, and I therefore consider it worth the effort to bring his words here: "As regards," he says, "the passage of Gregory which is found in *Dialogues* book II, ch. 38, I will say plainly that the reading preferred by the Greek translation pleases me more. The Latin context has: 'For since it consists, that the Paraclete Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son; why does the Son say he will depart, so that he may come who never departs from the Son?' The Greek translation, however: *Φανερὸν οὖν ὑπάρχει, ὅτι τὸ Παράκλητον Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προέρχεται, καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διαμένει.* It is clear ^C therefore that the Spirit Paraclete proceeds from the Father, and remains in the Son."

VII. Come now, let us digress to resolve one further difficulty, established regarding the office and dignity of Aegeas: once this has been excused, let the learned reader pass judgment on the rest of the lighter matters. Sophronius writes, as is reported, that St. Andrew was fixed to the cross *ὑπὸ τοῦ Αἰγέα τοῦ βασιλέως Ἐδεσσηνῶν*, "by Aegeas, king of the Edessans," rendered by Erasmus as "by Aegeas, prefect of the Edessans." Scaliger—what a man!—wonders ^D that Aegeas, the proconsul, is called king of the Edessans by Sophronius, and wonders even more that *βασιλέα* was rendered "prefect" by Erasmus. Blondel, likewise a most keen searcher into antiquity of every kind, quite confidently lashes out at the author, whom he thinks—while busy with other things—to be Pseudo-Dorotheus, when he writes that he is babbling, that Andrew was crucified by Aegeas, king of the Edessans, Father of (as if he had flown in a moment from the furthest East to Achaea). The most accurate Tillemont also adhered to Scaliger; and for this reason, Woog mocks the same Sophronius. We pass over the rest who feel the same way.

For it is indeed a pity that such learned men, while contemplating many other things in their minds, should have assessed the matter of which we are speaking so perfunctorily. Doubtless, only one city of Edessa in Mesopotamia, situated not far from the Euphrates, was present to their minds; so that they supposed Sophronius had spoken of that one; nor did they remember the other Edessa, famous for the tombs of the kings of Macedonia, and celebrated above all by John Cantacuzene. On both, Spanheim, Lequien, and Bayer have written more than the others. The Macedonian Edessa is older, however, at least in name; for the other was named from this one.

situated in the region of Osrhoene, which, according to Pliny (46), was once called Antioch, and because of the spring flowing there with clear waters, Callirrhoe: and the name ^A Edessa is said to have been bestowed upon it by the Macedonians after they had gained possession of it in the times of Alexander the Great. There is no reason, therefore, why we should be forced to migrate to the furthest East with Blondel, so that we may look upon the Aegaea of Sophronius as the king of the Edessenes. For we learn from Tacitus (47) that Achaia and Macedonia were subject to the proconsular government. Hence, it does not occur to me to wonder that Aegaeas, who is said to have been the proconsul of Achaia, should be considered the king of the Macedonian Edessa; and thus from that city he departed and proceeded to the Achaean Patrae, as our Epistle relates. For the seat of the proconsul might perhaps have been Edessa, and Sophronius may have had that in view; but the Achaean Church in the Epistle pays attention, not to the location of the seat, but to the office which the proconsul performed also in the province of Achaia.

Nor should anyone think that we are anxious or uneasy because Sophronius calls Aegaeas *basileus* [king]. For it is found that this word does not have only one meaning; nor do ancient writers misuse it when they wish to strictly denote a king, as is evident from ancient lexicographers. Hesychius: "Basileis [kings]: judges; in Herodotus, those who oppose one acting against the law." Concerning this passage, John Alberti (48) writes at length and learnedly. Similarly Phavorinus: "Hesiod calls judges and rulers *basileas*. For thus the ancients called them, as Homer: 'But the kings [basilees] of the Achaeans, and others.'" That these words ^B of Homer (49), in the passage we are discussing, fit wonderfully well, no one can fail to see. To the same effect, Maussacus also, in his commentary on Harpocration under the word *basileus dia-drome* [kingly running], promised that he would discuss more widely that one of the nine Athenian magistrates was called *basileus*; he forgot his promise, however, and did not fulfill it. Hence it appears quite clearly that Erasmus is unfairly criticized for rendering the *basileus* of Sophronius as the governor.

But allow me to dwell a little longer on the clarification of this Sophronian passage. For while we examine the words of Sophronius and understand well that they are to be taken as referring to the Macedonian Edessa, that which is in Trogus Pompeius, recorded by Justin (50), opportunely occurs to us: "Caranus," he says, "with a great multitude of Greeks, being ordered by the response of an oracle to seek seats in Macedonia, when he had come to Emathia, occupied the city of Edessa. This city, in memory of the gift, he called Aegae; and the people ^C Aegaeatae." Pliny concurs with Justin, in whom (51) one finds: "the town of Aegae, in which it is the custom to bury the kings of the Macedonians." We have, therefore, Edessa situated in Macedonia, and first called Aegaea. Which city, as Vossius points out (52), is called by Greek writers *Aigai, Aigaia* and *Aigeia*: whence the ethnic is *Aigaiates* or *Aigeiates*. While I recount these things, various suspicions arise for me. For since I know the proper name of the proconsul under whom St. Andrew is said to have suffered is reported in diverse ways among ecclesiastical writers; for to some he is called Aigeas (53), to others Aegeates (54): I like to say what I finally conjectured about this variety. Namely, that Sophronius, or a writer more ancient than he whom he himself followed, having omitted the proper name of the proconsul, had first handed down in writing words of this kind, *under the king* ^D of the Edessenes, only in letters; and this passage, so that no one might interpret it as referring to the Osrhoenian Edessa, some learned man might have added to the text of the Sophronian manuscript the old name of the city, *Aigai*, and from that the ethnic *Aigaiates* was formed: and then some unlearned scribe, conjecturing that one or the other of these had fallen out of the text, and thinking that it ought to be woven back in, wrote it out and inserted it into his own copy: and thus it was subsequently taken as the proper name of the governor of the city, and was then used by other writers thereafter; from where it finally flowed into the copies of our Achaean Epistle as well.

But this is surely mere guessing. Perhaps it is better to say that he who ruled over Edessa and Patrae was indeed called Aegaeas; yet you should not therefore immediately conclude that he was Greek by birth, and not Roman; and that therefore the office of proconsul or consul could not have been rightly conferred upon him. For that Romans sometimes borrowed names from cities and peoples, and were not even averse to adopting Greek surnames for themselves, the most learned men, Ursinus (55), Panvinius (56), and Sigonius, have made known: so that accordingly our man could have been called Aegaeas from Aegae or from the Aegaeatae, the city and people of the Macedonian Edessenes. But if anyone contends that he was Greek by origin—which the name of his brother, who is called Stratocles, certainly seems to suggest—I would not indeed argue against it. For it is not, after all, unusual that the Romans also entrusted the government of cities to Greeks, as is evident from ancient coins: from which we learn (57) that Aristarchus son of Damon, Metrodorus son of Menecles, Nicostratus son of Callistratus, and Aeschrion son of Lysias were praetors of the Patrensians. Therefore, he who was our Aegaeas, ruling over Edessa, may have also been the governor of Patrae, not

^A with proconsular dignity, but distinguished by the title of consul, as is evident from our Epistle: where he is called not *anthypatos*, but only *hypatos*: by which name primary men and nobles are sometimes designated; and by these, in some places, especially by the prefects of cities and states, the consular dignity is read to have been granted by the emperors, as can be seen in Du Cange in both Glossaries (58). But enough of these things. For the rest, which are lighter, and which are usually objected to either to diminish the authority of our Epistle or to overthrow its integrity, we pass over intentionally; so that we might not appear to pursue smaller matters, nor to wish to omit nothing: but if anyone wishes to know them, let him approach the recent Leipzig editor.

VIII. What remains is to inquire into the time in which this Epistle of the Achaean Church was written. It should first be defined for us in what year the blessed Apostle Andrew is considered to have suffered martyrdom; for once this is explored, it is understood that the other can also be settled with little effort, since it is established from the same Epistle that it was written by the presbyters and deacons of Achaea, who are claimed to have been spectators of the holy apostle's contest. But since monuments of more solid antiquity are entirely lacking, the "sons of critics" deal with the matter only by conjectures. For some (59) think the blessed Andrew suffered in the year of the Christian era 66, or 70. Others (60) in the first year of the reign of Vespasian, or at least while he was still reigning. Others finally (61) under Domitian. Since, however, the matter is considered entirely unexplored, and more recent writers hold to this or that opinion according to their own inclination, we therefore, until a safer guide leads the way on an obscure path, though with hesitation, believe that the blessed Apostle Andrew finished his martyrdom around the year of Christ 80, and that therefore the Epistle of the Achaean Church was soon written and circulated.

Perhaps someone will wonder that we either prolong the life of the blessed apostle further than is fitting, or rather assert that he was removed by martyrdom as the reign of Vespasian was ending, whom nevertheless no one would call a persecutor of Christians. As for the first point, we meet the objection by following the great Baronius; who, speaking of the final lustrum, and indeed one passed under Vespasian (62), cites a passage from Pliny from which we clearly learn that at these very times many lived beyond their hundredth year; so that it cannot be held as a portent if, at that time, some of the apostles, as is clear at least concerning John the evangelist and some of the disciples of the apostles, are said to have died at a great age: for this reason in particular, that divina ^B by the providence of God it may have happened that the preaching of the Gospel might spread more widely day by day, and the Christian faith might take deeper roots in the hearts of believers, and thus finally the nascent Church of Christ would be sufficiently provided for.

Nor does another objection, taken from the reign of Vespasian, who was by no means hostile to the Christian name, press any harder. Indeed, no edict issued by him against the Church appears anywhere, with the most wealthy witness Tertullian (63) adding first: "What sort of laws," he says, "are these which the impious alone execute against us?... which no Vespasian, although the conqueror of the Jews... impressed?" and in this sense Eusebius also seems to be accepted, where he writes (64) that Vespasian "had meditated nothing wicked against us." From this, however, I do not think it should be gathered that Vespasian was never of a hostile or inimical mind toward Christians, nor that he never inflicted any injury upon them at all. Hilary (65) teaches the opposite: "Did Paul," he says, "...defend himself, I believe, under the patronage of Nero, Vespasian, or Decius, with whose hatred toward us the confession of divine preaching flourished?" To Hilary, Theodoret (66) agrees: "But the laws of the fishermen, and publicans, and the tent-maker, neither Gaius, nor Claudius could dissolve, nor Nero after them; and this, though he struck down the best of the law-givers; for he killed Peter and Paul; but he did not kill the laws with the law-givers, neither Vespasian, nor Titus, nor Domitian, and this, though he used many and all kinds of machinations against them." That is: *But the laws of the fishermen and publicans and of the tent-maker, neither Caius, nor Claudius could dissolve, nor their successor Nero: for although he took away two excellent legislators; for he ordered Peter and Paul to be killed; but certainly he did not take away the laws with the legislators. Not Vespasian, not Titus, not Domitian; although he strove to attack them with many and omnigenous machinations.*

Finally, do not think that the praised Fathers are at variance with one another; for they will agree, as Havercamp (67) rightly says, if you say that which is the case, that the persecutors of the Church mentioned by Hilary and Theodoret, all indeed attacked covertly, though not by open force, as Nero, as Domitian, had proceeded. As regards Vespasian indeed, I am confirmed even more in that opinion by Hegesippus; who testifies in Eusebius (68) that the same emperor, "after the city of Jerusalem was captured, ordered those who were of the family of David to be sought out, so that no one of royal stock should remain among the Jews, and for that reason, a most severe persecution was again brought upon the Jews." Which

the same Eusebius writes was done again and again by Domitian and Trajan. Since, however, the persecution against the Jews under these two latter emperors also invaded the Christians, why should it not have happened in the time of Vespasian as well? In particular, if you observe that at that time and thereafter, those who were considered to hold the Christian profession were called by the name of Jews. To these points I would especially like to add that, to speak with Baronius, Vespasian had thought about removing the progeny of David, because he knew from Josephus and others that it had been predicted by the oracles of the prophets that a man from that king’s family would reign, whose empire would be eternal. Hence, therefore, looking out for himself and his own, the same emperor pursued those who were sprung from the Davidic line: and so it must be believed that he did not even spare the apostles who were from Judea, and who everywhere preached Christ the King foretold by the prophets.

What if there remain some traces even now in ancient monuments, from which it is rightly permitted to conjecture that at some time a brutal attack was made upon the Christians by Vespasian? There exists in Gruter an inscription of this kind:

IMP. VESPASIANO. AVG. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. III I, COS. VIII. DESIG. VIII. P. P. SACRARUM AEDIUM RESTITUTORI ET. RITUUM. ANTIQUOR CONSERVATORI SODALES. TITI I

To this twin [inscription] another two occur in the same place. ^B "In order that the meaning of these inscriptions might be clear, I use the words of the learned Walch; it must be properly understood that the ancients, worshippers of many gods, boasted of the bloody slaughter of Christians primarily for this reason, that they were convinced that by it the ancestral religion was best preserved; so that if anyone wished to defend the rites of the ancestors from injury and contempt and to protect their dignity, this could in no wise be done properly without the oppression of the Christians and the destruction of their religion... Since these things are so, I think there will be no one who does not see that stones, in which, on account of the maintenance of the ancient cult of the gods, thanks are offered to the emperors of that time, are in no way different from those which expressly speak of the Christian name being destroyed, in so far as we consider their argument and meaning; since this very defense of a profane religion was placed primarily in the assault upon the Christian. Wherefore, although Vespasian in the stone just adduced is called not an enemy of the Christians, but a preserver of the ancient rites; yet it is so far from the case that this stone does not refer to the Christians, that I would rather define that it was inscribed for the very same reason for which trophies were set up to Nero and Diocletian: namely, for the preservation of the cult of the superstition of the gods." And many other things to the same effect. Which this sepulchral stone, published by our own Aringus, confirms more and more:

SIC PREMIA SERVAS VESPASIANE DIRE CIVITAS UBI GLORIE TUE AUTORI PREMIATUS ES MORTE GAUDENTI LETARE PROMISIT ISTE DAT KRISTUS OMNIA TIBI QUI ALIUM PARAVIT THEATRUM IN CELO.

Where you may consult the learned editor. And perhaps it will not be irrelevant to seek another testimony for this matter from the Acts of St. Apollinaris, not those which are interpolated or forged, but those which in the middle of the seventh century the Archbishop Maurus of Ravenna caused to be inscribed on silver plates, as Agnellus reports. An anonymous author of the Spicilegium of the history of Ravenna tells the story in these words: ^C «Two silver plates are found in the same tomb (discovered in the year 1173)... In the first were read these things: THE BLESSED APOLLINARIS, BORN AT ANTIOCH. HE WAS BEATEN WITH CLUBS HERE. HE STOOD UPON EMBERS FOR A LONG TIME WITH NAKED FEET, HAVING BEEN HUNG ON THE RACK, WAS BEATEN AGAIN, AND RECEIVED SCALDING WATER UPON HIS WOUNDS... HE DIED UNDER VESPASIAN CAESAR AUGUSTUS ON THE TENTH DAY BEFORE THE CALENDS OF AUGUST.»

I am indeed not unaware that the distinguished Mamachius, both in the passage by Hilary adduced above and in these Acts of St. Apollinaris, considers Domitian to be designated by the name of Vespasian; and that it is certain that he was a persecutor, but not Vespasian, he says, most of all because in ancient monuments Domitian is sometimes called Vespasian, as is evident from the inscription in Hermolaus Barbarus on the preface of Pliny, which reads as follows: IMP. CAES. DOMITIANUS VESP. AUG. GERM. JOVI. VICTORI. The same view was held by Aringus, explaining the sepulchral title just brought forward. What shall I say? Granted that Domitian took his father's name and added it to his own, and thus was sometimes called Domitian Vespasian; which is certainly evident from marbles as well as from coins of Titus. ^D But for the learned man to finally settle the matter, and to completely overturn the force of the authorities and inscriptions which we have just brought into the middle, it is necessary that he produce some monument, in my judgment at least, that is undoubtedly Domitianic; by which, of course, it might be discovered that Domitian, by his own name [was intended...]

^A omissis, to have been called simply Vespasian. Meanwhile, until that is provided, we may allowed by the places already brought forward to accept his father Vespasian.

Scarcely had I written these things when it happened that I read an elegant letter of Laurentius Patarolus (78), in which that learned man, illustrating a singular coin marked with this inscription, ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΣ ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΣ, asserts it to refer to Titus, the son of Vespasian. The most learned Harduin, who first published the same coin, had decided differently (79); but Froelich, a man easily the prince in numismatics, was more cautious (80). But whatever be the state of the matter, no one can fail to see that neither our opinion concerning Vespasian as a persecutor of Christians is overturned by the authority of this coin, nor is the opposite conjecture of Mamachius supported; since in the monuments we have adduced, no character or peculiar mark is shown such that we are rightly compelled to recognize here the word ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΣ as having the force of distinguishing someone from the father Vespasian.

But look, another obstacle confronts you, touching this very point of which we are treating, which certainly should not be passed over. Florentinius (81), whom Tillemont (82) later followed, notes that the proconsul addressed the holy apostle thus (83): "Are you Andrew, who... persuades men to that superstitious sect which the Roman princes have recently commanded to be exterminated?" ^B Whence to the learned man those words, "the Roman princes," seem altogether to refer to Domitian, who moved a second persecution after Nero; and since he deems it not likely that the holy apostle reached so great an age as to be thought to have suffered under that emperor at the close of the first century: hence he seizes the opportunity to call into doubt the sincerity of the Epistle of the Church of Achaia. But this objection is not finally of such weight that it seems to cause us any trouble. For what with those words, "Roman princes," or as in the text ^C of the people, let truth hold its own; nothing compels us to rush ahead to the time of Domitian. Indeed, nothing prevents us from accepting the same words as referring either to Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian; of whom the latter was adorned with the imperial dignity from the year 69, while the former was announced as colleague in the empire in the year 71; and both of whom, moreover, we have seen earlier were listed jointly by Theodoret among the persecutors; or, which perhaps pleases more, we may understand the term as referring to the prefects in the city, whose authority was supreme. On this matter there is a notable passage in Clement of Rome (84), who handed down to memory that the apostle Paul was taken away by martyrdom ^D at the hands of the governors, although it is certain from ancient monuments that he suffered under Nero. Nor does S. Cyprian (85) say otherwise: "To this persecution, he says, the city prefects daily attend, so that if any are brought before them, they may be tried, and their goods adjudged to the treasury." To which it is furthermore pleasing to add the words of Dio, which are clearly worthy of being pondered in the same sense. Thus he writes (86): "Thus at that time the Roman rule was enslaved to two emperors at once, Nero and Helium." Do you see Helium, whether in supreme power or in the dignity of the name, compared to Nero? To what end are these things, you ask? Indeed, to show that from the words of our Epistle, "Roman princes," it is less correctly gathered that Nero and Domitian are necessarily indicated, when it may seem that the city prefects can be meant in the first place; who, through their own edicts, would order laws laid down by an emperor for the harassment of Christians to be put into execution, or even take upon themselves the power to propose new ones, as is known in the case of Helius. We pass over other things which might be at hand to establish our opinion more and more, lest, indeed, one might rightly object to us that citation from Tullius (87): "He uses unnecessary witnesses in a matter not in doubt." And let these things be sufficient concerning the Epistle of the Church of Achaia.

EXCERPT

Concerning a new recension of the text of the Acts of saint Andrew.

Our edition has flowed primarily from two Greek codices in Paris. The one (which for us is A) is Royal, now national, num. 881, of the eleventh century, fol. 282-291; the other (with us it is B) is Coislinianus num. 121, written in the year 1343, fol. 37-41. To this is added a third (for us it is C), the Baroccianus codex num. 180, which we have drawn from Woogius, who used it alone. Yet, by how great labor the text of our Parisian codices excels the Oxford codex of Woogius, it is known to no one...

[1217] It may be questioned: since this applies to the whole little book, and most especially to the latter parts, whose arrangement in that codex is most imperfect. In this matter, one must be careful not to be misled by the brevity of the text visible in the Baroccian codex. For it usually happens in writings of this sort that, from a fuller text in which vestiges of heretical origin are more frequent, the zeal of orthodox editors proceeded toward a shorter one. Furthermore, Woogius added to his Greek text a Latin version of his own making, having placed at the end those final parts which are read in Surius, starting from the words: "and others and others presenting themselves," because he saw that in his Greek they corresponded to nothing at all. The critical historical commentary which he prefixed to his edition is excellent for understanding and illustrating the traditions which were circulated among the ancients concerning the apostle Andrew. He has also explained the text itself with a very copious set of notes of various kinds. Lastly, for our own edition, we have utilized the Latin text edited by Laurentius Surius, read in his *Vitis SS.* (Cologne, 1617, Vol. VI, pages 653 sqq., for November 30), and we have also compared it with the histories of Pseudo-Abdias, to see if anything might be aptly reconciled with the Greek. Elsewhere, moreover, several things from section XXXV onward (in Fabricius, *Cod. apocr.* II, p. 502) have some connection with the histories of our Acts.

Acts and Martyrdom of St. Andrew the Apostle

^A What we have seen with our eyes, all we presbyters and deacons of the Churches of Achaia, we have written to all the Churches in the East and West, in the North and in the South, established in the name of Christ. Peace be with you and with all who believe in one God, a perfect Trinity, the true Father unbegotten, the true Son only-begotten, the true Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and remaining in the Son, that it may be shown that the Holy Spirit is one in the Father and the Son in venerable divinity. This rule of faith we have learned from the blessed Andrew, the apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose passion, which we standing by did see, we have not hesitated to record in writing to the best of our power.

^A The proconsul Aegeates, having entered the city of Patras, began to compel those who believed in Christ to submit to the worship of idols. To him the blessed Andrew drew near and said: ^B "It behooved you, who are acknowledged to be a judge of men, to recognize your own Judge who is in heaven, and having recognized Him, to worship Him; and by worshipping Him who is the true God, to recall your mind from these which are not true gods."

To him Aegeates said: "Are you that Andrew who destroys the temples of the gods and persuades men to follow that worship which the Roman princes have recently ordered to be exterminated?"

The blessed Andrew said: "The Roman princes have never known the truth; and this the Son of God, who came for the salvation of men, has manifested and taught: that these idols are not only not gods, but are most wicked demons and inimical to the human race, who teach men such things whereby God is offended, so that when He is offended, He turns away and does not hear; and when He has turned away and does not hear, they are held captive by the devil himself, and he deludes them so much that, when they depart from the body, they are found destitute and naked, carrying nothing with them but their sins."

Aegeates said: "These are superfluous and empty words. For your Jesus, while He preached such things to the Jews, was affixed by them to the gibbet of the cross."

^A

The blessed Andrew answered ^B and said: "O, if you wished to know the mystery of the cross, with what rational charity the Author of life for the human race, for our redemption, took up this tree of the cross, not unwillingly but willingly!"

Aegeates said: "Since He was betrayed by His own disciple and apprehended by the Jews, brought to the governor, and at their request nailed by the governor’s soldiers, in what way do you say that He willingly took up the tree of the cross?"

The holy Andrew said: "For this reason I say 'willingly,' because I was with Him when He was being betrayed by His own disciple. For before He was betrayed, He said to us that He would be handed over and crucified for the salvation of mankind, and He predicted that He would rise again on the third day. ^C To whom my brother Peter said: 'Propitious will He be to You, Lord; let this not happen.' And being indignant, He said thus to Peter: 'Get behind Me, Satan, because you do not savor the things that are of God.' And so that He might fully demonstrate ^D that He accepted the passion willingly, He said to us: 'I have power to lay down My soul, and I have power to take it up again.' Finally, when He was dining with us, He said: 'One of you will betray Me.' At this utterance, when we were all sorrowful, so that suspicion might be free from all doubt, He revealed it, saying: 'To whom I shall give the fragment of bread from my hand, he it is who betrays me.' When, therefore, He had given it to one of our fellow disciples, and as if things future were already past

He related them, He clearly taught that He was to be delivered up of His own will; for He did not flee from the betrayer and abandon him, but ^A coming to the place where He knew him to be, He remained. Egeates said: I marvel that you, being a prudent man, should wish to defend this [betrayer] under any pretext whatever; for whether willingly or unwillingly, you nonetheless confess that he is fixed to the cross. Blessed Andrew said: This is what I said, if you yet remember, namely that the mystery of the cross is great; and if you should happen to wish to hear it, recount it to me. Egeates said: It cannot be called a mystery, but a punishment. Blessed Andrew said: That very punishment is a mystery of human redemption, if you listen patiently, you will approve. Egeates said: I for my part will listen patiently, but if you do not listen to me obediently, ^B you will experience the very mystery of the cross in yourself. Blessed Andrew replied: If I dreaded the gibbet of the cross, I would not preach the glory of the cross. Egeates said: Your speech is insane, because you preach that the cross is not a punishment, and through your audacity you do not fear the penalty of death. Saint Andrew said: Not through audacity, but through faith, I do not fear the penalty of ^C death; for death

is the worst of sins. And therefore I desire that you should hear the mystery of the cross, so that perhaps, having recognized it, you may believe; and believing, you may reach the restoration of your soul in whatever way possible. ^B Egeates said: Is that to be restored which is taught to have perished? Does my soul perish, that you should make me come to its restoration through the faith, I know not what kind, which you assert? The blessed Andrew answered: This is what I was desiring for you to learn, and by teaching it I will demonstrate that the lost souls of men are to be repaired through the mystery of the cross. For the first man brought in death through the transgression of the wood; and it was necessary for this human race that, through the passion of the wood, the death which had entered into the world should be expelled. And since the first man, who through the transgression of the wood had brought death into the world, had been made from the immaculate earth, it was necessary that the Son of God, the perfect man, should be born of the immaculate Virgin, so that he might restore the eternal life which men had lost through Adam, and that through the wood of the cross he might exclude the wood of desire; for, suspended upon the cross, he stretched out his immaculate hands for the hands that had been incontinently stretched out; in place of the most sweet food of the forbidden tree, he accepted gall for food; and, taking our mortality upon himself, he granted us his own immortality. Egeates said: These words you can tell those who

are able to believe thee. But as for me, if thou dost not consent to this: that thou offer ^A sacrifices to the omnipotent gods, I shall order thee to be fastened, after having been flogged, to that very cross which thou praisest.

The blessed Andrew said: To the omnipotent God, who alone is the true God, I offer a sacrifice every day—not the smoke of incense, nor the flesh of bellowing bulls, nor the blood of goats, but an immaculate lamb every day upon the altar of the cross; ^B of which, after all the people of the believers have eaten his body and drunk his blood, the lamb that was sacrificed remains whole and living. Truly, therefore, he is sacrificed, and truly his body is eaten by the people, and his blood is likewise drunk; yet, as I said, he remains whole, and immaculate, and living.

Egeates said: How can this come to pass?

The blessed Andrew said: If thou wishest to learn, take on the form of a disciple, so that thou mayest be able to be taught what thou seekest.

Egeates said: I shall exact from thee by means of torments the knowledge of this matter.

The blessed Andrew retorted: I marvel that thou, a man of understanding, hast fallen into such folly as to believe that thou canst persuade me by thy torments to explain to thee the divine sacrifices. Thou hast heard the mystery of the cross; ^C thou hast heard the mystery of the sacrifice. If thou wilt believe in Christ the Son of God, who was crucified, I will reveal to thee by what order the lamb, though sacrificed and eaten, lives; and how, though sacrificed, he remains whole and immaculate in his kingdom.

^A

Beatus Andreas said: If thou wilt believe with all thy heart, thou shalt be able to learn; but if thou wilt not believe, thou shalt never attain unto the image of this truth.

Then Egeates, being enraged, ordered him to be cast into prison; where, as he was held captive, a multitude of the people from almost the entire province gathered to him, in such a way that they desired to kill Egeates and to set free the blessed apostle Andrew by breaking down the doors of the prison.

^B The blessed Andrew exhorted them with such words, saying: Do not desire to stir up the tranquility of our Lord Jesus Christ into a seditious and diabolic tumult. For my Lord, when he was delivered up, endured with all patience: he did not contend, he did not cry out, nor did anyone hear him crying out in the streets ^C (Isa. XLII, 2). Have ye, therefore, also silence, tranquility, and peace, and do not hinder my martyrdom; but rather prepare yourselves as athletes of the Lord, so that ye may overcome threats with an intrepid mind, and may surpass torments through the endurance of the body. For this temporary destruction is not to be feared, but that is to be feared which has no end; for human fear is like smoke, and as soon as it is stirred up, it vanishes. And those pains are to be feared which never have an end. These pains are temporal; but those are eternal, where there is daily weeping, and gnashing of teeth, and la-

^A incessant torment, to which you ought to be the more ready, that through temporal tribulations you may attain to eternal rests, and eternally blossom and reign with Christ.

The Passion of Saint Andrew the Apostle

the gods, who are angered against you, may be appeased by this, and may bring it about that you are able to return to their friendship and to ours. But if not, you shall suffer various torments in retribution for the gods, and after all this, you shall perish suspended on the cross whose praises you sang.

The holy Andrew said: ^B Hear, son of death and stubble prepared for eternal fires, hear me, the servant of God and apostle of Jesus Christ; until now I have dealt with you mildly regarding the precision of the faith, so that, having become capable of reason and a defender of the truth, you might despise vain idols and worship God who is in the heavens; but since you persist in this same impudence and think to terrify me with your threats, if anything seems to you to be greater among torments, bring it upon me. For I shall be so much the more acceptable to my King, the more I shall persevere in torments for the confession of His name.

Then, angered, the proconsul Egeates commanded the apostle of Christ to be afflicted with torments. ^C Having been stretched out, therefore, by the soldiers seven times three and beaten with force, he was lifted up and brought before the impious Egeates, to whom he spoke thus: "Hear me, Andrew, and restrain your counsel from the shedding of your blood; but if you are not willing to obey me, I shall cause you to perish on the timber of the cross."

Saint Andrew said: "I am a servant of the cross of Christ, and I ought rather to desire the trophy of the cross than to fear it; but for you, an eternal torment is reserved, which you will be able to escape if, after you have tested my perseverance, you believe in my Christ. For I am anxious on account of your destruction: I am not troubled because of my own passion. For my passion occupies the space of one day, or two at the most; but your torment, throughout infinite ages, will not receive an end. Wherefore, cease now to increase your miseries, and to kindle eternal fire for yourself."

^A Then, indignant, Aegeates commanded that blessed Andrew be affixed to the cross.

But he, having left everyone ^B, came to the cross, and addressed it thus with a loud voice: "Hail, O cross, which has been dedicated in the body of Christ, and adorned from his members as if with pearls. Indeed, before my Lord ascended you, you had a great earthly fear; but now, filled with heavenly love, you have stirred up a desire for your erection. For I have learned from those who believe how many graces you possess, how many gifts you have prepared. Secure, therefore, and rejoicing, I come to you, so that you also may receive me exulting, as a disciple of him who hung [on you]."

In you; for you have always been faithful to me, and I have desired to embrace you. O good cross, which has received decorum and beauty from the members of the Lord, long desired, anxiously sought, searched for without intermission, and at long last prepared for my longing soul! Receive me from among men, and restore me to my Master, so that through you He may receive me, who through you has redeemed me. ^B

When the blessed Andrew had said these things, standing with his eyes fixed upon the cross, he stripped himself and handed his garments to the executioners, having encouraged the brethren to withdraw so that the executioners might come and perform what they had been commanded; for they had stood far off. They, approaching, lifted him up onto the cross, and stretching his body with cords, they only bound his feet, but did not break his knees; for such had been the command from the proconsul, who wished him to be tormented even while crucified and to be devoured alive by dogs during the night. ^C

Now a great multitude of the brethren stood by, nearly twenty thousand, and when they observed the executioners withdrawing and performing none of those things upon the blessed man which those who are crucified are accustomed to suffer, they hoped to hear something again from him; for indeed, even when crucified, he kept moving his head, smiling. And Stratocles inquired of him, saying: "Why do you smile, servant of God, Andrew? Your laughter brings us mourning and wailing, because we are being deprived of you." The blessed Andrew answered him: "How should I not smile, my son Stratocles, at the hollow trap of Egeas, by which he thinks to punish us? We do not depend upon him, nor are we subject to his snares. He cannot [at all...] ^D

even hear; for if he could hear, he would understand that a man of Jesus is beyond punishment, as he has learned by experience.

Having said these things, he turned his speech ^B to all who were standing by; for the people had flocked together, indignant at the unjust sentence of Egeas. "O you," he said, "who stand around me, men and women, children and elders, slaves and free, and all who intend to listen, I entreat you: set aside all this life, you who have come together here on my account, and hasten to catch up with my soul, which is being led away toward the heavens; and despise all transitory things whatsoever, confirming the purpose of those who believe in Christ." And he exhorted everyone, preaching that the sufferings of this temporal life are not worthy to be compared to the future recompense of eternal life [(h)].

The crowds, however, hearing his words, would not depart from the place, and the blessed Andrew was all the more eager to speak many things to them beyond what he had already said. And so great was the power of what he said that three days and as many nights passed by, and no one, overcome by weariness, departed from him. On the fourth day, admiring the martyr's fortitude and steadfast will, his wonderful eloquence, his salutary exhortations, and his mind, so constant, prudent, firm, and sincere, they were suddenly inflamed with anger ^C against Egeas; with one accord, they all rushed toward the tribunal, and as Egeas sat there, they assailed him with clamor, saying: "What is this judgment of yours, proconsul? You have judged wickedly; your tribunal is unholy. Of what iniquity is this man guilty? What evil has he done? The city is in an uproar; you afflict us all. Do not become a traitor to the city of Caesar; grant to the Achaians this just man, grant to us this man who worships God; beware lest you slay a man who is a friend of God. He has hung on the cross for four days and yet he lives; he himself—

having eaten nothing, has satisfied us all. Take this man down from the cross, and we shall all ^A become philosophers; release this man, and all Achaia shall be shown mercy. It is not right that he should suffer this, for even while hanging he does not cease to preach the truth.

But when the proconsul ignored them, at first gesturing with his hand for the crowd to withdraw, the boldness of the multitude persisted against him; for there were twenty thousand men. Watching them, the proconsul, when he saw they had become as if mad with fury, fearing lest he suffer some harm, rose from the tribunal ^B and went out following them, promising to set the blessed Andrew free. Some, therefore, ran ahead to the apostle, telling him the cause of their coming.

The whole crowd was then rejoicing that the blessed Andrew was about to be set free, and when the proconsul arrived, along with all the brethren who were rejoicing together with Maximilla, the blessed Andrew, upon hearing these things, said to the brethren standing by: "What it is fitting for me to say to him, as I am departing to the Lord, this I will surely say. For what reason do you come to us again, Egeates? For what cause, being a stranger to us, do you approach us? What new thing do you intend to dare, what trick to devise? Speak. Have you come to release us as if you had repented? ^C Even so, I would not reach an agreement with you, as if you had truly repented. I would not believe you, even if you were to call yourself my greatest friend. Do you release me because I am bound, O proconsul? By no means. For I have Him with whom I shall be for eternity; I have Him with whom I shall converse for infinite ages. To Him I go, to Him I hasten, who made you known to me, who said to me: 'Let not that savage man terrify you; let him not believe that you, who belong to me, can be overcome by him; for he is your enemy.' Having recognized you, therefore, through the One who has granted me relief, I escape ^D your power. If, however, you wish to believe in Christ, the way of mercy is opened to you, as I have already promised. But if you have come only to release me, I would have you know that I cannot be taken down from this cross alive in the body. For I and those near and dear to me are hastening to our own country, while you remain what you are, blind to your own self. For already I see my King, already I adore, already I stand in his presence, where the choirs of angels dwell in harmony, where he alone as supreme Ruler reigns, where there is light without night, where the flowers never fade, where sorrow is forever unknown, nor is the very name of grief heard, where joy and ex-

exultation have no end. O blessed Cross, without desiring thee no one enters into that land! But I grieve for your miseries, Aegeates, because eternal perdition awaits you. Run, therefore, for your own sake, you wretched man, while you are still able, lest you should wish to do so later when you have no power. ^A

When the proconsul dared to approach the wood of the cross to release the blessed Andrew, while the whole city was in an uproar, the holy Andrew said with a loud voice: Do not permit, Lord, me, Andrew, who am bound to your wood, to be released; do not deliver me, a participant in your mystery, to an impudent defamer: Jesus Christ, let not your enemy release me, who am crucified for your sake: Father, let not this base wretch humble him who has known your greatness. The executioners, putting their hands to the cross, were utterly unable to touch him. And then others and others pressed forward to release him, and no one reached him at all; for their arms were numbed. ^B

Then the blessed Andrew, calling upon the people, said: I beseech you, brothers, to permit me first to offer one prayer to my Lord; then set about to release me. The whole people, therefore, for the sake of the oath, kept silent. Then the blessed Andrew, exclaiming with a great voice, said: Do not permit, Lord, your servant to be separated from you from this hour. For it is time that my body be returned to the earth, but do you command me to come to you. O dispenser of eternal life, my Master whom I have loved, whom I confess upon this cross, whom I have known, ^C

^A receive me, O Master; and as I, confessing you, have obeyed you, so now at this time, in this word, hearken unto me, and before my body is taken down from the cross, receive me unto yourself, so that through my departure the gathering of my many kinsmen may come to you, resting in your majesty.

As he said these things, in the sight of all he appeared rejoicing and exulting. For a most intense brightness, like lightning coming from heaven, illuminated him, and so surrounded him that, by reason of such brilliance, human eyes could not behold him at all. The radiance remained then for the space of half an hour. When he had said these things, and had glorified the Lord further, as the light withdrew, he delivered up his spirit, and with that very brightness he departed to the Lord, in thanksgiving. ^B

After the departure of the most blessed apostle Andrew, Maximilla, a most powerful woman among the notable ladies, who was living among those who had come to the martyr, as soon as she learned that the apostle had departed to the Lord, arriving, she drew near to the cross together with Stratocles, caring nothing at all for those standing by, and with reverence took down the body of the most blessed apostle from the cross. And when evening had come, offering him the necessary care, she buried him with precious aromatics and laid him in her own tomb. For she had separated herself from Aegeates on account of his bestial mind and unlawful conduct, and having chosen a life solemn and quiet, and being attached to the love of Christ, she lived blissfully together with the ^C brothers. [alt-version omitted]

^A Egeates, pressing her hard and promising that he would make her mistress of all his possessions, but being unable to persuade her, was greatly enraged; and he prepared to make a public accusation against the entire populace and to send a report to Caesar against both Maximilla and all the people. But while he was making these arrangements before his own staff, in the dead of the night he arose and, escaping the notice of all his men, being beset by the devil, he was thrown down from a great height, and rolling in the middle of the city's forum, he expired.

This was reported to his brother Stratocles, and he sent his servants and told them to bury him among the suicides. But he himself asked for nothing of his wealth, saying, "May the Lord my Jesus Christ, in whom I have believed, not permit me to lay hold of anything from the goods of my brother, lest his condemnation defile me, since he dared to kill the apostle of the Lord."

These things were done in the province of Achaia, in the city of Patras, ^B on the day before the Kalends of December, where his benefits are still provided even unto this day to the glory and praise of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.