On Certain Ancient Rites of the Church

[APPENDIX DISSERTATIONUM]

[1071] ...although he defended that the Son was similar in substance to the Father, and in all things else. Valens and Ursacius, having seized upon this occasion, disseminated everywhere that second formula, full of perfidy, as if it had been approved by the Roman pontiff, and sent it first to Eudoxius and his fellow Anomoean associates at Antioch. Having become bolder through this, they began to proclaim openly the Aetians' dogma, which they had hitherto preached in a timid and hesitant manner, from which a great disturbance ensued throughout the East and Syria. For this reason, George of Laodicea wrote a letter to Basil of Ancyra, who had gathered neighboring bishops for the dedication of the church which he had recently raised from its foundations, warning him to suppress the rampant impiety of the Anomoeans with a synodical decree together with his colleagues. It is established that those who conclude from Theodoret that Liberius was recalled from exile in that same year in which Constantius, staying at Rome, was petitioned by the matrons, are mistaken: for Liberius was only restored two years after he had been ejected. But in the year 355 at Milan, as has been said, the emperor passed sentence on him, and after the fall of Osius, he was summoned to Sirmium. Wherefore, Theodoret is to be interpreted as meaning that Constantius had indeed given the matrons hope of his restoration, but performed ^A it only in the following year.

In the year 358, Basil of Ancyra, having received George's letter and learned what had been done at Sirmium by Valens and Ursacius, held an Ancyran synod while he was presiding over a gathering of bishops for the consecration of his church, as has been said, in which the Sirmian formula of Osius, Valens, and the others was condemned; and it was decreed that the Son is similar in substance to the Father. From this synod, letters were written to the Phoenicians and Syrians, where the perfidy of the Anomoeans was burning through the zeal of Eudoxius of Antioch: these Epiphanius recites. Then, legates were sent to the emperor at Sirmium, Basil himself, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Leontius of Cyzicus, who, having disturbed the plots of the Eudoxians there, prevailed upon the emperor to write against Eudoxius and the Anomoeans to the Antiochenes. At that time, however, if I am not mistaken, there occurred that which we related above from Socrates, namely that the Osian, or second Sirmian ^B formula should be abrogated, since Basil, the standard-bearer of the Semiarians, possessed much favor and authority with the emperor. And to settle those Eastern tumults and to exterminate the new heresy, Constantius, on the motion of Basil, ordered a synod at Nicomedia. When this had been thwarted by an earthquake, and the same calamity had subsequently afflicted Nicaea, where it had been decided to convene the bishops, finally Basil was ordered by the emperor's letter, together with other bishops, to deliberate on a suitable place. Since there was no agreement among them, he flew off to the emperor at Sirmium. There he found Arian bishops, Marcus of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, Valens, and others. On the counsel of all of them, Constantius chose Seleucia in Isauria for the synod. But it was brought about by the work of Eudoxius, Acacius, Valens, and Ursacius, the Anomoeans, that, with the bishops divided, the Occidentals were gathered at Ariminum, while the Orientals were gathered at Seleucia. In this assembly of Arian leaders, it happened—as Hilary relates in his book *De Synodis*—that the Eastern bishops, who had resisted the Sirmian blasphemy, compelled its authors to condemn what they had done by subscribing. Indeed, it is further gathered from the same Hilary that, after it was decided to divide the synod, at the beginning, ^C Ancyra had been selected for the assembly of the Orientals. For he writes in these words: "But especially when I had learned that synods were to be convened in Ancyra and Ariminum, and that two, or even one, were to come from each of the Gallic provinces."

Why, however, I have assigned the Ancyran synod of the Semiarians to the year 358, and not to an earlier year as all others have done, the reasons I have brought forward before—from which this division of dates is necessarily deduced—will show.

Finally, in the year 359, that third Sirmian formula was issued by Marcus of Arethusa, with the consent of the Semiarians, as will be declared in more detail later. This having been drafted, Valens brought it to the synod of Ariminum, which was held this year by the Occidentals, while the Orientals had convened at Seleucia in Isauria.

ON CERTAIN ANCIENT RITES OF THE CHURCH

Col. 884 A. Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν κηρίαις. The first institution of the old Church, which is retained even today in the Roman [Church], is placed in the distinction of grades and orders. For the chief and most excellent of all is the order ^D of virgins, which is seen in both sexes: with which the monastic kind of life is joined. Next to this is the grade of continence, then widowhood, and in the last place, marriage.

It is a well-known fact regarding virgins, especially women, how ancient and how numerous that order was in the Church. Justin, *Apology II*: "And many men and many women of sixty and seventy years, who have been made disciples to Christ from childhood, remain incorrupt." From this, that Faustus the Manichaean, in Augustine, Book XXX, while he was criticizing the Catholics because they condemned marriage, in turn claimed there was an infinite [number of such persons] among...

you, saying, "there is a greater number of virgins among you in all the churches than there is of women." To him, clearly, as we are accustomed to do with modern heretics, Augustine responds that virginity is commended in the Church in such a way that marriage is by no means condemned. Ammianus Marcellinus, an ethnic author, at the end of Book XVIII, says concerning Sapor: "He yet commanded that other virgins found, consecrated to divine worship by the Christian rite, be kept intact and serve their religion in the customary manner, with no one forbidding it." Books ^A are full of references by Tertullian, Cyprian, and all the most ancient Fathers, to pass by Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and others, to the sacred virgins, who they testify have consecrated themselves to God, and bound by a vow, have dedicated themselves to the service of God and the Church. In the Council of Ancyra, can. 19: "Those who, having professed virginity, violate their vow, let them fulfill the penalty of digamists." In the Council of Chalcedon, can. 16: "A virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, and likewise a monk, it is not permitted to enter into marriage; but if they be found doing this, let them be excommunicated." Our Epiphanius in *Adversus Haereses* 60, n. 7, teaches that virgins by whom the promise of virginity—which he calls an *homologian* (confession/vow)—might have been violated, act more prudently if they bind themselves in legitimate marriage, so that after a long penance they might obtain communion with the Church. It is clear that at that time the vow was not of such religious gravity that it rendered a marriage void. See Cyprian, Epist. to Pomponius, the beginning of which is: "We have read your letter." Thus, the Council of Valence under Damasus, can. 2, commands: "Virgins who have vowed themselves to God, if they pass to earthly marriages, are to do penance." Furthermore, they were consecrated by the bishop. That priests should not usurp this has been forbidden many times, as in the Councils of Carthage II and III. Basil, *Ad Amphil.*, can. 18, commands that their profession (*homologian*) be received at the age of 16 or 17. Severus, in the Council of Agde, can. 19: "Monastics, however moral and approved their life may be, shall not be veiled before their 40th year."

Col. 884 ^C A. *El dé tis teleutesantos.* In Heresy 59, n. 14, he had said that those who, after a divorce, took other wives to themselves were nevertheless tolerated in the Church. Concerning this we have written something in that place. Here, however, since he was enumerating the legitimate and accepted orders and ranks of the Church, he diligently added that caveat, that ^D second marriages are approved only after the death of the former spouse, even if, as we have said, those of another kind were somehow tolerated. Although towards digamists, who, with the former wife dead, took another, the discipline among the ancients was more severe. For the Council of Laodicea, can. 1, decreed thus: "Concerning the necessity that, according to the ecclesiastical canon, those who have been freely and legally joined in second marriages, not having committed secret marriage, after a short time has passed and they have given themselves to prayer and fasting, we have decreed that communion should be granted to them by indulgence." So that according to the canon of the Church, those who have been bound by second marriages freely and legally, and have not contracted a clandestine marriage, after a short time has elapsed, after they have occupied themselves with prayers and fasts, communion may be granted to them. But the Council of Neo-Caesarea, can. 7: "A presbyter is not to feast at the weddings of those marrying a second time; for since the digamist asks for penance, who shall be the presbyter who, by his participation in the feast, gives consent to the marriages?" He forbids the presbyter to be present at the marriages of digamists, lest by his presence he seem to favor them. Further, the Council of Ancyra, can. 19, commands that those who have violated the virginity which they promised to God be coerced by the same penalty as digamists. It is apparent, therefore, that digamists were once marked with ignominy and were bound to a public penance, but one that was very brief and more tolerable. We have already seen above how severe the sanction of the Council of Elvira was, for in the present danger of shipwreck and death, it permits baptism by anyone, with the sole exception of digamists. But nevertheless, digamists were received into the Church, and those who would not communicate with them were held for heretics. Hence, Nicene, can. 8, when it prescribes a formula of profession for the Novatian heretics, according to which admission is open to them to the Church, says: "But before all things, this, it behooves them to confess in writing, that they will agree to and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is to say, both to communicate with digamists and with those who have fallen in persecution." It behooves them before all else to profess in writing that they will agree to and embrace the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church: namely, that they shall communicate with digamists, and with those who have fallen in persecution. But it is asked who those digamists were. For a certain jurisconsult, who published notes on the code of the Church's canons, says that this is generally unknown. He himself, however, explains three types of digamy: the first is when someone has two wives at the same time, which was once permitted to the Jews, but was prohibited by Roman laws; the second is when someone, the marriage having been dissolved by the death of the former spouse, contracts a second marriage; the third, which he states is commonly unknown, is when, outside of a cause of adultery, the wife being repudiated, another is brought in. For since various causes of divorce outside of adultery were once accepted by the laws of the age, the Church never admitted them. Therefore, whoever, for other causes than on account of adultery, having dismissed his wife, associated in marriage with another, this man, says that jurisconsult, was considered a digamist, and that canonical penalty, of which Neocaesarea and Laodicea make mention, was imposed upon him. From which discourse it follows that those digamists who, the wife having died, joined themselves to another, were free of this penalty. But these three kinds of digamy were neither unknown to the general public, nor are they irrelevant, and it is clear that those three canons of the councils cited pertain to those latter digamists. For the Laodicean [council] calls those digamists of whom it speaks "freely and legally joined in second marriages," i.e., those who, by the license and power granted to them by Christ and the Church.

^A have been severe. Nor can the canons be explained otherwise than by Balsamon and Zonaras.

Column 884 B. *The crown of all these, so to speak.* This is an illustrious passage of Epiphanius regarding the continence and celibate life of the clergy. But in his fifty-ninth heresy, number four, he explains the ecclesiastical custom in this matter much more openly and significantly. For he teaches first of all that no one, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon, is to be ordained if he is a digamist. Furthermore, neither these men nor a subdeacon should be consecrated otherwise than if, their former and only wife having died, or if they have been separated from the fellowship and congress of the same while she is still living, they are altogether virgins; especially where the ecclesiastical canons are accurately observed. For the fact that in certain places presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons still beget children is done through a certain abuse and corruption of discipline; or indeed through necessity, where, on account of the huge multitude of the people, a supply of ministers is not available. For otherwise, by the decree of the Church, continence is prescribed for these orders of clergy: and no authority can be held to be either more express or more holy than that of Epiphanius. ^B Equal to this and twin to it is that testimony of Jerome against Vigilantius, who, like the heretics of our own time, was attacking the chastity of the clergy. "What," he says, "will the Churches of the East do? What of Egypt and the apostolic see, which either accept clerks who are virgins, or continent men, or, if they have had wives, have ceased to be husbands?" And indeed even the more recent Greeks admit this, that after those holy orders were received, it was permitted to no one to take a wife. Regarding the twenty-sixth apostolic canon, Balsamon and Zonaras acknowledge this. The words of the canon are: "Of those who have entered into the clergy unmarried, we command that only readers and cantors who desire to marry may do so." Regarding which, Balsamon observes this: that before ordination, ^C presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons could contract nuptials and be ordained in such a state; after ordination, this was allowed only to readers and cantors. Zonaras adds that before ordination, presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons are asked whether they wish to live continently and chastely. But if they deny it, it is permitted that they take wives before consecration. Certainly, in the canon of Ancyra, canon ten, it is read to have been sanctioned regarding deacons, so that those who at the very time of their ordination testified that they could not be without marriage, and therefore took wives after ordination, are not to be removed from their status, because that was granted to them by the bishop: "But this, if any, having been silent, and having promised at the imposition of hands to remain thus, after these things have come to marriage, are to be deposed from the diaconate." ^D This, he says, if any by chance have kept silent, and at the ordination have consented to remain in that very state (namely, of continence), when they subsequently enter into marriage, they are to be expelled from the diaconate. From which canon it can be proved that the consecration of major clergy, at least up to the deacons, had already at that time an implicit, as they say, vow of continence; for when he appends that condition, "if any, having been silent, and having consented at the imposition of hands to remain thus," beyond doubt

^A it signifies that a tacit law of continence is bound up with ordination itself, which could only be avoided by a specifically expressed protestation. That such a condition existed in the acceptance of the episcopate is clear from the case of Synesius, who, in Epist. 105, when sought by the Ptolemeans to be their bishop, asserts that he forewarns and testifies that he does not wish to be separated from his spouse. But regarding the bishops, there is a ridiculous exemption made by the modern Greeks, who forbid marriage only to them. Nor is that 3rd canon of the Council of Carthage any less ineptly understood: "It is agreed that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, according to their own—or, in other copies, 'former'—statutes, should also abstain from their wives," etc. Regarding this canon, learned men long ago refuted the ignorance of the Greeks and heretics, and especially that of Balsamon, who, on canon 4 of the council of Carthage—which is commonly considered the second—uttered mere trifles. And yet the authority of the 3rd and 4th canons of that same council, which demand continence from bishops, presbyters, and deacons, is so clear and explicit that it rejects all mockery and deception. "It is agreed," says Carthage 2, canon 2, "that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, or those who handle the sacraments, guardians of modesty, should even abstain from their wives." It was said by all: "It is agreed that in all things and by all who serve the altar, modesty should be maintained." ^B There also occurs canon 14 of Chalcedon: "Since in some provinces it has been permitted to readers and cantors to marry, the holy council has decreed that it is not lawful for any of them to take a heterodox wife." Since in some provinces it was permitted to readers and cantors to take wives, it was therefore not allowed to the other orders, most especially subdeacons, and not even to readers and cantors everywhere, but only in certain provinces. Although regarding subdeacons, it seems to have been relaxed at times, not by any decree of canon, as Epiphanius says, but by a certain indulgence and *oikonomia*; for the canons of the Councils of Carthage, in which continence is explicitly commanded, included only bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Just as also Arles II, canon 3: "If any of the clergy from the rank of deacon should presume to keep with him in his protection a woman other than his grandmother, mother, sister, daughter, niece, or a woman who has 'converted' with him, let him be held alien from communion"; for he calls her 'converted' who of her own will hath separated herself from the intimacy of a man, according to the preceding canon: "That no one should be assumed to the priesthood who is established in the bond of marriage, unless conversion has been promised; it is not fitting." But the Council of Toledo I, canon 4, decreed: "That a subdeacon taking another wife should be held among the doorkeepers or readers." But if he takes a third—a thing not even to be mentioned—after being restrained for two years, and having been reconciled after penance, let him communicate among the laity. To these, Pope Siricius in his letter, which was read in the Council of Telepte, canon 9; Innocent, epist. 2, cap. 9, and epist. 3, cap. 1, forbid only presbyters and deacons to cohabit with their wives: whose decrees are confirmed by the Council of Agde, canon 9. Which same canon 39, however, also includes subdeacons: "Presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, or those ranking after them, who have no permission to take wives, should also avoid the company of strange marriages." Regarding the three orders, the Council of Elvira, canon 33, also agrees; and Carthage II, canon 2, signifies that this is an apostolic institution: "That which the apostles taught," he says, "and antiquity itself preserved, let us also guard." These few things, out of the infinite number that existed in the adversaries' works, we have selected concerning the celibacy of the clergy. The rest you will find discussed in the Ecclesiastical Annals for the year 58, and also by others who have written against the heresies, regarding the same argument.

Col. 884 B. *It is not permissible to accept a second marriage.* That a man who has been married twice was excluded not only from the episcopal office, but also from all sacred orders, is a position which anyone who wishes to prove to be merely a perpetual custom would be abusing both his leisure and his paper intemperately. Regarding bishops, there is the passage of the Apostle I Tim. III: "It behooves a bishop to be the husband of one wife"; which he repeats for the same at Titus, chap. 1:7. In which places Beza, and all the heretics, especially Molinaeus in his *Shield of Faith*, as well as that jurisconsult refuted by us above, interpret the Apostle as speaking of those 'digamists' who, without a legitimate cause—that is, beyond the fault of adultery—having repudiated their spouse, had taken another. But even though this very type of digamy is included in the same decree of the Apostle, it is nonetheless most absurd to believe that those are not also included who, after their wife has died, have taken for themselves another—and, indeed, a legitimate—spouse. Concerning which you have in this place the most luminous testimony of Epiphanius; and likewise in the heresy of the Cathari, 59, number 4, where he explicitly denies that one who has taken another wife after the death of his first spouse is received into sacred orders. Which is so true, that not even the Arians dared to go against that common and received custom. For in the heresy of the Ebionites, 30, number 5, Count Joseph, when the Arians, to draw him to their side, promised him a bishopric, entered into a second marriage after his first wife had died, so that he might not be ordained by them against his will. It was formerly questioned whether one who had possessed a spouse before baptism should be considered such a digamist, who would be barred from ecclesiastical orders. Concerning which matter, Jerome's opinion stands in Epist. to Oceanus, which is 83, which is not very probable. Contrary to this is the opinion of Augustine, book *On the Good of Marriage*, chapter 18, and of other Fathers, which is supported by ecclesiastical tradition and custom. Concerning which matter, the first canon of the Council of Valence, which was celebrated under Damasus, thus ordains: "That those who are married twice should not be ordained as clergy, even if they had stained themselves with the necessity of this unhappy fate while still Gentiles." See Innocent I, Epist. 2, c. 6. Nay, Pope Zosimus, ep. 1, does not permit only a bishop, or a deacon, or a subdeacon, but not even a reader or an exorcist to be a man who is the husband of a widow. I return to that passage of the Apostle I Tim., III. Which, as I said, it must not be denied also pertains to those digamists who, having repudiated a spouse in any way, have entered into new marriages—in which sense Chrysostom has interpreted it, who himself, however, of the other type of digamous marriage...

and indeed of those who had led other marriages after the death of their former wives, makes mention. Some, he says, in order that it should be "of one wife," claim this was said ^A to mean that he should have but one wife (a deceased one, obviously). Clarius, in his Commentary on Titus, hom. 2, where he brings forth this reason for the apostolic mandate, says: "For he who has kept no benevolence toward her who has departed, how could he become a good guardian?" He who is found to have kept no benevolence for a deceased wife, in what way will he be able to preside over the Church? He calls the deceased "the departed," not one who has left having been repudiated, as an unskilled jurist translates; for even among Theophylact the same words of Chrysostom are rendered thus: "For he who has kept no benevolence toward her who has passed away," etc. Wherefore Chrysostom never excluded that later and legitimate kind of digamy from that apostolic decree. Theodoret alone—which I very much wonder at—seems to think that the Apostle repudiated only those digamists who had had several wives at the same time. In this he is not to be listened to, and much less so are the heretics, such as Beza and the rest, who think that an ordinance is contained in the apostolic words which permits no one to be promoted to the episcopate unless he has taken a wife. Which Theophylact long ago refuted.

Col. 884 C. *But if there are many.* Augustine teaches how clerics are to be chosen from monks in Epist. 76.

Ibid. *And deaconesses are established.* Epiphanius declares the use and institution of deaconesses more fully in the heresy of the Collyridians, which is 79, numbers 3 and 4. Where he writes that they are chosen for the services of women who are being baptized, and other functions of that kind, and that this happens primarily from the order of widows. Whence they are called both widows and presbytides. But in this place he signifies not only widows, but that perpetual virgins also are taken. Zonaras and Balsamo, in their Commentary on canon 19 of the Nicene Council, teach that virgins were especially chosen: "Virgins," says Zonaras, "were of old brought to God in a profession of chastity, whom the bishops would consecrate according to the 6th canon of the Council of Carthage, and would provide for their protection according to the 44th canon of the same council; from which virgins also deaconesses were ordained at the appropriate time, that is, when they reached forty years of age; and such women also took up the habit from the bishops in that twenty-fifth year of their age." Tertullian, however, in his book *On the Veiling of Virgins*, ch. 9, signifies that widows were appointed to such ministries by the authority of the Apostle, and complains of a certain bishop who had somewhere "enrolled a virgin in the widows' order before twenty years of age." The Council of Carthage IV, cap. 12, speaks thus of their office: "Widows, or consecrated women, who are chosen for the ministry of baptizing women, should be so instructed in their office that they can teach the ignorant and rustic women in apt and sound speech, at the time they are to be baptized, how they ought to respond to the baptizer, and how they should live after having received baptism." The Council of Chalcedon, canon 15: "A woman is not to be ordained a deaconess before forty years of age, and this with careful examination." The Council of Agde (Agathense) decreed the same in can. 19. Ignatius, epist. 9: "I salute the guardians of the holy portals, the deaconesses in Christ." Furthermore, the Council of Epaon, can. 21, abolished deaconesses: "The consecration of widows," it says, "which they call deaconesses, we utterly abolish from all our region, imposing upon them only the blessing of penance, if they desire to be converted." Nay, even the Laodicean Council, at least in that part which decrees that they should not rule over other women in any way, nor usurp the function of teaching, as Zonaras and Balsamo declare on can. 11. Whose words are these: "That it is not permitted for the so-called presbytides, or presiding women, to be established in the Church." Which the old Latin edition conceives thus: Women, who among the Greeks are called presbyteræ, but among us are named senior widows, univirae, and matriculariae, ought not to be established in the Church as ordained. The *Pseudodiataxis* of Clement, lib. II, cap. 26, trifles concerning deaconesses, where it says the bishop is in the likeness of God the Father, the deacon in the likeness of Christ the Lord, but the deaconess in the likeness of the Holy Spirit. Hence, just as the Holy Spirit says or does nothing of Himself, but glorifying Christ, waits for His will, so deaconesses ought to undertake nothing without the deacon. Which things are old wives' tales, and furthermore reek of the heresy of the Pneumatomachi.

Col. 885 A. *And following these, exorcists.* There is frequent mention of all these and the preceding orders in the ancient synods and among the ancient Fathers. In the first place, the Fourth Council of Carthage describes each single degree most accurately, and declares by what rite each is to be initiated. Among Ignatius, both in other epistles and in the last one, 9, besides those major ones, are commemorated Lectors, Cantors, Doorkeepers, Gravediggers, Exorcists. Concerning all of whom, consult the *Annals of the Church*.

Ibid. B. *Synaxes being celebrated.* *Synaxis* properly signifies sacred assemblies, and the divine office which is celebrated in them by the faithful; which embraces the reading of the sacred Scriptures, psalmody, the tract, or sermon to the people, and finally, where there is need, the celebration of the divine mysteries, as our Fronto Ducaeus noted on Chrysostom's orat. 2 *Against the Jews*. Sometimes, however, as in Dionysius, especially in the book *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, cap. 5, it is taken for the communion itself, or the sacrifice of the mass. For there he inquires why the appellation of communion or synaxis is primarily attributed to that divine and most august sacrament, which he calls the "rite of rites," when the others also have the power to "lead our divided lives into a unified deification," that is, to be able to unite them. Properly, however, as we have said, *synaxis* sounds as a sacred assembly and the divine office which is performed therein. Thus Epiphanius in heresy 69, which is that of the Ariomanites, concerning Arius and the remaining presbyters distributed through the urban churches of Alexandria: "Each of these in the accustomed synaxis, teaching the people entrusted to him in the interpretations," etc. This our same Fronto calls the collection or mass. [alt-version omitted]

Displeased was Casaubon by this emendation, who, with Erasmus, defends the term ^A *synaxis* here as meaning communion, relying on the argument that the offering of gifts, of which Chrysostom speaks, denotes the Eucharist. But the inattentiveness of that critic is remarkable. For those gifts are not bread and wine, which are employed for the Eucharist, or the Eucharist itself, but rather the souls of the brethren and Christians, whom he was exhorting his hearers to strive to bring to the synaxis and preserve.

Next is that very passage of Epiphanius which we have before us, in which he says that the synaxes, according to apostolic tradition, fall on Wednesday, Friday, and the Lord's Day. Here it may be doubted (these are Casaubon’s words) whether sacred assemblies are simply understood, for hearing the Word and for prayer, or whether Epiphanius also meant the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The reason for the doubt arises from the observation of the different practices of the Churches; for, as Socrates testifies, almost all the Churches throughout the world were accustomed to gather for synaxes on these days, and also on the Sabbath, in which the mysteries were celebrated. So much for him. But that which he says Socrates affirms—that in most all the Churches of the world synaxes and mysteries were celebrated on the fourth day, the sixth, and the Sabbath—is most false. That this was most customary everywhere regarding the Sabbaths, if you exclude the Roman and Alexandrian Churches, is taught in that book which Casaubon cites, *History* V, ch. 21. But that on the fourth day or the sixth day synaxes and mysteries were celebrated, ^B he nowhere reports. Rather, he relates it regarding only the Alexandrians, that all things among them, which are customary to be done in synaxes, except for the mysteries and sacrifices, are performed on those two days. Therefore, it cannot be concluded, neither from Epiphanius nor from Socrates, that on Wednesday and Friday Christians celebrated those most august mysteries of the Lord's Body. Before I discuss whether this can be gathered from elsewhere, that error is first to be corrected which not only Casaubon, but also other pious and learned men long ago, seem to have imbibed: that in all synaxes the celebration and participation of the mysteries took place. Which is otherwise; for a synaxis differs from the celebration of the mysteries and communion just as a genus differs from a species: because it was not in all synaxes that the Lord's Body was either offered or used by the faithful. This is understood first from Socrates, in that place which we cited a little before, where he writes that synaxes occurred at Alexandria on the fourth day and on Friday, ^C *without the celebration of the mysteries*.

Thus it may be concluded concerning the Orientals and Greeks in general. For through the solemn days of the fasts, no mysteries and sacrifices were performed, nor did the faithful communicate publicly and lawfully: for the Council of Laodicea, in canon 49, forbids offering bread during the Lenten season, except on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day: "That one ought not to offer bread during Lent, except on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day alone." This canon most people have not rightly interpreted as referring to *eulogia*, or leavened bread, of which the same Council of Laodicea, canon 14, and Innocent I, epistle 1, ch. 5, treat. And on this account they think that it was not at all allowed to offer them during those days, lest there be an occasion for breaking the fast: the very force and power of the word *prospherein* refutes the authors of this most false interpretation, which is usually accepted regarding sacrifice and oblation, as in Nicaea, canon 18. Therefore, *prospherein arton* is to represent the bread itself, from which the Body of Christ would be made by consecration. This is done partly by the priests themselves in the function of sacred rites and ^D *telete*, partly by the faithful before the celebration of the mysteries. For no one communicated without some mark and without their own oblation, but offered their own bread and wine. Hence that vehement complaint of Cyprian concerning wealthy matrons, book *On Works and Alms*: "You are wealthy and rich, and you believe that you celebrate the Lord's day, you who do not consider the treasury at all; who come to the Lord’s day without a sacrifice; who take part of the sacrifice which a poor person has offered." Augustine, *Sermon 215 De Tempore*: "Offer the oblations which are to be consecrated on the altar." A person of means ought to feel ashamed if they communicate from another's oblation. Which he repeats in the following sermon. Since, therefore, he who was endowed with the right of communion was able either to bring or certainly to offer that from which he was about to communicate; hence the ancient canons, those who remained in the final stage of penitents, whom they called *systasis*, who were participants of prayers only with the faithful, and did not, while taking the Lord's Body, *koinonein*, were said to do so *aneu prosphoras*, as is in the Council of Ancyra, canons 5 and 24. From which order they were finally transferred to the absolute and complete state, which they call *methexis ton hagion* and *to teleion*, when, namely, they were admitted to make oblations and to participate in the Eucharist. For the oblations of just anyone were not received, but those of wicked men and penitents, and in general of the *adeiktoi* and *akoinonetoi* were rejected. Concerning which, see *Apostolic Constitutions*, book II, ch. 5. And the Council of Vaison, canon 2, commands that the oblations of penitents, who are overtaken by sudden passing in the fields or on journeys without communion, should be received.

Therefore, the oblations were first examined by the deacons; and it was inquired whether they were of such a kind,

that they could be presented at the altar. Therefore, in the council of Laodicea, the ^A *prosphora* (offering) can be understood as referring to both types of oblation, both that which was made by the faithful and that which was made by the priests. Nor does it stand in the way that it is written in the canon *prospherein arton* (to offer bread); which seems to be the reason why Catholic men interpreted those words as referring to *eulogia* (blessed bread) rather than the Eucharist. For either the "bread" refers to that which existed before the consecration, or the body of the Lord itself is called "bread," by usage common both in the Scriptures and among the Fathers. Thus, in the Council of Carthage, in Zonaras and Balsamon, canon 40: "Regarding that it is not permitted further [to offer] bread and wine mixed with water, whatever it be, in the holies, so that nothing more than the body and blood of the Lord may be offered in the holies; as the Lord himself also handed down, that is, bread and wine mixed with water." Which among the Latins is read thus in the canon of the Council of Carthage: "That in the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, nothing more be offered than what the Lord himself handed down, that is, bread, and wine mixed with water." Hence, there is nothing more certain than that, in the canon of Laodicea, it is forbidden for oblations and sacrifices to be celebrated throughout the solemn days of the fast. It makes an exception for the Sabbath and the Lord's Day [Sunday], on which days it was considered sinful to fast in the East. This can be verified by the Trullan Synod, which in canon 52 enacts: "On all days of the holy Quadragesima of the fast, except the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day, and the day of the holy Annunciation, let the holy liturgy of the presanctified be celebrated." ^B In these days of the fast, they were appointed for mourning and contrition for the satisfying of individual faults; but to offer sacrifices to God is to hold a festival. For this reason, on other days of Quadragesima, the liturgy of the presanctified is performed, the bloodless sacrifice not being performed then, but that which has already been offered and accomplished is brought forward again. But on the Saturdays and Lord's Days, since fasting is prohibited on these, it is also permitted to offer sacrifice and to celebrate the perfect liturgy.

^C The celebration and participation of the rites were performed without the kiss of peace and conversation. Tertullian indicates the first of these in his book *De oratione* towards the end with these words: "So also on the day of Pascha, when there is a common and, as it were, public religious observance of fasting, we deservedly omit the kiss, not caring about the kissing, because we do it with everyone." Therefore, in public and solemn fasts, the faithful did not give the peace, that is, the kiss, to one another. And since a similar practice was observed by them according to their own will in private matters, the same Tertullian shortly before disapproves of it: "Another custom," he says, "has now prevailed. Those who are fasting, having held prayer with the brethren, withdraw the kiss of peace, which is the seal of prayer." Whence he admonishes them that when they are fasting privately at home, among those where the fasting cannot be entirely hidden, they may defer the peace; but publicly and in the Church, with the fast dissimulated, they should observe the custom. ^D That the peace and the kiss were offered by the faithful later on, namely when the mysteries were being celebrated, it is hardly necessary to prove. For the matter is clear. But I shall nevertheless produce some testimonies of the ancients: the first, the council of Laodicea, canon 19, prescribes this order for liturgies and synaxes: "After the sermons have been held by the bishop, the prayer of the catechumens follows. When they have departed, they prayed over the penitents. When these have withdrawn after submitting to the laying on of hands, then the triple prayer of the faithful was conceived: 'Let the peace be given,' he commands; and after the priests have given the peace to the bishop, the laity shall give the peace to one another; and thus the holy oblation should be completed." But Innocentius, in his epistle to Decentius, ch. 1, prohibits the peace from being given before the mysteries are finished. "You assert," he says, "that the peace is given by some to the people before the mysteries are finished, or that they trade it among the priests, when after everything—which I ought not to disclose—the peace must necessarily be announced, by which it is evident that the people give their consent to all that is performed in the mysteries and celebrated in the Church."

Having established all these points, it is clear that even the most ancient Christians did not always communicate in their synaxes, at least not publicly and lawfully. Nor meanwhile do we deny that some could have communicated privately at home, or outside the synaxis, since they were accustomed to dispense the Eucharist, which they had once received from the priest and kept at home, for the remaining days. Concerning which, see what Basil writes in his epistle to Cæsaria Patricia; and then the author of the *Annals* at the year [marked]... asserts that they were handed down by the apostles: the fourth day [Wednesday], the day of Preparation [Friday], and the Lord's Day [Sunday]. Among which, one might wonder that no mention is made of the Sabbath: for on this day, synaxes were celebrated throughout almost the entire East, and the mysteries were attended, as Socrates testifies in his book V, ch. 22. Although he here, as also Sozomen in book VII, ch. 19, makes an exception of the Alexandrians and Romans: "For of all the churches of the inhabited world on the day of the Sab-

- bath of every week celebrating the mysteries, those in Alexandria and Rome, from some ancient tradition, have refused to do this." Since he writes that all the churches of the whole world celebrate the mysteries on every Sabbath throughout each week, [but] the Alexandrians and Romans refused to do so because of an ancient tradition. Thus he writes that this was the custom not only of the East, but of the whole world; which I do not believe to be true. For it belonged almost exclusively to the East. In the ^A *Canonical Responses* of Timothy of Alexandria, in Balsamon, Interrog. XI, the question is asked: "On which days should married couples abstain?" Timothy answers that they must abstain entirely on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, "because on these days the spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord." Therefore, the mysteries were celebrated in Alexandria on the Sabbath, contrary to what occurred in the age of Socrates. And yet perhaps the Cypriots (among whom Epiphanius wrote these things), having imitated the Romans or their Alexandrian neighbors, instituted no synaxes on the Sabbath; but on the remaining days, that is, the fourth and sixth day, they celebrated no mysteries in the synaxes. Certainly there is no mention of mysteries here, contrary to what Casaubon and others have rashly asserted.

In the following number, Epiphanius speaks of Sabbath synaxes in such a way that he seems to deny they were instituted in his own church. For he writes: *"In some places, however, even on the Sabbaths they hold synaxes."* Therefore, not in Cyprus; and hence our conjecture is most true, that the Cypriots imitated the custom of the Alexandrians. And whereas it was demonstrated a little before that no mysteries were celebrated in the sacred assemblies during the time of the Lenten fast, the same might seem to be the case for the fourth and sixth day [of the week], since Epiphanius is author that a solemn fast existed equally on those days. But that we might not assert this, we are primarily forbidden by the fact that the *Liturgy of the Presanctified* is attributed in ancient councils and liturgical books solely to the Lenten fast. Added to this is the most explicit passage of Tertullian; who in his book *De Oratione* near the end shows that on the very days of the "stations," which were accustomed to be observed with fasting on the fourth and sixth day, as will be said shortly, sacrifices were celebrated, and the Body of the Lord was wont to be distributed to the faithful. "Similarly," he says, "many do not think they should be present at the prayers of the sacrifices on the days of the stations, because the station must be dissolved by Partaking of the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist therefore undo the service devoted to God, or does it rather bind one more to God? Will not your station be more solemn if you have also stood at the altar of God? By having received the Body of the Lord and reserved it, both are accomplished: both the participation in the sacrifice and the performance of the duty." Which passage will be explained by us a little later. To these things Basil, in his ^B *Letter to Caesaria*—which we mentioned above—when he had highly commended daily communion, adds these words: "We, however, communicate four times every week: on the Lord's Day, on the fourth day, and on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on other days if there is a memorial of a martyr." Nos [We] communicate four times during each week: Lord's Day, fourth day, Preparation Day, Sabbath; but also on other days on which the memory of some martyr falls. Whence that which was said about fasting, that no mystery was celebrated in it, and that none of the faithful communicated, is right to be understood only of the Lenten fast, if you except the Alexandrians, whose custom Socrates mentions as a singular one, that on the fourth and sixth day they performed all things except the celebration of the synaxes; concerning which we shall see shortly.

Finally, regarding what Epiphanius advises: that this threefold synaxis of the days was delivered by the apostles, I do not know if it can be established with sufficient certainty. For in the first times of the Church, only the Lord's Day seems to have been observed for this purpose, as is gathered from the Apostle in I Cor. ch. xvi. Furthermore, Justin Martyr, in *Apol. 2*, when he deals with the assemblies of the Christians, mentions only the Lord's Day: *τῇ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέρᾳ κοινῇ πάντες τὴν συνέλευσιν ποιούμεθα*. Wherefore I believe this was derived more from the private rite of each church than from a common apostolic mandate that synaxes and assemblies should take place on the fourth and sixth day, or even on the Sabbath. ^C Regarding which matter, an excellent passage of Augustine in *Epist. 118* seems to me to be worth recording here: "But [there are] other things which vary across different places and regions, just as it is that some fast on the Sabbath, others indeed do not; some communicate daily to the Body and Blood of the Lord; others receive on certain days; elsewhere no day is passed without offering; elsewhere only on the Sabbath and Lord's Day; elsewhere only on the Lord's Day; and if anything else of this kind can be observed, this whole class of things has free observances." Furthermore, Innocent in *Epist. I, ch. 4*, writes that the sacraments were not at all celebrated on the sixth day and Saturday, in these words: "Which is indeed not in doubt, that they (he speaks of the apostles) fasted to such an extent on the aforementioned two days, that the tradition of the Church holds that on these two days the sacraments were not celebrated at all." It is evident from Ambrose that the sacrifice was offered daily in the Church of Milan; who speaks thus in *Serm. 34*: "I also advise that whoever is near the church, and can do so without serious hindrance, should hear mass daily; and whoever can, should come to matins every night." And ^D a little later: "In Lent, however, I advise that you should offer and communicate every day, or at least, as I have said, on the Lord's Day." Therefore the custom through the churches was very varied. We do not wish for what we have said to be understood as applying to the most ancient times, and especially not to the Orientals.

From that last passage of Ambrose it is clear that it is most false, as I see has been most foolishly persuaded to certain heretics, that the mass was never heard by the faithful in the ancient Church without them communicating at the same time. In which most stupid error Casaubon indeed remains in *Exercit. 16 ad ann. Baron. n. 58*. And, what is surprising, he cites this very passage of Ambrose; nor does he notice it, while he advises [people] to hear masses daily, whereas in Lent, if it is possible,

he commands them to communicate, it is sufficient to intimate that, not at all daily, at least on days other than Lent, they were accustomed to communicate. In Eusebius, ^A *Hist.* lib. vi, cap. 9, in the story of a certain person who had received baptism from heretics, it is read thus: "Having heard the Eucharist, and having responded with 'Amen,' and having stood at the table, and having stretched forth his hands for the reception of the holy food," etc. Casaubon, in order to confirm that to hear mass is the same thing as to communicate, brings forward this passage of Eusebius, than which nothing is more alien; for from it same it is proved that "to hear the Eucharist" and "to participate in the Lord's body" are something different and distinct; although both these things were performed by him at that time. But in the Council of Agde, which Casaubon cites from Gratian, it is so far from the truth that a decree was made to support that error, that the contrary can rather be manifestly ^B inferred. For can. 47, the Fathers command thus: "We command that masses be held for the laity on the Lord's day in a special order, so that the people do not presume to leave before the priest's blessing. And if they should do so, let them be publicly reproved by the bishop." But can. 18 decrees thus: "Laymen who have not communicated on the Nativity of the Lord, Easter, or Pentecost, are not believed to be Catholics, nor should they be held among Catholics." Here, it compels the faithful to communion on only three days each year: there, it orders them to hear mass every Sunday. Therefore, it is not the same thing to hear mass and to communicate; nor were both those things perpetually joined in the usage of the faithful and of the ancient Church.

Col. 885 B. *On the fourth day and on the Sabbath.* The religious observance of both fasts is very ancient, of which he made mention above in [the matter of] the Aerians. In Apostolic Canon 69, together with the Lenten [fast], the fast of the fourth day and of the Preparation ^C is commanded by the same sanction. On which Balsamon notes this: that just as in Lent, on those two weekdays, a dry diet is prescribed. Then, that it is not even permitted to eat meat in the presence of the danger of death. Ignatius, *Epistle 5 to the Philippians*, mentions the same precept. In *Apostolic Constitutions*, lib. vii, cap. 24, the reason why one must fast on the fourth day is brought forward: because the deliberation to kill Christ was made by the Jews on the fourth day, and Judas offered his services. To which Peter of Alexandria also agrees, can. 15. And indeed that reason is probable. But the one which Epiphanius provides here is false, and contrary to evangelical truth. For he wishes that Christ the Lord was seized on the fourth day. Which has been discussed and refuted above in the *Diatribe on the Passion of the Lord*. ^D Tertullian makes mention of the same fasts in more than one place, and signifies that stations were accustomed to be performed on those very days: as in the book *On Fasting against the Psychics*: "Why do we call the fourth and sixth of the week stations, and the Preparation days fasts?" And cap. 2: "Thus also the apostles observed, imposing no other yoke of certain fasts to be performed by all in common: therefore, neither of stations, which also have their own days, of the fourth and sixth day, nor of their own will: a station is an observance of appointed days, as the fourth and sixth days of the week, or Lent." These words of Ambrose are also cited in Pamelius, *Sermon 36*: "Stations are called fasts, because, standing and staying in them, we repel the insidious enemies." But I do not think that a station is the same thing as a fast, nor do I approve of the distinction, if there is any, which is read in Rhabanus. For that it differs from a fast is clear from Tertullian; who in *Ad uxorem*, lib. ii, cap. 4, speaks thus: "So that if a station is to be made, the husband may stipulate for the baths for that day; if fasts are to be observed, the husband may conduct a feast on the same day." Furthermore, in that place cited from the book *Against the Psychics*, cap. 14, he separates stations from fasts; since he says that the fourth and sixth of the week are devoted to stations, and the Preparation [is devoted] to fasts. On the other hand, in the book *De corona mil.*, cap. 11, Pamelius thinks that "stations" are used for "fasts," in these words: "Now, are stations also to be made with more regard for him than for Christ? Or even on the Lord's day, when [they are] not even [due] for Christ?" And much more clearly in the book *De anima*, cap. 48: "Since Daniel also dried up his sustenance with a three-week station."

But I consider the "station" in Tertullian, especially, to be that religious duty of the faithful by which, going to the *synaxis* on certain days, they persevered there until the ninth hour, to which hour, furthermore, they prolonged their fasts. Whence it is sometimes accustomed to be taken for the multitude itself and the assembly. Not otherwise, I suppose, than as a military station is used among the Latins, both for a place and for the duty of standing and keeping watch, and even for the military band itself. Livy, lib. xxxviii: "The Roman forage-gatherers and wood-cutters were led into that part where the future parley was to be, the tribunes thinking it would be safer, since the consuls were to have the guard and the station itself: they placed, however, their second station nearer the camp, of 200 horsemen. There were soldiers who, at some interval from the camp, kept watch for their protection." In the same way, the stations of the Christians were called both those sacred vigils on certain days, and the assemblies of the faithful themselves. Tertullian, at the end of the book *De orat.*: "If a station receives its name from a military example (for we are also the militia of God), assuredly no joy or sadness rescinds it."

^A And with these words he demonstrates that it is nowise as was commonly believed, that the stations are dissolved by the communion of the Lord's body, since whatever happens in the camp, whether prosperous or sad, the military station nonetheless perseveres. Rhabanus, therefore, incorrectly adduced these latter things—surely no joy or sadness, etc.—as a reason why the Christian station received its name from a military one. By this same error, Pamelius, in his commentary on the book *De corona mil.*, ch. 11, says that the term "station" is usurped metaphorically from military stations, because as long as the soldiers were on duty, it was fitting for them to fast—which is surely ridiculous. For it was not the concern of the army itself or the emperor that those guards and sentinels should remain famished for so long. Nor, indeed, do the stations appear to be named from fixed ^B times, but from the very function of standing—that is, of assembling and tarrying; because they would prolong the divine office beyond the legitimate time for synaxes (namely, the morning), up to the ninth hour, and would spend longer periods in the church. In Cyprian, epist. 41, *Ad Cornelium papam*, the name "station" can be understood as much of the assembly itself as of the time and day; for when discussing the legates of Novatian sent into Africa, he says: "Who, when they were at the station, were also breaking forth with invidious railings and turbulent clamors," etc.

Wherefore, the stations are not the fasts themselves, but are conjoined with fasts. Although there was a double kind of fasting among the ancients: for one was more refined—that is, it was extended longer, even until evening, like the Lenten fast. For Epiphanius teaches below in this very same section that the Lenten synaxes were celebrated from the ninth hour until evening: before which synaxes the fasts were by no means broken. Another was a little more relaxed and shorter, which was produced only until the ninth hour: the fast of the fourth and sixth day, the same Epiphanius asserts, was of this kind: "And on the fourth day, and on the day before the Sabbath, in fasting until the ninth hour." Hence it is that, as is evident from Tertullian, the stations did not extend beyond the ninth hour. On this account, the Montanists were reproved by the Catholics (whom he calls Psychics) because they prolonged their own stations until the evening. The words of Tertullian in his book *De jejuniis contra Psych.* are: "They likewise charge our stations as being inadequate; some, indeed, even as being prolonged until late in the day under the name of novelty; saying that this duty also is to be undertaken at will, and not to be kept beyond the ninth hour, according to the standard of their own custom." Furthermore, in the same place: "They argue against us because we observe our own fasts, and because we generally prolong our stations into the evening." In this place, Pamelius is not slightly mistaken when he writes that Tertullian is casting these things at the orthodox out of calumny, because they denied that the stations—that is, the fasts—should be propagated beyond the ninth hour, whereas it is established by infinite testimonies of the ancients that they produced their fasts even until sunset. But a station is one thing, and a fast is another; and fasts, just as the stations themselves, were not observed beyond ^C the ninth hour. Wherefore that novelty of the Montanists is deservedly castigated by the Catholics, because they extended to the evening stations and fasts at times other than those prescribed by the Church: for that the Montanists were content to remain in the station only until the ninth hour on the fourth and sixth day, Tertullian indicates in that same book, ch. 10: "Not that we reject the ninth hour," he says, "which we observe most on the fourth and sixth day of the week." Indeed, on that account those fasts of the stations are called "half-fasts" (*semijejunia*) by the same author, ch. 13: "For behold," he says (against the Catholics), "I convene you, and you are fasting besides the Pasch, throughout those days other than those on which the bridegroom was taken away; and you are interposing the half-fasts of the stations."

But the place in Tertullian, ch. 14, concerning these same stations of the fourth and sixth day, is most obscure: "Why," he says, "do we call the fourth and sixth day of the week stations, and the day of preparation (*Parasceve*) fasts? For what else is the *Parasceve* but the sixth day of the week?" Furthermore, he attributes a fast only to the *Parasceve*, as if the fourth day also, as a station, were not likewise a solemn fast. In the interpretation of this place, it is a mystery what came into the mind of Pamelius when he believed that the *Parasceve* was being called a Sabbath by Tertullian in a new way. He says: "He calls the fasts of the fourth and sixth day 'stations' because fasts were appointed for those days, but not for the day of the *Parasceve*, which were voluntary." And in the following number: "He says the *Parasceve* is the Sabbath, which precedes the Lord's day. On which day the fast was observed according to the will of each." Nothing could be brought forth more absurd, or more abhorrent to Tertullian's mind. For it is so far from the case that Tertullian declared the Sabbath to be dedicated to fasts, that he immediately adds to it: "Although you also, if ever you make the Sabbath continuous, you never fast except at the Pasch, according to the reason provided elsewhere." If one is never to fast on the Sabbath, with only one exception, how could Tertullian say that the Sabbath was dedicated by his own people—just as by the Catholics—to fasting? Therefore, the explanation of that passage must be sought elsewhere. And whether it might be of this sort must be considered: namely, that in Tertullian's time, when stations were held on the fourth and sixth day, both were indeed prolonged only until the ninth hour; but on the fourth day, it was permitted to break the fast immediately after the conclusion of the station and the ninth hour: but on the sixth day, the time of the station having been completed, it was not immediately lawful to eat, but only at evening; whence the fourth day was observed as a half-fast, as Tertullian calls it, and the sixth as a fast. In some places, as Epiphanius testifies shortly after, when the stations and synaxes on the fifth day of the Great Week were celebrated until the ninth hour, the fasts were not, however, immediately broken. And indeed that day, which is especially consecrated to the Lord's Passion, was to be celebrated with a stricter fast and more prolonged abstinence. Truly, I do not see what could be said more plausibly concerning that passage of Tertullian. Now, for those days of the stations which were conjoined with a fast, ^D

^A divine mysteries and sacrifices were performed, and the Eucharist was also distributed to the faithful: though Tertullian advises at the end of his book *De oratione* that it not be swallowed immediately, but reserved until the station is completed. Nor does it seem that the kiss of peace was omitted then, which the same author signifies to have been commonly omitted by everyone on the single day of Pascha. But regarding the various rites of the Churches, consult what we have set forth in a previous note from Augustine and Innocent. Those who study ecclesiastical antiquity will be able to investigate more regarding this rite of the stations; since we have also intentionally skipped over many things, so that we might embrace only those whose obscurity required some light from our discussion. Col. 888 A. *The Pentecostal fast.* See the last canon of Nicaea, Cassian *Collat.* 21, cap. 11. Ibid. B. *Neither on the day of the Epiphany.* Therefore, that decree of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria—which exists in Balsamon at page 1067—is admirable in many ways; in it he says that the Epiphany is a day of fasting: and, because it had fallen on the Lord's Day that year, he orders that they eat only a few dates, so that they might profess themselves severed from the heretics who would not honor the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, and by this very fact, that they were waiting for the evening assembly, they might satisfy the religion of fasting; and finally, he indicates that the assemblies are to be celebrated from the ninth hour. And yet, on Lord's Days, the assemblies were all in the morning; and the fact that they ate a few dates toward evening offered no obstacle to the fast being of such a kind as Epiphanius, in this place, as well as all other ancients, affirm to have been forbidden on all Lord's Days. Besides, that same place of Theophilus advises: if the Epiphany had fallen on a day other than the Lord's Day, it should have been passed with *xerophagia*, that is, with bread, salt, and water. Now, on account of the religion of the day, a few dates were excused: which, however, so that the nature of the fast might be observed, he forbade to be tasted before the evening assembly. Ibid. *All the Lord's Days.* He prudently notes this regarding the Lord's Days alone, and not likewise Saturdays, as the Synod of Gangra, canon 18, forbade fasting on the Lord's Days exclusively; for the Sabbath was not devoid of a fast everywhere or in the whole Church. Nor was ^D Epiphanius ignorant that it was the custom to observe the Sabbath differently at Rome and in most regions of the West than in the East. For the Romans, as Socrates writes in book V, chapter 22, *fast every Saturday*. Concerning this, Augustine discusses it most fully in *Epistle* 86 and *Epistle* 118, and Baronius in his *Annales* under the year 58. Wherefore, there is no sanction issued by the Apostles by which fasting is forbidden on that day, as Augustine asserts in *Epistle* 118, where he denies that in matters of this kind anything has been determined by the authority of Holy Scripture or the tradition of the universal Church; but that one should obey the custom of the Church in which one happens to be. ^A For if any cleric is found fasting on the Lord's Day, or on the Sabbath (save for one alone), let him be deposed; if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. This cannot have been established by a common decree of the Apostles. Or if this is an Apostolic canon, these words, "or on the Sabbath, save for one alone," were woven in by idle Greeks. Nor are those things of better note which are read in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, book VII, chapter 24, where it commands to keep the Sabbaths and the Lord's Days as festivals. That this was never prescribed by the Apostles to the whole Church, the consensus of the most holy Fathers has approved. The reasoning of Ignatius is different, who, writing to the Philippians—not establishing laws for the universal Church—declares in *Epistle* 4: "If any one fasts on the Lord's Day or the Sabbath, save for one Sabbath, he is a Christ-killer." Truly, the haughtiness of the Greeks is indeed intolerable; who, in the pseudo-synod of Trullo, canon 55, condemn the Roman Church because they fast on Saturdays during Lent. Yet Socrates writes, book V, chapter 22, that at Rome they did not fast on the Sabbaths during Lent. But of course he was hallucinating, or to the word "Rome" one must add "New," so that he calls it "New Rome," Constantinople. For he immediately reports that *every Saturday in Rome they fast*. Regarding the Sabbath fast, canons of Western synods exist, such as Elvira 26 and Agde 12, as well as Innocent I, *Epistle* 1, chapter 4. Scaliger, in *De emendatione temporum*, book V, page 641, writes quite ridiculously that he was the first of all to institute that one should fast on the Sabbath. As if the Westerners had not observed that long before Innocent by a custom which was like a silent law. Nor did Innocent so much command the Sabbath fast, as he brought forward the reasons why one seems to fast on the Sabbath. Finally, concerning the religion of the Sabbath, among the pseudo-apostolic *diataxeis* exists a sanction issued in the name of Peter and Paul, book VIII, chapter 33: That on that day and on the Lord's Day servants should be free from manual labor. "Let slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day let them rest in the Church for the sake of the teaching of piety." That this decree never emanated from the Apostles is apparent from the fact that the Laodicean Council, canon 29, explicitly forbids Christians to be idle. "That Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest on the Sabbath, but to work on that same day, preferring the Lord's Day, if they are able to rest, as Christians; but if they are found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema before Christ." He commands that they vacate work on the Lord's Days rather than Sabbaths: and yet he adds, if it can be done for their convenience. As if it had not yet been fully established in those times that they were entirely free from all work, as Zonaras and Balsamon note on that canon. Ibid. *The Lent.* This place of Epiphanius is notable for defending the custom of the Lenten fast against the calumny of heretics. Although that matter is acknowledged by an infinite number of ancient Fathers and...

the testimony of councils, so that it is rarely mocked or rejected by modern heretics more impudently. Consult what has been studiously collected in the great Annales ^A by others who have written against the heretics. But a certain wondrous variety existed among the ancients regarding the discipline of the Lenten fast, concerning which Irenæus writes in Eusebius, lib. v, cap. 24, and Socrates, lib. v, cap. 22. The latter indeed errs notably when he writes that at Rome only three weeks were fasted continuously before Easter, except for Saturday and Sunday. Which has been refuted above. He subsequently adds that six weeks were consecrated to fasting by some before Easter, and seven by others; or that others distributed their fifteen days alone over six weeks: all of whom called that number of days of theirs by the name of ^B *tessaracoste*. Indeed, in Photius, num. 107, Basilius the Cilician, a Nestorian, writing against John of Scythopolis, objects among other things: "He does not restrict the holy forty days to three weeks, nor in these did he abstain from the eating of birds' flesh." For there was no less diversity in the choice and abstinence of foods, about which the same Socrates speaks. See also Cassian, Coll. 21; Ambrose, serm. 23 and following; Sozomen, lib. v, cap. 19. Furthermore, Epiphanius, mentioning the "days of Easter" before which he says the *tessaracoste* is celebrated, does not understand by this the week that precedes Easter, as he does later when he calls them "the six days of Easter," but he speaks of the six paschal ^C days which the Lenten fast precedes. Whether, however, among the Cypriots, where Epiphanius was writing this, the Sabbaths were exempted from the Lenten fasts, does not sufficiently appear. And they seem, from the custom of the Romans and others, to have fasted on those days as well, since he excepts only the Lord's days. For surely he would not have kept complete silence concerning the Sabbaths; although perhaps he did not mention the Sabbaths for the reason that he saw that this form and custom was not the same among all the Churches, nor did he know that anything had been prescribed by the apostles regarding this matter. But he wished this rite to include only those things which he believed to have been handed down by the apostles to the whole Church, not those which were peculiar to certain places. But Pamelius mistakenly ^D interpolates this very place of Epiphanius in his commentary on Tertullian's book *adversus Psych.*, cap. 15; and, for "seven days," he affirms that it should undoubtedly be read "seven weeks." He is in error, I say. For it is *hēmeras* in the Greek, not *hebdomadas*. If he understands the days which begin from the solemnity of Easter: before these the *tessaracoste* runs its full course.

Col. 888 B. "And the six days of Easter." It was specifically for those six days of the greater week, as they call it, that *xerophagy* was commanded for Christians. Yet the Council of Laodicea, canon 50, says: "It is necessary," it says, "to fast the forty days eating dry food." And Balsamon on apostolic canon 69 teaches that one ought to observe *xerophagy* not only in Lent, but also on Wednesday and Friday; so that not even to the sick is a different kind of food like fish permitted, nor meat at any time, 1094 ^A even at the extreme peril of life, to be eaten. But at Socrates, lib. v, cap. 22, where different customs of the Lenten fast are explained, not everyone practiced *xerophagy*. But some used only fish; others also used birds in addition, which Moses relates were created from the water just like the fish. Others were content with fruits and eggs; others with bread alone; others did not even allow themselves this. Augustine, in *contra Faustum* lib. xxx, writes that all abstained from meat, above all others. Chrysostom, in homil. 8 *De pænit.*, writes of abstaining from meat and wine. History also confirms this regarding the meats of Spiridion in Sozomen, lib. i, cap. 14, to pass over others, which are innumerable. Therefore, to the final days of Lent, *xerophagy* was prescribed for all by a certain law. What this is, Tertullian explains in his book *Contra Psych.*, cap. 1: "They reproach us," he says, "because we also observe *xerophagies*, drying our food of all meat, and all juices, and those milder fruits, so that we neither eat nor drink anything with wine; and we even abstain from the bath, which is in keeping with dry sustenance." Through that whole book, he signifies that *xerophagies* were condemned by the catholics as a name for a newly affected duty, and close to pagan superstition; just as the ceremonies of Apis, Isis, and the Great Mother purify through the exception of certain foods. But not all *xerophagies*, I think, were then condemned by the catholics; but only those which they were observing at certain times, outside of those established by the Church, from the discipline of Montanus; which the same author defines as two weeks, cap. xv: "For how little is the interdiction of food among us? We offer to God two weeks of *xerophagies* in the year, and not entire ones, excluding of course the Sabbaths and Sundays." Here we do not agree with Pamelius, who thinks that "weeks" is not to be taken as seven days, but as the same number of weeks, and he narrates I know not what concerning the decree of Telesphorus, by which the clergyman Tertullian was bound; which does not persuade at all. For if Montanus had enjoined fourteen weeks for *xerophagies*, Tertullian would not have said, minimizing it until then: "How little is the interdiction of food among us?" Wherefore it is credible that two others existed, separate and distinct from Lent; in which the Sabbath and Sunday days were removed. Sozomen, lib. v, cap. 19, dealing with the diverse number of days of the Lenten fast, says that the Montanists fasted only two weeks before Easter. But since in the second, that is the week immediately before Easter, the Sabbath was not exempted from fasting among the Montanists, as Tertullian, already a Montanist, narrates in *lib. Contra Psych.*, it does not seem that those same weeks of *xerophagies* can be accommodated to these two. In *Const. apost.* lib. v, cap. 17, the same *xerophagy* is proposed to be observed for those six days: "In the days therefore of Easter, fast, beginning from Monday until Friday and Saturday, those six days, using only bread, and salt, and herbs, and water for drink; but abstain from wine and meat in these." This *xerophagy* therefore [is] bread,

^A water, and, if perhaps, also consisted of vegetables. Regarding this ^B chapter 12 of the same book, the Lenten fast is distinguished from the Paschal: "Let this fast (namely, the Lenten one) be celebrated before the fast of Pascha, beginning on the second day [Monday], and being completed on preparation day [Friday], after which, having broken the fast, begin the holy week of Pascha, fasting through it." Let the Lenten fast be celebrated before Pascha; and beginning on the second day let it end on Preparation day: after which, having broken the fast, pass the holy week of Pascha in fasting. As to the beginning of that Lenten fast, insofar as it differs from the Paschal, I do not know if those constitutions repeat it from the Sunday of Quinquagesima or Sexagesima. For those seem to have taken as that beginning those who dedicated six weeks to the fast, while others assigned only six [days], yet so that in both there were only six [weeks/weeks' worth of days] and they macerated themselves for thirty days in abstinence. For these (says Cassian, *Collat.* 21, c. 27) prescribed for themselves the observance of six weeks, who think it must be fasted on the Sabbath day as well. Therefore they perform six fasts in the week, which, revolved six times, consume those same thirty-six days. From Sexagesima, however, the more recent Greeks began Lent, as we discussed before Nicephorus some years ago. So that, surely, they might assign forty solid days to the fast. Ambrose, *serm.* 31 and 32, defines Lent by six weeks and XLII days, and rebukes those who would fast Quinquagesima instead of Lent.

Moreover, as much concerning this fast of Pascha as concerning Lent, Timothy of Alexandria, bishop, can be understood in his canonical *Responses*, Interrog. 8 and 10. In the former of which it is asked: whether a woman after childbirth ought to fast Pascha, or whether the use of wine might be indulged to her? In the latter, it is doubted concerning a sick person, whether he is held to the fast of Pascha in like manner, and might use oil and wine. From which latter question Balsamon gathers: "That the fast of Lent [of] Pascha is *xerophagy*; but also abstinence from wine." He adds, however, that some have understood the fast of the holy week in both canons, not of the whole of Lent. Epiphanius also, in the *Aerian* heresy, 75, num. 3, speaking of this week: "And in the days of Pascha," he says, "when with us [there are] vigils, purity, hardships, *xerophagies*, prayers, wakefulnesses, and fasts, and all the salvation of souls, etc." The same also in heresy 70, num. 12, names that week of Pascha the week of *xerophagy*, and of Pascha. See also n. 14. Nor is that to be passed over, as Pascha is taken for the whole of Lent, or at least for its last week. Just as when Timothy said *fast Pascha*: [it is] thus sometimes to signify a certain day of the same week, as in Tertullian, *lib. De orat.* near the end: "So also on the day of Pascha, which is the common and as it were public religious observation of the fast, we rightly lay aside the kiss." Which day, the holy Preparation day, on which the memory of the Passion is celebrated, and that it is the feast of the *Staurosum* [Crucifixion] ^C is seen; and perhaps the same, which some have dedicated as the unique day for fasting, as Irenaeus writes to Victor, with Eusebius as witness, *lib.* v, *cap.* 24: "For some think they ought to fast one day; others two; others even more."

Col. 888 C. "But also the zealous [fast] twice." Dionysius of Alexandria, *Epistola ad Basilidem*: "Since not even the six days of the fasts do all wait out equally, nor in the same way. But some even exceed all, continuing without food; others two, others three, others four, others none." Epiphanius uses the same word as Dionysius, namely *hyper-tithesthai*. Which is to defer food. Hence the fast is called *superpositio* [superposition], if I am not mistaken, by the Latins, as in the *Eliberit. conc.* can. 26: "It has been pleased that the error be corrected, that *superpositions* of fasts be celebrated every Sabbath day." In *Const. apost.* lib. v, c. 17: "Make a fast of the preparation day, and the whole of the Sabbath, to those who have the strength for such, having tasted nothing of anything, until the cock-crowing of the night; but if anyone is unable to join the two together, let him at least observe the Sabbath." He puts forward the cause: because on these days the bridegroom was taken away. Which Tertullian also touched upon in *lib. Contra Psych.*, cap. 8: "For behold I convene you and those fasting besides Pascha, apart from those days in which the Bridegroom was taken away."

Ibid. "And the whole of Lent from the ninth." Whether he says that synaxes are to be celebrated on all the days of Lent, it can be doubted: or whether he intends rather this: that those six synaxes of Pascha, and of the greater week, as well as the other synaxes of Lent — on whatever days they are eventually performed — are to be frequented from the ninth hour until evening. This, however, is certain from those words of Epiphanius, that the fast in Lent is not broken by the faithful before evening and the setting of the sun. Which is consistent with what we learned from Tertullian when we were discussing synaxes: that *stations* are called *semijejunia* [half-fasts] because they were prolonged until the ninth hour, whereas the greater ones, such as the Lenten ones were, did not end before the exit of light. But *Const. apost.* lib. v, cap. 13, orders one to eat at the ninth or evening according to the strength of each: "But on the other days, before the Preparation, let each eat at the ninth hour, or in the evening, or as anyone might be able." Ambrose *serm.* 26: "I ask you, dearest brothers, that in this legitimate time, except on the days of the Lord's day and the Sabbath, no one presumes to dine before the ninth hour, unless perhaps someone whose infirmity does not permit him to fast. Because on other days to fast is either a remedy or a reward: in Lent, however, not to fast is a sin." Which sermon is indeed read in the same words in Augustine; and it is a sermon *de temp.* that except on Lord's days, no one should presume to dine. Which is the same as if he were to prohibit eating before the ninth, because dinner was taken before the sixth hour. See August. *epist.* 86. Thus Cassian *Collat.* 21, cap. 23, or Theonas before him, admonishes that on feast days, the food which had been for the ninth hour of the day...

^A should be taken somewhat earlier, that is, at the sixth hour, for the sake of the feast. But in ancient times they were not accustomed to take food before evening; a fact which is confirmed, moreover, by that passage of Theophilus of Alexandria, which we discussed above. But after the time of eating was moved from evening to the ninth hour, then, I believe, that distinction was removed which we have seen hitherto existed between fixed days of fasting (stationes) and regular fasts. And hence it is that Ambrose, *serm.* 36, said the fasts of Lent are called "stations."

"In some places there is a relaxation of the fast—as Augustine indicates in *epist.* 118, ch. 4—and the resolving of the fast. And it is not understood in any other way in the canon of Hippolytus in the Greek, when it says: *‘Aponestismos*... even though Scaliger in his *Notes* to that canon thinks *aponestizesthai* means to transfer the fast: which does not succeed in the least. The time, however, of dissolving the fast, or the hour of the *aponestismos*, was manifold. *Constit. Clem.* lib. v, cap. 19: It orders the Lenten fast to be broken at cockcrow, as in the chapter above. Dionysius of Alexandria to Basilides reproves those who dissolve the fast a little before midnight after the Sabbath, as being "lax and incontinent." But he commends those who hold out until the fourth watch; nor does he say that those should be set in great store who, of those six days of the Great Week, having passed the first four without a fast, spend the Friday and Saturday without any food, which he names *hyperthesin*. For this was familiar to the ancient Christians: to persist for that two-day period without food, and to insist on prayers and vigils in the Church. The Sixth Synod in Trullo, can. 91: ^B To which Balsamon doubts whether it is commanded that the three days, which is *meta ten tetrada* (after the fourth day), and which is especially dedicated to the Passion, are to remain fasting until the midnight before the Paschal Sunday; or whether it is to be observed only of the one Saturday: in which the discipline of fasting ought to be more rigid and severe.

"In some places, a service of the economy." He calls the *latreia* of the economy the divine and unbloody sacrifice; as also a little later, separated, *latreia* and economy, "The economy of the service," [etc.]. That which the Laodicean synod forbade to be usurped, can. 49: "That it is not permitted to break [the fast] in the last week of Lent on the fifth day, and to dishonor the whole of Lent; but it is necessary to fast the whole of Lent eating dry foods." Ex [etc.] From which you will note, incidentally, that the week of the Passion is a part of Lent, not distinct from it. The Trullan synod, too, can. 29, abrogated that which had been specifically excepted in the Council of Carthage concerning that fifth day: "That the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who are fasting, except for one anniversary day, on which the Lord's supper is celebrated" (which is Carth. iii, can. 29); and it forbade the fast to be broken on that day. But Augustine, in the letter just cited, declares that in some churches the custom existed that twice on the Thursday of the final week of Lent, both in the morning and towards evening, it was offered: which he denies is to be disapproved. That the same thing was once practiced in the old Church on other days, Cyprian indicates, *epist.* 63, ed. Pam. Where he reproves some who used only water in the morning sacrifices, lest by the flavor of wine they should smell of the blood of Christ. He chastises them thus: "Or does anyone flatter himself with this contemplation, that although in the morning water alone seems to be offered, yet when we come to sup, we offer the mixed chalice; but when we sup, we cannot call the people to our banquet, that we might celebrate the reality of the sacrament with the whole fraternity present?" Therefore, sacrifices were accustomed to be celebrated twice, in the morning, and indeed publicly; then privately towards evening. ^C And thus he dismisses it. *Apolysis* is the Mass or dismissal, when the deacon, the holy service completed, dismisses the people. Wherefore, *ho diakonos* (the deacon) is to be understood.

"On the day of the Resurrection." It is properly called the Great Day of Pascha. As in the Ancyran, can. 6: "It was decided to be admitted to hearing until the Great Day." And since we are taking pains in illustrating the rites of the ancient Church, we shall warn the reader about one or two matters which were accustomed to be followed through the solemn Paschal holidays. Although these do not pertain much to our Epiphanius, they nevertheless have other opportunities, on account of which it seems their mention should not be omitted. First, therefore, during those days, those bound and captives were sent out of prison by the Christian emperors. The monks of the heretic Eutyches, in the supplicatory libellus "To the pseudosynod of Ephesus," in the *Acts of the Council of Chalcedon*, speaking of the day of Pascha: they say, "By which, the punishments are released by our holy fathers for the majority of those who have sinned; and by those reigning, the bonds of criminals are released for those liable." There exists a rescript of the emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian on the same matter, *de indulg.*, Cod. Theodos.: "Because of the day of Pascha which we celebrate with intimate heart, the prison has enclosed all whom guilt binds. We dissolve the enclosures." Our occasion for commemorating this custom was given by a certain Themistian oration; the argument of which, hitherto unknown...

and not sufficiently understood by us in our latest edition, will owe much to this observation. ^A It is the fifth in order among the Themistian orations, in which he proclaims the clemency and humanity of the elder Theodosius. It was generally believed by all that this oration referred to that Antiochene storm and calamity, when, because of the statues of Flacilla thrown down in a popular sedition, the emperor’s spirit, embittered and inflamed to avenge his majesty, was mitigated by the embassy of the prelate Flavianus. But we have shown, by certain necessary arguments in our notes on Themistius, that Themistius refers to something other than that Theodosian event; and yet, what sort of deed that was, we were unable at the time to disentangle. Wherefore we closed our discussion thus: "The learned and students of history therefore have a subject in which they may exercise their ingenuity in researching and elucidating." Which indeed we did at that time with good reason. But later, while we were perusing the 20th homily of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch, in which he gives thanks for the embassy of Flavianus and for the pardon obtained from the emperor, we learned—not without great profit and pleasure of mind—the true history ^B and the gist of that Themistian oration. For as he explains the oration and supplication made by Flavianus to Theodosius, he introduces him as speaking, among other things, thus: "And why is it necessary to speak of Constantine and the examples of others, when it is appropriate to exhort you by your own domestic deeds? Remember recently, when this feast arrived, you sent a letter everywhere in the world ordering those who inhabit the prison to be released, and their crimes forgiven them; and how, when those things were not sufficient to show your philanthropy, you said in your letters, 'Would that it were possible for me to call back even the departed, and to raise them up, and to bring them back to their former life.'" Although what purpose does it serve to mention Constantine or the examples of others, when it is appropriate to incite you by your own domestic affairs and deeds? You remember recently when, with the same feast approaching, you sent letters throughout the whole world in which you ordered all those who were in prison to be released and their crimes forgiven them. Then, as if these things were not enough to testify to your humanity, you had written in these words: "Would that I could recall and rouse the dead to life!" Which is the very specimen of kindness and clemency that Themistius portrays in that oration, published ^C some time before that Antiochene affair, while Flacilla was still alive, as is evident from the oration itself. I could not silently pass over so illustrious a history, and so clear an addition to our Themistius. And I have found no place more suitable to interweave this than this very one. The other was not so much a matter of rite as a subversion of rite and discipline, in that on the same days [Easter] certain extraordinary sacraments were permitted to the catechumens. Of what sort these were is not yet clear. In the Council of Carthage III, canon 5, that custom is abrogated in these words: "Item, it pleased that to the catechumens there be given only the accustomed salt. For if the faithful during those days do not change [their] sacraments, neither is it fitting for the catechumens to change theirs." Since it was customary for salt to be given to the catechumens, with the Easter holidays approaching, some extraordinary thing was granted to them. Certainly not the Eucharist; for I do not think anyone was so insane. Nor do I think the "sacrament" [in this context] is meant to be the symbol, but the bread itself and the wine, from which the Eucharist had been consecrated; for the remnants of bread and wine, which had been offered by the faithful for the celebration of the sacrifice, were sometimes distributed to the catechumens. This, Theophilus of Alexandria prohibits further in canon 8: "Let the clergy distribute the things offered [that is, the oblations] for the sake of the sacrifice along with those things consumed for the need of the mysteries, and let neither a catechumen eat or drink of these; but rather the clergy and the faithful brethren with them." ^D Concerning which canon Balsamon writes: "Those oblations are bread and wine; from which those parts (he calls them *meridas*, as the Greeks were wont to do) are taken, which are consecrated by the priest." From which it happens that the remnants themselves are in a way sanctified, and not to be divided to the profane. These remnants the Carthaginian synod calls sacraments, because from them sacraments were made, just as we commonly call the *meridas*, or particles, “sacraments” even before consecration. Although I know that "sacraments" are also used absolutely for any mystical signs whatsoever, and thus also for the salt and the rest that were given to the catechumens. August. lib. 11 De peccat. meritis, cap. 26: "And what they receive, although it is not the Body of Christ" (he is speaking of the catechumens) "is holy nonetheless, and holier than the foods by which we are nourished, since it is a sacrament." Whether these words of Augustine should be referred to the bread and wine from which the Eucharist had already been prepared, must be further considered. Since, therefore, the faithful on all days use the sacraments, that is, the Eucharist—which is the property of the faithful—the catechumens, say the Carthaginian Fathers, ought not to change the sacraments proper to their own rank and status, nor to receive anything beyond salt. *And the other mysteries.* He touches upon the mention of the sacraments and the interior mysteries cautiously and circumspectly. Thus many of the ancients, when they discourse upon the sacraments and their forms, deliberately obscure the matter and do not declare it with a full and open voice. I shall produce a few examples which are just now at hand. August. ep. 57 to Dardanus: "You know, however, in what sacrifice it is said: 'Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.'" Innocent I, ep. 1 to Decentius on the sacrament of confirmation: "But I cannot speak the words, lest I appear to betray rather than to answer the consultation." Thus Epiphanius has spoken timidly and obscurely about the Eucharist at times. *And about those who have departed.* This passage concerning the prayers and sacrifices which are celebrated by the Church for the dead is distinguished and memorable. But much...

more copiously and expressively, he treats of that rite of the Church in the heresy of the Aerians, which is heresy 75, number 7. For Aerius, driven by the same fury and insanity as our own heretics, mocked the commemoration of the dead at the altar and the prayers and sacrifices poured out for them; against whom Epiphanius disputes most clearly. "But," he says, "as for those prayers that are conceived for the dead, they are useful to them, even if they do not extinguish all faults." ^A This he explains at greater length in Augustine’s book *On Care to be Had for the Dead*, chapter 1, where he discusses which kinds of sins can be atoned for by those prayers and sacrifices for the dead. And a little earlier: "In the books of the Maccabees," he says, "we read that a sacrifice was offered for the dead." But even if it were nowhere read in the ancient Scriptures, the authority of the universal Church, which is illustrious in this custom, is no small thing; where, in the prayers of the priest which are poured out to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead also has its place. And the last chapter: "Since these things are so, let us not think that they reach the dead for whom we exercise care, except for what we solemnly beseech for them by sacrifices of the altar, or of prayers, or of alms; although they do not avail for all for whom they are done, but only for those that they might profit, for whom it is provided while they still live." There is most frequent mention of that custom in Cyprian. As in epistle 66, in which he says that it was decreed in the council that if anyone dying had left a cleric as a guardian, he should not be offered for, nor should a sacrifice be celebrated for his falling asleep. And he forbids that any prayer be made for him at the altar soon after. Tertullian, *On the Crown*, chapter 3: "We make offerings for the dead, for birthdays, on the annual day, and often elsewhere." Eusebius, book 4, *On the Life of Constantine*, when writing of his funeral: "And they fulfilled the divine worship by prayers," he calls the sacrifice of the altar worship. "Soon, with weeping and greater prayer, they rendered up their souls to God." Athanasius, *Questions to Antiochus*, question 34, when it was asked whether the souls of sinful dead people felt the benefits bestowed upon them when gatherings, and good deeds, and offerings were made for them, he answers: "The souls of sinners share in a certain benefit from the bloodless sacrifice and good deed performed for them." Otherwise, if these things profited them nothing, "they would not be mentioned in the *proskomide*," that is, in the offering. For *proskomide* is the offering. But the interpreter did poorly with "in care and obsequies." The same Athanasius had written a discourse *On those who have fallen asleep*; which Damascene mentions in his oration on the same subject, and from a certain work on Proverbs in Anastasius the Nicene, question 20 on Scripture, in which prayers for the dead are commended. This passage is contained in this work, scattered in almost the same words. Furthermore, the Council of Vaison, canon 2, and Carthage III, canon 29, and IV, canon 79, mention the commemoration of the dead in the salutary mysteries, not to mention other infinite things, and especially the most ancient liturgies of the Greeks and Latins.

^B But that other locus of Epiphanius, heresy 75, number 7, is most brilliant, in which he teaches that the commemoration of the dead is made in the sacrifice in a twofold manner, for the just and for sinners. For the latter, that we may implore divine mercy for them; but for the just and the saints, that the singular privilege of Christ the Lord may be acknowledged, who is separated from the condition of other mortals. Cyprian speaks here and there of the commemoration of martyrs, as in epistle 34: "We always offer sacrifices for them, as you remember," he says, "as often as we celebrate the passions of the martyrs and their anniversary days of commemoration." Which ought to be referred to the memory and preaching of the martyrs, just as altars were constructed in their memories. Augustine, book XX *against Faustus*, chapter 21, disputing against the Manichaeans, who, like our modern *stasiōtai* [seditionists], most impudently accused Catholics of converting the memories of the martyrs into idols, uses these words: "But the Christian people celebrate the memories of the martyrs with religious solemnity, both to excite imitation and so that they may be associated with their merits and helped by their prayers. Yet in such a way that we sacrifice not to any of the martyrs, but to the God of the martyrs themselves, although we construct altars in the memories of the martyrs. For which of the bishops, standing at the altar in the place of the holy bodies, has ever said: 'We offer to you, Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian,' etc."

^C *And morning hymns are in it.* Concerning the office of the morning and other hours, it is diligently disputed in the *Annals* and by others. We ascribe here the passage concerning the evening psalms: Socrates, book V, chapter 22, calls them "prayers at the lighting of lamps." Which adds there that in Cyprus and Caesarea, on Saturday and Sunday, in the evening after the lighting of lamps, the presbyters and bishops expound the Scriptures. The Council of Toledo I, canon 9, calls it the *lucernarium*. For it forbids professed virgins or widows to hold an antiphon at home with their confessor or their servant, in the absence of the bishop or presbyter. "But the *lucernarium*," it says, "should not be read except in the church." The Council of Laodicea, canon 18, mentions the nones and vespers. See also Tertullian, book *against Psych.* [Marcion], and the Council of Agde, canon 30.