Search
Fragments of Papias - ANF 1:20Papias of HierapolisWith regard to the inspiration of the book (Revelation), we deem it superfluous to add another word; for the blessed Gregory Theologus and Cyril, and even men of still older date, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bore entirely satisfactory testimony to it.Fragments of Papias - PIE 2:20Papias of Hierapolis1 With regard however to the inspiration of the book (i.e. the Apocalypse) we hold it superfluous to speak at length; since the blessed Gregory (I mean, the Divine) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius and Hippolytus, bear testimony to its genuineness.Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 3:20Papias of HierapolisWith regard however to the inspiration of the book (i.e. the Apocalypse) we hold it superfluous to speak at length; since the blessed Gregory (I mean, the Divine) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius and Hippolytus, bear testimony to its genuineness.Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 6:18Hippolytus of RomeHippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius had appeared, who said that neither the Gospel nor yet the Revelation was John's; but that they were the work of Cerinthus the heretic. And the blessed Hippolytus opposed this Gaius, and showed that the teaching of John in the Gospel and Revelation was different from that of Cerinthus. "This Cerinthus was one who taught circumcision, and was angry with Paul when he did not circumcise Titus, and the Apostle calls him and his disciples in one of his letters 'sham apostles, crafty workers.' Again he teaches that the world was created by angels, and that our Lord was not born of a virgin. He also teaches carnal eating and drinking, and many other blasphemies. The Gospel and Revelation of John, however, are like the teaching which the Scriptures contain; and so they are liars who say that the Revelation is not by the Apostle John." And we agree with Hippolytus that the Revelation is the Evangelist John's. This is attested by S. Cyril and Mar Severus, and all the teachers who bring evidence from it. Also the Theologian, in his 'Address to the Nation,' testifies that there is no proof from the conclusion, and says, 'as John taught me by his Revelation; He made a way for thy people, and these stones'----where he calls the heretics and their teaching stones."Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 8:24Hippolytus of RomeEvangelium et Apocalypsis Iohannis mentem Scripturarum sequuntur; ergo mendaces sunt qui dicunt Apocalypsim non esse Iohannis apostoli. Nos autem Hippolyto assentimur. Etiam Iohannis evangelistae esse Apocalypsim testatur s. Cyrillus, et Mar Severus et omnes Doctores qui adducunt testimonia in libris suis, sed etiam Theologus in oratione valedictoria ab eo adducit argumentum et dicit: "Quemadmodum docet me Iohannes per revelationem suam: 'Auferte viam populo meo; et hos lapides' . . .", cum "lapides" haereticos et doctrinam eorum vocat.Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 9:5Hippolytus of RomeThe Gospel and Apocalypse of John [both?] follow the plan of the Scriptures ; therefore they are liars who say that the Apocalypse is not by John the apostle. However we agree with Hippolytus. Also there testify that the Apocalypse is by John the evangelist: St.Cyril, and Mar Severus, and all the Doctors [of the church], who adduce witnesses in their books, but also [Gregory] Theologus in the valedictory oration adduces an argument from this and says: "In the way that John teaches me by his revelation: 'take away the way from my people and these stones'...", where he calls heretics and their doctrine "stones".Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 9:6Hippolytus of Rome(Cyril=Cyril of Alexandria, Mar Severus = Severus of Antioch, Theologus = Gregory Nazianzen).Philocalia · Introductory material 2:20Origen of AlexandriaFor, we would ask, was there ever a time when Basil and Gregory, those invincible champions of our religion, were content to hold their peace if any one profanely maintained the Son of God or the Holy Spirit to be a created being? We need not say how they treasured such doctrines, or how profitable they deemed them to scholars. Were they not in the thick of every fight against the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius and their associates? Did they not give such an account of pre-existence, and final restoration, and similar doctrines, as suited ancient legend and was adapted to the Grecian mind? What need to mention the details? The time would fail to tell what laborious service they rendered in the interests of orthodoxy. Nearly the whole of their life was spent in showing the All-holy and Self-existent Trinity to be equal in honour and glory, and in the same true sense Co-eternal and Co-essential. They fed Christ's sheep in the green pasture of the holy doctrines, speaking to them in the familiar voice and pure tones of the truth. But in |xiii the work under consideration you may find everything just the reverse. For all the absurdities we have enumerated, and others besides, are sown broadcast, and of the chapters, the twenty-second is by the bare title, we maintain, proved to be spurious and illegitimate. It follows that if we were to make the Holy Fathers responsible for the selection of all these absurdities, we should of necessity be giving to error that assent which is due to truth. And consider how absurd this would be; for we shall be charging the guardians of righteousness with our own perversity. But God forbid! Would any man of ordinary critical judgment allow that those famous champions of our religion in their selections were accustomed to mingle the chaff with the wheat? At the same time we may very well allow that some heretical tenets may be called "wheat"; for, as Cyril with his ripe wisdom tells us, "We ought not to cleprecatingly shun all that the heretics say, inasmuch as they confess many things which we also confess." Basil and Gregory, then, surely were not the persons who mixed the wheat and the chaff for us. Impossible! But certain of those who pervert the ways of the Lord, in their eagerness for the impious subtleties which Origen borrowed from the Greeks, imitated the devil who outwitted their teacher, and, in the case before us, mixed the chaff with our wheat, just as the devil in days of old scattered the tares in the Master's field. For the wheat is ours; ours, too, wherever they may be found, are the orthodox doctrines. And the inspired preachers of those doctrines, with their superlatively wise teaching, using the fan of their critical ability given them from above, and thereby sifting the wheat from the chaff, brought the wheat into the fair garner of the Church, but have delivered the chaff to unquenchable fire----and that in spite of Origen.The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 3:19Archelaus of CarrhaeThe fragment is introduced by Cyril in the following terms: -He, i.e., Manes , fled from prison and came into Mesopotamia; but there he was met by that buckler of righteousness, Bishop Archelaus. And in order to bring him to the test in the presence of philosophical judges, this person convened an assembly of Grecian auditors, so as to preclude the possibility of its being alleged that the judges were partial, as might have been the case had they been Christians. Then the matter proceeded as we shall now indicate: -Encomium on the Martyrs 2:1Eusebius of Caesarea4. But also let others be remembered, who, after them, accepted the conflict, and were counted worthy to stand in the true conflict for Christ. Now as worthy of our commemoration, let the men be remembered who, after these, were the |133 elect, and who, without reproach and violence, with their souls affirmed the faith,--those who were counted worthy to receive the hope of the apostles. Let there be honoured in our commemoration then, both Asclepiades and Serapion, and Philetus, and Zebinas, and Demetrius, and Flavianus, and Cyrillus (?), and Sosipater, and Andrew, and Babylas, and Caerealis (?), and Izabenus(?), and Zenobius, and Paulus, a kinsman, who was counted worthy to stand in the divine portion, and to be of it. Let Marinus also hasten, and to heaven let Fronto come, and the abstinent old man Hippolytus. Now I know and confess that many others were victorious in this conflict. But although their names escape me, their record, which is in heaven, I remember in my soul, and I lay to heart the sufferings of the Church which is in Christ. For, truly, I hope with all of you, through the divine message, by the truth of the confession which, is in Christ, that I shall receive fruit at the resurrection of the dead. I further say to you, O blessed confessors, I desire to depart from the world unto you, and from the body from which you are freed. Now faults fail (those) that (are) with Christ, as ye are this day, and are accounted. May there, at some time, be given the power to say after you, Pains flee, anguish is worn away, and groaning is departed : O ye who exist in the likeness of the suffering of Christ, and die not for ever.THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS · Book 7 33:3Eusebius of Caesarea2 About the same time Timaeus received the episcopate of Antioch after Domnus, and Cyril, who lived in our day, succeeded him. In his time we became acquainted with Dorotheus, a man of learning among those of his day, who was honored with the office of presbyter in Antioch. He was a lover of the beautiful in divine things, and devoted himself to the Hebrew language, so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with facility.THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS · Book 7 33:5Eusebius of Caesarea4 After Cyril, Tyrannus received the episcopate of the parish of Antioch. In his time occurred the destruction of the churches.The History of the Martyrs in Palestine 8:23Eusebius of Caesareal. 25.--"Exorcist." Valesius has this note on Exorcists ():-- " There was in former times a twofold use of the Exorcists in the Church; for their business was to cleanse both those possessed with devils, and also the catechumens, who were exorcised more than once; for after every examination in their catechism they were brought to the Exorcist ungirt and with their shoes off, that they might be purged by him. See Cyril Hierosol. in Procatechesi ad llluminandos, and Chrysostom in his first Homily ad Illuminandos." Eng. Trans. p. 158. See also Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, book iii. ch. 4. Respecting Readers or Lectors, see ibid. ch. v.The History of the Martyrs in Palestine 12:21Eusebius of CaesareaP. xxxix. l. 6. -- " The baptism of fire." Martyrdom for the sake of Christ was held in antient times to supply the place of baptism to those who had not yet received that sacrament. It was generally called the "Baptism of Blood." Thus Cyprian, letter 57, to Cornelius : -- " Qui martyrium tollit, sanguine suo batizatur." Edit. Dodwell, Amst. 1691, p. 118. And 73, to Jubaianus: -- " Sanguine autem suo baptizatos et passione sanctificatos consummari, et divinse pollicitationis gratiam consequi; declarat in Evangelic idem Dominus." Ibid. p. 208. Exhort, ad Mart. :-- " Nos tantum, qui, Domino permittente, primum baptisma credentibus dedimus, ad aliud quoque singulos praeparemus, insinuantes et docentes hoc esse baptisma in gratia majus, in postestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius: baptisma in quo angeli baptizant, baptisma in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, baptisma post quod nemo jam peccat, baptisma quod fidei nostrse incrementa consummat, baptisma quod nos de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aquas baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa, in sanguinis corona virtutum. Ibid. p. 168. See also Bingham Antiquit. Book 10, ch. 2, s. 20, and other passages cited by him. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 3, ch. 10:-- [] Eusebius speaks also of Herais, a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, Book 6, ch. 4: -- [].The Preparation of the Gospel · BOOK 9 43:21Eusebius of Caesarea14. 414 d 4 Abydenus, Assyrian History. Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, i. p. 8The Preparation of the Gospel · BOOK 9 43:23Eusebius of Caesarea16. 416 b 3 Abydenus, Assyrian History. Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, ibidem, p. 9Theophania · Book 2 7:17Eusebius of Caesarea64. This passage occurs in the Prep. Lib. xi. cap. xvi. and there said to be taken from the Epimenides of Plato. But no dialogue bearing that title is now to be found among the writings of Plato, as Viger has remarked in his notes. (Prep. Evang. p. 51. notes.) It occurs, however, in the Epinomis, §. 9. (p. 30. Edit. Lond. 1826.) ...The place is cited (as Viger also tells us) by Cyril. Alexan. Lib. viii. against Julian, (Edit. Spanh. p. 271. 2.) and by Theodoret, Graecar. affect. Edit. 1642. Tom. iv. p. 499. Edit. Gaisford, p. 89. See also the note to the Lond. Edit, of Plato, as above.Theophania · Book 2 7:18Eusebius of Caesarea65. This passage occurs in the sixth Epistle of Plato, (Edit. London, 1826. p. 96.) and is given by Eusebius, (Prep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xvi. Edit. Viger. p. 534.) also by Cyril of Alexandria, against Julian (Edit. Spanh. p. 271.), by Theodoret----for the most part----(Graec. affect. curatio. Serm. ii. Edit. 1642. p. 498. Tom. iv. Edit. Gaisford, p. 87.) and by (Clemens. Alexand. Strom. v. pp. 436, 698: and Origen contra Celsum Lib. vi. p. 280. See ib. p. 308. [...]Theophania · Book 2 7:25Eusebius of Caesarea72. This argument is also touched upon by Cyrill of Alexandria in his work against Julian. (Edit. Spanh. p. 284.) The Syriac here speaks in the first person, as is usual with Oriental writers: thus, [Syriac]. For not as my opinion, but as theirs: i.e. Plato here makes the statement, not as resting on his authority, but on theirs. See also Vossius de Orig. et prog, idololatrise, Lib. i. cap. xli. p. 15]. and the Prep. Evang. Lib. xiii. cap. i.Theophania · Book 2 9:5Eusebius of Caesarea102. This is found in the Gr. as above cited, but defectively, and has been taken from Porphyry, Prep. Evang. p. 155. B. [Greek] Part of this is also found in Cyrill. Alexandr. against Julian, p. 128. seq. Edit. Spanh. [...]Theophania · Book 2 9:8Eusebius of Caesarea105. The Seleucus who spoke of God: a periphrasis for the Greek qeolo&goj . He was, as Viger thinks, (notes ib.) a Grammarian of Alexandria, who wrote commentaries on most of the Poets, &c. and a hundred books on the Gods; and, that on this last account he was termed the Theologian. See also Suidas sub voce. This place is also cited by Cyrill .of Alexandria, Edit. Spanh. p. 128, with considerable varieties of reading from that of Eusebius. [..]The Canons 1:8Council of GangraWhen one considers how deeply the early church was impressed with those passages of Holy Scripture which she understood to set forth the superiority of the virgin over the married estate, it ceases to be any source of astonishment that some should have run into the error of condemning marriage as sinful. The saying of our Blessed Lord with reference to those who had become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," and those words of St. Paul "He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better," together with the striking passage in the Revelation of those that were "not defiled with women for they are virgins," were considered as settling the matter for the new dispensation. The earliest writers are filled with the praises of virginity. Its superiority underlies the allegories of the Hermes Pastor; St. Justin Martyr speaks of "many men and women of sixty and seventy years of age who from their childhood have been the disciples of Christ, and have kept themselves uncorrupted," and from that time on there is an ever-swelling tide of praise; the reader must be referred to SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, etc., etc. In fact the Council of Trent (it cannot be denied) only gave expression to the view of all Christian antiquity both East and West, when it condemned those who denied that "it is more blessed to remain virgin or celibate than to be joined in marriage."The Canons 3:22Synod of Antioch of 341As these letters admitted their bearers to communion they were sometimes called "Communion letters" ( koinwnikai ;), and are so described by St. Cyril of Alexandria; and by the Council of Elvira (canon xxv.), and by St. Augustine (Epist. xliii. al. clxii).The Canons 3:23Council of LaodiceaThis synod here declares the baptism of the Montanists invalid, while in the preceding canon it recognised as valid the baptism of the Novatians and Quartodecimans. From this, it would appear that the Montanists were suspected of heresy with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Some other authorities of the ancient Church, however, judged differently, and for a long time it was a question in the Church whether to consider the baptism of the Montanists valid or not. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria was in favour of its validity: but this Synod and the Second General Council rejected it as invalid, not to mention the Synod of Iconium 235, which declared all heretical baptism invalid. This uncertainty of the ancient Church is accounted for thus: (a) On one side the Montanists, and especially Tertullian, asserted that they held the same faith and sacraments, especially the same baptism (eadem lavacri sacramenta) as the Catholics. St. Epiphanius concurred in this, and testified that the Montanists taught the same regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as did the Catholic Church. (b) Other Fathers, however, thought less favourably of them, and for this reason, that the Montanists often expressed themselves so ambiguously, that they might, nay, must be said completely to identify the Holy Ghost with Montanus. Thus Tertullian in quoting expressions of Montanus, actually says: "the Paraclete speaks"; and therefore Firmilian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, and other Fathers, did in fact, reproach the Montanists with this identification, and consequently held their baptism to be invalid. (c) Basil the Great goes to the greatest length in this direction in maintaining that the Montanists had baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of Montanus and Priscilla. But it is very probable, as Tillemont conjectured, that Basil only founded these strange stories of their manner of baptizing upon his assumption that they identified Montanus with the Holy Ghost; and, as Baronius maintains, it is equally "probable that the Montanists did not alter the form of baptism. But, even admitting all this, their ambiguous expressions concerning Montanus and the Holy Ghost would alone have rendered it advisable to declare their baptism invalid." (d) Besides this, a considerable number of Montanists, namely, the school of Aeschines, fell into Sabellianism, and thus their baptism was decidedly invalid. (Vide Article in Wetzer and Welte Kirchenlexicon s. v. Montanus; by myself [i.e. Hefele] ).The Canons 9:15Council of Laodicea1. The Catechetical Lectures of St, Cyril of Jerusalem, delivered about the year 347.The Canons 9:19Council of LaodiceaThe Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril are really a commentary upon the ceremonies of the mass, made to the neophytes after their initiation. The preacher does not treat of the missa catechumenorum because his hearers had so long been familiar with it; he presupposes the bread and wine to have been brought to and placed upon the altar, and begins at the moment when the bishop prepares himself to celebrate the Holy Mysteries by washing his hands.Letters of Athanasius · Letters of Athanasius with Two Ancient Chronicles of His Life 6:24Athanasius of AlexandriaThe variations of practice which had rendered the Paschal Feast a subject of controversy from very early times (see Dict. Christ. Antiq. Easter) had given rise to the custom of the announcement of Easter at a convenient interval beforehand by circular letters. In the third century the Bishops of Alexandria issued such letters (e.g. Dionysius in Eus. H.E. vii. 20), and at the Council of Nicaea, where the Easter question was dealt with ( ad Afros. 2 ), the Alexandrian see was requested to undertake the duty of announcing the correct date to the principal foreign Churches as well as to its own suffragan sees. (This is doubted in the learned article Paschal Letters D.C.A. p. 1562, but the statement of Cyril. Alex. in his `Prologus Paschalis' is express: cf. Ideler 2, 259. The only doubt is, whether the real reference is to Sardica, see Index xv. and Ep. 18.) This was probably due to the astronomical learning for which Alexandria was famous . At any rate we have fragments of the Easter letters of Dionysius and of Theophilus, and a collection of the Letters of Cyril .Letters of Athanasius · Letters of Athanasius with Two Ancient Chronicles of His Life 7:1Athanasius of Alexandria(1) Number of Festal Letters of Athanasius. -This question, which is of first-rate importance for the chronology of the period, must be regarded as settled, at any rate until some discovery which shall revolutionise all existing data. The number 45, which was the maximum known to antiquity , is confirmed by the Index, and by the fact that the citations from Cosmas (see above) tally with the order of the Letters in this Syriac version in every case where the letter is preserved entire, while Letter 39, preserved by a different writer, also tallies with the reference to it in the Index. It is therefore unassailably established on our existing evidence that the last Easter letter of Ath. was his `45th,' in other words that 45 is the full or normal number of his festal letters. This clinches the reckoning of the Index and Hist. Aceph. that he was bishop for 45 Easters (329-373 inclusive), i.e. for parts of 46 years (328-373 inclusive). Moreover it corroborates, and is rivetted firm by, the statement of Cyril. Alex. Ep. 1, that Athan. graced the see of Alexandria `fully 46 years.' `Il le dit en voulant faire son eloge: de sorte qu'il y a tout lieu de croire qu'il n'a point passe les 46 ans: car pour peu qu'il fust entré dans la 47 année, S. Cyrille auroit dû naturellement luy donner 47 ans .' So Tillemont (viii. 719), whose opinion is all the more valuable from the fact that he is unable to harmonise it with his date for the accession of Ath., and accordingly forgets, p. 720 ( sub. fin. ), what he has said on the previous page.Letters of Athanasius · Letters of Athanasius with Two Ancient Chronicles of His Life 7:5Athanasius of Alexandria(3) The Index to the Festal Letters .-This chronicle, so constantly referred to throughout this volume, is of uncertain date, but probably (upon internal evidence) only `somewhat later' (Hefele, E. Tr. vol. ii. p. 50) than Athanasius himself. Its special value is in the points where it agrees with the Hist. Aceph. ( supr . Prolegg. ch. v.), where we recognise the accredited reckoning of the Alexandrian Church as represented by Cyril and Proterius (see Tillem. ubi supr .). The writer undoubtedly makes occasional slips (cf. Index iii. with Letter iv. and p. 512, note I, Index xiii. with Letter xiii. !), and the text would be a miracle if it had come down to us uncorrupt (see notes passim ): but on the main dates he is consistent with himself, with the Chron. Aceph. and (so far as they come in contact) with the notices of the Alexandrian bishops above mentioned.Discourse to Hypatius 5 6:12Ephrem the SyrianAN ANCIENT ARMENIAN VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE OF S. JOHN; also THE ARMENIAN TEXTS OF CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA SCHOLIA DE INCARNATIONE, and EPISTLE TO THEODOSIUS UPON EASTER, the former incompletely preserved in Greek, the latter unknown in Greek or Latin. All Edited with English Versions, etc., by F. C. CONYBEARE, formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford.Letters · Letter 120 1:5Basil of CaesareaI wish your reverence to know that our brother Anthimus has ordained Faustus, who is living with the pope as bishop, without having received the votes, and in place of our right reverend brother Cyril. Thus he has filled Armenia with schisms. I have thought it right to tell your reverence this, lest they should lie against me, and I be responsible for these disorderly proceedings. You will of course deem it right to make this known to the rest. I think such irregularity will distress many.Letters · Letter 99 1:6Basil of CaesareaNow, after getting as far as Satala in such a state of health, I seemed to settle the rest by the grace of God. I made peace between the Armenian bishops, and made them a suitable address, urging them to put away their customary indifference, and resume their ancient zeal in the Lord's cause. Moreover, I delivered them rules as to how it behoved them to give heed to iniquities generally practised in Armenia. I further accepted a decision of the Church of Satala, asking that a bishop might be given them through me. I was also careful to inquire into the calumnies promulgated against our brother Cyril, the Armenian bishop, and by God's grace I have found them to be started by the lying slanders of his enemies. This they confessed to me. And I seemed to some extent to reconcile the people to him, so that they avoid communion with him no more. Small achievements these, maybe, and not worth much, but in consequence of the mutual discord caused by the wiles of the devil, it was impossible for me to effect more. Even this much I ought not to have said, so as not to seem to be publishing my own disgrace. But as I could not plead my cause before your excellency in any other way, I was under the necessity of telling you the entire truth.Council of Constantinople- the Synodical Letter 1:7Council of Constantinople of 381Now as to the particular administration of individual churches, an ancient custom, as you know, has obtained, confirmed by the enactment of the holy fathers of Nicaea, that in every province, the bishops of the province, and, with their consent, the neighbouring bishops with them, should perform ordinations as expediency may require. In conforming with these customs note that other churches have been administered by us and the priests of the most famous, churches publicly appointed. Accordingly over the new made (if the expression be allowable) church at Constantinople, which, as through from a lion's mouth, we have lately snatched by God's mercy from the blasphemy of the heretics, we have or-dained bishop the right reverend and most religious Nectarius, in the presence of the Ecumenical Council, with common consent, before the most religious emperor Theodosius, and with the assent of all the clergy and of the whole city. And over the most ancient and truly apostolic church in Syria, where first the noble name of Christians was given them, the bishops of the province and of the eastern diocese have met together and canonically ordained bishop the right reverend and most religious Flavianus, with the consent of all the church, who as though with one voice joined in expressing their respect for him. This rightful ordination also received the sanction of the General Council. Of the church at Jerusalem, mother of all the churches, we make known that the right reverend and most religious Cyril is bishop, who was some time ago canonically ordained by the bishops of the province, and has in several places fought a good fight against the Arians. We beseech your reverence to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically settled by us, by the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear of the Lord, compelling the feelings of men, and making the edification of churches of more importance than individual grace or favour. Thus since among us there is agreement in the faith and Christian charity has been established, we shall cease to use the phrase condemned by the apostles, I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas, and all appearing as Christ's, who in us is not divided, by God's grace we will keep the body of the church unrent, and will boldly stand at the judgment seat of the Lord.CATECHETICAL LECTURES · Lecture 1 1:2Cyril of JerusalemFirst Catechetical Lecture of Our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of JerusalemCATECHETICAL LECTURES · Procatechesis 1:3Cyril of JerusalemPrologue to the Catechetical Lectures of Our Holy Father, Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem.Against the Donatists · Book 1 15:11Optatus of Milevis( c ) The Church is also said to include not only her children on earth, but also the holy dead. Thus St. Augustine ( De Civ. Dei xx, 9): 'Neither are the souls of the holy dead separated from the Church, which even now is the Kingdom of Christ.' In this most comprehensive sense the epithet Catholic is rarely (if ever) applied to the word 'Church.' Should any case perchance exist where a Father so employs the word Catholic, it would be 'less properly' (as opposed to the general patristic usage)----in the sense that the Blessed souls in Heaven and in Purgatory belonged to the Catholic Church when they were living on earth. It seems well to note this, because there has sometimes been confusion on the point amongst Non-Catholic writers. For example Dr. Darwell Stone ( The Christian Church p. 214) philosophises concerning 'two ideas of the unity of the Church which St. Augustine failed to reconcile,' and boldly writes as follows: 'that notion of the nature and unity of the Church which may be illustrated from Clement of Alexandria and from Origen, but also from St. Augustine, which lays stress on the union of the church militant with the departed and with those yet unborn, and which finds points of contact amongst living Christians in the unseen realities, is not really allowed for in the Roman Catholic doctrine.' Of course it is pure imagination to fancy that there were two opposing views in the minds of the Fathers, striving for the mastery, which 'Augustine failed to reconcile,' but which eventually emerged the one in 'Ultramontanism,' the other in some such system as Anglicanism. But there are two ways of looking at the Church, as we regard it from different aspects. We find both of these, as we should naturally expect, in the Fathers. There is the ordinary patristic view, with which St. Optatus for example makes us so familiar, of one Body upon earth, not merely local, but scattered throughout the world, with its members all joined together, one with each other, in an actual, visible, external communion. (This on Anglican theories is admittedly not a necessity, but only a desirable dream-picture.) There is also, no doubt, to be found in the Fathers a conception of the Church as an ideal unity of all the redeemed on earth and in heaven, united by the mystical indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But far from these being mutually exclusive views between which the Fathers oscillate, they are two different entities, each of which represents a great reality, not merely 'allowed for,' but much more----apprehended by 'the Roman Catholic 'as keenly now as in any age of the Church's history. The latter of these, however, is not what the Fathers mean by 'the Catholic Church,' but is the whole Church of the Redeemed----whose 'names are written in heaven '----now in fieri, only to be realised at the Last Day. The former is the Church militant, the Catholic Church, diffused throughout the world (as its name implies) and nowhere else. It is of this visible Catholic Church that the Fathers predicate unity, not merely as a quality, but as an essential quality, and a visible 'note' or characteristic by which (in conjunction with her existence everywhere, or her Catholicity) she is to be instantly recognised. This is the meaning of the definition of Eunomius and Olimpius (as given by St. Optatus), which cut at the root of the Donatist question. On the one side stood a great number of African bishops. On the other side was Caecilian with (probably) but few colleagues in Africa, but in communion with all the rest of the Catholic world. So seventy African Bishops, even with the Primate Secundus, were of no importance, for over against them was 'the Catholic Church.' It is exactly the same touchstone as St. Cyril of Jerusalem had given when he told his hearers to ask in every city not for the kuriakh& (the house of God, or Church), but for 'the Catholic Church,'----the same touchstone that St. Pacian gave against the Novatians, when he said 'Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.' The visible unity of one visible Church throughout the world is the presupposition and the teaching of all the Fathers. This is seen perhaps with special clearness in this Donatist controversy. But at all times and everywhere the patristic conception of the Church and of Schism is, apart from this presupposition, wholly unintelligible.Life of St. Macrina · English Translation 7:9Gregory of Nyssa8. According to the well-known story, the Cross was discovered by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great (c. 327). The earliest mention of the wood of the Cross as a relic seems to be in Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, See iv. 10, "The whole world has since been filled with pieces of the wood of the Cross." Cf. x. 19, xiii. 4.The Canons 53:8Council of Carthage of 419Here begin the rescripts to the African Council from Cyril bishop of Alexandria in which he sends the authentic proceedings of the Nicene Council, translated from the Greek by Innocent the presbyter: these letters with the same Nicene council were also sent through the aforementioned presbyter Innocent and by Marcellus a subdeacon of the Church of Carthage, to the holy Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, on the sixth day before the calends of December in the year 419.The Canons 53:9Council of Carthage of 419To the most honourable lords, our holy brethren and fellow bishops, Aurelius, Valentinus, as well as to the whole holy synod met in Carthage, Cyril salutes your holiness in God.The Canons 54:4Council of Carthage of 419We could wish that, like as your Holiness intimated to us, in your letter sent by our fellow presbyter Leo, your pleasure at the arrival of Apiarius, so we also could send to you these writings with pleasure respecting his clearing. Then in truth both our own satisfaction, and yours of late would be more reasonable; nor would that lately expressed by you concerning the hearing of him then to come, as well as that already past, seem hasty and inconsiderate. Upon the arrival, then, of our holy Brother and fellow-Bishop Faustinus, we assembled a council, and believed that he was sent with that man, in order that, as he [Apiarius] had before been restored to the presbyterate by his assistance, so now he might with his exertions be cleared of the very great crimes charged against him by the inhabitants of Tabraca. But the due course of examination in our council discovered in him such great and monstrous crimes as to overhear even Faustinus, who acted rather as an advocate of the aforementioned person than as a judge, and to prevail against what was more the zeal of a defender, than the justice of an inquirer. For first he vehemently opposed the whole assembly, inflicting on us many injuries, under pretence of asserting the privileges of the Roman Church, and wishing that he should be received into communion by us, on the ground that your Holiness, believing him to have appealed, though unable to prove it, had restored him to communion. But this we by no means allowed, as you will also better see by reading the acts. After however, a most laborious inquiry carried on for three days, during which in the greatest affliction we took cognizance of various charges against him, God the just Judge, strong and long suffering, cut short by a sudden stroke both the delays of our fellow-bishop Faustinus and the evasions of Apiarius himself, by which he was endeavouring to veil his foul enormities. For his strong and shameless obstinacy was overcome, by which he endeavoured to cover, through an impudent denial, the mire of his lusts, and God so wrought upon his conscience and published, even to the eyes of men, the secret crimes which he was already condemning in that man's heart, a very sty of wickedness, that, after his false denial he suddenly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes he was charged with, and at length convicted himself of his own accord of all infamies beyond belief, and changed to groans even the hope we had entertained, believing and desiring that he might be cleared from such shameful blots, except indeed that it was so far a relief to our sorrow, that he had delivered us from the labour of a longer inquiry, and by confession had applied some sort of remedy to his own wounds, though, lord and brother, it was unwilling, and done with a struggling conscience. Premising, therefore, our due regards to you, we earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us, because you, venerable Sir, will readily perceive that this has been prescribed even by the Nicene council. For though this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy, or the laity, how much more did it will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in their own Province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness. Let your Holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that unprincipled taking shelter with you of presbyters likewise, and the inferior clergy, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers hath the Church of Africa been deprived of this authority, and the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of inferior rank, but the bishops themselves to their own Metropolitans. For they have ordained with great wisdom and justice, that all matters should be terminated in the places where they arise; and did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any Province, for the bishopsof Christ (Sacerdotibus) wisely to discern, and firmly to maintain the right: especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council [i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multi-rude of bishops (sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send thither the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or advanced age, or any other impediment? For that your Holiness should send ally on your part we can find ordained by no council of Fathers. Because with regard to what you have sent us by file same our brother bishop Faustinus, as being contained in the Nicene Council, we can find nothing of the kind in the more authentic copies of that council, which we have received from the holy Cyril our brother, Bishop of the Alexandrine Church, and from the venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople, and which we formerly sent by Innocent the presbyter, and MarcelIus the subdeacon through whom we received them, to Boniface the Bishop, your predecessor of venerable memory. Moreover whoever desires you to delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders, do not comply, lest it seem that we are introducing the pride of secular dominion into the Church of Christ which exhibiteth to all that desire to see God the light of simplicity and the day of humility. For now that the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting our brother Faustinus, that through the uprightness and moderation of your Holiness, Africa, without violating brotherly charity, will by no means have to endure him any longer. Lord and brother, may our Lord long preserve your Holiness to pray for us.Chronicle · Latin text of pages 188-332 86:22Jerome4 b Antiochiae XVIII constituitur episcopus Cyrillus. 281 b Carinus praelio victus apud Margum occiditur. (*)Chronicle · Latin text of pages 188-332 91:25Jeromea XL Maximus post Macarium Hierosolymarum episcopus moritur, post quem ecclesiam Ariani invadunt. Id est Cyrillus, Eutychius, rursum Cyrillus, Hireneus, tertio Cyrillus, Hilarius, quarto Cyrillus. Quorum Cyrillus, cum a Maximo fuisset presbyter ordinatus et post mortem eius ita ei ab Acacio episcopo Caesariensi et ceteris Arianis episcopatus promitteretur si ordinationem Maximi repudiasset. Diaconus in ecclesia ministravit. Ob quam impietatem sacerdotii mercede pensatus Heraclium, quem moriens Maximus in suum locum substituerat, varia fraude sollicitans de episcopo in presbyterum regradavit.Chronicle · Pages 188-332 87:5Jerome4 b Cyrillus is appointed 18th bishop of Antioch. 281 b Carinus, defeated in battle at the Margus, is slain. (*)Chronicle · Pages 188-332 92:8Jeromea Maximus the 40th bishop of Jerusalem after Macarius dies, after whom the Arians take possession of the church, that is Cyril, Eutychius, Cyril again, Irenaeus, Cyril a third time, Hilarius, Cyril a fourth time. Of these, Cyril had been ordained presbyter by Maximus and thus after his death the episcopate was promised to him by Acacius bishop of Caesarea and other Arians if he would repudiate the ordination of Maximus. He ministered as a deacon in the church. On account of this impiety of priesthood he was compensated by a bribe. He degraded Heraclius, whom the dying Maximus had appointed in his place, from bishop to presbyter, harassing him by various deceits.Letters · letter_017 1:8Jerome4. As regards the questions which you have thought fit to put to me concerning the faith, I have given to the reverend Cyril a written confession which sufficiently answers them. He who does not so believe has nopart in Christ. My faith is attested both by your ears and by those of your blessed brother, Zenobius, to whom, as well as to yourself, we all of us here send our best greeting.Lives of Illustrious Men 112:2JeromeCyril, bishop of Jerusalem often expelled by the church, and at last received, held the episcopate for eight consecutive years, in the reign of Theodosius. Certain Catachetical lectures of his, composed while he was a young man, are extant.Commentary on the Nicene Creed · Translator's Introduction 2:4Theodore of MopsuestiaDeath did not put a stop to the fame of Theodore. It is recorded in Tillemont that Meletius, Theodore's successor to the see of Mopsuestia, asserted that he would have endangered his own life if he had uttered words detrimental to his predecessor. Even Cyril of Alexandria whose views on the Incarnation were not in harmony with those of Theodore was obliged to avow that in the Churches of the East one often heard the cry: "We believe as Theodore believed; long live the faith of Theodore!" The same Cyril of Alexandria informs us that when a party of bishops was found ready to condemn him, the answer of the bishops of Syria to them was: "We had rather be burnt than condemn Theodore." Leontius Byzantinus informs us also that Cyril of Alexandria advised against the condemnation of Theodore because all the bishops of the Eastern Church considered |4 him an eminent Doctor, and if he were condemned there would be serious disturbance in that Church. The famous Church historian, Theodoret, was pleased to call him "Doctor of the Universal Church." This title is also ascribed to him by a much later Greek author, Nicephorus Callistus, who calls him "Doctor of all the Churches."Commentary on the Nicene Creed · Translator's Introduction 2:10Theodore of MopsuestiaAn anti-Theodorian party, however, was steadily gaining ground in Egypt where Cyril of Alexandria held sway. Towards the middle of the sixth century the Alexandrian Doctors, followers of Cyril, counted many adherents in the Metropolis, who were powerful enough |6 to influence the Emperor Justinian and induce him to summon a Council and condemn Theodore.Commentary on the Nicene Creed · Translator's Introduction 2:11Theodore of MopsuestiaGiven free rein the outbursts of the Cyrillian Bishops of the Council knew no bounds. Expressions such as "impious," "blasphemous," "heretical" were continuously hurled against a man dead one hundred and twenty-five years previously. The following phrases reveal the spirit which permeated the Fathers of the fifth Council:Commentary on the Nicene Creed · Translator's Introduction 2:13Theodore of MopsuestiaThe condemnation of a dead man gave satisfaction to his adversaries in the Cyrillian camp, but rent asunder the Catholic Church of the time and caused a deep wound in the spiritual body of the faithful. The evil effects of that wound are to some extent felt even in our days, in which the theological admirers of Theodore are, more than one thousand and five hundred years after his death, still counted in thousands.Prologue to the Commentary on Acts · Preface to the online edition 1:11Theodore of MopsuestiaAccording to the minute description which the royal librarian, Salvator Cyrillus, gave in his catalogue of the Greek manuscripts of the Bourbon library (now the national library) in Naples, the manuscript contains, on folio i, the well-known Euthalian Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles (Zacagni, p. 403) without heading; then folio 3, a second preface to this book, likewise without superscription, of which Cyrill gives a small part.Prologue to the Commentary on Acts · Preface to the online edition 1:12Theodore of MopsuestiaThrough the courtesy of two friends I am able to give this highly interesting Prologue in full. Dr. Erich Forster, pastor at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the well-known editor of the Chronik der christlichen Welt, and afterward Mr. James Hardy Ropes, instructor in Harvard University, had the great kindness to furnish me the entire text, partly in transcription and partly in epilation. The manuscript is in places very much defaced and only with difficulty legible, which is no doubt the reason why only a part has been printed by Cyrill, and that in a very faulty way. Single words are even yet not read with perfect certainty. As I have not seen the codex myself, I cannot undertake the full responsibility, particularly where the two collations at my disposal do not agree. It is nevertheless better to print the text even with some mistakes than to leave scholars much longer in ignorance of it. I am indebted to several acquaintances, above all to Professor Blass, of Halle, and Dr. Koetschau, professor at the Gymnasium in Jena, well known by his studies in Origen, for various suggestions in the restoration of the text by conjecture.Prologue to the Commentary on Acts · Preface to the online edition 2:15Theodore of Mopsuestia[A. D. (ca.) 440. Cyrill of Alexandria. The fragments of catenae are probably not derived from a commentary on the Acts.]Prologue to the Commentary on Acts · Preface to the online edition 2:17Theodore of MopsuestiaA. D. (ca.) 440. Theodotus of Ancyra, a partisan of Cyrill; fragments of catenae.Prologue to the Commentary on Acts · Preface to the online edition 3:3Theodore of MopsuestiaBut also among the commentators preceding the fifth century we have to reject a considerable number. In the case of many, among these Cyrill and Theodoret, it cannot be shown at all that they ever composed a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles; others again, e. g. Origen and Chrysostom, have left us only continuous homilies on this book, the nature of which excludes our prologue as an introduction; and again, commentators of the Alexandrian school, Didymus, Cyrill, Theodotus of Ancyra, and others, are decisively excluded by the character of the theological conceptions which pervade our prologue, which, it may be said here by way of anticipation, is strictly of the Antiochian school. This and the masterly character of the commentary lead us to think above all of Diodorus of Tarsus, or his yet more famous pupil, Theodore of Mopsuestia.Prologue to the Commentary on Acts · Preface to the online edition 3:16Theodore of Mopsuestia1. Codices Graeci MSS. Regiae Bibliothecae Borbonicae descripti atque illustrati a Salvatore Cyrillo. Neapol, 1726, I, pp. 13-24.Decree of the Council Against Nestorius 1:4Council of EphesusThe words for which I have given the original Greek, are not mentioned by Canon Bright in his Article on St. Cyril in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography; nor by Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of Ephesus in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. They do not appear in Canon Robertsons History of the Church. And strangest of all, Dean Milman cites the Sentence in English in the text and in Greek in a note but in each case omits all mention of the letter of the Pope, marking however in the Greek that there is an omission. (Lat. Chr., Bk. II., Chap. III.) I also note that the translation in the English edition of Hefele's History of the Councils (Vol. III., p. 51) is misleading and inaccurate, "Urged by the canons, and in accordance with the letter etc." The participle by itself might mean nothing more than "urged" (vide Liddell and Scott on this verb and also e0pei/gw ) but the adverb which precedes it, a0nagkai/wj , certainly is sufficient to necessitate the coacti of the old Latin version which I have followed, translating "compelled thereto." It will also be noticed that while the prepositions used with regard to the "canons" and the "letter" are different, yet that their grammatical relation to the verb is identical is shewn by the te - kai ;, which proves the translation cited above to be utterly incorrect.Decree of the Synod in the Matter of Euprepius and Cyril 1:1Council of EphesusDecree of the Synod in the Matter of Euprepius and Cyril.Decree of the Synod in the Matter of Euprepius and Cyril 1:3Council of EphesusThe petition of the most pious bishops Euprepius and Cyril, which is set forth in the papers they offered, is honest. Therefore from the holy canons and the external laws, which have from ancient custom the force of law, let no innovation be made in the cities of Europa, but according to the ancient custom they shall be governed by the bishops by whom they have been formerly governed. For since there never was a metropolitan who had power otherwise, so neither hereafter shall there be any departure from the ancient custom.Decree of the Synod in the Matter of Euprepius and Cyril 1:6Council of EphesusTwo Thracian bishops, Euprepius of Biza (Bizya) and Cyril of Coele, gave occasion for a decree, praying for protection against their Metropolitan, Fritilas of Heraclea, who had gone over to the party of John of Antioch, and at the same time for the confirmation of the previous practice of holding two bishoprics at the same time. The Synod granted both.Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 1 1:6Council of EphesusWe have in our hands the letter of the most holy and most reverend archbishop Cyril, which he wrote to the most reverend Nestorius, filled with counsel and advice, on account of his aberration from the right faith. I will read this if your holiness [i.e., the holy Synod] so orders. The letter began as follows: Katafluarou=si me\n, w9j a0k0ou/w, k.t.l .Intelligo quosdam meae, etc.Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 2 1:3Council of EphesusAnd after the letter was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, said: This holy and great Synod has heard what I wrote to the most religious Nestorius, defending the right faith. I think that I have in no respect departed from the true statement of the faith, that is from the creed set forth by the holy and great synod formerly assembled at Nice. Wherefore I desire your holiness [i.e. the Council] to say whether rightly and blamelessly and in accordance with that holy synod I have written these things or no.Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 2 1:4Council of Ephesus[A number of bishops then gave their opinion, all favourable to Cyril; after these individual opinions the Acts continue (col. 491):]Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 2 1:5Council of EphesusAnd all the rest of the bishops in the order of their rank deposed to the same things, and so believed, according as the Fathers had set forth, and as the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Cyril to Nestorius the bishop declared.Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 2 1:7Council of EphesusAnd after this letter was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, said, What seems good to this holy and great synod with regard to the letter just read? Does it also seem to be consonant to the faith set forth by the holy Synod assembled in the city of Nice?Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 2 1:12Council of EphesusPeter the presbyter of Alexandria, and primicerius of the notaries said: Altogether in agreement with the things just read are those which his holiness Cyril our most pious bishop wrote, which I now have at hand, and will read if your piety so shall order.Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 3 1:4Council of EphesusCyril, the bishop of the Church of Alexandria, said: As this letter of the most reverend and pious Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, which has been read, contains a most lucid expression of opinion, let it beinserted in the Acts. For it wishes thatthe ancient dogmas of the faith should be confirmed, and that novelties, absurdly conceived and impiously brought forth, shouldbe reprobated and proscribed.Extracts from the Acts. Session 1 Part 3 1:6Council of Ephesus[Immediately follows the sentence of deposition and the subscriptions. It seems almost certain that something has dropped out here, most probably the whole discussion of Cyril's XII. Anathematisms.]Extracts from the Acts. Session 2 Part 1 1:4Council of EphesusPhilip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod. For a long time ago ( pa/lai ) our most holy and blessed pope Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, through his letters to that holy and most pious man Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, gave judgment concerning the present cause and affair ( w\#risen ) which letters have been shown to your holy assembly. And now again for the corroboration of the Catholic ( kaqolikh=j ) faith, he has sent through us letters to all your holinesses, which you will bid ( kelou/sate ) to be read with becoming reverence ( prepo/ntwj ) and to be entered on the ecclesiastical minutes.Extracts from the Acts. Session 2 Part 1 1:7Council of EphesusAnd afterwards the most holy and beloved-of-God Cyril, bishop of the Church of Alexandria, spoke as is next in order contained; Siricius, notary of the holy Catholic ( kaqolikh/j ) Church of Rome read it.Extracts from the Acts. Session 2 Part 1 1:8Council of EphesusCyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: Let the letter received from the most holy and altogether most blessed Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See of Rome be read to the holy Synod with fitting honour.Extracts from the Acts. Session 2 Part 2 1:3Council of EphesusAnd all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!Extracts from the Acts. Session 2 Part 2 1:5Council of EphesusFirmus, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: The Apostolic and holy see of the most holy bishop Coelestine, hath previously given a decision and type ( tu/pon ) in this matter, through the writings which were sent to the most God beloved bishops, to wit to Cyril of Alexandria, and to Juvenal of Jerusalem, and to Rufus of Thessalonica, and to the holy churches, both of Constantinople and of Antioch. This we have also followed and (since the limit set for Nestorius's emendation was long gone by, and much time has passed since our arrival at the city of Ephesus in accordance with the decree of the most pious emperor, and thereupon having delayed no little time sothat the day fixed by the emperor was past; and since Nestorius although cited had not appeared) we carried into effect the type ( tu/pon ) having pronounced against him acanonical and apostolical judgment.Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate, said: Although our sailing was slow, and contrary winds hindered us especially, so that we did not know whether we should arrive at the destined place, as we had hoped, nevertheless by God's good providence ... Wherefore we desire to ask your blessedness, that you command that we be taught what has been already decreed by your holiness.Extracts from the Acts. Session 2 Part 2 1:7Council of EphesusTheodotus, the bishop of Ancyra said: The God of the whole world has made manifest the justice of the judgment pronounced by the holy Synod by the writings of the most religious bishop Coelestine, and by the coming of your holiness. For ye have made manifest the zeal of the most holy and reverend bishop Coelestine, and his care for the pious faith. And since very reasonably your reverence is desirous of learning what has been done from the minutes of the acts concerning the deposition of Nestorius your reverence will be fully convinced of the justice of the sentence, and of the zeal of the holy Synod, and the symphony of the faith which the most pious and holy bishop Coelestine has proclaimed with a great voice, of course after your full conviction, the rest shall be added to the present action.[In the Acts follow two short letters from Coelestine, one to the Emperor and the other to Cyril, but nothing is said about them, or how they got there, and thus abruptly ends the account of this session.]Extracts from the Acts. Session 3 1:10Council of EphesusCyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Coelestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote east against Nestorius the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.The 12 Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius 1:1Council of EphesusThe XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius.The 12 Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius 1:2Council of Ephesus(Found in St. Cyril's Opera. Migne, Pat. Graec, Tom. LXXVII., Col. 119; and the Concilia.)The 12 Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius 1:6Council of EphesusThe Anathematisms of the Heretic Nestorius Against Cyril.The 12 Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius 1:14Council of EphesusSt. Cyril explains that by sarkikw=j , carnaliter, he meant nothing else than kata\ sa/rka , secundum carnem, "according to the flesh." And it was necessary to use this expression to overthrow the perfidy of Nestorius; so that we may understand that the most holy Virgin was the parent not of a simple and bare man, but of God the Word, not in that he was God, but in that he had taken flesh. For God the Father was the parent of the same Son qei>\kw=j (divinely) as his mother was sarkikw=j (after the flesh). And the word ( sarkikw=j ) in no degree lessens the dignity of his begetting and bringing forth; for it shews that his flesh was not simulated or shadowed forth; but true and like to ours. Amphilochius distinctly uses the word, saying "Except he had been born carnally ( sarkikw=j ), never wouldest thou have been born spiritually ( pneumatikw=j )." Cf. St. Gregory Nazianzen ( Orat. 51).The 12 Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius 1:15Council of EphesusTheodoret misunderstood St. Cyril to teach in this first anathematism that the Word was changed into the flesh he assumed. But Cyril rightly treated this whole accusation as a foolish calumny.The Canons 1:4Council of EphesusWhen we had assembled, according to the religious decree [of the Emperors], in the Metropolis of Ephesus, certain persons, a little more than thirty in number, withdrew from amongst us, having for the leader of their schism John, Bishop of Antioch. Their names are as follows: first, the said John of Antioch in Syria, John of Damascus, Alexander of Apamea, Alexander of Hierapolis, Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of Heraclea, Helladius of Tarsus, Maximin of Anazarbus, Theodore of Marcianopolis, Peter of Trajanopolis, Paul of Emissa, Polychronius of Heracleopolis, Euthyrius of Tyana, Meletius of NeoCaesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Apringius of Chalcedon, Macarius of Laodicea Magna, Zosys of Esbus, Sallust of Corycus in Cilicia, Hesychius of Castabala in Cilicia, Valentine of Mutloblaca, Eustathius of Parnassus, Philip of Theodosia, and Daniel, and Dexianus, and Julian, and Cyril, and Olympius, and Diegenes, Polius, Theophanes of Philadelphia, Trajan of Augusta, Aurelius of Irenepolis, Mysaeus of Aradus, Helladius of Ptolemais. These men, having no privilege of ecclesiastical communion on the ground of a priestly authority, by which they could injure or benefit any persons; since some of them had already been deposed; and since from their refusing to join in our decree against Nestorius, it was manifestly evident to all men that they were all promoting the opinions of Nestorius and Celestius; the Holy Synod, by one common decree, deposed them from all ecclesiastical communion, and deprived them of all their priestly power by which they might injure or profit any persons.The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius 1:1Council of EphesusThe Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius.The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius 1:2Council of Ephesus(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 315; Migne, Patr. Groec., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril., Opera, Tom. X.]; Epist. iv., co]. 43.)The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius 1:3Council of EphesusTo the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the 12 Anathematisms 1:1Council of EphesusThe Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII. Anathematisms.The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the 12 Anathematisms 1:2Council of Ephesus(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 395; Migne, Parr. Groec., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril, Opera, Tom. X.], col. 105 et seqq.)The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the 12 Anathematisms 1:3Council of EphesusTo the most reverend and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril and the synod assembled in Alexandria, of the Egyptian Province, Greeting in the Lord.The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine 1:7Council of EphesusAfter this the letters were read which were written to him by the most holy and most reverend bishop of the Church of Alexandria, Cyril, which the Holy Synod approved as being orthodox and without fault ( o9rqw=j kai\ a0lh/ptwj e!kein ), and in no point out of agreement either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with the faith banded down and set forth in the great synod of holy Fathers, which assembled sometime ago at Nice in Bithynia, as your holiness also rightly having examined this has given witness.The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine 1:8Council of EphesusOn the other hand there was read the letter of Nestorius, which was written to the already mentioned most holy and reverend brother of ours and fellow-minister, Cyril, and the Holy Synod was of opinion that those things which were taught in it were wholly alien from the Apostolic and Evangelical faith, sick with many and strange blasphemies.The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine 1:11Council of EphesusFor as soon as he was come to Ephesus, before he had even shaken off the dust of the journey, or changed his travelling dress, he assembled those who had sided with Nestorius and who had uttered blasphemies against their head, and only not derided the glory of Christ, and gathering as a college to himself, I suppose, thirty men, having the name of bishops (some of whom were without sees, wandering about and having no dioceses, others others again had for many years been deposed for serious causes from their metropolises, and with these were Pelagians and the followers of Celestius, and some of those who were turned out of Thessaly),he had the presumption to commit a piece of iniquity no man had ever done before. For all by himself he drew up a paper which he called a deposition, and reviled and reproached the most holy and reverend Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and the most reverend Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, our brother, and fellow-minister, none of us knowing anything about it, and not even those who were thus reviling knew what was being done, nor for what reason they had presumed to do this. But ignoring the anger of God for such behaviour, and unheeding the ecclesiastical canons, and forgetting that they were hastening to destruction by such a course of action, under the name of an excommunication, they then reviled the whole Synod. And placing these acts of theirs on the public bulletin boards, they exposed them to be read by such as chose to do so, having posted them on the outside of the theatres, that they might make a spectacle of their impiety. But not even was this the limit of their audacity; but as if they had done something in accordance with the canons, they dared to bring what they had done to the ears of the most pious and Christ-loving Emperors. Things being in this condition, the most holy and reverend Cyril, bishop of Alexandria and the most reverend Memnon bishop of the city of Ephesus, offered some books composed by themselves and accusing themost reverend Bishop John and those who with him had done this thing, and conjuring our holy Synod that John and those with him should be summoned according to the canons, so that they might apologize for their dating acts, and if they had any complaints to make they might speak and prove them, for in their written deposition, or rather sheet of abuse, they made this statement as a pretext, "They are Apollinarians, and Arians, and Eunomians, and therefore they have been deposed by us." When, therefore, those who had endured their reviling were present, we again necessarily assembled in the great church, being more than two hundred bishops, and by a first, second, and third call on two days, we summoned John and his companions to the Synod, in order that they might examine those who had been reviled, and might make explanations, and tell the causes which led them to draw up the sentence of deposition; but he did not dare tocome.The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine 1:13Council of EphesusWith our brethren and fellow-ministers, both Cyril the bishop and Memnon, who had endured reproval at their hands, we are all in communion, and after the rashness [of their accusers] we both have and do per-form the liturgy in common, all together celebrating the Synaxis, having made of none effect their play in writing, and having thus shewn that it lacked all validity and effect. For it was mere reviling and nothing else. For what kind of a synod could thirty men hold, some of whom were marked with the stamp of heresy, and some without sees and ejected [from their dioceses]? Or what strength could it have in opposition to a synod gathered from all the whole world? For there were sitting with us the most reverend bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and with them the most holy presbyter Philip, all of whom were sent by your holiness, who gave to us your presence and filled the place of the Apostolic See ( th=j a0postolikh=j kaqe/draj ). Let then your holiness be angered at what took place. But if license were granted to such as wished to pour reproval upon the greater sees, and thus unlawfully and uncanonically to give sentence or rather to utter revilings against those over whom they have no power, against those who for religion have endured such great conflicts, by reason of which now also piety shines forth throughthe prayers of your holiness [if, I say, all this should be tolerated], the affairs of the Church would fall into the greatest confusion. But when those who dare to do such things shall have been chastised aright, all disturbance will cease, and the reverence due to the canons will be observed by all.When there had been read in the holy Synod what had been done touching the deposition of the most irreligious Pelagiansand Coelestines, of Coelestius, and Pelagius,and Julian, and Praesidius, and Florus, and Marcellian, and Orontius, and those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right ( e0dikaiw/samen ) that the determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed. And that you may know in full all things that have been done, we have sent you a copy of the Acts, and of the subscriptions of the Synod. We pray that you, dearly beloved t and most longed for, may be strong andmindful of us in the Lord.Fragments · English translation 6:14Philip of Side2. Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, was the maternal uncle of Gelasius of Caesarea, and he himself when he was dying obligated Gelasius in writing to [compose] the history of the events after Eusebius and of those about which Eusebius did not write.Admonitions to the monks 1:3RabbulaThe ancient city of Urhai, or Edessa, which in Roman times was capital of the Province of Osrhoene in northern Mesopotamia, had for its Bishop during the years 411-435 A.D. a remarkable man, by name Rabbula. Rabbula was the friend of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and, like him, a stout opponent of Nestorius. But he was a man of action rather than a theologian, an organizer and reformer rather than a great teacher; and during his episcopate he set himself sternly to the correction of abuses. He focussed his attention especially upon the clergy of all ranks, and upon the monks, and made them the subject of careful legislation. For each of these classes he drew up a set of "Admonitions," or reformatory canons, aimed at the characteristic abuses of the times. Nor did he confine his reforms to matters of personal conduct: there are good reasons for believing that it was he who finally banished from the Syriac-speaking Church the harmony of the Gospels made by Tatian, and known as the Diatessaron, which for more than two centuries was in constant use amongst the Syrians, and replaced it by a new translation of the four Gospels from the Greek----the same which, from the beginning of the fifth century to the present day, has been universally received by Syrian Christians.ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS 2:21PhilostorgiusCHAP. 12.--But the emperor, on being informed of these matters, ordered the whole of the bishops to assemble at Constantinople. Accordingly they meet together, nearly all the episcopate, as well from the West as from the East and from Libya, Basil and Eustathius being the leaders of those who professed to hold that the Son was like to the Father in substance. These these had a great number of supporters present, and among them a second Basil, who even at that time was only of the order of deacon; he was superior to many in his powers of speech, though from natural timidity and shyness he shrunk from public discussions. But of those who professed their belief in the unlikeness of the Persons, Aetius and Eunomius were the leaders, so far as concerned power and influence, each of them being only of the rank of a deacon. Next to these came the bishops Maris and Eudoxius, who at that time was bishop of Antioch, but was afterwards promoted to the see of Constantinople, as likewise Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who pretended that he was of their party in order to cause pain to Basil, because the latter treated with marked respect Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, whom he had deposed. Acacius, moreover, was bold in discussion, most acute in discerning the point in matters of business, and very eloquent in enforcing his opinion. Hence also the acts of this synod, which are not few in number , were digested and arranged by him. Accordingly, as soon as both parties had come into conflict concerning their respective dogmas, Basil was the patron of those who professed to believe that the Son was like in substance to the Father. But those who asserted |468 the dissimilarity of substance, put forward Aetius and Eunomius as the champions of their cause. Moreover, Basil and his partisans, when they saw Aetius pitted against him as his adversary, in fear of his eloquence, avowed that it was indecorous for bishops to contend with a deacon concerning the doctrines of the faith. But when the leaders of the opposite cause shrunk back from the contest, saying that the matter at stake was not their dignity, but the question of the truth. Basil came forward to the contest, though unwillingly; and, as he writes, he was entirely overcome by his eloquence. So that he not only confessed that the substance of the begotten Son differed from that of the Father who begot him, and was like him in no respect; but also, as Aetius demanded, he confirmed his profession by the subscription of his signature. When the emperor learned these tidings, and still bore in his mind all fresh the calumny of Basil against Aetius, he took advantage of that event to gratify his anger. Accordingly, he ordered both of them to appear in his presence, and asked Basil what were the charges which he brought against Aetius. Basil answered, that he asserted the Son to be unlike the Father in substance. Upon this Aetius said, "I am so far from thinking or asserting that the Son is unlike the Father, that I confess him to be like without any difference." But Constantine, laying hold of that word, "without any difference," and not even enduring to learn in what sense Aetius used that term, gave orders that he should be expelled from the palace. But afterwards, with the assistance of Acacius, he brought about the judicial deposition of Aetius from the episcopate; and it was not only the orthodox who subscribed his degradation, but also those who were of his own opinion; of whom some had changed their former opinion, while others defended, under the name of economy, what they had been unwillingly compelled to do. Further, Constantius, bringing into the midst of the synod the epistle of the Western bishops, ordered it to be confirmed by the subscription of the bishops who were present. Now, in the letter were contained the following words, " That the Son is like to the Father according |469 to the Scriptures." Then also, by the artifice of this same Acacius, who always had one thing hidden in his bosom and another ready upon his tongue, both all the bishops who were present, and also those who hitherto had professed to believe the Persons to be unlike in substance, added their subscriptions.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 39:3Socrates ScholasticusThe bishops of the Arian party began to assume greater assurance from the imperial edicts. In what manner they undertook to convene a Synod, we will explain somewhat later. Let us now briefly mention a few of their previous acts. Acacius and Patrophilus having ejected Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, installed Cyril in his see. Macedonius subverted the order of things in the cities and provinces adjacent to Constantinople, promoting to ecclesiastical honors his assistants in his intrigues against the churches. He ordained Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, and Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia: the latter had before been a deacon under Macedonius himself, and proved very active in founding monasteries both of men and women. But we must now mention in what way Macedonius desolated the churches in the cities and provinces around Constantinople. This man, as I have already said, having seized the bishopric, inflicted innumerable calamities on such as were unwilling to adopt his views. His persecutions were not confined to those who were recognized as members of the catholic church, but extended to the Novatians also, inasmuch as he knew that they maintained the doctrine of the homoousion; they therefore with the others underwent the most intolerable sufferings, but their bishop, Angelius by name, effected his escape by flight. Many persons eminent for their piety were seized and tortured, because they refused to communicate with him: and after the torture, they forcibly constrained the men to be partakers of the holy mysteries, their mouths being forced open with a piece of wood, and then the consecrated elements thrust into them. Those who were so treated regarded this as a punishment far more grievous than all others. Moreover they laid hold of women and children, and compelled them to be initiated [by baptism]; and if any one resisted or otherwise spoke against it, stripes immediately followed, and after the stripes, bonds and imprisonment, and other violent measures. I shall here relate an instance or two whereby the reader may form some idea of the extent of the harshness and cruelty exercised by Macedonius and those who were then in power. They first pressed in a box, and then sawed off, the breasts of such women as were unwilling to communicate with them. The same parts of the persons. of other women they burnt partly with iron, and partly with eggs intensely heated in the fire. This mode of torture which was unknown even among the heathen, was invented by those who professed to be Christians. These facts were related to me by the aged Auxanon, the presbyter in the Novatian church of whom I spoke in the first book. He said also that he had himself endured not a few severities from the Arians, prior to his reaching the dignity of presbyter; having been thrown into prison and beaten with many stripes, together with Alexander the Paphlagonian, his companion in the monastic life. He added that he had himself been able to sustain these tortures, but that Alexander died in prison from the effects of their infliction. He is now buried on the right of those sailing into the bay of Constantinople which is called Ceras, close by the rivers, where there is a church of the Novatians named after Alexander. Moreover the Arians, at the instigation of Macedonius, demolished with many other churches in various cities, that of the Novatians at Constantinople near Pelargus. Why I particularly mention this church, will be seen from the extraordinary circumstances connected with it, as testified by the same aged Auxanon. The emperor's edict and the violence of Macedonius had doomed to destruction the churches of those who maintained the doctrine of consubstantiality; the decree and violence reached this church, and those also who were charged with the execution of the mandate were at hand to carry it into effect. I cannot but admire the zeal displayed by the Novatians on this occasion, as well as the sympathy they experienced from those whom the Arians at that time ejected, but who are now in peaceful possession of their churches. For when the emissaries of their enemies were urgent to accomplish its destruction, an immense multitude of Novatians, aided by numbers of others who held similar sentiments, having assembled around this devoted church, pulled it down, and conveyed the materials of it to another place: this place stands opposite the city, and is called Sycae, and forms the thirteenth ward of the town of Constantinople. This removal was effected in a very short time, from the extraordinary ardor of the numerous persons engaged in it: one carried tiles, another stones, a third timber; some loading themselves with one thing, and some with another. Even women and children assisted in the work, regarding it as the realization of their best wishes, and esteeming it the greatest honor to be accounted the faithful guardians of things consecrated to God. In this way at that time was the church of the Novatians transported to Sycae. Long afterwards when Constantius was dead, the emperor Julian ordered its former site to be restored, and permitted them to rebuild it there. The people therefore, as before, having carried back the materials, reared the church in its former position; and from this circumstance, and its great improvement in structure and ornament, they not inappropriately called it Anastasia. The church as we before said was restored afterwards in the reign of Julian. But at that time both the Catholics and the Novatians were alike subjected to persecution: for the former abominated offering their devotions in those churches in which the Arians assembled, but frequented the other three -for this is the number of the churches which the Novatians have in the city-and engaged in divine service with them. Indeed they would have been wholly united,had not the Novatians refused from regard to their ancient precepts. In other respects however, they mutually maintained such a degree of cordiality and affection, as to be ready to lay down their lives for one another: both parties were therefore persecuted indiscriminately, not only at Constantinople, but also in other provinces and cities. At Cyzicus, Eleusius, the bishop of that place, perpetrated the same kind of enormities against the Christians there, as Macedonius had done elsewhere, harassing and putting them to flight in all directions and [among other things] he completely demolished the church of the Novatians at Cyzicus. But Macedonius consummated his wickedness in the following manner. Hearing that there was a great number of the Novatian sect in the province of Paphlagonia, and especially at Mantinium, and perceiving that such a numerous body could not be driven from their homes by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by the emperor's permission, four companies of soldiers to be sent into Paphlagonia, that through dread of the military they might receive the Arian opinion. But those who inhabited Mantinium, animated to desperation by zeal for their religion, armed themselves with long reap-hooks, hatchets, and whatever weapon came to hand, and went forth to meet the troops; on which a conflict ensuing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians were slain, but nearly all the soldiers were destroyed. I learnt these things from a Paphlagonian peasant who said that he was present at the engagement; and many others of that province corroborate this account. Such were the exploits of Macedonius on behalf of Christianity, consisting of murders, battles, incarcerations, and civil wars: proceedings which rendered him odious not only to the objects of his persecution, but even to his own party. He became obnoxious also to the emperor on these accounts, and particularly so from the circumstance I am about to relate. The church where the coffin lay that contained the relics of the emperor Constantine threatened to fall. On this account those that entered, as well as those who were accustomed to remain there for devotional purposes, were in much fear. Macedonius, therefore, wished to remove the emperor's remains, test the coffin should be injured by the ruins. The populace getting intelligence of this, endeavored to prevent it, insisting `that the emperor's bones should not be disturbed, as such a disinterment would be equivalent, to their being dug up': many however affirmed that its removal could not possibly injure the dead body, and thus two parties were formed on this question; such as held the doctrine of consubstantiality joining with those who opposed it on the ground of its impiety. Macedonius, in total disregard of these prejudices, caused the emperor's remains to be transported to the church where those of the martyr Acacius lay. Whereupon a vast multitude rushed toward that edifice in two hostile divisions, which attacked one another with great fury, and great loss of life was occasioned, so that the churchyard was covered with gore, and the well also which was in it overflowed with blood, which ran into the adjacent portico, and thence even into the very street. When the emperor was informed of this unfortunate occurrence, he was highly incensed against Macedonius, both on account of the slaughter which he had occasioned, and because he had dared to move his father's body without consulting him. Having therefore left the Caesar Julian to take care of the western parts, he himself set out for the east. How Macedonius was a short time afterwards deposed, and thus suffered a most inadequate punishment for his infamous crimes, I shall hereafter relate.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 40:3Socrates ScholasticusBut I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the emperor's edict had convoked in the east, as a rival to that of Ariminum. It was at first determined that the bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly destroyed that city, prevented their being convened there. This happened in the consulate of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th day of August. They were therefore planning to transfer the council to the neighboring city of Nicaea: but this plan was again altered, as it seemed more convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being dissatisfied with this arrangement also, they at last assembled themselves at Seleucia, surnamed Aspera, a city of Isauria. This took place in the same year [in which the council of Ariminum was held], under the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, the number of those convened being about 160. There was present on this occasion Leonas, an officer of distinction attached to the imperial household, before whom the emperor's edict had enjoined that the discussion respecting the faith should be entered into. Lauricius also, the commander-in-chief of the troops in Isauria, was ordered to be there, to serve the bishops in such things as they might require. In the presence of these personages therefore, the bishops were there convened on the 27th of the month of September, and immediately began a discussion on the basis of the public records, shorthand writers being present to write down what each might say. Those who desire to learn the particulars of the several speeches, will find copious details of them in the collection of Sabinus; but we shall only notice the more important heads. On the first day of their being convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose what he thought fit: but those present said that no question ought to be agitated in the absence of those prelates who had not yet arrived; for Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some others who were apprehensive of an impeachment for their misconduct, had not made their appearance. Macedonius pleaded indisposition, and failed to attend; Patrophilus said he had some trouble with his eyes, and that on this account it was needful for him to remain in the suburbs of Seleucia; and the rest offered various pretexts to account for their absence. When, however, Leonas declared that the subjects which they had met to consider must be entered on, notwithstanding the absence of these persons, the bishops replied that they could not proceed to the discussion of any question, until the life and conduct of the parties accused had been investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others, had been charged with misconduct on various grounds long before. A sharp contest arose in consequence of this demur; some affirming that cognizance ought first to be taken of all such accusations, and others denying that anything whatever should have precedence of matters of faith. The emperor's orders contributed not a little to augment this dispute, inasmuch as letters of his were produced urging now this and now that as necessary to be considered first. The dispute having arisen on this subject, a schism was thus made, and the Seleucian council was divided into two factions, one of which was headed by Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, GeOrge of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch, who were supported by only about thirty-two other bishops. Of the opposite party, which was by far the more numerous, the principal were George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. It being determined by the majority to examine doctrinal matters first, the party of Acacius openly opposed the Nicene Creed, and Wished to introduce another instead of it. The other faction, which was considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the council of Nicaea, but criticised its adoption of the term homoousion. Accordingly they debated on this point, much being said on each side, until late in the evening, when Silvanus, who presided over the church at Tarsus, insisted with much vehemence of manner, `that there was no need of a new exposition of the faith; but that it was their duty rather to confirm that which was published at Antioch, at the consecration of the church in that place.' On this declaration, Acacius and his partisans privately withdrew from the council; while the others, producing the creed composed at Antioch, read it, and then separated for that day. Assembling in the church of Seleucia on the day following, after having closed the doors, they again read the same creed, and ratified it by their signatures. At this time the readers and deacons present signed on behalf of certain absent bishops, who had intimated their acquiescence in its form.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 41:6Socrates ScholasticusThis was the declaration of faith proposed by Acacius, and subscribed by himself and as many as adhered to his opinion, the number of whom we have already given. When this had been read, Sophronius bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, thus expressed himself: `If to express a separate opinion day after day, be received as the exposition of the faith, we shall never arrive at any accurate understanding of the truth.' These were the words of Sophronius. And I firmly believe, that if the predecessors of these prelates, as well as their successors, had entertained similar sentiments in reference to the Nicene creed, all polemical debates would have been avoided; nor would the churches have been agitated by such violent and irrational disturbances. However let those judge who are capable of understanding how these things are. At that time after many remarks on all sides had been made both in reference to this doctrinal statement, and in relation to the parties accused, the assembly was dissolved. On the fourth day they all again met in the same place, and resumed their proceedings in the same contentious spirit as before. On this occasion Acacius expressed himself in these words: `Since the Nicene creed has been altered not once only, but frequently, there is no hindrance to our publishing another at this time.' To which Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, replied: `The Synod is at present convened not to learn what it had no previous knowledge of, nor to receive a creed which it had not assented to before, but to confirm the faith of the fathers, from which it should. never recede, either in life or death.' Thus Eleusius opposing Acacius spoke meaning by `the faith of the fathers,' that creed which had been promulgated at Antioch. But surely he too might have been fairly answered in this way: `How is it O Eleusius, that you call those convened at Antioch "the fathers," seeing that you do not recognize those who were their fathers? The framers of the Nicene creed, by whom the homoousian faith was acknowledged, have a far higher claim to the title of "the fathers"; both as having the priority in point of time, and also because those assembled at Antioch were by them invested with the sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned their own fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides. Besides how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those whose faith they pronounce unsound and impious? If those, however, who constituted the Nicene Synod had not the Holy Spirit which is imparted by the imposition of hands, those at Antioch have not duly received the priesthood: for how could they have received it from those who had not the power of conferring it?' Such considerations as these might have been submitted to Eleusius in reply to his objections. But they then proceeded to another question, connected with the assertion made by Acacius in his exposition of the faith, `that the Son was like the Father'; enquiring of one another in what this resemblance consisted. The Acacian party affirmed that the Son was like the Father as it respected his will only, and not his `substance' or `essence'; but the rest maintained that the likeness extended to both essence and will. In altercations on this point, the whole day was consumed; and Acacius, being confuted by his own published works, in which he had asserted that `the Son is in all things like the Father,' his opponents asked him `how do you now deny the likeness of the Son to the Father as to his "essence"?' Acacius in reply said, that `no author, ancient or modern, was ever condemned out of his own writings.' As they kept on their discussion on this matter to a most tedious extent, with much acrimonious feeling and subtlety of argument, but without any approach to unity of judgment, Leonas arose and dissolved the council: and this was the conclusion of the Synod at Seleucia. For on the following day [Leonas] being urged to do so would not again meet with them. `I have been deputed by the emperor,' said he, `to attend a council where unanimity was expected to prevail: but since you can by no means come to a mutual understanding, I can no longer be present: go therefore to the church, if you please, and indulge in vain babbling there.' The Acacian faction conceiving this decision to be advantageous to themselves, also refused to meet with the others. The adverse party left alone met in the church and requested the attendance of those who followed Acacius, that cognizance might be taken of the case of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem: for that prelate had been accused long before, on what grounds however I am unable to state. He had even been deposed, because owing to fear, he had not made his appearance during two whole years, after having been repeatedly summoned in order that the charges against him might be investigated. Nevertheless, when he was deposed, he sent a written notification to those who had condemned him, that he should appeal to a higher jurisdiction: and to this appeal the emperor Constantius gave his sanction. Cyril was thus the first and indeed only clergyman who ventured to break through ecclesiastical usage, by becoming an appellant, in the way commonly done in the secular courts of judicature: and he was now present at Seleucia, ready to be put upon his trial; on this account the other bishops invited the Acacian party to take their places in the assembly, that in a general council a definite judgment might be pronounced on the case of those who were arraigned: for they cited others also charged with various misdemeanors to appear before them at the same time, who to protect themselves had sought refuge among the partisans of Acacius. When therefore that faction persisted in their refusal to meet, after being repeatedly summoned, the bishops deposed Acacius himself, together with George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, Theodulus of Chaeretapi in Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of the island of Mytilene, Leontius of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius who had formerly been bishop of Germanica, but had afterwards insinuated himself into the bishopric of Antioch in Syria. They also deposed Patrophilus for contumacy, in not having presented himself to answer a charge preferred against him by a presbyter named Dorotheus. These they deposed: they also excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius; determining that they should not be restored to communion, until they made such a defense as would clear them from the imputations under which they lay. This being done, they addressed explanatory letters to each of the churches whose bishops had been deposed. Anianus was then constituted bishop of Antioch instead of Eudoxius: but the Acacians having soon after apprehended him, he was delivered into the hands of Leonas and Lauricius, by whom he was sent into exile. The bishops who had ordained him being incensed on this account, lodged protests against the Acacian party with Leonas and Lauricius, in which they openly charged them with having violated the decisions of the Synod. Finding that no redress could be obtained by this means, they went to Constantinople to lay the whole matter before the emperor.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 43:3Socrates ScholasticusAcacius, Eudoxius, and those at Constantinople who took part with them, became exceedingly anxious that they also on their side might depose some of the opposite party. Now it should be observed that neither of the factions were influenced by religious considerations in making depositions, but by other motives: for although they did not agree respecting the faith, yet the ground of their reciprocal depositions was not error in doctrine. The Acacian party therefore availing themselves of the emperor's indignation against others, and especially against Macedonius, which he was cherishing and anxious to vent, in the first place deposed Macedonius, both on account of his having occasioned so much slaughter, and also because he had admitted to communion a deacon who had been found guilty of fornication. They then depose Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, for having baptized, and afterwards invested with the diaconate, a priest of Hercules at Tyre named Heraclius, who was known to have practiced magic arts. A like sentence was pronounced against Basil, or Basilas,-as he was also called,-who had been constituted bishop of Ancyra instead of Marcellus: the causes assigned for this condemnation were, that he had unjustly imprisoned a certain individual, loaded him with chains, and put him to the torture; that he had traduced some persons; and that he had disturbed the churches of Africa by his epistles. Dracontius was also deposed, because he had left the Galatian church for that of Pergamos. Moreover they deposed, on various pretenses, Neonas bishop of Seleucia, the city in which the Synod had been convened, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, in Macedonia, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and others for various reasons.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 46:3Socrates ScholasticusMacedonius on being ejected from Constantinople, bore his condemnation ill and became restless; he therefore associated himself with the other faction that had deposed Acacius and his party at Seleucia, and sent a deputation to Sophronius and Eleusius, to encourage them to adhere to that creed which was first promulgated at Antioch, and afterwards confirmed at Seleucia, proposing to give it the counterfeit name of the ` homoiousian ' creed. By this means he drew around him a great number of adherents, who from him are still denominated `Macedonians.' And although such as dissented from the Acacians at the Seleucian Synod had not previously used the term homoiousios, yet from that period they distinctly asserted it. There was, however, a popular report that this term did not originate with Macedonius, but was the invention rather of Marathonius, who a little before had been set over the church at Nicomedia; on which account the maintainers of this doctrine were also called `Marathonians.' To this party Eustathius joined himself, who for the reasons before stated had been ejected from the church at Sebastia. But when Macedonius began to deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, Eustathius said: `I can neither admit that the Holy Spirit is God, nor can I dare affirm him to be a creature.' For this reason those who hold the homoousion of the Son call these heretics ` Pneumatomachi. ' By what means these Macedonians became so numerous in the Hellespont, I shall state in its proper place. The Acacians meanwhile became extremely anxious that another Synod should be convened at Antioch, in consequence of having changed their mind respecting their former assertion of the likeness `in all things' of the Son to the Father. A small number of them therefore assembled in the following consulate which was that of Taurus and Florentius, at Antioch in Syria, where the emperor was at that time residing, Euzoïus being bishop. A discussion was then renewed on some of those points which they had previously determined, in the course of which they declared that the term ` homoios ' ought to be erased from the form of faith which had been published both at Ariminum and Constantinople; and they no longer concealed but openly declared that the Son was altogether unlike the Father, not merely in relation to his essence, but even as it respected his will i asserting boldly also, as Arius had already done, that he was made of nothing. Those in that city who favored the heresy of Aëtius, gave, their assent to this opinion; from which circumstance in addition to the general appellation of Arians, they were also termed `Anomoeans,' and `Exucontians,' by those at Antioch who embraced the homoousian, who nevertheless were at that time divided among themselves on account of Meletius, as I have before observed. Being therefore questioned by them, how they dared to affirm that the Son is unlike the Father, and has his existence from nothing, after having acknowledged him `God of God' in their former creed? they endeavored to elude this objection by such fallacious subterfuges as these. `The expression, " God of God, "' said they, `is to be understood in the same sense as the words of the apostle, " but all things of God. " Wherefore the Son is of God, as being one of these all things: and it is for this reason the words "according to the Scriptures" are added in the draught of the creed.' The author of this sophism was George bishop of Laodicea, who being unskilled in such phrases, was ignorant of the manner in which Origen had formerly explained these peculiar expressions of the apostle, having thoroughly investigated the matter. But notwithstanding these evasive cavilings, they were unable to bear the reproach and contumely they had drawn upon themselves, and fell back upon the creed which they had before put forth at Constantinople; and so each one retired to his own district. George returning to Alexandria, resumed his authority over the churches there, Athanasius still not having made his appearance. Those in that city who were opposed to his sentiments he persecuted; and conducting himself with great severity and cruelty, he rendered himself extremely odious to the people. At Jerusalem Arrenius was placed over the church instead of Cyril: we may also remark that Heraclius was ordained bishop there after him, and after him Hilary. At length, however, Cyril returned to Jerusalem, and was again invested with the presidency over the church there. About the same time another heresy sprang up, which arose from the following circumstance.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 3 21:3Socrates ScholasticusThe emperor in another attempt to molest the Christians exposed his superstition. Being fond of sacrificing, he not only himself delighted in the blood of victims, but considered it an indignity offered to him, if others did not do likewise. And as he found but few persons of this stamp, he sent for the Jews and enquired of them why they abstained from sacrificing, since the law of Moses enjoined it? On their replying that it was not permitted them to do this in any other place than Jerusalem, he immediately ordered them to rebuild Solomon's temple. Meanwhile he himself proceeded on his expedition against the Persians. The Jews who had been long desirous of obtaining a favorable opportunity for rearing their temple afresh in order that they might therein offer sacrifice, applied themselves very vigorously to the work. Moreover, they conducted themselves with great insolence toward the Christians, and threatened to do them as much mischief, as they had themselves suffered from the Romans. The emperor having ordered that the expenses of this structure should be defrayed out of the public treasury, all things were soon provided, such as timber and stone, burnt brick, clay, lime, and all other materials. necessary for building. On this occasion Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, called to mind the prophecy of Daniel, which Christ also in the holy gospels has confirmed, and predicted in the presence of many persons, that the time had indeed come `in which one stone should not be left upon another in that temple,' but that the Saviour's prophetic declaration should have its full accomplishment. Such were the bishop's words: and on the night following, a mighty earthquake tore up the stones of the old foundations of the temple and dispersed them all together with the adjacent edifices. Terror consequently possessed the Jews on account of the event; and the report of it brought many to the spot who resided at a great distance: when therefore a vast multitude was assembled, another prodigy took place. Fire came down from heaven and consumed all the builders' tools: so that the flames were seen preying upon mallets, irons to smooth and polish stones, saws, hatchets, adzes, in short all the various implements which the workmen had procured as necessary for the undertaking; and the fire continued burning among these for a whole day. The Jews indeed were in the greatest possible alarm, and unwillingly confessed Christ, calling him God: yet they did not do his will; but influenced by inveterate prepossessions they still clung to Judaism. Even a third miracle which afterwards happened failed to lead them to a belief of the truth. For the next night luminous impressions of a cross appeared imprinted on their garments, which at daybreak they in vain attempted to rub or wash out. They were therefore `blinded' as the apostle says, and cast away the good which they had in their hands: and thus was the temple, instead of being rebuilt, at that time wholly overthrown.