Bellarmine · De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis · On the Ecclesiastical Writers
Chapter 9: The Fourth Century: Athanasius; Serapion
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, of the New Testament, fourth century. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
St. Athanasius. 340
St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, began to flourish under the same Constantine, and passed to the Lord under the emperor Valens, on the witness of St. Jerome On Ecclesiastical Writers. The works of St. Athanasius are contained in four volumes, and yet not all of them are there. For St. Jerome mentions two books against the Gentiles, and one book against Valens and Ursacius, and another on the titles of the Psalms, and also the Life of St. Anthony; which books however seem to be missing from these four volumes, unless perhaps the names have been changed, as we shall say shortly.
The first volume. The Oration against the idols; On the incarnation of the Word and his coming to us; the letter to Epictetus, Bishop of the Corinthians; the Exposition of faith; the letter of Liberius, Bishop of Rome, to Athanasius; Athanasius's reply; the letter to the Antiochenes; On the eternal substance of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God; the Oration that Christ is one; to his brother Adelphius against the Arians; four Orations against the Arians; on the saying, The Word is God from God; on the saying, All things are delivered to me, and so on; a Compendium from the foregoing against those who say the Holy Spirit is a creature.
Note on the books of the first volume. The Oration against the idols and the book On the incarnation of the Word seem to be the two books against the Gentiles which St. Jerome mentions. For at the beginning of the book On the incarnation Athanasius says that so far he has disputed against the idols, and that now it follows that he should dispute on the incarnation of the Word; so that it plainly appears that those two works are joined, and one is part of the other. And both are against the gentiles, and packed with testimonies of the gentiles. So it is strange why one is called an oration and the other a book, since both are a disputation against the idols and for Christ against the Gentiles.
In the same first volume is a certain exposition of faith, of which I doubt whether it is Athanasius's: both because it differs from the creed of Athanasius, and I do not know why he would have made two expositions; and above all because this one seems contrary to that one. For in this one it is said that the three divine persons are not three subsistences separately distinct; but in that creed it is said, One is the person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit; and in Greek, another hypostasis, that is, subsistence. For St. Gregory Nazianzen testifies, at the end of the oration on Athanasius, that it was declared by Athanasius that what the Latins understand by the name of person the Greeks understand by the name of hypostasis, and that the Greeks say three hypostases, the Latins three persons.
In the same volume is found the letter of Pope Liberius to Athanasius and the reply of Athanasius to Liberius; but neither seems to suit the author to whom it is attributed. For Liberius writes to Athanasius as if he doubted his faith, and bids him say anathema to Sabellius and Arius; then he adds the reason: “That I may be made more secure, and carry out your commands without hesitation.” But it is neither credible that Liberius ever doubted the faith of St. Athanasius, nor that he so submitted himself to him as to promise to carry out his commands. Add that the letter attributed to Liberius begins with “therefore”, without a mark of question, so that it seems rather the conclusion of a letter than a letter. The reply of Athanasius too has not the form of a letter, but of a simple confession of faith; nor is the confession framed in quite proper words, especially where it says: “That flesh was hung on the cross, not he himself; in it he bore all human sufferings as man, not he himself.” But it must not be denied that Christ himself, or even God himself, was crucified in the flesh. For so St. Peter speaks: “Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh,” and “Christ suffered for us”; and St. Paul, “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death,” and “they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” And St. Athanasius is wont to speak of such mysteries most properly and exactly. So such a writing does not seem to be attributed to St. Athanasius.
The second volume. The Apology to Constantius; the Apology for his flight; the letter to all the Orthodox; On the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria; On the decrees of the Nicene Synod, against Eusebius; the second Apology against the Arians; the letter to Serapion; the letter to those leading the solitary life; the letter to the emperor Jovian; On the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia; the letter to Dracontius, fleeing the episcopate; the letter to the Bishops of Africa.
Note on the second volume. In this second volume there is nothing about which I either doubt or know others to doubt. This one thing I thought should be noted: that what St. Jerome writes in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, that there is extant also a book of Athanasius against Valens and Ursacius, can rightly be taken of the book entitled On the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia; for in those he writes properly against Valens and Ursacius. There are also in this volume two short letters after the letter to the emperor Jovian, which I do not know why they are left out of the index.
The third volume. On the incarnation of the Word; On the human nature taken up; On the incarnation of Christ; On the saving coming of Christ, against Apollinaris; the Sermon against all heresies; the Oration to Maximus the Philosopher; on the words, Going into the village you will find a colt; on the Saviour's passion; to Marcellinus on the interpretation of the Psalms; On virginity, or on meditation; Testimonies from Scripture on the natural communion of like essence of the three persons; To all everywhere through Egypt and Syria, and so on; the Refutation of the hypocrisy of Meletius; On the most holy Mother of God Mary; on the passion and cross of the Lord; the letter to Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis; on the words, Whoever shall speak a word, and so on; the Disputation in the Council of Nicaea against Arius; the Homily on the seed; the Declaration of Leviticus on the different naming of the same thing.
Note on the third volume. The book here called On the interpretation of the Psalms seems to be the one St. Jerome calls On the titles of the Psalms, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Athanasius; for Cassiodorus too calls the same book On the titles of the Psalms, that is, on the various excellence of the Psalms. The Sermon on the most holy Mother of God does not seem to be St. Athanasius's, but of someone later, who flourished after the third and fourth Council, indeed even the sixth. For he disputes so exactly about the union of the divine and human nature in one hypostasis, and about the title of Mother of God, that that title rightly befits the Virgin, and lastly about the two wills and operations of the one willing and operating Christ, that it cannot be doubted that this author saw the decrees of the Councils against Nestorius, Eutyches and the Monothelites. And (as Cardinal Baronius rightly reasons, Annals volume 1, at the year of Christ 58) if this sermon were Athanasius's, it would without doubt have been cited by St. Cyril and by the Fathers of the third, fourth and sixth Synods to convict the Heretics. But we see that this sermon is never cited, but the books On the incarnation, where Athanasius does not speak so openly. Add that in this sermon the author says that the attributes of God are not the very substance of God, but are about the substance; which is very improperly said, and foreign to the custom of St. Athanasius, who is wont to speak very considerately. Add lastly that, in the explanation of the word ousia, he says that the word [isos?] signifies quality; but in Greek it means equality, not quality; and that whole derivation of the word ousia from [isos?] is too light to seem to befit Athanasius. [The Greek words are garbled in the scan.]
The Disputation of Athanasius with Arius which is found in this volume was not held in the Council of Nicaea, as the heading seems to show, but was held in some monastery, as can be understood from the beginning of the disputation; nor was it held properly with Arius himself, but with some disciple of his, as is plain from these words: “Suddenly from the root of Arius, the enemy of Christ, a beast under human form leapt upon us.” Nor is it against this that afterwards the one who disputes is called Arius; for Arius is put for Arian, in the way that in the same disputation the name of Sabellius is more than once put for the name of Sabellian. Whether this was a real disputation, or a dialogue written in the person of Athanasius and some Arian; and whether it was written by Athanasius or by another, cannot easily be judged.
The fourth volume. Questions to the prince Antiochus; On theological definitions; the Disputation with Arius held at Laodicea; the Exhortation to monks; On the passion of the image of the Lord; the letter to Pope Mark; Pope Mark's reply; the letter to Serapion on the Holy Spirit; On the united Godhead of the Trinity, seven books; the Synopsis of the whole of Scripture.
Note on the fourth volume. In this volume there is almost nothing that is truly Athanasius's. The Questions to Antiochus cannot be Athanasius's: for in question 23 the author cites the great Athanasius, and disagrees with him. In question 108 he says the Romans are a race of Franks; from which it appears that the author is recent; for all westerners in the kingdoms of the Turks are called Franks. In question 129 St. Gregory the Theologian is cited, who yet is later than Athanasius. Much less are Athanasius's the forty-six questions found in other codices; for in them Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa and others are cited as ancient Fathers.
The book On theological definitions does not seem to be St. Athanasius's, because in the chapter on act he cites St. Gregory of Nyssa to confirm his opinion, in these words: “Act, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says, is the natural… of each thing,” and so on. But it is credible that Gregory of Nyssa had not yet begun to write when Athanasius died. For Athanasius died under Valens; and Gregory began to write under Theodosius, as is probably gathered from St. Jerome's book On Ecclesiastical Writers. For St. Jerome wrote that book in the 15th [14th] year of Theodosius, as he himself testifies at the end of the book; and in the same book he says that a certain book composed by Gregory of Nyssa was read to him a few years before. Add that in this book On definitions the author speaks so distinctly of the two natures of Christ in one hypostasis that he seems altogether to have written after the Council of Chalcedon.
The Disputation with Arius held at Laodicea cannot be a real disputation of Athanasius. For it is said to have been held in the second year of Constantius [“Constantini” printed], and yet Athanasius is brought in as a deacon disputing with Arius the presbyter; but it is certain from the historians that Athanasius was made Bishop of Alexandria in the 21st year of Constantine the Great. Further, Arius died a most shameful death in the 31st year of Constantine, by the consent of all; how then is he brought in to dispute in the second year of Constantius? Lastly in this disputation mention is made of the heretic Photinus, as if Arius had learned his heresies from him; but Photinus was later than Arius, as is gathered from St. Jerome's book On Ecclesiastical Writers. Lastly this disputation seems altogether to be that dialogue which Vigilius, Bishop of Trent [of Thapsus], testifies he wrote, book 5 against Eutyches.
The book On the passion of the image of the Lord is cited in the second Nicene Synod, act 4, where this whole book is read and received under the name of St. Athanasius; but it does not seem to be of this St. Athanasius of whom we are now treating, but of another much more recent. For Sigebert writes in the Chronicle that this miracle happened in the year of the Lord 766 [as printed], that is, at the time when the question of the worship of sacred images was being stirred; for God willed by so notable a miracle to confound the Iconoclast Heretics.
But this must be observed: that those last words of chapter 7, “This is the true and most credible account of the blood from the side of our Lord the Saviour, which flowed from his holy image which was crucified in Syria in the city of Beirut. This is that blood of the Lord which is said to have been found among many; nor should it be judged otherwise by true Catholics, beyond what is written by us, as if anything of the flesh and blood of Christ could be found in the world, except that which is daily made spiritually on the altar by the hands of Priests,” and so on: those last words, I say, are not found in the Greek codex of the second Council of Nicaea, nor in the version of Anastasius the Librarian, but were added by someone after the disputation held on the blood of Christ before Pius II, supreme Pontiff; which also appears from the difference of style of this conclusion from the rest of the narrative. And what the author of this addition says, that true Catholics must not believe that there is any other blood of the Lord on earth than that which is consecrated on the altar, is against the tradition of the Church of Mantua, which glories in having some of that blood which flowed from the Lord's side, and that it was declared to be the true blood of the Lord by Pope Leo III eight hundred years ago. For very many historians write, like the old annals of the Franks, Ado of Vienne, Aimoin, Regino, the Abbot of Ursperg and others, that Pope Leo, at the request of Charlemagne, went to Mantua to judge of the truth of the Lord's blood, shining there with many miracles, and from there went on into France to Charles. And though the historians do not set out what the Pontiff's judgement was, yet Cardinal Baronius, Annals volume 9, at the year of the Lord 804, writes that Papal diplomas are extant at Rome in which the truth of that blood is declared. And certainly, if the Pontiff at that time had judged otherwise, that blood would not have been kept so long. Matthew Paris writes also, under Henry III King of England, page 713 in my copy, that a little vessel with the true blood of Christ was sent by the Patriarch of Jerusalem to the same King, and received with incredible solemnity, the Bishops preaching and giving account of the truth of that blood.
Of the letters of Athanasius to Pope Mark and of Pope Mark to Athanasius, it is clear from the reckoning of the time that those letters are forged, as we shall say below in the note on Gratian. The seven books On the united Godhead of the Trinity do not seem to me Athanasius's, because they seem written in Latin, not translated from Greek; as is plain both from the style and because the author several times shows how what he has written in Latin is said among the Greeks: as in book 6, “Cursed,” he says, “be he who confesses this birth of God from things not existing to be a phantasm, which the Greeks call ex ouk onton”; and in book 7 in the last words, “And by this,” he says, “the substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is united, which the Greeks call homoousion.” Then this author refutes by name Urbicus Potentinus, who was a disciple of Eunomius. And it does not seem credible that Athanasius could have refuted a disciple of Eunomius, since Eunomius himself was first refuted not by Athanasius but by Basil, who was younger than Athanasius.
Besides the books contained in these four volumes, there are extant separately the Life of St. Anthony, and the creed which begins “Whosoever will be saved”; which we do not doubt are true and genuine works of St. Athanasius. For [of the Life] St. Jerome testifies in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Anthony, under Evagrius and under Athanasius; St. Gregory Nazianzen too testifies in the oration on Athanasius, and St. Augustine, Confessions book 8, chapter 6. And that the one now extant is the very one St. Jerome and St. Augustine mention is plain from this, that it is in truth a notable volume, as St. Jerome calls it, and contains those great miracles which St. Augustine mentions; and it has that revelation about the soul of Ammon which Palladius in the Lausiac History, chapter 8, and Socrates, History book 4, chapter 18, relate from the life written by St. Athanasius. Nor can anything be objected on the other side, except that in this life no mention is made of Paul the first Hermit and of other things told by St. Jerome in the life of St. Paul the first Hermit. But it can be answered that Athanasius did not come to know everything that belonged to the life of St. Anthony, or that not all he had received came to his mind when he wrote, or even that he did not wish, by writing everything, to make his discourse too long. Otherwise, if that objection had any force, we could doubt even of the writers of the Gospels; for Matthew and Mark left out many things in relating the life and deeds of Christ which Luke did not leave out; Luke too left out many things which Matthew and Mark did not leave out; and lastly John wrote many and most weighty things which the three Evangelists passed over.
Of the creed of Athanasius the Catholic Church herself bears witness, when she sets it forth to be recited in the divine offices under the name of St. Athanasius; nor does she do so without the testimony of the old Fathers. For St. Augustine, in the treatise on Psalm 120, speaks thus, explaining the words “The sun shall not burn thee by day”: “Of this sun Father Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, spoke so beautifully: The Son of God, he says, is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten.” Commentaries on all the letters of St. Paul are attributed to St. Athanasius by some; but they are Theophylact's, not Athanasius's.
Serapion
Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, ordained by St. Athanasius, was a man dear to St. Anthony, as St. Jerome writes in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers. He wrote a book against the Manichees, which is extant in Henricus Canisius, volume 5 of the Ancient Readings. He wrote on the titles of the Psalms, and letters to various persons, on the witness of St. Jerome in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers; but they do not seem to be extant.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
. De Sancto Athanasio. 340. Sanctus Athanasius Episcopus Alexandri¬ nus, sub eodem Constantino florere coepit, et sub Valente imperatore migravit ad Do¬ minum, teste Sancto Hieronymo de script. Ecclest : Opera S. Athanasii quatuor tomis continentur, nec tamen sunt omnia : memi¬ nit enim Sanctus Hieronymus duorum libro¬ rum contra gentes, et libri unius contra Valentem et Ursacium, et alterius de Psal¬ morum titulis, et etiam de Vita S. Antonii, qui tamen libri in his quatuor tomis deside¬ rari videntur, nisi forte mutata sint nomina., ut mox dicemus. Tomi Primi. Oratio contra idola, De incarnatione Verbi ejusque ad nos ad¬ ventu. Ad Epictetum Episcopum Corinthiorum epistola. Expositio fidei. Liberii Episcopi Romani ad Athanasium epistola. Athanasii responsio. Ad Antiochenses epistola. Deseternasubstantia Filii et Spiritus sancti cum Deo. Oratio quod Christus sit unus. Ad Adelphium fratrem contra Arianos. Orationes quatuor contra Arianos. In hoc dictum, Ex Deo Deus est Verbum. In hoc dictum, Omnia mihi tradita sunt, etc. Compendium e superioribus contra eos qui dicunt Spiritum sanctum esse creaturam . Observatio in libros primi Tomi. Oratio contra idola, et liber de incarna¬ tione Verbi, videntur esse duo libri contra gentes, quorum Sanctus Hieronymus me¬ minit. Nam initio libri de incarnatione Atha¬ nasius dicit, se hactenus disputasse contra idola, nunc sequi, ut disputet de incarna¬ tione Verbi , ut plane appareat duo illa opera esse conjuncta, et unum esse partem alterius. Utrumque autem est contra genti¬ les, et refertum testimoniis gentilium. Quare mirum est cur unum dicatur oratio, et alte¬ rum dicatur liber, cum utrumque sit dispu¬ tatio contra idola, et pro Christo adversus gentes. In eodem primo tomo est quaedam expo¬ sitio fidei, de qua num sit Athanasii, ambigo, tum quia diversa est a symbolo Athanasii, nec scio cur duas expositiones fecerit; tum maxime, quia haec videtur illi contraria : in hac enim dicitur, tres personas divinas non esse tres subsistentias, scorsim distinctas: in illo autem symbolo dicitur, alia est persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus sancti : et Graece, alia hypostasis, id est, subsiste^^ . testatur enim Sanctus Gregorius. ^azjanze_ nus, oratione in Atha^g^^ extrema, ab Athanasio fuisse declaratum, intelligi a Lati¬ nis per nomen personae, quod a Graecis per nomen hypostasis, et graecos dicere tres hypostases; Latinos, tres personas. In eodem tomo habetur epistola Liberii Papae ad Athanasium, et responsio Athanasii ad Liberium : sed neutra videtur convenire auctori, cui tribuitur. Liberius enim ita scri- Bit ad Anathasium, ac si dubitet de ejus fide : et jubet illum anathema dicere Sabellio et Ario : deinde addit rationem: «Ut ego secu¬ rior efficiar, tuaque mandata inhaesitaater obeam.» At neque credibile est Liberium un¬ quam dubitasse de fide S. Athanasii, neque etiam ita se illi subjecisse, ut mandata ejus obiturum se polliceretur. Adde, quod episto¬ la, quae tribuitur Liberio incipit per, ergo, sine interrogandi nota, ut conclusio potius epistolae, quam epistola esse videatur. Responsio quoque Athanasii non habet formam epistolae, sed simplicis confessionis fidei : neque confessio concepta est verbis satis propriis, praesertim ubi dicit: «Illa caro suspensa est in cruce, non ipse : in illa omnes humanas passiones, ut homo sustinuit, non ipse.» At negari non debet, ipsum Christum, sive etiam ipsum Deum crucifixum in carne : sic enim loquitur Sanctus Petrus : « Christo igitur in carne passo» et «Christus passus est pro nobis»: et Sanctus Paulus, «Humiliavit semetipsum factus obediens usque ad mor¬ tem » , et : « numquam Dominum gloriae cruci- 374 DE SCRIPTORIBUS ECCLESIASTICIS fixissent. Sanctus vero Athanasius maxime proprie et castigate de ejusmodi mysteriis loqui solet. Proinde non videtur ejusmodi scriptio Sancto Athanasio tribuenda. Tomi secundi. Apologia ad Constantium, Apologia de fuga sua. Epistola ad omnes Orthodoxos. De sententia Dionysii Alexandrini. De -decretis Nicaena3 Synodi contra Euse- bium. Apologia contra Arianos secunda. Ad Serapionem epistola. Ad solitariam vitam agentes epistola. Ad Jovianum Imp. epistola. De Synodis Arimini et Selvulcise. Ad Dracontium Episcopatum fugientem epistola. Ad Episcopos Africae epistola. Observatio in Tomum secundum. In hoc secundo tomo nihil est, de quo aut ego ambigam, aut alios ambigere sciam. Il¬ lud unum admonendum duxi, quod Sanctus Hieronymus in libro de script. Eccles. scri¬ bit, extare etiam librum Athanasii contra Valentem etUrsacium, recte accipi posse de libro inscripto. De Synodis Arimini, et Se- leuciae : in illis enim contra Valentem et Ursacium proprie scribitur. Sunt etiam in hoc tomo duae breves epi¬ stolae post epistolam ad Jovianum impera¬ torem, quae nescio cur indice sint praeter¬ missae. Tomi Tertii. De incarnatione Verbi. De natura humana suscepta. De incarnatione Christi. De salutari adventu Christi contra Apolli¬ narem. Contra omnes haereses sermo. Ad Maximum Philosophum oratio. In illud, Profecti in pagum, invenietis pul¬ lum. In passionem Salvatoias. Ad Marcellinum de interpretatione Psal¬ morum. De virginitate, sive de meditatione. Testimonia ex Scriptura de naturali com¬ munione similis essenti® trium perso¬ narum. Ad omnes ubique per Aegyptum, et Sy¬ riam, etc. Refutatio contra hypocrisim Melitii. De Sanctissima Deipara Maria. In passionem et crucem Domini. Ad Serapionem Episcopum Tmusseos epi¬ stola. In illud, Quicunque dixerit verbum, etc. Disputatio in Nicseno Concilio contra Arium. Homilia de semente. Declaratio Levitici de diversa ejusdem rei nomenclatura. Observatio in Tomuru tertium. Liber qui hic dicitur, de interpretatione Psalmorum, videtur esse ille, quem Sanctus Hieronymus vocat de titulis Psalmorum, in lib. de script. Eccles. in Athanasio : nam Cassiodorus quoque eumdem librum vocat de titulis Psalmorum, id est, de varia excel¬ lentia Psalmorum. Sermo de Sanctissima Deipara, non vide¬ tur esse Sancti Athanasii, sed alicujus poste¬ rioris, qui post Concilium tertium, et quar¬ tum, imo etiam sextum, floruerit : ita enim accurate disputat de unione divinse et hu¬ manae naturae in una hypostasi; nec non de appellatione Deiparae, quod Virgini ea appe- latio jure conveniat, et denique de duabus voluntatibus, et operationibus unius volentis et operantis Christi; ut dubitari non possit, quin iste auctor viderit decreta, Conciliorum contra Nestorium, Eutychetem, et Monothe- litas. Ac (ut recte ratiocinatur Card. jBaro- nius tomo primo Annalium ad annum Chri¬ sti 58.) si hic sermo esse Athanasii, sine du¬ bio citatus fuisset a Sancto Cyrillo, et a Pa¬ tribus tertiae, quartae, et sextae Synodi ad convincendos Haereticos. Videmus autem non citari unquam hunc sermonem, sed libros de incarnatione, ubi non tam aperte Athana¬ sius loquitur. Adde, quod in hoc sermone auctor dicit, attributa Dei non esse ipsam substantiam Dei, sed circa substantiam ver¬ sari : quod valde improprie dictum est, et alienum a consuetudine Sancti Athanasii, qui valde considerate loqui solet. Adde ulti¬ mo, quod in explicatione vocabuli oucria, di¬ cit vocem ictai significare qualitatem : at AB ANNO DOM. 300. AU 400. 375 Graecis est aequalitas, non faux, et tota illa deductio vocis ojctaa voce fao?, est levior quam ut Athanasium decere videatur. Disputatio Athanasii cum Ario, quae in hoc tomo habetur, non est habita in Concilio Nicaeno, ut inscriptio indicare videtur; sed est habita in monasterio aliquo, ut ex initio disputationis intelligi potest : neque est ha¬ bita proprie cum ipso Ario, sed cum aliquo ejus discipulo, ut perspicuum est ex illius verbis, «Derepente radice, Christo inimici Arii, bellua sub humana specie ad nos insi¬ luit. » Neque obstat, quod postea, qui dispu¬ tet dicatur Arius : ponitur enim Arius pro Arianus : quo modo in eadem disputatione, non semel ponitur nomen Sabellii, pro no¬ mine Sabelliani. Utrum haec fuerit vera dis¬ putatio, an dialogus conscriptus in perso¬ nam Athanasii, etalicujus Ariani ; et utrum sit ab Athanasio, an ab alio scriptus, non facile judicari potest. Tomi Quarti : Quaestiones ad Antiochum principem. De definitionibus theologicis. Disputatio cum Ario Laodicaeae habita. Exhortatio ad monachos. De passione imaginis Domini. Ad Marcum Papam epistola. Marci Papae responsio. Ad Serapionem de sancto Spiritu, epistola. De unita Deitate Trinitatis, libri septem. Synopsis totius Scripturae. Observatio in tomum quartum. In hoc tomo nihil fere est, quod vere sit Athanasii. Quaestiones ad Antiochum, Athanasii esse non possunt : nam quaest. 23. citat auctor magnum Athanasium, et ab eo dissentit. Quaest. 108. dicit, Romanos esse Francorum genus : ex quo apparet, auctorem esse re¬ centem. Franci enim dicuntur omnes occi¬ dentales in regnis Turearum. Quaest. 129. citatur Sanctus Gregorius Theologus, qui ta¬ men posterior est Athanasio. Multo minus Athanasii sunt quaestiones quadraginta sex, quae in aliis codicibus inveniuntur : nam jn iis citantur ut antiqui Patres, Epiphanius, Gregorius Nyssenus, et alii. Liber de definitionibus theologicis non vi¬ detur esse Sancti Athanasii, quia in cap. de actu, citat ad confirmandam suam senten¬ tiam sanctum Gregorium Nyssenum , his verbis, Actus, quemadmodum Sanctus. Gre¬ gorius Nyssenus inquit, « est naturalis cuj us¬ que rei»,etc. At credibile est Gregorium Nyssenum nondum scribere coepisse, quando Athanasius obiit : obiit enim Athanasius sub Valente : Gregorius autem sub Theodosio scribere coepit, ut probabiliter colligitur ex lib. Sancti Hieronymi de script. Eccles. Scripsit enim eum librum Sanctus Hierony¬ mus anno 15. Theodosii, ut ipsemet testatur in extremo libro : et in eodem libro dicit, a Gregorio Nysseno lectum sibi fuisse librum quemdam a se compositum, ante paucos an¬ nos. Adde, quod in hoc libro de definitioni¬ bus, tam distincte loquitur auctor de duabus naturis Christi in una hypostasi, ut omnino scripisse videatur post Concilium Cbalcedo- nense. Disputatio cum Ario Laodicsese habita, non potest esse Athanasii vera disputatio : dicitur enim habita anno secundo Constantini et tamen introducitur Athanasius diaconus disputans cum Ario presbytero : at ex histo¬ ricis constat, Athanasium factum esse Epb- scopum Alexandrinum anno 21. Constantini Magni. Praeterea Arius obiit morte turpissi¬ ma anno 31. Constantini, omnium consensu : quomodo ergo disputaturus adducitur anno secundo Constantii ? Denique in hac dispu¬ tatione mentii) fit Photini haeretici, quasi ab ipso Arius haereses didicisset : at Photinqs posterior Ario fuit, ut ex Sancto Hieronymo colligitur lib. de script. Eccles. Denique vi¬ detur omnino haec disputatio, dialogus ille esse, quem a se scriptum fuisse Vigilius Epi¬ scopus Tridentinus testatur lib. v. contra Eu- tychem. Liber de passione imaginis Domini, cita¬ tur in socunda Nicaena Synodo, act. 4. ubi totus hic liber legitur et recipitur sub nomine Sancti Athanasii, sed non videtur esse San¬ cti Athanasii hujus, de quo nunc agimus, sed alterius multo recentioris. Scribit enim Sige- bertus in Chronico, accidisse hoc miraculum anno Domini 766. eo tempore videlicet, quo quaestio agitabatur de cultu sacrarum ima¬ ginum i voluit enim hoc tam insigni mira¬ culo Deus confundere Haereticos Iconocla- stas. Illud autem observandum est, illa ulti¬ ma verba, cap. 7.« Haec est vera, et vehe¬ menter credula ratio de cruore lateris Domini nostri Salvatoris, qui profluxit de sancta imagine ejus, quae cruxifixn est in Syria in Beryto civitate : hic est spnguis ille Domini- 376 DE SCRIPTORIBUS ECCLESIASTICIS cus, qui apud plerosque repertus esse dici¬ tur, pec aliter aestimandum est a vere Catho¬ licis, praeter id quod scribitur a nobis, qua¬ si ex carne, et sanguine Christi aliquid pos¬ sit in mundo inveniri, nisi illud, quod in ara altaris per manus Sacerdotum quotidie spi- ritualiter efficitur, etc. » Ista, inquam, ultima verba non haberi in codice Graeco Concilii Nicaeni secundi : neque in versione Anasta- sii bibliothecarii ; sed esse addita ab aliquo, post disputationem habitam de sanguine Christi coram Pio II. Pontifice Maximo : quod etiam apparet ex varietate styli istius conclusionis a reliqua narratione. Quod au¬ tem auctor hujus additionis dicit, a veris Catholicis non debere credi esse alium san¬ guinem Domini super terram, nisi illum, qui consecratur in altari ; repugnat traditio¬ ni Ecclesiae Mantuanae, quae gloriatur habe¬ re se, de sanguine illo, qui de latere Domini fluxit ; eumque verum esse Domini sangui¬ nem, declaratum fuisse a Leone III. Pontifi¬ ce ante annos octogentos. Scribunt enim hi¬ storici plurimi, ut annales antiqui Franco¬ rum, Ado Viennensis, Aimoinus, Rhegino, Abbas Uspergensis, et alii, Leonem Pontifi¬ cem, Carolo Magno id petente, contulisse se Mantuam, ut de veritate sanguinis Domini miraculis multis ibi coruscante judicaret : atque inde in Franciam ad Carolum perre¬ xisse. Et quamvis historici non explicent qualis fuerit sententia Pontificis , tamen Card. Baronius, tomo ix. Annalium ad annum Do¬ mini 804, scribit, Romae exstare diplomata Pontificia, in quibus veritas illius sanguinis declaratur. Et certe si Pontifex illo tempore secus censuisset, tamdiu sanguis ille conser¬ vatus non fuisset. Scribit etiam Matthaeus Parisiensis in Henrico III. Anglise Rege, pag. 713, in meo codice, missum fuisse> a Patri¬ archa Hierosolymitano vasculum cum vero sanguine Christi ad eumdem Regem et sus¬ ceptum cum incredibili celebritate, Episco¬ pis praedicantibus, et rationem reddentibus de veritate illius sanguinis. De epistolis Athanasii ad Marcum Papam, et Marci Papae ad Athanasium, constat ex ratione temporis, eas epistolas esse supposi- titias, ut dicemus infra in observatione ad Gratianum. Libri septem de unita Deitate Trinitatis, non mihi videntur Athanasii ; quia Latine scripti videntur non ex Graeco versi, ut pa¬ tet, tum ex stylo, tum quia aliquoties au¬ ctor significat, quo modo dicantur apud Graecos quae ipse Latine scripsit, ut lib. vi¬ et Maledictus, inquit, qui hanc Dei nativitatem ex nullis exstantibus phantasma esse confite¬ tur, quod Graeci!!; g-/) ovxwv appellant » , et lib. vn. in ultimis verbis ; «Ac per hoc, inquit, unita est Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti substantia, quam Graeci dicunt Sgooufftov. Deinde refellit hic auctor nominatim Urbi¬ cum Potentinum, qui Eunomii discipulus fuit. Non videtur autem credibile, Athana¬ sium potuisse confutare discipulum Eunomii cum ipsum Eunonium, non Athanasius, sed Basibus, qui Athanasio junior erat, primus confutaverit. Praeter libros, qui in his quatuor tomis continentur, exstat seorsim vita sancti Anto¬ nii, et symbolum, quod incipit, « Quicumque vult salvus esse » ; quae Sancti Athanasii opera esse vera et germana non dubitamus. Quod enim Sanctus Hieronymus in lib. de script. Eccles. in Antonio, in Evagrio, et in Athanasio : testatur etiam Sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus oratione in Athanasium, et san¬ ctus Augustinus, lib. vm. confess. cap. 6. Quod autem ea, quae nunc exstat, si illa ipsa, cujus meminit Sanctus Hieronymus et San¬ ctus Augustinus, perspicuum est ex eo quod est revera insigne volumen, ut eam vocat sanctus Hieronymus, et continet magna illa miracula, quorum meminit Sanctus Augusti¬ nus ; et habet revelationem illam de anima Ammonis, quam ex vita a sancto Athanasio scripta referunt Palladius in historia Lau- siaca cap. 8. et Socrates in hist. lib. iv. cap. 18. Neque potest contra objici, nisi quod in hac vita non fiat mentio Pauli primi Eremi- tse, et aliarum rerum, quse narrantur a San¬ cto Hieronymo in vita S. Pauli primi Ere¬ mitae. Sed responderi potest, Athanasium, non omnia, quae ad vitam S. Antonii pertine¬ bant, assecutum fuisse, vel non omnia quae acceperat, in mentem venisse illi, cum scri¬ beret, vel etiam noluisse omnia scribendo nimis longam orationem suam facere : alio- qui si objectio illa vim. ullam haberet, pos¬ semus de scriptoribus Evangeliorum etiam dubitare : multa enim Matthaeus et Marcus omiserunt in vita et rebus gestis Christi re¬ ferendis, quae Lucas non omisit ; multa quo¬ que omisit Lucas quae Matthaeus et Marcus non omiserunt; multa denique et gravissima Joannes scripsit, quae tres Evangelistae prae¬ termiserunt. De symbolo Athanasii Ecclesia ipsa Catho¬ lica testimonium perhibet, dum illud sub AB ANNO DOM. 300. AD 400. 377 nomine S. Athanasii in divinis officiis reci¬ tandum proponit : neque id facit sine vete¬ rum Patrum testimonio. Sanctus enim Au¬ gustinus tractatu in Psalm. cxx. sic loquitur explicans illud, «Per diem soFnon uret te » De hoc sole Pater Athanasius Alexandrinus Episcopus ita pulchre locutus est : « Filius, inquit, Dei a Patre solo est, non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. » Tribuuntur Sancto Athanasio a nonnullis commentaria in omnes epistolas S. Pauli» Sed ea Theophylacti sunt, non Athanasii. De Serapione . Serapion Episcopus Thmuseos a S. Atha¬ nasio ordinatus. Vir fuit S. Antonio carus^ ut scribit S. Hieron. in lib. de script. Eccl. Scripsit librum contra Manichaeos, qui exstat apud Henricum Canisium tomo quinto anti¬ quae lectionis : scripsit de Psalmorum titulis et epistolas ad diversos, teste Sancto Hiero¬ nymo in lib. de script. Eceles. Sed non vi¬ dentur exstare.