Fathers and the Primacy of Peter and Rome

[hlgomez]

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.

Fr. A,

How many times will you try to claim this??? Apostolic succession in your mindset is totally different from Catholic view. I will call your views as not using common sense.

Just cite a line of successors to the Church in Antioch and see if just one of them, if not all, claims to be a successor to Peter as head of the Universal Church. Post it here so we can see and support it with evidence that they chose to claim Peter’s see.

There were many churches founded by the apostles. But succession to a particular Apostle Peter as prince of the apostles is entirely different than just founding a Church, wherever it might be.

Pio

 

[Orthodoc]

Fr. A,

How many times will you try to claim this??? Apostolic succession in your mindset is totally different from Catholic view. I will call your views as not using common sense.

Just cite a line of successors to the Church in Antioch and see if just one of them, if not all, claims to be a successor to Peter as head of the Universal Church. Post it here so we can see and support it with evidence that they chose to claim Peter’s see.

========

List of Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from St Peter on -
To 518
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch
From 518 to Present -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Patriarchs_of_Antioch
Orthodoc

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Orthodoc:

List of Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from St Peter on -
To 518
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch
From 518 to Present -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

Orthodoc,

While I haven’t read enough of this thread to comment on the issue you raise, I wouldn’t rely on the wikipedia list for anything. The list of Latin patriarchs there is certainly erroneous or, at best, incomplete. It fails to list Elias Roberto, OP, of blessed memory, Patriarch from 1240 through 1247, or his successor, Christiano or Christian, also a Dominican and probably a contemporary and companion of St. Domenic.

Christian, of sainted memory, was the last resident Latin Patriarch of Antioch. Having been made aware of the approach of the Tartars in 1268, he clothed himself in his full pontifical regalia and accompanied by 4 of his clerics, also fully vested, prostrated himself before the main altar of his cathedral. There he remained, praying aloud and awaiting their arrival and his martyrdom. May his memory be eternal and thrice-blessed.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Orthodoc]

Greetings Irish Melkite:

The web sites were given in response to a request for a lineage of Orthodox Patriarchs going back to St Peter. I assume that it was a request to prove that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate can prove Apostolic Succession directly back to St Peter.

The point is …YES the Orthodox can prove Apostolic Succession directly back to the founder of the Antiochian Patriarchate which St Peter was its first bishop prior to his visit to Rome.

Orthodoc

 

[twf]

Orthodoc:
Jesus is indeed the Rock. Peter, however, as Scriptures, and many of the Fathers, attest is also a rock, in a lesser fashion. It is, as Gassi said, sacramental theology. In Matthew 16, Christ is teh builder, and Peter is the Rock upon which He will build His Church. The Apostles and Prophets as a group are the foundation of the Church, yet no Orthodox would say that this takes away from the fact that Christ is the ultimate foundation. In a secondary sense, Peter is the Rock.

The fact of the matter is that as early as St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Church of Rome can be seen to hold a primacy. Catholics do not claim that the papacy was fully developed in the early centuries, but the primacy of Rome is indeed of Divine origin. Like other doctrines, the Church has reached a fuller understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome over time.

 

[Aris]

The question was “Did the bishop of Antioch ever claim the mantle of leadership of the Catholic Church?” “Did it ever claim that it was the successor of Peter as the leader of the Church?”
The list does not show us.
Pio is asking for proof that the bishop of Antioch makes the same claim as Fr Ambrose.

 

[Orthodoc]

[The fact of the matter is that as early as St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Church of Rome can be seen to hold a primacy. Catholics do not claim that the papacy was fully developed in the early centuries, but the primacy of Rome is indeed of Divine origin. Like other doctrines, the Church has reached a fuller understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome over time.]

The Orthodox Catholic Church has never denied a ‘primacy’ to either Peter or the church of Rome. The problem occurred when the Pope was no longer was satisfied with ‘primacy’ and opted for ‘supremacy’!

From a book called ‘Orthodoxy In Conversation’, here are some of the Orthodox responses to the Pope regarding ‘papal primacy’ in a reunited church. No different than it was in the undivided church -

“The Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father. It has its origins and prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons and unity based on love, NOT SUBORDINATION.”

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christiandom the bishop of Rome will be considered as primus inter pares serving the unity of the church in love. HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SET UP OVER THE CHURCH AS A RULER whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood , not acccording to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25-27).

In a reintegrated Christiandom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole church. The bishop of Rome, will of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierachal order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

---

[The question was “Did the bishop of Antioch ever claim the mantle of leadership of the Catholic Church?” “Did it ever claim that it was the successor of Peter as the leader of the Church?”]

No because that type of primacy was unheard of in the undivided 1st millenium church.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

It is not true that primacy as envisaged by Catholicism is absent in the patristic age. Rome had always claimed that role which Antioch did not, and yet it did not rend the Church asunder.

And what is the Orthodox view on appeals to the Pope, which is clearly enshrined in Church history? And what about the Pope’s infallibility? Though Catholics will admit that unity is achieved by consensus, we do not see any biblical or patristic warrant for the Orthodox notion that God’s truth is obtained by consensus.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Orthodoc]

GAssisi:

Dear Orthodoc,

It is not true that primacy as envisaged by Catholicism is absent in the patristic age. Rome had always claimed that role which Antioch did not, and yet it did not rend the Church asunder.

And what is the Orthodox view on appeals to the Pope, which is clearly enshrined in Church history? And what about the Pope’s infallibility? Though Catholics will admit that unity is achieved by consensus, we do not see any biblical or patristic warrant for the Orthodox notion that God’s truth is obtained by consensus.

God bless,

---

Rome was the capital of the empire at the time while Antioch was not. The primacy of the Pope was based on this fact and nothing else.

Suggest you read the following debate between an Orthodox Catholic and a Roman Catholic regarding ‘papal primacy’ to get the Orthodox prespective. Also, reread my December 12th posts.

a2z.org/acts/articles/primacy/

Orthodoc

Greg

 

[corkybob]

My dear seperated brothern of the Orthodox faith. My understanding is that the Orthodox only accept 5 or 7 eccuminical councils for the first 1000 years of Christian exsistance. By averages, the Orthodox should have had another 5 to 7 councils since then. How many have you had? My understanding is 0.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the early to mid church felt the need to get together to discuss problems that the Church was experiencing fom time to time, yet after Rome and You split, there were no more councils.

Could it be that no one in Orthodoxy has the authority to call a council? The western idea is that if a council is needed you get ahold of the bishop of Rome and he decides if a council is needed for the problem at hand.

Another really puzzling problem I have over the Orthodox view of history is the Marionites. When the splite between Bysanthium and Rome came about, the Marionites were busy being persecuted by the Muslims. When the persecutions relented, or at least let up, the Marionites did not seek Bysanthium, but Rome. They state themselves that they never left the barq of Peter.

It is true that the understanding of the West on Peter and the Church developed as we know it today. What was not developed was the authority of the bishop of Rome. If nothing else but to keep Church unity, the east relented to the instructions of the bishop of Rome when it was appropiate.

Pax
John

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

Thank you for the entertaining Catholic/Orthodox exchange. It would immediately seem like what I am about to say is said merely out of a bias towards Catholicism, but I can honestly assert that the Catholic apologist won that little debate. There were many holes in the Orthodox presentation, and the Catholic amply refuted all the claims of the Orthodox. I can now see even more clearly that the Orthodox position is based on selective and eisegetic reading of the Fathers, imposition of anachronistic notions onto the Fathers, and unfounded claims. Let me give you some examples:

The Orthodox claimed that the famous quote from Irenaeus is a mistranslation, but he does not bother to respond to the fact that the Church in Rome is potiorem principalitatem. Further, he does not address the fact that, whither which way one wants to translate the latter (as a reference to Rome’s political or theological stature), Irenaeus states that it is the doctrine that is taught in this Church (Rome) which “confounds ALL those” heretics everywhere. BTW, this apologist utilizes a rather deceptive translation of a certain clause, namely, “we confound all those who … do not gather where they should.” All competent translations rightly translate the passage as “we confound all those who … gather where they should not,” referring to false assemblies and “councils” of heretics. But we see the purpose of the Orthodox apologist’s mistranslation. He wants to support (vainly) the notion that convenire translates as “go towards.”

The Orthodox asserted that St. Irenaeus admonished Pope St. Victor, but he does not bother to explain how this fact diminishes papal authority. More reasonably, it amply demonstrates that the papacy is not the dictatorship that non-Catholic polemicists like to mischaracterize it as.

The Orthodox cited Carthage in opposition to Sardica, but failed to consider that the canons of Carthage specifically claim only LOCAL significance (its mention of the transmarine Church would not be applicable to the rest of Christianity), while the canons of Sardica were intended for bishops of the ENTIRE Church, both East and West. Thus, if the Sixth Council approved these canons from local councils, they would simply retain their particular jurisdictional significance. Otherwise, an Ecumenical Council would certainly appear schizophrenic. Likewise the differing Scriptural canons approved generally by the Sixth Council would make the Council appear schizophrenic unless the ratifications of those different canons were understood to simply ratify them for their original locales.

The Orthodox claimed that the Catholic did not cite any source stating that the papacy is of divine institution, and this, AFTER the Catholic apologist cited St. Maximus as stating Rome, that is, the Apostolic See, which from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout. As stated, the Orthodox position is based on a rather selective and eisegetic reading of the Fathers.

The Orthodox claimed the Catholic did not cite any canon, yet he surprisingly failed to recognize that canons were employed to settle matters in dispute. If no canons can be found on the Roman primacy, while the practice of so many patristic figures and councils testifies to it, it would seem rather obvious (except to the polemical mind) that, as the Catholic maintained, papal primacy was always presupposed – i.e., never in dispute.

There are many other examples, of course. This reminds me of another thread wherein Fr Ambrose claimed that per filium (as equivalent to the theology behind filioque) was maintained by only “one or two patristic authors … unnoticed in Eastern theology.” I responded with over ten quotes from Eastern authorities refuting his claim (a list, by the way, which was not complete). He did not respond.

God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

corkybob:

My dear seperated brothern of the Orthodox faith. My understanding is that the Orthodox only accept 5 or 7 eccuminical councils for the first 1000 years of Christian exsistance. By averages, the Orthodox should have had another 5 to 7 councils since then. How many have you had? My understanding is 0.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the early to mid church felt the need to get together to discuss problems that the Church was experiencing fom time to time, yet after Rome and You split, there were no more councils.

An ecumenical council was only called when the doctrine of the church was under attack from within. There were seven such councils over 450 years. Since the time Rome seperated herself from the Ark of Salvation she has had 12 councils over a period of 750 years, suggesting that she has been fraught with heresies in that time.

Do you see how silly your reasoning is?

In any case we have had numerous local councils but as the saying goes “there is nothing new under the sun” and there is little that comes up which hasn’t already been dealt with by the seven ecumenical councils

The western idea is that if a council is needed you get ahold of the bishop of Rome and he decides if a council is needed for the problem at hand.

Well that is certainly an innovation. Are you aware that the Pope did not call any of the councils prior to the schism?

Another really puzzling problem I have over the Orthodox view of history is the Marionites. When the splite between Bysanthium and Rome came about, the Marionites were busy being persecuted by the Muslims. When the persecutions relented, or at least let up, the Marionites did not seek Bysanthium, but Rome.

You conveniently ignore the fact that Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were not involved in the split between Constantinople and Rome either, yet when the dust had settled they remained with Constantinople and not Rome.

John

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Prodromos,

Didn’t the Orthodox have a supposed eighth ecumenical council which ratified Photius’ enthronement for the See of Constantinople? Didn’t you have a pan-Orthodox council in Jerusalem to deal with the Protestant heresies? Did not the Orthodox participate in the Council of Lyons and Florence? Call them ecumenical or not, but whatever supposed weaknesses you perceive by virtue of the calling of Councils certainly would be applied to the Orthodox as well.

The reason the Pope never explicitly called an Ecumenical Council into being before the Great Schism (though Councils 3-7 are arguable) is because the Church was married to the State at the time, and only the State really had the resources to decide when and where a Council could be convoked. Simple as that. As the Catholic Church grew in its independence from the State (a circumstance which unfortunately did not occur for Orthodoxy, even to this day), it was natural for the Pope to convoke the Council, exercising a prerogative that Catholics claim has always existed, yet was hampered simply because of the marriage between Church and State.

As far as Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are concerned, I have shown in another thread the practical dependence these three Sees had on Constantinople. It was hardly a matter of choice for them to follow Constantinople into schism.

God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

GAssisi:

As far as Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are concerned, I have shown in another thread the practical dependence these three Sees had on Constantinople. It was hardly a matter of choice for them to follow Constantinople into schism.

You have claimed that they were dependant on Constantinople, but you never substantiated that claim.

John

 

[prodromos]

GAssisi:

Didn’t the Orthodox have a supposed eighth ecumenical council which ratified Photius’ enthronement for the See of Constantinople? Didn’t you have a pan-Orthodox council in Jerusalem to deal with the Protestant heresies? Did not the Orthodox participate in the Council of Lyons and Florence? Call them ecumenical or not, but whatever supposed weaknesses you perceive by virtue of the calling of Councils certainly would be applied to the Orthodox as well.

The point of my post was simply to show the foolishness of the line of reasoning given by the other poster, and as you graciously demonstrate, we have no problem calling councils without an emperor.

John.

 

[Orthodoc]

GAssisi:

Dear Prodromos,

Didn’t the Orthodox have a supposed eighth ecumenical council which ratified Photius’ enthronement for the See of Constantinople? Didn’t you have a pan-Orthodox council in Jerusalem to deal with the Protestant heresies? Did not the Orthodox participate in the Council of Lyons and Florence? Call them ecumenical or not, but whatever supposed weaknesses you perceive by virtue of the calling of Councils certainly would be applied to the Orthodox as well.

The reason the Pope never explicitly called an Ecumenical Council into being before the Great Schism (though Councils 3-7 are arguable) is because the Church was married to the State at the time, and only the State really had the resources to decide when and where a Council could be convoked. Simple as that. As the Catholic Church grew in its independence from the State (a circumstance which unfortunately did not occur for Orthodoxy, even to this day), it was natural for the Pope to convoke the Council, exercising a prerogative that Catholics claim has always existed, yet was hampered simply because of the marriage between Church and State.

As far as Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria are concerned, I have shown in another thread the practical dependence these three Sees had on Constantinople. It was hardly a matter of choice for them to follow Constantinople into schism.

God bless,

Greg

The dependence of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandra upon Constantinople was a result of the Ottoman Rule which came centuries AFTER the Great Schism.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear John,

I forget which thread contained the reasons for my claim that the three traditional Eastern Sees were dependent on Constantinople, but let me try to remember them:

1. Jerusalem was overrun by Muslims at the time of the Schism. It was the Emperor of Constantinople who a year before the Schism succeeded in succoring the Caliph to allow the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This was the same Emperor who sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople during the Schism. 1 + 1 =2
2. Antioch had always vied against Constantinople for the first place in the East after Alexandria became generally “Monophysite.” Since the fifth century, Constantinople had won that contest, and Constantinople did not fail to take advantage of its position to subordinate Antioch through the secular arm of the Emperor. Like Jerusalem, Antioch became dependent on Constantinople both temporally and ecclesiastically, with the arrival of its Muslim conquerors. It was the Byzantine Emperor who liberated Antioch from its Muslim captors in 960. 2 + 2 = 4
3. The Bishop of Heraclea (here my memory is foggy; I forget what See it was) was the one who ordained the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria, but Heraclea(?) was a suffragan of the See of Antioch. 4 + 4 = 8

Generally speaking, the Muslim invasions cut the East off from the West, and the most stable structure in the East was Constantinople. It is not hard to figure out how the Eastern Sees became dependent on Constantinople. I might also add that since the Acacian Schism, the Eastern Sees normally sided together against the West, at the urging of Constantinople.

God bless,

Greg

 

[steve_b]

EUSEBIUS:
"Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (EUSEBIUS-Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).

======

Orthodoc

Jesus and Peter are both referred to as Rocks. Depending on the context a particular early Church writer was addressing, they either stressed Jesus as the Rock or Peter as the Rock.

 

[steve_b]

AMBROSE, St. of Milano:
Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (AMBROSE, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).

They sucked honey out of the firm rock,’ (Deut. xxxii.13): for the flesh of Christ is a rock, which redeemed heaven and the whole world (AMBROSE, Epistle 43.9.)

When the cock crew, the very rock of the Church did away with his guilt (Hymn. Aeterne rerum conditor. p. 76).

=======

Orthodoc

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (*The Faith *4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (*Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David *40:30 [A.D. 389]).

 

[steve_b]

JOHN. St. CHRYSOSTOME of Constantinople:
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three (Peter, John, James) especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI, p. 169)

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1)

And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…(Sant Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

St. John Chrysostom

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, &c.’ This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ’ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’ (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in John 5).

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In John. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)