105 1 John iv. 2, John iv. 3. The findings of modern textual criticism are at variance with Socrates' opinion that the original in the epistle of John was luei (separates). Westcott and Hort admit luei into their margin, but evidently in order to have it translated as the Revised Version has it (also in the margin) `annulleth, 0' taking away all the force of the passage as used here.
106 Of what nature was this mutilation? Some authorities omitted it altogether (see Tischendorf, Novum. Test. ed. Octav. Maj., on the passage); others changed luei into mh omologh.
107 Cf. Euseb. Life of Const. III. 43.
108 Cf. Origen, Com. in Rom. I. 1. 5.
109 upostasin; see I. chap. 5, note 2.
110 Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 11.
111 This was the third of the Ecumenical or General Synods; it was convened in 431 and dealt with the Nestorian controversy. Cf. Hefele, Hist. of the Councils of the Ch. Vol. III. p. 1; also Evagrius, H. E. I. 2, 3, 4.
112 After his deposition Nestorius was banished to the Oasis, as above stated. This Oasis was `a miserable place exposed to the wild nomad tribes; all around were shifting sands, forming a pathless solitude. He ...employed himself in writing a defense of the opinions for which he had lost all. The Blemmyes at length invaded the Oasis, and took Nestorius, among others, captive; then, by what he calls a most unexpected act of compassion, released him, and bade him hurry away. He thought it best to proceed to Panopolis in the Thebaid, and voluntarily reported himself to the governor, who, unmoved by his pathetic entreaty that the imperial authorities would not be less merciful than the barbarians, ordered some soldiers to convey him to Elephantine. The journey under such circumstances exhausted the old man; a fall severely hurt his hand and side; and before he could reach Elephantine, a mandate came for his return to Panopolis. Two more compulsory changes of abode were added to sufferings which remind us perforce of the last days of S. John Chrysostom; and then the unhappy Nestorius was no more. The exact year of his death cannot be ascertained. 0'-W. Bright, Hist. of the Church from a.d. 313 to 451, p. 371, 372.
114 The canon referred to is probably the fifteenth of Nicaea, as follows: `On account of the numerous troubles and divisions which have taken place, it has been thought good that ...no bishop, priest, or deacon should remove from one city to another. If any one should venture, even after this ordinance of the holy and great Synod, to act contrary to this present rule, and should follow the old custom, the translation shall be null, and he shall return to the church to which he had been ordained bishop or priest. 0' Cf. also Apostol. Can. 14 and 15, and the twenty-first of the Council of Antioch given by Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 72.
117 The canon here quoted is the eighteenth of the Council of Antioch (see Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 71); whereas the canon of that council bearing on that subject is the twenty-first, as noted in chap. 35, note 1.
118 In what way these canons against the translation of bishops were understood and observed by the early church is discussed by Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VI. 4. 6.
119 Another indication that the patriarchal functions of the bishop of Constantinople were at this time exercised and recognized. The Council of Chalcedon somewhat later (in 451 a.d.) formally ordered in its twenty-eighth canon that the metropolitans of the Thracian Pontic, and Asian dioceses should be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople, their election being first secured by the clergy and lairy of the dioceses, and referred to the patriarch afterwards.
120 plathn, a sort of raft; the word is incorrectly spelled plath according to Sophocles (Greek Lexic., &c.), and should be plwth.
122 Nothing further is heard of this strange affair.
123 alastwr. Aeschylus and Sophocles apply this word to the Furies.
124 Rebuilt and rededicated, according to the Chronicon of Marcellinus, under the consuls Maximus and Paterius, i.e. 443 a.d. and ten years after the fire.
127 See above, chap. 28. This was about the year 427 a.d.
131 Who these barbarians were it is impossible to find out precisely, and that not because no mention is made of barbarian inroads on the imperial territories, but because so many are mentioned by the chronographers and the historians of the Goths (Jornandes, Prosper Aquitanus, Marcellinus, &c.) that it is impossible to identify this with any of them to the exclusion of the rest. Rougas also appears in these historians as Rouas (in Priscus), Roas (in Jornandes), Rugilas (in Prosper Aquitanus), and is said to be related to Attila; but nothing certain can be drawn from the accounts.
132 Ezek. xxxviii. 2, Ezek. xxxviii. 22, Ezek. xxxviii. 23. Ambrose has also used this prophecy, applying it to the Goths, and exhorted Gratian to make war against them. Cf. Ambrose, de Fide, 2. 16. The quotation here is from the LXX.
136 This seems hardly probable when compared with the opening sentence of the chapter, and so Valesius with Christophorson anti others change it into August. The emendation suggested in the Greek is not a difficult one; it simply adds between au- and tou of the word autou (above translated `the same 0'), the syllable gouj-making it thus, augoustou mhnoj, `month of August. 0' The emendation, or something equivalent to it, must be accepted, otherwise we are compelled to place the death of Paul and the ordination of Marcian together with the intervening events on the same day.