AD 538 Source Book (Heidi Heiks)

AD
538
Source Book
Heidi Heiks
Translation: Copper currency of Justinian, date of 538
[Emperor Justinian I, AD 527-565, Holding the Cross with the World as Her Seat]
"I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast." Rev. 17:3.
Charles Diehl, Justinien et fa Civilisation Byzantine (Paris: Rue Bonaparte, 1901), 18.
To
Robin
My constant helpmate,
and best friend.
ii
Copyright © 2010
By
Heidi Heiks
P.O. Box 308
Brinkhaven, Ohio 43006
U.S.A.
All rights reserved.
iii
CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter 1. The Government of God verses the Government of Satan . . . . . 1
Chapter 2. The Ten Horns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 3. The Three Uprooted Horns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter 4. The Heruli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Chapter 5. The Visigoths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Chapter 6. The Vandals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Chapter 7. The Ostrogoths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Chapter 8. Justinian, Canon Law, and the Government of Satan . . . . . . . . . 99
Chapter 9. The Man of Sin thinks to change the Law of God . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Chapter 10. A.D. 538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Appendix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
iv
FOREWORD
The year A.D. 538 was a landmark year for the beginning of the fulfillment of
an important time prophecy that spans the Middle Ages. It is essential, therefore,
that those who follow the historicist method of interpreting prophecy establish
this fixed point as firmly as possible. Brother Heiks has done precisely that with
this present study of the important events that occurred and documents what were
developed that year. His related studies of A.D. 508 and A.D. 1798 are also
recommended to complete this trilogy of important historical-prophetic studies.
William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D.

Former Professor: Old Testament Department
Seminary, Andrews University
Former Associate: Biblical Research Institute
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
*******
Heidi Heiks has produced and completed as promised a most thorough and
timely study on the historical/prophetic dimensions of these four years. In many
respects it is an original contribution, anchoring with great scholarly precision
the reliability of the significance of these four dates.
It will be a great read, not only for fellow scholars across the academic
landscape, but equally so for the thoughtful layperson that enjoys
documentation that guarantees deeper assurance in critical biblical study. It
surely will not compete with anything else on the market.
Anyone familiar with historical research will be gratified with the author’s
care and devotion to unvarnished facts and his articulateness in translating from
the original languages. Perhaps someone somewhere will take issue with some
aspect of this research. But if so, he would have to demolish the brick-by-brick
structure that the author has constructed—and that seems to be an unlikely
achievement.
I was especially grateful for his writing style—his force, careful transitions,
and absence of pretentiousness. This is an unexpected achievement in the world
of scholarship. I predict that many teachers and pastors will use these three
volumes as a basis for many church-sponsored study groups. I can’t imagine an
Adventist church that will overlook the power flowing through these pages.
One of the most impressive features that make these books so timely and
relevant is the linkage of the historical facts with the biblical anchorage and
Ellen White’s commentary. I found this three-fold connection to be rewarding
and gratifying—not because I had hoped to find it so, but to see how deep this
linkage is.
Many good men and women have supported the century-old interpretation
that the “daily” refers to paganism, rather than Christ’s ministry in heaven.
v
They have seen, for them, good reasons for this position. However, it seems to
me that they will find this understanding worthy of further consideration.
I am a wiser man after reading these books, not only for clearer reasons to
see validity in 508, 538, 1798 and 1843, but also for the careful details
describing the temporary demise of the papacy in 1798.
Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D.

Professor: Pacific Union College,
President: Atlantic Union College
Associate editor: Review and Herald
Vice President: Pacific Press
Publishing Association.
Lincoln Hills, California
*******
The apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation have received a variety of

interpretations throughout church history. Of the three major schools of
interpretation, historicism, futurism and preterism, historicism is the oldest, and
until the nineteenth century it was the dominant school of interpretation. It can be
traced back to some of the church fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Jerome. It
was taught by Joachim of Floris (1130-1202) in the twelfth century and became
the standard interpretation of expositors until the time of the Counter
Reformation.
Historicists believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel, that it was
written in the sixth century B.C., and that its main prophecies cover the period
from the Babylonian Empire to the second coming of Christ. Historicists
generally agree that the four empires of Daniel 2 and 7 represent the kingdoms of
Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 is
the papacy. A third factor common to all is their use of the year-day principle in
interpreting most, if not all, the time prophecies in Daniel? A last point on which
there is general agreement among historicists is the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27.
All historicist commentators agree that the focus of this prophecy is Jesus Christ
and that He fulfilled it in His incarnation.
Because historicists believe that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are
fulfilled throughout the history, and particularly throughout the history of the
Christian church, historical sources confirming the fulfillment of these prophecies
are extremely important to historicist interpreters. The three volumes by Heidi
Heiks contain not only a large amount of primary source material illustrating how
the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in history, they also
provide important background information.
The backbone for the interpretation of the time prophecies found in Daniel and
Revelation (3 ½ times, 1260, 1290, 1335 days and 42 months) is the year-day
principle.
vi
The main points in support of it can be summarized as follows: 1
1) Since the visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are largely symbolic, with a number of
different beasts representing important historical empires (7:3-7; 8:3-5, 20-21),
the time periods (7:25; 8:14) should also be seen as symbolic.
2) The fact that the visions deal with the rise and fall of known empires in
history which existed for hundreds of years indicates that the prophetic time
periods must also cover long time periods.
3) In Daniel 7 the four beasts which together account for a reign of at least one
thousand years are followed by the little horn power. It is the focus of the vision
since it is most directly in opposition to God. Three and a half literal years for the
struggle between the little horn and the Most High are out of proportion to the
comprehensive scope of salvation history portrayed in this vision. The same
applies to Revelation 12:6 and 14 where the one thousand and two hundred and
sixty prophetic days or three and a half times cover most of the history between
the First and Second Advents.
4) According to the context, the expressions “time, times, and half a time” (Dan
7:25; 12:7; Rev 12:14), “forty-two months” (Rev 11:2; 13:5), and “one thousand
two hundred and sixty days” (Rev 11:3; 12:6) all apply to the same time period,
but the natural expression “three years and six months” is not used once.
The Holy Spirit seems, in a manner, to exhaust all the phrases by which the
interval could be expressed, excluding always that one form which would be used
of course in ordinary writing, and is used invariably in Scripture on other
occasions, to denote the literal period. This variation is most significant if we
accept the year-day system, but quite inexplicable on the other view 2
5) The prophecies in Daniel 7-8, and 10-12 lead up to the “time of the end”
(8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9 ) which is followed by the resurrection (12:2) and the
setting up of God's everlasting kingdom (7:27). Literal time periods of a few years
are not capable of reaching anywhere near the time of the end. Therefore, these
prophetic time periods should be seen as symbolic, standing for long periods of
actual time.
6) In Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 God deliberately used the day for a year
principle as a teaching device.
7) In Dan 9:24-27 the 70-week time prophecy met its fulfillment at the exact
time, if we use the year-day principle to interpret it. Many interpreters, who in
other apocalyptic texts do not use the year-day principle, recognize that the 70
weeks are in fact “weeks of years” reaching from the Persian period to the time of
Christ. Thus the pragmatic test in Daniel 9 confirms the validity of the year-day
principle.
The historicist method of interpretation is used by the angel in Daniel 7 and 8,
explaining the various beast symbols as representing a sequence of political
1
See Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1978), 300-305 and William H. Shea,
Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised edition, DARCOM, 7 vols. (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1992), 1:67-104.
2
T.R. Birks, The Two Later Visions of Daniel: Historically Explained (London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley,
1846), 352.

vii
powers in history. Hence, it rests on a solid biblical and historical foundation; and
in spite of what some may claim, it is not an outdated method belonging to the
past but a valid principle of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies today. Heidi
Heiks has put together an impressive array of historical material. One may
disagree with his comments and interpretations of the sources, but one can hardly
argue with the historical material itself. Students of prophetic history will find an
abundance of information to facilitate the interpretation of the apocalyptic
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
Gerhard Pfandl Ph.D.

Associate Director: Biblical Research Institute
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
*******
Vlll
PREFACE
How Important Will It Be to Know What We Believe?
“Every position of truth taken by our people will bear the criticism of the
greatest minds; the highest of the world’s great men will be brought in contact
with truth, and therefore every position we take should be critically examined and
tested by the Scriptures. Now we seem to be unnoticed, but this will not always
be. Movements are at work to bring us to the front, and if our theories of truth can
be picked to pieces by historians or the world’s greatest men, it will be done. We
must individually know for ourselves what is truth, and be prepared to give a
reason of the hope that we have with meekness and fear, not in a proud, boasting
self-sufficiency, but with the spirit of Christ. We are nearing the time when we
shall stand individually alone to answer for our belief. Religious errors are
multiplying and entwining themselves with Satanic power about the people. There
is scarcely a doctrine of the Bible that has not been denied.” 3
“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present
truth know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their
faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the
time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others who will find,
upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they
can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested they knew not their great
ignorance. And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they
understand what they believe; but, until controversy arises, they do not know their
own weakness. When separated from those of like faith and compelled to stand
singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused
are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been
among us a departure from the living God and a turning to men, putting human in
place of divine wisdom. “God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies
will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the
wheat . . . . This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a
most critical examination of the positions which we hold. God would have all the
bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with
prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill defined ideas of
what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God
so that when the testing time shall come . . . they may be able to give a reason for
the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear. “Agitate, agitate, agitate. The
subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. . . . As a
people we are called individually to be students of prophecy. . . . Through
prayerful study clearer light may be obtained, which can be brought before
others.” 4
3
Ellen White, Letter 6, 1886.
4
Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1948), 5:707-708.
ix
“. . . If God has ever spoken by me, the time will come when you will be
brought before councils, and every position of truth which you hold will be
severely criticized. The time that so many are now allowing to go to waste should
be devoted to the charge that God has given us of preparing for the approaching
crisis.” 5
“Those who endeavor to obey all the commandments of God will be opposed
and derided. They can stand only in God. In order to endure the trial before them,
they must understand the will of God as revealed in His word; they can honor
Him only as they have a right conception of His character, government, and
purposes, and act in accordance with them. None but those who have fortified the
mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict. . . .” 6
“There is no Bible sanctification for those who cast a part of the truth behind
them. . . .” 7
Correct information is first and foremost if our spiritual experience is to bear the fruits of
sanctification, because error never sanctifies. Without the right information, we cannot make the
right decisions, and if we have the wrong doctrine, we will have the wrong experience.
5
Ibid., 717.
6
Ellen White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 593-594.
7
Ellen White, Review and Herald, May 6, 1862.

x
INTRODUCTION
Today many people, including scholars, count the prophetic historic dates of A.D. 508, 538,
1798, 1843, and 1844 as error, offering new interpretations that are historically and theologically
untenable. These new views have resulted in confusion and division within Seventh-day
Adventism. As Scripture warns us that we are soon to answer for our faith before the wise men
of the world, we must know that “we have not followed cunningly devised fables.” All of the
objections raised by those who have tried to move the 1260-, 1290-, 1335- or 2300-year dates to
sometime in the future (or renounce them altogether) instead of calculating the longest of the
prophetic periods of Daniel to the autumn of 1844, can now, by documentation, be officially
refuted. This documentation, much of it from primary sources, comes from historians and
witnesses whom the world, as a whole, accepts as authoritative voices. Some of them lived and
wrote during the reign of Justinian. Civil and ecclesiastical annals from those time periods will
declare their truths, as well. Many of these sources are rare or largely inaccessible volumes,
unfamiliar to much of the academic world. In addition, some of the most respected Byzantine
historians in Europe who corroborated these facts have been consulted and have even given their
consent to be quoted. Most importantly, the Catholics themselves have given their official
sanction and imprimatur to these facts which will be demonstrated from their very own published
works. Finally, Biblical verses and the writings of Ellen White are cited to confirm and support
the historical applications here presented and, in turn, the reliable recorded history attests to their
accuracy and trustworthiness. The purpose of this book, then, is to document our application and
interpretation of certain scriptural and historical events of A.D. 538 as the fulfillment of
prophecy found in the books of Daniel and Revelation. What began as an investigation into the
accuracy of the historicist interpretation has ended in an accumulation of evidence that firmly
validates that view. From the primary sources, we will piece together all the specifications of this
prophetic puzzle. Fundamental issues surrounding those dates will be shown to be the following:
the union of church and state, the increasing influence of the church over the state, and their
combined efforts through various channels to abrogate freedom of conscience and nullify the
gospel and the government or law of God. The true Antichrist of the Apocalypse and its methods
will be exposed for the world to see:
“There will be one fierce struggle before the man of sin shall be disclosed to
this world--who he is and what has been his work.” 8
Seven times this prophetic time period of 1260 years is mentioned in Daniel and Revelation
and, in every instance, one and the same event is identified. By repetition, God established and
emphasized it with further details:
Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall
wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they
shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
8
Ellen White, Selected Messages, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1980), 3:426.

xi
Daniel 12:7 “And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters
of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and
sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and
when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these
things shall be finished.”
Revelation 11:2 “But the court which is without the temple leave out, and
measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread
under foot forty and two months.”
Revelation 11:3 “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall
prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.”
Revelation 12:6 “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a
place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred
and threescore days.”
Revelation 12:14 “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle,
that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a
time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.”
Revelation 13:5 “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things
and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two
months.”
Ellen White specifically affirms those time prophecies’ application and relevance in history.
“The forty and two months are the same as the ‘time and times and the dividing
of time,’ three years and a half, or 1260 days, of Daniel 7--the time during which
the papal power was to oppress God’s people. This period, as stated in preceding
chapters, began with the supremacy of the papacy, A.D. 538, and terminated in
1798.” 9
These and other scriptures will be referenced and diagnosed when and where appropriate to
our study. In addition, our study will show that the Bible does not teach that the temporal
sovereignty of the Papacy or the Primacy of the Popes is the reference point for the
commencement of the 1260-year prophecy; consequently, neither do we advocate that faulty
premise. The first possible year that can be attributed to the temporal power of the Papacy is
undisputedly A.D. 754, not 538. Similarly, it cannot be accurately stated that the Primacy of the
Popes began in A.D. 538. Neither does the Bible say that the pope was continually the “Head of
all the Holy Churches” for 1260 years. The Bible does, however, paint a picture of persecution
during this 1260-year period, but, for the sake of God’s people, the gospels of Matthew and
Mark predict a shortening of this activity. (See Matthew 24:22, 29 and Mark 13:24) Therefore,
the actual time period falls short of the 1260 years. To say that 1798 was the first time a pope
9
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 439.
xii
had been exiled or killed is simply not true. Furthermore, the death of Pope Pius VI in Valance,
France on August 29, 1799, cannot be the event that dictates the termination of the prophecy, as
that would extend the prophecy to 1261 years and would, therefore, go outside of the prophetic
period. By now, the inquisitive mind of the reader is no doubt asking, then, “1260 years of
what?” In order to discover the answer to this all-encompassing question, we must begin with the
same foundational premise found in the Bible. But first, we will clarify and establish some
necessary Biblical fundamentals.
I have focused on a Seventh-day Adventist readership, from academia to local churches to
whom these several topics are not unfamiliar. It is hoped that the information presented will lead
to unity among us. The research has been presented before the most versed, scholarly minds of
our faith in order to demonstrate that the applications made on the combined basis of historical
and prophetic literature will stand the test of investigation. This gathering and compilation of the
primary historical sources, with its translation of the Latin, Greek French, German and Italian,
will serve Seventh-day Adventism with the needed Biblical integrity she must display to the
world as she is commissioned to present the last invitation of mercy to a perishing world. Our
Biblical and historical interpretation will provide Seventh-day Adventism with a solid foundation
for the four prophetic periods of Daniel, so we may boldly, correctly and without reserve
proclaim the Four Angels’ messages of Revelation 14:6-12, 18:1-5. Furthermore, we believe all
the necessary information has been provided in these three volumes (Vol. 1, A.D. 508 Source
Book, Vol. 2, A.D. 538 Source Book, and Vol. 3, A.D. 1798 1843 Source Book) to forever
eliminate long-standing error and confusion within Seventh-day Adventism regarding those dates
and the prophetic events linked to them. When all doubt is removed, unanimity is attainable.
Then, with a unified front, we can present to the world a united message.
This thesis uses the day-for-a-year principle for interpreting prophecy which is supported by
Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34. Due to space limitations I must refer the reader to my website at
www.thesourcehh.org to view the additional sources used for these three volumes. One will there
find all the sources listed in PDF format under their appropriate designated year in alphabetical
order along with translated papal letters of the 5th and 6th century, primary documents, books,
maps, articles and so much more. However, the reader will find in the footnotes of this book a
most thorough description of the source cited, as well. All emphasis mine unless otherwise
noted. Scripture references are taken from the King James Version of the Bible.
I am forever indebted to Darcie Litton, my copy editor, for all her endless hours of critique
and constructive criticism which gave this work its final veracity.
Special gratitude to Gerhard Pfandl Ph.D., Associate Director of the Biblical Research
Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, for his critique and valuable
suggestions.
I humbly confess that without the aid of the Holy Spirit and the direct working of my guardian
angel this massive project would have never been completed. I could spend hours giving an
account of heaven’s direct intervention throughout these past six years during which I gained a
living experience that will stay with me for the rest of my life. It is, therefore, my hope and
sincere prayer that the information provided will be a confirmation and fortification for all in the
coming crisis.
Heidi Heiks, former international Christian editor, college educator, and speaker for The
People of the Book radio program, has written numerous articles and books.
xiii
Heidi Heiks
*******
xiv
1
The Government of God verses the Government of Satan
This foundational premise of religious liberty, one of the main keys that unlock our
understanding in rightly interpreting the four prophetic periods of Daniel in relationship to the
government of God, is now to be presented in our study. Ellen White directs our minds to the
primary purpose for which heaven gave us these four prophetic periods found in the book of
Daniel. The central theme and premise that lie behind them can best be summarized from the
following:
“Satan wished to change the government of God, to fix his own seal to the rules
of God’s kingdom. Christ would not be brought into this desire, and here the
warfare against Christ commenced and waxed strong.” 1
We want Ellen White to expand on this concept of the government of God:
“The principles of the character of God were the foundation of the education
constantly kept before the heavenly angels. These principles were goodness,
mercy and love. Self-evidencing light was to be recognized and freely accepted
by all who occupied a position of trust and power. They must accept God's
principles and convince all who were in the service of God, through the
presentation of truth and justice and goodness, [that] this was the only power to
be used. Force must never come in. All who thought that their position gave them
power to command their fellow men and control conscience, must be deprived of
their position. These principles are to be the great foundation of education in
every administration on the earth. In every church the rules given by God are to
be observed and respected. God has enjoined this. His government is to be moral.
Nothing is to be done from compulsion. Truth is to be the prevailing power. All
service is to be done willingly and for love of the service of God. All who are
honored with positions of influence are to represent God, for when [361]
officiating they act in the place of God. In everything their actions must
correspond with the importance of their position. The higher the position, the
more distinctly will self-sacrifice be revealed, if they are fit for the office.
Satan's representations against the government of God, and his defense of those
who sided with him, were a constant accusation against God. These murmurings
and complaints were groundless. Yet God allowed Satan to work out his theories.
He could have handled Satan and all his sympathizers as easily as one can pick
up a pebble and cast it to the earth. But by this he would have given a precedent
for the violence of man which is so abundantly shown in our world in the
compelling principles. The Lord’s principles are not of this order. All the
compelling power is found under Satan’s government. God would not work on
1
Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, (Silver Spring, Maryland: E.G. White Estate, 1993), 16:180.
1
this line. He would not give the slightest encouragement for any human being to
set himself up as God over another human being, and cause him mental or
physical suffering. This principle is wholly of Satan’s creation.
In the councils of heaven it was decided that principles must be acted upon
which would not at once destroy Satan’s power, for it was His purpose to place
things upon an eternal basis of security. Time must be given for Satan to develop
the principles which were the foundation of his government. The heavenly
universe must see the principles which Satan declared were superior to God's
principles, worked out. God’s order must be contrasted with the new order after
Satan's devising. The corrupting principles of Satan's rule must be revealed. The
principles of righteousness expressed in God's law must be demonstrated as
unchangeable, eternal, perfect.
. . . . [362] The Lord allowed Satan to go on and demonstrate his principles.
God did establish Himself, and He carried the worlds unfallen and the heavenly
universe with Him, but at a terrible cost. His only begotten Son was given up as
Satan's victim. The Lord Jesus Christ revealed a character entirely opposite to that
of Satan. As the high priest laid [off] his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated
in the white linen dress of a common priest, so Christ emptied Himself and took
the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim.
By causing the death of the Sovereign of heaven, Satan defeated his own
purposes. The death of the Son of God made the death of Satan unavoidable.
Satan was allowed to go on until his administration was laid open before the
worlds unfallen and before the heavenly universe. By shedding the blood of the
Son of God, he uprooted himself [from sympathy], and was seen by all to be a
liar, a thief, and a murderer.” 2
“From the very beginning of the great controversy in heaven it has been Satan's
purpose to overthrow the law of God. It was to accomplish this that he entered
upon his rebellion against the Creator, and though he was cast out of heaven he
has continued the same warfare upon the earth. To deceive men, and thus lead
them to transgress God's law, is the object which he has steadfastly pursued.
Whether this be accomplished by casting aside the law altogether, or by rejecting
one of its precepts, the result will be ultimately the same. He that offends “in one
point,” manifests contempt for the whole law; his influence and example are on
the side of transgression; he becomes “guilty of all.” James 2:10.
In seeking to cast contempt upon the divine statutes, Satan has perverted the
doctrines of the Bible, and errors have thus become incorporated into the faith of
thousands who profess to believe the Scriptures. The last great conflict between
truth and error is but the final struggle of the long-standing controversy
concerning the law of God. Upon this battle we are now entering--a battle
between the laws of men and the precepts of Jehovah, between the religion of the
Bible and the religion of fable and tradition.” 3
2
Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, (Silver Spring, Maryland: E.G. White Estate, 1993), 18:360-62.
3
Ellen White, The Great Controversy (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 582. See also Ellen White, The Desire
ofAges, (Nampa ID: Pacific Press, 1940), 762-3.
2
This warfare of Satan on the government of God is vividly portrayed from the following
scriptures contrasting the two:
Isaiah 14:12 “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
Isaiah 14:13 “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north:”
Isaiah 14:14 “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the
most High.”
Ezekiel 28:2 “Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord
GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the
seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou
set thine heart as the heart of God:”
As we have seen, time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were to be the
foundation of his government, the government of force. The heavenly universe, we were told,
must see these principles which Satan declared were superior to God's principles, worked out.
God's order must be contrasted with the new order after Satan's devising. The corrupting
principles of Satan's rule must be revealed. The principles of righteousness expressed in God's
law must be demonstrated as unchangeable, eternal, and perfect. We have been forewarned in
order to endure the trial before us. God’s people must be in harmony with the principles of His
government and act in accordance with them if they are to have any hope in standing through the
last great conflict:
“Those who endeavor to obey all the commandments of God will be opposed
and derided. They can stand only in God. In order to endure the trial before them,
they must understand the will of God as revealed in His word; they can honor
Him only as they have a right conception of His character, government, and
purposes, and act in accordance with them. None but those who have fortified the
mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict.” 4
In order to honor our Heavenly Father regardless of our trials and to ultimately stand in His
presence, we must have “a right conception of His character, government and purposes, and act
in accordance with them.” We believe His character and purposes are clearly understood by all,
but what does Inspiration mean by His government? It becomes imperative, then, that we fully
take in these principles, for in so doing we will have found the key that unlocks the foundational
premise that underlies the four prophetic periods as found in the book of Daniel. Isaiah, speaking
of Christ, said:
4
3
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his
government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon
his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from
henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Isaiah
9:6-7.
Christ came to show us the Father; that would include His character and principles of
government. If we are at last to find a place among the heavenly throng, we will have first
developed His character and accepted those principles here, living daily in accordance with
them, for we have been informed that it is “the highest crime to rebel against the government of
God.” 5 Fortunately, we are not left to flounder in speculation as to what constitutes the
government of God. Inspiration has minutely defined of what that government consists:
1. “The law of love being the foundation of the government of God. . . .” 6
2. “Justice and mercy are the foundation of the law and government of God.” 7
3. “The law of God is the foundation of his Government in Heaven and in

earth.” 8
“Christ would have all understand the events of his second appearing. The
judgment scene will take place in the presence of all the worlds; for in this
judgment the government of God will be vindicated, and his law will stand forth
as ‘holy, and just, and good.’ Then every case will be decided, and sentence will
be passed upon all. Sin will not then appear attractive, but will be seen in all its
hideous magnitude. All will see the relation in which they stand to God and to one
another.” 9
4. “The government of God is not, as Satan would make it appear, founded upon
a blind submission, an unreasoning control. It appeals to the intellect and the
conscience. ‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ is the Creator’s invitation to
the beings He has made (Isaiah 1:18). God does not force the will of His
creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently
given. He desires that all the inhabitants of the universe shall be convinced of His
justice in the final overthrow of rebellion and the eradication of sin. He purposes
that the real nature and direful effects of sin shall be clearly manifested to their
bitter end that all may be assured of the wisdom and justice of the divine
government.” 10
5
Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1870), 1:22.
6
Ellen White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 493.
7
Ibid., 503.
8
Ellen White, Signs of the Times, March 30, 1888.
9
Ellen White, Review and Herald, September 20, 1898.
10
Ellen White, Bible Training School, December 1, 1908.
4
“The perfectly saved will be perfectly free. Throughout eternity they will do
just what they please, because they please to do just what makes liberty and joy
possible. Now, as to the relation of the state to the conscience of man. Christ
found men enslaved to kings and to priests. . . After having made men free to sin,
that the internal principle of love might work itself out in outward acts of
righteousness unhindered by force. . . .” 11
Hence, we see that His government consists of love, justice, mercy, His law, and freedom of
choice. Divinely-ordained free will, acknowledged in the concept of religious liberty, constitutes
the government of God.
The scriptures present clear instruction regarding the path the church must take in the conflict
between tolerance and intolerance:
“And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he
stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they
went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they
did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And
when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we
command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But
he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are
of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. . . .”
Luke 9:51–56.
It was on the matter of intolerance that the church was sternly rebuked. The disciples were
reminded of the power which alone was to govern their lives, namely the Holy Spirit:
“James and John, Christ’s messengers, were greatly annoyed at the insult
shown to their Lord [when the Samaritans refused hospitality to Jesus, because his
face was set to go to Jerusalem]. They were filled with indignation because He had
been so rudely treated by the Samaritans whom He was honoring by His presence.
They had recently been with Him on the mount of transfiguration, and had seen
Him glorified by God, and honored by Moses and Elijah. This manifest dishonor
on the part of the Samaritans, should not, they thought, be passed over without
marked punishment.
“Coming to Christ, they reported to Him the words of the people, telling Him
that they had even refused to give Him a night’s lodging. They thought that a
grievous wrong had been done Him, and seeing Mount Carmel in the distance,
where Elijah had slain the false prophets, they said, ‘Wilt Thou that we command
fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?’ They
were surprised to see that Jesus was pained by their words, and still more
surprised as His rebuke fell upon their ears, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit
ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save
them.’ And He went to another village.” 12
11
Ellen White, The Watchman, May 1, 1906.
12
Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1940), 487.
5
The hellish principles behind an attempt to control the conscience are rarely touched upon
today, but the people of God will experience their full impact in the very near future. When we,
as a people, fully take in the concepts of religious liberty that are foundational to the government
of God, we will have a powerful testimony for the truth that cannot be overthrown. It must be
understood and proclaimed that faith itself demands freedom.
When the conscience is controlled through force, faith ceases to be faith. Love disappears and
the motive for obedience then becomes fear. It is only through religious freedom that faith can
find its fullest potential and expression. Faith, therefore, has its best protection in religious
liberty. In an unrestricted religious environment, where one’s faith is not governed by mandatory
limitations or coercion, faith is an unlimited and voluntary “choice in action.” Faith is free to be
expressed in the choices one makes regarding the invitation and, in fact, every aspect of the
gospel:
Revelation 22:17 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that
heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him
take the water of life freely.”
In fact, religious liberty and true faith are mutually dependent upon one another. Whoever
endangers or restricts religious liberty threatens or restricts truth itself, for truth is forever
unfolding to the one who lives and walks by faith. When the soul is prevented from seeking
where it will, when it is demanded that the individual conform to certain religious doctrines or
practices, when the mind is subjugated to another human being, no true spiritual growth can
occur. The religious experience will be dwarfed or stalled. And with no living experience, there
can be no character development, and thus no sanctification. Hence, Satan wins.
“Some will be convicted [by faith] and [by faith] will heed the words spoken to
them in love and tenderness. They will acknowledge that the truth is the very
thing they need to set them free from the slavery of sin and the bondage of
worldly principles. There are opened before them themes of thought, fields for
action that they had never comprehended.” 13
Only living faith leads to spiritual growth. A formality of religious exercises contributes to
nothing but an external experience, which is valueless with God. It is faith alone that, above all
other considerations, makes men free because only in free exercise of faith—freedom to believe
and follow as suits the heart of each—can man be the free moral agent God created him to be.
Paul exemplified that principle in 1 Corinthians 9:19, referring to himself as “free from all
men.”:
“It is not God’s purpose to coerce the will. Man was created a free moral agent.
Like the inhabitants of all other worlds, he must be subjected to the test of
obedience; but he is never brought into such a position that yielding to evil
becomes a matter of necessity.” 14
13
Ellen White, Medical Ministry, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1963), 244.
14
Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1958), 331-2.
6
It is only by a clear understanding of this matter for ourselves that we will properly proclaim
the second and fourth angels’ messages of Revelation 14 and 18, thus fulfilling our divine
commission during the final crisis. Therefore, “let every man be fully persuaded in his own
mind.” Romans 14:5:
“The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God’s government; He

desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won
by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened.” 15
“It is no part of Christ’s mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and
men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. Under a pretense of
zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering
upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but
Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love.
“He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires
only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of
love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of
Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our
work, or who act contrary to our ideas. Every human being, in body, soul, and
spirit, is the property of God. Christ died to redeem all. Nothing can be more
offensive to God than for men, through religious bigotry, to bring suffering upon
those who are the purchase of the Saviour’s blood.” 16
Clearly, then, we can see that those who are in harmony with the government of God will
never coerce the will of another to achieve their ends. God’s way is to “draw all men unto”
Himself, (Jeremiah 31:3, John 12:32) to “receive” us (Luke 18:17). When we “choose” (Joshua
24:15) to “turn” unto Him (Ezekiel 33:11) and “come unto” Him (Matthew 11:28) we may do so
“freely” (Revelation 22:17). His ways and methods allow only for freedom of choice.
On the other hand, those who have enlisted under the government of Satan have no scruples
about bringing suffering upon those whom they cannot control:
“Compelling power is found only under Satan’s government.” 17
Therefore, his subjects are ever ready to use force in any or all its various forms to compel
others to accept their bigoted ideas of religion. This is why Inspiration says:
“Force is the last resort of every false religion.” 18
Luther himself, who had firsthand experience with this spirit of intolerance, said:
“Even this is an evil zeal, not from God but from the devil.” 19
15
Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1940), 22.
16
Ibid., 487–8.
17
Ibid., 759.
18
Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington D.C: Review and Herald, 1980), 7:976.
19
Luther, Sermon on Luke 9:51, (1537); Weimar ed., t. 45, p. 407.
7
“God never forces the will or the conscience; but Satan’s constant resort--to gain
control of those whom he cannot otherwise seduce--is compulsion by cruelty.
Through fear or force he endeavors to rule the conscience and to secure homage to
himself. To accomplish this, he works through both religious and secular authorities,
moving them to the enforcement of human laws in defiance of the law of God.”20
“‘Whereunto,’ asked Christ, ‘shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what
comparison shall we compare it?’ Mark 4:30. He could not employ the kingdoms
of the world as a similitude. In society He found nothing with which to compare
it. Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendancy of physical power; but from Christ’s
kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished.” 21
This is the instruction and mandate for the born-again Christian whether we be laity,
independent, conference, academic, or any other Christian community or church throughout the
world.
A contributor to The Southern Watchman wrote in summation:
“All slavery, physical, moral, and intellectual, comes from breaking that law.
Liberty is found only in obedience to it. . . . His will becomes ours, and with
Christ we delight to do His will, because His law is in our hearts. Here is perfect
liberty. The perfectly saved will be perfectly free. Throughout eternity they will
do just what they please, because they please to do just what makes liberty and
joy possible. Now, as to the relation of the state to the conscience of man. Christ
found men enslaved to kings and to priests. . . . After having made men free to
[from] sin, that the internal principle of love might work itself out in outward acts
of righteousness unhindered by force, . . . has God given to any human authority
the right to take away that freedom, and so thwart His plans? He has commanded
all men to worship Him and obey His precepts, and this command applies to each
individual personally; but has He ever commanded any man or set of men to
compel others to worship Him, or to act even outwardly as if they worshiped
Him? To ask these questions is to answer them emphatically in the negative. . .
When Peter, as a member of the Christian church, sought to defend the truth by
the sword, Jesus, pointing to His Father as the Church's only source of power,
said, ‘Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword [i.e., in
religious matters] shall perish with the sword.’ [Mat. 26:52] The tares are to be
allowed to grow with the wheat until the harvest. Then God will send forth His
angels to gather out the tares and burn them. No human effort of arbitrary force
can be used in rooting them out, lest in the act the wheat shall be rooted also.
[Mat. 13:30] Again Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight.’ [Jn. 18:36] Every civil law has
the power of the sword back of it. If it is right to make law, then it is right to
20
21
Ellen White, The Acts of the Apostles, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 12.
8
enforce it. In denying to the church the power of the sword, Jesus therefore
forbade the church to ask the state for laws enforcing religious beliefs and
observances. Paul understood this when he said, ‘The weapons of our warfare are
not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.’ [2 Cor.
10:4] The early church, strong only in the power of God, triumphed grandly, even
over the opposing forces of a false religion, upheld by the state. Only when she
allied herself with the state, seeking its aid, did she deny her God, lose her power,
and darken the world into a night of a thousand years. The present effort of the
church to get the state to enforce the observance of Sunday, and to introduce the
teaching of Christianity into state schools, is but a revival of the pagan and papal
doctrine of force in religious things, and as such it is antichristian.” 22
Unfortunately, as will be seen, many so-called members of Christendom have chosen their
own way, rejecting the plain teachings of Jesus and his last instructions to the Christian church
on this vital subject of toleration found in the New Testament. The Bible is abundantly clear and
if we err here, it is with eyes wide open. “For all they that take the sword [i.e., in religious
matters] shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) May we all be so settled on this eternal
issue that we cannot be moved.
All will be found on only one of the two sides of this issue. Whether we be individuals,
churches, or states of any civil entities, we are under one of the two governments. Christ
illustrated this Biblical concept at the creation of the world. In Genesis God set up a voting
booth, if you will, for all to choose whom he would serve:
Genesis 2:16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree
of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”
Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Fortunately for man, he was given a second chance as to whom he would serve and under
what government he would freely cooperate. It is here that we have failed to see the forest
because we have been standing in the middle of the woods for too long. Like all stories in the
Bible, as well as in the prophecies, there is a big picture that we often overlook.
The central theme and focus behind all these accounts given in the Bible is the ongoing
controversy over the two warring ideologies, the government of God verses the government of
Satan. With our fuller understanding of God’s government, we are now equipped to see the big
picture. Fallen humanity now illustrates this ongoing warfare to the entire universe as each
individual enlists under one of two governments. All now should be able to see with clearer
vision the big picture behind the following illustrations. We begin by viewing the bigger picture
concept which is clearly illustrated in the account of Adam and Eve:
“The law of God existed before the creation of man or else Adam could not
have sinned. After the transgression of Adam the principles of the law were not
changed, but were definitely arranged and expressed to meet man in his fallen
condition. The angels were governed by it [the law]. Satan fell because he
transgressed the principles of God’s government. After Adam and Eve were
22
George Fifield, The Southern Watchman, May 1, 1906.
9
created, God made known to them His law. It was not then written, but was
rehearsed to them by Jehovah.” 23
“Our first parents were not left without a warning of the danger that threatened
them. Heavenly messengers opened to them the history of Satan's fall and his
plots for their destruction, unfolding more fully the nature of the divine
government, which the prince of evil was trying to overthrow. It was by
disobedience to the just commands of God that Satan and his host had fallen. How
important, then, that Adam and Eve should honor that law by which alone it was
possible for order and equity to be maintained.
The law of God is as sacred as God Himself. It is a revelation of His will, a
transcript of His character, the expression of divine love and wisdom. The
harmony of creation depends upon the perfect conformity of all beings, of
everything, animate and inanimate, to the law of the Creator. God has ordained
laws for the government, not only of living beings, but of all the operations of
nature. Everything is under fixed laws, which cannot be disregarded. But while
everything in nature is governed by natural laws, man alone, of all that inhabits
the earth, is amenable to moral law. To man, the crowning work of creation, God
has given power to understand His requirements, to comprehend the justice and
beneficence of His law, and its sacred claims upon him; and of man unswerving
obedience is required.” 24
Another example illustrating this conflict between these two ideologies is taken from the
account of Cain and Abel:
“Abel did not try to force Cain to obey God's command. It was Cain, inspired
by Satan and filled with wrath, who used force. Furious because he could not
compel Abel to disobey God, and because God had accepted Abel's offering and
refused his, which did not recognize the Saviour, Cain killed his brother.
The two parties represented by Cain and Abel will exist till the close of this
earth's history. The well-doer, the obedient man, does not war against the
transgressor of God's holy law. But those who do not respect the law of God
oppress and persecute their fellow-men. They follow their leader, who is an
accuser of God and of those who are made perfect through obedience.” 25
“God set the seventh day apart as the day of his rest. But the man of sin has set
up a false sabbath, which the kings and merchants of the earth have accepted and
exalted above the Sabbath of the Bible. In doing this they have chosen a religion
like that of Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Cain and Abel both offered sacrifice
to God. Abel's offering was accepted because he complied with God's
requirements. Cain's was rejected because he followed his own human inventions.
Because of this he became so angry that he would not listen to Abel's entreaties or
to God's warnings and reproofs, but slew his brother. By accepting a spurious rest
day the churches have dishonored God. The people of the world accept the
23
Ellen White, The Faith I Live By, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 80.
24
Ellen White, Patriarch and Prophets, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1958), 52.
25
Ellen White, Signs of the Times, March 21, 1900.
10
falsehood, and are angry because God's commandment keeping people do not
respect and reverence Sunday.” 26
The story of Moses and Pharaoh is far more than just the plagues falling on Egypt. Its primary
issue illustrates again the conflict between the two governments:
“Moses and Aaron were God's representatives to a bold, defiant king, and to
impenitent priests, hardened in rebellion, who had allied themselves to evil
angels. Pharaoh and the great men of Egypt were not ignorant in regard to the
wise government of God. A bright light had been shining through the ages,
pointing to God, to his righteous government, and to the claims of his law. Joseph
and the children of Israel in Egypt had made known the knowledge of God. Even
after the people of Israel had been brought into bondage to the Egyptians, not all
were regarded as slaves. Many were placed in important positions, and these were
witnesses for God.” 27
. . . .“Now the great controversy was fully entered upon; for months the warfare
between the Prince of Life and the prince of darkness was carried on. The same
work which Satan began in heaven he carried on upon the earth,--the powers of
darkness warring against the mandate of Jehovah, the king of Egypt in
controversy with the Monarch of heaven.” 28
While the Bible contains numerous examples on this wise, we shall share just one more on this
account in the rebellion of Korah:
“In the rebellion of Korah is seen the working out, upon a narrower stage, of
the same spirit that led to the rebellion of Satan in heaven. It was pride and
ambition that prompted Lucifer to complain of the government of God, and to
seek the overthrow of the order which had been established in heaven. Since his
fall it has been his object to infuse the same spirit of envy and discontent, the
same ambition for position and honor, into the minds of men. He thus worked
upon the minds of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, to arouse the desire for self-
exaltation and excite envy, distrust, and rebellion. Satan caused them to reject
God as their leader, by rejecting the men of God’s appointment. Yet while in their
murmuring against Moses and Aaron they blasphemed God, they were so deluded
as to think themselves righteous, and to regard those who had faithfully reproved
their sins as actuated by Satan.” 29
These visual aids should bring the following quote into a new perspective:
“‘Whereunto,’ asked Christ, ‘shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what
comparison shall we compare it?’ Mark 4:30. He could not employ the kingdoms
26
Ellen White, The Kress Collection, 147-8.
27
Ellen White, Youth Instructor, April 8, 1897.
28
Ibid., April 15, 1897.
29
Ellen White, Patriarch and Prophets, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1958), 403.
11
of the world as a similitude. In society He found nothing with which to compare
it. Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendancy of physical power; but from Christ’s
kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished.” 30
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and if we were now to look a little closer, we would
see this theme woven through every fiber of the Bible. It is no wonder fallen humanity has not
fully comprehended this underlying principle which is throughout the Bible. Heaven has
declared, as we have already seen, that these two governments must be exhibited for the entire
universe to see, and in so doing Satan is revealed for what he is, “the god of forces” Daniel
11:38. Here is another double symbolism, "the god of forces" primarily represents Satan it is, in
a secondary sense, a symbol of civil entities that restrict liberty of conscience.
“The heavenly universe must see the principles which Satan declared were
superior to God’s principles, worked out. God’s order must be contrasted with the
new order after Satan’s devising. The corrupting principles of Satan’s rule must
be revealed.” 31
Our understandings in life are generally all dependent upon what we have seen, heard, and
experienced in life. When Christ could find nothing in society with which to compare the
kingdom of God, it becomes apparent how fallen mortals could have so easily missed the mark.
With this Biblical premise solidly established as to what the government of God is in contrast
to that of the government of Satan, we are now ready to illustrate the next phase of our study:
“Those who will not accept the light in regard to the law of God will not
understand the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages.” 32
By rightly connecting the government of God as the underlying theme of the 1260, 1290,
1335, and the 2300-day/year prophecies in the book of Daniel, we will have established the
Biblical premise that solidifies our prophetic interpretations and understandings for the A.D. 508,
538, 1798, and 1843 dates. For a Biblical study of the 2300-day/year prophecy with an
exposition on Daniel 8:9-14, see my book, The “Daily” Source Book. We begin our study to
fully validate that the 538 date under inquiry as being trustworthy and true.
30
Ellen White, The Acts of the Apostles, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 12.
31
32
Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1962), 115.
12
2
The Ten Horns
In order to diagnose carefully the given specifications and clauses of the ten horns emerging
after A.D. 476 which are interrelated to the “little horn” in the book of Daniel, we must contend
with the given text of the Bible that directly introduces our topic. As with the fourth beast of
Daniel 7 and its ten horns, the great statue of Daniel 2 is likewise a symbol all the way to its toes.
Again, our first work is to identify and interpret aright each clause and symbol of the following
scriptures directly related to the ten toes as well as to the ten horns:
Daniel 2:40 “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron
breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these,
shall it break in pieces and bruise.
Daniel 2:41 “And whereas thou sawest the feet and [ten] toes, part of potters'
clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the
strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
Daniel 2:42 “And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so
the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
Daniel 2:43 “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall
mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another,
even as iron is not mixed with clay.
Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to
other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall stand for ever.
Daniel 2:45 “Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the
mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay,
the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall
come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof
sure.”
Daniel 7:7 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it
devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it
was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”
Daniel 7:20 “And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which
came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth
that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.”
13
Daniel 7:24 “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall
arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and
he shall subdue three kings.”
Revelation 12:3 “And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a
great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his
heads.”
Revelation 13:1 “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up
out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,
and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”
Revelation 17:3 “So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I
saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy,
having seven heads and ten horns.”
Revelation 17:12 “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which
have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the
beast.”
In Daniel 7:20, the little horn (papacy) was declared to be “more stout [larger] than his
fellows,” the ten horns. The meaning behind this is clarified by the antecedent, “whose look was
more stout than his fellows.” “Look” means vision or sight. The central thought being conveyed
here by heaven so that we apprehend this characteristic of the identity of the little horn is that her
existence or birth was prior to the existence of the ten horns in A.D. 476.
It is evident that the kingdoms representing the ten toes of Daniel 2:40-45 remain so until “the
stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass,
the clay, the silver, and the gold. . .” that is, until the second coming of Jesus Christ. The
scriptures declare, “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which
shall never be destroyed. . . .” The kingdom of God is not set up or given to Christ until after the
books are first opened and then closed in the investigative judgment described in Daniel 7. This
event did not commence until October 22, 1844, which may be confirmed from Daniel 8:14.
“Every case had been decided for life or death. While Jesus had been
ministering in the sanctuary, the judgment had been going on for the righteous
dead, and then for the righteous living. Christ had received His kingdom, having
made the atonement for His people and blotted out their sins. The subjects of the
kingdom were made up. The marriage of the Lamb was consummated. And the
kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, was given to
Jesus and the heirs of salvation, and Jesus was to reign as King of kings and Lord
of lords.” 33
33
Ellen White, Early Writings, (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald, 1945), 280.
14
It is not without significance that the scriptual emphasis of the ten toes of Daniel 2 are at the
time of the end in a post-1844 time period when the God of heaven is setting up His kingdom
and when the vision (the 2300-day/year prophecy) was to be understood. (Daniel 8:14, 17) The
correlation between the ten toes and the ten horns of Revelation 17:12 will be shown to have
their application in a post-1844 judgment era, as well. However, the ten horns are then given
additional details in Daniel 7 and are also being pictured as coming on the stage of action after
the demise of the fourth beast. This is confirmed by the following scriptures:
Daniel 7:7 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it
devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it
was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”
Daniel 7:8 “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them
another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by
the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth
speaking great things.”
Daniel 7:20 “And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which
came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth
that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.”
Daniel 7:24 “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall
arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and
he shall subdue three kings.”
Daniel 7:26 “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion,
to consume and to destroy it unto the end.”
Daniel 7:27 “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom
under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve
and obey him.”
Daniel 7:28 “Hitherto is the end of the matter. . .”
This has brought prophetic interpreters to a crossroad. An area of concern which has caused
much confusion is whether the ten toes and the ten horns of Daniel and Revelation should be
understood in a literal (ten literal kingdoms) or in a symbolic sense (all encompassing). For our
answer, we must turn to the scriptures. Daniel gave us a definitive clue as to the answer we seek:
15
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed. . . .”
The phrase “these kings” quite emphatically sets the precedent for our Biblical understanding
and interpretation for the ten toes as well as for the ten horns. Ellen White fully understood this
concept and correctly interpreted its meaning:
“The so-called Christian world is to be the theater of great and decisive actions.
Men in authority will enact laws controlling the conscience, after the example of
the papacy. Babylon will make all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication. Every nation will be involved. Of this time John the Revelator
declares: [Revelation 18:3-7, quoted].
“These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He
is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with Him are called, and
chosen, and faithful” [Revelation 17:13, 14].
“These have one mind.” There will be a universal bond of union, one great
harmony, a confederacy of Satan's forces. “And shall give their power and
strength unto the beast.” Thus is manifested the same arbitrary, oppressive power
against religious liberty, freedom to worship God according to the dictates of
conscience, as was manifested by the papacy, when in the past it persecuted those
who dared to refuse to conform with the religious rites and ceremonies of
Romanism.
In the warfare to be waged in the last days there will be united, in opposition to
God's people, all the corrupt powers that have apostatized from allegiance to the
law of Jehovah. In this warfare the Sabbath of the fourth commandment will be
the great point at issue; for in the Sabbath commandment the great Law-giver
identifies Himself as the Creator of the heavens and the earth.” 34
Who are “all the corrupt powers that have apostatized from allegiance to the law of Jehovah”?
In order to find the answer, we must look at the antecedent of “all” and “these” that “have one
mind” and shall establish a “universal bond of union . . . a confederacy of Satan's forces. . . And
shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” This is found in the verse preceding the Bible
text she just quoted in Revelation 17:13. It is, of course, found in verse 12:
Revelation 17:12 “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which
have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the
beast.”
The “these” of Revelation 17:13 that form a “universal bond of union” is none other than the
“ten horns” of Revelation 17:12, and “these kings” of Daniel 2:44 are the same “kings” of
Revelation 17:12 that exist until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Ellen White further clarifies:
34
Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, (Silver Spring, Maryland: E.G. White Estate, 1993), 19:242-3.
16
“As America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the papacy in
forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor the false sabbath, the people
of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example.” 35
“Foreign nations will follow the example of the United States. Though she
leads out, yet the same crisis will come upon our people in all parts of the
world.” 36
What numerical value does Ellen White attach to this “universal bond of union”? With “every
country on the globe” included, its symbolic meaning is obvious and, indeed, all encompassing.
But, more importantly, what numerical value does the Bible attach to this universal bond of
union in Revelation17:12? Revelation 13:3 tells us that after the deadly wound is healed:
“. . . . all the world wondered after the beast.”
The apparent meaning of the text renders it “every country on the globe.” As to the number of
countries existing in our world, little has changed since October 22, 1844. At present there are
over 200 kingdoms/nations/horns. Based upon the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, this
“universal bond of union” enforces indisputably a symbolic interpretation for the ten toes and ten
horns found in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The number “ten” in the Bible is easily
designated as an all inclusive symbol. This is illustrated by the parable of the ten virgins:
“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took
their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” Matthew 25:1.
The parable of the ten virgins is a symbol of the church:
“As Christ sat looking upon the party that waited for the bridegroom, He told
His disciples the story of the ten virgins, by their experience illustrating the
experience of the church that shall live just before His second coming.” 37
It has never been disputed, and rightly so, that there are only ten people in God’s universal
church today; hence, the all inclusive symbolic interpretation is readily apparent. When heaven
placed the emphasis of the ten toes of Daniel 2 in the post-era of October 22, 1844, any just
cause for a literal interpretation to be applied to the ten horns was removed. The Bible does not
support both a symbolic and literal view of the ten toes/horns. We cannot say the number ten is
symbolic at the consummation and at its commencement the number ten is taken to be literal.
This would be confusion compounded. Thus, the Biblical interpretation is established and
supported by the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. This, therefore, clears the air of the many
inconsistencies of those who claim that the ten horns in Daniel 7:7, 20, 24 are ten literal kings.
To begin with, there were far more than ten literal kings to be found within the borders of the
Western Roman Empire in A.D. 476. Here is a partial list:
35
Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1948), 6:18.
36
Ibid., 395.
37
Ellen White, Christ Object Lessons, (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald, 1941), 406.
17
Alemanni, Basques, Belgi, Burgundians, Dacians, Franks, Gauls, Helvetii,
Heruli, Iberians, Italians, Libyans, Lombards, Ostrogoths, Saxons, Slavic,
Vandals, Visigoths.
Even those tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire numbered more than ten:
Allemanni, Burgundians, Celts, Franks, Gauls, Germani, Heruli, Huns,

Lombards, Moors, Ostrogoths, Quodi, Suevi, Vandals, Visigoths.
Since there were more than ten tribes found within the borders of the Western Roman Empire
in A.D. 476 and more than ten tribes that invaded the ancient Roman Empire, a literal
interpretation of ten kings in no way stands the test of investigation. More than this, it would
have to be shown that the ten literal kings were contemporaries, all reigning at the same time like
they do in Revelation 17:12. However, the proponents of the literal ten kings cannot account for
the fact that some of the tribes on their list that are designated to be part of the ten kings have
disappeared from the stage of action. Furthermore, the proponents of the literal ten kings must
admit that these ten horns no longer exist. So who, then, are the ten horns that are destroyed at
the end of time in Daniel 2:44-45 and Revelation 17:12? When the Bible speaks of three literal,
uprooted horns or kingdoms in Daniel 7:8, 20, and 24, the proponents of the literal ten kings
claim that this proves there were ten kings because only seven have remained. However, the
Bible nowhere says there remained seven horns out of the ten nor is it even so much as implied.
This has simply been read into the text. If the Bible had confirmed that seven had indeed
remained upon the stage of action, the interpretation would require no commentary. As correctly
stated by Dr. Pfandl:
“Though many interpreters have tried to identify exactly 10 peoples and 10

kingdoms descending from them, it is best to take the number 10 as a round figure
(e.g., Gen. 31:7; Num. 14:22; 1 Sam. 1:8; etc.), including a multiplicity of states
in contrast to the one empire of Rome.” 38
Submitted are the previously quoted texts:
Genesis 31:7 “And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten
times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.”
Numbers 14:22 “Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my
miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now
these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;”
1 Samuel 1:8 “Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest
thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to
thee than ten sons?”
And likewise from Dr. Shea:

38
Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel the Seer of Babylon, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2004), 63.
18
“It probably is preferable to take the number ten as a round number which may
have fluctuated up or down at any given historical time, according to the political
and military fortunes of those various powers.” 39
It becomes apparent that a literal interpretation of ten kings will not stand the test of
investigation and, quite frankly, should be forthrightly discarded, for it has brought only reproach
to the cause.
The following information is given to help the reader better understand the remaining texts of
Revelation in their fullest sense in relation to the ten horns. In defining the “dragon” we believe
all are agreed that it primarily represents Satan:
Revelation 12:9 “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.”
However the “dragon” has a secondary application, as well:
Revelation 12:3 “And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a
great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his
heads.”
Revelation 12:4 “And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did
cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to
be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”
Revelation 12:5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all
nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his
throne.”
Certainly, the great red dragon was Satan who sought to destroy the man-child Christ Jesus,
but what kingdom did Satan work through to accomplish this end? We are told Satan works
through “a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns.” Notice the seven crowns are
upon his heads, meaning the heads are ruling. In prophecy a beast represents a political power:
Daniel 7:17 “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall
arise out of the earth.”
Therefore, the dragon, which is a beast, must represent political powers that are used by Satan
to oppose the cause of God. The seven heads, therefore, represent the seven main kingdoms
Satan has skillfully used throughout human history to accomplish his greatest objectives. These
“heads” rule successively, one after the other, while the ten horns are contemporaries; they all
reign at the same time. The ruling “head” that sought to devour the Christ child as soon as He
was born was none other than pagan Rome:
39
William Shea, Daniel 1-7, (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 167.
19
“The line of prophecy in which these symbols are found begins with Revelation
12, with the dragon that sought to destroy Christ at His birth. The dragon is said to
be Satan (Revelation 12:9); he it was that moved upon Herod to put the Saviour to
death. But the chief agent of Satan in making war upon Christ and His people
during the first centuries of the Christian Era was the Roman Empire, in which
paganism was the prevailing religion. Thus while the dragon, primarily,
represents Satan, it is, in a secondary sense, a symbol of pagan Rome.” 40
It was pagan Rome and it is pagan Rome again that is represented as a “dragon” in Bible
prophecy. The dragon had “seven crowns upon its heads.” Crowns denote rulership, showing that
the period when this particular dragon power is spoken of the heads are ruling, not the ten horns.
Revelation 17:9-10 reveals that the seven heads are seven mountains that rule “successively”:
Revelation 17:9 “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads
are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.”
Revelation 17:10 “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and
the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.”
Revelation 17:9-10 also reveals that the seven heads are seven “mountains” or “kingdoms”
that rule successively:
Jeremiah 51:25 “Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, [Babylon]

saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand
upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt
mountain.”
Daniel 2:35 “Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold,
broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer
threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for
them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the
whole earth.”
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to
other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall stand for ever.”
Thus it has been shown that the seven “heads” are seven “kingdoms” that reign one after the
other, whereas, the ten horns are revealed to be contemporaneous, that is, they all reign together
and at the same time. The crowns on the heads indicate that when the dragon is brought into the
picture at the birth of Christ in Revelation 12:2-4, one of the heads was reigning and that head or
empire was Imperial or pagan Rome. When the crowns are presented to us as upon the ten horns,
as pictured in Revelation 13:1, it denotes that the sea beast or the papacy is in power when the
40
20
ten horns are ruling, when the Western European kingdoms have been formed and are in power.
The reason we see no crowns in Revelation chapter 17 is because Revelation 17:1 informs us that
the woman is under “judgment” or “punishment,”2917 as correctly stated in the Greek. Her
kingdom, “that great city,” is being totally and eternally destroyed (Revelation 17:16-18).
Babylon the Great no longer reigns.
21
3
The Three Uprooted Horns
In Daniel 8:20 a horn represents a king or kingdom:
Daniel 8:20 “The ram352 which834 thou sawest7200 having1167 two horns7161 are
the kings4428 of Media4074 and Persia.”6539
In Daniel 7:8, 20 and verse 24, we then have the uprooting or demise of three literal horns or
kingdoms:
Daniel 7:8 “I considered1934, 7920 the horns,7162 and, behold,431 there came up5559
among997 them another317 little2192 horn,7162 before4481, 6925 whom there were
three8532 of4481 the first6933 horns7162 plucked up by the roots:6132 and, behold,431 in
this1668 horn7162 were eyes5870 like the eyes5870 of man,606 and a mouth6433
speaking4449 great things.”7260
Daniel 7:20 “And of5922 the ten6236 horns7162 that1768 were in his head,7217 and of
the other317 which1768 came up,5559 and before4481, 6925 whom three8532 fell;5308 even
of that1797 horn7162 that had eyes,5870 and a mouth6433 that spoke4449 very great
things,7260 whose look2376 was more stout7229 than4481 his fellows.”2273
Daniel 7:24 “And the ten6236 horns7162 out of4481 this kingdom4437 are ten6236
kings4430 that shall arise:6966 and another321 shall rise6966 after311 them; and he1932
shall be diverse8133 from4481 the first,6933 and he shall subdue8214 three8532
kings.”4430 KJV
The following material is taken from a thesis by Mervin C. Maxwell and establishes some
Biblical and significant points about the uprooting of the three horns:
[Pg.24] “In Daniel the 1260 days are designated as “three and a half times.” In
Daniel 7:24-26 the statement is:
“And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and
another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall
subdue three kings.”
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the
saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: [25] and they shall be
given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
“And the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume
and to destroy it unto the end.”
22
Significant pointers can be gained from these verses as to the nature of the 1260
years, and a little about its dating, including:
1) The “Little Horn” is not to arise until after the Roman Empire is divided.
2) The Little Horn is to be different from the other kingdoms, and is to

persecute, blaspheme, and change laws.
3) “They” are to be given into his hands for 3 ½ times. Apparently “they” are
great words against God, the saints, and the laws.
There are some things which this passage does not teach. For instance, it does
not say that the Little Horn is to have the mastery over the ten horns (or even
seven of them) for the entire 3 ½ times. This is not even suggested. Secondly,
neither this passage nor its context gives the plucking up of the three horns as
necessary before the 3 ½ times can begin. It is true that verse 8 says that “before
him three of the first horns were plucked up,” but this “before” is translated from
the Aramaic qodam, which means place, and not time. 41 As a matter [26] of fact,
apart from the expression “after them,” that is, after the ten kings, there is no
indication in Daniel 7 as to the timing of the 3 ½ times or 1260 days.” 42
When Mervin C. Maxwell stated the following in his footnote he was absolutely correct:
“It must be concluded, therefore, that the reference to the three horns’ being
41
“According to Young’s Concordance, the Aramaic word qodam is used 31 times in the Old Testament: Three
times in Ezra, and twenty seven times in Daniel. Thirty of these times it is translated “before,” and once, “in the
presence of,” Daniel 2:27. In every case but two there is no question but that the word means “in the presence of.”
Examples of such usage include Ezra 7:19 and Daniel 6:10, 26; 7:10, 13, where the translation is “before God.”
Obviously this cannot mean “before God was in existence,” and so must mean “in His presence.” In Ezra 4:18 it is
“before the people.” In most other references it describes activities taking place “before” the king, and again there is
no question but that the usage is in reference to location and not time.
The two cases where there might be any question are in Daniel 7. Daniel 7:7 says, “And it [the fourth beast] was
diverse from all the beasts that were before it.” Here time might be indicated instead of location, but verse 12, which
says the lives of the beasts were prolonged, and Revelation 13, which shows them all living in composite form even
after the fall of Rome, indicate that the first three beasts stayed “in the presence of “ one another as they appeared in
turn.
The other verse where there might be a question is, of course, verse 8, the one under discussion: “before whom
there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” In this case the usage of qodam in 29 other instances
should be conclusive, but there is further evidence. In this verse and in the parallel passage, verse 20, which contains
the phrase “before whom three fell,” the word qodam is coupled with the word min to form the phrase min qodam,
meaning, literally, “from the East.”This Aramaic idiom cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to convey
the sense of time. Other instances of the use of this idiom occur in Daniel 5:19 and 6:26 where reference is made to
the people fearing “before” God. Since, as above, this cannot be construed to mean “before God existed,” it must
mean, “in His presence.”
It must be concluded, therefore, that the reference to the three horns’ being plucked up before the little horn gives
no indication as to the timing of the 1260 days, and that any discussion based on the supposition that it does, is
without value.”
42
Mervin C. Maxwell, An Exegetical and Historical Examination of the Beginning and Ending of the 1260 days of
Prophecy with special attention given to A. D. 538 and 1798 as Initial and Terminal Dates. A Thesis Presented to
the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Washington, D.C. August 1951. (Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, MI.), 24-26.
23
plucked up before the little horn gives no indication as to the timing of the 1260
days, and that any discussion based on the supposition that it does, is without
value.” 43
Here is where some have read into the text that which is not there nor implied. Since the Bible
does not give any definitive dating for the uprooting of the three horns, neither do we. This
removes all the arguments from the opposition on that perspective. This Biblical premise should
have been a clue to students of prophecy that the precise dating for the uprooting of the three
horns was obviously not to be the signal event that was to indicate the commencement of the
1260, 1290, or the 1335-day/year prophecies in the book of Daniel, even though their demise had
a prophetic role to play. To say otherwise reveals that we choose to sail in waters without chart
or compass when the scriptures are directing our minds elsewhere. That elsewhere is emphasized
in Daniel 7:25 when he shall “think to change times and laws” and then the little horn was to
reign for “a time and times and the dividing of time.” In Daniel 7:24 when the “little horn”
(papacy) was to “subdue three kings,” it did not say the papacy was to engage itself in a military
conflict, for of itself it had no such army. Just the same, the little horn was to “subdue.”
Webster’s primary definition for “subdue” is “to bring into subjection” 44 and, as we will see, this
description is precisely the intent of the scriptures. Subdue can also mean to suppress, hold back,
check, discipline, conquer, vanquish, overcome, or control. In other words, the little horn would
work from behind the scenes to accomplish her means. The emphasis of the scriptures on the
uprooting of the three horns prior to the fulfilling role of the little horn according to the prophecy
is certainly implied but was not denied nor established on the basis of time. Although heaven
could have easily specified the exact time of the downfall of these three kingdoms, it chose not to
do this, so we would not misplace the central emphasis on a horizontal plane or on earthly events
rather than the vertical plane or main heavenly event of the prophecy to which the scriptures are
directing us. Heaven knew that the uprooting of the three horns would naturally bring the
inquisitive reader to comprehend why those kingdoms were subdued or brought into subjection
to the little horn, and that history would supply the exact dating for the three uprooted horns. The
reason for this was emphatically established in our A.D. 508 Source Book as we witnessed the
conflict being played out between the two separate and distinct ideologies. Those two separate
and distinct ideologies, the government of God against the government of Satan, were played out
between the Arians and the Catholic Church. The Arians who legally promoted religious liberty
(albeit in its primitive state) refused to compel the conscience of either Catholic or Arian in
religious matters which was in sharp contrast to the Catholic Church who lawfully rejected
religious liberty and had no scruples in compelling all in matters of liberty of conscience. There
was nothing mysterious or hidden here, for each side fully understood the other. If the Catholic
Church was to regain her universal authority in the new world as she had attained under the
pagan Roman Empire when on February 28, 380, 45 the Catholic faith became the established
state religion of the empire, then she must address the primary obstacle in her path. She would
have to remove the concept of religious liberty from the hearts and lives of those that advocated
its principles. With firsthand experience of the oppressive government of the papacy under the
pagan Roman Empire, the Arians had no desire to have ambitious prelates, world-loving
43
Ibid; footnote.
44
Webster’s New World Dictionary-College Edition, (Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Co. 1955),
1451.
45
Original Latin text in Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI, vol. 1-2, “De fide catholica,” p. 833.
24
churchmen, and the self-important popes dictating over them again. Thus, the stage was set. Let
it be remembered that in the book of Daniel the little horn is pictured as fighting vertically
against Christ and His saints, stars, and the host of heaven signifying not a political, but a
religious warfare. The hate and smear campaigns manifested against the Arians (as we saw in my
A.D. 508 Source Book) by the Catholic Church was demonstrated by Saint Caesarius of Arles’
commentary on Revelation when he declared in no uncertain terms the true position of the
Catholic Church towards Arianism and indicated that it was the most dreaded foe of the church:
“And all the earth wondered at and followed the beast, and they worshiped the
dragon which gave power to the beast”: the heretics have power without
condition, but especially the Arians. “And they worshiped the beast, saying, who
is like the beast? or who will be able to fight with it?” Therefore because the
heretics delude themselves with this, that no one believes more than those, and
that no one conquers the nation of those, which bases its reputation on the name
of the beast: to which it was given by the devil himself, and was permitted by
God, to speak great things and blasphemies; just as the Apostle says: “It is
necessary that there are heresies, so that those who have been proven, may be
manifest in you” I Corinthians 11:19. “And there was given to him the power to
make forty-two months”: the time of the very recent persecution we understand in
those forty-two months. “And then he opened his mouth into blasphemy against
God”: here it is clear that those who have withdrawn from the Catholic Church
are signified;” 46
Had we, as a church, previously understood the foundational premise correctly for the four
prophetic periods of Daniel as was firmly established in chapter 1, our focus would not have
been so limited to the horizontal or secondary view, which is looking for the primary fulfillment
of prophecy in earthly persons, places, or things. Rightly understood, the Bible has always
emphasized the primary view and application as being vertical, pointing to the true and universal
issue, the government of God verses the government of Satan, the great controversy between
Christ and Satan as it is depicted in every chapter of the book of Daniel. Everything else is
subordinate to this central issue, the Law of God:
Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak 47 . . . . think to change times and laws.”
Laws in the plural sense are designated here, the law of God and civil law. It was legislation
that ultimately “set up” the little horn in A.D. 508 48 and it was legislation that brought down the
little horn in A.D. 1798, 49 and it will be legislation that sets up or resurrects again the beast
power in the form of the image to the beast.50 In the final events of history, universal legislation
46
Patrologia Latina, Sancti Aurelii Augustini, Expositio in Apocalypsim B. Joannis, Saint Caesarius of Arles, 1841,
35: Homily X, 2436.
47
“The “speaking” of the nation is the action of its legislative and judicial authorities.” Ellen White, Great
Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 442.
48
See my A.D. 508 Source Book.
49
See my A.D. 1798 1843 Source Book.
50
“When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in
this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life [Rev. 13:15: “And he had power to give life. .
. .”] to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism. . . .
If popery or its principles shall again be legislated into power, the fires of persecution will be rekindled against those
25
will be the signal that brings down the little horn again, but this time it will be by the means of
the seven last plagues. 51 We are yet to reveal in this study how legislation will play its part in the
commencement of the 1260-day/year prophetic period. Simply put, the uprooting of the three
horns is now placed in bold relief as its place and application in prophecy is manifest as a mile
marker pointing foreword to the main event. It takes on only a secondary role, yet, nevertheless,
an important role, but cannot be claimed in any sense of the meaning, in and of itself, to
commence the beginning of the 1260, 1290, or the 1335-day/year prophecies.
However, the scriptures definitely affirm an uprooting or removal of three separate and
distinct kingly powers or kingdoms in the life or in the presence of the papacy after A.D. 476. In
an extremely significant letter, Pope Hormisdas writes to Justinian in February of 519. Amazing
as it seems, the papacy singles herself out as the pope identifies the Catholic Church as the true
source in rooting out her enemies, working from behind the scenes, fulfilling scripture.
Daniel 7:8 “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them
another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by
the roots: . . .”
A portion of the pope’s letter to Justinian reads:
“The way to unity of the church is clear, the prescriptions for it are known; the
priests who love the Catholic peace must not reject the Catholic confession. For it
is necessary that the falsehood not be just partly improved but torn out by the
root... Therefore go forth as you have begun... Your sentiments as they appear in
your writings to us are of the kind such that not much exhortation is required for
the execution of your good intentions.” 52
With the church ultimately doing the rooting out, commissioning Justinian to “go forth as you
have begun” with “the execution of your good intentions,” this excerpt requires no commentary.
We will shortly view those so-called good intentions of Justinian in his Corpus Juris Civilis
which was backed by the church when he became the emperor in 527. Pope Hormisdas
recognized what a great interest Justinian had in the accomplishment of ecclesiastical peace and
expressed his happiness about it in letters to him and the emperor. 53 Emperor Justin appreciated
the organizational skill of his nephew Justinian who was much more intellectually capable than
he, and entrusted him with the entire matter of making ecclesiastical peace between the east and
western churches. Therefore, we must look back into the history of the church around A.D. 476
to see what three kings or kingdoms were considered by her to be the greatest threat or challenge
who will not sacrifice conscience and the truth in deference to popular errors. This evil is on the point of
realization.” Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1948), 5:712.
51
“Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen. . . . And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my
people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto
heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." When do her sins reach unto heaven? When the law of God is
finally made void by legislation.” [Universally] Ellen White, Signs of the Times, June 12, 1893.
52
“Sacerdotes, qui catholicam pacem desiderant, professionem catholicam non recusant; …. Animum quidem
vestrum talem missa ad nos testantur alloquia ut ad plenitudinem boni propositi non multum indigeatis hortatu.”
Guenther, Otto, Epistulae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum, Avellana Quae Dicitur Collectio, 2 pts. In Corpus
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 57), 848. February, 519.
53
Thiel ep. 48, 65, 77, 81, 90, 91, 95, 112. – Mansi VIII, 440, 454, 472, 482, 464, 484, 485, 518 –Baronius a. 519
and 520. Migne, Patr. lat. 63, 367—527.
26
to her rising to worldly power and oppressive control in the new world. Also, it must be
determined from the primary sources what kings or kingdoms, along with their military forces,
the papacy used to achieve this objective.
Seventh-day Adventists have always recognized that there were three separate and distinct
entities or kingdoms that were subdued by the little horn (papacy) of Daniel seven. However,
there has been some disagreement as to the identities of those three kingdoms. The author of this
study hopes to bring together a unified front that we may all move forward, united as a body and
speaking with one voice. While all are agreed that the Vandals and the Ostrogoths are
unquestionably two of the three kingdoms involved, it is the debate of the Heruli versus the
Visigoths that has caused division among us. One side advocates the Heruli falling off the stage
of action in A.D. 493 and another side advocates the demise of the Visigoths in A.D. 508. Since
the Heruli are believed by some to be the first of the three Arian kingdoms to have been subdued
by the little horn after A.D. 476, we will start there to see if the Heruli will withstand the test of
investigation.
27
4
The Heruli
I have included several excerpts from the renowned historian Ferdinand Gregorovius because
of his impeccable and unbiased integrity which is recognized among the academic community
worldwide and the nearly unanimous agreement found among credible historians on the
following era of chronological history. We begin by documenting the fall of Western Rome in
A.D. 476 since it is here that the foundation has been laid according to the scriptures for the rise
and existence of the ten horns that came onto the stage of action:
The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms the fall of Western Rome in A.D. 476:
A.D. 476 “The fall of Rome was completed in 476, when the German Chieftain
Odoacer disposed the last Roman emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus.” 54
The following historical excerpt by the world-renowned historian, Ferdinand Gregorovius, is

quoted in its entirety for the purpose of documenting and establishing the fall of the Western
Roman Empire in A.D. 476. This will serve the truth in its most equitable form:
“BOOK FIRST.”
“FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH CENTURY TO THE FALL OF THE WESTERN
EMPIRE IN 476.” 55
Continuing from the same source:
“Orestes, however, judging it better to invest his youthful son with the Imperial
purple, cause Romulus Augustulus to be proclaimed Emperor of the West, Oct.31,
475. By the irony of fate, this, the last Emperor of Rome, united in his person the
names of the first founder and the first Augustus of Rome. 56
Only for a short time did he wear the purple, being soon overthrown by the
same rebellious mercenaries to whom he had owned his dignity. 57 Since the time
of Alaric and Attila, the dying Empire had taken as allies into its armies, Scyrri,
Alans, Goths, and other barbarian tribes. These, with their leaders, now governed
the Empire, and weary of servitude they became naturally masters of the country,
the military power of which had completely died away. The head of these bands
54
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, (15th Edition, Chicago, IL. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1988), 10:154.
55
Ferdinand Gregorovius, Translated from the Fourth German Edition, Mrs. Gustavus W. Hamilton , History Of The
City of Rome In The Middle Ages, (London, George Bell & Sons, 1900, First Published, 1894. Second Edition,
Revised, 1900), xxxi.
56
The anon. Vales,:” Augustulus, qui ante regnum Romulus a parentibus vocabatur, a patre Oreste Patricio factus
est imperator.” For the coins of the last Emperor with the inscription, D.N.Romulus Augustus P. F. Aug, see cohen,
vol.VIII. The Greeks corrupted the name Romulus into Momyllus, and, on account of his youth, that of Augustus
was likewise transformed into Augustulus. The name of Romulus had been that of his maternal grandfather.
Sievers, Studien, p.523.
57
Procopius, De bello Goth., i. I, at the beginning.
28
at that time was Odoacer, the son of Edecon, a Scyrrian in the service of Attila, a
man of the most adventurist spirit, to whom as a youth, a prophecy had awarded
royal power in the future. “Go to Italy,” was the command of Severin, a monk in
Noricum, “go as thou art, clad in wretched skins; soon thou wilt have great power
to confer great wealth.” 58 After an adventurous and heroic career, [249] passed
chiefly amid the din of battle (he had distinguished himself under Ricimer in the
war against Anthemius), Odoacer had become the foremost leader in the motley
company of mercenaries. These homeless warriors, Rugians, Heruli, Scyrri, and
Turcilingians, persuaded by him that it would be more to their advantage to
become settled masters of this beautiful land of Italy than to wander in the pay of
miserable emperors, impatiently demanded from Orestes the third part of the soil
of Italy. On his refusal to comply, they rose in indignant rebellion and ranged
themselves under the standard of Odoacer. Originally ambitious to become as
powerful in the State as Ricimer had been, Odoacer ended by far surpassing his
predecessor. Having been proclaimed King by his motley army, he immediately
proceeded to Ticinum or Pavia, where Orestes had stationed himself. The town
was stormed and Orestes beheaded soon after at Piacenza, while the last Emperor
of Rome, Romulus Augustulus, fell at Ravenna into the hands of the first real
King of German descent who reigned in Italy.
Odoacer assumed the title of King, and at once obliged the abject Senant in
Rome to satisfy him in the dignity. He refrained, however, from adopting the
purple diadem. His elevation took place in the third year of Zeno the Isaurian, the
ninth year of Pope [250] Simplicius, the second of the consulate of Basiliscus and
the first of Armatus, on Aug. 23, 476 A.D. 59 The fortunate barbarian did not,
however, entertain the idea of setting himself up as Emperor of the West, or even
of making Italy an independent Teutonic kingdom apart from the Imperium. The
majesty of a single and indivisible Empire, the centre of which Constantinople
now was, still survived as a political principle recognized by the barbarians with
respect. Odoacer merely desired to be lawful ruler in Italy, the last province which
remained to the Empire in the West, and founded here no national, but only a
barbarian, military monarchy, without foundation and without stability. 60 To his
soldiers he gave the third part of the soil to Italy, and, to avoid all appearance of
usurpation, forced Augustulus to a formal resignation before the Senate, and the
Senate to the declaration that the Western Empire was extinct. The last political
act of the Senatorial Curia excites a melancholy sympathy: it sent to the Emperor
Zeno at Constantinople ambassadors, who, in the name of the Imperial Senate and
people declared that Rome no longer required an independ- [251] ent Emperor,
58
The Anon. Val. Relates this in his life of S. Severinus. Vade ad Italiam, vade vilissimis nunc pellibus coopertus,
sed multis cito plurima largiturus. The name, which is, strictly speaking, Odovacar, signifies “guardian of property”
(Pallman, ii. 168). He was an ordinary freeman of low birth, and was held to have been a Rugian or Scyrrian. The
remarkable Fragm. Johannis Antiocheni says: . . . .
59
Cassiodor., Chron.: nomenque regis Odoacer adsumpsit, cum tamen nec purpura, nec regalibus uterur
insignibus; Theoph., Chronogr.,pp.102 and 103; Incert, Chron.: Basilisco II. Et Armato coss. Levatus est Odoacer
rex X. Kal. Sept. Item eo anno occisus est paullus frater ejus in Ravenna prid Non. Sept.
60
He was not, however, King of Italy. Pallman justly terms him a King of Mercenaries – a German King, and Felix
Dahn speaks of his followers not as a race or people, but as an army of henchmen – “Landsknechtsregimenter” (Die
Konige der Germanen).
29
that a single Emperor was sufficient for both East and West. They had chosen,
they said, as protector of Italy, Odoacer, a man experienced alike in the arts of
war and peace, and they entreated Zeno to bestow the dignity of Patrician and the
government of Italy on the man of their choice. The deplorable condition in which
Rome found herself lessens the ignominy of this declaration; Imperial rule had
become impossible, and afflicted people recognized that the dominion of a
German patrician, under the supremacy of Imperial power still existing in the
East, was preferable to the continual change of powerless puppet emperors.
Zeno, himself s barbarian from Isauria, received at the same time an earnest
application for aid from the dethroned Nepos, who desired his restoration as
lawful Emperor of the West. Zeno replied to the Senators that, of the two
emperors he had sent to Rome, one had been banished and the other put to death;
that as the former was still living they must again receive him, and that it rested
with Nepos to confer the Patriciate on Odoacer. Zeno, nevertheless, that his client,
Nepos, had no longer any hopes of regaining the throne, and that he must accept
what was an already an accomplished fact. The Emperor of the East received the
diadem and crown jewels of the Western Empire committed to his keeping, and
deposited them in his place. The usurper, who had presumed to snatch for himself
the sovereignty of Italy, he endured for just so long a time as he himself was
powerless to remove him. In his letters to Odoacer, Zeno merely bestows on him
[252] the title of “Patrician of the Romans.” Abandoning Nepos, he resigned Rome
and Italy to the rule of the German leader, under his Imperial authority. 61 Thus
was the country received again as a province into the universal Empire, the
division between East and West again removed, and the whole united under one
Emperor, who now had his residence in Constantinople. The ancient unity of the
Empire, as it had existed in the time of Constantine, was restored, but Rome and
the West were given over to the Germans, and the ancient Latin Polity of Europe
expired.
The extinction of the Roman Empire, from which the Germans had already
snatched one province after another, only set the seal to the inward decay of the
Latin race and the ancient Roman traditions. Even the Christian religion, which
had everywhere replaced the old faith in the gods, no longer awoke any life in the
people. The Gallic bishop Salvian casts a glance over the moral condition of these
effete but now Christianized nations, and pronounces them all sunk in indolence
and vice; only in the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, who had established themselves
as conquerors in the Roman provinces, does he find purity of morals, vigor, and
the energy of youth. [253] “These,” said he, “wax daily, we wane; they advance,
we decay; they bloom, we wither – and shall we therefore be surprised if God
gives all our provinces to the barbarians, in order that through their virtues these
lands may be purified from the crimes of the Romans?” The great name of
61
On account of this Embassy is given in the Excerpt of the lost history of the Malchus in Photius (Corp. Scriptor.
Hist. Byz., ed. Bonn, i. 235,236).The Excerpts of Candidus pass it over in three words (ibid., p. 476). Such are the
scanty crumbs concerning this memorable event which have fallen to us from the table of Photius. The Anon. Vales
is silent. As all readers are aware, the last Roam Emperor, the beautiful boy Romulus Augustulus ended his unhappy
life in Castellum Lucullanum, near Naples. Nepos was murdered at Salona, on May 9, 480.
30
Roman, ay, evens the title which was once the proudest among men, namely
“Roman citizen,” had already become contemptible.62
The Empire, dying of the decrepitude of age, was finally destroyed by the
greatest conflict of races recorded in history. Upon its ruins Teutonism established
itself, bringing fresh blood and spirit into the Latin race, and reconstituting the
Western world through assertion of individual freedom. The overthrow of the
Roman Empire was in reality one of the greatest benefits which mankind ever
received. Through it Europe became re-invigorated, and from out of the chaos of
barbarism a many sided organism arose. The process of development was,
however, slow and attended by terrible struggles. For Rome herself, the extinction
of the Imperial power was followed by momentous consequences: now sinking
into the position of provincial town, her buildings fell into ever deeper decay, and
her last political and civil life died out. No longer dominated by the Emperor of
the West, the Papacy gained ascendency, and [254] the Church of Rome grew
mighty amid decay. It assumed the place of the Empire, and, already a firm and
powerful institution when the Empire fell, remained unshaken by the fate of the
ancient world. It filled, for the time; the void caused by the disappearance of the
Empire, and formed the bridge between antiquity and the modern world.
Admitting the Germans who had destroyed the Empire into the civic rights of the
Roman Church, it sought in them to prepare the elements of the new life in which
it was to take the ruling place , until, a long and extraordinary process, it became
possible to restore the Western Empire under a Germanized Roman form. Amid
the terrible conflicts, through dark and dreary centuries, was accomplished the
metamorphosis which is alike the grandest drama of history and the noteworthy
triumph of the ever-advancing, ever-developing Genius of Man.” 63
With the fall of Western Rome complete, the prophetic stage was then set for the rise of
multiple nations, the ten symbolic horns, to emerge upon the New World. The Pope now had to
appeal to the Byzantine Emperor of the East. This was problematic at times for he had to contend
with Odoacer, an Arian who had been Patrician and was now King of Italy, but who retained
Roman law because the Heruli had not for themselves a valid legal code of law:
“The death of Pope Simplicius in 483 gave rise to a point of controversy

destined in the course of time to develop into a question of the highest
importance. The Bishops of Rome had hitherto been nominated by the assembled
congregations, or churches of the city, that is to say, by the people of all classes.
The nomination accomplished, the returns of the election were laid before the
Emperor, and not until after their validity had been examined into by an official,
did the Emperor confirm the election of the bishop, his subordinate. Odoacer now
claimed this right of ratification. He was Patrician and King, and filled the place
62
Salvian, De vero judicio, v.32, p.53: Itaque nomen civium Romanorum aliquando non solum magna aestimatum,
sed magno empium, nunc ultro repudiator ac fugitur; nec vile tantum, sed etiam abominabile pene habetur. Further,
lib.vii., and his lamentations at the end of lib.vi.: vendunt nobis hostes lucis usuram, tota admodum salus nostra
commercium est. O infelicitates nostrae, ad quid devenimus! – quid potset esse nobis vel abjectius, vel miseries!
63
Revised, 1900), 1:248-254.
31
of the Western Roman Emperor. He did not, however, belong to the Catholic
Church, but instead, like all of German race at this period, was a follower of
Arianism, the form of faith which most readily adapted itself to the untutored
German intellect. Odoacer sent to Rome as his plenipotentiary, Cecina Basilius,
Prefect of the Praetorium, his chief official, with authority to enforce the royal
claim on the Senate and people and to inquire into the election. Before the clergy
and laity assembled in the mausoleum of the Emperor Honorius in S. Peter's,
Cecina Basilius laid a decree, to which Simplicius must already have given his
assent. This decree ordained that no Papal election henceforward could take place
without the co-operation of the royal plenipotentiary. The conclave yielded to the
will of the King, whose justice was recognized alike by [262] Arians and
Catholics. The Arians still, however, retained undisturbed possession of all their
churches both in Rome and elsewhere. A Roman of the renowned family of the
Anicii was now elected Pope as Felix III. 64 [A.D. 483-492]
Forbearance towards the Church, as towards all the State institutions, was for
the German conqueror a necessity of self-preservation. His followers did not form
a nation in Italy, only a mixed swarm of warlike adventurers, whose rude
barbarism placed an impassable chasm between them and Roman civilization.
The rule of Odoacer was consequently nothing more than the rule of a military
camp, and although endowed with the highest dignity of the Empire, he remained
in Ravenna a foreigner, dreaded and hated, and powerless to bequeath the Italian
crown to his descendants. 65
Even though Odoacer had been proclaimed King by his motley army, his followers did not
form a nation in Italy that was viewed as such by the populace of the day. They simply saw them
as a hoard of homeless warriors or mercenaries (though Procopius has informed us that from
time to time they did have a king). Odoacer’s military camp or coup consisting of the Heruli,
Rugians, Scyrri, and Turcilingians was, thereby, established but detested and hated by all:
“He was not, however, King of Italy. Pallman justly terms him a King of
Mercenaries – a German King, and Felix Dahn speaks of his followers not as a
race or people, but as an army of henchmen – “Landsknechtsregimenter” (Die
Könige der Germanen).” 66
While it is true that history confirms Odoacer as an Arian, it is also true that history and
credible historians the world over recognize Odoacer’s motley army as pagans, heathen
mercenaries of a military camp. They were not Arians and neither were they of any one race or
people, nor were they considered to be a nation by the populace of the day. With the Heruli
(Eruli) becoming gradually superior to the Rugians, Scyrri, and Turcilingians, we, then, naturally
64
Pope Symmachus refers to this Synod in. Mausoleo quod est apud b. Petrum ape ; A. Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont.
Genuinae, Braunsberg, 1868, i. 685. It is, moreover, difficult to decide whether Odoacer issued this decision as a
decree intended to apply to future occasions, or only to that in question. Dahn, Dahn, Könige der Germanen, iii.
Abt. p. 203, holds the latter view, while Staudenmaier, Gesth. der Bischofs-wahlen, p. 63, maintains the former.
65
Revised, 1900), 1:261-2.
66
Ibid., 1:250, footnote.
32
ask who and what type of people they were. Procopius, a Byzantine scholar-historian and of the
orthodox faith, was an eye witness to many of the events of the early 6th century, and he answers
this question succinctly:
“The Eruli, or Heruli, were one of the wildest and most corrupt of the barbarian
tribes. They came from beyond the Danube.” 67
“Now as to who in the world the Eruli are, and how they entered into alliance
with the Romans, I shall forthwith explain. 68 They used to dwell beyond the Ister
69
River from of old, worshipping a great host of gods, whom it seemed to them
holy and appease even by human sacrifices. And they observed many customs
which were not in accord with those of other men. For they were not permitted to
live either when they grew old or when they fell sick, but as soon as one of them
was overtaken by old age or by sickness, it became necessary for him to ask his
relatives to remove him from the world as quickly as possible. And these relatives
would pile up a quantity of wood to a great height and lay the man on top of the
wood, and then they would send one of the Eruli, but not a relative of the man, to
his side with a dagger; for it was not lawful for a kinsman to be his slayer. And
when the slayer of the relative had returned, they would straightaway burn the
whole pile of wood, beginning at the edges. And after the fire had ceased, they
would immediately collect the bones and bury them in the earth. And when a man
of the Eruli died, it was necessary for his wife, if she laid claim to virtue and
wished to leave a fair name behind her, to die not long afterward beside the tomb
of her husband with a rope. And if she did not do this, the result was that she was
in ill repute thereafter and an offence to the relatives of her husband. Such were
the customs observed by the Eruli in ancient times.” 70
“And they [Heruli] mate in an unholy manner, especially men with asses, and
they are the basest of all men and utterly abandoned rascals.” 71
Procopius now reveals their conduct and rule amongst the populace:
“But as time went on they [The Heruli] became superior to all the barbarians
who dwelt about them both in power and in numbers, and, as was natural, they
attacked and vanquished them severally and kept plundering their possessions by
force. And finally they made the Lombards, who were Christians, together with
several other nations, subject and tributary to themselves, though the barbarians of
67
Procopius. History of the Wars. Translated by H. B. Dewing. Bks. 1–8. In Loeb Classical Library, edited by
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, IV. iv. 32 (footnote).
68
Cf. Book IV.iv.30
69
Modern Danube.
70
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VI. Xiii. 16-xiv. 1-7.
71
Ibid., VI. xiv. 35-38.
33
that region were not accustomed to that sort of thing; but the Eruli were led to
take this course by love of money and lawless spirit.” 72
The conduct of the Heruli was a threat to everyone, Catholic, Arian, and even the pagans
themselves. Therefore, it brought upon them the contempt of all classes of people and faiths. In
light of these events, Theodoric the Great petitioned the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno,
reminding him of the “tyranny” (unlawful rule) of the city of Rome by Turcilingi and Rugii.
Jordanes, a 6th century Roman bureaucrat turned historian who wrote the only remaining
classical work dealing with the early history of the Goths, gives us the record of that account
between Theodoric the Great and the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno:
LVII
[289] “When the Emperor Zeno heard that Theodoric had been appointed king
over his own people, he received the news with pleasure and invited him to come
and visit him in the city, appointing an escort of honor. Receiving Theodoric with
all due respect, he placed him among the princes of his palace. After some time
Zeno increased his dignity by adopting him as his son-at-arms and gave him a
triumph in the city at his expense. Theodoric was made Consul Ordinary also,
which is well known to be the supreme good and highest honor in the world. Nor
was this all, for Zeno set up before the royal palace an equestrian statue to the
glory of this great man. [290] Now while Theodoric was in alliance by treaty with
the Empire of Zeno and was himself enjoying every comfort in the city, he heard
that his tribe, dwelling as we have said in Illyricum, was not altogether satisfied or
content. So he chose rather to seek a living by his own exertions, after the manner
customary to his race, rather than to enjoy the advantages of the Roman Empire in
luxurious ease while his tribe lived in want. After pondering these matters, he said
to the Emperor: “Though I lack nothing in serving your Empire, yet if Your Piety
deem it worthy, be pleased to hear the desire of my heart.” [291] And when as
usual he had been granted permission to speak freely, he said: “The western
country, long ago governed by the rule of your ancestors and predecessors, and
that city which was the head and mistress of the world,--wherefore is it now
shaken by the tyranny of the Torcilingi and the Rugi? Send me there with my
race. Thus if you but say the word, you may be freed from the burden of expense
here, and, if by the Lord's help I shall conquer, the fame of Your Piety shall be
glorious there. For it is better that I, your servant and your son, should rule that
kingdom, receiving it as a gift from you if I conquer, than that one whom you do
not recognize should oppress your Senate with his tyrannical yoke and a part of
the republic with slavery. For if I prevail, I shall retain it as your grant and gift; if
I am conquered, Your Piety will lose nothing--nay, as I have said, it will save the
expense I now entail.” [292] Although the Emperor was grieved that he should go,
yet when he heard this he granted what Theodoric asked, for he was unwilling to
cause him sorrow. He sent him forth enriched by great gifts and commended to
his charge the Senate and the Roman People. Therefore Theodoric departed from
72
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VI. xiv. 8-11
34
the royal city and returned to his own people. In company with the whole tribe of
the Goths, who gave him their unanimous consent, he set out for Hesperia. He
went in straight march through Sirmium to the places bordering on Pannonia and,
advancing into the territory of Venetia as far as the bridge of the Sontius,
encamped there. [293] When he had halted there for some time to rest the bodies
of his men and pack-animals, Odoacer sent an armed force against him, which he
met on the plains of Verona and destroyed with great slaughter. Then he broke
camp and advanced through Italy with greater boldness. Crossing the river Po, he
pitched camp near the royal city of Ravenna, about the third milestone from the
city in the place called Pineta. When Odoacer saw this, he fortified himself within
the city. He frequently harassed the army of the Goths at night, sallying forth
stealthily with his men, and this not once or twice, but often; and thus he
struggled for almost three whole years. [294] But he labored in vain, for all Italy at
last called Theodoric its lord and the Empire obeyed his nod. But Odoacer, with
his few adherents and the Romans who were present, suffered daily from war and
famine in Ravenna. Since he accomplished nothing, he sent an embassy and
begged for mercy. [295] Theodoric first granted it and afterwards deprived him of
his life. It was in the third year after his entrance into Italy, as we have said, that
Theodoric, by advice of the Emperor Zeno, laid aside the garb of a private citizen
and the dress of his race and assumed a costume with a royal mantle, as he had
now become the ruler over both Goths and Romans. He sent an embassy to
Lodoin, king of the Franks, and asked for his daughter Audefleda in marriage.
[296] Lodoin freely and gladly gave her, and also his sons Celdebert and Heldebert
and Thiudebert, believing that by this alliance a league would be formed and that
they would be associated with the race of the Goths. But that union was of no
avail for peace and harmony, for they fought fiercely with each other again and
again for the lands of the Goths; but never did the Goths yield to the Franks while
Theodoric lived.” 73
The statement of Theodoric the Great to Emperor Zeno, “Send me there with my race”
cements the fact that the Arians formed no part of Odoacer’s henchmen. Another critical point is
that the little horn or the papacy can in no wise be said to have had a part in subduing Odoacer
and his military camp, for this was an act of Zeno on behalf of Theodoric alone. Equally
significant is the fact that, though this campaign was against the heathen or pagans, this was a
political warfare, not a religious one. Our understanding is to be further enriched from the
following which shows that the Emperor Zeno had his own motives for agreeing to dispatch
Theodoric to the west:
“The Byzantine Emperor regarded him [Odoacer] as a usurper, and only

awaited the first opportunity to set him aside. For this undertaking there was at
73
Jordanes, The Origins and Deeds of the Goths, LVII. 289-296, trans. by Charles C. Mierow. It has been said that
Jordanes was asked by a friend to write this book as a summary of a multi-volume history of the Goths (now lost) by
the statesman Cassiodorus. Jordanes was selected chiefly for his interest in history (he was working on a history of
Rome), his ability to write succinctly, and because of his own Gothic background. He had been a high-level
notarius, or secretary, of a small client state on the Roman frontier in Moesia, modern northern Bulgaria. As for the
dating of this work he mentions the great plague of 546 as having occurred “nine years ago” (Getica 104.)
35
hand a yet greater tribal leader of German race, and an entire people who had
forsaken their devastated homes on the slopes of the Haemus, to descend upon the
fertile plains of Italy. These were the warlike Ostrogoths, ruled at that time by
Theodoric. The Emperor Zeno, fearing that in his repeated incursions across the
frontiers of the Eastern [263] Empire the Gothic King might prepare for Byzantium
the fate which Italy had suffered at the hands of Odoacer, constituted Theodoric
his ally, bestowing on the barbarian the titles of Consul and Patrician. In order to
remove him from the East, the Emperor exhorted him to turn the thirst of his
people for spoil and adventure towards the West and to snatch, the land of Italy
from the “tyrant” Odoacer. By virtue of a formal treaty Zeno made over to him
and his people the investiture of this province of the Empire. Theodoric
accordingly led his entire tribe across the Alps in 488, and appeared in formidable
power on the banks of the Isonzo, in the summer of 489. The Goths of Theodoric
had been more or less imbued with the influences of the civilizations both of East
and West, and although judged by the standard of Latin culture, they may have
been deemed barbarians, they were not altogether barbarians, such as the
followers of Alaric had been. They formed moreover a nation which presented to
the enervated and effeminate Italians the unusual spectacle of heroic manhood. It
was in short the conviction of their own superiority as free men to which the
Goths owed the subjugation of the ancient, world. 74
The struggle of the two military leaders for the possession of the beautiful and
unhappy country was [264] long and fierce. Defeated on the Isonzo and afterwards
at Verona, Odoacer in despair threw himself on his last stronghold, Ravenna. The
isolated assertion of a chronicler that, after the defeat at Verona he retreated to
Rome, there to entrench himself, and that out of revenge for his rejection by the
Romans he laid waste the Campagna, is very doubtful. The Roman Senate, whose
adhesion had been gained by the Byzantine Emperor, had already arrived at a
secret understanding with Theodoric, and, after Odoacer had been driven to bay at
Ravenna, had openly declared in favor of the Gothic King. As early as the year
490 Theodoric, therefore, was able to send the Patrician Festus, the head of the
Senate, to Zeno to request the royal mantle. 75
For three years Odoacer made a gallant resistance at Ravenna. At length,
reduced by want, he opened the gates to Theodoric (March 5, 493). A few days
later the victor faithlessly broke the treaty he had made with his valiant enemy,
stabbing Odoacer with his own hand, and causing all his followers to be slain.
Without waiting for the ratification of Anastasius, who, on the death of Zeno
(April 9, 491) had succeeded to the Imperial throne, Theodoric had already
adopted the title and insignia of King of Italy. Not until 498 did he receive
recognition, the Emperor then surrendering all the jewels of the Imperial palace
previously sent by Odoacer to Constantinople. Theodoric was by right of his
people King of the Goths; by that of conquest, the election of his followers and
74
The probable number of Theodoric's followers remains unknown. Gibbon estimates it at a million. Later
investigators, such as Kopke and Dahn, are content with from 200,000 to 250,000, with about 60,000 fighting men.
But is it possible that the Ostrogoths can have found accommodation in Pavia side by side with the former
inhabitants? (Sartorius, Regierung der Ostgothen, p. 15.)
75
Anon. Valesii, 53: Fausto et Longino Coss., i.e., A.D. 490.
36
the allegiance of the conquered [265] also King of Italy; by the surrender of the
insignia of Empire, he now received the Imperial ratification of this right-the
right, that is to say, to govern Italy as it had been previously governed by the
Emperors of the West. 76
But while the Byzantine Emperor had only commissioned Theodoric to rescue
the prefecture of Italy from the possession of a usurper, the Goth was himself
little better than a usurper in his eyes. The new conqueror, on his side, recognized
the legitimate authority of the Emperor, professing subjection to Anastasius,
although at the same time regarding himself as nothing less than ruler in a
country, the third part of which he had bestowed on his soldiers. He also fixed his
residence at Ravenna, thence resolved to govern, according to Roman institutions,
Rome, Italy, and perhaps the West. The project was, however, one, which
threatened danger, owing to the fact that Theodoric professed the Arian faith. The
people whom he had led into Italy were a heretic people, and in Rome he found
himself opposed by the already powerful bishop, the recognized head of the
Church in the West.” 77
Because Theodoric and his followers professed the Arian faith, they had been branded as
heretics since the council of Nicea in A.D 325. This became a major obstacle for the papacy, one
with which she would have to contend. Theodoric naturally found himself already at odds with
the powerful bishop of Rome. However, the long, fierce battle finally ended on March 5, 493,
when Odoacer threw open the gates to his victor, Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths.
This established the Ostrogoths as the very first barbarian race to found a colony upon the soil of
Italy:
“The Goths [Ostrogoths] established themselves permanently in Italy, which

now, for the first time, suffered an entire barbarian race to found a colony upon
her soil, and henceforward had no choice but to admit an infusion of German
principles into her Latin nationality.” 78
While it has been assumed by some that the Heruli were fully uprooted in A.D. 493 by
Theodoric the Great, that was simply not the case. Latest academic scholarship has recognized
that the final overthrow of the remaining Heruli was in A.D. 508 by the Lombards:
“In the oriental theater of operations, in 508, Anastasius had pushed the
Lombards against Rodulf, the adoptive son of Theodoric and the king of the
continental Herules who lived in what is now Slovakia. Without the support of the
master of Ravenna, the Herules, who fought nude, arms in hand, in order to better
unchain their murderous violence, were crushed (Procope, VI, 14). A good
76
Anon. Vales., 64: Facta pace cum Anastasio imperatore per Festum de praesumptione regni, et omnia ornamenta
palatii, quae Odoacher Constantinopolim transmiserat, remittit. Dahn, Die Konige der Germanem, ii. 162, justly lays
stress on this surrender of the insignia of the Western Empire, by which the views held by Belisalius, Justinian and
Procopius regarding Theodoric's usnrpation are deprived of all legal ground.
77
Gregorovius, Ferdinand. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 1. Translated from the 4th German
ed. London: George Bell, 1900, 262-265.
78
Ibid., 266.
37
number of them came back to their motherland, what is now Sweden, and others
fused with the Ostrogoths.” 79
The New Encyclopedia Britannica declares:
“Their kingdom [Heruli] on the middle Danube, founded in the late 5th century,
fell to the Lombards early in the 6th century.” 80
According to Troels Brandt, Andreas Schwarcz (2005) dates Cassiodorus’ letter to

Theodoric’s Herulian “son in arms” to early A.D. 509. He arrives at this from the order of the
letters of Cassiodorus. As stated before, historians have recognized that Procopius probably
mixed up the time of the defeat of Odoacer with the defeat of Hrodolphus - both being Herulian
defeats. The battle most likely took place in A.D. 508. The historical accounts from the primary
sources regarding this battle reveal that it was political and do not provide any substance for the
involvement of the little horn. For those who fought against the Heruli, it was never about
religion, rather it was always about further restraining the heathens from plundering their
possessions, lands, and women. From this point in time, the Heruli fused and splintered off into
various tribes, regions and militaries of various kingdoms. Some of these small remaining bands
of Heruli mercenaries were described by Procopius as having joined Justinian’s army, as well. 81
The Heruli, as we have witnessed, were unable to withstand the test of time and neither have
they been able to withstand the test of investigation.
79
Rouche, Michel. Clovis. (Fayard, France 1996), 323.
80
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, (15th Edition, Chicago, IL. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1988), 5:893.
81
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VI. xiv. 33-37.
38
5
The Visigoths
Some have erroneously concluded that the Visigoths were pagans 82 and that, therefore, the
conflict in the West was over paganism. In fact, though, the Visigoths were Arian Christians.
Similarly, a few decades later, the issue in the East between the Vandals and Ostrogoths (also
Arian Christians) and Justinian was not about paganism, nor was it solely a political conflict. It
was a religious war, as well, that would ultimately decide the dominance of the Catholic or Arian
faith in Eastern Europe.
With the Heruli forever dismissed as one of the uprooted horns of Daniel 7:8, 20, and 24, and
the fact that Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths, reigned in Italy virtually unobstructed
until his death in 526 (there was a small episode in 507-8 and a skirmish with the pope and the
eastern Emperor Justin in 524), we are forced to look outside of Italy for the fulfillment of an
uprooted horn or horns, if there was to be such before that time. In our quest for truthful answers
in that which we seek, we are fortunate to have the following primary document:
“. . . . There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the
present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals,
Visigoths and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae
and Melanchlaeni; 83 and there were some too who called the nations Getic. All
these, while they are distinguished from one another by their names, as has been
said, do not differ in anything else at all. For they all have white bodies and fair
hair, and are tall and handsome to look upon, and they use the same laws and
practice a common religion. For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one
language called Gothic; and, as it seems to me, they all came originally from one
tribe, and were distinguished later by the names of those who led each group.” 84
While there was a difference between the Goths and the Ostrogoths, it must be understood that
when Procopius is referring to the Goths it is in reference to the Ostrogoths. This is confirmed in
his books, History of the Wars. However, Procopius informed us of a very important point that
must not be overlooked when he wrote of these Arian kingdoms:
“They use the same laws and practice a common religion. For they are all of the
Arian faith.” For they “do not differ in anything else at all.” 85
From the pen of Procopius himself, we have the actual viewpoint of someone then living as to
who was considered to be the chief armaments of opposition to the Catholic faith because they
were of the Arian faith.
82
The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1997, s.v. “pagan.” “One who is not a Christian . . . , One
who has no religion . . . , Professing no religion; heathen.”
83
“Black – Coats”
84
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, III. ii. 1-8.
85
Ibid., III. ii. 1-8.
39
Since Procopius introduced us to the Gepaedes, we will comment briefly as to their
background even though the Gepaedes play no part in the prophetic picture and their primary
sources are scarce. According to the sources available, the Gepaedes or Gepids were an East
Germanic Gothic tribe most famous in history for defeating the Huns after the death of Attila.
The Gepids territory was composed of parts of modern day Romania, Hungary and Serbia. As
early as A.D. 260 they, together with the Goths, invaded what was then the Roman Empire
province of Dacia. They later settled on the eastern bank of the Tisza River. They became vassals
of the Hunnic Empire, forming the army's right-flank. After Attila’s death, they joined the
Ostrogoths in breaking up the empire for which they had previously fought. Next, after
quarreling with their allies, they settled in the Carpathian Mountains and, thereby, distanced
themselves from them. Tombs have been excavated dating back to the sixth century containing
ceramics, bronze articles and armor. They are believed by some to have been conquered by the
Byzantine-Lombard alliance in 567, while others claim they were overthrown by the Avars.
With that information, we are left with three chief armaments of opposition to the Catholic
faith. Given in their chronological order we will establish and document that the Visigoths,
Vandals, and the Ostrogoths comprised the three uprooted horns of Bible prophecy. When the
Lombards defeated the Heruli in A.D. 508, it did not affect Eastern Rome. There was nothing in
Eastern Rome, in and of itself, that demanded the subduing of a foreign power or kingdom, for
everything was still largely under the emperor’s control. Except for the Acacius schism between
the east and western orthodox churches and the Henotikon, an edict issued by the Emperor Zeno,
the church was mainly biding her time there. Therefore, we need not look to eastern Rome until
the time of Justinian, and he did not take the throne until 527. Theodoric the Great in Italy,
although considered a heretic, did not infringe upon the rights of the people regardless of race or
faith.
Theodoric was loved by both Arians and Romans and there was no king in the entire west at
that time that would have had the military might to overthrow him. With everything running
quite smoothly (as we witnessed in my A.D. 508 Source Book), Theodoric’s early reign was
recognized by historians as the “golden age for the church.” 86 Under his rule, as stated earlier,
was largely peace and quiet after 493 except for around 507-8 and near the end of his reign in
523-526. The latter skirmish will be reviewed shortly. Therefore, in our search, Italy in western
Rome merited nothing either and we must again look elsewhere for our first uprooted horn. This
brings us to Gaul, the last territory of Christendom in western Rome. Procopius unveils how the
Visigoths came into dominance of this entire territory:
“. . . . But when Odoacer changed the government into a tyranny, then, since
the tyrant yielded to them, the Visigoths took possession of all Gaul as far as the
alps which mark the boundary between Gaul and Liguria.” 87
As Procopius has rightly informed us, the Visigoths were one of the main Arian kingdoms in
opposition to the principles or government of the Catholic Church. Gregory of Tours confirms
that the Visigoths embraced the principles of religious liberty. The Visigoth Agilan once
admonished Gregory of Tours declaring:
86
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003,
203.
87
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, V. xii. 20-21.
40
“You must not blaspheme against a faith which you yourself do not accept.
You notice that we who do not believe the things which you believe nevertheless
do not blaspheme against them. It is no crime for one set of people to believe in
one doctrine and another set of people to believe in another. . .” “Legem, quam
non colis, blaspheme noli; nos vero quae creditis etsi non credimus, non tamen
blasphemamus, quia non deputur crimini, si et illa et illa colantur. Sic enim
vulgate sermon dicimus, non esse noxium, si inter gentilium aras st Dei ecclesiam
quis transiens utraque veneriyur.” 88
The Catholic Church now had two powerful “heretical” Arian tribes largely in control of all of
Gaul and Italy with a mutual ideology diametrically opposed to the government of the papacy.
The church Council of Agde was held Sept. 10, 506, at Agde in Languedoc, France under the
authority of Caesarius of Arles and was attended by thirty-five bishops. It should be noted that
even up to the year 506 the Catholics had to administer a proclamation of tolerance of West
Gothic Arianism. This was done only because the Catholic Church did not as yet have a civil
force in the west to enforce her dogmas, much less one to subdue her enemies:
“The Council of Agde was a proclamation of tolerance of West Gothic

Arianism for the Roman Catholic subjects, to whom a codification of their law
had been presented a few months prior in the Lex Romana [law code]. In the
opening section the synodical acts emphasized the authority of the king, who
granted the Catholic bishops the authorization to convene the synodical assembly,
and in the conclusion he was thanked for that following thanks to God. At the top
of the resolutions, demonstratively emphasizing Catholic continuity, the doctrine
was stated that the canons and statutes of the fathers should be read aloud. 89
Thereby the Arian problem was implicitly side-stepped. Notably, the conversion
of Jews and convivium with them was brought up, yet not a word about the
Arians. 90 In Epao, [The church council of September 517] on the other hand, this
very topic was at the center of interest. Not only with Jews but also with heretics,
convivium was prohibited 91 , and for lapsi, the baptized Catholics who “crossed
into damnable heresy,” a period of penance limited to two years per the old canon
was prescribed. Also forbidden was the further use of Arian churches, with the
exception of those that had formerly been Catholic.” 92
88
Thorpe, L. Trans. Gregory of Tours - The History of the Franks (Harmondsworth, 1974), 309-10.
89
A decretal statement of Innocent I (JK. 293 c. I, no. 2, 4) was also included verbatim in the canon (c. 9).
90
An indirect, indeed acknowledging reference to them is argued by Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands 3.4 I,
p. 117 note 1 (corroborating von Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter. 1921, p. 25) in c.
42: Ac ne id fortasse videatur omissum, quod maxime fidem catholicae religionis infestat, quod aliquanti clerici sive
laici student auguriis etc. However, maxime here undoubtedly does not mean “mostly,” “especially,” but rather “at
the most.” A praise “even indirectly” of the Arians from the mouth of the Catholic synod would be unthinkable.
91
c. 15 Epaon, cf. with c. 40 Agath. (The canons 60 and 67 of Agde, which dealt with heretics, are later additions;
cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte. II, p 650; French translation Leclercq II, p. 980).
92
c. 32. In a separate opinion (ep. 7, I. c. p. 35 ff.) Avitus had already previously treated this question in depth.
Here, the Catholic disdain of the heretics, otherwise carefully hidden from the landed proprietary power of the
kingdom, expressed itself freely. The worldly wisdom of Avitus was also evidenced by his advice, not to turn the
heretics into martyrs through absorbing them into the Arian churches, and not to provoke other Arian kings to
41
On the surface it looked bleak, but behind the scenes the Catholic Church was working to
achieve her means. The following letter, addressed to Clovis in 481 from the Bishop St. Remi, is
part of a collection of letters called Austrasicae contained in a single manuscript from the
beginning of the 9th century. The letters from this manuscript were collected at Metz at the end of
the 6th century. Numbering 48, they are the work of the most important people of the period and
are addressed to very high dignitaries such as bishops, kings, queens, emperors, and high
officials. However, we want to center our attention on the oldest document that we possess on
Clovis that is from that collection, translated from the Latin. In it, St. Remi salutes Clovis who
just took over the administration of the Second Belgium and urges him to govern well. This was
not a military victory but a political achievement. This letter also establishes that the prestige of
the kingdom of the Franks began with Clovis with the working of St. Remi behind the scenes:
To the seigneur illustrious for his merits, the King Clovis, Bishop Remi
“A big rumor has come to us, you have taken up the administration of the
Second Belgium. This is not new as you will have started by being that which
your parents always were. First you must see to it that the judgment of God does
not abandon you there where your merit comes by way of your activity from your
humility to this very high summit. For, as we say vulgarly, it is with actions that
we identify the man. You must appoint yourself advisors that will be able to adorn
your renown. Your gift must be pure and honest. Your will have to consult your
bishops and always rely on their advice. For if you get along well with them, your
province will only be consolidated by this. Give courage to the citizens, relieve
the distressed, favor the widows, nourish the orphans; rather than enlighten them,
may they all love you and respect you. May justice be spoken by your mouth
without expecting anything from the poor and foreigners so that you will not want
to accept gifts or anything else from them. May your court be open to all so that
none return from it sad. You possess certain paternal riches with which you will
liberate the prisoners and deliver them from the yoke of servitude. If anyone is
admitted to your presence, may he not feel like a stranger. Joke with the young,
deliberate with the old, and if you want to rule, judge nobly.” 93
A second letter from St. Remi to Clovis from the same manuscript reveals St. Remi trying to
console King Clovis on the death of his sister Albochlede. This takes us behind the scenes and
reveals the very close relationship between Clovis and the Catholic Church:
To the seigneur illustrious for his merits, the King Clovis, Remi bishop
retaliatory measures. Thus reads his summarizing judgment: Dices forsitan haereticos, si eis potestas datur, altaria
nostra temerare. Verum est, nec refello. Saeviunt quidem, cum possent, foedis unguibus alienarum aedium
pervasores. Sed vim intendere, loca pervadere, altaria commutare non pertinent ad columbam…Quocirca non quid
statuam, sed quid optem, breviter indicabo. Haeretici cultus loca pervadi nollem, cuperem praetermitti in morem
ergastulorum, quae usu careant. Semper optandum est, non ut mutata transeant, sed infrequentata torpescant.
Salubri populorum correctione desertis maneat aeterna viduitas, nec unquam recipiatur a nostris, quod
conversionis studio repudiator a propriis.
Erich Caspar, Geschicthe des Papsttums, [History of the Papacy] 1933, 2:4-5.
93
Epistolae Austrasicae, Corpvs Christianorvm, Series Latina Vol. CXVII, Tvrnholti, 1957, 2, 408-409.
42
“The announcement of the death of your sister of glorious memory Albochlede
saddens me even more because of the sadness you feel. But we can console
ourselves because she that has gone from this light must that much more be
conserved in your memory than she was mourned. In effect, she lived such a life
that we believe that she was taken by the Lord, she who, chosen by God, has gone
to heaven. She lives for your faith and if the chosen has the desire to see him,
Christ satisfied her because she received the benediction of the virgins. She that
was consecrated should not be mourned because she shines under the gaze of God
in virginal splendor, to know him of the crown with which she was covered and
that she received as a gauge of her virginity. May she be absent, so that she may
be mourned by the faithful, she that deserved to be the good odor of Christ so that
thanks to him, whom she pleased, she may bring help to those that ask for it. My
lord {king}, cast off sadness from your heart; govern the kingdom in a more
penetrating manner, in a spirit justly mastered, making bolder decisions thanks to
the zeal of serenity. Comfort your limbs thanks to a joyous heart. The torpor of
bitterness shaken off, you will consecrate your waking hours to the salvation {of
all} with more acuity. May the kingdom remain in your hands to be administered
and, with the help of God, to prosper. You are the head of the people and you
carry the government. May those that are used to seeing you thanks to you in
happiness not perceive you stricken with the sourness of mourning. Be yourself
the consoler of your soul by maintaining in yourself the innate providence that is
found in it, so that sadness does not smother the clarity of your mind. As for her
actual death, of she that is now joined with the chorus of virgins, as we should
believe it, the king rejoices of it in the sky.
In saluting your glory I also recommend to you the priest Maccolus who is part
of my entourage and that I am sending to you.
I beg you to deign to pardon me, I should have sent him to meet you and I
made the decision to entrust him with words of exhortation. Nonetheless if you
order by way of the carrier of these letters that I come, after having disregarded
the hardness of winter, neglected the cold, overcome the painful route, I will
strive to, with the help of God, come before you.” 94
The efforts from the papacy were soon to bear fruit and in Clovis the church was to find a
refuge. Clovis prepares for war against the Arian Visigoth King Alaric II in 507/8:
“. . . The Franks were heavily recruited into the Roman army and a segment
known as the Salians was settled in what is now the Netherlands. In the early 6th
C., the Franks were united politically by Clovis (Chlodovechus, 481½ -511), who
extended Frankish rule over the whole of Roman Gaul with the exception of
Septimania and Provence. Clovis also converted to Orthodox [Catholic]
Christianity, the first barbarian king to do so. This conversion and his victory over
the VISIGOTHS (508) contributed to a Byz. perception of the Franks as
potential allies against the Arian Gothic kingdoms and later the Lombards in Italy.
Merovingian kings from Clovis onward were frequently honored by
94
Epistolae Austrasicae, Corpvs Christianorvm, Series Latina Vol. CXVII, Tvrnholti, 1957, 1, 407-408.
43
Constantinople with the titles consul and patrikios.” 95
“To these last year’s also belong the few contemporary pieces of evidence on
Clovis’ church policy. . . . The earliest piece of Merovingian ecclesiastical
legislation was in many ways the manifestation of the ideals of Remigius; in a
letter written after Vouille [Vougle], Clovis announced to his bishops that en route
for the battle he had promulgated an edict protecting widows, clerics and those
whom the church wished to defend.” 96
We submit the entire just quoted letter from Clovis to the bishops, translated from the Latin:
Letter from Clovis to the Bishops

****
“King Clovis to the saint seigneurs and to the bishops very dignified by the
apostolic see.
The news having been announced concerning that which was done and ordered
to all our army, before we entered the homeland of the Goths, this could not have
escaped Your Beatitude.
Firstly, we order, in that which concerns the service of all the churches, that
nobody should try to take away in any way either saint nuns [saintes moniales in
French] or the widows of which we know that they were dedicated to the service
of the Lord; that it may be the same for the clerics and the children of the
aforementioned, both of clerics and of widows of which we know that they reside
with them in their homes; the same, for the slaves of churches for whom it will be
proven by the oaths of bishops that they were taken from the churches, the order
to follow is to exercise no harm or violence towards them. This is why we order,
so that all this may be well known, that whoever among the aforementioned will
have suffered the violence of captivity, either in the churches or outside of them,
be totally and immediately given back. For the other lay prisoners that will have
been taken outside of peace and that this be proven, we will not refuse letters
written upon your decision for whom you will desire it. In effect, for those that
will have been seized in our peace whether clerics or laymen, if you make it
known to be true by letters signed with your seals, may they may be sent to us in
any way and you will learn that the orders issued by us will confirm it. Thus our
people demand that, for all those that you judge worthy of your letters, you will
not hesitate to say under oath in the name of God and with your benediction that
this thing is true that needed to be proved, since the variations and falsifications of
many were discovered to the point that, as it is written: “the just perish with the
impious.”
Pray for me, saint seigneurs and very dignified fathers by the apostolic see.” 97
95
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, s.v. “Franks” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 2:803.
96
Ian N. Wood, Revue Belge de Philologie Et D’Histoire, (Brussels: n.p., 1985), 63:264. See also Chlodowici Regis
ad episcopos epistula, Capitularia Merowingica, ed. A. Boretius, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Capitularia
Regum Francorum, I (Hannover, 1883), 1-2.
97
Alfredvs Boretivs, Monvmenta Germaniae Historica, Rervm Germanicarvm Medii Aevi, Capitvlaria Regvm
Francorvm, (Hannoverae, 1883), 1:1-2. [Chlodowici Regis ad episcopos epistula, Capitularia Merowingica, ed. A.
Boretius, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Capitularia Regum Francorum, I (Hannover, 1883), 1-2.]
44
That is the only authentic document that has come to us from Clovis which is from a
manuscript of the monastery of Corbie dating from the 6th -7th centuries. The battle between
Clovis and the Visigoths was a religious war:
“It is evident, from the language of Gregory of Tours, that this conflict between
the Franks and Visigoths was regarded by the orthodox party of his own
preceding ages as a religious war, on which, humanly speaking, the prevalence of
the Catholic or the Arian creed in Western Europe depended.” 98
“Clovis fought his last campaign, against the Visigoths in 507, [508] as a
Catholic.” 99
“It was a religious war that Clovis declared against them. The war against the
Visigoths was the big event of the reign of Clovis. Reconciled with Gondebaud,
he made him an ally, and after having beaten the Visigoths at Vouille where their
king Alaric was killed, he pursued them without stopping.” 100
“Chlodowech [Clovis] already had not held back on gifts to the church. 101 It is
not improbable that he had granted the bishops the necessary possessions to
improve poorer churches’ facilities. 102 After the Goth War he conferred the
former Arian chapels upon the Catholic Church, doubtless along with the Arian
church’s possessions. 103 He also began the freeing of individual churches and
ecclesiastical persons from the burdens of state. 104 Chrodechilde [Clovis’ wife]
did not remain in his shadow; Gregory of Tours is full of her praise: she richly
gave churches, monasteries, and other holy places; one could have held her not
for a queen but for a maiden of God.” 105
“Then, from the 22nd of June, 508 (Variae, I, 42), Theodoric, liberated from
imperial attacks on the Italian coasts, thanks to the retreat of the fleet that believed
98
Walter C. Perry, The Franks (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1857), 85. Perry quotes
from Gregory of Tours’ The History of the Franks, trans. O. M. Dalton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), 2:36-43.
The authority on Clovis, Gregory lived from A.D. 538 to 594.
99
J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long Haired Kings (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962), 173.
100
On the war of Clovis against the Visigoths, cf. EWIG, Die Fränkische Reichsbildung, 258-260; LOT F.,
Naissance de la France, 28-32; ROUCHÉ M., L’Aquitaine des Wisigoths aux Arabes, naissance d’une nation (418-
781), Paris, 1978; ZÖLLNER, op. cit., 67.
Pontal, Odette. Histoire des Conciles Mérovingiens.N.p.: Éditions du Cerf, 1989, 38.
101
Cf. Chapter 1 p. 120 note 1.
102
This conjecture is guided by the way in which the first Synod of Orléans can. 5 speaks of the king’s gifts, still to
be made: De oblationibus vel agris, quos domnus noster rex ecclesiis suo munere conferre dignatus est vel adhuc
non habentibus deo sibi inspirante contulerit.
103
Con. Aurel. I (a. 511) can. 10.
104
Cf. Con. Aurel. I (a. 511) can. 5, where the subject is gifts: ipsorum agrorum vel clericorum immunitate
concessa.
105
Hist. Franc. III, 18; cf. IV 1.
Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, [Church History of Germany] Bd. I 3rd and 4th edition, 1904,
1:136.
45
to have attained its goal—that is to help Alaric II—hurried to rally his troops.
Lead by Duke Ibba, they entered Provence.
These events verified one more time the principle of lex gothica, this law that
confounded ethnic belonging and Arian belief. As Gregory of Tours said: “they
call, in effect, the men of our religion Romans” (G.M., 24 and 78-79).) This
confusion between Roman political status and Catholic faith shows to what extent
the conflict was insoluble. It could only be separated through the disappearance
of one of the two religions, the one that mixed the State and the Church.” 106
Professor Rouche just placed his finger on the central contentious issue between the Catholic
Church and the Arian Christians: religious liberty. The religion that did not have the “arms” of
Clovis backing it was destined to be nothing but a memory of history. And that was exactly
what happened to the Visigoths as nearly all of Gaul was now under the jurisdiction of Catholic
Clovis except for two provinces that were under the rule of Theodore the Great. Here is
illustrated the very reason why heaven did not provide definitive dating for the uprooting of the
three horns. It is indisputable that there was a war between Catholic Clovis and the Arian King
Alaric II. And it goes without argument that Gaul changed hands from Arian jurisdiction to that
of Catholic jurisdiction. However, all the Visigoths from other provinces, including Spain, were
not uprooted at all during this time. In fact, these peoples existed for many more years thereafter
until the “Visigothic monarchy adopted Catholicism in 587.” 107 By the introduction of the 8th
century they had faded into oblivion. This fact and principle will be reinforced and repeated
when we contend with the Ostrogoths, for that is the whole point. The emphasis of the scriptures
was not focused on the end of a race because all who would renounce their former faith and
succumb to Catholicism could live out their lives in peace. This is confirmed by a letter sent
from Pope Vigilius (537-555) to Bishop Menna on October 15, 540:
Letter V. of Pope Vigilius to Menna.
Mansi states: “He is congratulating him that he has embraced four holy
universal synods with heretics having been condemned: that those repenting from
the heresy ought to be received. . . .” 108
We begin with Pope Vigilius’s letter:
[38] “Although I have advised with a universal sermon, insofar as I have been
able and believed to expedite with God helping, for our lord son and very serene
and very Christian emperor concerning the ecclesiastic reasons of my insinuation;
nevertheless I have judged it necessary also to direct writings through the person
of our very Christian brother patrician Dominicus to your dearness: know that I
have supported for them with great exultation and joy, because you help to protect
inviolably the very holy synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and
106
Rouche, Michel. Clovis. Fayard, France, 1996, 322.
107
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Visigothic Code (Forum Judicum). Boston: Boston Book, 1910, xxxix.
108
Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, bk. 9, facs. ed. Paris:
Welter, 1902, 9:38.
46
Chalcedon, in which the foundations of orthodox and apostolic faith are shown . .
. . [39] (Concerning heretics who repent.) Reserving this only, just as it is fitting
for apostolic moderation, through everything, that if anyone either of these or of
whatever ones are erring as if doing penitence with the truth of the Catholic faith
recognized wanted to revert, and condemned the universal depravity of the heresy
in which he was rolled up by a contemptible error, and of the scripture also by a
profession of his errors and accomplices, and following the precepts of apostolic
doctrine he spoke anthemas to him, who either does not follow the four synods
mentioned above in the case of faith, or does not confess in all things the
venerable laws of my predecessor Leon, of blessed memory, and does not follow
in all strength and all purity of mind, then he is handled under the apostolic and
canonic satisfaction of our communion (which it is fitting that I deny to no
penitent), [40] just as I said above, in all ways: because our redeemer did not come
to destroy anyone, but to save all through his own piety. “And by the hand of the
lord pope.” With God helping through the grace of himself Vigilius the bishop of
the holy Catholic church of the city of Rome has recognized, and signed these
pages of the letter written above, with himself aiding, which I have spoken with
God helping. “And with another hand the subscription of Flavius Dominicus
patricius.” I, Flavius Dominicus a very famous official of the domestics, exconsul
and patrician, rereading, conferring, and agreeing, have signed these pages made
by the most blessed an apostolic pope Vigilus in the case of faith for the our lord
the very pious and very Christian leader Justinianus, but also for Menna a very
blessed man bishop of the city-state Constantinople, I relegating, conferring, and
agreeing have signed, on the 15 day of the Kalends of October, when Justinus a
very famous man is consul. (In the year of the lord 540.)” 109
The real emphasis of the scriptures was the removal of Arian jurisdiction from the three main
and distinct Arian kingdoms as stated by Procopius and having it replaced with Catholic
jurisdiction. As long as that Arian principle of religious liberty (which was diametrically opposed
to the government of the Catholic Church) was still in place and upheld judicially by those Arian
powers and enforced by civil means, the scriptures could not yet be fulfilled:
Daniel 7:24 “. . . . And he shall subdue three kings”
Unfortunately, there has been a misreading of the Bible here. Simply put, the uprooting of a
race is when the nationality of those peoples no longer exists. The uprooting of a kingdom occurs
when its legislative branch no longer functions and its means of civil enforcement ceases to exist.
The Billings Gazette fully illustrates this universally accepted and understood principle. 110 By
109
Welter, 1902, 9:38-40. [Bold wording is found along the margins.]
110
1939: Russia invades Poland
“Soviet Russia was reported to have sent her mobilized Red army surging across the frontier into eastern Poland
early Sunday along a 600-mile line of invasion,” reported the Albuquerque Journal on September 17, 1939. Russia
officially proclaimed neutrality while invading the already-overcome country.
“The government was understood unofficially to have sent a note Saturday night to the Polish ambassador here
saying that the red army would enter the Polish Ukraine and White Russia at six a.m. today […] from Polotzk to
Kamanetz-Podolsk,” explained The Ogden Standard-Examiner on September 17, 1939. “Copies of this note were
said also to have been sent simultaneously to all diplomatic representatives here saying the action was taken because
47
setting up Catholic legislation as supreme in a previously held Arian territorial jurisdiction, that
kingdom was “plucked up by the roots.” That legal basis under Clovis was fully documented in
our A.D. 508 Source Book. Nevertheless, we will briefly recap to reinforce our point:
“The sources of Roman law, however, which included the Hermogenian,

Gregorian and Theodosian codes, the Theodosian Novels and the writings of the
jurists, and interpretations of law now unknown were too voluminous, their
language was not sufficiently clear for popular use, and custom had also made
changes in their interpretation. These facts and the opportunity to conciliate his
Catholic subjects, who had suffered persecution under Euric, and who, it was
feared, might support the Franks in the conflict with that nation which seemed
imminent, led Alaric II to undertake a compilation of Roman law for use in purely
Roman litigation. This was the Lex Romana Visigothorum, generally known as
the Breviary of Alaric. It is the work of a commission of provincial Roman
lawyers and bishops. It was approved by a council of bishops and nobles and was
then published in 506 with the command that in the future no other source of law
should be used by Roman subjects. In its legislation and interpretations of law,
which were derived from existing glosses, we have the Roman law of the fifth and
early sixth centuries as it was applied in the courts. A review of its provisions
relating to the church and clergy will illustrate their position in an age when the
civilizations of German and Roman were blending and ecclesiastical aims were
coming to dominate both. The political conditions under which the Breviary was
compiled prevented any extensive reproduction of the imperial edicts against
heresy. Only two of these in the Theodosian code were included, one in which
Honorius ordered the ‘one and true Catholic faith’ to be observed in Africa, the
other his confirmation of the legislation of Theodosius, while the Novels of
Theodosius II and Valentinian III, enacted when heresy was no longer a political
problem, were allowed to remain unaltered.” 111
It was Alaric II, the Arian Christian King, that undertook the compilation of the Lex Romana
Visigothorum law code, commonly called “Breviaricum Alaricianum,” in part to “conciliate his
Catholic subjects” since bishops participated in its formulation and in its approval. But with
Alaric II and his army put out of the way and replaced with Catholic Clovis and his military
forces, there was no longer a need to just “conciliate his [Alaric II] Catholic subjects.” As the
Arians were now legally and methodically being driven out of Gaul, the following legislation
now applied to them, as well, when and where it could be enforced:
“TITLE 11: RELIGION (DE RELIGIONE)

1. Emperors Arcadius and Honorius Augustuses to Apollodorus, Proconsul of
Africa.
Poland no longer exists. It was said to have declared there no longer is a Polish government because its whereabouts
are unknown.” The Billings Gazette, September 17, 1939.
111
William K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (New York: Columbia University Press,
1905; reprint, Clark, New Jersey: Lawbook Exchange, 2005), 109-11.
48
Whenever there is an action involving matters of religion, the bishops must
conduct such action. But all other cases which belong to the judges ordinary and
to the usage of the secular law must be heard in accordance with the laws.
Given on the thirteenth day before the kalends of September at Padua in the
year of the consulship of the Most Noble Theodorus. –August 20, 399.
[Interpretation:] This law does not need any interpretation.
2. Emperors Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius Augustuses to Diotimus,

Proconsul of Africa.
It is Our will that the edict regarding unity which Our Clemency dispatched
throughout the districts of Africa shall be posted, throughout various regions, in
order that all men may know that the one and true Catholic faith in Almighty God,
as confessed by right belief, shall be preserved.
Given on the third day before the nones of March at Revenna in the year of the
second consulship of Stilicho and the consulship of Anthemius. – March 5, 405.
3. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Their dear friend,

Marcellinus, Greetings.
We abolish the new superstition, and We command that those regulations in
regard to the Catholic law shall be preserved unimpaired and inviolate as they
were formerly ordained by antiquity or established by the religious authority of
Our Fathers or confirmed by Our Serenity.
Given on the day before the ides of October at Revenna in the year of the
consulship of the Most Noble Varanes. --October 14, 410.” 112
Clyde Pharr lists the Breviary of Alaric law codes in his footnotes for title 11 on pg. 476, 600.
The following quote is taken directly from the Lex Romana Visigothorum. Also called the
Breviary of Alaric, this is the most complete work of this law code to date which was originally
issued in 506 in Latin. The original is supplied for those who would appreciate the
documentation:
“TITULUS V. a) DE RELIGIONE. 1. b) Impp. Arcadius et Honorius AA.

Apollodoro Proconsuli Africae. Quoties de religione agitur, episcopos convenit
agitare; ceteras vero causas , quae ad ordinarios cognitores vel ad usum publici
iuris pertinent, legibus oportet audiri. Dat. XIII. Kal. Sept. Patavio, Theodoro V.
C. Cos. Haec Lex interpretatione non indiget. (2.) c) Imppp. Arcadius, Honorius et
Theodosius AAA. Diotimo Proconsuli Africae. Edictum, quod de unitate per
Africanas regiones clementia nostra direxit, per diversas provincias proponi
volumus, ut omnibus innotescat, Dei omnipotentis unam et veram fidem
catholicam, quam recta credulitas confitetur, esse retinendam. Dat. III. Non. Mart.
Ravenna, Stilicone II. et Anthemio Coss. (3.) d) Impp. Honorius et Theodosius
AA. Marcellino suo salutem. Ea, quae circa catholicam legem vel olim ordinavit
antiquitas, vel parentum nostrorum auctoritas religiosa constituit, vet nostra
112
Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Clark, New Jersey: Lawbook
Exchange, 2001), 476. Clyde Pharr lists the Breviary of Alaric law codes in his footnotes for title 11 on pg. 476. See
also pg. 600.
49
serenitas roboravit, novella superstitione summota, integra et inviolata custodiri
praecipimus. Dat. prid. Id. Oct. Ravenna, Varane V. C. Cos. Haec Lex
interpretatione non indiget e). EXPLICIT CODICIS THEODOSIANI LIBER
DECIMUS SEXTUS.” 113
For this same work in German, see Max Conrat (Cohn), Breviarium Alaricianum (1903,
1963). See also Theodor Mommsen, Theodosiani, for a good reference to the Breviary codes in
Latin.
Also included in the Lex Romana Visigothorum law code were the Novels of Theodosius II
and Valentinian III which were enacted against heretics. When heresy was no longer a political
problem, they were allowed to remain unaltered, but later were enforced against the Arians in
Gaul, as well:
“DE IUDAEIS, SAMARITANIS, HAERETICIS ET PAGANIS.”

[Concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics and Pagans]
Novellarum of Theodosius II. Tit. III. (a)
(b) The August Emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus to the Very pious Pope Florentius.
[256] “Among other concerns, which public love has brought to us by vigilant
knowledge, we understand that the special care of the imperial majesty is the
dragnet to ferret out true religion; if we have been able to keep the worship of it,
we open the way of prosperity to human undertakings. And this is what by the use
of an experienced long lifetime, we have decreed to establish by the decision of a
pious mind all the way up to posterity by the law of eternity with a ceremony of
sanctity. ~1. Indeed who when he has been seized by such a mind, has been
condemned by such cruelty of new fierceness, that, when he sees the heaven of
divine art end determine the limits of time for the empire by incredible swiftness
under its own spaces, when {he sees} the motion of stars, the moderating of life
by convenience, the earth endowed with harvests, the liquid sea and the vastness
of an immense work enclosed by the boundaries of nature, he does not seek the
author of so great a mystery, so great a building? We know what the Jews,
blinded to their senses, Samaritans, pagans and the rest of the heretical omens
dare {or: that they are bold}. If we try to call these back to the sanity of an
excellent mind by a healing law, they themselves will offer the blame of severity,
they who do not leave the place of forgiveness with an obstinate expiation of a
harsh forehead. ~2. On account of which since, by the old opinion, no treatment
should be applied to hopeless diseases, at last tell me, in order that the fatal sects
not spread into life, when they are heedless of our lifetime, just as by indiscrete
confession rather willingly, we sanction with this (c) law to prevail for every age,
that no Jew, no Samaritan invariable from neither law approach to honors and
political offices, extend to no one the administration of civil obedience, nor even
enjoy the office of a defender. Indeed we believe that it is wrong
113
Gustavus Haenel, Lex Romana Visigothorum (Teubner: (Lipsiae) 1849, 1962), 252.
50
____________________________
Sich. Has “Tit. II.” Cod. 19 has “Tit. I.” It is missing in codices 23, 24, where
in fact the rest of the Novellas have been marked with the right number, that this
has been omitted either by design, or has fallen out in the codex, from which 23,
24 descend, it would be necessary.
The whole novella with the interpretation is in codices 1, 2, 4-11, 14-16.
Everything except the interpr. Is missing in cod. 33, which indeed, since the title
also is omitted, is consistent with the earlier Nov.; but since the followings of the
Novellas received in Br. A. keep themselves correctly, the copyist seems to have
fallen in error. The inscr. and text are missing in codd. 21, 22. 25; the text and
subscr. in codd. 27, 28; the subscr. and interpr. In cod. 26; the text alone in codd.
12, 29-32, 34-38, 40; part of the text is omitted in cod. 39; the interpr. alone in
cod. 19; the text alone and a bit of the interpretation remain in codd. 42, 44, 45.
Can. 73 of the Council of Meldense. Cod. Barberin. P. 11, 9, p. 197 {107?}. See
note c. Concerning cod. 17 see below note d and e.
Here Inc. c. 73 Council of Meld. are cited? and a fragment of the cod. Barber,
which is ended with the word “he brought over” Sphi 4.
Epit. Aeg.
Tit. III. Concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics and Pagans (a).
In cod. 48 all in red.
[257] Epit. Suppl. Lat. 215.

Tit. III. Concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics and Pagans
Epit. Guelph.
III. Concerning Jews. Samaritans, Heirs. and Pagans.
{symbols} (a)
Confer? Th. II, 1, 10.
Epit. Lugd.
III. Concerning the Jews.
Epit. Monachi.
III. Concerning the Jews, Samaritans, Heretics and Pagans.
Epit. S. Gall.
III. (a) Concerning the Jews Samaritans, Heirs and (b) Pagans.
66 II. See above at the beginning of the Novell. note h.
65 omits “and.”
[258] that worshipers who are unfriendly to Roman laws and their majesty also
are governed by the pretense (d) of the stealthy jurisdiction of our laws, and have
the power of judging or pronouncing what they wish, when they have been
fortified with the authority of an acquired honor, against Christians and often even
the priests of the sacred religion, just as if gloating over our faith:
51
~3. When the [ancestors] prevent that also by an equal consideration of reason,
that not any synagogue should rise into a new building, even when they granted
permission of supporting, things which [synagogues] threaten immediate ruin. ~4.
We have added to these things, that whosoever has led a slave or native
unwillingly or by a persuasive beating from the worship of the Christian religion
into a wicked sect or rite, should be punished (e) by the loss of his property by his
head. ~5. In order therefore that anyone who has either received fillets, or has
constructed a synagogue, should not have power when these honors have been
acquired, he should know that he has labored by the profit of the Catholic Church.
Indeed the one who has sneaked in to honors, should be held, as before, of an
extreme condition, even if he has deserved an honorary worthiness. And the one
who has begun the building of a synagogue, not with the desire of repairing it,
should be cheated out of his own attempts with the forfeiture of five hundred
pounds of gold. Moreover he should determine his own goods proscribed, since
he is about to be designated soon to the penalty of blood, if he has attacked the
faith of another by a perverse doctrine. ~6. And since it is fitting that imperial
majesty be embraced by all that provision, so that public utility is harmed among
no one, the ward members of all the citystates, and the cohortalinos as well, since
they are obligated to their own orders by onerous duties yea indeed of military
service or by the diverse duties of property and personal responsibilities, of
whatever sect they are, we decree should inhere so that we do not seem to have
granted a benefit to humans who should be execrated by the contumelious area of
immunity, when we wish to condemn them by the authority of this constitution.
~7. With this exception preserved, that the servants of the above mentioned sects
follow the opinions of no judge in only private businesses, and not preside over
the guard of a prison, lest Christians, as it is customary to happen, sometimes
allow another prison to be concealed by the hatreds of the guards, uncertain, or
seem obstructed by law. ~8. Hence our clemency understands, that we ought to
obtain the vigil of the pagans also and of the gentile cruelty, who, by natural
insanity and pertinacious license, disagreeing with the path of true religion, refuse
to practice the wicked rites of sacrifices and the errors of destructive superstition
with hidden as it were solitudes, unless their crimes are made public for the injury
of the celestial majesty and the contempt of our time by a kind of profession,
those whom a thousand terrors of promulgated laws do not restrain, nor by the
penalty of a threatened exile; so that, if they are not able to be changed, at least
they would learn to abstain from the mass of crimes and from the filth of
sacrifices. But truly this boldness of fury is wronged; our patience is struck by
those attempts of the wicked, so that, if he wishes to be forgotten, he is not able to
pretend. Although the love of religion therefore is never able to be secure,
although the pagan dementia of all supplications demands acerbities, nevertheless
mindful of the leniency inborn in us, we decree with a beam-like order, that,
whoever has been caught in whatever place in sacrifice with polluted and
contaminated minds, our anger may rise against the blood, against the fortunes of
him. Indeed it is proper that we give this better victim, with the intact altar of
Christianity protected. Or do we carry for a longer time, that the alternations of
times be changed by an irate temper of heaven? This exacerbated treachery of the
52
pagans does not know how to protect the balances of nature. For whence has the
spring perjured the accustomed grace? Whence has time abandoned the farmer
who has been laboring in hope of ears of grains with a poor harvest? Whence has
the intemperate ferocity of winter harmed the richness of the lands with the injury
of sterility with penetrating frost? Unless that which has been decreed crosses to
the revenge of impiety by the nature of its own law. Lest we are forced to sustain
this afterwards, by pacific punishment, as we said, the venerable majesty of the
heavenly divine will must be held pious.
~9 . It remains, that the things which have been brought against the Manichaeans,
who have always been offensive by God, and the things against the Eunomians,
the originators of the heretical silliness, and the things against the Montanistas,
the Cataphrygans, the Photinians, the Priscillianists, the Ascodrogans, the
Hydroparastatans, the Borboritans, the Ophitans with innumerable constitutions,
with sloth ceasing, should be entrusted to swift execution, Florentius, most dear
and most loving father.
~10. Therefore may your illustrious and magnificent authority, to which it is
agreeable, that obedience adhere to both the divine, as well as the principal
commands, see to it that the things which we have decreed by the insatiable honor
of the catholic religion, when the edicts of your excellence have been solemnly
proposed, arrive into the notice of all. It should also instruct to become known to
the moderators of the provinces also, so that they also make known both to all the
citystates and the provinces with their equal solicitude, the things which we
sanction necessarily. Dated on the first day of the Kalends of Febr. At
Constantinople, when Theodosius the August XVI is. Consul and the one who has
been announced. By the same copy to the illustrious man the Most Pious Pope of
Illyricus.
Interpretation. This law especially orders, that no Jew, no Samaritan should

be able to approach to any honor of the military or administration, nor to receive
the office of defender by any reason, nor be guards of a prison: so that by chance
under the appearance (f) of whatever office those, written above, who are enemies
of our law do not dare to bother Christians or even priests under any occasion
with injuries, nor presume either to condemn or to judge with our laws, anyone.
Also they should not dare to build any synagogue. For if they have done so, they
should know, that this building will be used for a Catholic Church, and that the
makers of the building should be punished by five hundred pounds. But they
should know that it has been granted to them, that they ought to repair the ruins of
their synagogues. This especially is also contained in this law, that no Jew should
dare to transfer a slave or native Christian by any kind of persuasion into his own
law. But if it should happen, when his resources have been lost, he should be
punished by death. Concerning the rest in truth this law condemns the sects,
which are contained by name inserted in this law.
d) The words “cover/pretense—although the love of religion therefore” in Sphi
8 in cod. 17 have been transposed to c. 3 concerning the Episcopal judgment and
are consistent with the words “of all the priests” in c. 3 Siromond. Then they are
equal to the final words of c. 3 Siromn, and then Nov. Th. tit. 1., next Nov. Th. tit.
53
II., and finally Nov. Th. tit. III. Concerning the Jews all the way up to the words
of Section 4 “of fortunes with his head,” by which the words of the first Novella
cod. 17 are ended.
e) The word “must be punished” (Section 4) is the first one of the quaternion
XXII. Codex 17a, as, at that place where the quaternion XXI. Cod. 17 is ended, at
that place it continues into cod. 17d.
f) This and the following are in can. 73 of the Council of Meldense.
Epit. Aeg.
[Interpretation]
It is not permitted that a Jew or Samaritan conduct any kind of army, nor
become for any reason a defender, nor be a guard of a prison, nor build a new
synagogue, nor should those written above, who are enemies of our law, presume
either to condemn or to sentence anyone by our laws, for if they have done so,
they should be punished by five hundred pounds of gold. Nor should they
presume to transfer a Christian slave or native into their own law. But if he has, he
should be punished (b) by death after his property has been taken.
Aeg. has “they have—they should be punished.” 54 omits {the last two
sentences:} “Nor should…taken.”
Epit. Suppl. Lat. 215.
It is not permitted that a Jew or Samaritan conduct any kind of army, nor
become for any reason a defender, nor be a guard of a prison, nor build a new
synagogue, but a presumer of the same kind of buildings should be fined (a) five
hundred pounds of gold, nor should he presume to transfer a Christian slave or
native by any kind of occasion into his own correct things (b). But if he has, he
should be punished (b) after his property has been taken. This must be condemned
also concerning the remaining sects.
Read “of the building—should be fined.”
Read “sects.”
[259] Epit. Guelph.
[Interpretation]
It is not permitted to these to approach any honor for the military (b), nor
should they presume to build a synagogues by/for Jews. They should be forced to
pay five hundred pounds of gold. For they were willing to transfer into their own
laws (c). By death he should be punished with property.
___________
b) Sp.has “permitted..military {better spelling} or of a synagogue.”
Sp. has “to transfer by law he should be punished {better spelling} by death.”
54
Epit. Lugd.
That no Jew, finally no Samaritan ought to approach to any honor of the army
or of administration, nor undertake the duty of defendor, nor the guarding of a
prison, nor by our laws, ought any who are enemies of our law, to condemn or
sentence anyone; nor to build a synagogue, unless only to repair an old one. A
Jew who has persuaded a slave or native in his own law, is punished by death
when his property is first taken away (a) and the rest.
Read {variant spelling of} “taken away.”
Epit. Monachi.
No Jew, nor Samaritan may become for the army or the honor of administration
either a defender or a guard of a prison, lest they should be able to impose injuries
on Christians or (a) also on priests under any occasion, nor should those, who are
contrary to our laws, presume to judge any. They should consider (b) to construct
no synagogue. But if he have, a catholic church should be constructed in the same
place and the authors of this building should be punished by five hundred pounds
of gold: and this only should only be for them an agreement, that they ought to
repair the ruins of their synagogues.. No Jew should dare to transfer a Christian by
any kind of persuasion into his own law. But if he has, he should punished by
death when his property has been removed. Our anger should rise with indeed
pagans, heretics, Manichaenas, Eunomians, Montanissts, Photinians and all
heretics (c) into their fortunes and into blood. It is necessary indeed that we give
this victim, in order that we keep intact the better altar of Christianity. Dated on
the first day of Kal. of Febr. when Theodosius the August XVI. Is Consul.
63 has “a Christian or”
Read “they should dare.”
The remaining words are taken from the law itself. See Section 8, 9.
Subscript. is omitted in cod. 62.
Epit. S. Gall.
Given by Emp. Theods. II (c) on the kal. of feb. Intrp. No Christian should
presume to send for a Jew I Samaritan neither a judge nor an agent (d) nor ought a
Jew to judge cases of Christians in any manner but if someone has done so, he
should presume to send him an agent. He should pay 50 pounds of gold; Similarly
no Jew (g) should presume to lead not (i) a Christian slave to his (h) own law lest
if he has done this he should be punished by death.
65 has “Theodosius—XII.”
65 has “by judge nor agent.” 61 has “by an agent.”
65, 67 have “Jews” and 61 has “none.”
65, 67 have “by an agent.”
66 has “jews.” 67 has “Christian.”
66 has “by his own law.” 67 has “by his own.”
55
66 omits “not.” 114
With Clovis’ Merovingian dynasty coming into power and ascending to the Catholic faith,
Theodore the Great, the Arian King of the Ostrogoths, decreed between the years 507-511 a most
remarkable decree. This decree was honored by the Arians but was diametrically opposed to the
principles and government of the Catholic Church:
The Letters of Cassiodorus

507 A.D. – 511 A.D
Book II – 27.
King Theodoric to all the Jews living in Genoa
“The Jews are permitted to roof in the old walls of their synagogue, but they are
not to enlarge it beyond its old borders, nor to add any kind of ornament, under
pain of the Kings sharp displeasure; and this leave it granted on the understanding
that it does not conflict with the thirty years ‘Statute of Limitations.’
‘Why do ye desire what ye ought to shun? In truth we give the permission
which you craved, but we suitably blame the desire on your wandering minds. We
cannot order a religion, because no one is forced to believe against his will.” 115
While the Arian Christians of the West and East were not at all free from some entanglements
of church and state as we know and understand today, nevertheless, they never crossed the red
line by resorting to force in religious matters against the will of an individual whether he be of
the Arian or Catholic faith. This could hardly be said of the Catholic Church. It is here, in the
issue of religious liberty that the war between two completely different ideologies climaxes in
538. This has been the best kept secret of the Dark Ages. Theodore Mommsen dates Theodore
the Great’s Book II, 27, law code between 507-511, and no one disputes the dating of his letters
of Cassiodorus. When Clovis overthrew the Visigoths at Vougle in A.D. 508, religious
intolerance reared her ugly head. This came about slowly at first but, nevertheless, methodically.
Hereby, it has been demonstrated from the primary and judicial sources that this was a religious
war and that the Visigoths were the first of the three horns to be “plucked up by the roots.”
114
Gustavus Haenel, Lex Romana Visigothorum, “DE IUDAEIS, SAMARITANIS, HAERETICIS ET PAGANIS”
(Teubner: (Lipsiae) 1849, 1962), 256-259.
115
Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, Hodgkin, Thomas, The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry Frowde, 1886,
185-6.
56
6
The Vandals
The fall of the Vandal kingdom transpired under the rule of the Byzantine Emperor of the
East, Justinian I. Justinian came to the throne in August of A.D. 527, but it would not be until the
years 533-4 that we would see the demise of the second horn or kingdom subdued, the Arian
Vandal kingdom of Africa.
“On April 1, 527 the emperor named him a co-regent. The collective
government granted only four months. Justin died and left complete sovereignty
to Justinian. . . . he turned his attentions to the execution of far-fetched plans for
the government. “It seemed that he wanted to fulfill greater things than he was
able. Centralization and uniformity were his solution. One state, one law, one
church should rule the world; an absolute authority should reign in them, and he
himself should be this authority.” 116 To restore Roman world-empire within its
old borders, to elevate it to olds previous power, to win back its earlier glory, was
the goal of Justinian’s external politics. He had attained this goal. His wars
brought him the fame of a restitutor urbis et orbis and the title of “a ruler of the
Alemanni, Goths, Franks, Germanics, Anten, Alani, and Vandals in Africa. 117
Justinian dreamed of a universal empire. To him this Roman world disappeared by the
heretical Germanic kingdoms. He proclaimed himself the legitimate inheritor and wished to
reconstitute it in his integrity. These imperial rights that all his predecessors had carefully
reserved, he aspired to increase to their fullest extent. To accomplish this, Justinian fully
understood what he must do and so also did the Catholic Church. Working from behind the
scenes, the Catholic Church set out to accomplish her primary objective, the overthrow of the
Arian Vandal kingdom:
“John the Cappadocian, the Pretorian Prefect, a man of the greatest daring and
the cleverest of all men of his time. For this John, while all the others were
bewailing in silence the fortune which was upon them, came before the emperor
and spoke as follows: “O Emperor, the good faith which thou dost shew in
dealing with thy subjects enables us to speak frankly regarding anything which
will be of advantage to thy government, even though what is said and done may
not be agreeable to thee. For thus does thy wisdom temper thy authority with
116
Ad. Schmidt. l.c. p. 12.
117
Nov. (17) XXI ed. C.E. Zachariae a Lingenthal. Lipsiae 1881. pars I. p. 137; Byzant. Ztschr. 3 (1894). p. 21—
23. – Georgii Cyprii description orbis Romani ed. H. Gelzer. Lipsiae 1890. Cf. Byzant. Ztschr. 1. (1892) p. 601 ff.
– L’Illyricum ecclésiastique par L. Duchesne in Byzant. Ztschr. 1 (1892) p. 531 ss. – G. H. Bruckner, An Justinianus
imp. recte usurpaverit titulos Germanici e Alemannici. Jenae 1709. – F. G. Grebel-Leyser, Defensio Justiniani
contra obtrectatores. Vitenbergae 1748. p. 12 ss: The Roman emperors attached such titles to themselves when they
had achieved a victory over a people, even if they had not brought said people into their power. Justinian did not
name himself pater patriae, and much less pontifex maximus, as had Constantine and his direct successors, but he
did likely call himself servus dei, l.c. p. 15.
Knecht, August. Die Religions-Politik: Kaiser Justinians I: Eine kirchengeschichtliche Studie. (Dissert. Würzberg,
1896), 7-8. [Andreas Gobel, The Religious Politics of Emperor Justinian I, Wurzburg, 1896.]
57
justice, in that thou dost not consider that man only as loyal to thy cause who
serves thee under any and all conditions, nor art thou angry with the man who
speaks against thee, but by weighing all things by pure reason alone, thou hast
often shewn that it involves us in no danger to oppose thy purposes. Led by these
considerations, O Emperor, I have come to offer this advice, knowing that, though
I shall give perhaps offence at the moment, if it so chance, yet in the future the
loyalty which I bear you will be made clear, and that for this I shall be able to
shew thee as a witness. For if, through not hearkening to my words, thou shalt
carry out the war against the Vandals, it will come about, if the struggle is
prolonged for thee, that my advice will win renown. For if thou hast confidence
that thou wilt conquer the enemy, it is not at all unreasonable that thou shouldst
sacrifice the lives of men and expend a vast amount of treasure, and undergo the
difficulties of the struggle; for victory, coming at the end, covers up all the
calamities of war. But if in reality these things lie on the knees of God, and if it
behooves us, taking example from what has happened in the past, to fear the
outcome of war, on what grounds is it not better to love a state of quiet rather than
the dangers of mortal strife? Thou art purposing to make an expedition against
Carthage, to which, if one goes by land, the journey is one of a hundred and forty
days, and if one goes by water, he is forced to cross the whole open sea and go to
its very end. So that he who brings thee news of what will happen in the camp
must needs reach thee a year after the event. And one might add that if thou art
victorious over thy enemy, thou couldst not take possession of Libya while Sicily
and Italy lie in the hands of others; and at the same time, if any reverse befall
thee, O Emperor, the treaty having already been broken by thee, thou wilt bring-
the danger upon our own land. In fact, putting all in a word, it will not be possible
for thee to reap the fruits of victory, and at the same time any reversal of fortune
will bring harm to what is well established. It is before an enterprise that wise
planning is useful. For when men have failed, repentance is of no avail, but before
disaster comes there is no danger in altering plans. Therefore it will be of
advantage above all else to make fitting use of the decisive moment.” Thus spoke
John; and the Emperor Justinian hearkening to his words, checked his eager desire
for the war. But one of the priests whom they call bishops, who had come from the
East, said that he wished to have a word with the emperor. And when he met
Justinian, he said that God had visited him in a dream, and bidden him go to the
emperor and rebuke him, because, after undertaking the task of protecting the
Christians in Libya from tyrants, he had for no good reason become afraid. “And
yet,” He had said, “I will myself join with him in waging war and make him lord
of Libya.” When the emperor heard this, he was no longer able to restrain his
purpose, and he began to collect the army and the ships, and to make ready
supplies of weapons and of food, and he announced to Belisarius that he should
he in readiness, because he was very soon to act as general in Libya.” 118
As revealed in his Corpus Juris Civilis, Justinian trusted in divine protection, considering
every ensemble as the restorer of the rights of the empire and the champion of God. He waited
118
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, III. X. 7-24.
58
only for his opportunity to translate into action his ambitious dreams, and thanks to the church he
found his pretext to strike:
“However, this was a grave day, when June 22 of the year 533 the expedition
put to sail in order to leave Constantinople. The emperor himself, the windows of
the palace, presided over the ceremony; the patriarch of Byzance, surrounded by
his clergy, descended on the port in order to call the celestial benediction on the
combatants of the pious enterprise, and bless the chief and the soldiers that
departed for this sort of crusade.” 119
The following is the account of the war with the Vandals by Diehl that I have summarized:
[21] “The Battle of Ad Decimum took place on September 13, 533 between the
armies of the Vandals, commanded by King Gelimer and Justinian’s general
Belisarius and in one day Belisarius proved the victor. . . . [22] This victory of Ad
Decimum opened the route from Carthage for the Byzantine army. . . . [23] The
fall of the Vandal capital was an event of the utmost significance. It gave the
Byzantine army the point of support that it had lacked until then, an excellent base
of operations for further military initiatives. . . . [24] Patiently, the Byzantine
general waited for his hour; finally it came around the [25] middle of December,
around three months after the day of Ad Decimum, he decided to march to the
enemy. [December 13, 533] at Ticameron. Gelimer and his people were
established at Ticameron. . . . [26] by the end of the winter Gelimer being forced to
his last asylum, touched above all by the deprivations without number he yielded
to his destiny and put himself in the hands of Belisarius, depending on the
promise that his life would be saved and he would have honorable treatment
(March 534). The emperor’s representative promised with willingness all that the
overthrown king demanded. [According to Procopius the promise was made good
and Gelimer lived to be an old man in ancient Galatia with his family, now
modern Turkey. Procopius continues, “However, Gelimer was by no means
enrolled among the patricians, since he was unwilling to change from the Arian
faith of Arius.” 120 ]
. . . . [34] Since the month of December 533, upon the news of the taking of
Carthage, Justinian proclaimed in magnificent terms that “all of Libya is reunited
to the empire 121 .” In April 534, after the victory of Ticameron, he pompously
declared that “God, by his graciousness just placed in his hands Africa and all its
provinces,” 122 and almost amazed himself by the unexpected rapidity of the
conquest, he pervaded in actions of grace and gave thanks to Providence to have
119
Procopius, De Bello. Vandalico, ed. De la Byzantine de Bonn. 362. Diehl, Charles. L’Afrique Byzantine: Histoire
de la Domination Byzantine en Afrique (533–709), (Paris, New York, 1896), 1:15. [History of the Byzantine
Domination in Africa]
120
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, IV. ix, 11-16.
121
De Confect Digest. 23; Codex Just. I, 17, 2, 1 and 24.
122
Krueger, Paulus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), Codex, I. 27, 1, 7.
59
chosen, “him, the most humble of his servants” to be the avenger of the Church
and the liberator of the people.” 123
This was truly a victory for Justinian over the Arian Vandals as the following primary edict
issued in 534 will verify:
TITLE XXVII.
CONCERNING THE OFFICE OF PRAETORIAN PREFECT OF

AFRICA, AND THE CONDITION OF ALL THE PROVINCES OF
HIS JURISDICTION.
In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
1. The Emperor Cæsar-Flavius-Justinianus, Alemannicus, Gothicus,

Germanicus, Francicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, pious,
fortunate, illustrious, victor and triumpher, ever Augustus, to Archelaus,
Prætorian Prefect of Africa.
“Our mind cannot conceive nor Our tongue express the thanks and the praise
which We should manifest to Our Lord Jesus Christ; for We have previously
received many benefits from God, and acknowledge that We have obtained many
favors from Him, for which We admit that We have done nothing to render Us
worthy; and now what Almighty God has deemed proper to manifest by Our
agency for His own praise, and the glory of His Name, exceeds by far all the
wonderful occurrences which have taken place during this century; as Africa
through Our efforts has received her freedom within a short time, after having for
ninety years previously been held in captivity by the Vandals, who are at the same
time enemies of both the soul and the body, since by rebaptism they have brought
to their perfidious belief such souls as were not able to endure the tortures and
punishments inflicted upon them, and the bodies of the latter, illustrious by birth,
were subjected to their barbaric yoke, by the exercise of the greatest severity; and
some of the Holy Churches of God were profaned with their perfidy, and others
were turned into stables. We saw venerable men who with difficulty related their
sufferings, whose tongues had been cut out by the roots; and others who, after
having endured various cruelties, and having been dispersed through different
provinces, passed their lives in exile. In what terms, and with what labor could
We give proper thanks to God, who rendered Me, the most humble of His
servants, worthy to avenge the wrongs of His Church, and to rescue the people of
so many provinces from the bond of servitude?
Our predecessors did not deserve this favor of God, as they were not only not
permitted to liberate Africa, but even saw Rome itself captured by the Vandals,
and all the Imperial insignia taken from thence to Africa. Now, however, God, in
123
Krueger, Paulus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), Codex, I. 27, 1, 1,
5. Diehl, Charles. L’Afrique Byzantine: Histoire de la Domination Byzantine en Afrique (533–709), (Paris, New
York, 1896), 1:21-26, 34. [History of the Byzantine Domination in Africa]
60
his mercy, has not only delivered Africa and all her provinces into Our hands, but
the Imperial insignia as well, which, having been removed at the capture of Rome,
He has restored to us.
Therefore after Divinity has conferred upon Us so many benefits, We implored
the mercy of our Lord God, to keep firm and unimpaired the provinces which He
deigned to restore to Us, and that He would enable Us to govern them according
to His will and pleasure; so that all Africa might experience the mercy of the
Almighty, and its inhabitants might realize from what a severe captivity and
barbaric [131] yoke they had been released, and with what freedom they were
entitled to remain under Our most fortunate Empire.
With the intercession of the Holy, Glorious, and Immortal Virgin Mary, the
Mother of God, We implore and pray that God will, in His Name, through Us the
most humble of His servants, restore everything which has been taken from Our
Empire, and will render Us worthy of serving Him.
(1) With the assistance of God, and for the happiness of the State, We order by
this divine law that all Africa, which God in His mercy has conferred upon Us,
shall enjoy perfect order and have a prefecture of its own; so that, like that of the
Orient and of Illyria, Africa, by Our indulgence, may be adorned with the highest
praetorian dignity, whose seat We direct to be at Carthage, and that its name be
joined with those of the other prefectures, in the preamble of public documents;
and We now decree that Your Excellency shall govern it.
(2) From the aforesaid city, with the aid of God, seven provinces with their
judges shall be controlled, of which Tingi, Carthage, Bysatium, and Tripoli,
formerly under the jurisdiction of Proconsuls, shall have consular rulers; while the
others, that is to say, Numidia, Mauritania, and Sardinia shall, with the aid of
God, be subject to Governors.
(3) We decree that three hundred and ninety-six persons, distributed among the
different bureaus and military departments, shall be attached to your office, as
well as to that of all other succeeding Praetorian Prefects of Africa. We also
decree that fifty subordinates shall be attached to the office of each of the
provinces presided over by consular rulers, or Governors.
(4) The notice appended hereto specifies the emoluments to which You
yourself, as well as the said consular rulers and Governors, and each of their
employees, shall be entitled from the Public Treasury.
(5) We desire then that all Our judges shall, in accordance with the will and
fear of God, and Our choice and direction, endeavor to discharge their duties in
such a way that no one may be actuated by cupidity, commit violence himself, or
allow other judges or their subordinates, or any persons associated with them to
do so. For We shall have reason to rejoice if We should have, throughout the
provinces, with the assistance of God, officials free from reproach; and We
especially provide for the interests of those tributary to the African jurisdiction,
who, with God's assistance, can now perceive the light of freedom after so long a
captivity. Therefore, We order that all violence and avarice shall cease, and that
justice and truth shall prevail among all Our tributaries, so that God will be
pleased, and Our subjects themselves can more rapidly be relieved and prosper, as
do the others of Our Empire.
61
(6) We order the tax designated sportulæ to be collected not only by the
illustrious Praetorian Prefect of Africa, but also by the other judges, in the way
provided for by Our laws, which should be obeyed [132] throughout all Our
Empire, and that no one shall presume at any time or in any way to increase the
amount of said tax.
(7) We have thought it best to prescribe by the present law that judges shall not
be obliged to incur great outlay for their letters or commissions, either in Our
court, or in the offices of the Praetorian Prefect of Africa; because if they are not
burdened with expense they will have no reason to oppress Our African subjects.
Therefore, We order that the judges of the African jurisdiction, civil and military,
shall not, in Our court, be charged more than six solidi for their commissions, and
the letters authorizing their promotion; and that, in the office of the prefecture,
they shall not be obliged to pay more than twelve solidi.
If any judge should exceed the amount of the above-mentioned tax, he shall be
required to pay a fine of thirty pounds of gold, and he will not only be liable to
this fine, but also to the punishment of death. For if anyone should dare to violate
Our commands, and should not, with the fear of God, hasten to observe them, he
will run the risk of losing his office, and his property, as well as of undergoing the
extreme penalty.
(8) The notice above referred to, and which We, with the assistance of God
have drawn up, is as follows. 124 . . . .
We have by this Divine Constitution fixed these sums to meet the expenses of
the civil magistrates of Africa and their subordinates, not only those attached to
the different departments of the prefecture itself but also to other tribunals. Your
Excellency shall see that they are paid and carried into effect beginning with the
Kalends of September of the thirteenth coming indiction, and you are hereby
directed to give notice of this in public edicts addressed to all persons.
We order, by the present Divine Constitution, that these regulations,
promulgated by you, shall be established for all time; and with the assistance of
God, by Our decree, We have also formulated them with reference to military
judges and their subordinate officials, and the remainder of Our army.
2. The Same to Belisarius, General of the Army of the East.
In all Our designs and undertakings, We proceed in the name of Our Lord Jesus
Christ, from whom We have received the rights of empire, through whom We
have established a lasting peace with the Persians, and with His aid, We have
defeated the most inveterate enemies and powerful tyrants, and have surmounted
the greatest difficulties; and also, by means of His aid, it has been granted Us to
defend Africa, and bring it under Our control. Likewise, with His assistance, We
trust that it will be governed properly under Our direction, and firmly protected;
wherefore, We have already, by the grace of God, appointed judges of civil
administration, and established offi- [133] ces in each of the provinces of Africa,
124
I have omitted the long schedule of amounts to be paid by the numerous subordinate officials and attaches of the
Prefecture of Africa, for the reason that the information it contains could not possibly be of any value to the modern
reader. — ED.
62
assigning to them such emoluments as each should receive; and, committing Our
soul to His Divine power, We are now about to make a disposition of the various
armies and their leaders.
(1) We order that the commander of the army of the Province of Tripoli shall
have his headquarters in the city of Leptis Magna. The military commander of the
Province of Byzacene shall alternately reside at Capsal, and the other Leptis. The
military commander of the Province of Numidia shall reside in the city of
Constantine. The military commander of the Province of Mauritania shall have his
headquarters in the city of Caesarea.
(2) We also order you to station at the point opposite Spain, which is called
Septa, 125 a considerable body of troops with their tribune, who must be a prudent
man, and one who is devoted to Our Empire, who can always guard the strait, and
give information of everything that occurs in Spain, Gaul, or the country of the
Franks, to his commander, in order that he may communicate the information to
you; and you shall cause to be prepared for service in the strait as many swift
vessels as you may deem expedient.
(3) We order Your Excellency to appoint a military commander in Sardinia,
and provide as many soldiers as may be necessary to guard the places in his
jurisdiction, who shall be stationed near the mountains where the people of
Barbary are known to reside.
(4) Let those men to whose care the defence of the provinces has been entrusted
be vigilant and protect our subjects from being injured by incursions of the
enemy, and be ready to implore the aid of God, by day and by night, and exert all
their efforts to extend the boundaries of the provinces of Africa to that point
where the Roman Empire had its limits before the invasion of the Vandals and the
Moors, and where the ancient guards were posted; as is shown by the forts and
defences; and, moreover, let them, by all means, hasten to inclose and fortify
those cities which formerly were situated near the fortifications which were
erected when those regions were under Roman domination, when with God's
assistance the enemy was expelled from the said provinces. And, let them
dispatch officers and soldiers to those points where their boundaries were situated
at a time when all the provinces of Africa formed a part of the Roman Empire, as,
with the aid of God, through whose favor they have been restored to Us, We hope
speedily to be successful.
In order that these provinces may be preserved in security and peace, within
their ancient limits, through the vigilant efforts of our [134] most devoted soldiers,
and may remain intact under the care of Our illustrious generals, it is proper that
guards should always be stationed at the boundaries of each province; in order
125
Septa, the modern Ceuta, derived its name from the seven (septem) hills, upon which, like Rome, it was
constructed. The promontory nearest the sea was, in ancient times, one of the far-famed Pillars of Hercules, so called
by the Phoenician navigators. Ceuta, of great historical interest, was one of the earliest cities founded by human
enterprise, its traditions far transcending in antiquity those of venerable Damascus. From its harbor, the Moorish
army of Tarik, early in the seventh century, embarked for the conquest of the Spanish Peninsula, whose success led
to the establishment of the most opulent, cultivated, and magnificent of mediæval empires. It is now a Spanish penal
colony. — ED.
63
that no opportunity may be afforded to the enemy to invade or lay waste those
places which are possessed by Our subjects.
(5) Your Excellency must determine, arrange, and report to Us, the number of
soldiers, either infantry or cavalry, which it is necessary to post at the boundary
for the purpose of guarding provinces and cities, so that if We consider the
provision which you have made to be sufficient, We may confirm it; but if We
think that something more should be done, We can increase the number.
(6) What the general is required to do with reference to himself and the men
under his command, and what his duty is is set forth in the following notice.
(7) Therefore, as has already been stated, while the officers and soldiers are
taking their positions in the places or towns to which We have ordered them to go,
in accordance with Our disposition of them; then, with the aid of God and by Our
efforts they can be stationed in those portions of Our dominions whose former
boundaries were defined, when the above-mentioned provinces constituted an
integral part of the flourishing Roman Empire.
(8) In order to maintain the boundaries it seemed necessary to Us that other
soldiers, in addition to those in the camps, should be posted along them, who
could defend the camps and cities situated there, as well as cultivate the soil; so
that, other inhabitants of the provinces, seeing them there, might betake
themselves to those places. We have made a list of the number of soldiers to be
appointed to guard the frontiers, to enable Your Excellency, in accordance with
the said list which We send to you, to make provision for their distribution
through the camps and other places; so that, if you should find suitable
detachments in the provinces, or where a military force was formerly stationed,
you can fix the number of frontier guards for each boundary; and if any trouble
should arise, these soldiers can, with their leaders, and without the aid of those in
the camps, defend the points where they have been distributed; and neither they
themselves nor their officers should extend the boundaries; and all this must be
done in such a way that the aforesaid frontier guards may not be subjected to any
expense by their officers and the latter may not fraudulently convert any of their
pay to their own use.
(9) We desire that these rules shall not only be observed by soldiers appointed
to guard the frontier, but also by those who are stationed in camp; and We order
that every commander, and the tribunes of said soldiers shall constantly subject
them to military exercises, and not permit them to wander about, so that, if
necessity should arise, they can offer resistance to the enemy. And no general or
tribune shall venture to give them leave of absence, lest while they attempt to earn
money for themselves, they may leave Our provinces unprotected; for if any of
the above-mentioned officers or their subordinates, or the tribunes, should
unlawfully attempt to withhold any pay from the sol- [135] diers, or to acquire any
profit from their emoluments, We order that they shall not only be condemned to
publicly repay fourfold the amount appropriated, but shall also be deprived of
their offices; for the generals and tribunes should expect a greater remuneration
from Our liberality, in accordance with their services, than any profit they could
acquire in the manner above stated; as the soldiers are appointed for the defense
of the provinces, and We certainly furnish sufficient pay to their generals and
64
other officers, and always make provision for their promotion to higher rank, and
more important positions, in proportion to their efficiency.
(10) After it may have pleased God for all the boundaries to be restored to their
ancient condition, and properly defined; and whenever necessity may arise, the
generals, in their turn, when the case requires it, can, with the assistance of God,
contribute by their vigilance and care to preserve the provinces or their frontiers
unimpaired.
(11) As We order Our judges and soldiers to be bold and fierce towards the
enemy; so We desire them to be gentle and kind towards Our subjects, and to
cause them no damage or injury. If, however, any soldier should dare to inflict
any wrong upon one of Our tributaries, he shall be punished in a manner worthy
of the commander, the tribune, and the Emperor, so that Our tributaries may be
secure from injustice.
(12) But if they should be interrogated before Our judges in any legal
proceeding, We order the bailiffs not to receive any more sportulae, 126 than are
prescribed by Our laws, under penalty of suffering the punishment prescribed by
the said laws for their violation.
(13) Therefore when, with the aid of God, Our African provinces have been
placed at Our disposition by your grandeur, and their boundaries re-established,
and all Africa restored to its former condition; [136] and these matters have been
disposed of and effected by you with Divine assistance; and you have reported to
126
Judgment with costs was not specifically asked for in the early ages of Roman jurisprudence, since all legal
expenses being considered to be included in the decision as a matter of course, it would have been superfluous to
mention them. The practice of the tribunals was, in this respect, afterwards changed, and the costs were taxed by the
court, after the successful party to the suit had solemnly made oath as to the amount which should be paid. If he
demanded a larger sum than was equitable, he lost his case; but in time, an assessment of triple damages was
substituted for this penalty.
Various provisions were, at intervals, made by law, regulating the payment of costs. The plaintiff was obliged to
file a bond to proceed within sixty days, or pay double the expense which might be subsequently incurred. If the
judge failed to tax the costs, he was individually liable for them. As the amount available for this purpose was
ascertained by computing a certain percentage of the value of the property in controversy, unscrupulous litigants
were in the habit of claiming more in their pleadings than they were entitled to, and where this was proved, heavy
damages could be collected. When evidence of bad faith existed, the judge was authorized to impose a fine of one-
tenth the amount for which suit was brought, for the benefit of the Public Treasury.
Sportulae were the fees payable to the various court officials for the service of summons, and other duties.
The name comes from the baskets in which presents of provisions and other articles formerly bestowed by patrons
upon their clients were contained, and which, in time, became applicable to the gifts themselves. These were
originally donated by way of compensation for the public attendance of his followers upon a patron. As was natural,
what was at first gratuitous was afterwards exacted as a right, and became subject to great abuse. Crowds of greedy
clients, many of whom were wealthy, flocked to the palaces of the Roman nobles, and were given great quantities of
food which, kept warm by means of heated vessels, was transported through the streets on the heads of their
perspiring slaves. Juvenal refers to this custom, as follows:
“Nonne vides quanto celebretur sportula fume? Centum convivce; sequitur sua quemque culina, Corbula vix
ferret vasa ingentia, tot res Impostas capiti, quot recto vertice portat Servulus infelix.” (Juvenal, Satiræ, III, 249.)
Money eventually took the place of other property in the bestowal of the sportulæ and the term, through its
original association with the legal representative of the cliens in the tribunals, was employed to designate one
species of costs incurred in litigation. The sum fixed by custom was a hundred quadrantes, equal to between five
and six dollars. This fee, when paid to members of the Roman bar, evoked the sarcasm of the satirist.
“Sed nee causidico possis impune negare Nec si te rhetor grammaticusve rogent: Balnea post decimam lasso,
centumque petuntur Quadrantes.” (Martial, Epig. X, 90.) — ED.
65
Us the establishment of all the dioceses of Africa, that is, how many, and what
soldiers have been stationed in certain places or towns, and what frontier guards
have been posted in what places, and to what branch of the service they belong;
We order that you shall then return to Our presence.
(14) In the meantime, however, if Your Excellency should ascertain that certain
cities or castles situated near the boundaries are of too great extent to be properly
defended, you will take measures to have such fortifications constructed as can be
well garrisoned with a small number of men.
(15) When Your Excellency, having disposed of all these matters, has been
ordered to return to Us, the commanders of each boundary, whenever it becomes
necessary to make any new arrangements with reference to cities or camps, and
they have need of money to pay the troops, or for provisions, shall notify the
Illustrious Prefect of Africa, so that he may immediately do whatever is requisite,
in order that no injury may result to the province through delay.
(16) The said illustrious Praetorian Prefect of Africa, and the commanders of
the army, must frequently report to Us what they have effected, and what remains
to be accomplished, as well as everything which is taking place there; in order
that We may approve what has been properly done, and that what is suitable to do
hereafter may be carried out in accordance with Our wishes.
(17) We also decree that the judges appointed to preside over the frontiers of
Africa shall not pay to anyone, no matter what his rank or dignity, in Our Most
Sacred Palace in the Praetorian Prefecture of Africa, any more than the amounts
contained in the notice hereto annexed. For if anyone should unlawfully take or
accept any more than [137] is specified in the said notice, he shall pay thirty
pounds of gold by way of fine, and, in addition, run the risk of Our resentment;
and no person, no matter what his rank or dignity may be, shall receive anything
from the said judges, with the exception of those whose names are included in the
notice hereto attached.
(18) For this purpose We (with the assistance of God) order that every military
commander and his subordinates shall, in accordance with the notice hereto
annexed, receive their pay from the tributes of the Province of Africa, from the
Kalends of next September, of the thirteenth most fortunate indiction.
(19) This notice, God willing, shall be sent to the military commanders and
their offices established in Africa, to secure their support and payment each
year.” 127 . . . .
In light of the legal benefits reaped by the church, it will hereby be shown that this victory
over the Arian Vandals was truly a victory for the Catholic Church, as well:
“The Catholic clergy. . . . exalted with happiness, and the bishops reunited in
534 to the council of Carthage expressed in enthusiastic terms the goodness to be
newly submitted to the orthodox empire. 128 It was easy to look after these
127
The prescribed list of fees which follows, has, like the former one, been omitted for the same reason. — ED.
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. XXVII,
12:130-137.
128
Labbe, Sacrosancta Concilia, IV, 1755.
66
sentiments of devotion, in order to do it, the piety of Justinian found itself in
agreement with his interest. Also he made up for its liberalities in the African
Church 129 since 534, 130 a edict ordered to restore to the religious establishments
of all the diocese of Africa the domains that had been to them unjustly taken, to
repute them in the possession of the edifices of the cult, to make render them the
vases and the sacred ornaments of which they had been dispossessed, and
authorized to them to claim in justice all the well usurped on them by
particulars. 131 At the same time, all the privileges accorded by the Code of the
metropolitan churches were conferred to the bishop of Carthage, 132 all the
churches of his diocese must enjoy the right of asylum, all legitimately receive
bequests and donations. 133 But above all the emperor applied himself to satisfy
the long rancor and the profound hatefulness that the Catholic clergy [40] against
his persecutors: all the dissidents, Arians, Jews, Donatistes and pagans, were
treated with the last rigor. Not only were their preachers chased from their
churches, and it was forbidden for them to administer the sacraments, but still
their adherents were excluded from all public charges, and even conversion was
scarcely open to them the access of the magistrates, 134 the exercise of all heretic
cults was carefully proscribed; the Arian temples, the synagogues were
transformed into Catholic churches; secret meetings were even forbidden,
“anticipated that it is absurd to permit the impious the accomplishment of sacred
ceremonies.” 135 Thus Justinian proved to god his recognition, and showed that he
knew “to avenge the offenses of the church.” Also, when taking the pious
traditions of elsewhere, the bishops of the Preconsulary, of Byzacene and
Numidie reunited in 534, in the number of 120, and a grave council in
Carthage, 136 they could express to the pope Agapet the joy almost without mixing
that caused them the reestablishment of imperial authority, 137 and in their name
the Sovereign Pontiff congratulated the emperor with zeal that he deployed “for
the growth of the Catholic people” and of the piety that made, everywhere where
one heard empire, to prosper immediately the kingdom of God. 138
The Roman populations were not treated with less favor. Not only did Justinian
want the capital of reconquored Africa, endowed with “imperial privileges,” 139
took in his honor the name of Carthago Justiniana, but he accorded to these
victims of the Vandal tyranny the most effective satisfactions. A pragmatic
sanction of 534 authorized the Africans to take back, during the length of five
129
Nov. 37, praef; Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 3:244-5.
130
Ibid., 3:244-5.
131
Ibid., 3:244-5.
132
Ibid., 3:244-5.
133
Ibid., 3:244-5.
134
Ibid., 5, 6, 7, 3:244-5. See also Procopius, De Bello. Vandalico, ed. De la Byzantine de Bonn. 471.
135
Ibid., 8, 3:244-5.
136
Labbe, Sacrosancta Concilia, IV, 1755, 1784-5.
137
Ibid., 1755-6.
138
Ibid., 1793.
139
Nov. 37, 9, Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 3:244-5.
67
years, [41] all the lands that had been unjustly taken from them, making amends of
this sort of long ago plundering, ordered by Genseric. 140
. . . . [48] On the other hand, the religious intolerance carried its effects: despite
the ardor of his piety, the emperor had understood that some concessions had to
be made and that the interest commanded to treat with management the Arian
priests, whose influence was very strong. Justinian was therefore inclined to
conserve in their control and dignity the members of the heretical clergy that
returned to the orthodoxy. 141 But this political indulgence seemed intolerable to
the African bishops, the council of Carthage protested, the pope blamed the
emperor of admitting a compromise as condemnable, 142 and it was necessary to
pass by his will. The result was graver than was thought, the excommunicated
Arian priests were to the Byzantine authority an irreconcilable opposition, and
like they counted still, in the country and until the army, 143 a somewhat large
number of adherents, this was a new cause of trouble and of disorganization
added to those that paralyzed the defense. . . . [50] “While Belisarius triumphed in
Constantinople, and spread out to the dazzling eyes of the populace of the capital
the seats of gold, gems, precious vases and dishes, magnificent clothes,
sumptuous vehicles, all the treasures that 100 years of pillaging had accumulated
in Carthage, 144 while the pride and piety of Justinian glorified itself to see
reconquored the whole ensemble of vases of Solomon and the ornaments of the
empire, 145 while in the imperial palace, on the walls of the vestibule of Chalce,
one made represent, in brilliant mosaic murals, the episodes of the conquest of
Africa, the towns submitted and Gelimer rendered humble homage to Justinian
and Theodora. . . .” 146
The following referenced documents of Justinian’s Novels, numbers 36. January 1, 535 and
37., August 1, 535, quoted by Diehl are hereby submitted. However, the work of S.P. Scott is
heavily abridged, so we provide the work of Schoell-Kroll, translated from the Latin:
NOVEL
XXXVI.
THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN AFRICA WHO ARE SEEKING FOR

THEMSELVES PROPERTY UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OUGHT TO
CLAIM IT WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
140
Nov. 36, praef. and 5, Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 3:
243-4.
141
Labbe, Sacrosancta Concilia, IV, 1793-4; Morcelli, Africana Christiana, III, 284.
142
Ibid., 1756, 1791-2, 1793-4.
143
Procopius, De Bello. Vandalico, ed. De la Byzantine de Bonn. 471-2.
144
Ibid., 445-447.
145
Ibid., 445-6.
146
Procopius, Aedificiis, De la Byzantine de Bonn. 204. Corippus, Johannis, In lauden Justini,ed. Partsch (Mon.
Germ. Hist., Auct. Antiq., III, 2. I, 285-7. Diehl, Charles. L’Afrique Byzantine: Histoire de la Domination Byzantine
en Afrique (533–709), (Paris, New York, 1896), 1: 39-41, 48, 50. [History of the Byzantine Domination in Africa]
68
The same to A. Salomon pp. of Africa.
“We approve to limit our actions by certain boundaries since we believe that
every infinite and perversely excessive thing is with merit both uncivil and
incomplete. Recently therefore in our Africa, which god has subjugated to the
Roman domination by our vigils, we have promulgated a holy pragmatic sanction,
that everyone should be able to get back from the unjust withholders and to claim
for themselves all the things which they have lost now in the times of the Vandals,
and we have established a term of five years within which it is allowed to do this.
We wish this sanction to remain in its own strength also, but with a certain control
and certain definition, so that it is not permitted to Africans when so much
extended agedness has slipped away and old nations have almost been deleted to
resuscitate old misrepresentations and to bring troubles in turn on themselves and
to wage wars in the midst of such great internal peace.
Therefore through this law we decree, if anyone alleges that property belongs
either to himself or to his father or to his grandfather and that it is detained
unjustly against our laws by others, that it is possible to recover this property, if of
course proofs which were known to the law before have been offered, either by
reciting legitimate documents or by producing suitable witnesses whose
seriousness is acceptable to the judges, namely if the contest pertaining to the trial
has been impelled: and that this determination of ours is extended only to the
fathers and grandfathers, but not to another former degree.
2. And we sanction this namely for each gender, so that that of his which each
male or woman should show has belonged to his or her either father or mother or
grandfather or grandmother, this he may remove from unjust detainers, if further
requisition thoroughly ceases, lest anyone when introducing his great-grandfather
or great-great-grandfather or great-great-great-grandfather, or great-grandmother
or great-great-grandmother or great-great-great-grandmother should bring a heap
of false accusation on the poor later generations. And we direct this to be
observed also in a line lying crosswise, so that it may be continued only up to the
third degree, that is for brothers and sisters, for paternal uncles and aunts, and
maternal uncles and aunts, but not for other higher degrees of blood relationship
on the father’s side or of relatives.
3. And if anyone is ready to report a question of this kind, he should offer
proofs of this kind not otherwise, but for the judgment of your loftiness or of the
governors of provinces and islands when a strict judgment has been announced,
and not from one part nor in other provinces or in this very flourishing city, but
only in the African diocese, when his adversaries are present, [244] and then he
should deserve the aid of our divine power and of our constitution.
4. We grant in no way that from one part the proofs concerning the
trustworthiness of a family should be offered, and if anyone has shown deeds of
this kind as if done in this.
5. But the requisition of property according to the preferred method among
your loftiness or governors of provinces we wish to happen within the defined
time for our sanction, that is in the space of five years, with the year which has
69
already been accomplished to be computed from the publication of the earlier
pragmatic sanction into the period of five years, so that the petitioner has the
remaining space of four years for the investigation of this kind, namely if the
computation of the time exceeds legitimate exceptions. For in no way do we allow
the limits of the four year period of this kind to go beyond, lest the completion of
the investigations become immortal.
6. Therefore the things which my eternity has sanctioned for the security of
Africa, your loftiness should hurry to make known to all the citizens of Africa
through your edicts published in every African district, so that all may hasten to
observe this which they know is necessary to be observed in the completed years.
Concerning the rest, if any such occasion has emerged, we assign all successions
and temporal directions to proceed thus just as the most holy laws assign in all the
lands included in our world, and that all the degrees both of descending ones and
of the ascending ones and of those coming from each side and the temporal
courses should be intact, just as the general laws of our divine power have handed
them down to all.” 147
“Given on the calends of Jan. when CP Belisarius v. c. is consul.” (535)
NOVEL
XXXVII
CONCERNING THE AFRICAN CHURCH.
The same to A. Salomon pp. of Africa.
“We hasten day and night to alleviate the Venerated Church of our Carthago
Justinian and all the other sacrosanct churches of the African diocese by imperial
kindnesses, so that, after our republics, which were snatched through the
protection of God from tyrants, have been united, they might also feel our
liberalities.
1. Since therefore the very holy man priest Reparatus of our same Justinian
Carthage, who is discerned to be in charge of the reverend council of the very
holy churches of all Africa, together with other very reverend bishops of the same
province with their own letters which were brought through Theodore the deacon
a religious man and relating to an answer of the same venerable church of the city
of Carthago Justinian supplicated our majesty to take possession firmly of the
possessions of the churches of all of the African tract which were taken from them
by an indeed tyrannical time, which were returned to them, after the victories
bestowed by us with a heavenly protection against the Vandals through the pious
disposition of our divine will, with the payment of tributes preserved in whatever
place in which it had been manifestly arranged, according to the direction of the
law which was already promulgated on top of this reason, to agree to the requests
of those we have influenced with an inclined and willing spirit.
147
Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 3:243-4.
70
2. Therefore we command your loftiness to dispose by your precepts, that the
venerable churches both of our Carthago Justinian as well as of all the cities of the
African diocese should firmly possess the possessions mentioned above,
according as it has been specified by the sound reason of tributes, and without any
shaking, and they should be seized by absolutely no one.
3. If it has been proved however that these other possessions as decorations
either of the home or of the churches were detained among any either Arians or
pagans or some other persons, that these things also wholly without any delay are
snatched and assigned to the sacrosanct churches of orthodox faith, with no
fullness of time to be granted to those who detain the same things unjustly, but
they should be forced to make restitution of this property when every stratagem
has been discredited, because we do not allow the very sacred vases or ornaments
of the venerable churches or other possessions to be kept among pagans or other
persons; and the law which was brought to us before is sufficient and has made
the decree by the prominent part of this kind abundantly.
4. The prerogatives also of our other constitution, which we made for
ecclesiastic property and possessions, we believe the venerable churches of Africa
also possess, and according to its [245] direction we give permission to them of
recovering their own property and possessions which have been seized by a
certain person throughout the province. In order that they are able to claim
whatever pertaining to this property was taken or will have been by unjust
detainers.
5. It will be of concern to your loftiness, as far as neither for the Arians nor for
the Donatists nor for the Jews nor for others who are known to worship the
orthodox religion very little that any communion be given absolutely to the
ecclesiastic rites, but they are to be excluded from any kind of blaspheming of the
sacred and temples, and absolutely no permission should be granted to them to
ordain either bishops or clerics or to baptize certain persons and to draw to their
insanity, because sects of this kind not only by us, but also by earlier laws were
condemned and are worshiped by the very wicked as well as defiled men.
6. But that all heretics according to our laws which we have imposed by public
acts are removed, and the heretics are granted to do absolutely nothing public nor
to undergo any administration for any kind of campaigning, lest heretics seem to
be appointed to rule over the orthodox, when it is enough for them to live, not also
to claim any authority for themselves, and from this to affect with certain
detriments orthodox humans and the very correct worship of the omnipotent God.
7. We grant however that in no way indeed the rebaptized may have an army.
But their penitence, if they preferred to come to the orthodox faith with a very
pure mind, we have not rejected, but we give them permission of doing this,
because even for an omnipotent God nothing is so acceptable as the penitence of
sinners. We deny moreover to Jews to have Christian slaves, because it is warned
both by earlier laws and it is dear to us to protect the unimpaired one, so that
neither should they have slaves of an orthodox religion nor, if they receive by
chance catechumens, should they dare to circumcise them.
8. But we do not grant that their synagogues stand, but we wish them to be
reformed for the image of churches. Indeed we allow neither Jews nor pagans nor
71
Donatists nor Arians nor any other heretics either to have caves or to do certain
things as if for an ecclesiastic rite, since it is absurd enough to allow sacred rites
to be conducted by impious humans.
9. Furthermore we remit all the privileges of the sacrosanct church of our
Carthago Justiniana which the metropolitan cities and their priests are recognized
to have, which also even when separated from sacrosanct churches in his first
book are recognized to offer their honor by our Codex: so that the city which we
regarded should be decorated by the name of our divine will bloom while
decorated also with imperial privileges.
10. You may also take refuge, those who are eager to flock together at the
venerable churches and their boundaries and to look out for their own safety,
[that] it is permitted to absolutely no one to take from these with sacrilegious
hands, but that they get possession of the reverences owed to the venerable places,
unless they are murderers or raptors of maidens or violators of the Christian faith:
indeed who does not confess that those who do such evil deeds are worthy of no
privileges? Since it is not possible that the sacrosanct church both assist evil
humans and to offer its help to injured humans.
11. If however anything besides of the sacrosanct church of the often called
Carthago Justinian has been forgotten either by other venerable churches of the
African diocese by a certain persona for his own safety of mind or will have been
by whatever legitimate way either in possessions or in any other kinds, we also
commend that this remains firmly among these same venerable churches, that it
should be taken by the wicked hands of no one, when humans who hurry enough
to do acts so laudable as well as acceptable to God and pious offerings and the
kindness of the heavenly God should be returned.
12. Therefore [learning] all these things which we have dedicated for the honor
of the sacrosanct churches of the whole African diocese through the most pious
present law which will be valid forever, which we have regarded to be
consecrated to the omnipotent God, your loftiness, learning this, will hasten to
protect as firm and unimpaired and by displaying all the edicts everywhere by
which it is accustomed to make known, that our commands which have the reason
of the highest piety should be preserved un mutilated in every way; by punishing
the thoughtless ones of these by the penalty of ten pounds of gold, and by
afflicting with other very serious indignation of our divine will all who have tried
or complied to violate our arrangement in whatever way or time.” 148
“Given on the calends of August CP. when Belisarius v. c. is consul” (535)
From Novel 37. 9. we see Justinian’s authority implemented in the former Vandal province to,
first and foremost, bring honor to his “Codex” so “the name of our divine will bloom while
decorated also with imperial privileges.” This was standard protocol for Justinian when he
claimed legal jurisdiction of a newly conquered territory, and will prove to be extremely
significant when it is understood what is contained in the Codex of Justinian’s law code. The
subsequent excerpt is taken from a letter by Justinian that he wrote to Pope John II on March 15,
533. This documents the ecclesiastical “voice” behind the code of Justinian:
148
Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 37. 9. 3:244-5.
72
“For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church,
even though what causes the difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be
discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are
the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as
has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.” 149
“We shall exert Ourselves in every way” is legally confirmed by the legislative support from
the state that the church canons received. Codex I.3.44 of Justinian’s law codes, for example,
was implemented on October 18, A.D. 530, thereby giving total authority to the canons of the
synods.
“Whatever the holy canons prohibit, these also we by our own laws forbid.” 150
This codex alone was sufficient to elevate the laws of the church to equality with the laws of
the state. Having been accorded this political backing, church canons had to be obeyed by all.
This serves as the only explanation as to why the papacy claims that Justinian’s Corpus Juris
Civilis is the basis of all Roman Catholic canon law:
“So the immortal ‘Corpus Juris Civilis’ was produced. . . . It would be difficult
to exaggerate the importance of this ‘Corpus.’ It is the basis of all canon law . .
.” 151
The following letters are given in their entirety except for the footnotes from Guenther largely
detailing misspellings that were in the Latin. This first letter was sent from Pope Agapitus I (who
reigned 535-536) to Emperor Justinian on October 15, 535. With the defeat of the Arian Vandals
now history, the pope praises Justinian for their demise, ranking the victory as an answer to the
prayers of the church and the uplifting of the Catholic faith as the papacy continues to work from
behind the scenes, subduing her enemies:
(88). Agapitus to Justinian Augustus
Bishop Agapitus to Justinianus Augustus. October 15, 535
[333] “Although I was obligated in many ways concerning the first fruits of my
priesthood to bear thanks with gifts of divine piety, nevertheless, venerable
emperor, with discourses of your serenity received through the venerable
presbyter Heraclius our son, which very full with the fertility of eternal fruit you
appointed, the joys in the lord of my prayers have been doubled, because you
place the earthly kingdoms after the advancements of your felicity [334] have been
joined by you under the proposal of such a glorious mind, in order that you seek
149
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. 1.4, 12:12.
150
Paul Krueger, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, I.3.44 (decreed Oct.18, A.D. 530) (Berolini Apud
Weidmannos, 1888), 2:30. See also Asterios Gerostergios, Justinian The Great The Emperor And Saint (Belmont,
MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies), 163-4.
151
Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Justinian I” (New York: Appleton, 1910), 8:579.
73
carefully the heavenly at the same time. The records of this matter are not
disputed when the light shines by your oracles, which you directed, of the
Catholic profession in such a way, that it begins to brighten also with blessed
works. If indeed that belief in our God is full and firm, which the fertility of
spiritual fruits recommends at the same time, just as the vessel of election
announces saying Gal. 5:6 in Jesus Christ neither circumcision prevails to some
degree nor foreskin but faith, which works through love. What indeed greater
work of your faith was able to exist, than that you have elevated with so great
pledges the apostolic seat of charity and munificence, so that you passed through
even the desires themselves of the ones hoping? And indeed this once established
in you always flourished, just as I also have proved, through the grace of God, in
order that the quantity of your power shows the merit of things granted and you
extended to these advancements the moments of power which were gained, in
order that kindness inborn to you either preceded or conquered the prayers of the
ones asking. From here there is, what all the way up to the traces of the crown of
the emperor and beyond now continuously your tranquility is proud boasts of by
fortunate successes nor will it ever be cheated out of by celestial supports,
because it has been written Rom. 8:28 for those highly esteeming God all things
work for the good. Whence I also have made the most pious eloquences of your
generosity with the devotion of the rejoicing church, just as you have instructed,
to be close to the writings by the divine offices, in order that they are said
repeatedly up for the gazes of supernal majesty by always tireless prayers and in
order that there may be sempiternal commemoration for the purpose of obtaining
your retributions by you. And therefore, most kind lord son, paying back homage
of very rich greeting reverently I embrace you with the folds of spiritual charity
hoping, that from my devotion, as much as there is in [335] me there is, in these
things, which you instruct for the sake of the unity of the ecclesiastic peace, you
promise more for you, which are Catholic things, according to this, which the
apostle says Rom. 1:15 thus what is in me, is visible also for you, nor in someone
of them, in whom we are able to obey lawfully, should you believe that we resist
by the exhortations of your kindness, because, just as the teacher of nations has
asserted II Cor. 10:15, I have hope with your faith growing that it is magnified in
you according to my example. And therefore I exhibit immense thanks to my
God, which you burn with such great ardor of Catholic charity for the
multiplication of the people, that, wherever your rule is propagated; the
sempiternal kingdom may soon begin soon to advance. Persisting rather strongly
in the benevolence of the interest of which in rejoicing in them, whom you signify
wish to avoid the Arian faithlessness you believe that I am able to deflect the
censure of the paternal tradition, namely in order that they persist in these honors,
in which they were among the heretics, and are encouraged to others. Wherefore
indeed you desire this good and distinguished with the greatest praise thing, that
everyone join the sheepfold of the lord through true faith; but it is not right for me
to receive those, who do not strive to enter correctly, with the blessed apostle Paul
warning II Cor. 6:3 giving to no one any offense, so that our ministry is not
criticized. However how great an offense of the paternal laws, if they are received
in such a way, is run into--may it never happen--lest anything affect your piety on
74
the side, I have believed the rules themselves should also be fastened, which had
especially advised, lest some one of such who has been reconciled either should
be honored by the advancements of ecclesiastic order or desire to get possession
of honors further, which it is not now responsible that he doubts that he has
acquired guiltily: from which your piety was able to believe better, if by any
method it should be fitting to infringe upon such proven and synodal laws of the
apostolic seat, when the opinion of the apostle declares Gal. 2:18 if however [336]
the same things which I have destroyed, I build again, I myself decree that I am a
transgressor. And therefore secure with the voice of the apostle himself I make a
confession Gal. 5:10, because I trust in you and in the Lord that you believe no
other thing; indeed, just as the teacher has asserted the same thing Rom. 15:14. I
am certain also concerning you, because you are filled with goodness, full of all
knowledge, so that you are able to warn in turn. If therefore these, concerning
whom you have given evidence, hasten to come to the correct faith, they should
not decline to follow the rules of our faith with the Lord saying Matt. 16:24 if any
wishes to come after me, he should refuse his very self and he should follow me.
Because if they are still encouraged by criticizing ambitions of honor and are
afraid to suffer losses of human glory for the gain of the sacred faith, they
themselves pronounce that they do not yet depart from the vices and error and that
they wish more that we join with their excesses. Concerning such therefore the
apostle says Gal. 4:17 they however emulate you not well but wish to exclude
you, in order that you emulate them. Since these things are so, by your holy
interest, by which you wish the Catholic Church to be amplified, you would
believe not at all from this, if such are not received in the clergy, I have been
intent with the apostle forewarning Rom. 3:8 why indeed? If certain ones of them
did not believe, has their incredulity made void the faith of God? Let it be absent!
for although by a similar interest of charity for the multiplication of the faithful
that blessed Peter the doorkeeper of the celestial kingdom was drawn, who in
order to gain more Jews, had descended from the doctrine and the regular path in
not refusing all Judaism, nevertheless that younger Paul conquered in the lord
reported to him to have met saying Gal. 2:14 but when I saw, that they approach
not rightly to the truth of the gospel. I said to Peter in front of all ‘if you.
Although you are Jewish, live like the Gentiles, how [337] do you force the nations
to Judaize? Therefore you were able to know when you were pondering these
things through everything with God sitting next to your heart that I was not
inquiring the occasion of excuse but to make known those things, which I am not
able to transcend for the reason of my duty, humbly to you with the apostle saying
II Cor. 13:8 indeed I have no power against the truth but for the truth. Whence
both concerning the person of the bishop Stephanus at the same time also the
reason you should not believe that I am impelled by the interest of defense of
someone (may it be absent from the Christian minds of any, so that they either
refute the innocence or absolve the crime in any person), but the universal things,
which have been arranged by the apostolic seat above this part, have flowed
always by that interest, which you also desire for the rule of the blessed Peter to
be held onto through all things, so that of course not in these, who had demanded
a hearing of his seat, there does not appear a reverence of the one himself which
75
has been rejected by the opinion of another. And therefore, because your kindness
granted beneficially to offer, so that all business is reviewed by my legates, I
entrust this work to these, whom I direct without delay, with God the author, in
such a way however, so that our religious man Achilles already now by my
association ought to be glad for the sake of your order; but in truth concerning
performing gladly the priesthood, since the universal things, which our legates
knew about, had been brought to me by their very full report, when the rules of
the holy canons were examined, which you instruct to be protected, they will be
believed to have to be followed more firmly. Because however, your kindness
granted to excuse the person of my brother and co bishop Epiphanius, because in
the consecration of the previously mentioned Achilles your order had appeared
more important than his ordination, I believe, also because he himself knew he
was blamed by right, who except for in addition to other things, which [338] he left
behind, was scarcely able to excuse this certainly, because he did not suggest to
the so very pious and very kind prince, who was defending also the privileges of
the blessed Peter, II Tim. 4:2 either opportunely or not importunely, what was
required in this part of the apostolic seat of reverence. Concerning which business
at the same time but concerning also the Justinian city-state aware of your
glorious birth and also concerning the duties of my seat which must be imposed, I
make known what happened to be considered more fully by the sovereignty of
blessed Peter, whom you esteem, which was preserved and the affection of your
piety, through those legates, whom I directed to you quickly with God propitious.
It remains that, just as unceasingly I entreat earnestly from blessed Peter, I rejoice
concerning the safety and prosperity of your rule always.” 152
(89). Copy of a very pious little book of our lord Justinian the emperor which
he gave to Agapitus the pope at Constantinople concerning faith. March 16,
536
Copy of a little book of our very pious master Justinianus the emperor which he
gave to Agapitus the pope of Constantinople concerning faith.
“IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST THE EMPEROR CAESAR FLAVIUS
JUSTINIANUS ALAMANNICUS GOTHICUS FRANCICUS GERMANICUS ANTICUS
ALANICUS VANDALICUS AFRICANUS LOYAL BLESSED FAMOUS VICTOR AND
TRIUMPHATOR ALWAYS AUGUSTUS TO AGAPITUS THE MOST HOLY AND MOST
BLESSED ARCHBISHOP OF THE KINDLY CITY OF ROME AND PATRIARCH.”
“The first safety is to protect the rule of the correct faith and to deviate not at
all from the tradition of the fathers, because the opinion of our lord Jesus Christ is
not able to be overlooked, when he says Matt. 16:18 you are Peter and over this
rock I will build my church. These things, which were said, are proven by the
results of things. Because the Catholic religion is always protected inviolably in
the apostolic seat. [339] Therefore concerning this faith, since I desire that the
152
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 88), 333-338 October 15, 535.
76
decrees of the fathers not fall and I follow them in all things, that is the three
hundred eighteen holy fathers, who were gathered in Nicaea and put forth the holy
mathema or symbol of faith, and the one hundred fifty holy fathers, who
convened in the city-state of Constantinople and elucidated and made known that
holy mathema itself, and the holy fathers, who were gathered in the Ephesus the
first synod, and the holy fathers, who convened in Chalcedon, and following the
dogmas which are contained in each of them concerning faith, through which
every heresy is removed when it attacks the holy and apostolic church, and
proving through all things and embracing all the letters of Leon of blessed
memory, which he wrote about the Christian faith, and confessing that the one
and the same Christ the lord son born of one in two natures that is in divinity and
humanity must be recognized inseparably incommutably indistinctly, with a
difference of natures never endured on account of unity and with a more
safe/sound propriety of each nature, and joining into one person and substance
meeting and not separated and divided into two persons but one and the same son
born of one parent God the word the lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets before
and Jesus Christ himself taught us about him and handed down to us the symbol
of the holy fathers: I anathematize every heretic, who beyond these things, which
were said, has understood and does understand, especially Nestorius the heretic of
the city-state Constantinople formerly a bishop who has been condemned in the
synod of Ephesus by the pope Caelestinus of blessed memory of the city of Rome
and by holy Cyrillus the priest of the city-state Alexandria; and with him I
anathematize Eutychis and Dioscorus formerly a bishop of the city-state of
Alexandria who has been condemned in the sacred synod of Chalcedon, which
embracing I follow, joining to these [340] Timothy the murderer given the name
Helurus and his disciple and follower in all things Peter of Alexandria, similarly
condemning. I reject moreover both Acacius formerly a bishop of the city of
Constantinople who has been made a co heretic and follower of these and besides
also those who persist in the communion of them and in participation. Indeed who
of them embraces communion, and follows a similar opinion of them in
condemnation. In a similar way I also condemn Peter of Antioch with his
followers and all the writings above. Wherefore, just as I have said before,
following the apostolic seat in all things, which have been established by it, I
preach and I profess that those things are protected resolutely and that I compel,
that according to the tenor of that little book all bishops should bring it about, that
indeed the most holy patriarchs produce to your sanctity, and others truly of the
metropolitan patriarch so that they bring about for their own metropolitans, as far
as to what extent our holy Catholic Church holds its firmness through everything.
And in another hand: May the divinity protect you through many years, holy and
very religious father.” 153
(91). Agapitus to Justinian Augustus. March 18, 536.
153
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 89), 338-340, March 16, 536.
77
[* This letter of Agapitus without the two letters of Justinianus which were inserted here, are
nearly entirely extant. . . .]
A letter of Justinianus was given to Agapetus on the day 14 March 536
[344] “In the name of our lord god Jesus Christ the emperor Caesar Fl.
Justinianus Alamannicus Gothicus Francicus Germanicus Anticus Alanicus
Uandalicus Africanus Pious Fortunate Famous Victor and Triumphator Always
Augustus to Agapitus the most holy and most blessed archbishop of the kindly
city of Rome and patriarch. Before the time in this royal city of mine a sickly
struggle concerning the case of faith of certain people existed, which I repressed
with an edict introduced, rejecting properly. And because it is of my interest to
refer to the judgment of your apostolic seat the emerging cases of this kind, of the
same faith, which I have considered must be followed, I have directed the
direction of my letter inserted for your predecessor of blessed memory John
through the venerable bishops Hypatius and Demetrius with a legation having
been sent; which on behalf of the wholeness of faith your predecessor mentioned
above when he received with willing joy has supported with the assent of himself
and of the whole Roman church. The tenor of my letter is of this kind”:
[* {25} see in letter 84, p. 322, l. 6 through p. 325, l. 11.
The letter of Justinianus given to John on June 6, 533, was inserted also into letter 84, where I
have combined various readings with the codices of Justinianus and the collection of Anselm
Lucensis. Here I have considered it enough to have recorded the writing of codex V. Then on p.
347, l. 20, the letter continues]:
“On account of which I ask your holiness, that you uphold the mentioned letter
with your authority and that you consider Cyrus or ones resembling him as
foreign from communion, until they comply with the statutes of your holiness.
COPY OF SUBSCRIPTION: May the divinity protect you through many years, holy
and very religious father. Given on the first day of the Ides of March at
Constantinople after the consulship of Belisarius a famous man. . . . Therefore
should anyone have presumed to speak against this confession, as it was
mentioned earlier, and to this faith, he would have known himself alien from the
Catholic communion. Given on the 15th of the Kalends of April. at Constantinople
after the consulship of Belisarius a famous man.” 154
With the church accepting nothing short of complete submission, it has been demonstrated
from the primary and judicial sources that this was, indeed, a religious war and that the Vandals
were the second of the three horns to be “plucked up by the roots.”
154
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 91), 344, 347 March 14, 536.
78
7
The Ostrogoths
“The victory over the Vandals gave motivation for the raids against Rome and
Italy, where for five decades Germanic tribes had roamed city and countryside.
The Ostrogoths had primary control at the time. Justinian demanded from them
the delivery of the foothills of Lilybäum to Sicily, to which he could lay claim,
since it had become Vandal imperial property as the dowry of the wife of
Thrasamund, the Gothic princess Amalafrida. During the negotiations for this, the
Gothic king’s widow, Amalasuntha, fell victim to a political murder (April 535).
Her cousin Theodahad, whom she had elevated to the kingship with the intent of
securing her throne, was blamed for the murder by public opinion. Justinian took
advantage of the excitement of the people. Under the pretence of vendetta, he had
troops immediately prepared to sail to Italy.” 155
“Conquered Africa furnished Justinian with an admirable base of operations to

carry out the efforts of his ambition for Italy. The circumstances, as in Africa,
were going to promptly offer an excellent pretext for intervening in the
peninsula.” 156
Historians are agreed that Justinian was looking for a pretext in order to strike against the
Ostrogoths. Admittedly, they had done no wrong, but the stage was set. To understand this
injustice and the true motivating nature of Justinian’s pretext, we must go back to the year 523.
Under the reign of the eastern Emperor Justin and Pope John I, we have a demonstration of the
two ideologies or governments at war against the government of the Arians. Under the reign of
the Ostrogoths leader, Theodoric the Great, the nature of the warfare will be shown to be that of
religious liberty:
“John, Fifty-Second Bishop of Rome

[Justin, Theodoric, King of Italy]
[324] “[Year of Christ 523.] Hormisdas was succeeded by John, surnamed

Cateline, ordained on the 13th of August, after a vacancy of seven days. He was a
native of Tuscany, the son of one Constantius, and presbyter of the Roman
Church; 157 which is all we know of him before his election. His pontificate was
short and unhappy; and the calamities that befell him were owing to the indiscreet
zeal of the emperor Justin. For that prince, not satisfied with having put an end to
the schism, undertook, in the next place, to clear his dominions from heretics, as
he styled them, of all denominations. He began with the Manichees, who, taking
advantage of the general confusion that reigned in the church, during the late
155
Knecht, August. Die Religions-Politik: Kaiser Justinians I: Eine kirchengeschichtliche Studie. (Dissert.
Würzberg, 1896), 9. [Andreas Gobel, The Religious Politics of Emperor Justinian I, Wurzburg, 1896.]
156
Diehl, Charles. Justinien et la Civilization Byzantine au Vie Siècle. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901, 181.
157
Cod. Just.leg.12
79
disputes between the Eutychian and orthodox parties, had perverted, unobserved,
great numbers of both to their impious tenets. Against them therefore the emperor
issued an edict, in the sixth year of his reign that is, in 523, commanding them to
be put to death without mercy, wherever they should be discovered, and
convicted. 158 This edict was attended with no bad consequences; the Manichees
being universally abhorred and detested, on account of the execrable principles,
and immoral practices of that famous sect. But the zeal of Justin, savoring not a
little of enthusiasm, did not suffer him to stop here. The following year, 524, he
enacted another edict, ordering the Arians, who were very numerous in the east, to
deliver up all their churches to the catholic bishops, and the catholic bishops to
consecrate them anew. The Arians had been allowed, by the emperors, the free
and open exercise of their religion; had contented themselves with worshiping
God in their own way, without ever attempting to bring over any, either orthodox
or Eutychian, to their persuasion; were as good subjects as the best of the
Catholics; and, on all occasions, had served, with as much zeal and fidelity as
they, their prince and their country. Being therefore conscious to themselves, that
they had given no occasion to such an edict, nor offence to their fellow- subjects,
or their sovereign, they often and warmly remonstrated against the treatment
which they so undeservedly met with. But the emperor was not to be moved, and
the Catholics were already in possession of most of their churches. In this distress,
none of their friends at court daring to speak a word in their favor, they resolved
to recur to King Theodoric, whom they all knew to be a zealous Arian, though, by
a principle of toleration, he no less favored his Catholic, than he did his Arian
subjects. He was the only prince in the world whose interposition and good
offices they thought would be of some weight with the emperor; and to him they
privately dispatched some of their chief men, with letters, in the name of all, to
acquaint him with the evils, which they so [325] unjustly suffered, and the far
greater evils, which they had reason to apprehend, unless, touched with
compassion, he interposed in their behalf, and espoused their cause as his own,
since the holy religion, which was common to both, and for which they suffered,
made it his own. The king received the deputies in the most obliging manner,
assured them of his good offices, and wrote, without delay, most pressing letters
to the emperor, and all the great men at court, in their favor. But no kind of regard
was paid to his letters; the persecution continued, and the Arians were everywhere
driven from their churches, and in some places, by the over-zealous Catholic’s,
out of the cities. This Theodoric could not brook; and resolved to resent it in a
proper manner. The first thing that occurred to him, was to retaliate on the
Catholics in the west all the severities that were practiced on the Arians in the
east. But as he was a prince of most humane disposition, and besides an enemy,
by principle, to all persecution, he could not prevail upon himself to proceed to
such extremities, till all other means he could think of had proved ineffectual. He
thought of many; weighed and examined many; and at last fixed upon one, which
he apprehended could not fail of the wished for success. He knew what weight the
advice and counsels of the pope had with the emperor; how much the emperor
deferred to the judgment of the bishop of Rome, in all matters of religion and
158
Evargr. Lib. Pont.
80
conscience; and therefore did not doubt but the persecution would soon be at an
end, could the pope, by any means, be prevailed upon to espouse the cause of the
persecuted Arians, and, disapproving the measures which the emperor was
pursuing, employ his counsel and authority to divert him from them.
The king was sensible, that it was only by menaces, by force, and compulsion,
that the pope could be brought to act such a part; and resolved, accordingly, to
employ them at once, that no room might be left for delays and excuses. Having
therefore sent for him to Ravenna, he complained to him, with great warmth, of
the unchristian spirit and proceedings of the emperor; remonstrated against the
violence’s that were daily practiced on the Catholics in the east, meaning the
Arians, which he hoped no Christian bishop would ever countenance or approve;
strove to convince the pope of the injustice of the late edict; and, comparing the
happy situation of the heretics, meaning the Catholics in his dominions, with the
unhappy condition of the Catholics in those of the emperor, he added; “But I must
let you know, that I am determined not to sit as an idle spectator on such an
occasion. I am, you know, and I have often declared it, an enemy to all kind of
persecution; I have suffered not only the inhabitants of Italy, but even my Goths,
to embrace and profess, undisturbed, which of the two religions they thought the
most pleasing to God; and, in the distribution of my favors, have hitherto made no
distinction between catholic and heretic. But if the emperor does not change his
measures, I must change mine. Men of other religions the emperor may treat as he
pleases, though every man has a right to serve his Creator in the manner in which
he thinks the most acceptable to him. But as for those, who profess the same holy
religion which I profess, and believe to be the only true religion, I think myself
bound to employ the power which it has pleased God to put into my hands, for
their defense and protection. If the emperor therefore does not think fit to revoke
the edict, which he has lately issued against those of my persuasion, it is my firm
resolution to issue the like edict against those of his; and to see it everywhere
executed with the same rigor. Those who do not profess the faith of Nicea, are
heretics to him; and those who do, are heretics to me. Whatever can excuse and
justify his severity to the former, will excuse and justify mine to the latter. But the
emperor,” continued the king, “has none about him, who dare freely and openly
speak what they think, or to whom he would hearken, if they did. But the great
veneration, which he professes for your see, leaves no room to doubt, but he
would hearken to you. I will therefore have you to repair forthwith to
Constantinople, and there to remonstrate, both in my name and your own, against
the violent measures, in which that court has so rashly engaged. It is in your
power to divert the emperor from them; and till you have, nay, till the Catholics
are restored to the free exercise of their religion, and to all the churches, from
which they have been driven, you must not think of returning to Italy.” 159
An anonymous writer, who flourished at this time, adds, that Theodoric
likewise insisted on the emperors allowing those to return to the Catholic faith
(the Arian), whom he had by any kind of violence obliged to abjure it; that the
pope promised to do all that lay in his power to procure the revocation of the
edict, and the restitution of the churches; but as for those who had already
159
Theoph. ad ann. 524. Marcell. in chron.
81
changed their religion, he assured the king, that the emperor would, upon no
consideration whatever, suffer them to change it anew; and that, as to himself, he
could not, in conscience, take upon him to suggest it, nor would he be charged
with such a commission. The king, says the anonymous writer, was greatly
provoked at this speech, and, in the transport of his passion, ordered the pope to
be immediately conveyed on board a vessel, and the vessel to put to sea.160
However that be, certain it is, that the pope undertook the embassy, not out of any
[326] kindness to the Arians, with which he has been by some unjustly reproached,
but to divert the storm that threatened the Catholics in the kings dominions. With
him were joined, in the same commission, five other bishops, and four senators,
all men of first rank. A most splendid embassy.
On his arrival at Constantinople, he was received with the most extraordinary
marks of honor, by persons of all condition and ranks. The nobility and clergy
went out to meet him; and he made his entry amidst the loud acclamation of
numberless crowds, that flocked form all parts, to see the first bishop of the
Catholic Church; who had never before been seen in the east. The emperor, says
the anonymous writer, quoted above, met him, among the rest, and could not have
honored St. Peter himself more that he did him. The bibliothecarian adds, that
Justin bowed down to the very ground before the vicar of the blessed Peter, and,
coveting the honor of being crowned by him, received at his hands the imperial
diadem. 161
I will not quarrel with the bibliothecarian about the bow, but that the emperor,
though now in the eighth year of his reign, had not yet been crowned, is highly
improbable; and if he was crowned before, it is no less improbable, that he should
now desire to be crowned anew. The patriarch invited the pope to perform divine
service in the great church, together with him. But he would neither accept the
invitation, nor even see the patriarch, till he agreed not only to yield him the first
place, but to seat him on a kind of throne himself. It is observable, that the pope
alleged no other reason, why he should be allowed this mark of distinction, than
because he was bishop of Rome, or of the first city, “quia Romanus esset
pontifex. 162
The patriarch indulged him in everything he required, and they celebrated
Easter together, with extraordinary pomp and solemnity. Authors observe, that the
pope officiated in the Latin tongue, according to the rites of the Latin church; and
admitted all to his communion but Timotheus, the Eutychian patriarch of
Alexandria, who happened to be then at Constantinople. 163 As to the subject of
the embassy, all authors agree, that the emperor, yielding to the reasons alleged by
the pope, and the other ambassadors, revoked his edict, restored to the Arians all
160
Anonym. Val.p.59. The pope received with extraordinary marks of honor at Constantinople; - [Year of Christ,
525.] An instance of his pride. The emperor revokes the edict against the Arians. The pope nevertheless imprisoned
by the king on his return to Ravenna.. Several conjectures concerning the motives of the king’s indignation. The
most probable conjecture.
161
Anast. in Joann.
162
Theoph. ubi supra.
163
Theoph. Marcell. in Chron. Niceph. Calist.
82
their churches, and allowed them the same liberty of conscience which they had
enjoyed before the edict was issued. 164
The ambassadors therefore, taking leave of the emperor, set out from
Constantinople on their return to Ravenna, in the latter end of this, or the
beginning of the following year. On their arrival they were immediately
introduced to the king, who was so far from being satisfied with the account they
gave him of their embassy, that, on the contrary, he expressed against them to be
conveyed from the palace to the public jail. 165 What could provoke, to so great a
degree, a prince of Theodoric’s moderation and temper, none of the many
contemporary historians have thought fit to let us know; none even of those who
relate to this very event. Their silence has left room for conjectures of the
moderns; and many have been offered, some favorable to the pope, and some
quite otherwise, according to the disposition and bias of the different writers.
Baronius would make us believe, that the pope, in imitation of the famous
Regulus, sacrificed himself on this occasion, advising the emperor by no means to
grant what he was sent to demand in the king’s name. But he therein contradicts
all the contemporary writers to a man; 166 and besides, makes the pope a mad
enthusiast, instead of a second Regulus. The Roman hero only sacrificed himself,
whereas the pope could not sacrifice himself without sacrificing, at the same time,
the far greater part of the innocent Catholics in the west, who were either subject
to King Theodoric, or to other Arian princes, in alliance with him. A protestant
writer of some note 167 is of opinion, that the pope, swelled and elated with the
extraordinary honors paid him at Constantinople, assumed, on his return, such airs
of authority as the king could not bear in a vassal. But thus, the writer only
accounts for the severe treatment the pope met with, and it is certain, that the
other ambassadors, bishops as well as senators, were treated with no less severity
than he. Others arraign them all of high treason; and truly the chief men of Rome
were suspected, at this very time, of carrying on a treasonable correspondence
with the court of Constantinople, and machinating the ruin of the Gothic empire in
Italy. The king, say these writers, probably took umbrage at the uncommon
kindness shown them at Constantinople; and perhaps had some intimation of their
having encouraged the emperor to take advantage of the king’s old age, or the
minority of his grandson, to deliver Italy from the dominion of the Arian Goths,
and reunite it to the empire. This conjecture may have adopted, as of all the most
plausible, and, considering the present situation of affairs, the best grounded. But
from the anonymous writer, quoted above, we may yet perhaps account, on a
better foundation, for the king’s wrath and resentment against his ambassadors.
They were strictly enjoined by Theodoric, as he informs us, to insist with the
emperor on his [327] declaring those, who through fear or compulsion had quitted
the Arians, free to return to them, and resume unmolested their ancient religion.
This the king thought a just and reasonable demand; nothing more being thereby
164
Theoph. Ibid. Marcell. Chron. Auct. Miscell.1. 15. Ad Ann. 6. Just. Chron. Vet. Pontif. Anonym. Vales & c.
165
Idem Auct.
166
Vide Auct. Supra citatos.
167
Heydegger. Hist. Papat. in Joan. The pope dies in prison; - [Year of Christ, 526.] Great disturbances and divisions
about the election of a new pope. As the parties could not agree, Theodoric names one, Felix III. The pope, and the
other bishops of Italy, henceforth chosen by the people and clergy; but ordained till confirmed by the king.
83
required, as he well expressed it, than that men might be allowed to pull of a
mask, which fear, prevailing in some over conscience, obliged them to wear. With
that demand, however, the bigoted emperor did not comply; and to his not having
complied with it we may, I think, with better reason, ascribe the indignation of the
king, and the treatment the ambassadors met with, than to any other provocation.
For Theodoric well knew, that the emperor would have granted them that, as he
had done their other demands, had they urged it as they ought, and as they were
by him expressly commanded to do. It was therefore, most probably, their
disobedience to the express command of their sovereign that provoked his wrath,
and brought indifferently on them all, as they were all joined in the same
commission, the woeful effects of his royal displeasure. What became of the
others, we know not; but the pope died in prison on the 18th of May of the
following year 526. 168
His body was translated from Ravenna to Rome, and deposited in the basilica
of St. Peter, where he is honored to this day as a martyr; but whether he deserved
that honor, I leave the reader to judge. Two letters are ascribed to this pope; but
they are now both universally rejected, even by the Roman Catholic writers, as
inconsistent with chronology, with history, and with common sense, 169 though
quoted by Baronius as genuine.” 170
Catholic historians, those historians who are sympathetic to Rome, or those who wish to
remain politically correct often whitewash or altogether dismiss this section of history lest the
reader should understand the real issue that ushered in the horrors of the dark ages was the
rejection of religious liberty (even though this principle was still in its primitive form). This
principle was upheld by the Ostrogoths, the last of the first three main Arian kingdoms according
to Procopius. 171 Justinian, the nephew of Emperor Justin, was now the sole ruler and emperor of
the east and his resolve to see his dream fulfilled of a universal empire with a one-world religion
would know no bounds, even at the expense of his kingdom. In order to establish this new order
and secure this objective of a one-world religion, Justinian, along with the Orthodox Church,
would have to remove from the hearts and lives of the Arian Ostrogoths this so-called heretical
teaching of religious liberty found in their dualistic 172 code of law:
168
Anonym. Vales. Anast. Marcell.Chron.
169
See Du Pin, Nouvelle Bibl.des Aut. Eecles.tom.
170
[Baronius quote] “Of this pope Gregory the Great relates, that, being distressed, on his landing at Corinth, in his
way to Constantinople, for want of a gentle horse to pursue his journey, a man of distinction lent him that which his
wife used to ride; but on condition that he sent him back when he had reached a certain place. The pope sent him
back accordingly; but he might as well have kept him; for the horse, knowing his rider, and proud of so great an
honor, could never afterwards be brought to debase himself as to carry so mean a burden as a woman; and the
husband, moved with the miracle, returned him to the pope.170 This miracle, as well as the cure of a blind man, said
by the same writer to have been performed by this pope, in the sight of the whole people of Constantinople170 has
escaped all the contemporary historians.”
Archibald Bower- Samuel Hanson Cox, D.D., A History of the Popes, (Philidelphia, PA: Griffith & Simon, 1847),
1:324-327. See also, Archibald Bower, A History of the Popes from the Foundations of the See of Rome to the
Present Time (London, England), 1750, 2:312-318.
171
172
Like the Franks who were under Roman and Salica law, the Ostrogoths were under Roman and Gothic law.
84
We cannot order a religion, because no one is forced to believe against his
will.” 173
In order for that to be accomplished, there would have to be a new order of government. And
that was just exactly what Justinian and the church set out to complete.
With two out of the three major Arian kingdoms out of the way, the nobles, priests, and
populace were exuberant. With such a speedy removal of the Vandals, the Romans fancied the
thought of a united kingdom that would usher in a lasting peace and security, while the church
sought to regain her lost supremacy from the old world.
For the benefit of continuity on these events that led up to the war with the Ostrogoths and the
results from this war itself, we will supply for the reader excerpts from non-biased authoritative
historians that will accurately trace the successive steps that led up to the climactic, prophetic
year of A.D. 538 and beyond. While a decisive battle was won by Justinian’s army in 538, the
war was far from over, and here is where some have misapplied the event for the commencement
of the 1260-day/year prophetic period. This mistaken identity will be presented in bold relief as
we proceed. Justinian sends a letter to the Franks to form an alliance with them to fight against
the Ostrogoths:
“And he also sent a letter to the leaders of the Franks as follows: “The Goths,
having seized by violence Italy, which was ours, have not only refused absolutely
to give it back, but have committed further acts of injustice against us which are
unendurable and pass beyond all bounds. For this reason we have been compelled
to take the field against them, and it is proper that you should join with us in
waging this war, which is rendered yours as well as ours not only by the orthodox
faith, which rejects the opinion of the Arians, but also by the enmity we both feel
toward the Goths.” Such was the emperor’s letter; and making a gift of money to
them, he agreed to give more as soon as they should take an active part. And they
with all zeal promised to fight in alliance with him.” 174 Appendix175
“We know how the death of Atharlic, the grandson and the successor to
Theodoric the Great (534) brought the regent Amalasuntha to bring his cousin
Theodahad to the throne, the last male representative of the Amales family; and
how also, after several months of trouble, Theodoric’s daughter was, by the order
from his royal spouse, imprisoned on an island in Bolsena lake and a little later,
assassinated (April 535). 176 Justinian, who, had already been attentively following
Italy’s affairs and looking for a way to intervene,177 did not hesitate to consider as
173
Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, Hodgkin, Thomas, The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry Frowde,
1886, Book II – 27. 185-6.
174
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, V. v. 5-10, 3:45.
175
For an overview of significant events of the rise and domination of the Catholic Franks in Gaul after the reign of
Clovis and up to the present year of A.D. 535-6 see APPENDIX I pg. 197.
176
Procopius, De Bello. Gothico, ed. De la Byzantine de Bonn., 23-25. [Hereafter - B. G., 23-25.] The murder of
Amalasuntha served the interests of the Polusitical empire so well that public rumor in Byzantium attributed the
initiative to Theodora and his favorite person, ambassador Peter (Hist. arc., 16). This seems to be questionable,
although Theodora conversed with Theodahad and his wife through a fairly mysterious correspondence (Cass., Var.,
X, 20, 21, 23, 24) and that Peter was completely devoted to him (Ibid., X, 23).
177
B. G., 18, 24.
85
csus belli the murder of a princess to whom he had formally offered [182] and
accepted his imperial protection. 178 By his orders, his ambassador Peter declared
to Theodahad that, after such a crime, all negotiation became impossible, and only
a war without mercy could avenge such an attempt; 179 and resolutely, turning
from threats into action, the emperor put two armies en route; one to penetrate
Dalmatia, the other, larger—it was comprised of 7500 men, without counting the
general’s personal guard—was entrusted to Belisarius; it was to go by sea and
descend into Sicily by surprise. 180 At the same time, the imperial diplomacy, as it
had once done to fight the Vandals, searched for the Ostrogothic alliance, striving
to secure another barbaric alliance against the Ostrogoths and soliciting gold for
the support of the Merovingian Theudebert. 181
By rare good fortune, he again found that the king of the Goths, Theodahad, as
Gelimer before in Africa, was, in all the world, the man the least capable of
resisting an imperial attack. Also, he, as the Vandal king, offered a characteristic
example of what contact with the Roman civilization had done to the barbarians.
One no longer found in him any of the native energies of his race: he understood
nothing of war, he had disgust and contempt for arms. Raised in the Roman way,
fostered, since his youth, the love of letters, 182 proud of his Latin culture and
Platonic philosophy, 183 he was happily detached and blasé, declaring that power
tired and left quickly, and that royalty was not worth what it dirtied, its hands
becoming full of innocent blood in order to defend itself. Deep down, his weak
and cowardly soul was scared of battles; he felt more at ease in diplomatic
negotiations, where his perfidy extended itself with ease; and provided that he
preserved and accrued his fortune, his greed got a good price for his dignity. His
spirit motivated by this, 184 impressionable, changing, he discouraged himself and
regained confidence with equal ease, incapable of firm resolutions, of a constant
will, barely covering a pretentious philosophical varnish that would hardly [183]
fool a shrewd observer, he had a lack of energy, of courage, of character.
Faced with such an adversary, Belisarius was in luck. Without striking a blow,
he occupied Sicily; Palermo, which alone attempted to defend itself, capitulated
after a short resistance; after the end of 535, the large island, that Jordanes called
“The Goths’ Nanny,” 185 again became a Byzantine province. Against this sudden
aggression, Theodahad did not even try to defend himself; instead of acting, he
humbly negotiated, troubled by fear, “already feeling Gelimer’s fate in his
head;” 186 and to appease Justinian, he gave in to the most ample concessions, so
worried, so quivering to see his propositions rejected by the emperor that, right
behind the Byzantine envoy, he rushed in all haste to get Pope Agapit himself to
178
B. G., 25.
179
Ibid., 25.
180
Id., 26-29.
181
Id., 27.
182
B. G., 31.
183
Id., 16-17.
184
Id., 34.
185
Jordanes, Getica, 60.
186
B. G., 29.
86
Constantinople as a mediator. 187 Then all of a sudden, with his ordinary
inconsistency, on the rumor of a success won by the Goths in Dalmatia, perhaps
also knowing that Belisarius was going to quickly be recalled to Africa, he
regained courage, showed himself to be insolent and haughty, and believing it to
be acceptable, he had the ambassadors of Basilus imprisoned. 188 The decisive
battle began.
To stop the imperials, something else was necessary for Theodahad’s late and
transient energy. One saw it well. While the emperor’s general was reconquering
Dalmatia, Belisarius entered Italy through Rhegium, in the month of May 536,
and the Italian populations who hated the Ostrogoths greeted him like a
liberator. 189 He successively attacked and stormed the large city of Naples, cruelly
pillaged by the Byzantines, 190 without Theodahad having, in order to save it, done
anything other than vainly consulting oracles. Becoming the leader through the
storming of this most important city in all of southern Italy, this leader, at the end
of 536, went [184] one step further: to call to the Roman population, encouraged
especially by the envoys that Pope Silverius delegated to him, 191 Belisarius
marched to Rome, and on December 10, without the Ostrogoth garrison
attempting any semblance of resistance, he reestablished Justinian’s authority in
the eternal city.
These most rapid and resounding successes seemed to guarantee the prompt
conquest of all of Italy, and one was so persuaded of this in Constantinople that
the emperor already believed the moment had come to organize Sicily as a
province. 192 But the Ostrogoths has preserved more energy than the Vandals.
Even before the storming of Rome by the Byzantines, a military revolution had
deposed the incapable Theodahad, and the barbarian army, returning to old
Germanic traditions, had elected as king one of the Vitiges leaders. 193 He was a
soldier from an obscure family, but who had proven his bravery; he had illustrated
it in one hundred combats, 194 and “the people’s free judgment,” as Cassiodorus
says, was naturally drawn to this man so different from Theodahad, to this warrior
“who knew as his comrades the bravest of his soldiers and had fought elbow to
elbow with them on the day of the battle.” 195 Unfortunately, this energetic soldier,
who had done well in the role of a follower, had only a few of the qualities of a
general and Polusitician. He did not understand that the supreme goal was to stop,
at any cost, Belisarius’ march; particularly preoccupied with the progress of the
Frankish invasion, he believed himself capable of first shaking off the enemy who
came from the north, in order to then throw himself with all this strength on the
Byzantines. In addition, not feeling well assured of his new royal status, he
187
Id., 29-32.
188
Id., 36.
189
Id., 38-29. Belisarius presented himself as such in his proclamations (id., 40-41).
190
B. G., 53-55; Liber pont., Vita Silv., 3; Jordanes, Romana, 370; Marcel. comes, a. 536.
191
B. G., 73-74.
192
Nov. 75 (a. 537). See the titles that the emperor takes. Nov. 17 (April 535), 42 (July 536), 43 (May 537).
193
Jordanes, Romana, 372.
194
B. G., 58.
195
Cassiod., Var., X, 31, 33. Cf. The praise that Cassiodorus gives him in an official discourse pronounced in front
of the new king and that has a few fragments that remain (ed. Mommsen, p. 473-480).
87
aspired to legitimize his apparent usurpation through a marriage a princess of
Theodoric’s bloodline. In the middle of all these concerns, he lost precious time.
Instead of marching [185] towards the South, he withdrew to Ravenna, believing
to have done enough, the loyal and naïve barbarian that he was, in asking the
Romans for a solemn oath of fidelity; 196 and meanwhile, with the rumor of his
retreat, Belisarius pushed ahead, he lost precious days celebrating his wedding in
Ravenna, 197 negotiating with the Franks whose march he stopped by relinquishing
of Provence, 198 and even sending ambassadors to Justinian. The fall of Perugia
awakened his imprudent inaction: then energetically, “like a furious lion,” says
the chronicler Jordanes, 199 he threw himself into battle: but he was no match for
Belisarius. His obstinate and inept bravery was no less fatal to the Ostrogoths than
Theodahad’s cowardice. 200
Vainly, Vitiges, with 150,000 men, went to lay siege to Rome (March 537), 201
in vain, for more than a year, [one year and nine days 202 ] he camped under the
walls of the eternal city; all his efforts failed in front of Belisarius’ admirable
energy. The leader had 5,000 men: that was all he needed. Neither the breaking of
the aqueducts, which the Goths cut to take water away from the besieged, nor the
furious assault, nor the long blockade, nor the illnesses exhausting the soldiers,
could bend his resistance: as he said in a letter addressed to Justinian, 203 never, as
long as he lived, would Rome fall under the power of barbarians. Such a glorious
defense finished by having an impact on the emperor himself; little by little,
reinforcements were sent to Italy, 204 which succeeded in forcing the blockade and
supplying the besieged city. At the same time, at the beginning of 538, another
imperial army, under the orders of John, nephew of Vitalian, debarked on the
Adriatic coast, invaded Picenum, and stormed Rimini, ravaging everything in his
path with iron and fire; at the archbishop of Milan’s call, Byzantine troops made a
descent into Liguria and occupied the great city of northern Italy; masters of the
sea with their [186] fleets, imperials carrying out decisive victories everywhere.
Vitiges, alarmed by this success, and moreover, incapable, with his decimated
army, of continuing the siege of Rome any longer, finally decided to retreat
(March 538), and Justinian was already speaking of Italy as entirely under his
arms, 205 already he was designating a prefect from the court as governor; 206 and
196
B. G., 61.
197
Jord., Rom., 373; B. G., 61; Marc. comes, a. 536: plus vi copulat quam amore.
198
B. G., 73.
199
Jord., Get., 138.
200
B. G., 273.
201
Id., 82.
202
Procopius dates the beginning of the siege of Rome to February 21, 537. Procopius. History of the Wars.
Translated by H. B. Dewing. Bks. 1–8. In Loeb Classical Library, edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, V. xvii. 12-14. And Procopius concludes the siege of Rome on March 1, 538:
“Now it was about spring equinox, one year had been spent in the siege and nine days in addition, when the Goths,
having burned all their camps, set out at daybreak. And the Romans, seeing their opponents in flight, were at a loss
how to deal with the situation.” Ibid, VI. x. 13-14.
203
Id., 114-116.
204
Id., 116, 125-126, 163-164.
205
Nov. 69, epil. (Mai 538).
206
B. G., 101.
88
in order to finish the conquest, and perhaps also to survey [187] Belisarius, he sent
to the peninsula, towards the middle of 538, a new army of 7,000 men, under
Narses’ orders. 207
We will now note how the two generals’ poor intelligence slowed down the
hoped for success by two years. No doubt, one saved Rimini from the attack by
Vitiges, but the discord that reigned in the camps paralyzed all other operations
and rendered the intelligent plans that Belisarius had employed in northern Italy
unsuccessful. Milan was retaken by the Goths and drowned in an appalling
bloodbath; a little later, Theudebert’s Franks, believing the moment had come to
work for themselves, crossed the Alps and atrociously ravaged the Po valley, also
appallingly, through their barbarianism, the Goths and the imperials. Finally, in
539, Justinian decided to recall Narses and to leave Belisarius alone in charge of
directing the operations. 208 Then events came undone. Successively, Faesulae in
Tuscany and Auximum in Picenum fell, and after seven months of siege, under
Belisarius’ threats, and perhaps because they were exhausted by illness and
family, the Franks retreated. 209 Vitiges, at the end of his resources and perhaps
courage – for this valiant barbarian seemed to have been singularly overpowered
by bad luck 210 -- threw himself at Ravenna; he still hoped that a diversion from
Khosrau, with whom he had entered into negotiations, 211 would oblige the Basilus
to recall his soldiers from Italy to the Orient. Belisarius’ energy and resolution
was going to destroy this last chance; at the end of 539, he went to besiege
Ravenna with all his forces. The supreme battle had started. After several months
of siege (May 540). . . .” 212
There is no need to present to the reader the history of this ongoing war, for it serves no
further purpose here. The point has been established that the war with the Ostrogoths was not
over in 538. Officially, this war continued until 553:
[466] “Thus in 552, in the six and twentieth year of the reign of Justinian, in
whose time the city, as Procopius remarks, was conquered no less than five
times, 213 Rome fell again into the power of the Byzantines. Once more the victor
sent the keys to the Emperor at Constantinople, and the Emperor [467] accepted
them with a like degree of satisfaction as he had shortly before shown on
receiving the bloody robe and royal helmet of Totila. . . . [470] The Greeks bore
the bloody head of the last King of the Goths in triumph on a lance between the
ranks of battle, but although the sight struck dismay into the hearts of his
followers they soon rallied and continued to fight with unabated energy until night
Con- [471] cealed the enemy and themselves. After a brief repose they arose in the
early morning to renew the combat, which raged without interruption until night
fell for the second time. As, worn out with fatigue, they now counted their
207
B. G., 199.
208
Id., 235.
209
Id., 250-251.
210
B. G., 273.
211
Id., 237; B. P., 156.
212
Diehl, Charles. Justinien et la Civilization Byzantine au Vie Siècle. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901, 181-187.
213
In 536 by Belisarius; in 546 by Totila; in 547 by Belisarius; in 549 by Totila and in 552 by Narses.
89
diminished ranks, they held a council of war, and decided to negotiate with the
enemy. The same night some of their leaders appearing before Narses said that:
“The Goths recognized that it was useless to fight against the will of God; they
scorned flight and desired a free retreat, to leave Italy to live, not as subjects of
the Emperor but as free men, in some foreign land. They further demanded
permission to take with them their possessions scattered in various towns.” Narses
hesitated, but John, who had experienced the determination of the Goths in a
hundred fields, advised him to accept the proposals of heroes resolved to die.
While the treaty was in progress, a thousand Goths, led by the brave Indulfus,
scorning every stipulation as dishonorable quitted the camp; and, as the Greeks
yielded to the resolution of desperate men and allowed them to pass, boldly
effected their retreat to Pavia. The remainder promised by a solemn oath to fulfill
the provisions of the treaty and leave Italy. With these events, which took place in
March 553, ended the eighteenth year of this disastrous war.” 214
As we have just witnessed, the Ostrogoths were not defeated until their last king, Tejas, was
killed in 553. In March of 553, the Ostrogoths signed a peace treaty with General Nares and after
eighteen long years of fighting, the war was officially over, according to Procopius, in 553. 215
After this, it was nothing more than what historians refer to as mopping up operations and the
Ostrogoths faded into oblivion.
Yet, central to the prophecy was an issue not discussed by Diehl or other historians, though it
was addressed by the ambassadors of the Ostrogoths and recorded by Procopius, the
stenographer and bibliographer of Belisarius who was present at those negotiations for peace
over the battle of Rome in 538. The main contentious issue at hand was that of religious liberty.
This is glossed over by Catholicism, historians, and the politically correct, yet it is central to the
scriptures, Ellen White, and to the Ostrogoths. We now submit the entire dialogue from the pen
of Procopius:
[337] “Now the barbarians straightway began to despair of winning the war and
were considering how they might withdraw from Rome, inasmuch as they had
suffered the ravages both of the pestilence and of the enemy, and were now
reduced from many tens of thousands to a few men; and , not least of all, they
were in a state of distress by reason of the famine, and while in name they were
carrying on a siege, they were in fact being besieged by their opponents and were
shut off from all necessities. And when they learned that still another army had
come to their enemy from Byzantium both by land and by sea- not being informed
as to its actual size, but supposing it to be as large as the free play of rumor was
able to make it, -they became terrified at the danger and began to plan for their
departure. They accordingly sent three envoys to Rome, one of whom was a
214
Here Procopius, after having briefly told us that the Greeks took Cumae and all the other fortresses, closes his
invaluable history of the Gothic war. Aligern, however, defended Cumae and the Cave of the Sibyl for fully a year
with conspicuous bravery.
Ferdinand Gregorovius, Translated from the Fourth German Edition, Mrs. Gustavus W. Hamilton, History Of The
Revised, 1900), 1:466, 470-1.
215
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VIII. xxxv. 38.
90
Roman of note among the Goths, and he, coming before Belisarius, spoke as
follows:
“That the war was not turned out to the advantage of either side each of us
knows well, since we both have had actual experience of its hardships. For why
should anyone in either army deny facts of which neither now remains in
ignorance. And no one, I think, could deny, at least no one who does not lack
understanding, that it is only senseless men who choose to go on suffering
indefinitely merely to satisfy the contentious spirit which moves them for the
moment, and refuse to find a solution of the troubles which harass them. And
whenever this situation arises, it [339] is the duty of the commanders on both sides
not to sacrifice the lives of their subjects to their own glory, but to choose the
course which is just and expedient, not for themselves alone, but also for their
opponents, and thus to put an end to present hardships. For moderation in one’s
demands affords a way out of all difficulties, but it is the very nature of
contentiousness that it cannot accomplish any of the objects which are essential.
Now we, on our part, have deliberated concerning the conclusion of this war and
have come before you with proposals which are of advantage to both sides,
wherein we waive, as we think, some portion even of our rights. And see to it that
you likewise in your deliberations do not yield to a spirit of contentiousness
respecting us and thus destroy yourselves as well as us, in preference to choosing
the course which will be of advantage to yourselves. And it is fitting that both
sides should state their case, not in continuous speech, but each interrupting the
other on the spur of the moment, if anything is said that shall seem inappropriate.
For in this way each side will be able to say briefly whatever it is minded to say,
and at the same time the essential things will be accomplished.” Belisarius
replied: “There will be nothing to prevent the debate from proceeding in the
manner you suggest, only let the words spoken by you be words of peace and of
justice.”
So the ambassadors of the Goths in their turn said: “You have done us an
injustice, O Romans, in taking up arms wrongfully against us, your friends and
allies. And what we shall say is, we think, well known to each one of you as well
as to ourselves. [341] For the Goths did not obtain the land of Italy by wresting it
from the Romans by force, but Odoacer in former times dethroned the emperor,
changed the government of Italy to a tyranny, and so held it. 216 And Zeno, who
then held the power of the East, though he wished to avenge his partner in the
imperial office and to free this land from the usurper, was unable to destroy the
authority of Odoacer. Accordingly he persuaded Theodoric, our ruler, although he
was on the point of besieging him and Byzantium, not only to put an end to his
hostility towards himself, in recollection of the honor which Theodoric had
already received at his hands in having been made a patrician and consul of the
Romans, 217 but also to punish Odoacer for his unjust treatment of Augustulus, and
thereafter, in company with the Goths, to hold sway over the land as its legitimate
and rightful rulers. It was in this way, therefore, that we took over the dominion of
Italy, and we have preserved both the laws and the form of government as strictly
216
476 A.D. Cf. Book V. i. 6-8 and note.
217
Cf. Book. V.i.10,11.
91
as any who have ever been Roman emperors, and there is absolutely no law,
either written or unwritten, introduced by Theodoric or by any of his successors
on the throne of the Goths. And we have so scrupulously guarded for the Romans
their practices pertaining to the worship of God and faith in Him, that not one of
the Italians has changed his belief, either willingly or unwillingly, up to the
present day, and when Goths have changed, 218 we have taken no notice of the
matter. And indeed the sanctuaries of the Romans have received from us the
highest honor; for no one who has taken refuge [343] in any of them has ever been
treated with violence by any man; nay, more, the Romans themselves have
continued to hold all the offices of the state, and not a single Goth has had a
share in them. Let someone come forward and refute us, if he thinks that this
statement of ours is not true. And one might add that the Goths have conceded
that the dignity of the consulship should be conferred upon Romans each year by
the emperor of the East. Such has been the course followed by us; but you, on
your side, did not take the part of Italy while it was suffering at the hands of the
barbarians and Odoacer, although it was not for a short time, but for ten years,
that he treated the land outrageously; but now you do violence to us who have
acquired it legitimately, though you have no business here. Do you therefore
depart hence out of your way, keeping both that which is your own and whatever
you have gained by plunder.”
And Belisarius said: “Although your promise gave us to understand that your
words would be brief and temperate, yet your discourse has been both long and
not far from fraudulent in its pretensions. For Theodoric was sent by the Emperor
Zeno in order to make war on Odoacer, not in order to hold dominion of Italy
himself. For why should the emperor have been concerned to exchange one tyrant
for another? But he sent him in order that Italy might be free and obedient to the
emperor. And though Theodoric disposed of the tyrant in a satisfactory manner, in
everything else he shewed an extraordinary lack of proper feeling; for he never
thought of restoring the land to its rightful owner. But I, for my part, think that he
who robs [345] another by violence and he who of his own will does not restore his
neighbor’s goods are equal. Now, as for me, I shall never surrender the emperor’s
country to any other. But if there is anything you wish to receive in place of it, I
give you leave to speak.”
And the barbarians said: “That everything which we have said is true no one of
you can be unaware. But in order that we may not seem to be contentious, we give
up to you Sicily, great as it is and of such wealth, seeing that without it you
cannot possess Libya in security.”
And Belisarius replied: “And we on our side permit the Goths to have the
whole of Britain, which is much larger that Sicily and was subject to the Romans
in early times. For it is only fair to make an equal return to those who first do a
good deed or perform a kindness.”
The barbarians: “Well, then, if we should make you a proposal concerning
Campania also, or about Naples itself, will you listen to it?”
Belisarius: “ No, for we are not empowered to administer the emperor’s affairs
in a way which is not in accord with his wish.”
218
The Goths were Christians, but followed the Arian heresy.
92
The barbarians: “Not even if we impose upon ourselves the payment of a fixed
sum of money every year?”
Belisarius: “No, indeed. For we are not empowered to do anything else than guard
the land for its owner.’
The barbarians: “Come now, we must send [347] envoys to the emperor and
make with him our treaty concerning the whole matter. And a definite time must
also be appointed during which the armies will be bound to observe an armistice.”
Belisarius: “Very well; let this be done. For never shall I stand in your way
when you are making plans for peace.”
After saying these things they each left the conference and the envoys of the
Goths withdrew to their own camp. And during the ensuing days they visited each
other frequently and made the arrangements for the armistice, and they agreed
that each side should put into the hands of the other some of its notable men as
hostages to ensure the keeping of armistice.” 219
So it came to pass that when the three months of armistice or truce had expired with no word
from the ambassadors, the Goths resolved to abandon their blockade of Rome. Thus, Procopius
describes how the battle for Rome came to its end with the defeat of the Ostrogoths:
“Now it was about the spring equinox, and one year had been spent in the siege
and nine days in addition, [February 21, 537-March 1, 538] when the Goths,
having burned all their camps set out at daybreak. And the Romans, seeing their
opponents in flight, were at a loss how to deal with the situation. For it so
happened that the majority of the horsemen were not present at that time, since
they had been sent to various places, as has been stated by me above, 220 and they
did not think that by themselves they were a match for so great a multitude of the
enemy. However, Belisarius armed all the infantry and cavalry. And when he saw
that more than half of the enemy had crossed the bridge, he led the army out
through the small Pincian Gate, and the hand-to-hand battle which ensued proved
to be equal to any that had preceded it. At the beginning the barbarians withstood
their enemy vigorously, and many on both sides fell in the first encounter; but
afterwards the Goths turned to flight and brought upon themselves a great and
overwhelming calamity; for each man for himself was rushing to cross the bridge
first. As a result of this they became very much crowded and suffered most
cruelly, for they were being killed both by each other and by the enemy. Many,
too, fell off the bridge on either side into the Tiber, sank with all their arms, and
perished. Finally, after losing in this way the most of their number, the remainder
joined those who had crossed before. And Longinus the Isaurian and Mundilas,
the guards of Belisarius, made themselves conspicuous for their valor in this
battle. But while Mundilas, after engaging with four barbarians in turn and killing
them all, was himself saved, Longinus, having proved himself the chief cause of
219
Procopius. History of the Wars. Translated by H. B. Dewing. Bks. 1–8. In Loeb Classical Library, edited
by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VI. vi. 1-36., 3:337-347.
220
Chap. vii. 25.
93
the rout of the enemy, fell where he fought, leaving the Roman army great regret
for his loss.” 221
Hodgkin’s concluding remarks over the battle of Rome in 538 revealed to many a historian,
and perhaps to the Goths themselves, the huge black cloud that overhung the Gothic nation:
“So ended the long siege of Rome by Witigis, a siege in which the numbers and
prowess of the Goths were rendered useless by the utter incapacity of their
commander. Ignorant how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even
the sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his army by
Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic nation to perish, not so much by
the weapons of the Romans as by the deadly dews of the Campagna. With heavy
hearts the barbarians must have thought, as they turned them northwards, upon the
many graves of gallant men which they were leaving on that fatal plain. Some of
them must have suspected the melancholy truth that they had dug one grave,
deeper and wider than all, the grave of the Gothic monarchy in Italy.” 222
“The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the attack, and
was almost entirely consumed in the siege of Rome.” 223
The battle of Rome finally ended on March 1, 538, with the defeat of the Ostrogoths, and a
significant battle it was, indeed, as Vitiges or Witigis and the remainder of his army retreated to
Ravenna. However, the Ostrogoths regrouped numerous times thereafter and the war raged on
until 553. We also witness that historians recognized that important legislation was issued about
Italy in 538 that established Justinian’s judicial authority in the west:
“Justinian was already speaking of Italy as entirely under his arms, 224 already
he was designating a prefect from the court as governor;” 225
The primary documents from Justinian himself confirm that it was not December 10, 536,
when King Vitiges abandoned Rome without a fight and Belisarius simply went in and occupied
Rome. No, the deciding factor that would establish Justinian’s judicial authority in the west
would be the outcome of the first siege of Rome that began on February 21, 537, and ended in a
massive defeat of the Ostrogoths on March 1, 538. It was the outcome of that battle alone that
secured for Justinian his judicial authority in the west. Novel 69, issued June 1, 538, confirms
that this was the first time in 62 years that a Catholic Emperor had held legal jurisdiction in Italy:
TITLE XXIV.
221
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VI. x. 13-20.
222
Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy and Her Invaders. 8 vols. 1st ed. published 1880–1889. New York: Russell and Russell,
1967, 4:285.
223
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (Edited by J. B. Bury. London:
Methuen, 1909), 4:346.
224
225
Procopius, De Bello. Gothico, ed. De la Byzantine de Bonn., 101.
94
ALL PERSONS SHALL OBEY THE PROVINCIAL JUDGES IN BOTH
CRIMINAL AND PECUNIARY CASES, AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE
CONDUCTED BEFORE THEM WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION BASED UPON
PRIVILEGE, AND PROVINCIALS SHALL NOT BE SUED HERE UNLESS
THIS Is AUTHORIZED By AN IMPERIAL PRAGMATIC SANCTION.
SIXTY-NINTH NEW CONSTITUTION.

The Emperor Justinian to the People of Constantinople.
PREFACE.
[262] “One of the most perfect of all human virtues is that which dispenses
equity, and is designated justice, for no other virtue, when accompanied with this,
is worthy of the name; therefore We do not praise fortitude, which is not united
with justice, and although the Roman language calls virtue courage in battle, if
justice is excluded from it, it becomes a vice, and is productive of no good.
As we have ascertained that justice is treated with contempt in Our provinces,
We have deemed it necessary to re-establish it in a proper condition, by means of
a law which will be acceptable to God. . . .
EPILOGUE.
[266] “Therefore, as soon as Our Most Glorious Imperial Pretorian Prefects
appointed throughout the extent of the entire Roman Empire receive notice of this
law, they will publish it in all the departments of their government, that is in Italy,
Libya, the Islands, the East, and Illyria; in order that all persons may know how
greatly We have their interests at heart. We dedicate this law to God who has
inspired Us to accomplish such great things, and who will recompense Us for
having enacted this constitution for the security of Our subjects. It shall also be
communicated to Our citizens of Constantinople. Given at Constantinople, on the
Kalends of June, during the twelfth year of the reign of Justinian, and the
Consulate of John.” 226
Justinian’s Novels reiterates the banishment of religious liberty for Italy and the west, as
well:
TITLE XXII.
NO ONE SHALL BUILD HOUSES OF WORSHIP WITHOUT THE CONSENT

OF THE BISHOP. ANYONE WHO DOES SO MUST FIRST PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT REVENUE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE
226
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian], 17 vols. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001, Justinian,
The Novels-69. Vol. 16: 262, 266, June 1, 538. The definitive dating used here was taken from the work of a French
Doctor of Law: Noailles, Pierre. Les Collections de Novelles de L’Empereur Justinien: Origine et Formation sous
Justinien. Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1912.
95
CHURCH WHICH HE BUILDS. BISHOPS SHALL NOT ABANDON THEIR
CHURCHES. CONCERNING THE ALIENATION OF IMMOVABLE
ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY
SIXTY-SEVENTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
The Same Emperor Justinian to Menna, Most Holy and Blessed Archbishop of
Constantinople, and Patriarch of Its Entire Jurisdiction.
PREFACE.
[258] “Although We have included matters having reference to the most holy
churches in numerous laws, We still have need of another to dispose of
difficulties which have arisen, and provide for emergencies. For many persons
build churches in order to perpetuate their names, and not with a view to utility,
and they do not take care to furnish sufficient means for their expenses, their
lights, and the maintenance of those charged with Divine service, but after the
churches are constructed they leave them to be either destroyed, or entirely
deprived of the ministrations of the clergy.
CHAPTER I.
[259] Therefore We order, before all things, that no one shall be allowed to
build a monastery, a church, or an oratory, before the bishop of the diocese has
previously offered prayer on the site, erected a cross, conducted a public
procession, and consecrated the ground with the knowledge of all persons. For
there are many individuals who, while pretending to build houses of worship,
contribute to the weakness of others, and become not the founders of orthodox
churches, but of dens for the practice of unlawful religious rites.
EPILOGUE.
. . . . [260] Your Holiness will, by means of suitable letters, cause this Our law
to be communicated to the other Most Holy Patriarchs and metropolitans under
Your jurisdiction, who must, in their turn, notify the bishops subject to their
authority, so that no one may be unaware of what has been decreed by Us.
Given at Constantinople, on the Kalends of May, during the twelfth year of Our
Lord the Emperor Justinian, and the Consulate of John.” 227
Procopius, in other writings, confirms that it was Justinian who ended religious freedom for
the Arian Christians, and we believe he is here quoting Novel 67 that was issued on May 1, 538,
which we just reviewed:
227
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian], 17 vols. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001, The Novels,
67. 16:258-9, 260. May 1, 538.
96
“He [Justinian] seized the best and most fertile estates, and prohibited the
Arians from exercising the rites of their religion.” 228
In 538, Malalas recorded in the consular list a number of events that took place in that year:
84. “In the consulship of John the Cappadocian the Arians’ Churches were
confiscated.”
85. “In that year the Chalke Gate of the palace at Constantinople was finished,
being decorated with various kinds of marble and with mosaic work. The
horologion near the Augusteion and the Basilical was moved.”
“In that year the office of the praefectus vigilium was abolished and praetor
was appointed in his place.”
“In that year a quaestor was appointed.”
86. “In this consulship the dedication of the Great Church took place.” 229
Theophanes, of ecclesiastical history, adds this to Malalas’ account of the dedication of the
Great Church:
“In this year, on 27, December of the 1st indiction, the first dedication of the
Great Church took place. The procession set out from St. Anastasia, with Menas
the patriarch sitting in the imperial carriage and the emperor joining in the
procession with the people. From the day when the most holy Great Church was
burned until the day of its dedication was 5 years, 11 months and 10 days.” 230
“The Montanists, in 529, had burnt themselves in their own churches. Other
heretics were given three months’ grace. All magistrates and soldiers had to swear
that they were Catholics. Arians had to be spared at first for fear of reprisals by
the Goths. But in 533 Justinian attacked the Vandals in Africa, and in 535 the
Ostrogoths of Italy. After victory their churches were taken away; they were
forbidden them, and baptism. Their importance as conquerors disappeared and
their sects faded away.” 231
In conclusion, it has been rightly stated by Procopius that the Arian kingdoms did use the
same laws and did practice a common religion, for they were all of the Arian faith and did not
228
Procopius, The Secret History of the Court of Justinian (Boston: IndyPublish.com, n.d.), 62.
229
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, ed. The Chronicle of John Malalas. A Translation by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys,
and Roger Scott. Melbourne: Australian Asso. for Byzantine Studies, 1986, 285.
John Malalas was a Byzantine chronicler that lived during the reign of Justinian. (A.D. 491-578). The three
consular lists are these: (1) Theodor Mommsen, Chronica Minora SAEC. IV.V.VI.VII (Berlin: Verlag Hahnsche
Buchhandlung (www.hahnsche-buchhandlung.de), vols. 1, 2, 3; 1892, 1894, 1898, respectfully; (2) Carl Frick,
Chronica Minora (Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri, 1892); (3) Roger S. Bagnall, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987). See also Elizabeth Jeffreys, Brian Croke and Roger Scott, Studies in John
Malalas (University of Sydney N.S.W.: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Department of Modern
Greek, 1990), 143.
230
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: n.p., 1888).
231
Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed and Ward, 1928), 222-3. Imprimatur.
97
differ in anything else at all.232 They were all unified under the legal ideology of religious liberty
until A.D. 538. Hence, the best kept secret of the dark ages remains a secret no more.
It has been shown that a military overthrow in and of itself will not suffice for the
commencement of the 1260-day/year prophetic period. The final event that ultimately sealed the
commencement of the prophetic period according to the scriptures is next to be disclosed. It,
hereby, has been demonstrated again from the primary and judicial sources that this was a
religious war and that the Ostrogoths were the third of the three horns to be “plucked up by the
roots.” We close with this remarkable testimony by Procopius, an eye witness to it all:
“And while I watched the entry of the Roman army into Ravenna at that time,
an idea came to me, to the effect that it is not at all by the wisdom of men or by
any other sort of excellence on their part that events are brought to fulfillment, but
that there is some divine power which is ever warping their purposes and shifting
them in such a way that there will be nothing to hinder that which is being
brought to pass. For although the Goths were greatly superior to their opponents
in number and in power, and had neither fought a decisive battle since they had
entered Ravenna nor been humbled in spirit by any other disaster, still they were
being made captives by the weaker army and were regarding the name of slavery
as no insult.” 233
232
233
Ibid., VI. xxix. 32 – 34.
98
8
Justinian, Canon Law, and the Government of Satan
Church and State united in issuing oppressive religious legislation and thereby outlawed
religious liberty. Divinely-ordained free will, acknowledged in the concept of religious liberty, is
a vital component of the government of God. This precious freedom was exchanged through
legislation for a government of force that denied religious liberty in order to control the
consciences of all men.
When a study of the religious policy of Justinian is in order, historians are fully acquainted
with and still reference a select authorship even to this day. 234 We, likewise, will from time to
time quote from some of those authoritative sources, since they are esteemed as credible sources
among the academic community as this will further enhance the truth.
We begin with some background on the life of Justinian:
“Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus was born on 11 May of the year 483 at
Tauresium, 235 a small place on the border [6] between Illyria and Macedonia. His
father was called Istock or Sabbatius; his mother was Biglenitza or Vigilania, a
sister of the emperor Justin I. Through the efforts of this uncle, Justinian came to
Constantinople in his early youth, where he devoted himself with great zeal to
scientific studies. At the local academy, which at that time was in spirited
competition with the schools of Rome, Alexandria, and Athens, he enjoyed
lessons in philosophy, in the fine arts, in jurisprudence and mathematics, as well
as in general science of war. Attention was also given to theology; this study even
developed later into one of the emperor’s favorite activities. 236
After completing his academic studies, Justinian entered the military path.
After brief service in the army of Justin, he was promoted to be an imperial
bodyguard.
When Emperor Anastasius died in the year 518, and the favor of the soldiers
opened the way of General Justin to the throne, a never-expected future began for
the imperial nephew. In rapid succession he moved from one position of honor to
another. In the year 520 he accompanied the grandeur of a Consul. Shortly
thereafter followed his appointment to State [7] minister, then the promotion to
head of the private chambers, and finally he was awarded the supervision over the
entire army. On 1 April 527 the emperor named him a co-regent. The collective
government granted only four months. Justin died and left complete sovereignty
234
A. Knecht, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I. (1896); G. Krueger, “Justinian I” in Hauck’s
Realencyclopedie, vol. 9 (1901). C. Diehl, Justinien et la civilization Byzantine au sixième siècle (1901); G.
Glaizoll, Un empereur theologien, Justinien (1905); Hamilkar S. Abailisatos, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung des
Kaisers Justinian I. (Aalen,1973. Reprint of 1913 ed.); H. Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im
Frühmittelalter (Tübingen, Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, 1921, (Paul Siebeck), 1917, pp 96-123; L. Duchesne, L’Eglise au
sixième siècle (1925;); E. Grupe, Kaiser Justinian (1923), and others.
235
Evagrius 1. c. lib. IV, 1. . . .
236
Fr. Balduinus, Justinianus sive de iure novo. Halae et Lipsiae 1728. p. 5. – E. Gibbon, The history of the
decline and fall of the Roman Empire, ed. W. Smith, London 1854. Vol. V. p. 35ss.
99
to Justinian. After the young emperor had himself and his wife Theodora, a
person of lowly origins [a prostitute] and of dubious reputation 237 , solemnly
crowned, he turned his attentions to [8] the execution of far-fetched plans for the
government.” 238
“Justinian would re-assemble the fallen Christian empire.” 239
Those “far-fetched plans for the government” did bring about a “new order” through
legislation as Procopius, a 6th century historian, describes Justinian’s sweeping changes:
“When Justinian came to the throne, he straightway succeeded in upsetting

everything. What had previously been forbidden by the laws, he introduced, while
he abolished all existing institutions, as though he had assumed the imperial robe
for no other purpose than to alter completely the form of government.” 240
Knecht accurately describes Justinian’s legislative changes, as well:
“One state, one law, one church should rule the world; an absolute authority
should reign in them, and he himself should be this authority. 241 To restore the
Roman world-empire within its old borders, to elevate it to the worlds previous
237
Procopius, Hist. arcane sive Anecdota. On the authenticity of the secret history, at the beginning of the 17th
century, in the middle of the 18th and 19th centuries, and also in the most recent times, a written feud has been
waged. The most relevant literature will be mentioned here. For the rest, I recommend K. Krumbacher, Geschichte
d. byzant. Literatur. München 1891, p. 42. Giphanius l.c., Ludewig l.c., Rivius, Imp. Justiniani defensio adv.
Alemannum. Frankofurti 1628, Corvinus Arnoldus a Belderen, Imp. Justinianus M. Catholicus. Moguntiae 1668.
Vindobonae 1766, Struvius, Bibl. hist. instructa. Vol. V. Pars I. Lipsiae 1790. The authors named here argued in
favor of the inauthenticity of the private history. The romanistic jurists recently affiliated themselves with this group
(“the appreciative admirers of the emperor of the pandects”) and J. H. Reinkens in Anecdota sintne scripta a
Procopio …. Breslau 1858. Seeking to validate the authenticity are Schmidt-Leyser, Observata diplomatico-
historica de iis, quae Justiniano imp. … supposita Helmstadii 1785, Cardinal Alemannus (d. 1626), Anecdota. Lyon
1632, Venetiis 1729 and most recently Felix Dahn, Procopiusius von Cäsarea, Berlin 1865 and K. Krubacher l.c.
Cf. also Procopiusios v. Kaesarea, Gesch. d. Kriege mit d. Persern, Vandalen und Gothen, translated by Spyr.
Destunis and commentary by Gabr. Destunis. Geschichte der Kriege mit den Vandalen. Book 1. St. Petersburg 1891
(Russ.) – J. Haury, Procopiana. Augsburg 1981. Cf. F. Dahn, Wochenschrift für klass. Philologie. 1892. – J.
Haury, Procopiana. Munich 1893. – J. Scheftlein, De praepositionum usu Procopiano. Erlangen 1893. Cf. Byz.
Ztschr. 1 (1892). P. 164, 2 (1894). – Invernizi l.c. leaves the question undecided: id unum contend, nullam esse
huic libello sive Procipii sit sive alterius cuiusdam obtrectatoris praestandam fidem, p. 149, likewise J. Paul
Reinhard, Procopiuss Geheimgesch. Erlangen-Leipzig 1753. – L. Engelstoft, De re Byzantinorum military sub imp.
Justiniani I. Hauniae 1808. p. 10 and M. J. Doppertus, Selectiora ex Justiniani M. historia and Sneebergae 1714 p. 7
are of the opinion that: Procopius … neutro loco aut negligendus aut temere sequendus. Tancredi, S. Ormisda e S.
Silverio … ed I loro tempi, Roma-Torino 1865, writes: Procopio …. or esaltando or profondando Giustiniano …
lasciò dubbio fino oggi quando dobbiano acconciargli fede e quando no solita sciagura degli uomini bifronti e
bilingui. Cf. also Vincenzi, S. Gregorii Nysseni et Origenis scripta … imp. Justiniani triumphus in oec. V. syn.
Roma 1865. p. 368 ss.
238
Würzberg, 1896), 5-8. [Andreas Gobel, The Religious Politics of Emperor Justinian I, Wurzburg, 1896.]
239
Hub. Giphanii de imp. Justiniano commentarius. Ingostadii 1591. p. 2 ss.
1896), 5. [Andreas Gobel, The Religious Politics of Emperor Justinian I, Wurzburg, 1896.]
240
241
Ad. Schmidt. l.c. p. 12.
100
power, to win back its earlier glory, was the goal of Justinian’s external politics.
He had attained this goal. His wars brought him the fame of a restitutor urbis et
orbis and the title of “a ruler of the Alemanni, Goths, Franks, Germanics, Anten,
Alani, and Vandals in Africa.” 242
Diehl gives us a true perspective of the man Justinian:
“He was the eminent representative of two great ideas: the imperial idea and
the Christian idea, and that alone guaranties his fame. . . . By the mere fact that he
is sitting on Constantine’s throne, he becomes the direct and legitimate heir of the
Ceasars; he claims without fear, the whole heritage. 243 The day after his
accession, Justinian dreamt about a universal empire. This antique Roman unity,
in which German adventurers had carved out sovereignties, he aspired to
reconstitute it in its integrity: these historic undeniable rights, he aimed to
reinstate them and make them again into a reality.” 244
“To re-conquer Africa from the Vandals, Italy from the Ostrogoths, Spain from
the Visigoths, Gaul from the Franks, that was his dream: “he aspired, said
Procopius, to conquer the whole world”245 ; and he himself wrote, the day after the
occupation of Africa and of Sicily “we have good hopes that God will allow us to
retake the other countries the ancient Romans owned, till the limit of the two
oceans.” 246
“If he goes to war, it is not only to bring back in the Roman unity the provinces
held captive by the Barbarians: as a Catholic prince, he suffers, even more
impatiently yet, to see orthodox princes submitted to Arian heretics “persecutors
of bodies and souls” 247 next to the restorer of the historic rights of the empire,
there is in him a champion of God. Thus, his military enterprises have something
of the enthusiasm of crusades: and similarly, in his government, religion is
inseparable from politics. If we want to really grasp this combination of diverse
sentiments, which constitute the foundation of the imperial soul, we must read in
242
Nov. (17) XXI ed. C.E. Zachariae a Lingenthal. Lipsiae 1881. pars I. p. 137; Byzant. Ztschr. 3 (1894). p. 21—
23. – Georgii Cyprii description orbis Romani ed. H. Gelzer. Lipsiae 1890. Cf. Byzant. Ztschr. 1. (1892) p. 601 ff.
– L’Illyricum ecclésiastique par L. Duchesne in Byzant. Ztschr. 1 (1892) p. 531 ss. – G. H. Bruckner, An
Justinianus imp. recte usurpaverit titulos Germanici e Alemannici. Jenae 1709. – F. G. Grebel-Leyser, Defensio
Justiniani contra obtrectatores. Vitenbergae 1748. p. 12 ss: The Roman emperors attached such titles to themselves
when they had achieved a victory over a people, even if they had not brought said people into their power. Justinian
did not name himself pater patriae, and much less pontifex maximus, as had Constantine and his direct successors,
but he did likely call himself servus dei, l.c. p. 15.
1896), 8. [Andreas Gobel, The Religious Politics of Emperor Justinian I, Wurzburg, 1896.]
243
Const. Deo auctore, 7
244
C.J. 1, 27, 2, praef. Cf. Bell. Vand., p.387.
245
Bell. Pers. p. 157.
246
Nov. 30, 11,
247
C.J. 1, 27, 1, 1.
101
particular, the preface of the great ordinance that Justinian published the day after
the conquest of Africa 248 . Everything can be found in it, the piety of the Christian
who gave thanks to that God who had just given him a new and more dramatic
mark of his favors, and the pride of the sovereign who glorifies himself for having
taken back his lost provinces and re-conquered from the Barbarians the ornaments
and the insignias of the empire. Here, it is the prince respectful of religion, who
modestly thanks the heavens for deigning to choose him to avenge the wounds of
the Church; there, the superb emperor who proudly reminds all that the glory he
acquired had been denied to his predecessors and who declares that an era of joy
is going to start with his reign for Africa.”249
“Assuredly, this religious passion which enflamed Justinian has its excesses
and perils. It quickly leads to religious intolerance, it engenders persecution
against anyone who thinks differently from the prince, and this persecution, no
matter how rigorous, then becomes legitimate and saintly. “He did not consider
murder, said Procopius, -- and here too, we think of Philippe II – the death he
inflicted on the men who did not share his beliefs.” 250 He himself wrote
somewhere: “We have a hatred of heretics” 251 ; and his whole life, he proved it,
persecuting without mercy all the dissidents, Jews, Arians, Donatists,
Monophysites and Pagans. 252 And there is another danger of this religious
conception: an absolute emperor who takes an interest in the church really risks
tyrannizing it. Justinian, in all times, had taken great pleasure in meddling directly
in theological controversy: he was a fine orator, he knew it, and willingly he
edified the bishops with his homilies full of unction and softness, and his audience
was left marveled. “If I had not, writes a prelate, heard with my own ears, the
words which, with the grace of God, came out of the blessed mouth of the prince,
I would barely believe it, since we found in it reunited the magnitude of David,
the patience of Moses, and the clemency of the apostles.” 253
“To have money, all means appeared justified to Justinian: taxes were
multiplied, and were taken with an unpitying rigor “the first duty of the subjects,
said the prince expressly, and the best way they have to recognize the imperial
solicitude, being to pay with an absolute devotion the public taxes in their
integrity” 254 . As long as the money entered the treasury exactly, Justinian left all
liberty to the greed and exactions of his officials “giving all his favors, said a
chronicler, to those who invented ways to find money” 255 and to meet the
requirements of his wars, he himself did not hesitate neither in front of injustice
248
C.J. 1, 27, 1.
249
250
Hist. Arc. p.84.
251
Nov. 45. praef.
252
Hist. Arc. p.73-76, 156.
253
Labbe, IV, 1777. Cf. on the taste of Justinian for polemics, Nov. 132, in which he alludes to his theological
writings and Liberatus, Breviarium (P.L.t. 68.,p.693).
254
Nov. 8, 10
255
Zonaras, p.152. Cf. Bell. Goth., p.525 Zach. Rhet., p.188.
102
nor in front of the most dishonest practices 256 . It is the ordinary ransom of glory:
profound misery, the complete impoverishment of the monarchy.” 257
From the words of August Knecht, we have the confirmed titles and formula used by Justinian
and the church to bring about her one-world order:
“The titles that Justinian uses in his letters and other writings to address the
Bishop of Rome are: παπα, 258 παπα ‘Ρωμης, 259 ‘Papa’ with and without ‘urbis
Romae,’ 260 primus achipontifex et papa urbis Romae, 261 262 ,5a, beatissimus atque
apostolicus pater, papa urbis Romae, 263 beatissimus sanctusque pater, pontifex
urbis Romae 264 , sanctissimus archiepiscopus almae urbis Romae et patriarcha, 265
sanctitas, 266 beatitudo 267 , apostolatus. 268 The titles papa primus archipontifex,
apostolicus pater, apostolus, are used exclusively for the Pope. The remaining
names are also used with other bishops and patriarchs. . . . 269
Justinian thus accords the Bishop of Rome [64] a higher status than the other
bishops and metropolitan bishops, the other patriarchs, as well as the archbishop
and ecumenical patriarchs from New Rome. He speaks with regard of the
“bishops of Old Rome, who follow in every way the apostolic tradition and have
256
Evagrius, 4, 30 .
257
258
Migne l.c. 1029 C. 1033 B.
259
l.c. 1079 A.
260
l.c. ep. 44 p. 833, ep. 68, p. 864.
261
ep. 114 p. 914.
262
1.7 § 1 C. de sum. trin. I, 1.
5a
Migne l.c. 1127 C.
263
Thiel l.c. ep. 75, p. 875, ep. 127, p. 939.
264
l.c. ep. 132 p. 954.
265
l. 8 § 7 C. de sum. trin. I, 1.
266
l.c. ep. 120 p. 921.
267
l.c. ep. 89 p. 886, ep. 99 p. 887.
268
l.c. ep. 135 p. 957.
269
l. 7 pr. C de sum. trin. I, 1.
[21a. παπα [in my dictionary only as “expression of surprise” but “pope” like Latin?; Amer. Heritage Dict. says
Latin papa/for pope comes from Greek παππας]
22a. παπα ‘Ρωμης [pope of Rome]
23a. papa urbis Romae [pope of the city Rome]
24a. primus archipontifex and papa urbis Romae [first archbishop/archpontiff and pope of the city Rome]
25a. παπα της πρεσβυτερας Ρωμης και πατριαρχης [pope of the elder/greater/more important Rome and patriarch]
5a. ‘ιερευς της πρεσβυτερας ‘Ρωμης [priest of the elder/greater/more important Rome]
26a. beatissimus atque apostolicus pater, papa urbis Romae [very blessed and apostolic father, pope of the city
Rome]
27a. pontifex urbis Romae [bishop/pontiff of the city Rome]
28a. sanctissimus archiepiscopus almae urbis Romae et patriarcha [very holy archbishop of the kind city Rome and
patriarch]
29a. sanctitas [holiness]
30a. beatitudo [blessedness]
31a. apostolatus [apostolate]
The titles παπα [pope], papa primus archipontifex [pope first archbishop], apostolicus pater [apostolic father],
apostolus [apostole] and παπα...και πατριαρχης [pope…and patriarch]
32a. αρχιεπισκοπος και οικουμενικος πατριαρχης [archbishop and patriarch of the whole world]
103
never diverged from one another in their teachings, but have preserved the true
and proper faith through the present day.” 270 A recognition of the primacy on the
part of the emperor cannot be denied. His own words serve as proof of this: “We
have some time ago decreed a general law against ... Nestorius and Eutyches ...
and have taken care that the unity of the holy church and the Holy Father and
patriarch of Old Rome, whom we have informed of this law, remain intact in all
areas. For we shall not tolerate the withholding of any information pertaining to
the church from his Holiness, because he is the head of all the priests of God and
especially because, whenever heretics have appeared in these areas, they have
been set right by the valid judgment of the holy chair.” 271
. . . . Justinian boastingly emphasizes that Old Rome was “the source and
homeland of the laws, the origin of the priesthood, and that the seat of the highest
bishop is found there.”14a In another writing to the same pope (533), Justinian
calls his Holiness “the head of all holy churches.”272 He very [65] clearly
expresses the relationship between Rome and Constantinople in an edict from
545: “Be it known that, in accordance with the decisions of the holy councils, the
holy pope of Old Rome is first among all priests, but that the archbishop of
Constantinople takes second rank after the holy apostolic chair of Old Rome and
stands before all others.” 273 The primacy of the pope before the patriarchs of New
Rome is also established by that which Justinian himself writes, “Anthimus, the
heretical patriarch, was replaced by Agapet, the bishop of the holy church of Old
Rome.” 274 Also of importance is what Pope John II writes to Justinian about the
relationship between the pope and the emperor: “In the crown of your wisdom
and piety, most Christian sovereign, a star gleams with particular light, this star
being that you, in the zeal of faith and Christian love, and precisely acquainted
with the church’s teachings, uphold the reverence of the Roman seat, seek unity
with him, and subordinate everything to him to whose predecessor, the prince of
the apostles, the Lord said, ‘Tend to my flock!’ The holy fathers taught that the
Roman seat stands in truth over all churches, and the emperors have declared the
same in their laws. You testify to the same through your pious words. Through
you the word of the Scripture has been fulfilled: ‘Through me the kings rule, and
through me the lawgivers prescribe what is right’ ... We have learned that you, in
apostolic zeal and with the endorsement of our brothers and bishops, have decreed
a general law to the faithful in order to eradicate false teachings. Now, because
this stands in accordance with the apostolic teachings, we confirm it by the power
of our office.” 275
270
Migne l.c.:
271
l. 7 § 2 C. de sum. trin. I, 1 (Letter to Epiphanius) l. §§ 7—22 eod. cf. Corvinus a Belderen l.c. tit. IX de Pontifice
Romano p. 90—121: [Greek text]
14 a Novella XVII (9) l.c.: legum originem fontem sacerdoti anterior Roma sortita est … et summi pontificatus
apicem apud eam esse. Ex hac, the same continues, in totas catholicas ecclesias, quae usque ad oceani fretum
positae sunt, saluberrimae legis vigor extendatur, et sit totius occidentis nec non orientis…
272
l. 8 § 11 C. de sum. trin. I, 1: caput omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum.
273
Nov. CLI (119).
274
Cov. LVI (42). Cf. Nov. LI (40), CXLVIII (120), Nov. XLV (31), XII (6).
275
l. 8 pr. -- § 7 C. de sum. trin. I, 1.
104
The theory which Justinian put forth regarding the primacy and the highest
teaching office of the bishop of Rome is clear and correct.” 276
“The empire expanded but still lacked one thing in Justinian’s view: the inner
vital principle of a unified religion. The universal empire should be borne by a
universal religion. To create this within a land so divided about religion was a
difficult task. Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity, each of which was further
divided into various sects, could not possibly be united. If a uniform state religion
should reign, which had to exclude all subordinates, then the collective [13]
religious creeds had to give way to a single one. From the perspective of the state,
this could only be achieved through battle and the application of violence.
Justinian did not shy away from these tactics. For more than thirty years he fought
against the non-Christian religions, against the Christian heresies and the conflicts
of teachings within the Christian church, in order to bring the true faith of Christ
to sole sovereignty. The religious politics of the emperor was a continued politics
of battle.” 277
“One state and one religion in the state was the goal to which the politics of the
Roman emperors always led. Emperor Augustus was given the following advice
from the state-savvy Mäcenas: “You must honor the Godhead yourself always
and everywhere according to the wisdom of the fathers and command others to
honor it likewise. Those, however, who wish to introduce foreign religious
services, those you must hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods, but
rather because those who introduce foreign gods will convince many others to
assume this foreign way of life. From this, conspiracies and rebellions arise,
which are in no way acceptable to the monarchy.” 278 The successors of Augustus,
the pagan as well as the Christian, dealt according to this principle. Equality in the
contemporary sense was unknown. The emperors of the pre-Christian time of the
Roman world-empire held fast, in a rigid way, to the monopoly of the religious
cult. The supreme rulers of the Christian era of the Roman Empire demanded [25]
the exclusive right of the state for this new religion and declared war on all non-
Christian creeds, the foreign as well as the indigenous.
Justinian approached the religious-political legacy of his predecessors in their
sense. The Christian religion should possess unlimited supremacy. All non-
Christian cults were, sooner or later, violently or gently, threatened with
banishment. He strove not only for a Christian state, but also for exclusively
Christian subjects. To the end, he entered into battle against all non-Christian
sects that still stood within Roman borders, primarily with paganism and Judaism,
with sects of the Samaritans and Manichaeans.” 279
276
277
Ibid., 12-13.
278
Dio Cassius, 52, 36. Cf. Lasaulx, der Untergang des Hellenismus. Munich 1854, p. 35.
279
We will not consider here the smaller sects of the Borborites, Montanists, Tascodrugen, Ophites, and others that
Justinian chastises in his laws.
105
“Christian religious politics in and of themselves are not remarkable for a
Byzantine emperor after Constantine I. All of Constantine’s successors were
proponents of Christianity with the exception of Julian, who reigned briefly.
However, not all of them followed the same direction. The Arian, Nestorian and
Monophysitic faiths, one after another, all had their followers and proponents
among the emperors. The fights between the Latinists and Orientalists had, with
the help of the emperors, developed into a schism between east and west.
In order to come to the correct analysis of Justinian’s religious policy it is
necessary to know how he positioned himself vis-à-vis the church’s sources of
belief on the one side and heresies and other religious splinters on the other.
In general there is to say that Emperor Justinian, like his Christian predecessors
on the Byzantine throne, did not recognize a parity of various confessions. A legal
tolerance of Christian sects was as foreign to him as that of non-Christian sects.
His religious policy was also exclusive in relation to those. He decreed that only
the true church and no other [55] faith had a right to existence and protection
within the empire. That this was so is shown by a government manifest which was
later made a religious edict: “As the true faith, in the first order, which the Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church of God teaches, in no way allows any change, we
hold it....to be appropriate to make generally known to which confessions we are
subject....We believe in three persons united in one being and pray to one
Godhead ....We believe in the Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father....who
came down from Heaven and became man....We condemn all heresies, above all
Nestorius who does not recognize Christ as God...and Mary...as mother of God...,
also Eutyches, who...denies the incarnation and refuses to admit that Christ, with
respect to the Godhead, is one being with the Father, and, with respect to
mankind, is of the same being as we; furthermore we anathematize Apollinarius,
who denies the Son of God human spirit...Those who...are found to be of different
belief cannot expect any leniency from us. To the contrary, they should be given
the appropriate punishments as heretics.” 280
“Since it is known to us,” he writes in a later edict, “that nothing gives our dear
God so much honor as when all Christians think one and the same regarding the
true and unmolested belief and when no splinters exist within the Holy Church of
God, so we consider it necessary to take the opportunity to declare all disturbers
of the peace to be scandalous, and also to rid ourselves of existing scandals,
through the proclamation of the true faith as taught by the Holy Church, with a
single law, with which the true believers remain steadfast and the enemies of the
faith recognize the truth and unite themselves with the Holy Church as quickly as
possible.” 281 “Our efforts remain constant,” Justinian says at another point, “to
keep the true and incontrovertible Christian faith, to ensure the continuation of the
holy catholic and apostolic church and to protect it from any disturbance [56] of its
unity. In our opinion we have earned God’s entrusting of us with the imperial
scepter in this world, and his securing our power and putting down the enemies of
the empire; through such efforts, we also hope to receive the grace of God for
280
L. 5. C. de sum. Trin. I, 1; cf. l. 6, l. 7 eodem.
281
J. P. Migne, Patrologie Graeca, 86, I 993 D.
106
eternity.” 282
“We want all Christians to accept the faith that the Holy Catholic Church
maintains, so that we, as we know the one God and Lord, also have one such
faith. For there is only one confession of faith, and it consists of the recognition
and praise of the Father, Christ, the son of God, and the Holy Ghost.” 283
The following words, with which he closes his edict of condemnation against
Anthimus and his comrades, are telling for the motives from which Justinian’s
religious policy was derived: “We ordain all of this in the interest of the general
peace of the Holy Church in connection with the teachings of faith of the fathers,
on which the priesthood may operate unhindered towards its welfare. For when
this possesses peace, the state will also prosper, because it receives peace from
above, which our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity and
only Son of God, proclaims and bestows on all to whom grace is given to praise
and pray to him truly.” 284
The following procedures were instrumental in establishing this “new order” of force:
A.D. 529 Recodification of the ancient laws was to take place and the task to be accomplished
was enormous, for there were no fewer than 2,000 books which formed around three million
lines. 285 Justinian selected a group of lawyers, including Tribonian, who reconstructed the
Theodosian Code published in 438. The result was called the Codex. A large number of the new
laws constructed in Codex I were ecclesiastical. This work was officially ratified by a
constitution on the seventh of April. 286
A.D. 533 These same lawyers completed the Digest, or Pandects, on the thirtieth of
December. In the same year, a manual for students of law, taken largely from the works of Gaius
in the second century, was published on the twenty-first of November. This was called the
Institutes. 287
A.D. 534 The entire work thus far was revised and enhanced by a number of ordinances
decreed by the emperor since 529 and the fourth part of Justianian’s legal work, the Novels, was
begun. These were laws drawn up from 534 to the end of Justinian’s reign in 565. The most
complete edition of the Novellae Constitutiones is the Greek collection of 168 constitutions. The
revised version was to eliminate all redundant and nonessential material and in its final state,
with the Novels, consists of a little over 6,000 pages in 17 volumes. The completed work was
called the Corpus Juris Civilis and is the basis of all Roman Catholic canon law:
“This Corpus became the definitive form of Roman law for the empire, and
282
Migne l. c. 945 D – 947 A.
283
Migne l. c.
284
Migne l. c. 1103 A. cf. 1145 C.
285
Const. Tanta, I.
286
H.F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (London: Cambridge University Press, 1932),
485.
287
Ibid., 498.
107
soon for the barbarian West, as well.” 288
“The Corpus Juris Civilis, “it is,” as it is said, the last product of Roman legal
science, the supreme effort of concentration of the law struggling against the slow
disintegration that made itself felt since the 3rd century.” 289 And there is still
something else, and perhaps more significant. In this Corpus Juris Civilis, are
inscribed the essential principles of law that regulate modern societies, it is its
study, obscurely followed for the first centuries of the high Middle Ages, taken up
again in the 11th century to an extraordinary degree, that truly revealed to Western
barbaric nations the idea of a state founded on the law. From there, through this
long chain of events across history – and that is what one must, in spite of the
necessary critiques, never forget – Justinian’s will accomplished one of the most
fertile works for the progress of humanity.
One knows what respect, almost superstitious, Justinian professed for the
traditions from Roman antiquity, for this “infallible antiquity” 290 (inculpabilis
antiquitas), of which he flattered himself with being the representative and
legitimate heir. If Rome had been great, it was through two things, through the
glory of its arms and through the science of law; in Justinian’s eyes, a Roman
emperor was a person with two sides, “not only victorious in foreign wars, but
knowing to follow, through legal paths, injustice and calumny, together
triumphant victor over defeated enemies and scrupulous defender of the law.” 291
“In thanking God, whose protection had allowed him to complete his plans, he
ordained that the new legislation would have the strength of the law throughout
the entire expanse of the empire, 292 that it would erase all old decrees, that it
would be taken as unchangeable and holy: everything that was recorded would be
indisputable, even the mistakes. Justinian ordained, in effect, that between the old
and authentic law text and the modified text that figured in the Digest and Code,
the latter would bring justice.” 293
“Indeed, according to a word of an historian of the time: “he was the first of the
sovereigns of Byzantium, who, not just in name but in fact, was the absolute
master of the Romans” 294 . . . . It is this Justinian legislation which dominated all
the middle ages and supplied modern Europe with the basis of law.” 295
288
Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 185.
289
G. May, Elements of Roman Law, I, 47.
290
Nov. 8, jusjurandum. Cf. Nov. 23, 3, and the attention with which Justinian’s scholarship notes the traditions.
Nov. 24, praef.; 25, praef., 103, praef., etc.
291
Const. Imperatoriam majestatem (at the front of the Institutes), praef. Cf. DeJust. cod.confirmando, praef.
292
Const. Deo auct., 6. De. Just. cod. conf., 3.
293
De. Just. cod. conf., 3; Const. Deo auct, 7.
Ibid., 262.
294
Agathias, p.306.
295
Ibid., 24.
108
“The activity in the realm of public law earned the emperor the title “Father of
Jurisprudence.”’ 296
Under the reign of Justinian, the reading of the Scriptures was forbidden:
“For consequently the reading of the Holy Scripture would have to be

forbidden, since it is constantly misused by the heretics.” 297
This same policy was also expressed by Pope Leo the Great, reinforced by Pope Felix and
Gelasius I and became standard protocol throughout the entire dark ages that only the church can
interpret aright the scriptures:
“. . . . The Christian religion is not a natural religion, Christian belief and its
content may not be recorded by natural means, even because it is not of natural
origin, but was given by God himself, wherefore only the “dispensators’”, as the
writing called the administrators, could give guidelines; they alone are authorized
to spread information about the Christian norms and axioms, to clarify and
determine what is Christian and what the Christian norm doesn’t correspond to by
virtue of their education and their special standing. In the opposition pair of
discere-docere [to learn to teach] it was manifested the knowledge and awareness
element which was essential for Christianity in sharply contoured form. Christian
norms must- as the beliefs stated therein made clear- be learned by those who
were authorized; they could not be “naturally” understood 298 . The dig at the
Henoticon is unmistakable. In matters, over which the leader exercised his
knowledge, and those are the godly matters, he can issue no commandments, nor
can the laymen or the clerics. But according to the imperial judicial order, the
Christian religion is the lone legitimate one, the (Christian) empire and the
(Christian) church built a unity. The Roman Empire was the Christian empire.
Looking out from this point of view, the repute leader should sacrifice his neck in
pious humility before the church administrators for all mortal-temporal matters;
colla summittere [as they alone are to discharge or to send out] is the clear and
understandable expression of [Pope] Felix and Gelasius. By this action, this was a
phrase, which should have lead the papal leadership program out of the century.
It found inclusion in many legal collections and was eventually decreed by
Gratian in his (Dist. 10.3) in the 12th Century.” 299
Latin remained the official language of the empire:
296
Würzberg, 1896), 11. [Andreas Gobel, The Religious Politics of Emperor Justinian I, Wurzburg, 1896.]
297
J. P. Migne, Patrologie Graeca, 86, I. 1136 A – 1137 B. Ibid., 106.
298
Exactly this consideration makes it understandable, why LEO the Great had forbidden the preaching of laymen:
JK 495. The ban also counted for monks. H. KOCH: Gelasius im Dienst 48 A. 1 refers to Seneca as the root of the
diastasis discere-docere (Ep. 6,62 and Ep. 7,8).
299
Ullman, Walter von. Päpste und Papsttum [Popes and Papacy]: Gelasius I. (492–496). Bd. 18. Stuttgart: Anton
Hiersemann, 1981, 148.
109
“One thing strikes us first. For this empire, in large part Eastern, Latin remains
the legal language. 300 This feature is characteristic: it is that for Justinian, heir of
the Roman emperors, Latin remained the official language, and moreover, the
national language of the monarchy. 301 In fact, Greek proved to be more
widespread, more intelligible; it was always with a sort of condescendence that
the successor of the Caesars consented to use it. And if that is true, until the
practice of the current administration, they obstinately used Latin. In a province
like Syria, where the majority of the population spoke Syrian, where only the
upper classes expressed themselves in Greek, they continued, until the 6th century,
to compose the protocols of acts in Latin.” 302
“The majority of novellas were written in Greek: “We have not,” said Justinian,
in an ordinance from 535, “written this law in the national language, but in the
common language, which is Greek, so that it will be recognized by everyone
through the ease that they will understand it.” 303
A.D. 528 The Decree that laid the Foundation for the Political Power of the Papacy as
described by Gregorovius:
“As Arians, remained outside the Roman Church it came to pass that the Pope,
as head of Catholic Christendom, felt himself raised above the heretical kings, and
thus, standing between them and the orthodox Emperor (whom they recognized at
the same time as their Imperial overlord), he gradually became a man of
importance, and finally acquired a greater degree of influence in the internal
affairs of the city. 304 Among the Prescripts enumerated by Cassiodorus is an edict
of Athalaric appointing the Roman bishop arbitrator in disputes between the laity
and clergy. Anyone having a dispute with a member of the clergy in Rome was
directed henceforth to appeal first to the judgment of the Pope, and only in case
the Pope rejected his complaint, was he to carry the action before the secular
jurisdiction. Anyone refusing to submit to the decision of the Pope was sentenced
to be fined ten pounds of gold. 305 Felix IV. [343] appears to have been the Pope
300
Assuredly there is nothing surprising about what the editors of the Code and Digest, compiling works written in
Latin, preserved under their original form. But the prefaces that accompanied these compendiums and a large
number of Justinian’s ordinances that are inserted, are in Latin, and even the Institutes could have also been
composed in Greek.
301
Nov. 7, I. Cf. Nov. 15, praef.; 66, 1, 2; between the Greek text and the Latin text of a novella, Justinian declares
that the latter is [words in Greek]. Cf. on the use of Latin in legislation. Finlay, Hist. of Greece (ed. Tozer), I, 215.
302
Cf. Gelzer, in Byz. Zeitschr., III, 22-24.
303
Nov. 7, I. Ibid., 266-7.
304
Athalaric's letter to Justin, notifying his accession to the throne, indicates the recognition of the Imperial
supremacy. Var., viii. I. The silver coins of the Gothic Kings, bearing on the obverse the head of the Emperor, on
the reverse the monogram. of the King, surrounded by a wreath or the words INVICTA ROMA, supply us with a
further indication. J. Friedlander, Die Munzen der Ostgothen, Berlin, 1844.
305
Var., viii. 24. Muratori refers this law to the year 528. G. Sartorius ( Versuch uber die Regier. der Ostgothen
Italien, p. 145) considers that this privilegium, the importance of which he depreciates, only applied to the clergy in
the city of Rome. S. Marc, however (Abrege chronologique de L'histoire d'.Italie, p. 62), says: c'est sur cette
condescendence des princes pour un etat infiniment respectable en lui-meme, que dans la suite les Ecclesiastiques
ont pretendu qu'ils etaient de Droit divin exempts de la jurisdiction seculaire. [Chronological summary of the history
110
who succeeded in obtaining this decree so favorable to the influence of the
Roman Curia. The Episcopal power of arbitration between laity and clergy had
been exercised from of old, but the privilege may be regarded as simply
exempting the clergy from all secular jurisdiction. Such was the decree which laid
the foundation of the political power of the Papacy. It was evident that the royal
government felt itself insecure after the death of Theodoric, and that it hastened to
conciliate and to win the Roman Church.” 306
The actual decree itself:
24. KING ATHALARIC TO THE CLERGY OF THE

ROMAN CHURCH.
“For the gift of kingly power we owe an infinite debt to God, whose
ministers ye are.
Ye state in your tearful memorial to us that it has been an ordinance of long
custom that anyone who has a suit of any kind against a servant of the sacrosanct
Roman Church should first address himself to the chief Priest of that City, lest
haply your clergy, being profaned by the litigation of the Forum, should be
occupied in secular rather than religious matters. And you add that one of your
Deacons has, to the disgrace of religion, been so sharply handled by legal process
that the Sajo 307 has dared actually to take him into his own custody.
This dishonor to the Ministers of holy things is highly displeasing to our inborn
reverence, yet we are glad that it gives us the opportunity of paying part of our
debt to Heaven.
Therefore, considering the honor of the Apostolic See, and wishing to meet the
desires of the petitioners, we by the authority of this letter decree in regular
course 308 :
That if anyone shall think he has a good cause for going to law with a person
belonging to the Roman clergy, he shall first present himself for hearing at the
judgment-seat of the most blessed Pope, in order that the latter may either decide
between the two in his own holy manner, or may delegate the cause to a
Iurisconsultus [a jurist] to be ended by him. And if, perchance, which it is impiety
to believe, the [372] reasonable desire of the petitioner shall have been evaded,
of. Italy, p. 62), says: It is on this superiority of the princes for an infinitely sizeable state in itself, that in the
continuation the Ecclesiastics claimed that they were of divine Right exempt of the secular jurisdiction.]
306
During the reign of Theodoric, however, the clergy remained subject to the secular Forum.
[The Decree of A.D. 528 by King Athalaric, the grandson of Theodoric the Great who became king upon his
grandfather's death in 526 is believed to have laid the Foundation for the Political Power of the Papacy.]
Revised, 1900), 1:342-3.
307
In the text, ‘Sajus.’
308
“Praesenti auctoritate moderato ordine definimus.” Dahn interprets , moderato ordine,” “not so absolutely as the
Roman clergy desires.” Is not this to attribute rather too much force to the conventional language of Cassiodorus?
111
then may he come to the secular courts with his grievance, when he can prove that
his petitions have been spurned by the Bishop of the aforesaid See. 309
Should any litigant be so dishonest and so irreverent, both towards the Holy
See and our authority, as to disregard this order [and proceed first in our tribunals
against one of the Roman clergy], he shall forfeit 10 1bs. of gold [£400], to be
exacted by the officers of the Count and distributed by the Pope to the poor; and
he shall lose his suit in addition, notwithstanding any decree which he may have
gained in the secular court.
Meanwhile do you, whom our judgments thus venerate, live according to the
ordinances of the Church. It is a “great wickedness in you to admit such crimes as
do not become the conversation even of secular men. Your profession is the
heavenly life. Do not condescend to the groveling wishes and vulgar errors of
ordinary mortals. Let the men of this world be coerced by human laws; do you
obey the precepts of righteousness.”
[See Dahn, 'Konige der Germanen’ iii. 191-2, Sartorius 145, and Bauer's
‘History of the Popes’ ii. 323-4, for remarks on this important privilegium.
It is clear that it relates to civil, not criminal procedure, and that it does leave a
right of final appeal from the Papal Courts to the dissatisfied secular litigant. At
the same time, that such an appeal would be prosecuted with immense difficulty is
clear even from the words of the decree. The appellant [373] will have to satisfy
the King's Judges of a thing which it is almost impiety to believe, that the
occupant of the Roman See has spurned his petitions.]” 310
A.D. 529/530 John Malalas, an authoritative historian who lived and chronicled during the
entire reign of Justinian, declares:
“In that year there was a great persecution of Hellenes. Many had their property
confiscated. Some of them died. . . . This caused great fear. The Emperor decreed
that those who held Hellenic beliefs should not hold any state office, whilst those
who belonged to the other heresies were to disappear from the Roman state, after
they had been given a period of three months to embrace the orthodox faith. This
sacred decree was displayed in all provincial cities.” 311
Unfortunately, Dr. Summerbell dated this three-month period as occurring in 538. 312 But that
will not stand under investigation of the primary sources.
309
“Definimus, ut si quispiam ad Romanum Clerum aliquem pertinentem, in qualibet causa probabili crediderit
actione pulsandum, ad beatissimi Papae judicium prius conveniat audiendus. Ut aut ipse inter utrosque more suae
sanctitatis agnoscat, aut causam deleget aequitatis studio terminandam: et si forte, quod credi nefas est, competens
desiderium fuerit petitoris elusum, tunc ad saecularia fora jurgaturus occurrat, quando suas petitiones probaverit a
supradictae sedis praesule fuisse contemptas.”
310
Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, Hodgkin, Thomas, The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry Frowde, 1886,
Book VIII. 24, pgs. 371-3.
311
John Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf (Bonn: n.p., 1831), 449; trans. Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys
and Roger Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas (University of Sydney, N.S.W.: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, Department of Modern Greek, 1986), 262-63. Malalas (A.D. 491-578) was a Byzantine
chronicler that lived during the reign of Justinian.
312
N. Summerbell, A True History of the Christians and the Christian Church (Cincinnati: Office of the Christian
Pulpit, 1871), 311.
112
A.D. 530 Equally significant is the legislative support of the state that the church canons
received. Codex I.3.44 of Justinian’s law codes, for example, was implemented on October 18,
A.D. 530, thereby giving total authority to the canons of the synods.
“Whatever the holy canons prohibit, these also we by our own laws forbid.”83
It must be remembered that when Justinian overthrew the Vandals in 534 his jurisdiction was
immediately enforced. In fact, we are told specifically that his Codex was to be regarded as the
supreme authority in this newly conquered territory:
“9. Furthermore we remit all the privileges of the sacrosanct church of our
decorated also with imperial privileges.” 313
The same policy was repeated when the Ostrogoths were overthrown by Justinian and his legal
jurisdiction was established in Italy in 538. It was said to be:
“Through the Code, illuminated for all eyes, a shining star.” 314
It is through the revised Codex in 534 and the Constitutions or the Novels of Justinian in the
following years that we are brought face to face with this oppressive religious legislation backed
by the church and enforced by the state. There are over 6000 pages in Justinian’s Corpus Juris
Civilis code of law. From that number we have reduced it dramatically in order to allocate some
of the most exhilarating religious edicts of Justinian. Due to a lack of space, we can present only
a small selection from Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis code of law taken from his Codex I, but
we will provide enough so the reader can form an intelligent and honest assessment. We begin
with the Preface of Justinian’s Codex I that establishes some very important precedents in rightly
understanding this vast amount of jurisdiction. The following brackets [00] signify page
numbering in the original that has been translated from the Latin by S.P. Scott. 315
THE THREE PREFACES OF THE CODE OF JUSTINIAN

FIRST PREFACE. CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW
CODE.
[3] “. . . . the Gregorian, the Hermogenian, and the Theodosian, as well as in

those other Codes promulgated after them by Theodosius of Divine Memory, and
313
Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), Novel 37:9, 3:245.
314
De emend. cod. Just., 3.
315
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. Vol. 12.
113
by other Emperors, who succeeded him, in addition to those which We Ourselves
have promulgated, and to combine them in a single Code, under Our auspicious
name, in which compilation should be included not only the constitutions of the
three above-mentioned Codes, but also such new ones as subsequently have been
promulgated.
SECOND PREFACE.
CONCERNING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CODE OF
JUSTINIAN.
The maintenance of the integrity of the government depends upon two things,
namely, the force of arms and the observance of the laws:. . . . We have preserved
those already enacted, and afterwards by publishing new ones, have established
them most firmly for the obedience of Our subjects. [4] . . . . (3) Therefore We
have had in view the perpetual validity of this Code in your tribunal, in order that
all litigants, as well as the most accomplished advocates, may know that it is
lawful for them, under no circumstances, to cite constitutions from the three
ancient codes, of which mention has just been made, or from those which at the
present time are styled the New Constitutions, in any judicial inquiry or contest;
but that they are required to use only the constitutions which are included in this
Our Code, and that those who venture to act otherwise will be liable to the crime
of forgery; [5]
THIRD PREFACE.
CONCERNING THE AMENDMENTS OF THE CODE OP OUR LORD
JUSTINIAN, AND THE SECOND EDITION OF THE
SAME.
[7] (1) But after We decreed that the ancient law should be observed, [8]. . . . (5)
Therefore, having repeated Our order that We shall permit none hereafter to quote
anything from Our decisions, or from other constitutions, which We have
previously promulgated, or from the first edition of the Justinian Code; [A.D.
529] but that only what may be found written in this Our present purified and
amended Code [A.D. 534] shall be regarded as authority, and cited in all
tribunals.” 316
Included in the 534 code of Justinian was his famous letter he wrote to Pope John II on March
15, 533. In the same year, on March 25, he wrote to Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
confirming that the pope was now the head of the church and the corrector of heretics, and giving
the pope all ecclesiastical power and authority. Included is the entire Codex I, Title 1, with the
pope’s reply:
THE CODE OF OUR LORD THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR

JUSTINIAN.
316
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. First,
Second, Third Preface, 12:3-8.
114
SECOND EDITION.
BOOK I.
TITLE I.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE

CATHOLIC FAITH, AND PROVIDING THAT No ONE
SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.
1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City
of Constantinople.
“We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the
same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which
the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known
that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic
sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic
discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united
in the Holy Trinity.
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic
Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they
shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit
has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our
resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.
Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the
Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.
2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Prætorian Prefect.

Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let
no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds.
Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by
means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let
all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the
name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the
observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly
established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain
secure.
(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in
the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one [10] who believes that
Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of
Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and
have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a
pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided
115
substance of a Holy Trinity. . . . These things, indeed, do not require further proof,
and should be respected.
(2) Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true
religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes,
and, having been removed from the threshold of all churches, be utterly excluded
from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If,
however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven
outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all
Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control
of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.
Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under the
Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.
3. The Emperor Martian to Palladius, Prætorian Prefect.
No one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the army, or to any other condition of
men, shall, with a view to causing a tumult and giving occasion to treachery,
attempt to discuss the Christian religion publicly in the presence of an assembled
and listening crowd; for he commits an injury against the most reverend Synod
who publicly contradicts what has once been decided and properly established; as
those matters relative to the Christian Faith have been settled by the priests who
met at Chalcedony by Our order, and are known to be in conformity with the
apostolic explanations and conclusions of the three hundred and eight Holy
Fathers assembled in Nicea, and the hundred and fifty who met in this Imperial
City; for the violators of this law shall not go unpunished, because they not only
oppose the true faith, but they also profane its venerated mysteries by engaging in
contests of this kind with Jews and Pagans. Therefore, if any person who has
ventured to publicly discuss religious matters is a member of the clergy, he shall
be removed from his order; if he is a member of the army, he shall be degraded;
and any others who are guilty of this offence, who are freemen, shall be banished
from this most Sacred City, and shall be subjected to the punishment prescribed
by law according to the power of the court; and if they are slaves, they shall
undergo the severest penalty.
Given at Constantinople, on the eighth of the Ides of February, under the
consulship of Patricius.
4. John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious and Merciful Son
Justinian.
Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most
Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light [11] as a star, is the fact that
through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in
ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have
subjected all things to its authority, and have given it unity. The following precept
was communicated to its founder, that is to say, the first of the Apostles, by the
mouth of the Lord, namely: “Feed my lambs.”
116
This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the
decrees of Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify. It is
therefore claimed that what the Scriptures state, namely, “By Me Kings reign, and
the Powers dispense justice;” will be accomplished in you. For there is nothing
which shines with a more brilliant luster than genuine faith when displayed by a
prince, since there is nothing which prevents destruction as true religion does, for
as both of them have reference to the Author of Life and Light, they disperse
darkness and prevent apostasy. Wherefore, Most Glorious of Princes, the Divine
Power is implored by the prayers of all to preserve your piety in this ardor for the
Faith, in this devotion of your mind, and in this zeal for true religion, without
failure, during your entire existence. For we believe that this is for the benefit of
the Holy Churches, as it was written, “The king rules with his lips,” and again,
“The heart of the King is in the hand of God, and it will incline to whatever side
God wishes”; that is to say, that He may confirm your empire, and maintain your
kingdoms for the peace of the Church and the unity of religion; guard their
authority, and preserve him in that sublime tranquility which is so grateful to him;
and no small change is granted by the Divine Power through whose agency a
divided church is not afflicted by any grief’s or subject to any reproaches. For it is
written, “A just king, who is upon his throne, has no reason to apprehend any
misfortune.”
We have received with all due respect the evidences of your serenity, through
Hypatius and Demetrius, most holy men, my brothers and fellow-bishops, from
whose statements we have learned that you have promulgated an Edict addressed
to your faithful people, and dictated by your love of the Faith, for the purpose of
overthrowing the designs of heretics, which is in accordance with the evangelical
tenets, and which we have confirmed by our authority with the consent of our
brethren and fellow bishops, for the reason that it is in conformity with the
apostolic doctrine.
The following is the text of the letter of the Emperor Justinian, Victorious,
Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and
most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome:
With honor to the Apostolic See, and to Your Holiness, which is, and always
has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your
happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten
to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of
the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of
your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they [12]
exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition.
Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and
subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at
present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and, according to
the doctrine of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached
by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to
the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference
to the state of the Church, even though what causes the difficulty may be clear
and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your
117
Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert
Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and
authority of your See.
(1) Therefore, We present to Your Holiness the fact that certain infidels and
persons who do not belong to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God
have, like Jews and apostates, dared to dispute matters which are properly
accepted, glorified, and preached by all priests in accordance with your doctrines,
denying that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that Our
Lord was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Holy, Glorious, and always Virgin
Mary, the Mother of God, and became a man and was crucified, and that he is one
of the persons of the Holy Trinity, who are all of one substance, and who should
be adored and exalted along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that he is
consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with
ourselves according to humanity, and susceptible of the sufferings of the flesh, but
not susceptible of the same as a deity. For these persons refusing to acknowledge
Our Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, and Our Lord as one of
the Holy Trinity, and of the same substance with the other persons composing it,
appear to follow the evil doctrine of Nestor, who asserts that there is one Son of
God according to grace, whom he styles the Word of God, and another Son whom
he calls Christ.
(2) All the priests of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the most
Reverend Abbots of the Holy Monasteries, acknowledging Your Holiness, and
solicitous for the prosperity and unity of the Holy Churches of God, which they
receive from the Apostolic See of Your Holiness, making no changes in the
ecclesiastical condition which has existed up to this time, and still exists; with one
voice, confess, glorify, and preach that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten
Son and the Word of God, and that Our Lord, born of His Father before all
centuries and times, Who descended from Heaven in the last days, was born of the
Holy Spirit and the Holy and Glorious Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; became a
man and was crucified; is of the same substance as the Holy Trinity to be adored
and glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit; for we do not acknowledge any
other God, Word or Christ, but one alone, and the same of like substance with the
Father, in accordance with divinity, and of like substance with us in accordance
with humanity, Who could suffer in the flesh, [13] but could not suffer as a deity;
and Whom, Himself perfect in divinity as well as humanity, we receive and
confess as being what the Greeks call Greek. And, as the only begotten Son and
Word of God was born of His Father before centuries and times existed, and as
He, in later times, descended from Heaven, was born of the Holy Spirit and the
Holy ever Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ having become
a man, is properly and truly God. Hence we say that the Holy and Glorious Virgin
Mary is properly and truly the Mother of God, not for the reason that God
obtained speech and origin from her, but because in the last days He descended
from Heaven, and, incarnated through Her, became a man, and was born; whom
we confess and believe (as has already been stated), to be of the same substance
with the Father according to deity, and of the same substance with ourselves
118
according to humanity, whose miracles and sufferings voluntarily sustained by
Him while in the flesh we acknowledge.
(3) Moreover, we recognize four Sacred Councils, that is to say, the one
composed of three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers who assembled in the City
of Nicea; and that of the hundred and fifty Holy Fathers who met in this Imperial
City; and that of the Holy Fathers who first congregated at Ephesus; and that of
the Holy Fathers who met at Chalcedony, as your Apostolic See teaches and
proclaims. Hence, all priests who follow the doctrine of your Apostolic See
believe, confess, and preach these things.
(4) Wherefore We have hastened to bring to the notice of Your Holiness,
through the most blessed Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius (so it may not be
concealed from Your Holiness), that these tenets are denied by some few wicked
and judaizing monks, who have adopted the perfidious doctrines of Nestor.
(5) Therefore We request your paternal affection, that you, by your letters,
inform Us and the Most Holy Bishop of this Fair City, and your brother the
Patriarch, who himself has written by the same messengers to Your Holiness,
eager in all things to follow the Apostolic See of Your Blessedness, in order that
you may make it clear to Us that Your Holiness acknowledges all the matters
which have been set forth above, and condemns the perfidy of those who, in the
manner of Jews, have dared to deny the true Faith. For in this way the love of all
persons for you, and the authority of your See will increase, and the unity of the
Holy Church will be preserved unimpaired, when all the most blessed bishops
learn through you and from those who have been dispatched by you, the true
doctrines of Your Holiness. Moreover, We beg Your Blessedness to pray for Us,
and to obtain the beneficence of God in Our behalf.
The subscription was as follows: “May God preserve you for many years, Most
Holy and Religious Father.”
HERE FOLLOWS THE REMAINDER OF THE

LETTER OF THE POPE.
It is then clear, Most Glorious Emperor (as the tenor of your message and the
statements of your envoys disclose), that you have de- [14] voted Yourself to the
study of apostolic learning, as You are familiar with, have written, proposed and
published to believers among the people, those matters having reference to the
faith of the Catholic religion, which (as we have already stated), both the tenets of
the Apostolic See and the venerated authority of the Holy Fathers have
established, and which, in all respects, we have confirmed. Therefore, it is
opportune to cry out with a prophetic voice, “Heaven will rejoice with You, and
pour out its blessings upon You, and the mountains will rejoice, and the hills be
glad with exceeding joy.” Hence, you should write these things upon the tablets of
Your heart, and preserve them as the apples of your eyes, for there is no one
animated by the charity of Christ who will appear to impugn this confession of the
just and true faith; as it is evident that You condemn the impiety of Nestor and
Eutyches, and all other heretics, and that You firmly and inviolably, with devotion
to God and reverent mind acknowledge the single, true, and Catholic Faith of Our
119
Lord God, as revealed by the agency of Our Savior Jesus Christ; diffused
everywhere by the preaching of the Prophets and Apostles; confirmed by the
confessions of saints throughout the entire world, and united with the opinions of
the Fathers and Doctors conformably to our doctrine.
Those alone who are opposed to your professions are they of whom the Holy
Scriptures speak as follows: “They have based their hope on lying, and have
expected to remain concealed through falsehood.” And also those who, according
to the prophet, say to the Lord, “Depart from us, we are unwilling to follow your
ways”; on account of which Solomon said, “They have wandered through the
paths of their own cultivation and gathered unfruitful things with their hands.”
This, then, is your true faith, this your true religion, which all the Fathers and
heads of the Roman Church of happy memory (as we have already stated) and
whom we follow in all things, have embraced; this is what the Apostolic See has
preached up to this time, and has preserved inviolate, and if anyone should appear
to oppose this confession, and this Faith, he must show himself to be outside of
the communion and the Catholic Church. We have found Cyrus and his followers
in the City of Rome, who came from the Cumitensian monastery, and whom we
have attempted by our apostolic arguments to recall to the true faith, as sheep who
are about to perish and are wandering, should be brought back to the fold of the
owner. In order that, according to the prophet, stammering tongues may know
how to speak matters which have reference to peace, the first of our apostles
quotes the words of Isaiah, the prophet, through us to unbelievers, namely:
“Continue in the light of the fire and the flame which you yourselves have
kindled, but their heart is so hardened (as has been written), that they do not
recognize the voice of the Shepherd, and the sheep which were not mine are
unwilling to hear.” With reference to such persons, we, observing what was
established by the Pontiff on this point, do not receive them in our communion,
and we order them to be excluded from every Catholic Church, unless, having
renounced their errors, they adopt our doctrine, and announce their [15] adherence
to it, after having made a regular profession of the same. For it is just that those
who do not show obedience to the laws which we have established should be
banished from the churches. But as the Church never closes her heart to those
who return to her, I beseech Your Clemency, if they, having renounced their
errors and abandoned their wicked designs, should wish to return to the bosom of
the Church, to receive them in your communion, and abandon your feelings of
indignation, and that through our intercession you pardon them, and grant them
your indulgence.
Moreover, we pray God and Our Saviour Jesus Christ, that he may preserve
you long in peace in this true religion and in the unity and veneration of the
Apostolic See, and that your most Christian and pious Empire may, in all respects,
long be maintained. Moreover, O most Serene of Princes, we praise Hypatius and
Demetrius, your envoys, and our brothers and fellow-bishops, whose selection has
shown that they are acceptable to Your Clemency; for the importance of such an
embassy indicates that it could not be entrusted to anyone who is not perfect in
Christ, and that You would not have deemed them worthy of a mission involving
so much piety and reverence, unless they have been very dear to You.
120
The favor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the
Communion of the Holy Spirit, remain forever with you, Most Pious son. Amen.”
The subscription was as follows, "Most Glorious and Clement Son of the
Emperor Augustus, may Almighty God guard your kingdom and your health with
His eternal protection.
Given at Rome, on the eighth of the Kalends of April, during the Consulate of
the Emperor Justinian, Consul for the fourth time, and of Paulinus, Consul for the
fifth time.” 317
The following primary sources will fully document the ecclesiastical “voice” behind the code
of Justinian. With the revised code of 534 then in place, it included many of the decrees or
constitutions from former Emperors upholding the orthodox religion: “We decree that the
privileges conceded by former Emperors under the general terms of constitutions, to all the Holy
Churches of the orthodox religion, shall be observed, and remain firm and unimpaired for all
time.” 318 And Justinian also recognized that the Pontificate in Rome was the only valid source
for all ecclesiastical legislation: “No one is ignorant of the fact that, in ancient Rome, legislation
originally emanated from the head of the Pontificate.” 319 Ironically, Justinian applied the
following terms to the Catholic Church: “The mother of religion,” 320 “the mother of our piety,
the source of the orthodox religion of all Christians,” 321 “the Mother of Our Empire” 322
From Codex I Book 1 section 4, we wish to reiterate this most significant piece of legislation
that we just read from a letter by Justinian written to Pope John II on March 15, 533.
“We shall exert Ourselves in every way” is legally confirmed by the legislative support from
the state that the church canons received. Codex I.3.44 of Justinian’s law codes, for example,
was implemented on October 18, A.D. 530, thereby giving total authority to the canons of the
synods.
317
Scott, S. P., trans., ed., The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. 1. 12:9-15.
318
Ibid., Codex I. 2.12. 12:18.
319
Ibid., The Novels, 9. 16:65-66, April 14, 535.
320
Ibid., Codex I. 2.14. 12:20.
321
Ibid., Codex I. 2.15. 12:26.
322
Ibid., The Novels, 3- chapter I. Vol. 16:17, March 16, 535.
323
Ibid., Codex I. 1.4, 12:12.
324
121
.” 325
By reinforcing these ecclesiastical mandates the reader will understand the full significance of
the following primary decrees from Justinian’s Codex I.
The reader is to now to witness for himself the real face of the oppressive papal government
when church and state were united. This is in contrast to the Biblically-ordained principle of
religious liberty and the firm warning against harboring a spirit of intolerance that Christ laid
down for the New Testament church and that we witnessed previously. This neglected mandate
has cost humanity so dear a price:
TITLE II.
CONCERNING THE MOST SACRED CHURCHES, THEIR

PROPERTY AND THEIR PRIVILEGES.
[18] 12. “We decree that the privileges conceded by former Emperors under the
general terms of constitutions, to all the Holy Churches of the orthodox religion,
shall be observed, and remain firm and unimpaired for all time.” 326
“(1) We command that all pragmatic sanctions which are contrary to
ecclesiastical canons and have been obtained through favor or political intrigue,
shall be deprived of all their force and authority.” 327
(14). . . .[20] Let them know that, under no circumstances, and at no time, shall
they be prevented from disposing of their property under the pretext of liberality
or gratitude, or from alienating it to persons who are willing to purchase the same,
provided all members of the clergy, including the bishop and the steward, consent
to the alienation of said property; for it is proper to preserve reverently and intact
all rights which now or may hereafter belong to the Most Blessed Church, just as
religiously as the Holy Church itself, for as the mother of religion and faith is
herself perpetual, so her patrimony should remain entire and uninjured for all
time. . . . it shall be acquired for the profit and the advantage of the Church.
(2) Any steward who has done anything of this kind, or, indeed, permitted it to
be done, whether by sale, donation, or exchange (except in the way which we
have permitted by the present law), or, finally, who has given his consent to any
kind of an alienation, shall be deprived of the administration which has been
entrusted to him; and any loss which the Church has sustained shall be repaired
325
326
Ibid., Codex I. 2.12. 12:18.
327
Ibid., Codex I. 2.12.1. 12:18.
122
out of his property, and his heirs, successors, and descendants shall be liable to an
action brought by a competent person appointed by ecclesiastics, whether the
damage was caused by his own act, or merely by his acquiescence.
(3) Notaries, who have dared to draw up instruments containing forbidden
contracts of this kind, shall be punished with the penalty of perpetual exile.
(4) Judges who have jurisdiction of such matters, and who confirm donations or
forbidden contracts of this kind, shall be condemned to lose their office and their
property. 328
[26] . . . . 15. We order and decree that the Holy Church of this most religious
community, the mother of our piety, the source of the orthodox religion of all
Christians, and the most Sacred See of this Imperial Metropolis, shall legally
enjoy all privileges and honors relating to the creation of bishops, in preference to
all others, and that it shall be acknowledged to possess and to perpetually and
firmly hold, by virtue of this Royal City, all other rights which it possessed before
Our reign, or during its existence.
TITLE III.
CONCERNING BISHOPS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY,

SUPERINTENDENTS OP ORPHAN ASYLUMS, OF HOSPITALS AND OF
CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS, MONASTERIES OF ASCETICS AND
MONKS AND THEIR PRIVILEGES; CASTRENSE PECULIUM; THE
REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES; AND FORBIDDEN OR PERMITTED
MARRIAGES OF ECCLESIASTICS.
[31] 5. If anyone should merely attempt to, I do not say ravish, but marry a
consecrated virgin, he shall suffer the penalty of death. . . .
[33] According to the new law, a crime of this kind is punished with scourging
or exile, but if the culprit interferes with the sacred rites, or prevents them from
being celebrated, he shall be put to death.
[34] 15. We forbid persons to hold religious assemblies in private houses, even
outside the Church, under the penalty of confiscation of the house, if the owner of
the same permitted ecclesiastics to hold new and tumultuous meetings therein
outside the church.
TITLE IV.
CONCERNING THE EPISCOPAL TRIBUNAL AND THE DIFFERENT

CHARTERS WHICH RELATE TO PONTIFICAL SUPERVISION.
[59] 11. The Same Emperors to Cæcilianus, Prætorian Prefect.
328
Ibid., Codex I. 2.14.-4. 12:20.
123
“We decree that astrologers shall not only be banished from the City of Rome,
but also from all other cities; unless, having burned all the books containing their
errors under the eyes of the bishops, they are resolved to embrace the Christian
religion, and never to return to their former errors. If, however, they should not do
this, and should be found in any city, in opposition to Our Decree, or should teach
the secrets of their false doctrines or profession, they shall be punished with
deportation. . . .
17. We order that only those shall be selected for the office of defender who
have been initiated into the mysteries of the orthodox religion, and have
established this in the first place by the testimony of their acts, and by
proclaiming their belief with the sanction of an oath, in the presence of a Most
Reverend Bishop of the Catholic Church. We order that they shall be appointed in
this manner, and that they shall be confirmed by a decree of the Most Reverend
Bishop, clerks, nobles, proprietors, and members of the curiae.
TITLE V.
CONCERNING HERETICS, MANICHEANS, AND SAMARITANS.
[63] (1) Under the name of “heretics” are included those who ought to be
convicted of having violated laws passed against them; or who, on frivolous
grounds, have been found to have deviated from the judgment and principles of
the Catholic religion.
3. Let all heretics know positively that their places of assembly shall be taken
from them, whether these are designated under the name of churches, or are called
deaconates, or deaneries, or whether meetings [64] of this kind are held in private
houses; for all such private places or buildings shall be claimed by the Catholic
Church.
(1) All persons are accordingly forbidden to assemble by day or night, in
profane assemblies, for the purpose of conducting alleged religious services; and
where anything of this kind is permitted to be done either in a public or a private
house, the official who allows it, if he is the Prefect of the City, shall be fined a
hundred pounds of gold, or if he is the Governor, shall be fined fifty pounds of
gold.
Justinian lists here many of the condemned sects that were to be banned from the empire:
[65] 5. “Arians, Macedonians, Pneumatomachians, Appollinarians, Novatians or

Sabatians, Eunomians, Tetradites or Tessarecaidecadites, Valentinians, Paulians,
Papianists, Montanints or Priscillians, Phrygians, Pepuzites, Marcionists,
Borborites, Messalians, Euchites, or Enthusiasts, Donatists, Audians,
Hydroparastetes, Tascodrogites, Batracites, Hermogenians, Photinians, Paulinists,
Marcellians, Ophites, Encratitians, Carpocratitans, Saccophores, and Manicheans,
124
who are to be classed as guilty of the worst of all heretical crimes, shall never
have the power to assemble or reside in the Roman Empire. . . .
[66] 6. (1) Let no one venture to either have in his possession, read, or copy,
the impious books of the wicked and sacrilegious Nestor, written against the
venerated sect of the orthodox, and the decrees of the Holy Convocation of
bishops at Ephesus, and which We order shall be diligently sought out and
publicly burned; so that no one may mention the above-stated name in any
religious discussion, and these sectaries have any opportunity of holding any
assembly in their city, country, or suburban houses, or anywhere else, either
secretly or openly. We have determined to deprive all such persons of the right to
hold assemblies, and they all are hereby notified that any violator of this law will
be punished with the confiscation of his property.
[69] 9. We also decree that all such lands and possessions which have been
transferred or conveyed to heretics, in any way whatsoever, shall be claimed by
our Treasury. . . .
10. We have ascertained that there are many orthodox children neither whose
fathers nor mothers belong to the true faith; and therefore, We order that in cases
where but one of the parents has embraced the orthodox religion, as well as in
those where both parents are members of another sect, only such children as are
included under the venerated title of orthodox shall be called to their succession,
either under a will or ab intestato, and that they alone shall be entitled to receive
donations and other liberalities. The other children of those persons who have
followed, not the love of Almighty God, but the impious belief of their fathers or
mothers, shall be excluded from all benefits. Where, however, no orthodox
children are living, the property, or the succession, shall go to their agnates or
cognates, provided they are orthodox. But if no such agnate or cognate can be
found, then the estate shall be claimed by Our Treasury.
(1) . . . All Our Constitutions which have established penalties against Pagans,
Manicheans, Borborites, Samaritans, Montanists, Tascodrogites, Ophytes, and
other heretics, are confirmed by this Our law, and shall remain forever valid.
[71] 12. We order that Our Divine Decree by which We have ordered that no
one who accepts the error of heretics can receive an estate, a legacy, or a trust,
shall also apply to the last wills of soldiers, whether they are made under the
Common, or military law.”
A very straight forward definition given by Justinian for Heretics:
PREFACE
. . . . Hence We very properly call persons heretics who do not receive the holy
sacraments from the reverend bishops in the Catholic Church; for although they
may give themselves the name of Christians, still they are separated from the
125
belief and communion of Christians, even when they acknowledge that they are
subject to the judgment of God. 329
TITLE VII.
CONCERNING APOSTATES.
[72] 1. If anyone, after renouncing the venerated Christian faith, should

become a Jew, and join their sacrilegious assemblies, We order that, after the
accusation has been proved, his property shall be confiscated to the Treasury.
[74] 5. We direct that he who has induced a slave or a freeborn person, against
his will or by means of threats, to renounce the Christian religion for any
infamous sect or rite, shall be punished with the loss of his property and death.
TITLE IX.
CONCERNING JEWS AND THE WORSHIPPERS OF THE HEAVENS.
[75] 2. We desire all Jews and worshippers of the heavens, and their heads and
patriarchs, to be notified that, if anyone, after the promulgation of this law, should
dare to attack a person who has abandoned his odius sect and betake himself to
the worship of God, with stones or with any other manifestation of rage (which
We have ascertained has been done), he shall at once be given to the flames, and
burned with all his accomplices.
5. No Jew shall marry a Christian woman, nor shall any Christian man marry
a Jewess; for if anyone should be guilty of an act of this [76] kind, he will be liable
for having committed the crime of adultery, and permission is hereby granted to
all persons to accuse him.
[77] . . . . 11. For it is certain that whatever differs from the Christian religion
is opposed to the Christian law.
12. The Same Emperors to Jovius, Prætorian Prefect.
We order that, upon the Sabbath day, and at other times when the Jews observe
the ceremonies of their worship, no one shall either do anything to them, or, under
any circumstances, compel them to appear in court; and they themselves shall not
be given permission to sue orthodox Christians upon those days, so that Christians
may not suffer any inconvenience from being summoned by the officials upon the
days aforesaid; for it is evident that the remaining days will be sufficient for the
purposes of the Treasury, and the suits of private individuals.
15. The Same Emperors to Asclepiodotus, Prætorian Prefect.

329
Ibid., The Novels-109, Preface, 17:27, May 7, 541.
126
[78] Jews who are proved to have circumcised any man belonging to our
religion, or to have directed this to be done, shall be condemned to the
confiscation of their property, and to perpetual exile.
17. The Same Emperors to Florentius, Prætorian Prefect.
[79] (2) . . . . He who has begun the construction of a new synagogue, not with
the intention of repairing an old one, shall be condemned to pay fifty pounds of
gold, and be deprived of the work which he is already presumed to do; and,
moreover, it is hereby decreed that his property shall be confiscated, and that he
shall be condemned to the penalty of death, as one who, by his false doctrine, has
attacked the faith of others.
Let it be remembered that the church was responsible for the Jewish anti-Semitic legislation
which took place largely after the recognition of Christianity by Constantine and which was due
in part to the competition between Judaism, paganism, and Christianity. We continue with
Justinian’s legislation from his Codex I:
TITLE XI.
CONCERNING THE PAGANS, THEIR SACRIFICES, AND

THEIR TEMPLES.
7. The Emperors Valentinian and Martian to Palladius, Prætorian Prefect.
[81] No one, for the purpose of reverence or worship, shall reopen the temples
of the Pagans, which have already been closed, in order that the honor which was
formerly shown to their idols and their infamous and execrable rites may be
removed from our age; for it is held to be sacrilege instead of religion to adorn the
impious portals of shrines with garlands; to kindle profane fires on the altars; to
burn incense upon the same; to slaughter victims there, and to pour out libations
of wine from bowls. Anyone who attempts to perform sacrifices contrary to this
Our decree, and against the prohibition of the most sacred ancient constitutions,
can be lawfully accused of the crime before any judge, and, if convicted, shall
suffer the confiscation of all his property, and the extreme penalty. . . .” 330
Given on the day before the Ides of November, during the Consulate of the
Emperor Martian and Adelphius, 451.”
The work of S.P. Scott stops short here at Codex 1.11.8. Paul Krueger, in his Corpus Iuris
Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, supplies the two remaining codes of title XI. 9-10 that we will share
in part:
1.11.9.
330
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. 12:18-81.
127
“3. All the punishments which were introduced by former emperors against
pagan error or in favor of the orthodox faith shall be valid and in force in the
future and are retained in force by the present pious legislation.
1.11.10.
Since some have been found who, imbued with the error of the impious and
wicked pagans, do things which move the indulgent God to just wrath, and in
order not [to] leave matters pertaining to them unprovided for, and knowing that
they, having abandoned the adoration of the true and only God, have, in their
insane error, offered sacrifices to statues and performed worship replete with
iniquity, and that even those who had been already found worthy of sacred
baptism, have committed these sins, we subjected them, in a spirit of kindness, to
the punishment adequate to the crime of which they shall be convicted. And by
the present law we give notice to all that, if in the future it shall appear that those
who have become Christians and have at any time been considered worthy of the
holy and saving baptism, still adhere to pagan error, they shall be punished by
death.” 331
The following documentation offers some excellent insights on the progressive history of the
laws on paganism from the emperors of the fourth century to the reign of Justinian and the
closing of the schools not sanctioned by the state. History confirms along with Justinian’s Code
that the pagan temples had already been shut down and those who remained practicing paganism
did so underground and in secret. Knecht will show how a great persecution (around 529) of the
pagans took place. Many were discovered, deposed from office, and some of them were
executed. Bishop Johannes of Ephesus recounts that Justinian assigned him to conduct an
investigation of the followers of paganism who still remained in Constantinople in secret. Knecht
will illustrate how the legislation of Justinian differed from all previous emperors:
[28] “Justinian wanted to lead a final, deciding battle against the remains of
paganism. He began an attack with this goal from two angles. He applied himself
at the same time against the popular, practical paganism on the one and against
the intellectual, theoretical form on the other side. His battle concerned idolatry
and pagan philosophy.
Of the legal decrees against the former, some were not new. Justinian’s
predecessors had already decreed similar ones. Emperor Constantine I, under
whose reign paganism suffered the loss of its monopoly in the Roman state as
well as of the remains of its vitality as a national religion 332 , “considered it … to
be correct to purify the city, to which he had meant to grant particular significance
through giving it his name, from all paganism. For that reason, in Constantinople,
no statues of their gods could be openly worshiped and no altars could be stained
with blood offerings, no burnt offerings could be brought, no festival to honor the
idols could be celebrated, and no rites of the superstitious pagans could be
331
Paul Krueger, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, (Berolini Apud Weidmannos, 1959), Codex I. 11.9.3.
Codex I. 10., 2:63-64.
332
L. Seuffert, Konstantins Gesetze und das Christentum. Rektoratsrede. Würzburg 1891, p. 22.
128
observed.” 333 The sparks which, to speak with Libanius, Constantine had ignited,
be it purely for the capital city 334 , be it through general laws [29] for the entire
country, 335 were extended to a violent fire by his son and successor Constantius,
driven by a broadsheet dealing with the stately duty of intervention against the
pagan religion by Firmicus Maternus 336 ; in these flames, a good part of paganism
was destroyed forever. 337 The brusquely anti-pagan politics of Constantius, as
opposed to the more egalitarian politics of his father, found its briefest expression
in a law from the year 354, where it is stated that all temples in the city and
country should be closed and all offerings forbidden under punishment of
death; 338 for the pagan superstition should cease and the insanity of sacrifices
should be destroyed. After the brief privileging of paganism by Julian, which had
the advantage that it revealed the inner impotence and decadence of the old
idolatry, 339 the subsequent emperors could satisfy themselves by calmly watching
the dying out of the same. For that reason, according to a law of Valentinian I
(from 11 Sept. 364), everyone could freely practice any religion that had found its
way into his heart 340 , and the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus could praise
this emperor in that he had not disturbed anyone in matters of religion and never
bent the necks of his subjects with the yoke of his own faith through threatening
edicts 341 . Gratian once again began the struggle with the ban on the exhibition of
entrails 342 [Eingeweideschau] and [30] with the cancellation of the privileges as
had been possessed by the pagan priests and vestals. Theodosius the Great closed
the temple of the gods in Syria and Egypt, ordered that all subjects should
recognize the faith that the apostle Peter had announced to the Romans, and
forbade the conversion from Christianity to a pagan religion under the threat of
loss of active inheritance. 343
The subsequent emperors Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius II, Marcian, Leo I,
and Zeno limited themselves to repetition of the decrees of their predecessors 344
333
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III, 54, IV, 48, IV, 56. – F.M. Flasch, Konstantin d. Gr. als erster christl. Kaiser.
Würzburg 1891. p. 37, 38. –Gaston Boissier, La fin du paganisme. Paris 1891. I. p. 59 ss., 199. –A. Beugnot,
Histoire de la destruction du paganisme en occident. Paris 1835. t. I. p. 70 ss. – V. Schultze, Geschichte des
Unterganges des griech.-röm. Heidentums, Jena. Vol. 1, 1887, Vol. 2, 1892. Vol. 1, p. 56 ff. Cf. Tübinger
Quartalschrift 1888, p. 496 ff. – V. Schultze, Quellenuntersuchungen zur Vita Constantini des Eusebius. Ztschr. f.
Kirchengesch. 14 (1894) p. 508 – 555.
334
L. Seuffert l.c. p. 11.
335
Flasch l.c. – Schultze l.c. – Boissier I, 99: Il est donc vraisemblable que es lois de Constance n’ont guère été
executes. le seul résultat de ces attaques violentes et prématurées fut d’irriter les païens et de render une réaction
plus facile.
336
Jul. Firmicus Maternus de errore profanarum religionum. Vindobonae 1867.
337
Schultze l.c. p. 96.
338
l. 1 C. de pagan. I. 11. cf. l. 2 C. Theod. de pagan. 16, 10: cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania,
likewise l. 5 eod. 9.16.
339
Lasaulx l.c. p. 89. – Boissier l.c. I, 110. – J. R. Asmus, Theodorets Therapeudik und ihr Verhältnis zu Julian.
Byzant. Ztschr. 3 (1894) p. 116 ff.
340
l. 9 C. Theod. 9,16 cf ibid. 7. 8. 10. l. 1 C. Theod. 15, 7. l. 1. C. Theod. 16, 1.
341
Ammian. Marcell. rer. gest. libri qui supersunt. Lipsiae 1773. XXX, 9, 5, cf. Lasaulx l.c. p. 85.
342
l. 2. C. de pagan. I, 11. – Schultze l.c. p. 211 – 221.
343
l. 1 C. Theod. 16, 7. X. 9. 10. – Lasaulx p. 99, -- Schultze p. 266 ff. – Beugnot l.c. p. 347 ss.: il fut moins
empereur que serviteur de Dieu.
344
l. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. C. de pagan. I, 11.
129
and added only a few punishments to these, such as the confiscation of
possessions, secularization of temple goods, exclusion from civil offices and
military positions, or they directed them against individual persons who had
adopted the defense of paganism, as, for example, Leo I did against the writings
of Porphyrius, Zeno against Hierocles, Severianus and others. Only Leo I
deserves further mention for his laws, in which he declared the practice of the
pagan religion to be a public crime. 345 Emperors Anastasius and Justin mention
the pagans almost only in connection with the Jews and heretics.
In consideration of that which earlier emperors had taken up against paganism,
we recognize that the negative decrees of Justinian offer little that is new. He does
not differ from them, firstly, so much through his bans as through his
commandments, and secondly, through the factual execution of the given laws.
Until his time, the acceptance of the Christian religion was not commanded, but
rather the practice of the pagan religion was forbidden. Political motives may
have held back Constantine, under whose reign a fifth of Christians stood
opposite four fifths of pagans, as well as his successors, from taking stronger
action against idolatry. Certainly, however, the precepts concerning forced
religion, which were developed by pagan and Christian writers of their times, had
not remained without [31] lasting influence on them. “As namely the church …
well protects itself and its territory, but in no single case has given indication of
violent ruination,” 346 as it has always taught, “that the truth should not be
announced through violent weapons, but should find its way into the human heart
through the path of teaching and conviction 347 , because nothing is so much a
necessity of free will as religion,”348 thus pagans and Christians had raised their
voices in writing against the state’s force in religions matters. “The natural right,”
says Tertullian, 349 “demands that everyone honor the god in whom he believes. It
is not religious to force religion. A religion must be accepted through conviction
and not through violence; for the worshipping of the Godhead demands the
agreement of the heart.” The sophist Themistius called out to Emperor Jovian:
“One must give each over to his own soul, which will provide the path to piety.”
A ruler could force his subjects to do much; a few things, however, could not be
commanded and to these belongs, above all, religion. 350
An absolute commandment to accept Christianity and receive the holy baptism
was unheard of until the 6th century; such a decree was reserved for Justinian.
Through this law, he overrode the competency of a prince on the whole and that
of a Christian regent specifically. This precept of forced religion, expressed at the
beginning of his reign, provided direction for his coming religious and
ecclesiastical politics.
Justinian differed from the preceding Christian emperors, as mentioned above,
also in that he brought the decreed laws against paganism into fulfillment.
Between theory [32] and practice, among his predecessors, a contradiction had
345
Lasaulx l.c. p. 140. 141. – Schultze p. 437 ff. – “crimen publicum’ l. 8 C. de pag. I, 11.
346
Schultze l.c. 1. B. p. 319.
347
Athanasius I, p. 363 and 384 and Joh. Chrysostomus in Lasaulx p. 142 ff. cf. Math. 10, 14; 16, 24.
348
… nihil est enim tam voluntarium quam religio. Lactant. Div. inst. V, 19, 20.
349
ad. Scap. 2 cf. Boissier I, p. 58.
350
Lasaulx l.c. p. 86.
130
prevailed. A part of the legal decrees, says Schultze, 351 was only applied
intermittently. Word and deed did not match one another in all cases – a
proceeding as has analogues in the political and religious-political history of all
peoples. The tendency toward threat of punishment was, as the repetition of the
law reveals, just intimidation, not enforced; brutal violence was far from the
general direction of this politics. 352 It was otherwise with Justinian.
As these emperors effected the Christianization of the remaining pagans, the
historians of the time give reports. John Malalas 353 writes: “At this time (around
529), a great persecution of the pagans took place. Many were discovered,
deposed of office, and some of them were executed.” Bishop Johannes of Ephesus
recounts that Justinian assigned him to conduct an investigation of the followers
of paganism who still remained in Constantinople in secret. There, after careful
research, they found and apprehended, among those most distinguished through
birth, riches, and education, among the ranks of the patricians, scholars, and
doctors, still many followers of the old superstition. One of these, the patrician
Phokas, is said to have poisoned himself upon this discovery, whereupon the
emperor commanded that the corpse be buried in a pit with no funeral honors.
However, he had lead the other pagans earlier to the church, so that they could be
taught there and taken into the Christian congregation. 354 – Justinian was effective
in the conversion of pagans more in the provinces than in Byzantium. The
aforementioned Bishop Johannes traveled, assigned by the emperor, to the Asiatic
provinces Caria, Lydia, and Phrygia, in order to declare the Gospel there. 70,000
pagans are supposed to have converted to Christianity upon hearing his sermons.
The newly converted built 41 churches on their own means. Justinian had a
further 55 erected and equipped them with holy vessels and par aments. 355 The
Abasgoi 356 on the Black Sea [33] and the neighboring Lazier allowed themselves
to be influenced by Justinian, taking up the Christian teachings. – The Tzanen, 357
who were located at the source of the Phasis and the Akampsis and were
notorious for their raids, could also be led by the emperor toward civilization and
the true religion. Many of them entered the imperial army after receiving the holy
baptism. – In two places on the Egyptian border, Justinian discovered the vestiges
of a pagan cult, in Augila, a city on an oasis in the Lybian desert, and on the
island Philae, at the first cataract of the Nile. In Augila 358 there still remained a
temple dedicated to Jupiter Ammon and Alexander the Great, in which a number
of cult priests [Götzenpriester] still brought sacrifices according to the old
customs. On imperial command, Christian missionaries went there immediately,
converted the people, and erected a church devoted to the holy mother of God. In
351
l.c.
352
Schultze 2. B. S. 324. 325.
353
lib. XVIII ed. Bonn. p. 449.
354
Lasaulx p. 147.
355
Johannes v. Ephesus, Kirchengesch., ed. J. M. Schönfelder. Munich 1862, p. 122, 133 – 135.
356
Evagr. IV. 20 – 23. – Nicephorus Callistus. Eccl. hist. Lutetiae Parisoir. 1630. t. II. XVII, 14. – Mansi VIII,
382. – Ludewig l.c. p. 525.
357
Proc. bell. Pers. I, 15. – Agathias IV, 99. V, 100. – Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte I, p. 334.
358
Joh. v. Eph. – Schönfelder p. 81. – Schultze l.c. II, p. 251. – Procop. de aedif. VI, 2.
131
Philae, 359 where the Egyptian religion sought the graves of Isis and Osiris,
immigrant Blemmyer attempted to maintain the old religion. On the occasion of a
military raid, Narses drove out the invaders and effected the end of the adoration
of Isis. Justinian then sent the Abbot Theodorus as Bishop to Philae. – Of
Syria 360 , Johannes of Ephesus knows to report that he had found there a temple
with a brazen idol, to which citizens at the time of plague had made pilgrimage,
and that in Heliopolis, still in the year 554, an idol 150 ells high was destroyed by
lightning. Despite strenuous activity, he had not succeeded to eradicate the old
beliefs.
The examples presented here prove how seriously Justinian took the conversion
of the pagans. He pressed up to the most distant and isolated tribes and worked by
mobilizing the best forces, with application of significant sums, and not the least
also with the application of violence in the eradication of idolatry, so that some
writers even believe, [34] that religious motives were at the heart of many of his
military raids. 361 That he nonetheless did not succeed in achieving his goal
everywhere is evidenced, among other things, by a large religious trial that was
still being played out under Emperor Iberius in the year 579 362 , and likewise by
the fact that even in Constantinople in the year 659, a century after Justinian,
idolaters were arrested, led publicly through the city, and their books were burned
along with the idols at the Kynegion. 363
The second blow that Justinian effected against paganism was directed against
pagan philosophy. After idolatry had long disappeared from the Roman public
eye, pagan sciences, enemies of the cross, still blossomed.
This also should fall and had to, if idolatry was to cease. The only oven in
which the fire of the old world wisdom still flamed stood in Athens. Of the four
philosophical schools, which for centuries constituted the center of the scientific
world, the stoic, epicurean, peripatetic, and platonic, only the last still existed.
Already in 402 Synesius of Cyrene could write from Athens: “Athens has nothing
praiseworthy anymore except for the names of its famous amphitheaters. Like the
skin of the slaughtered and wasted animal is a sign of former life, so also is there
nothing left for one to do, since philosophy has emigrated, except to ramble about
and admire the Academy… Athens was formerly a place of wise men; as it now
stands, only the bee-keeping is laudable. It is similar also with the team of wise
Plutarchians, who attract the youth to their auditoriums not through the reputation
of their lectures, but with their jugs of wine from the Hymettus.” 364 The later neo-
platonic school of Plutarch [35] still attracted students. “It had,” as Zumpt 365 says,
359
(Marinus, Vita Procli c. 19). – Schultze l.c. II, p. 228 ff. – Procop. bell. Pers. I, 19. – Joh. v. Ephes. –
Schönfelder p. 183. – Hergenröther l.c. I, p. 333, 334.
360
Assemani, Bibl. orient. II, 85. – Schultze l.c. II, p. 445.
361
Evagr. IV, 16. – Procop. bell. Pers. I, 12, 15; Procop. aedif. III, 4. 7.. V, 2,3. – Niceph. Call. XVII, 12, 24. –
Baronius, Annales eccl. tom. IX, X. Lucae 1749 a. 533. Nr. 41. – Le Beau, Hist. du Bas-Emp. VIII, 547.
362
Schultze l.c. II, p. 272.
363
Schultze l.c. II, p. 291 ff.
364
Synes. ep., 136. – H. Zumpt, Über den Bestand der philos. Schulen in Athen und die Succession der
Scholarchen, in the essays of the Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin 1842, p. 27. – Lasaulx l.c. p. 143.
365
l.c. p. 52, cf. Gibbon l.c. V, 91: an annual rent which in eight centuries was gradually increased from three to one
thousand pieces of gold.
132
“the luck to have, with its fortune, which it had received from Plato as a sort of
entail and considerably raised in the course of time, remained independent from
state and city, but then bound itself all the more to paganism.” This connection
had, for the most part, its basis in the rapid advance of Christianity. The Christian
teachings did not satisfy only the mind but also the heart. Therein lies the secret of
why, as St. Ambrosius (377) writes, the philosophers were more and more
frequently avoided by the students, and why one no longer had faith in the
dialecticians but rather the fishers. Christianity indicated that philosophy was life
wisdom, that its teachings should not just be empty theories presented and heard
in schools, but rather should regulate practical life. Philosophy must be religious
just as religion is philosophical. 366 Pagan philosophy had undergone a transition
in particular under the favor of Emperor Julian. At the time, they no longer strove
for purely logical thinking, but rather for mysticism, intuition, and ecstasy.
“Whereas with Plotinus,” says Schultze, 367 “Neo-Platonism still stood at the peak
of philosophy, with the godly Iamblichus it had already transformed from a
philosophy to a theological doctrine, [36] which sought its goal in the restoration
of polytheism.” From the beginning of the Fifth Century, the curriculum in the
philosophical Academy at Athens was such that mathematics were pursued first,
and then the reading of Platonic and Aristotelian texts. The most outstanding
students were led to theurgist through declarations from oracles. The gods
appeared in dreams and visions to souls which had been purified by recognition
and virtue. “Thus the school externally preserved itself as a philosophical
institution, in secret as a colony of priests of Hellenism.” 368
In this consideration of philosophy, the reason should be sought as to why
Emperor Justinian advanced legally upon the teachers of the same. In order to
clog one source of paganism, in 529 he sent a letter of his own to Athens bearing
the message that no one else could teach philosophy or declare rights.
Accordingly, in the same year in which St. Benedict brought down the last pagan
national sanctuary in Italy, the temple of Apollo in the holy heath of Monte
Casino, 369 the high fortress of antique paganism in Greece was destroyed.
“On this Agathius reports 370 , Damascius, the Syrian, relies, as well as his
students Simplicius of Sicily, Eulamius of Phrygia, Pricianus of Lydia, Hermias
and Diogenes from the land of the Phoenicians, and Isidor of Gaza, the blossoms
366
Here we in no way concede that L. v. Ranke (Weltgeschichte, 4. B. Abt. 2, D. Kaisertum in Konst. u. d. Ursprung
rom.-germ. Königreiche. Leipzig 1883. p. 29 ff.) was right when he said: “The Christian religion emanated from
the conflict of religious opinions of the peoples of the earth, and developed itself into a church in opposition of the
same. … With Greek philosophy, the original development of Christian theology also experienced a standstill.”
Even less do we accept what Harnack, Dogmengesch. II, p. 38n, remarks on this: “Hellenistic science in connection
with a monkish worldview ruled the spiritual life of the church as much before Justinian’s time as after – they were
in the deepest sense no contradiction, but possessed common roots.”
367
l.c. I, 161. 447. Cf. Zeller, Gesch. der Philosophie d. Griechen III. 2, 849. – A. Neander, Allgem. Gesch. d.
Religion u. Kirche. Hamburg. 1825. I, 1, p. 252 ff.
368
Zumpt l.c. p. 59, 119. – Gibbon l.c. V, 93: Proklus, for example, taught in this direction: But in the intervals of
study he personally conversed with Pan, Aesculapius and Minerva, in whose mysteries he was secretly initiated and
whose prostrate statues he adored; in the devout persuasion that th e ph ilosoph er , who is a citizen of the universe
should b e th e p r i e s t o f i ts v a r io u s d ei t i e s .
369
Beugnot l.c. II, 286.
370
Agathias l.c. lib. IV, 31. – Gibbon l.c. V, 93. – Zumpt l.c. p. 62. – Procop. Arcana c. 11. 26. – Lasaulx l.c.
133
of the philosophy of our time, as well as the Roman empire. They decided to live
under Persian rule, which seemed to them, according to the generally accepted
opinion, as a connection between Platonic philosophy and kingdom, 371 and where
the people would be righteous and moderate. But the found everything [37] to be
otherwise than they had expected: in the people they found the same and even
greater immorality, arrogance of the nobility, and in King Khosroes they found a
penchant for philosophy but lack of higher education and a limited command of
the national conventions. They wanted longingly to return, although Khosroes
liked them and requested that they remain. However, they had the significant
advantage that they could live further at their own discretion. For because
precisely at that time a treaty was being negotiated between the Romans and
Persians, it was presented to Khosroes as a condition of keeping peace 372 that the
men could return to their homes and live for themselves in the future, without
being forced to accept what ran against their convictions, or change their paternal
faith.” In 533 the aforementioned philosophers came back to Athens; their school,
however, was never reopened. Simplicius is believed to have held further
philosophical lectures. Closer details about this, however, remain unknown.
Justinian, through the cancelation of the school of Athens, bore pagan
philosophy formally to the grave. Materially, the same had already been suffering
from long illness for quite some time. None of the earlier emperors had dared to
do this, and some could not take this step because the number of pagan
philosophy students was still too large. What was decisive and commanding about
their actions against paganism was the idolatrous element. 373 Justinian not only
set the axe to the few sparsely sprouting branches of paganism but also sought to
pull out the last roots of the same. What helped him advance so massively was not
devaluation or lack of recognition of the value of philosophy; greed 374 for the
fortune of the Academy of Athens did not motivate his abolishment of it; rather,
he was led by the same motive that summoned him to battle against idolatry: the
hatred of paganism as such and the striving towards a unified Christian state.” 375
376
Justinian made short work of all institutions and schoolsin opposition to a unified Christian
state and they were systematically closed and subject to the state and/or church treasury.
Justinian indeed had gone where none of the earlier emperors had dared to go. We continue with
Justinian’s legislation from his Codex I:
TITLE XVII.
CONCERNING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ANCIENT LAW
371
They gullibly believed that Plato’s Republic could be realized in the despotic Persian state. Gibbon l.c. V. 94.
372
Schultze l.c. p. 448.
373
Schlutlze l.c. p. 93. Cf. Neander l.c. II p. 178 ff.
374
Gibbon V, 89: some reproach may be justly inflicted on the avarice and jealousy of a prince by whose hand such
venerable ruins were destroyed.
375
376
Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, (Boise, Idaho, Pacific Press, 1948), 5:156. “All schools among us will
soon be closed up.”
134
AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE JURISTS WHO ARE MEN-
TIONED IN THE DIGEST.
[92] . . . . “(10) Where, however, any laws contained in the ancient books have
already fallen into desuetude, We, under no circumstances, permit you to insert
them; for We only wish those to remain in force which frequent decisions have
established, or the long-continued custom of this Fair City has confirmed; in
accordance with the statement of Salvius Julianus, which says that all cities
should observe the customs and laws of Rome, which is the capital of the world,
but that Rome should not observe the customs of other cities. We understand by
Rome, not only the ancient City, but also our Imperial Capital, which, by the
grace of God, was founded under the most fortunate auspices.
(11) Therefore, We order that everything shall be governed by these two codes,
one that of the Constitutions, the other that of the revised law, which is about to
be compiled in a Code; or if anything else should afterwards be promulgated by
Us in the form of institutes. . . .
This ends the selection of the primary sources of Justinian’s Codex I issued in 534 that attest
to the fact that oppressive religious legislation had been enacted by the state and received the full
backing of the church.
Our next selection of the primary sources from Justinian’s Novels will further confirm that
oppressive church and state legislation had entirely outlawed religious liberty and more. The
Novels of Justinian are also called Constitutions; the collection that we have on hand number up
to 168 with a few extant. Unlike the Codex that came out in 534 in a completed form, the Novels
were progressive in that they were issued as needed from 535 to the end of Justinian’s reign in
565. The Novels, unlike the Codex, are simply numbered from 1-168, are designated as Preface,
Chapter, and/or Epilogue and have been dated according to the time of issue. We will share a
few of the important ones up to the year 538 in this section. The dating of the Novels in the work
of S.P. Scott 377 is some what inaccurate, but it is otherwise a good primary source from which
we will quote unless otherwise noted. Supplied for the reader is a valuable chart that correctly
dates the Novels of Justinian. 378 Novel 3, also called Constitution 3, will give a glimpse into the
vast “host” given over to the priesthood in Constantinople at the time:
THE NOVELS
CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF ECCLESIASTICS ATTACHED TO THE

PRINCIPAL CHURCH AND THE OTHER CHURCHES OF
CONSTANTINOPLE.
THIRD NEW CONSTITUTION.
PREFACE.
377
Vols. 16:1-99, 17:100-168.
378
The following chart is supplied that correctly dates the release of each and every Novel with month, day, and year
when provided in the original and is illustrated in APPENDIX II, pg. 200.
135
[17] “. . . . We have ascertained that on this account the principal church of this
Imperial City, the Mother of Our Empire. . . .
CHAPTER I.
[18] (1) Wherefore We order that not more than sixty priests, a hundred
deacons, forty deaconesses, ninety sub-deacons, a hundred and ten readers, or
twenty-five choristers, shall be attached to the Most Holy Principal Church, so
that the entire number of most reverend ecclesiastics belonging thereto shall not
exceed four hundred and twenty in all, without including the hundred other
members of the clergy who are called porters. Although there is such a large
number of ecclesiastics attached to the Most Holy Principal Church of this Most
Fortunate City, and the three other churches united with the [19] same, none of
those who are now there shall be excluded, although their number is much greater
than that which has been established by Us, but no others shall be added to any
order of the priesthood whatsoever until the number has been reduced, in
compliance with the present law. 379
CONCERNING MONKS.
FIFTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
CHAPTER VIII.
MONKS SHALL NOT MARRY OR KEEP CONCUBINES.
[28] Where anyone leading a monastic life proves worthy of being ordained a
priest, he shall continue to observe the rule of his order [29] absolutely. If,
however, having become a priest, he should abuse the confidence reposed in him,
and presume to marry, although there are certain ranks of the clergy who are
allowed to do this and to enter the matrimonial state (We refer to the orders of
choristers and readers, but have forbidden the marriage of all others in accordance
with the rules of the Church. . . . 380
HOW BISHOPS AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICS SHALL BE OR-

DAINED, AND CONCERNING THE EXPENSES OF CHURCHES.
SIXTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
CHAPTER I.
CONCERNING THE MORALS, THE LIFE, THE HONOR, AND
379
3. Preface, Chapter I. Vol. 16:17-19, March 16, 535.
380
Ibid., The Novels, 5. Chapter VIII, 16:28-29, March 17, 535.
136
THE STATUS OF ONE WHO IS TO BE CONSECRATED A BISHOP.
[31] . . . . We order that the sacred canons shall be observed hereafter when
anyone is presented to be consecrated a bishop. . . .
[32] (8) When the candidate has been selected and prepared for the episcopate,
he must, before his consecration, be familiar with the ancient and accepted canons
which Our faith acknowledges as just and inviolate, and the Catholic and
Apostolic Church has established and transmitted to Us. When, after having
frequently read them previous to his ordination, the official in charge of the same
must interrogate him, and ascertain if he is capable of complying with the said
rules and of doing what they prescribe. If he should state that he cannot observe
these sacred precepts he shall, by no means, be consecrated. . . . 381
THE ROMAN CHURCH SHALL ENJOY THE PRESCRIPTION OF A

HUNDRED YEARS.
NINTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
[65] No one is ignorant of the fact that, in ancient Rome, legislation originally
emanated from the head of the Pontificate. Hence We now deem it necessary to
impose upon Ourselves the duty of showing that [66] We are the source of both
secular and ecclesiastical jurisprudence by promulgating a law consecrated to the
honor of God, which shall be applicable not only to this city but to all Catholic
Churches everywhere, and exert its salutary vigor over them as far as the Ocean,
so that the entire West as well as the East, where possessions belonging to Our
churches are to be found, or may hereafter be acquired by them, shall enjoy its
advantages.
. . . . This Our law, enacted in honor of Omnipotent God and the venerable See
of the Apostle Peter, shall be observed in all lands of the entire West, and be
applicable to the most distant islands of the Ocean; and Our solicitude for the
subjects of Our Empire induces Us to declare it to be perpetual.382
CONCERNING THE DEPOSITION OF ANTHIMIUS, SEVERUS, PETER,

ZOARAS, AND OTHERS.
FORTY-SECOND NEW CONSTITUTION.
After the church synod of 536 deposed Monophysite, Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimos
and his followers, Emperor Justinian declared in the same year:
Without doing anything unusual in the basileia, we now come to the present
law. Whenever a sentence by priests has removed from their sacred sees unworthy
occupants, like Nestorius, Eutyches, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, and others no
381
Ibid., The Novels, 6. Chapter I, 16:31-32, April 15, 535.
382
137
less guilty, the basileia always supported the decisions and the authority of the
priests, in order that the human and the divine should concur in harmonizing the
pronouncement of right decisions. 383
CONCERNING THE WAREHOUSES OR SHOPS OF THE CITY OF

CONSTANTINOPLE, OF WHICH ELEVEN HUNDRED ARE SET APART
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF FUNERALS
CONDUCTED IN THE PRINCIPAL HOLY CHURCH, ALL THE OTHERS,
No MATTER TO WHOM THEY BELONG, SHALL ONLY BE SUBJECT TO
ORDINARY CHARGES.
FORTY-THIRD NEW CONSTITUTION.
CHAPTER I.
Hence We order that the eleven hundred shops charged with defraying the
funeral expenses incurred by the Holy Principal Church, as well as to provide it
with deans or pallbearers shall, by all means, be maintained intact and free from
any other burden; and that no other church but this shall be entitled to demand any
deans, whether the said church belongs to heretics or not. What We have already
determined shall also be valid, namely, that eight hundred shops shall be set apart
to provide pallbearers for the service of the Principal Church, and that three
hundred shall pay their share in money, the disposal of which has already been
made by Our pragmatic sanction. Any shops which may be destroyed shall be
rebuilt in the manner prescribed by the orders of Anastasius of pious memory.
The said eleven hundred shops devoted to the service of the Principal Holy
Church shall continue to be free and exempt from every species of taxation; nor
shall they, or the quarters which furnish them, be compelled to pay tribute. suffer
any loss, or recognize any other authority. . . . 384
THE NAME OF THE EMPEROR SHALL BE PLACED AT THE HEAD OF

ALL PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE DATE SHALL BE WRITTEN
PLAINLY IN LATIN CHARACTERS.
FOURTY-SEVENTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
CHAPTER I.
. . . . At present the eleventh year of Our reign is written; but from the
beginning of next April, the day upon which God invested Us with the
government of the Empire, the twelfth year shall be stated; and so on, as long as
383
Rudolf Schoell and Wilhelm Kroll, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Novellae XLII (decreed Aug. 8, A.D. 536) (Berolini
Apud Weidmannos, 1928), 3:196, Gr. text. For the Latin version see S. P. Scott, preface to “Novella XLII,” The
Civil Law [of Justinian], 16:199. See also Asterios Gerostergios, Justinian The Great The Emperor and Saint
(Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies), 164.
384
43. Chapter I, 16:204. May 17, 537.
138
God may permit Us to reign, so that this name may survive the laws, and the
mention of the latter may remain immortal, while the commemoration of the
Empire shall be introduced in all transactions for all time. . . . 385
SACRED MYSTERIES SHALL NOT BE CELEBRATED IN PRIVATE

HOUSES.
FIFTY-EIGHTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
PREFACE.
It has been provided by former laws that sacred mysteries shall, under no
circumstances, be celebrated in private houses, but that the belief in and the
worship of God shall be professed in public, in accordance with the custom which
has been handed down to Us with regard to the observance of religious
ceremonies; and We, by this present law, do provide that what We wish shall be
strictly complied with. For We forbid the inhabitants of this great city, as well as
all others in Our Empire, to have any kind of chapels in their houses, or to
celebrate sacred mysteries there, and to do nothing which may be opposed to
Catholic and Apostolic tradition.” 386
The submitted primary legislation has most assuredly sustained the claim of the scriptures that
church and state united in issuing oppressive religious legislation and, thereby, did outlaw
religious liberty. We will continue to accentuate certain codes and will pick up from Justinian’s
Novels where we left off (at the year 538) after we continue to address and document the final
specifications of the scriptures.
385
Ibid., The Novels, 47. Chapter I, 16:214. August 31, 537.
386
Ibid., The Novels, 58. Preface, 16:237. November 2, 537.
139
9
The Man of Sin thinks to change the Law of God
The Catholic Church has changed the fourth commandment of God, the 7th day Sabbath, from
Saturday to Sunday, the 1st day of the week. This will be revealed to be the “MARK” of her
ecclesiastical authority in religious things.
In order to establish that the Catholic Church changed the fourth commandment of God, the
7th day Sabbath, from Saturday to Sunday, the 1st day of the week, we must go back to the very
early history of the church. But first a few comments from the pen of Ellen White:
“I saw that the Sabbath commandment was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the
other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to break them all, as well as
to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never
changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the
week; for he was to change times and laws” [Daniel 7:25]. 387
“The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day.” 388
These quotes, taken by themselves, have caused some readers to misread and misrepresent
what she was really conveying by interjecting private interpretations contrary to her intended
meaning. We shall allow her to qualify her intended meaning:
“It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its [447] arrogant
claims (see Appendix); and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel
the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.” 389
“Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular
power were the steps by which the pagan festival attained its position of honor in
the Christian world.” 390
Ellen White qualified her earlier statements by clearly stating that the first arrogant claims
asserted by the pope were to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.” She then
further clarified that this would be accomplished in increments or steps. In other words, it would
be progressive and it would be sustained by the secular power. Her statement immediately
moves us out of the first three centuries because she fully understood that this event could not
take place until a union was formed between church and state. She also understood that Sunday-
keeping did not begin in the fourth century. On the contrary, historians and Mrs. White correctly
understood that Sunday-keeping had been witnessed in the first centuries along-side those who
were keeping the Biblical Sabbath:
387
Ellen White, A word to the Little Flock, 18. See also Early Writings, (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald,
1945), 32.
388
Ellen White, Early Writings, (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald, 1945), 65.
389
390
Ibid., 574.
140
“In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They
were jealous for the honor of God, and, believing that His law is immutable, they
zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts. But with great subtlety Satan
worked through his agents to bring about his object. That the attention of the
people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the
resurrection of Christ. Religious services were held upon it; yet it was regarded as
a day of recreation, the Sabbath being still sacredly observed. . . . While
Christians generally continued to observe the Sunday as a joyous festival, he led
them, in order to show [53] their hatred of Judaism, to make the Sabbath a fast, a
day of sadness and gloom.” 391
We have already established in our A.D. 508 Source Book that Roman Christianity for the first
three centuries experienced complete religious liberty, and it was not until Constantine
recognized Christianity in the fourth century with the edict of Milan in A.D. 313 that the steps
were taken which brought about a union of church and state for the first time in the pagan Roman
empire. Only then, with the legal arm of the state behind the church, would she have any hope of
seeing the compelling of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.” This was rightly understood by Mrs.
White:
“In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree
[March 7, 321] making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire.
(See Appendix.) The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was
honored by Christians; it was the emperor's policy to unite the conflicting
interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of
the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the
same day was observed by both Christians and heathen, it would promote the
nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans and thus advance the power and
glory of the church.” 392
One must understand that there were four steps in bringing to fruition the compulsion of
Sunday worship under the union of church and state that began in the Western Roman Empire:
1. Recognition - Sunday was first recognized and generally accepted by the clergy as it
quickly became a sign of anti-Judaism.
2. Official - It became official through church councils, ordinances, canon law, and or
ratified by the pope.
3. State Legislation – Church edicts, council resolutions, ordinances, bulls, and canon law,
sustained and enforced by the secular power.
4. It would not come to fruition until the ten horns came on the stage of action according to
Daniel 7:8, 20, and 24 and that would not be until sometime after A.D. 476.
The second step can be verified from the following treatise from Pope Gelasius I:
391
392
Ibid., 53.
141
“It would be the Popes wish, as he assured, that the leader of the world would
reach the salvation longed for by him, and would lead with Christ evermore. 393
Gelasius went so far that he restored the unrest and the confusion in the East on
the breach of the fundaments and teachings represented by the Roman church.
The thriving of community requires a mistake-free, common faith, and that would
be defended by the Roman church. 394
“The fourth treatise of Gelasius was probably written or at least originated in
temporal proximity to him in context with this letter. The main objective lay in
the evidence that the condemnation of Acacius and Petrus (Mongus) would
legally stand and that the absolution of the final ones by the Emperor would have
no validity. The tract 395 begins with the no longer surprising statement that the
resolutions of Chalcedon only held validity in so far as they are recognized by the
Roman church, with which he agreed upon every virtue with the 28th “Canon” and
would already for this reason, would have liked not to acknowledge the measures
of the chair of Constantinople against the other oriental chairs. What the Roman
church didn’t acknowledge would have no validity and would be ineffective.” 396
As we have shown in our A.D. 508 Source Book, Revelation 17:3 is a Biblical illustration
of the union of church and state, and the prophecy does not recognize the beast power until such
a union exists. Ellen White understood this Biblical premise and stayed within the parameters of
the scriptures. This is why she so forcefully clarified her statements by accurately stating that
Sunday observance was to be “sustained by the secular power.” This she understood would be
accomplished only through a union of church and state. This brings us to the hard realization that
any so-called church edicts, council resolutions, ordinances, demands for Sunday Easter
observance, or Sunday-keeping of the church during the first three centuries is without substance
simply because there was no recognition of the church from the state and neither was there any
secular legislation enforcing the dogmas of the church until the beginning of the fourth century.
In other words, there was no union of church and state during these first three centuries. Our
search must commence, then, from the fourth century and onward as we look for the official
declaration from the church with the sustained recognition or legislation from the state. The
following documentation compiled by Mary Ann Collins, a former Catholic Nun, will help us in
393
[JK = Phillip Jaffe ed. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, [Records of the Roman Pontiffs], (Leipzig, 1885).] JK
632: “Ut regnum quod temporaliter adsecutus es, velim te habere perpetuum, et qui imperas saeculo, possis regnare
cum Christo” (PS 21 Z. 4-5 Nr. 8). This wording is, what is seldom recognized, included over the doxology in many
crowning ordinances of the middle-age. Consider also the same concept of FELIX III.: JK 591 (PS 68 Z. 26 f. Nr.
20): here the concept appears in connection with the rebirths ideal.
394
JK 632 (PS 21 f. Nr 8)
395
JK 701 (PS 7 ff. Nr. 6). Other details, below pg. 250 ff.
396
JK 701: “Quae, sicut dictum est, sedes apostolica non receipt, quia quae privilegiis universalis ecclesiae contraria
probantur, nulla ratione subsistent” (PS 8 Z. 8 f. Nr. 6). Further in the same place: “Quod firmavit in synodo sedes
apostolica, hoc robur obtinuit; quod refutavit, habere no potuit firmatatem (PS 12 Z. 25 f. Nr. 6).
[JK “701 (382) In fragments, which are inscribed “a tome concerning the bond of anathema”, he teaches, that
only those things from the Chalcedon statutes are valid, which the apostolic seat approved; that the communion was
not returned to Acacius, because he did not repent. Great works of Leo III. 321 (Migne 56 p. 617), Mansi VIII. 88,
Migne 59 p. 102, Thiel I. 557. --- “Lest by chance because they are in the habit.”
Phillip Jaffe ed. Records of the Roman Pontiffs, (Leipzig, 1885), 91.]
Ullman, Walter von. Päpste und Papsttum [Popes and Papacy]: Gelasius I. (492–496). Bd. 18. Stuttgart: Anton
Hiersemann, 1981, 204.
142
that search. She freely acknowledges the source she pulled from in her work was Malachi
Martin’s book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church. Their combined work will serve the
truth well:
Chapter 7
CONSTANTINE
“On October 28, 312 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine met with Bishop
Miltiades. (Catholics would later refer to him as Pope Miltiades. But at the time
he was known as the Bishop of Rome.) Miltiades was assisted by Sylvester, a
Roman who spoke educated Latin, and acted as interpreter. The previous day,
Constantine had seen a sign in the heavens: a cross in front of the sun. He heard a
voice say, “In this sign you will conquer.” He painted crosses on the shields of his
soldiers. Constantine won an important battle. He was convinced that it was
because of the power of the sign that he had seen. He asked for two of the nails
that were used to crucify Jesus. One nail was made into a bit for his horse.
Another nail was made a part of his crown, signifying that Constantine ruled the
Roman Empire in the name of Jesus. He allowed Miltiades to keep the third
nail. 397
The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why
he worshiped the sun god while at the same time professing to be a Christian.
After his “conversion,” Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the sun god
(the “unconquered sun”). His coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue
of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople. He
made Sunday (the day of the sun god) into a day of rest when work was
forbidden. 398
Constantine declared that a mosaic of the sun god (riding in a chariot)
represented Jesus. During Constantine’s reign, many Christians incorporated
worship of the sun god into [23] their religion. They prayed kneeling towards the
east (where the sun rises). They said that Jesus Christ drives his chariot across the
sky (like the sun god). They had their worship services on Sunday, which honored
the sun god. (Days of the week were named to honor pagan gods. For example,
Saturday is “Saturn’s day,” named for the Roman god Saturn.) They celebrated
the birth of Jesus on December 25, the day when sun worshipers celebrated the
birthday of the sun following the winter solstice. 399
397
Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1981), 31-33. A
major theme of this book is the radical change which occurred in the Church as a result of Constantine. Malachi
Martin recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a theologian, [Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute] and a Vatican
insider. He was the personal confessor of Pope John XXIII. [Malachi Martin also served three popes as diplomat and
spy, speaks seventeen languages and helped translate the Dead Sea Scrolls.]
398
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 1995), 67-68. Paul
Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian.
399
Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, 33. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, 67.
Information about the days of the week being named for pagan gods and goddesses can be found in a good
dictionary. Look up each day of the week, and “Saturn”. I used Webster's Dictionary, 1941 edition, which gives the
origins of words.
143
Historians disagree as to whether or not Constantine actually became a
Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Constantine was vain, violent, and superstitious. His combination of worshiping
the Christian God and the sun god may have been an attempt to cover all the
bases. (A similar spirit can be seen in wealthy Americans who financially support
both opposing candidates during an election. No matter who wins, they expect to
have the favor of the person in power.) Constantine had little respect for human
life. He was known for wholesale slaughter during his military campaigns. He
forced prisoners of war to fight for their lives against wild beasts. He had several
family members (including his second wife) 400 executed for doubtful reasons.
Constantine waited until he was dying before he asked to be baptized. Historians
disagree as to whether or not he actually was baptized. 401
Constantine wanted to have a state Church, with Christian clergy acting as civil
servants. He called himself a Bishop. He said that he was the interpreter of the
Word of God, and the voice which declares what is true and godly. According to
historian Paul Johnson, Constantine saw himself as being an important agent of
salvation, on a par with the apostles. Bishop Eusebius (Constantine’s eulogist)
relates that Constantine built the Church of the Apostles with the intention of
having his body be kept there along with the bodies of the apostles. Constantine’s
coffin was to be in the center (the place of honor), with six apostles on each side
of him. He expected that devotions honoring the apostles would be performed in
the church, and he expected to share the title and honor of the apostles. 402
Constantine told Bishop Miltiades that he wanted to build two Christian
basilicas, one dedicated to the Apostle Peter and one dedicated to the Apostle
Paul. He offered a large, magnificent palace for the use of Miltiades and his
successors. Miltiades refused. He could not accept the idea of having Christianity
be promoted by the Roman Empire. 403
Constantine rode off to war. By the time that he returned in 314 A.D., Miltiades
had died. Bishop Sylvester was Miltiades’ successor. Sylvester was eager to have
the Church be spread using Roman roads, Roman wealth, Roman law, Roman
power, and Roman military might. Constantine officially approved of Sylvester as
the successor of Miltiades. Then he had a coronation ceremony for Sylvester and
crowned him like a worldly prince. No bishop had ever been crowned before. 404
Constantine’s actions give the impression that he believed that he had authority
over the Church.
[24] Before Constantine’s “conversion,” Christians were persecuted. Now,
instead of facing persecution, Bishop Sylvester lived in the lap of luxury. He had
a beautiful palace, with the finest furniture and art. He wore silk brocade robes.
He had servants to wait on him. Near his palace was a basilica which served as his
400
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (Athenum-New York, 1979), 68. [I have personally inserted the actual
reading from Johnson here: “He had no respect for human life, and as emperor he executed his eldest son, his own
second wife, his favorite sister’s husband and ‘many others’ on doubtful charges.” Johnson is a prominent historian
and English Roman Catholic writer.]
401
Ibid., 68-69.
402
Ibid., 69.
403
Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, 33-34.
404
Ibid., 34-35.
144
cathedral. This luxurious building had seven altars made of gold, a canopy of
solid silver above the main altar, and 50 chandeliers. The imperial mail system
and transportation system were placed at Sylvester’s disposal. It was now possible
to have worldwide church councils. 405
Read the Book of Acts and the Epistles and compare the Church shown there to
the Church of Bishop Sylvester. Here is how the Apostle Paul described the kinds
of things that he had to endure, as a leader in the early Church.
“Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten
with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have
been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in
perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in
perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In
weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings
often, in cold and nakedness.” (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)
After Constantine’s “conversion,” the Church was radically changed. Suddenly,
being Christian resulted in power, prestige, and promotion (whereas previously it
had resulted in persecution). Suddenly, by the Emperor’s decree, Christianity
became “politically correct”. So ambitious people joined the Church for worldly
reasons. The Bishop of Rome was supported by the military might, political
power, and wealth of the Roman Emperor. Worldwide church councils were
convened.
This was the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. It was created in the year 314
A.D. by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Sylvester.
A TALE OF TWO BISHOPS
The degree of change which Constantine caused in the Church can be

illustrated by looking at the lives of two Bishops of Rome. So let’s go back in
history for about 100 years before Christianity became “politically correct,” to
look at the life of Bishop Pontian. Then we will compare Pontian’s life with the
life of Bishop Sylvester, who lived during the time of Emperor Constantine.
(The following information about Bishops Pontian and Sylvester comes from
Malachi Martin, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” pages 19-38.)
[25] Pontian became the Bishop of Rome in the year 230 A.D. He was made
bishop suddenly and unexpectedly when his predecessor was arrested and killed
by Roman authorities.
On September 27, 235 A.D., Emperor Maximinus decreed that all Christian
leaders were to be arrested. Christian buildings were burned, Christian cemeteries
were closed, and the personal wealth of Christians was confiscated.
405
James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), 231-
232. James McCarthy is a former Catholic.
145
Bishop Pontian was arrested the same day. He was put in the Mamertine
Prison, where he was tortured for ten days. Then he was sent to work in the lead
mines of Sardinia.
When prisoners arrived at Sardinia, their left eye was gouged out and a number
was branded on their forehead. Iron rings were soldered around their ankles,
linked together with a six-inch chain which hobbled them. A tight chain around
their waist was fastened to their ankle-chain in such a way that they were
permanently bent over.
The prisoners worked for 20 hours a day, with four one-hour breaks for sleep.
They had one meal of bread and water per day. Most prisoners died within six to
fourteen months from exhaustion, malnutrition, disease, beatings, infection, or
violence. Some went insane or committed suicide.
Pontian only lasted four months. In January, 236 A.D., Pontian was killed and
his body was thrown into the cesspool.
What happened to Pontian was not unusual. Many Christians were sent to the
Sardinian lead mines, or persecuted in other ways. If a man accepted the position
of being a Christian leader, he knew that his life from that time on was likely to be
short and painful. There were 14 Bishops of Rome in the 79 years between
Pontian and Sylvester.
Then along came Constantine.
In 314 A.D., Emperor Constantine crowned Sylvester as Bishop of Rome.
Sylvester lived in luxury, with servants waiting on him. Constantine confessed his
sins to Sylvester and asked for his advice. Sylvester presided over worldwide
Church councils. He had a splendid palace and a sumptuous cathedral. He had
power, prestige, wealth, pomp, and the favor of the Emperor.
Churchmen wore purple robes, reflecting the purple of Constantine’s court.
That was an external change. The most important change was an internal one. The
Church took on the mentality of Rome. Under Sylvester, the internal structure of
the Church took on the form and practice and pomp of Rome.
Sylvester died in December, 335 A.D. He died peacefully, in a clean,
comfortable bed, in the Roman Lateran Palace. He died surrounded by well
dressed bishops and priests, and attended by Roman guards. His body was dressed
in ceremonial robes, put in an elegant casket, and carried through the streets of
Rome in a solemn procession. He was buried [26] with honor and ceremony,
attended by the cream of Roman society and by the Roman people.
It is understandable that many Christians would have preferred an officially
approved status for the Church. But what was the result?
Before Constantine, the church was a band of heroic men and women who were
so committed to serve the Lord Jesus Christ that they would endure any hardship.
After 314 A.D., the Church became infiltrated by opportunists who were seeking
power and political advancement. Church leaders were no longer in danger of
persecution. Rather, they enjoyed all the trappings of power and luxury.
Historian Paul Johnson asks, “Did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did
Christianity prostitute itself to the empire? 406
406
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (Athenum-New York, 1979), 69.
146
The temptation for an ungodly alliance with Rome was very great. But at what
cost?” 407
Johnson destroys many myths of early church history prior to this marriage or union of church
and state in A.D. 314 and replaces them with facts:
“Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most from this unseemly
marriage between Church and State? Or, to put it another way, did the empire
surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire? It is
characteristic of the complexities of early Christian history that we cannot give a
definite answer to this question. It is not at all clear why the empire and
Christianity came into conflict in the first place. The empire extended toleration to
all sects provided they kept the peace. Jewish Christianity may have been
penetrated by Zealotry and Jewish irredentism, but the gentile Christianity of the
Pauline missions was non-political and non-racial. Its social implications were, in
the long run, revolutionary, but it had no specific doctrines of social change. Jesus
had told his hearers to pay taxes. Paul, in a memorable passage, advised the
faithful, while waiting for the parousia, to obey duly-constituted authority. As
early as the mid-second century, some [70] Christian writers saw an identity of
interests between the burgeoning Christian movement, with its universalist aims,
and the empire itself. Christians might not yield divine honors to the emperor, but
in other respects they were loyal Romans. Tertullian claimed:
“We are for ever making intercession for the emperors. We pray for them a
long life, a secure rule, a safe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, an honest
people, a quiet world, and everything for which a man and a Caesar may pray....
We know that the great force which threatens the whole world, the end of the age
itself with its menace of hideous sufferings, is delayed by the respite which the
Roman Empire means for us when we pray for its postponement we assist the
continuance of Rome I have a right to say, Caesar is more ours than yours,
appointed as he is by our God.”
By Tertullian's time (c. 200), as he pointed out, the Christians were numerous
enough to overthrow the Empire, had their intentions been hostile:
“We are but of yesterday, and we fill everything you have -cities, tenements,
forts, towns, exchanges, yes! and camps, tribes, palace, senate, forum. All we
leave you with are the Temples!” Christians were, he urged, a docile as well as a
loyal element in society.
And of course for the most part they were left alone. As a rule, the Christians,
like the Jews, enjoyed complete freedom from persecution.
. . . . [71] Under weak and vulnerable rulers, like Caligula, Nero and Domitian,
they became scapegoats for failure or disaster. As Tertullian put it: “If the Tiber
reaches the walls, if the Nile fails to rise to the fields, if the sky doesn’t move, or
the earth does, if there is famine or plague, the cry is at once: “The Christians to
the Lion!”’ Prejudice was much stronger in the central and western Mediterranean
than in the east, but certain rumors were current everywhere.
407
Mary Ann Collins a Former Catholic Nun, The Spirit of Roman Catholicism-What Lies Behind the Modern
Public Image? Copyright 2002, 22-26, PDF.
147
. . . . If they were strong and secure [Roman governments] they were less
inclined to yield to prejudice. Undisavowed Christianity remained a capital
offence, but government did not, as a rule, force Christians into the choice
between avowal and apostasy. It left them alone. One reason why the Church
strove for uniformity, and so against heresy, was that non-orthodox practices
tended to attract more attention and therefore hostility. . . . [72] There was no
systematic persecution of the Christians before the second half of the second
century. The worst episodes were isolated incidents, as in the Rhone Valley in
177.” 408
Malachi Martin describes how Constantine won the decisive battle at one of Rome’s bridges,
the Milvian, in the year 312, and the victory assures him the crown. The first thing Constantine
requests is to be taken to this obscure little man, the head of Rome’s Christians, their bishop,
Miltiades. Constantine has had a vision and attributes his great victory to Christ’s intervention.
He immediately determines to reverse the empire’s policy toward Christianity and Christians.
Accompanied by his chief priest, Sylvester, Constantine, having made a decision, wastes no
words. Constantine reveals to Miltiades and Sylvester that he plans to build a basilica dedicated
to Peter and more. Martin continues:
“Miltiades nods, but he is too dazed to answer. The idea of a Christian basilica
is too much for him. All his life, he has only known the little churches and
chapels, the “dominica” houses of the Lord-really little back rooms. For Miltiades
a basilica has always been a pagan building in whose central portion, the apse,
there was the Augusteum, a place filled with the statues of the emperors who were
worshiped as divinities by the Romans. For Miltiades, a Christian basilica is a
square circle, and he [34] will never change, never accept the emperor turning
everything upside down and making the world a pleasant and easy place for
Christians.
But Sylvester has another view: perhaps this Constantine could serve in Jesus’
plan of universal salvation. . . .
There are a few more words between the emperor and the pope. Then
Constantine rides off. He has battles to fight and an empire to consolidate. His
parting words are for Sylvester: “The Godhead,” he says, “wills us two to do great
things in the name of Christ. Be here when we return.
By January of 314, only fifteen months later, the frail Miltiades is dead. He dies
without ever having changed his mind. Lands and buildings given to the church
by Constantine he could accept. But he could not accept a Christianity sanctioned
and propagated by civil and military power.
Sylvester, however, by now has seen a new form for the Church: it could
spread by means of Roman roads, Roman arms, Roman law, Roman power. The
world would belong to Jesus entirely. Thus the triumph and the blessing could be
prepared. Besides, Sylvester remembers, no one knows when Jesus will reappear.
Therefore, why not make straight the way of the Lord?
A month after Miltiades's death, Constantine returns to Rome and assembles all
Christians-priests, deacons, people. He tells them simply: “We have chosen to
408
Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (Athenum-New York, 1979), 69-72.
148
approve of Sylvester as successor to Miltiades and to Peter the Apostle, as
representative of Jesus the Christ.” The assembly of Christians confirms the
emperor's choice.
After his coronation-Sylvester is the first pope to be crowned like a temporal
prince-Sylvester sits down in the Lateran Palace with Constantine. It is the first
and last time the two men will talk together at any length. They have decisions to
make.
Constantine makes a full confession of his whole life, asking for Sylvester’s
advice and the forgiveness of Christ for his sins.
Sylvester takes the first step toward a genuinely universal church. He accepts
an alliance between church and empire, so that the church can spread everywhere.
The 232 successors to Sylvester will never modify or deviate from that fateful
step. From that day to this their spiritual power will be entangled in temporal
alliances. Essentially, obstinately, blindly, they will stand in Sylvester’s shoes
down to the late twentieth century. We have accounts although only secondhand-
of the conversation between pope and emperor, but those accounts seem to agree
on essentials.” 409
The first possible candidate of the church to have wielded the power of the state to
enforce the papal sabbath would have been Pope Sylvester I who reigned from A.D. 314-
335.We are now ready to authenticate our second specification of the scriptures, and we
begin from a work by Odom to see if Pope Sylvester I was that man:
[196] “Rahanus Maurus, an archbishop of Mainz, Germany, who lived from 776
to 856 A.D., is said to have been “probably the most cultured man of his time, and
exceptionally learned in patristics.” A perusal of his works will convince anyone
that he was a learned man. He says:
“Likewise also feriae is derived from fando, for which reason Pope Sylvester I
ordained among the Romans that [concerning] the names of the days, which they
previously called after the names of their gods, that is. Solis [of the Sun], Lunae
[of the Moon]. Martis [of Mars], Mencurii [of Mercury], [Iovis (of Jupiter)].
Veneris [of Venus], [and] Saturni [of Saturn], that they should therefore call
[them] feriae, that is, first feria, second feria, third feria, fourth feria, fifth feria,
sixth feria, because in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said [197] on
each day: on the first, Let there be light; on the second, Let there be a firmament;
on the third, Let the earth bring forth green herbs, etc. But he [Sylvester]
commanded to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, and [to call] the
first feria ‘Lord’s day,’ because that on it the Lord rose [from the dead]. Moreover
the same pope decreed that the Sabbath rest should be transferred to the Lord’s
409
Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1981), 33-35.
[Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1981). A major
theme of this book is the radical change which occurred in the Church as a result of Constantine. Malachi Martin
recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a theologian, and a Vatican insider. He was the personal confessor of Pope
John XXIII.]
149
Day, in order that on that day we should rest from earthly works to the praising of
God.” 410
The same writer repeats this concerning Sylvester in another of his works.
Bede’s Testimony About Sylvester
[197] Bede, the noted English monk and ecclesiastical writer (672-735 A.D.),
repeatedly declares that Sylvester attempted to change the pagan names of the
days of the week. He says: “But the holy Sylvester ordered them to be called
feriae, calling the first day the ‘Lord’s [day]’; imitating the Hebrews, who named
[them] the first of the week, the second of the week, and so on the others.” 411
Bede says also in another work: “Question: Who first taught to observe feriae?
Answer: Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to observe feriae, to whom, resting
only to God, it was allowed to engage in no military service or worldly
business.... And indeed because light in the beginning was made on the first day,
and the resurrection of Christ [being] celebrated [on it], he called [it] the ‘Lord's
[day]:” 412
Sicard, bishop of Cremona, Italy, about 1221 A.D., also says: “Besides, he
[Sylvester] changed the names of the days into feriae, and he decreed [that] the
fast [be observed] on the fourth [Wednesday], on the sixth [Friday], and on the
Sabbath on account of the Lord's burial; but on the Lord’s day [he [198] decreed
that there he observed] a solemnity on account of the resurrection, and on the fifth
feria [Thursday] on account of [His] ascension.” 413
In an ecclesiastical manual written in Anglo-Saxon in 1011 A.D., Byrhtferth
said: “The reverend Bishop Sylvester altered the names of these days into feria
(holiday); and said that Sunday was God's day and called it feria prima; and
Monday (he called) feria secunda, that is the second holiday; and all the others he
named as we call them in Latin.” 414
In the ecclesiastical terminology of the Roman Catholic Church, the
nomenclature recommended by Sylvester is still in use. “The ecclesiastical style
of naming the week days was adopted by no nation except the Portuguese, who
alone use the terms segunda Feira, etc.” 415
Sylvester did not institute Sunday observance among Christians. Rabanus
Maurus, already quoted in this chapter, says that “Pope Sylvester instructed the
clergy to observe feriae. And indeed from an old custom he called the first day
410
Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Inslitutione, book 2, chap. 46, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 107, col.
361, author's translation. See also Rabanus Maurus, Liber de Computo, chap. 27, “De Feriis,” in J. P. Migne,
Patrologia Latina, Vol. 107 col. 682.
411
Bede, De Temporibus, chap. 4 in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 90, col. 281. author's translation. See also
Bede, De Divisionibus Temporum, chap. 10; De Temporum Ratione, chap. 8, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol.
90, cols. 657, 658, 326-332.
412
Bede, De Ratione Computi, chap. 5, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 90. col. 584, author’s translation.
413
Sicard, Chronicon, ad anno 310, “De Constantio et Galerio,” in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. :213, col.
467, author's translation.
414
Byrhtferth’s Manual, p. 131.
415
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 43, art. “Feria,”
150
‘the Lord’s [day],’ on which light was made in the beginning, and [on which] the
resurrection of Christ has been celebrated.” 416
The Roman Breviary (lect. 6 in festis S. Sylvestri) remarks: “Retaining the
names Sabbath and the Lord’s day, and distinguishing the remaining days of the
week by the term feriae, he [Sylvester] wished them to be called what the
[Roman] Church had already previously commenced to name them.” 417
Odom correctly stated that Pope “Sylvester did not institute Sunday observance among
Christians. . . . [he simply] instructed the clergy to observe feriae.” The recognition stage of
Sunday observance was already in place long before the fourth century, as Ellen White correctly
stated. What we are witnessing here is the second step of instituting Sunday worship under the
union of church and state when the pope made it official. Odom’s first reference of the
Patrologia Latina, Vol. 107, col. 361 holds great significance when he quoted the following:
“Moreover the same pope decreed that the Sabbath rest should be transferred
to the Lord’s Day, in order that on that day we should rest from earthly works to
the praising of God.” 418
This is a cornerstone statement and must be seen in its entirety. Therefore, we submit the full
document of Rahanus Maurus translated from the Latin:
[355] “On the holy Sabbath however of Pentecost, just as on the holy Sabbath of
Pascha, baptism should be celebrated, with readings of the Old Testament recited
before, and orations and litanies performed before, with the holy celebration of
mass following. The holy Sabbath of Pentecost should be revered well also with a
celebration similar to the holy Sabbath of pascha, because…
Chapter 42. About the day Sunday.
“The apostles have made holy the day of Sunday likewise with religious
solemnity because our Redeemer rose from the dead on that day, and thus it is
called “Dominicus”/of the Lord, so that on it abstaining from earthly works or the
enticements of the world, we serve only divine worships, namely giving honor
and reverence to this day, on account of the hope of our resurrection, which we
have in it.
[356] However we read that the Sabbath which has been celebrated by an earlier
people in leisure for the body, so that the figure may have rest, whence also rest
interprets the Sabbath. The day of Sunday however, has been declared not by
Jews but by Christians for the resurrection of the Lord, and begins to have its
416
Rabanus Maurus, liber de Computo, chap. 27, “De Feriis,” in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 107, col. (182,
author's translation.
417
J. N. Andrews, History 0f the Sabbath, p. 474. See The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 43, art. “Feria.”
Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism, (New York: Teach Services, Inc. 1944, 2003), 196-198.
418
Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Inslitutione, book 2, chap. 46, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 107, col.
361, author's translation. See also Rabanus Maurus, Liber de Computo, chap. 27, “De Feriis,” in J. P. Migne,
Patrologia Latina, Vol. 107 col. 682.
Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism, (New York: Teach Services, Inc. 1944, 2003), 197.
151
festivity from that. It itself indeed is the first day, which is found as the eighth
after the seventh, whence it is called also in Ecclesiastes for the signification of
two Testaments: Those say seven, just as those say eight. Indeed at first only the
Sabbath was handed over to be celebrated, because before it was the rest of the
dead, there was however the resurrection of no one until Christ the Lord, who
“rising from the dead, is not dead, his death will not prevail over beyond that
one.” Now such resurrection has later been made in the body of the Lord, so that
it takes the lead at the head of the Church, because the body of the Church hoped
in the end, the eighth day of the Lord, which also first, followed in festivity.
However it appears that this day was also solemn in the sacred Scriptures. Indeed
the day itself is the first of the age, on the very day also the elements of the world
were formed, on itself the Angels were created, on itself also Christ arose from
the dead, on itself the holy Spirit descended from the sky over the apostles, on this
day manna was given from the sky in the first wilderness. Thus indeed the Lord
says: “You will collect manna for six days, on the sixth however you will collect
double (Exod. 16). Indeed the sixth day is Good Friday/day of Preparation, which
is placed before the Sabbath, however the eighth day is the Sabbath, which
Sunday follows on which manna first came from the sky. Whence the Jews
understand now that our Sunday was preferred at the time to the Jewish Sabbath,
now then it has been indicated that on the Sabbath of themselves the grace of God
descended from the sky to them not at all, but on our Sunday in which the Lord
first rained it. . . .
[360]
Chapter 46.
Concerning the festivity of the old/former ones, and whence also the festival
or holidays are mentioned.
[dies festi: holiday; festum agere: to observe a holiday]
“Those however were the holidays in the ancient law: the day of the Azyme
and the Passover, when, when the moon is fullest, with the yeast left/removed, a
lamb was sacrificed. The days of Pentecost, when in the top of the month, the
Sinai law was given to Moses, in which the breads of the first intention
concerning the fruits [the first breads of the proposition from the harvest] were
offered. The day of the Sabbath, on which leisure things were celebrated, and on
which it was not allowed to collect manna in the desert. The day of the New
Moons, a celebration of the new moon. Always however the Jews in the
beginning of the months, that is [on] the first moon [the beginning of the moon],
observed a holiday. But for that reason they did this in the beginning of the
month, because when the moon was waning, the time is ended, and again when
waxing, it is begun. The day however of trumpets is the beginning of the seventh
month, when the Jews observing the solemnity more fully were singing with a
trumpet, and used to offer more sacrifices on that day than in individual months.
In this first month [at first], on the tenth day of this month, it was a day of
propitiations or expiations, when the pontiff once/at some time in the year entered
into the holy of holies, and with the people praying outside, he alone prayed
152
within, both for his own as well as for ignorance of the people offering incense to
God above the altar of thymiam [with vessels of incense]. In this month also were
the very celebrated days of the Feast of the Tabernacle (Scenopegia), that is, of
the Tabernacles, when from the fifteenth day of this month, they used to live for
seven days in the awnings of the tabernacle, taking up for themselves branches of
palms, and branches of wood of thick leaves, and willows from the stream, and
rejoiced in presence of their Lord God, in commemoration of their exit from
Egypt, which the Lord made them to live in the tabernacles, since he led them out
of the land of Egypt. The days of fasting, of the first, fourth, seventh, and tenth
month, were celebrated on account of these reasons among us on account of what
we commemorated above, when we discussed concerning the fast. However they
are called holidays from there, because the divine right is spoken in them, that is,
is said, and legal holidays, [361] on which it is not spoken. Similarly also the
holidays are said by speaking, because the pope Silvester first among the Romans
established that the names of the days which were called before according to the
names of the gods, that is, of the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Venus, Saturn, from
now on should be called holy days of the week, that is, the first day of the week,
the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, because it was written in the
beginning of Genesis that God declared for individual days: first, “Let there be
light”; second, “Let there be the firmament”; third, “Let the earth produce green
vegetation”, similarly, and so forth. The Sabbath however he instructed to call by
the ancient vocabulary of the law, and the first holy day of the Lord, because the
Lord arose on it. However the same pope established to transfer the leisure of the
Sabbath more onto the Lord’s Day, so that on this day in order to praise God we
might be free from earthly work, according to that which was written: “Be idle
from work and know, that I am God” (Psal. 45). According to this custom
moreover the holy Church orders us to be idle on the feast days of the saints, that
is, for celebrating the praises of God. The one who wants to be free from
agriculture for this other thing on these days, in order to be devoted to
drunkenness and excess, or to give effort to vain child’s play should know that he
sins more through such leisure than if he kept at some useful work, with King
Solomon as witness, when he says: Woe to those who linger in wine, and are
interested in draining wine goblets down to the dregs.” (Prov. 23), and likewise:
“The servant who is intelligent is welcomed to the king, he says, [while] the
unuseful one will sustain [his] wrath (Prov. 14). But because we have now spoken
above according to the greater sense concerning the more celebrated festivities,
for the instruction of those who serve God in the Church, and are in charge of the
people, concerning the origin also of song, and of readings, and authority of the
Symbol, we shall in addition speak of in the present.” 419
“However the same pope [Sylvester I] established to transfer the leisure of the Sabbath more
onto the Lord’s Day. . . .”
Quoting from Catholic sources, this document fully establishes the fact that the first official
position taken by the Catholic Church in transferring the leisure of the Sabbath to Sunday was
419
Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Inslitutione, book 2, chap. 46, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, The Catholic
Tradition. 9th Century, Year 856 All the Works of B. Rabanus Maurus 107: col. 355-6, 360-1.
153
ratified by Pope Sylvester I. For those who would take issue with this, we simply ask, why would
Pope Sylvester I transfer the leisure of the Sabbath to Sunday if it had already officially been
proclaimed? It had not, and this concession to paganism was not made until Constantine (the
state) and Pope Sylvester I (the church) came to an agreement. Therefore, we see that Ellen
White was correct in her previous statements. This same work was critiqued by Dr. Aloisius
Knoepfler in 1900 and because of its implications we submit the entirety of his document, as
well, translated from the Latin:
Veroffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar Munchen

Number 5:
Rabani Mauri
[Rabbi Maurus]
De Institutione Clericorum Libri Tres.
[Three books concerning the institution of the clerics.]
Dr. Aloisius Knoepfler
Reviewed the text, explained with critical annotations
and exegeses, added an introduction and index.
[152]
Chapter 46.
Concerning Festivities of the Ancients, and whence
they were called either festivals or holidays.
“Those festal days however were in ancient law: a day of unleavened and the
phase, when with the moon at its fullest a lamb was sacrificed when yeast was
refused; the day of Pentecost when 420 the law was given to Moses on the top of
the mountain Sinai the law was given to Moses, “on which the “loaves of bread
from the grains 421 of the” first “laying forth (b: Isid. Etym. VI, 18.) were offered”;
the day of the Sabbath 422 on which in activities were celebrated 423 and on which
to collect manna in the desert was not allowed; the day of New moons; the
celebration of the “new moon.” Always however the Jews in the beginning of the
months, this is the first moon, held a festal day; but they did this therefore [153] on
the beginning of the month, because when the moon is waning the time is finished
and it is begun again when it is born. “The day of the trumpets” however is the
beginning “of the seventh month,” when the Jews performing a solemnity with a
trumpet sang more fully, and offered more sacrifices on it, than in individual
months. In this month, it is on the tenth 424 day of this month it was a day of
propitiations{?} or of atonements, when the pontiff “entered once in the year into
the sancta” sanctorum (a: Hebr. IX, 12) and expiated with the holy scattering of
blood {the sacred things} and also the sancta sanctorum, 425 and with the people
outside praying he himself alone within prayed both “for his own” and also
420
oe has “by which”
421
J. has “with the new grains”
422
PP1 have “it is the Sabbath”
423
M. omits “proposal -- were celebrated”; PP1 has present tense
424
MPP1 have “tenth” in a different gender
425
oe omits “and expiated -- sanctorum”
154
offering for 426 “the ignorance of the people offering incense” to the Lord over the
altar of thymiama. In this month also very frequent days were Feasts of the
Tabernacle (b: III Esd. V, 51. Levit. XXIII, 40-43.), that is of tabernacles, when
from the 15th day of this month “for seven days they lived in shades/bowers,
eating twigs of palms for themselves and branches of the wood of dense leaves
and willow branches from the brook and were rejoicing in the presence of their
lord God” in commemoration 427 of their exit from Egypt, because 428 the Lord
made them to live in tabernacles, when he led429 “them out of the land of Egypt.”
The days however 430 of fasting, of the first, 431 fourth, seventh and tenth month on
account of these reasons were repeated among them, on account of which I
remembered above, when I disputed concerning fasting.
They are called festal days however thence, “because the law says in them, that
is it is said” (c: Isid., Different. lit. F. Bede, about division. time see under feria,
and concerning reasons for times ch. 6. l. c. vol. I. p. 93; vol. II. p. 55.), they are
unlawful for business, by which it is not said. Similarly also they are called
feriae/holidays from what may be spoken/the act of speaking (c); on account of
which Pope Sylvester first established for the Romans, that the names of the days,
which [154] before were called according to the names of their gods, that is: Of the
Sun, Of the Moon, Of Mars, Of Mercury, Of Jove, 432 Of Venus, Of Saturn,
thereafter they called feast days/days of the week, that is 433 the first day of the
week, the second day of the week, the third day of the week, the fourth day of the
week, the fifth day of the week, the sixth day of the week, because its written in
the beginning of Genesis, that God said through individual days, that is the first:
let there be light, second: let there be the firmament, third: let the earth produce
green grass, and similarly other things. He directed however to name 434 the
Sabbath by ay an ancient word of the law, and the first day the day of the lord,
because the lord rose again on it. The same pope established however, that the
leisure of the Sabbath be transferred rather onto the Lord’s day, so that on that
day we are freed from works of the earth for praising God, according to that
which was written (a: Ps. XLV, 11.): “Be idle and know, inasmuch as I am God.”
According to this custom however the holy church orders us to be free on the
birthdays/anniversaries of the saints, that is for the celebrating the praises of God.
Still the one who wishes to be free from agriculture on these days for this other
thing, so that he may serve devotedly drunkenness and intoxication or may give
effort to inane jokes, should recognize, that he errs more through such leisure,
than if he persisted in some 435 useful work, with Solomon witnessing 436 who says
426
oe omits
427
hP1 have “with commemoration”
428
h has a synonym for “because”
429
h has “led out” in a different tense
430
oe omits.
431
MPP1 omits, M has instead: “of the fourth, fifth, seventh.”
432
oe omits.
433
oe exc. h. omits “that is.”
434
“to be called” in h.
435
MPP1 have “for some”
436
oe have “as witness”
155
(b: Prov. XXIII, 30.): “Woe to those, who tarry in wine and are interested in
drinking dry the cups”; and likewise (c: Prov. XIV, 35.) “The servant has been 437
accepted to the king,” he says,” when he understands, he will put off his 438 anger
unusefully.” But because I have spoken above already concerning the more
frequent festivities for the instruction of those, who serve God in the church and
are in charge of the people, according to the understanding of the ancestors, I
should speak concerning the origin also of song and of readings and the authority
of the symbol still in the present book.” 439
“The same pope [Sylvester] established however, that the leisure of the Sabbath be transferred
rather onto the Lord’s day,”
With the transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday officially established by the Catholic Church
through Pope Sylvester I, we now need to establish the year of this transfer. Hampson supplies
that A.D. 316 is the specific year given for this official declaration by the Catholic Church:
“Feria. – A day; in the plural, Feriae. In 316, Pope Sylvester prohibited the
Christians from naming the days of the week after the Jewish manner- [138] prima,
secunda, &c., sabbati; and, as he equally disliked the heathen names from the
Gods or planets, Dies Solis, Lunae, &c., Sun-day, Mon, or Moonday, he ordained
that, thenceforth, they should call Monday Feria Secunda; Tuesday, Feria Tertia,
Wednesday, Feria Quarta; Thursday, Feria Quinta; Friday, Feria Sexta (Durand.
De Off. Div., L. VII, c. 1.; Pol. Verg., L. VI, c. 5, p. 366-7). Sunday and Saturday
had their own names, the first being Dies Dominicus, and the latter, Sabbatum.
Feriae, among the ancients, were days on which it was unlawful to work, and
were so called from the immolation of sacrifices, “a feriendis hostiis” (Montan.,
Disput. Jurid.de Feriis, thes. 1) or from the banquets which were given at that
time “af eriendis epulis” (Pol. Verg., ut supra). Hence are derived Fairs, Ferial
Days, Foires, &c.” 440
The first legislative act of the state enforcing the Venerable Day of the Sun was the law
enacted by Constantine:
“The first public measure enforcing Sunday observance was the law enacted by
Constantine. (A.D. 321; see Appendix note for page 53.) This edict required
townspeople to rest on “the venerable day of the sun,” but permitted countrymen
to continue their agricultural pursuits. Though virtually a heathen statute, it was
enforced by the emperor after his nominal acceptance of Christianity.” 441
The original decree of Constantine on March 7, 321, as translated by Schaff:
437
eo and c. have “is understanding.”
438
oe exc. h. omits
439
Rabani Mauri-Dr. Aloisius Knoepfler, Veroffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar Munchen, No.
5., De Institutione Clericorum Libri Tres., (Munich, Verlag Der J.J. Lentnerschen Buchhandlung, 1900), 152-154.
440
R.T. Hampson, Medii Aevi Kalendarium or Dates, Charters, and Customs of the Middle Ages, (London, Henry
Kent Causton and Co., Birchin Lane 1841), 2:137-8.
441
156
“On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in
cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons
engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it
often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-
planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of
heaven should be lost.” 442
Averil Cameron substantiates that the reading from the original reads the “venerable day of the
sun.” The term coined by Roman sympathizers “the Holy Day of Sunday” or the like does not
exist and is being substituted for the “venerable day of the sun.” (Cameron’s comments will be
viewed soon.) The reason for this is because “Catholic Truth” desires to give Sunday some
sanctity. In truth, it was a heathen statute fostered by Constantine who was a pagan and remained
so until his so-called death bed conversion in 337 (which is also hotly debated among historians).
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, (born about 260; died before 341) was not
only recognized as the “Father of Church History,” but also as a church theologian who repeated
the claim that the Catholic Church had “transferred” the leisure of the Sabbath to Sunday:
“The royal mandate not proving a sufficient substitute for divine authority,
Eusebius, a bishop who sought the favor of princes, and who was the special
friend and flatterer of Constantine, advanced the claim that Christ had transferred
the Sabbath to Sunday. Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in
proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity
and points to the real authors of the change. “All things,” he says, “whatever that
it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we [The Catholic Church] have [past
tense] transferred to the Lord’s Day.” 443
Eusebius’s statement that we have “transferred to the Lord’s Day” was undoubtedly repeating
Pope Sylvester I when he said:
“However the same pope [Sylvester I] established to transfer the leisure of the
Sabbath more onto the Lord’s Day. . . .” 444
“The same pope established however, that the leisure of the Sabbath be
transferred rather onto the Lord’s day. . . .” 445
We would be remiss not to inquire about a date for the just quoted statement by Eusebius. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, although not definitive, supplies us with a date of around A.D. 330:
442
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Peabody, Massachusettes: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1867,
1889, 2002), 3:380, footnote 1.
443
Robert Cox, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, page 538. Ellen White, Great Controversy, 574. See also J. P.
Migne, Patrologia Graeca, (Psalm 92, A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath-day) 23:1171-2.
444
Rabanus Maurus, De Clericorum Inslitutione, book 2, chap. 46, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, The Catholic
Tradition. 9th Century, Year 856 All the Works of B. Rabanus Maurus 107: col. 361.
445
Rabani Mauri-Dr. Aloisius Knoepfler, Veroffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar Munchen, No.
5., De Institutione Clericorum Libri Tres., (Munich, Verlag Der J.J. Lentnerschen Buchhandlung, 1900), 154.
157
“(21) Commentary on the Psalms. There are many gaps in the MSS. of this
work, and they end in the 118th Psalm. The missing portions are in part supplied
by extracts from the Catenae. An allusion to the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre
fixes the date at about 330. Lightfoot speaks very highly of this commentary.” 446
The Council of Laodicea was convened between the years 364-381. Historians are not certain
of its dating. Some prefer the year 380 or 381 after Roman Catholicism became the legalized
religion of the empire on February 28, 380. The Council produced 60 canons; however, canon 29
is the most pertinent to our study because “Catholic Truth” was determined to give Sunday some
sanctity. At the same time, her true character as an intolerant church was being manifest before
all:
“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that
day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.
But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.” 447
The following Catholic quotes are supplied to further sustain the said claims:
“The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay in spite of

themselves to the authority of the Catholic Church.” Plain Talk for Protestants,
213. ~~~“Ques.—How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts
and holy days? “Ans.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday,
which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by
keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other Feasts commanded by the same
church. “Ques.—How prove you that? “Ans.—Because by keeping Sunday they
acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under
sin.” Douay Catechism, 59. ~~~“If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian
then the Seventh-day Adventist is right, in observing the Saturday with the Jew. . .
. Is it not strange, that those who make the Bible their only teacher, should
inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?”
Question Box, Ed. 1915, 179. ~~~“The Catholic Church for over one thousand
years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission,
changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.” Catholic Mirror, September 1893.
~~~ “. . . People who think that the scriptures should be the sole authority, should
logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.” Saint Catherine
Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995. ~~~ “Of course the Catholic Church
claims that the change was her act. . . . And the act is a MARK of her
ecclesiastical authority in religious things” H. f. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
Gibbons.
With the transfer of the Biblical Sabbath to Sunday confirmed and fully admitted by the
Catholic Church that it was “her act. . . . and the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in
religious things,” we now turn our attention to the religious circumstances that began in the court
of Constantine. Taken from the primary sources of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on the life of
446
Eusebius of Caesarea, Catholic Encyclopedia. (Albany, New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1909, 1913, 5:621.
447
Council of Laodicea, canon 29.
158
Constantine, we will exhibit a number of brief references by Cameron and Hall that will establish
the full recognition from the state on the observance of Sunday backed by the strong influence of
Eusebius. Brackets {00} are for the original page numbering in Book IV of Eusebius’ historical
works of Constantine that we will be referencing. We need to focus only on the conditions laid
down for Staff and Military personnel in regards to Sunday:
“18 (1) He also decreed that the truly sovereign and really first day, the day of
the Lord and Saviour, should be considered a regular day of prayer. Servants and
ministers consecrated to God, men whose well-ordered life was marked by
reverent conduct and every virtue, were put in charge of the whole household, and
faithful praetorians, bodyguards armed with the practice of faithful loyalty,
adopted the Emperor as their tutor in religious conduct, themselves paying no less
honour to the Lord's saving day and on it joining in the prayers the Emperor
loved.
(2) The Blessed One urged all men also to do the same, as if by encouraging
this he might gently bring all men to piety. He therefore decreed that all those
under Roman government should rest on the days named after the Saviour, and
similarly that they should honour the days of the Sabbath, in memory, I suppose,
of the things recorded as done by the universal Saviour on those days.
(3) The Day of Salvation then, which also bears the names of Light Day and
Sun Day, he taught all the military to revere devoutly. {127} To those who shared
the divinely given faith he allowed free time to attend unhindered the church of
God, on the assumption that with all impediment removed they would join in the
prayers. 19 To those who did not yet share in the divine Word he gave order in a
second decree that every Lord's Day they should march out to an open space just
outside the city, and that there at a signal they should all together offer up to God
a form of prayer learnt by heart; they ought not to rest their hopes on spears or
armour or physical strength, but acknowledge the God over all, the giver of all
good and indeed of victory itself, to whom it was right to offer the lawful prayers,
lifting up their hands high towards heaven, extending their mental vision yet
higher to the heavenly King, and calling on him in their prayers as the Giver of
victory and Saviour, as their Guardian and Helper. He was himself the instructor
in prayer to all the soldiery, bidding them all to say these words in Latin:
20. (1) ‘You alone we know as God,
You are the King we acknowledge,
You are the Help we summon.
By you we have won our victories,
Through you we have overcome our enemies.
To you we render thanks for the good things past,
You also we hope for as giver of those to come.
To you we all come to supplicate for our Emperor
Constantine and for his Godbeloved Sons:
That he may be kept safe and victorious for us in long,
long life, we plead.’
(2) Such were the things he decreed should be done by the military regiments
every Sunday, and such were the words he taught them to recite in their prayers to
159
God. 21 Furthermore he caused the sign of the saving trophy to be marked on
their shields, and had the army led on parade, not by any of the golden images, as
had been their past practice, but by the saving trophy alone.” 448
We shall also include three small sections of the commentary of Eusebius by Cameron and
Hall that help keep “Catholic Truth” in perspective regarding the previously stated comments of
Eusebius:
“18.2. He therefore decreed ... rest on the days named after the Saviour. In
March 321 Constantine banned legal and similar business on “the venerable day
of the Sun”, while encouraging agricultural work to take advantage of the weather
(CJ 3. 12. 2). Four months later, acts of emancipation of children and
manumission of slaves, which could now be carried out in churches, were also
exempted from the ban (CTh 2. 8. I; cf. Stevenson, NE 319). Neither text uses the
Christian term ‘the Lord’s Day’, as Eusebius implies. This passage repeats LC 9.
10, and cf. also SC 17. 14, with a very similar presentation of Constantine’s role
as Christian monarch (see Barnes, CE 249-50).
. . . the days of the Sabbath. Winkelmann, following Valesius, adds a word and
reads (pro) tou sabbatou, ‘the days before the Sabbath’, on the basis of the fact
that Sozomen later adapts this passage and makes it refer to resting from legal
transactions on Fridays as well as Sundays, in honour of the crucifixion of Jesus
on that day (Soz., HE 1. 8. 11-12; note ten pro tes hebdomes). There is no other
record, however, of rest prescribed on Friday, the Christian fast-day, though
various exemptions down to Justinian in the sixth century relieved Jews of
prosecution on the Sabbath. It is better to keep the unanimous manuscript reading
and assume that Constantine repeated this exemption for Jews in some form, and
that Eusebius gives it a Christian interpretation, just as he interprets the legislation
about the pagan day of the Sun as explicitly Christian. In contemporary Christian
exegesis the rest [318] of Jesus in the tomb on the Saturday between his
crucifixion and his resurrection was taken as a fulfillment of the Sabbath law and
God's own Sabbath rest (Exod. 20:7); see further Hall, ‘Some Constantinian
Documents’, 100-2.
. . . . 19-20.2. he gave order in a second decree. Constantine legislates that non-
Christian soldiers should be required to join in a common prayer every Sunday,
for which the wording is here given (20. I); Eusebius refers to this instruction in
more general terms at LC 9. 10. The phrase ‘just outside the city’ suggests that
Eusebius knows this only of the Constantinople garrison, and this fits the
description of Constantine’s sermonizing to the troops. Eusebius does not mind
leaving the impression that it was universal in the army. The day (dies solis), the
hands extended to heaven, and the address to God chiefly in terms of victories
won indicate the cult of Sol Invictus, prominent both on Constantine's coinage
and in features of the vision of I. 28. Eusebius tries to excuse this to his Christian
readers by emphasizing that Constantine pointed the troops beyond heaven (and
448
Cameron, Averil, and Stuart G. Hall, trans. Eusebius: Life of Constantine. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 159-
160.
160
the sun), ‘extending their mental vision yet higher to the heavenly King’, who
should be regarded as the true giver of victory. . . .” 449
Now with the union of church and state established in the fourth century, for the first time one
can witness its maturity by the mass number of legal Imperial Edicts and Constitutions found in
the Theodosian law code and the church canons, along with its progressive spirit of intolerance.
By credible documentation we have sufficiently sustained the first three of the four steps to be
taken, however, the work of Satan was not yet completed:
“The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the
Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his
vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ.
Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen
he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which
the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every
council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower,
while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came
finally to be honored as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was
pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed.
Some of those councils that were held from time to time pressed down the Sabbath a little
lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. This took place after the ten horns came
on the scene of action, fulfilling another specification of the prophecy regarding when the
compulsion of the Sunday sabbath by the state would come to its climax. From 476 up to 538,
the only significant canons by the church on Sunday worship are issued from 506 onward and are
found in three church councils prior to 538. None forbid manual labor, and none called issue to
the Sabbath as being a Jewish superstition supplanted by the church by the Christian observance
of the Lord’s Day. The first canon, in 506 at the council of Agde in Southern Gaul, reads thus:
“Canon 47. On Sundays all laymen must be present at the whole Mass, so that
they are not allowed to depart before the blessing. If, nevertheless, they do so,
they shall be publicly censured by the bishop.” 450
Two canons came from the first synod of Orleans I in A.D. 511.
“Canon 26. The people must not leave the church before the end of Mass [on
Sunday]; and if a bishop is present, they shall first receive the blessing from
him.” 451
“Canon 31. A bishop, unless he is ill, must not fail in attendance at divine
service on Sunday in the church which lies nearest to him.” 452
449
Ibid., 317-318.
450
Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T.and T., 1895), 4:84.
451
Ibid., 4:91.
452
Ibid., 4:92.
161
The third canon, from the council of Tarragonin in A.D. 516, referred to nothing more than
cases of Christians being heard in the ecclesiastical courts of the church on Sunday.
“Let not any bishop or presbyter or any of the inferior clergy hear causes on the
Lord’s Day, etc., . . . but let them be occupied in the performance of the
solemnities ordained in honor of God.” 453
Nothing else found by this author in an extensive search meets the criteria regarding the
Sabbath in the compelling of the conscience or labor being forbidden after A.D. 476 except for
the twenty-eighth canon from the church synod at Orleans III in A.D. 538, which we will
examine shortly.
However, the contempt for Judaism and the Biblical Sabbath among the Catholic hierarchy is
verified from the following:
“Let the fasting on Friday be extended, lest we should appear to observe any
Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ, himself the Lord of the Sabbath, says by his
prophets that ‘his soul hateth;” which Sabbath he in his body abolished.” 454
Ellen White continues with the narration of Satan’s warfare against the government of God:
“The great apostate had succeeded in exalting himself “above all that is called
God, or that is worshiped.” 2 Thessalonians 2:4. He had dared to change the only
precept of the divine law that unmistakably points all mankind to the true and
living God. In the fourth commandment, God is [54] revealed as the Creator of the
heavens and the earth, and is thereby distinguished from all false gods. It was as a
memorial of the work of creation that the seventh day was sanctified as a rest day
for man. It was designed to keep the living God ever before the minds of men as
the source of being and the object of reverence and worship. Satan strives to turn
men from their allegiance to God, and from rendering obedience to His law;
therefore he directs his efforts especially against that commandment which points
to God as the Creator.
Protestants now urge that the resurrection of Christ on Sunday made it the
Christian Sabbath. But Scripture evidence is lacking. No such honor was given to
the day by Christ or His apostles. The observance of Sunday as a Christian
institution had its origin in that “mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:7,
R.V.) which, even in Paul’s day, had begun its work. Where and when did the
Lord adopt this child of the papacy? What valid reason can be given for a change
which the Scriptures do not sanction?
In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of
power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be
the head over the entire church. Paganism had given place to the papacy. The
dragon had given to the beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
453
Ibid., 4:102-6.
454
Ante-Nicene Library, 18:390, “On the Creation of the world.” J. N. Andrews - L. R. Conradi, History 0f the
Sabbath, (Washington, DC, Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1912), 473.
162
Revelation 13:2. And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in
the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5-7.” 455
From this overview, we are brought to the climax of this warfare against the government of
God when, according to Ellen White, the papacy had become firmly established in the sixth
century. This then brings us to the fourth step which is described in detail in our final segment.
This fourth step signaled the commencement of the 1260-day/year prophetic period.
455
163
10
A.D. 538
Justinian, the first Catholic Emperor in 62 years to have subdued and reclaimed Rome,
established his legal jurisdiction in the west for the first time since the fall of western Rome in
A.D. 476. With Rome known to the world at that time as “the capital of the world,” 456 Justinian
dethroned the Ostrogoths, the last of those three Arian governments who held to the principle of
religious liberty. Justinian’s legal jurisdiction included a Sunday law legislated throughout all of
Christendom in A.D. 538. With the MARK of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiastical authority then
enforced, church and state openly defied the God of heaven and earth.
Church and state, once united, issued numerous religious edicts and boycotts with legislation
permitting the confiscation of personal property, wills, and inheritance, exile, the burning of
books and death. Many of these laws we have already reviewed. The three Arian kingdoms that
we have seen experienced all the above and more and were also deprived of their legal code of
religious liberty. Humanity was now to experience tyranny at its worst and the crowning act,
according to the scriptures, was a vertical assault directed heavenward by the little horn. It was a
frontal attack against the government of God by the little horn, urged on by its leader Satan:
Daniel 8:24 “And his [the little horn] power shall be mighty, but not by his own
power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall
destroy the mighty and the holy people.”
Satan’s blueprint has always been one and the same, to overthrow the law of God:
“From the very beginning of the great controversy in heaven it has been Satan's
purpose to overthrow the law of God. It was to accomplish this that he entered
upon his rebellion against the Creator, and though he was cast out of heaven he
has continued the same warfare upon the earth. To deceive men, and thus lead
them to transgress God's law, is the object which he has steadfastly pursued.
Whether this be accomplished by casting aside the law altogether, or by rejecting
one of its precepts, the result will be ultimately the same. He that offends “in one
point,” manifests contempt for the whole law; his influence and example are on
the side of transgression; he becomes “guilty of all.” James 2:10.
In seeking to cast contempt upon the divine statutes, Satan has perverted the
doctrines of the Bible, and errors have thus become incorporated into the faith of
thousands who profess to believe the Scriptures. The last great conflict between
truth and error is but the final struggle of the long-standing controversy
concerning the law of God. Upon this battle we are now entering--a battle
between the laws of men and the precepts of Jehovah, between the religion of the
Bible and the religion of fable and tradition.” 457
456
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. 17. 10.
12:92.
457
164
Satan’s human agents simply follow their leader, and their aim has always been one and the
same, as well: to overthrow the law of God:
Proverbs 28:4 “They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep
the law contend with them.”
The contrast is revealed by those that keep his commandments, for they alone will have the
right to the tree of life and will be permitted to enter in through the gates into the holy city:
Revelation 22:14 “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
As we have previously seen, “time” must be given for Satan to develop the principles which
were to be the foundation of his government, the government of force:
“Time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the
foundation of his government. The heavenly universe must see the principles
which Satan declared were superior to God's principles, worked out. God’s order
must be contrasted with the new order after Satan’s devising. The corrupting
principles of Satan’s rule must be revealed. The principles of righteousness
expressed in God’s law must be demonstrated as unchangeable, eternal,
perfect.” 458
To find that time allotment given to Satan to demonstrate his oppressive government to the
entire universe, we turn to the scriptures, for the account is given there:
Revelation 13:5 “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things
and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two
months.”
John 19:11 “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me,
except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee
hath the greater sin.”
The commencement of the time that heaven granted to Satan to reveal the nature of his
government of force for 1260 long years is found in Daniel chapter 8. However, our specifics
here will require only a few clauses taken from Daniel chapter 8:
Daniel 8:12 “And it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and
prospered.”
458
165
There are two major clues that determine the chronology of these last two phrases. The first is
“the truth”571 (emeth). Usage: AV - truth 92, true 18, truly 7, right 3, faithfully 2, assured 1,
assuredly 1, establishment 1, faithful 1, sure 1, verity 1; 125 verses, 127 hits. What is the “truth”
that the papacy cast down? Certainly it was the truth in the preceding verse concerning the
“daily” ministry of Christ and the “place” of his sanctuary where Christ hears prayers and
forgives sin that papal Rome cast down or obscured. But the Bible has a much wider and all-
encompassing application in mind, for it says:
Ps. 119:142 “Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is

the truth.571
The first clue is that the Bible says the “law is the truth.” So why and by whose authority is the
law of God introduced in Daniel 8:12? Before we confirm this, we must disclose the second clue
that will then define the chronology of verse 12.
After the papacy “cast down the truth to the ground,”—cast down the law of God—(Daniel
8:12, thus proceeding in transgression in the fullest sense) the Bible says it “practised, and
prospered.” That is, for a time and times and the dividing of time or 1260 years. Daniel 7:25
confirms this when the little horn thinks to have changed the law of God:
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the
saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be
given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
Let us remember that ‘speaking’ in prophecy is an action in progress that represents:
“. . . The ‘speaking’ of the nation is the action of its legislative and judicial
authorities.” 459
It was after the man of sin had thought to change times and laws (the law of God) that the
Bible says he was to begin his reign and practice and prosper for “a time and times and the
dividing of time.” As we have seen, this was for 1260 long years. Now the government of Satan
was to be displayed before the entire universe. Satan was represented by his earthly ambassador,
the Bishop of Rome, who was led on to “destroy the mighty and the holy people” of God (Daniel
8:24).
Turning to an exposition on Daniel 8:12 by Ellen White, we will see how she perfectly mirrors
the scriptural account. The underlining is a direct quote from Daniel 8:12. Her exposition of the
text under discussion shows that the law of God was to be cast down and trampled in the dust
unimpeded throughout all of Christendom at a specific time in earth’s history.
“Among the leading causes that had led to the separation of the true church
from Rome was the hatred of the latter toward the Bible Sabbath. As foretold by
prophecy, the papal power cast down the truth to the ground. The law of God was
trampled in the dust, while the traditions and customs of men were exalted. The
churches that were under the rule of the papacy were early compelled to honor the
459
166
Sunday as a holy day. Amid the prevailing error and superstition, many, even of
the true people of God, became so bewildered that while they observed the
Sabbath, they refrained from labor also on the Sunday. But this did not satisfy the
papal leaders. They demanded not only that Sunday be hallowed, but that the
Sabbath be profaned; and they denounced in the strongest language those who
dared to show it honor. It was only by fleeing from the power of Rome that any
could obey God's law in peace.” 460
Here is the unparalleled statement by Ellen White that fully mirrors our Biblical application
and interpretation of Daniel 8:12 as the last prophetic specification to be fulfilled that heaven
declared would mark the beginning of the 1260-day/year prophetic period:
“The change in the fourth commandment exactly fulfills the prophecy.” 461
We now proceed by presenting to the reader the primary definitive historical sources that will
sustain the foretold Biblical account of how the papacy orchestrated a universal Sunday law that
was legislated throughout all of Christendom in the year A.D. 538. We have already established
the fact that the Ostrogoths were uprooted from Rome on March 1, 538, and that Justinian was
the first Catholic Emperor since A.D. 476 to have held legal jurisdiction in Rome by designating
a prefect from the court to be governor of Rome. 462 With spring beginning the new calendar
year, Pope Vigilius (537-555) was exuberant that the Catholic Emperor Justinian had reclaimed
Rome by dethroning the Ostrogoths. Pope Vigilius wasted no time writing the following letter to
his most beloved brother, Eutherus, in the same month of March in the year A.D. 538:
Letter II. of Vigilius still

Pseudopope to Eutherius.
“He responds to the inquiries of Eutherius {with the consultations of

Eutherius}.
Vigilius to his most beloved brother * (Eutherus) (a: Cod. Vatic. Palat. :
Profuturus) Eutherius.”
VII. The Roman Church is the leader of all the churches.
“For no one believing slightly, or knowing fully is it doubtful, that the Roman
Church is the foundation and pattern of churches, from which no one of those
believing correctly does not know that all churches of leaders have taken up. In as
much as although it is proper that [33] there be equal election of all apostles,
nevertheless it has been conceded to blessed Peter that he is preeminent to the
others; whence he is also called Cephas, because he is the head also of all the
leading apostles: and because he has preceded at the head, it is necessary to
460
Ellen White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 65
461
Ibid., 446
462
167
follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church consecrated
deservedly by its voice of the lord, and strengthed by the authority of the holy
fathers, holds primacy of all churches; and to it the highest business of the
bishops, and judgments, and complaints, as much as also the greater questions of
the churches should always be referred as if to the head. For also he who knows
that he has been placed before others, should not take it grievously that someone
has been preferred to him. For the church itself, which is first, thus has believed
that its own {property} must be bestowed to the rest of the churches, so that they
have been called into the part of solicitude, not into the fullness of power. Whence
that the judgment of all bishops appealing the apostolic seat, and the business of
all greater cases, have been reserved for the same holy seat is evident: especially
when in all of these its advice should be expected; if any of the priests has tried to
hinder the its way, he should know that he will return the cases among the same
holy seat not without danger of his own honor. Given on the Kalends of March,
when Volusianus* (Vuilisiarius badly {written}. In the year of the lord 538) and
John very famous men were consuls.” 463
In March of A.D. 538, Pope Vigilius makes known the position the Catholic Church holds
over all of humanity and the authority the pope has over that universal church. On May 1, 538,
we witnessed how Justinian clearly prohibited “the practice of unlawful religious rites,”
meaning, of course, that only the “one and true Catholic faith” was to be recognized among all of
humanity as religious liberty was banned and made illegal in the west, as well. Procopius, in
other writings, confirms that it was Justinian who ended religious freedom for the Arian
Christians, and we believe he is here quoting Novel 67 that was issued on May 1, 538, which we
just reviewed:
“He [Justinian] seized the best and most fertile estates, and prohibited the
Arians from exercising the rites of their religion.” 464
In 538, Malalas recorded in the consular list a number of events that took place in that year,
however, we will list just one:
84. “In the consulship of John the Cappadocian the Arians’ Churches were
confiscated.” 465
463
Welter, 1902, 9:32-3.
464
465
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, ed. The Chronicle of John Malalas. A Translation by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys,
and Roger Scott. Melbourne: Australian Asso. for Byzantine Studies, 1986, 285.
John Malalas was a Byzantine chronicler that lived during the reign of Justinian. (A.D. 491-578). The three
consular lists are these: (1) Theodor Mommsen, Chronica Minora SAEC. IV.V.VI.VII (Berlin: Verlag Hahnsche
Buchhandlung (www.hahnsche-buchhandlung.de), vols. 1, 2, 3; 1892, 1894, 1898, respectfully; (2) Carl Frick,
Chronica Minora (Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri, 1892); (3) Roger S. Bagnall, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987). See also Elizabeth Jeffreys, Brian Croke and Roger Scott, Studies in John
Malalas (University of Sydney N.S.W.: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Department of Modern
Greek, 1990), 143.
168
“The Montanists, in 529, had burnt themselves in their own churches. Other
heretics were given three months’ grace. All magistrates and soldiers had to swear
that they were Catholics. Arians had to be spared at first for fear of reprisals by
the Goths. But in 533 Justinian attacked the Vandals in Africa, and in 535 the
Ostrogoths of Italy. After victory their churches were taken away; they were
forbidden them, and baptism. Their importance as conquerors disappeared and
their sects faded away.” 466
Then on May 7, 538, the Catholic Church takes her boldest step yet in the history of her
church councils. A deliberate frontal attack on the law of God was witnessed as all of Gaul came
under an ecclesiastical Sunday law:
“THIRD SYNOD AT ORLEANS,

A.D. 538.
“The third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial
Synod, since bishops of several ecclesiastical provinces took part in it. The
president was the Metropolitan Lupus of Lyons, although the city and diocese of
Orleans did not belong to his province, but to that of Sens. Besides him were
present the Metropolitans Pantagathus of Vienne, Leo of Sens, Arcadius of
Bourges, and Flavius of Rouen. The Archbishop of Tours, Injurious, was
represented by a priest. The Acts were subscribed by nineteen bishops, and seven
priests as representatives of absentees. In the subscription of Archbishop Lupus,
the time of the holding of the Synod is given as Die Nonarum mensis tertii, quarto
post consulatum paulini junioris V.C. anno 27 regni Domini Childeberti Regis.
This indicates the year 538, and probably the 7th of May, since in ancient times it
was common to begin the year with the 25th of March. The assembled bishops
declare their aim to be the reestablishment of the old laws of the church and the
passing of new ones. This they accomplished in thirty-three canons, many of
which contain several ordinances.” 467
It is significant that the third synod of Orleans, France, in AD 538, was not merely a provincial
synod, meaning a local one, narrow or limited in scope. The bishops assembled on that date for
the specific purpose of reestablishing the old laws and the passing of new ones. They produced
thirty-three canons at this synod. Hefele paraphrases the twenty-eighth canon of the new laws of
the church with little justice to the original Latin.
“28. It is a Jewish superstition that it is unlawful to ride or drive on Sunday, or

do anything for the decoration of house or person. But field labors are forbidden,
so that people may be able to come to church and worship. If anyone acts
otherwise, he is to be punished, not by the laity, but by the bishop.” 468
466
Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed and Ward, 1928), 222-3. Imprimatur.
467
Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. and T., 1895), 4:204–9.
468
Ibid., 4:208–9.
169
The original wording of the twenty-eighth canon, as it is translated from the original Latin
document into fluent English, reads thus:
“28. Whereas the people are persuaded that they ought not to travel on the
Lord’s day with the horses, or oxen and carriages, or to prepare anything for food,
or to do anything conducive to the cleanliness of houses or men, things which
belong to Jewish rather than Christian observances; we have ordained that on the
Lord’s day what was before lawful to be done may still be done. But from rural
work, i.e., plowing, cultivating vines, reaping, mowing, thrashing, clearing away
thorns or hedging, we judge it better to abstain, that the people may the more
readily come to the churches and have leisure for prayers. If any one be found
doing the works forbidden above, let him be punished, not as the civil authorities
may direct, but as the ecclesiastical powers may determine.” 469
In these primary source documents of church law, there is irrefutable evidence of the
compelling of the conscience by the church. The phrase “we have ordained” is of particular
significance. Reasoning from the definition in Webster’s Dictionary, “ordain” is “to decree,
order, establish, enact or to appoint,” so Sunday was ordained in direct opposition to the fourth
commandment of the Law of God. Rural work was prohibited for the first time in concise detail,
thus perfectly fulfilling the prediction of the prophet. Hefele then goes on to paraphrase canon
thirty-three thus:
“No bishop may transgress these canons.” 470
The parallel is ironic. God wrote His Ten Commandments in stone, and the church, in this
council, wrote her Sunday sabbath in figurative stone when she attested to its implacable
intention. The year was A.D. 538 when those blasphemous words ascended unto heaven:
Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak [by legislation] great words against the most
High. . . .”
Ellen White further clarifies and confirms:
“The change in the fourth commandment exactly fulfills the prophecy. For this
the only authority claimed is that of the church. Here the papal power sets itself
above God.” 471
469
Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. (A facsimile reproduction of the
Florence edition of 1759; reprinted, rearranged, Catholic Church Councils, n.p.: 1901–1927), 9:19 (canon 28)
(1902). Translated by A. H. Lewis, A Critical History of Sunday Legislation (New York: Appleton, 1888), 64. See
also Binius, 2:496.
470
Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. and T., 1895), 4:209. See also
Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. (A facsimile reproduction of the
Florence edition of 1759; reprinted, rearranged, Catholic Church Councils, 1901–1927), 9:20 (1902).
471
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 446.
170
The power and extended authority of a church council may be better understood from Mary
Ann Collins, a former Catholic Nun, under her remarks on Infallibility in reference to the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891:
“According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic Church councils

are infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations
concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from
making errors. Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church
councils: past, present, and future.” 472
The source Mary Ann Collins referenced is hereby presented:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility
in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who
confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine
pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also
present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they
exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. 473 When
the Church through its supreme Magisterium [236] proposes a doctrine “for belief
as being divinely revealed,” 474 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must
be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” 475 This infallibility extends as far as
the deposit of divine Revelation itself.” 476 477
Now read the unchangeable fourth commandment, written in stone with the finger of God,
reiterating the sanctity of the Seventh-day from creation, the true Lord’s Day:
Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Exodus 20:9 “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:”
Exodus 20:10 “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:”
Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
472
Mary Ann Collins a Former Catholic Nun, The Spirit of Roman Catholicism-What Lies Behind the Modern
Public Image? 2002, 31, note 17, PDF, Infallibility.
473
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.
474
419 DV10§2.
475
420 LG 25 §2.
476
421 Cf. LG 25.
477 Infallibility, Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Liguori, Missouri, Liguori Publications, 1994), No. 891, pgs.
235-6.
171
The epitome of arrogance and stupidity is projected when any sinful, mortal man, church, or
government has the audacity to change or alter any part of the law or government of the universe.
Nevertheless, the Pontifical government (Satan) challenges the entire world:
“Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these
alternatives; either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday or Catholicity
and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.” 478
However, God himself is soon to confront the entire world over their acceptance or rejection
of His universal government. In the soon-coming drama concerning his downtrodden law, this
unrelenting battle with dire consequences will be between the laws of men and the precepts of
Jehovah, between the religion of the Bible and the religion of fable and tradition. Compromise is
impossible.:
Revelation 14:9 “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice,
If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead,
or in his hand,”
Revelation 14:10 “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which
is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the
presence of the Lamb:”
Revelation 14:11 “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and
ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image,
and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”
Revelation 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
We have also witnessed that historians recognized that important legislation was issued about
Italy in 538 which established Justinian’s judicial authority in the west:
“Justinian was already speaking of Italy as entirely under his arms, 479 already
he was designating a prefect from the court as governor;” 480
The primary documents from Justinian himself confirm that it was not December 10, 536,
(when King Vitiges abandoned Rome without a fight and Belisarius simply went in and occupied
Rome) that established Justinian’s judicial authority in the west. No, the deciding factor that
would establish Justinian’s judicial authority in the west would be the outcome of the first siege
of Rome that began on February 21, 537, and ended one year and nine days later in a massive
defeat of the Ostrogoths on March 1, 538. It was the outcome of that battle alone that secured for
478
Cardinal Gibbons, Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.
479
480
172
Justinian his judicial authority in the west. Novel 69, issued June 1, 538, confirms that this was
the first time in 62 years that a Catholic Emperor had held legal jurisdiction in Italy:
EPILOGUE.
[266] “Therefore, as soon as Our Most Glorious Imperial Pretorian Prefects
appointed throughout the extent of the entire Roman Empire receive notice of this
law, they will publish it in all the departments of their government, that is in Italy,
Libya, the Islands, the East, and Illyria; in order that all persons may know how
greatly We have their interests at heart. We dedicate this law to God who has
inspired Us to accomplish such great things, and who will recompense Us for
having enacted this constitution for the security of Our subjects. It shall also be
communicated to Our citizens of Constantinople.
Given at Constantinople, on the Kalends of June, during the twelfth year of the
reign of Justinian, and the Consulate of John.” 481
We will now show the concluding oppressive litigation from Justinian’s Codex III that
secured for the papacy her universal Sunday law throughout all of Christendom that began in
A.D. 538. We begin with Justinian’s Sunday laws that were published in Codex III that were
issued in A.D. 534:
TITLE XII.
CONCERNING FESTIVALS.
[275]
“1. The Emperors Constantius and Maximian, and the Caesars,
Severus and Maximian, to Verinus.
As you ask, my dear Verinus, whether the same rule should be observed, so far as
the times of appeal are concerned, that apply to the festivals established by Us to
celebrate the occurrence of fortunate events, We are pleased to answer you that
you should, where cases are appealed, observe the prescribed terms in their
regular order, without the addition of days of this kind, for, under such
circumstances, additions cannot be made to the observance of the days aforesaid.
2. The Emperor Theodosius to Vicenus.
Although it is lawful to manumit and emancipate on Sunday, other business or

litigation cannot be attended to on that day. The harvest festival extends from the
eighth day of the Kalends of July until the Kalends of August; and permission is
given to institute proceedings in court from the Kalends of August until the tenth
of the Kalends of September. The festival of the vintage lasts from the tenth of the
Kalends of September until the Ides of October. We desire the Holy Festival of
Easter, that of the Epiphany, and the birthday of Our Lord, as well as the seven
481
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian], 17 vols. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001, Justinian,
The Novels-69, 16:266, June 1, 538.
173
days which precede, and the seven which follow, to be quietly observed; and
anything which is done in violation of this provision shall be absolutely void.
3. The Emperor Constantine to Elpidius.
Let all judges, the people of cities, and those employed in all trades, remain
quiet on the Holy Day of Sunday. Persons residing in the country, however, can
freely and lawfully proceed with the cultivation of the fields; as it frequently
happens that the sowing of grain or the planting of vines cannot be deferred to a
more suitable day, and by making concessions to Heaven the advantage of the
time may be lost.
Given on the Nones of March, during the Consulate of Crispus and
Constantine, Consuls for the second time, 311.
[276]
4. The Same to Severus.
No judge shall presume to appoint festival-days by his own authority. Such

festivals as a ruler establishes shall be called Imperial holidays, and therefore if
they are deprived of the name they should also be deprived of the benefit.
Given during the Ides of April . . .
5. The Emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian to Olybrius.
You must proceed with criminal and fiscal cases during the two months of
festivals, that is to say, without any interruption.
(1) Hereafter, also, during these same days, examination shall be made of
matters in which bakers are interested.
Given on the fourth of the Nones of May, during the Consulate of the Noble
Prince Valentinian, 368.
6. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to Lucianus, Vicegerent

of Macedonia.
Every investigation of criminal matters shall be prohibited during the four days
which precede the auspicious season of the ceremonies of Easter.
Given at Thessalonica, on the sixth of the Kalends of April, during the
Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the sixth time, and Theadosius, Consul for the
first time.
7. The Emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius to Albinus,Urban

Prefect.
We order that all days shall be proper for the administration of justice, and that
only those shall be considered holidays, which, during two festival months, the
year seems to set apart for rest from labor; that is, the days of summer, in order to
174
be better able to endure the heat; and those of autumn, for the purpose of
gathering fruit. We also devote to leisure the days of the Kalends of January,
which it is customary to observe for this purpose, and to these We add the days of
the foundation of the great cities of Rome and Constantinople, during which the
administration of justice should be suspended, because it owes its origin to them.
We include in the same category the sacred day of Easter, and the seven which
precede and follow it; the day of the Nativity, and that of the Epiphanies of Christ;
and the time when the commemoration of the Apostolic Passion of all Christianity
is properly celebrated by the entire world. During the above-mentioned most holy
days, We do not permit any public exhibitions to be given. The day sacred to the
sun, to which the ancients very properly gave the name of Sunday, which returns
after a certain period of revolution, must also be respected, so that there shall be
no investigation of legal disputes on that day, either before arbitrators or judges,
whether they have been appointed or voluntarily chosen. This rule shall also apply
to the days which We first saw the light, or which witnessed the origin of the
Empire. During the fifteen days [277] of the celebration of Easter, compulsory
distribution of provisions and the collection of all public and private obligations
shall be postponed.
Given at Rome, on the second of the Ides of August, during the Consulate of
Timasius and Promotus, 389.
8. The Same to Tatian, Praetorian Prefect.
All employments, whether public or private, shall be suspended during the

fifteen days of the Festival of Easter; still, every person shall have the right of
emancipation and manumission during that time, and any proceedings relating to
them are not prohibited.
Given on the Kalends of January, under the Consulate of Arcadius, Consul for
the second time, and Rufinus, 392.
9. The Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.
The Governors of provinces are notified that, so far as the torture of robbers,
and especially of Isaurians is concerned, they must not think that any of the forty
days of Lent, or the venerated Festival of Easter should be excepted, lest the
betrayal of the designs of the criminals, which might be obtained by torture, may
be deferred. This should the more readily be accomplished, as, during this time,
there is greater hope of pardon by the Almighty, and the health and safety of
many persons are secured.
Given at Constantinople, on the fifth of the Kalends of March, during the
Consulate of Bassus and Philip, 408.
10. The Emperors Leo and Anthemius to Armasius, Praetorian Prefect.
We do not wish holidays dedicated to the majesty of God to be employed in

public exhibitions, or be profaned by any annoyances resulting from collections.
175
(1) Hence We decree that Sunday shall always be honored and respected, and
exempt from all executions. No notice shall be served upon anyone; no security
shall be exacted; bailiffs shall remain quiet; advocates shall cease to conduct
cases, and this day shall be free from the administration of justice; the harsh voice
of the public crier shall be silenced; litigants shall have a respite from their
disputes, and enjoy the interval of a truce; adversaries may approach one another
without fear; repentance will have an opportunity to occupy their minds, they can
enter into agreements and discuss compromises. We do not permit persons who
are at leisure during this sacred day to devote themselves to obscene pleasures;
and no one shall then demand theatrical exhibitions, the contests of the circus, or
the melancholy spectacle of wild beasts; and when Our birthday happens to fall
on Sunday, its celebration shall be postponed. If anyone should
think that upon this holiday he can venture to interest himself in exhibitions; or
the subordinate of any judge, should, under the protest of any public or private
business, violate the provisions of this law, he [278] shall suffer the loss of his
employment and the confiscation of his property.
Given at Constantinople, on the Ides of September, during the Consulate of
Zeno and Martian, 469.” 482
These were the codes of Sunday legislation that were enforced in the eastern Roman Empire.
Please take special notice of Codex III. 12. 10. After Justinian revised his codex in the year A.D.
534, this code reveals the punishment for the violation of the Sunday sabbath as the loss of one’s
employment and the confiscation of one’s property. However, let us not forget how Justinian’s
ecclesiastical legislation comes to fruition. From Codex I. 1. 4., we have read the letter by
Justinian that he wrote to Pope John II on March 15, 533 as follows:
Church and state legislation was very direct and needed no commentary:
“For it is certain that whatever differs from the Christian religion is opposed to
the Christian law. 484
“No one is ignorant of the fact that, in ancient Rome, legislation originally
emanated from the head of the Pontificate. Hence We now deem it necessary to
impose upon Ourselves the duty of showing that [66] We are the source of both
secular and ecclesiastical jurisprudence by promulgating a law consecrated to the
honor of God, which shall be applicable not only to this city but to all Catholic
482
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex III. 12. 1-10.
12:275-278.
483
Ibid., Codex I. 1.4, 12:12.
484
Ibid., Codex I. 9. 11. 12:77.
176
Churches everywhere, and exert its salutary vigor over them as far as the Ocean,
so that the entire West as well as the East, where possessions belonging to Our
churches are to be found, or may hereafter be acquired by them, shall enjoy its
advantages. . . . This Our law, enacted in honor of Omnipotent God and the
venerable See of the Apostle Peter, shall be observed in all lands of the entire
West, and be applicable to the most distant islands of the Ocean; and Our
solicitude for the subjects of Our Empire induces Us to declare it to be
perpetual.” 485
There was nothing which has reference to the state of the Church in ecclesiastical matters that
did not come first before the pope for approval. This procedure was already established when
Justinian declared, “We shall exert Ourselves in every way,” and was legally confirmed by the
legislative support from the state that the church canons received. Codex I.3.44 of Justinian’s law
codes, for example, was implemented on October 18, A.D. 530, thereby giving total authority to
the canons of the synods.
.” 487
As Justinian continues to regulate church-sanctioned legislature, his standard protocol for

implementing his jurisdiction in a newly conquered territory is seen from his Novel 37. 9., issued
on August 1, 535:
“9. Furthermore we remit all the privileges of the sacrosanct church of our
decorated also with imperial privileges.” 488
From Novel 37. 9., we see Justinian’s authority implemented in the former Vandal province
to, first and foremost, bring honor to his “Codex” so “the name of our divine will bloom while
decorated also with imperial privileges.” This was standard protocol for Justinian when he
485
486
487
488
Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 3:244-5.
177
claimed legal jurisdiction of a newly conquered territory including the land occupied by the
Ostrogoths of Italy.
From the following Codex law code that was published and in force in 534, we have Justinian
himself affirming that all former laws of previous emperors that were “in favor of the orthodox
faith shall be valid and in force in the future and are retained in force by the present pious
legislation.”:
Codex I. 2.12.
“We decree that the privileges conceded by former Emperors under the general
terms of constitutions, to all the Holy Churches of the orthodox religion, shall be
observed, and remain firm and unimpaired for all time.” 489
Codex I.11.9.3
“3. All the punishments which were introduced by former emperors against
pagan error or in favor of the orthodox faith shall be valid and in force in the
future and are retained in force by the present pious legislation.” 490
This especially applied to Justinian’s Sunday Laws since all of them were from previous
emperors. He wrote nothing of himself on this issue because for him it was already an
established precedent of the orthodox faith that was not to be contested. It just simply needed to
be enforced. Codex I. 2.12. and Codex I.11.9.3 is the legal proclamation that gave Justinian the
legal basis for the enforcement of his Sunday laws which had been established by previous
emperors and were to be found in his subsequent Codex III.12.1-10. Justinian stated that they
“are retained in force by the present pious legislation.” This legislation was never altered or
retracted in any way from 534 to the end of Justinian’s reign in 565. Justinian’s subjects, from
538 and onward, whether from the east or from the west, all had to observe and reverence the
papal sabbath, the first day of the week, or suffer loss of employment, confiscation of property
and perhaps even death itself. This proves that Justinian’s Sunday laws were part of the enforced
jurisdiction implemented in Italy on June 1, 538. With small beginnings in the west, Sunday
enforcement was in full swing in the east. However, by the end of the year 538 and just ten days
into the New Year, Justinian’s jurisdiction was declared by Justinian himself to encompass Italy,
the entire West and those of both Romes, meaning Rome and Constantinople:
BEFORE WHOM THE CASES OF MONKS AND ASCETICS SHALL BE

TRIED.
SEVENTY-NINTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
CHAPTER II.
CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT AND OBSERVANCE OF

THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE
LEGAL CONTROVERSIES IN WHICH MONKS ARE CON
CERNED.
489
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. 2.12. 12:18.
490
Paul Krueger, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, (Berolini Apud Weidmannos, 1888), 2:63-4. Greek text.
178
“Litigation in which monks are involved shall be speedily disposed of. This law
is of general application, and its enforcement shall be committed to the Most
Glorious Prefects having jurisdiction in all dioceses, namely: those of Illyria,
Italy, the entire West and those of both Romes, as well as by the Most Glorious
Praetors of the People, and the magistrates of the provinces, with their
subordinates; and it shall not be evaded in any way but must be observed
unchanged for the honor of the most reverend monks.” 491
The year was AD 538. The entire then-known world of Christendom was under a universal
Sunday law just as the scriptures predicted and as Pope Vigilius is to confirm. With the biggest
threat of opposition removed and believing that the ongoing threat of war was also removed, the
Roman populace was delighted in the uniting of the old empire as one again under one religion.
Pope Vigilius (537-555), writes to Justinian on Sept. 17, 540, the following letter of praise for
establishing the one and only true faith “in every corner of the world”:
“We have noted in the letter of Your Clemency...that you do not permit any
differences, any discordance in the Christian faith which honors and worships the
Divine Trinity.... Not the least of our satisfaction in the Lord is to see that He
deigned in his mercy to give you not only an imperial, but a priestly soul. In
offering the sacrifice according to ancient tradition, all pontiffs pray that the Lord
may deign to unify the Catholic faith and preserve it throughout the world. This
Your Piety effected with all possible strength, when you imposed in all your
provinces and in every corner of the world the inviolate maintenance of that faith
which we know was defined and imposed as Christian confession by the most
venerable Synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, the First of Ephesus, and Chalcedon,
and when you refused to call Christian whoever severs himself from the unity of
those Synods. . . .” 492
H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, correctly states:
“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act.” He goes on to say, “And
the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” The Universal Sunday law
throughout Christendom in 538 was simply the catalyst or the Mark of her ecclesiastical
authority which signaled that the Pontifical government of force or, more accurately stated, the
government of Satan, was then fully underway and thereby commenced the 1260 prophetic
period in A.D. 538. Previously divorced from Christ, no longer widowed, but married to the
state, the Catholic Church was “given” a specified time of 1260 long years-to “practice and
prosper.” What a witness to the universe of the “new order” of Satan’s rule! You cannot have a
491
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian], 17 vols. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001, Justinian, The
Novels-79, 16:294-5, March 10, 539.
492
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 92), 348, Sept. 17, 540.
Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, facs. ed. Paris: Welter, 1902,
9:35.
Translatation: Dvornik, Francis. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, (Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Ctr. for Byz. Studies, 1966), 2:822.
179
Sunday law without first denying religious liberty and this is the real issue behind the Sunday
law.
“The man of sin thinks to change times and laws. He is exalting himself above
God, in trying to compel the conscience.” 493
In AD 538 we now have a perfect application of 2 Thessalonians 2:4:
“The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the
Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his
vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ.
Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen
he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which
the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every
council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower,
while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came
finally to be honored as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was
pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed.
The great apostate had succeeded in exalting himself ‘above all that is called God,
or that is worshiped.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:4. He had dared to change the only
precept of the divine law that unmistakably points all mankind to the true and
living God. In the fourth commandment, God is revealed as the Creator of the
heavens and the earth, and is thereby distinguished from all false gods. It was as a
memorial of the work of creation that the seventh day was sanctified as a rest day
for man. It was designed to keep the living God ever before the minds of men as
the source of being and the object of reverence and worship. Satan strives to turn
men from their allegiance to God, and from rendering obedience to His law;
therefore he directs his efforts especially against that commandment which points
to God as the Creator.” 494
Please notice that the prophet uses the term “festival,” the very term used by Justinian in the
original source for the heading of his Sunday laws. The original source reads thus:
THE CODE OF JUSTINIAN, BOOK III. 12, 10.
TITLE XII.
CONCERNING FESTIVALS.
“And thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach. . . . Now we have to
understand what the breach is. Look at the fourth commandment. . . . Here comes
a power under the control of Satan that puts up the first day to be observed. God
493
Ellen White, Review and Herald, December 24, 1889.
494
Ellen White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 53–4
180
calls him the man of sin because he has perpetuated transgression [Daniel
8:12].” 495
For those who would like to look further into the concepts of “exalt,” “magnify,” and “truth”
in their very close relationship to the law of God, we suggest a study of those words in the
context of Daniel 7:25; 8:11–12; 11:36–37; and of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, 10, 12.
Having fully sustained and illustrated by the definitive primary sources every specification of
the scriptures pertaining to the identity, nature and commencement of the 1260-day/year
prophetic period, we rest our case.
Nevertheless, there is still a need to see the beast power in all her infamous glory. This may be
witnessed further by Justinian’s legislation that encompassed every social, religious and private
aspect of his subjects. The following edict against homosexuality in 538 demonstrates this point
well, for homosexuality was sweeping over the empire. However, Justinian understood correctly
from the scriptures “that both cities as well as men have perished because of wicked acts of this
kind.”:
MEN SHALL NOT COMMIT THE CRIME AGAINST NATURE,

NOR SWEAR BY GOD'S HEAD, OR ANYTHING OF THIS KIND,
NOR SHALL THEY BLASPHEME GOD.
SEVENTH-SEVENTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
PREFACE.
[288] “We think that it is clear to all men of good judgment that Our principal
solicitude and prayer is, that those who have been entrusted to Us by God may
live properly, and obtain Divine favor. And as God does not desire the perdition
of men, but their conversion and salvation, and as He receives those who, having
committed sin, have repented, We invite all Our subjects to fear God and invoke
His clemency, for We know that all those who love the Lord and are deserving of
His pity do this.
CHAPTER I.
Therefore, as certain persons, instigated by the devil, devote themselves to the

most reprehensible vices, and commit crimes contrary to nature, We hereby
enjoin them to fear God and the judgment to come, to avoid diabolical and illicit
sensuality of this kind; 496 in order that, through such acts, they may not incur the
just anger of God, and bring about the destruction of cities along with their
inhabitants; for We learn from the Holy Scriptures that both cities as well as men
have perished because of wicked acts of this kind.
495
Ellen White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Maryland: E.G. White Estate, 1993), 5:45.
496
This was considered by the Romans as well as by modern legislators as one of the most odious and reprehensible
of crimes. “Peccata contra naturam sunt gravissima.”-ED.
181
(1) And as, in addition to those who commit these offences which We have
mentioned, there are others who utter blasphemous words, and swear by the
sacraments of God, and provoke Him to anger, We enjoin them to abstain from
these and other impious speeches, and not swear by the head of God, or use other
language of this kind. For if blasphemy when uttered against men is not left
unpunished, there is much more reason that those who blaspheme God himself
should be deserving of chastisement. Therefore We order all men to avoid such
offences, to have the fear of God in their hearts, and to imitate the example of
those who live in piety; for as crimes of this description cause famine, earthquake,
and pestilence, it is on this account, and in order that men may not lose their
souls, that We admonish them to abstain from the perpetration of the illegal acts
above mentioned. But if, after Our warning has been given, anyone should
continue to commit these offences, he will in the first place render himself
unworthy of the mercy of God, and will afterwards be subjected to the penalties
imposed by the laws.
[289] (2) We order the Most Glorious Prefect of this Royal City to arrest any
persons who persist in committing the aforesaid crimes, after the publication of
Our warning; in order that this city and the State may not be injured by the
contempt of such persons and their impious acts, and inflict upon them the
punishment of death. If, after the publication of this law, any magistrates should
become aware of such offences, and not take measures to punish them, they shall
be condemned by God. And even if the Most Glorious Prefect himself should find
any persons doing anything of this kind, and not punish them in accordance with
Our laws, he will, in the first place, be subjected to the judgment of God, and
afterwards sustain the weight of Our indignation.” 497
497
The Canon Law treated the crime of blasphemy, which it defined as the uttering of curses and insults against
God, Christ, the Virgin Mary, or the Saints:
“Quicunque Deo palam, 8eu publice maledixerit, contumeliosisque ac obscaenis verbis Dominum nostrum lesum
Christum, vel gloriosam Virginem Mariam eius Genitricem expresse blasphemauerit,” with great severity.
Ecclesiastics were temporarily or permanently deprived of their livings, and rendered incapable of-reinstatement.
Members of the laity were heavily fined, and might be imprisoned for life, or sentenced to the galleys. Sometimes
they were compelled to stand for an entire day before the principal door of the church wearing a paper mitre, mitra
infamis, as a token of disgrace. Secular judges who were remiss in prosecuting offenders rendered themselves liable
to the same penalties. (Corpus Juris Canonici VII, Decret V, VIII.)
Every hierarchy has naturally legislated against blasphemy as being an attack upon the foundation of its authority.
It was a capital offence among the Hebrews: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put
to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when
he blasphemeth the name of the Lord;, shall be put to death.” (Leviticus XXIV, 16.)
The old Castilian Codes in this, as in many other instances, regulated the punishment in accordance with the rank
and wealth of the culprit. A nobleman forfeited the use of his land for a year for the first offence, for two years for
the second, and for all time for the third. Similar penalties were imposed upon vassals. Citizens were heavily fined
and banished. Those belonging to the lowest order of the people were scourged, branded on the lips, or condemned
to have their tongues amputated. “E si fue're otro 0me de los menores que non ayan nada, por la primera vez denle
cinquenta acotes, por la segunda seinalenle con fierro caliente en los becos, que sea fecho a semejanca de B. E. por
la tercera vegada quo lo faga, cortenle La lengua.” (Las Siete Partidas VII, XXVIII, II.)
Blasphemy was an indictable offence at Common Law, punishable by fine and imprisonment; "as Christianity is
part of the laws of England." The first prosecution for it was instituted in 1617, during the reign of James I, before
justices of the peace; but the case was dismissed, after reference to the Attorney General, for want of jurisdiction.
(Vide Archbold, Criminal Procedure II, Page 209.) In England, the publication of heretical doctrines was long
182
Now only into the second month of the New Year of 539, Justinian decrees that no private
person shall make, buy, sell, or own arms. Undoubtedly, Justinian remembers the Nika Revolt of
532 and the difficulties in 536 as he tried to put a check on the abounding iniquity in the streets
of his empire. Yet, the following decree certainly goes well beyond that as the “new order”
obviously had an agenda all of its own. The regime has put down all opposition and it is
determined to keep it down:
CONCERNING ARMS.
EIGHTY-FIFTH NEW CONSTITUTION.
PREFACE.
[314] “Always invoking the aid of Omnipotent God and Our Saviour Jesus
Christ, We exert every effort to preserve from all injury and calumny the subjects
whose government God has entrusted to Us, and to prohibit the wars which men
privately conduct against one another; for, by means of these wars, they cause
much reciprocal suffering and are exposed to the double penalty of mutual injury,
as well as of undergoing the punishment prescribed by the laws.
CHAPTER I.
considered as inferentially blasphemous, and the writings of their advocates as libels. Political considerations were
always more or less involved in those accusations, as the king was the head of the Church, and the promulgation of
false religious dogmas was considered a blow at his supremacy. The penalty, while often severe, was not always as
drastic as might seem justifiable under such circumstances. As late as 1812, a man convicted of blasphemy was
sentenced by Lord Ellenborough to stand in the pillory for two hours every month, during eighteen months.
The offence is described by a leading English authority as follows: "A wilful intention to pervert, insult, and
mislead others by means of contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful misrepresentations and artful
sophistry calculated to mislead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt." (Starkie on Libel, Page
593.) This is the basis of the American doctrine that the feelings of the hearers must be respected. The penalty is
excommunication and imprisonment for not more than six months.
Scotch law punished the blasphemer capitally, if he remained recalcitrant. "Blasphemy, Railers against God, or
any of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, shall be likewise punishable by death, if they obstinately continue therein."
(Mackenzie, The Laws and Customes of Scotland in Matters Criminal III, V.) The penalties now are mere
imprisonment or fine, or both, at the discretion of the court. The offence includes atheism. (Vide Erskine, Principles
of the Laws of Scotland IV, IV, 7.)
Blasphemy, concisely defined by Kent as “maliciously reviling God or religion,” has a more limited application in
the United States than elsewhere, in general. "The weight of authority is that blasphemy is only indictable when
uttered in such a way as to insult the religious convictions of those at whom it is aimed. The gist of the offense is the
insult to the religious sense of individuals, irrespective of the truth of those religious views or the extent of their
prevalence." (Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law, Page 2121.)
The German Code prescribes a term of imprisonment, not exceeding three years, upon anyone convicted of
blasphemy. (Strafgesetzbuch fur das Deutsche Reich, Art. 166.) The penalty in Austria is imprisonment for from one
to ten years (Allgemeines Strafgesetz, Art. 123); in Spain, it is for one year, a month and twenty-one days, to a year
and two months, and a fine of from 250 to 2500 pesetas (Godigo Penal de Espana, Art. 240); in Italy, the penalty is
detention for not more than one year, and a fine of 100 to 3000 lire (Codice Penale del Regno d’ltalia, Art. 141); in
Denmark, it is imprisonment for one month, and, where aggravating circumstances exist, a fine in addition
(Almendelig Straffelov, Sec. 156).-ED.
Novels-77, 16:288-290, N.A., 538.
183
Therefore, desiring to prevent men from killing each other, We have thought it
proper to decree that no private person shall engage in the manufacture of
weapons, and that only those shall be authorized to do so who are employed in the
public arsenals, or are called armorers; and also that manufacturers of arms should
not sell them to any private individual.
Nor do We permit any persons who, styled deputati, are enrolled in the army
for the purpose of caring for the arms and are paid out of the Treasury, to
manufacture or sell them to anyone whomsoever; but We desire that they shall
only have charge of the arms of soldiers, in accordance with the duties assigned to
them. If, however, they should manufacture any new weapons, these shall be
taken from them, and either deposited in Our Imperial arsenal or in the armory.
CHAPTER II.
We also desire that those who are called ballistarii, and whom We have
stationed in different cities, and authorized to manufacture weapons, shall only
repair and place in good condition those belonging to the government, which are
deposited in the public arsenals of each town. Where any workmen have
manufactured arms they must surrender them to the ballistarii, to be placed with
those belonging to the public, but they must by no means sell them to anyone else.
The ballistarii shall, at the risk of the municipal magistrates of the cities to whom
they are subject, observe what We have decreed, and the responsibility for this, as
well as for the preservation of the public arsenals, shall attach to these
magistrates; and where any of the workmen called deputati, or armorers, have
been detected in selling weapons, the local magistrates shall subject them to
punishment; shall deprive the purchasers of these weapons without refunding the
price paid for them; and shall claim them for the benefit of the public.
CHAPTER III.
Therefore, God directing Our thoughts, We decree by the present law that no
private individual, or anyone else whosoever shall, in any province or city of Our
Empire, have the right to make or sell arms, or deal in them in any way, but only
such as are authorized to manufacture them can do so, and deposit them in Our
armory.
[315] We order that this rule shall be obeyed by Your Highness, as well as by
those who may succeed you in office, and We appoint five of the chief
chartularies subject to your authority in the Bureau of Armorers, who are skillful
and of good repute, who shall be charged on their own responsibility to seek men
who are manufacturing arms in this Most Fortunate City, and in the other towns
of Our Empire, in order to prevent private persons, or anyone else whomsoever,
from doing so, with the exception of workmen employed by the armory; and in
order that, if they should find, anywhere in any place, private individuals who are
rash enough to make any weapons, they may seize them and deposit them in the
Arsenal of the Treasury. But if among private workmen the said chartularies
184
should discover any persons who are thoroughly skilled in their trade, they shall
employ them in the manufacture of arms, if the workmen are willing, and shall
inscribe their names upon the list of armorers, and notify Us of this fact, in order
that the said workmen may be assigned by an Imperial Rescript to the Public
Arsenal, for the purpose of manufacturing arms, and receive remuneration from
the Treasury. If the aforesaid persons scrupulously comply with what We have
ordered, private individuals residing in towns, or peasants who are living in the
country, will not be permitted to make use of arms against one another, thereby
endangering their lives; men will cease to commit homicide; work on public
buildings will not be suspended; and the fear of death will no longer compel the
cultivators of the soil to resort to flight.
(1) Therefore those selected from the above-mentioned Bureau of Armorers,
who are directed by Your Highness to prevent private persons from making
weapons, shall be sworn by the local magistrates, their subordinates, the defenders
of towns, and decurions, that they wiII allow nothing which We have forbidden to
take place in the future, and that they will comply with the provisions of the
present law, for the said magistrates will be liable to a pecuniary penalty, as well
as a corporeal one, if they should violate it.
We order that, if the judge of the great City of Alexandria should fail to observe
these provisions, he shall be liable to a fine of twenty pounds of gold, and shall be
deprived of his office. His court shall also incur a similar penalty, as well as be
subjected to capital punishment. So far as the magistrates of other provinces are
concerned, they, together with their courts, shall incur a fine of ten pounds of gold
and the loss of their offices. The defenders of municipal magistrates of cities shall
pay a fine of three pounds of gold, and run the risk of being put to death if, after
having learned of violations of this law, they permit them to remain concealed
instead of punishing them, or notifying magistrates who can do so.
CHAPTER IV.
But in order that what has been forbidden by Us to private persons and all
others may become clear, We have taken pains to enumerate in this law the
different kinds of weapons whose manufacture is forbidden. Therefore We
prohibit private individuals from either [316] making or buying bows, arrows,
double-edged swords, ordinary swords, weapons usually called hunting knives,
those styled zabes, breast-plates, javelins, lances and spears of every shape
whatever, arms called by the Isaurians monocopia, others called sitinnes, or
missiles, shields, and helmets; for We do not permit anything of this kind to be
manufactured, except by those who are appointed for that purpose in Our arsenals,
and only small knives which no one uses in fighting shall be allowed to be made
and sold by private persons.
Your Highness will publish this general law in this Royal City, as well as in the
other cities of Our Empire, in order that all persons, being aware of the provisions
which We have been pleased to enact, may observe them.
CHAPTER V.
185
We notify the chartularies who have been appointed from the aforesaid Bureau
of Armorers personally to see that this law is obeyed, for their negligence will not
only expose them to pecuniary penalties, but they will also be subjected to
corporeal punishment, as well as be deprived of their offices; for We shall not
permit them to longer remain in the Bureau of Armorers, but will appoint others
in their stead.
EPILOGUE.
Your Highness, and those who may hereafter succeed you, will hasten to cause
what it has pleased Us to enact by the present law to be carried into execution; for
unless you take measures for the observance of what is so advantageous to the
public welfare, you will have reason to fear the effects of Our indignation.” 498
As mentioned earlier, believing that the biggest threat of opposition had been removed and the
ongoing threat of war ended, the Roman populace was delighted in the uniting of the old empire
as one again under one religion. You will remember the letter we viewed earlier that Pope
Vigilius wrote to Justinian on September 17, 540, praising him for establishing the one and only
true faith “in every corner of the world.” Hardly had the words gone forth from the pen of Pope
Vigilius, when it happened. In the summer of 541 the world-wide epidemic called the Bubonic
plague touched down on the Mediterranean at the extreme eastern edge of the Nile Delta.
Procopius describes the severity of the plague:
“During these times there was a pestilence, by which the whole human race
came near to being annihilated.” 499
Constantinople remained untouched until March or April of 542, but when it hit like
elsewhere, it took out nearly half the empire. Justinian’s empire never fully recovered. In the
meantime, the Ostrogoths regrouped and the ongoing war cost the ravaged empire dearly, but
Justinian finally prevailed against the Ostrogoths in March of 553. In turn, Pope Vigilius sends
another letter to Justinian on May 14, 553, in gratitude and with hope that his accomplishments
may go down as a pattern for all future ecclesiastical peace:
“Among the many cares that burden your imperial charge, we hear of Your
Clemency's praise worthy determination to remove all the seeds of discord which
the enemy of the human race has sown in the Lord’s field. For this purpose you
have hastened to bring to unity and concord all the priests of God by having them
make their professions as witness to their conscientious belief, to show that they
remain faithful to the definitions and decisions of our holy Fathers, of the four
venerable Synods, and of the heads of the Apostolic See. That the form of these
professions may go down to posterity as a pattern of ecclesiastical peace. . . .” 500
498
Novels-85, 16:313-316, April 7, 539.
499
Procopius, History of the Wars (London, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library,
1919; reprint, 2000), II. xxii. 1. Or, Vol. 1:451.
500
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 83), 230, May 14, 553.
186
Thus officially ended the reign of the Ostrogoths. Ferdinand Gregorovius well illustrates how
that smear campaign of hate has still continued against the Arians all because these God-fearing
and law abiding citizens were governed by the Biblical principle of religious liberty:
“Where the last remnant of the Goths wandered at [472] length from the
battlefield of Vesuvius, we do not know; their sorrowful exit from the beautiful
country for which their fathers had fought, and where innumerable scenes
reminded them of glorious deeds in the past, remains shrouded in mystery.
The kingdom established by Theodoric had lasted only sixty years. During this
period the transition from Antiquity to Mediaevalism had been accomplished in
Italy, and to the Goths, who stood on the confines of the two ages, belongs the
imperishable glory of having been the protectors of the ancient culture of Europe
in the dying hours of the Roman world. 501 The Goths themselves remained
strangers in Italy on account of the innate opposition which they offered to the
nationality and religion of the Latins; further, because they were powerless to
infuse a fresh vitality into the land which they had conquered. It is idle to
speculate in the face of the facts of history as to what form Italy and the West
might have assumed had the Goths been allowed to settle permanently in the
conquered land, had opportunities been granted them of self development, of
peaceful intercourse, and of fusion with the Italian race. Under their sceptre the
country was united for the last time, and in the premature overthrow of the Goths
the national unity of Italy perished.
The Goths represented in outward form, customs, and language that primitive
race of Zamolxis or [473] Ulfilas, of whom, according to the testimony of
Jordanes, Dio said, in his lost history of the Goths, that they were “wiser than all
barbarians, and in genius closely resembled the Greeks.” 502 To the great facility
for culture, which the shortness of their tenure in Italy had not given time to
develop, they united the gentleness and also the manliness of the Teutonic
character, and, if we but compare the period of Gothic rule with any later foreign
government in Italy, further comment is unnecessary.
We may, however, add the sentence of the greatest of Italian historians on the
Ostrogoths: “If we mention the name of Goth in Italy,” says Muratori, “some of
the people shudder, chiefly the half-educated, as if we spoke of inhuman
barbarians, destitute of laws and taste. Old buildings of bad style are called Gothic
architecture, and Gothic is the rude character of print at the end of the fifteenth or
Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, facs. ed. Paris: Welter, 1902,
9:6.
Translatation: Dvornik, Francis. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, (Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Ctr. for Byz. Studies, 1966), 2:822.
501
Gothorum laus est civilitas custodita. This admission of Cassiodorus (Var., ix. 14) forms the epitaph on the
Goths, and ought to be borne in mind by the Italians.
502
Jordan., De reb. Get., c. 5: unde et pene omnibus barbaris Gothi sapientiores semper extiterunt, Graecisque pene
consimiles. Compare with this statement the memorable letter of the Visigothic King Sisebut to Adelwald, King of
the Lombards, where the German character is depicted: genus inclitum, inclita forma, ingenita virtus, naturalis
prudentia, elegantia morum. Troya, Cod. Dipl. Long., i. p. 571, according to Florez, Espana Sagrada, vii. 321-328.
187
the beginning of the following century. 503 These are the judgments of ignorance.
Theodoric and Totila, both Kings of the Gothic nation, were certainly not free
from many faults, but [474] each possessed the love of justice, moderation,
wisdom in the choice of his officials, abstemiousness, sincerity in his treaties, and
other notable virtues to such a degree as to render him a model in the art of good
government. It is sufficient to read the letters of Cassiodorus and the history of
Procopius, himself an enemy of the Goths. Moreover, these rulers did not in
anywise change the magistrates, the laws or the customs of the Romans, and the
legends of their bad taste are but childish folly. The Emperor Justinian was more
fortunate than the Gothic Kings, but if only half related by Procopius be true, he
was excelled in virtue by these very Goths.” 504 “The Romans,” Muratori further
says, “longed for a change of masters; they changed them indeed, but they paid
for the fulfilment of their desires by the incalculable losses inseparable from a
long and tedious war; and, what is worse, the change involved the utter ruin of
Italy in a few years, and plunged the country into an abyss of misery.” 505 The best
apology for Gothic rule is to be found in the state of tedious and utter misery into
which Italy sank, when, after the overthrow of the Goths, the wild Lombard race
settled on the ruins of the kingdom of Theodoric.
Throughout the entire course of the Middle Ages, [475] down to later times and
even in the age of Humanism, the Romans retained the absurd belief that the
Goths had destroyed their city. 506 Of the wonderful fables that were in circulation
we are informed by the memoirs of Flaminius Vacca, a Roman sculptor, bearing
the date of 1594, and the history of the city exhibits proofs of the ignorance of the
Romans concerning their monuments. 507 While the inhabitants surveyed the
remains of their ancient city, and knew not that, more even than time, the rude
barons of the Middle Ages and even popes had destroyed the monuments of
antiquity, they recollected from tradition that the Goths had long ruled Rome,
frequently stormed, conquered, and plundered her. They saw the greater part of
the ancient buildings, the triumphal arches, and the huge walls of the [476]
503
In the age of Humanism the so-called Gothic character was exchanged for the Antiqua. Valla expressly
designates the pre-humanistic characters as Gothic: codices Gothice scripti, and bewails the depravatio of the
Roman handwriting (Elegant., lib. iii. praef.).
504
Procopius, in the Historia Arcana, c. 6, &c., brands Justinian as a foolish and malicious impostor, greedy alike
for gold and blood, and portrays him as a second Domitian. The notorious description of Theodora, which almost
taxes the belief of the most wanton libertine, follows in c. 9. Compare the learned comments of Alemannus on these
passages.
505
Annal. d' Italia ad Ann. 555; and the enlightened opinion of La Farina, Storia d' Italia, i. p. 61, &c.
506
This belief was greatly strengthened by the national sentiment fostered in Italy by the Humanists. Nevertheless,
Flav. Blondus was sufficiently impartial to acquit the Goths of the reproach of Vandalism. In his Roma Instaur., n.
99, f., he says: ut per annos septuaginta quibus Ostrogothi regno Romae et Italiae sunt potiti, Octaviani Augusti
Trajani Hadriani Antonini Pii aut Alexandri Severi amorem in Romanam rem desiderari non oportuit. In the face of
the popular ignorance he shows that the destruction of the aqueducts was not the work of the Goths, but of the
Romans, who were in search of building materials. In the ltalia Illustrata (Etruria) Blondus has also exonerated
Totila from the charge of having reduced Florence to ruins. Leon Battista Alberti also diverts the reproach from the
heads of the barbarians to that of the Romans themselves (De re aedif., x. I).
507
Flaminio Vacca, collecting material for the antiquary, Anastasius Simonetti of Perugia, makes notes of various
objects which he had seen discovered or dug up. See Fea in the Miscellan., t. i., and Nibby in the Appendix to
Nardini’s Roma Antica: “Memorie di varie antichita trovate in diversi luoghi della citta di Roma, scritte da Flaminio
Vacca nell’ anno 1594.”
188
Colosseum as we see them now, pierced with innumerable holes; and not being
able to explain these holes, came to the conclusion that they had been made by the
Goths, either in order to break out the stones with levers, or (which was more
sensible) to tear away the bronze clamps. 508 In Vacca’s time were shown the so-
called hatchets of the Goths, hatchets with which they had broken the statues; the
naive sculptor relating that one day two hatchets had been found in the “vigna”
where the so-called temple of Caius and Lucius (called by the people “Galluzi”)
stood, and that they bore on one side a club and on the other a halberd. “I
believe,” he adds, “that these were the weapons of the Goths, that the edge served
in battle to cleave the shield, the club to destroy the antiquities.” 509
The imagination of the Romans even discovered [477] the funeral urns of the
Goths who had fallen at the siege of Vitiges. When, at the gate of San Lorenzo,
several sarcophagi of granite and marble were one day found, they were held to
be Gothic on account of their workmanship, and “I believe,” the same sculptor
says, “they belong to the time when poor Italy was ruled by the Goths, and I
remember to have read that the Goths received a repulse at this very gate. Perhaps
they were funeral urns of the officers who perished in the assault, and who wished
to be buried on the spot where they fell.”
It is amusing to discover fables such as these current in Rome at so late a date;
to find that people still believed that the Goths had not only buried their treasures
in the city, but had marked the spots where these treasures lay concealed, and that
their descendants knew of these hiding places. So great was the popular ignorance
that, down to the end of the sixteenth century, it was commonly believed that
Goths, living in some unknown quarter, came by stealth to the city in search of
the spoils of their forefathers, and prosecuted their excavations with an even
greater ardour than many cardinals, without a like knowledge, had already
prosecuted theirs. Flaminio Vacca, with naive simplicity, gives us the following
anecdote:-
“Many years ago I went to see the antiquities. I found myself beyond the gate
of San Bastian at the Capo di Bove (the mausoleum of Cecilia Metella), and, as it
was raining, I stepped into a little Osteria below. While waiting there, I talked
with the host, who told me that a few months before a man had [478] come for
some fuel, and had returned in the evening with three companions for supper.
After supper they all went away, the three companions never exchanging a word.
The same thing happened three evenings in succession. My host suspected that
something was wrong and resolved to accuse them. One evening when they had
508
The learned Snares, Bishop of Vaisson, writing his Diatriba de foraminibus lapidum in priscis aedificiis, in 1651,
puts forward seven suggestions to account for these holes, without being able to decide on any. 1. Envy of the
barbarians, who, since they were not able to destroy the monuments, disfigured them. 2. That the holes had
originated in the preparations for constructing dwellings. 3. Through barricades in the times of revolution. 4.
Through the removal of concealed metal clamps. 5. In the search for hidden treasures. 6. That they had been formed
in the original building for the purpose of construction. 7. That they had arisen in the Colosseum when the arches
were converted into booths. See also Marangoni, Delle Memorie sacre e profane dell’ Amfiteatro Romano, Rome,
1746, p. 46, &c. Fea, Sulle rov., pp. 276, 277, speaks with reason of the improbability of the damage having been the
work of the barbarian. Vacca naively says: tutti bucati all’ usanza de’ Goti, per rubarne le spranghe. I myself am of
opinion that the holes arose in great part from the removal of the clamps in times when there was a great scarcity of
metal.
509
Fl. Vacca, n. 17.
189
supped as usual, he watched them by moonlight, and saw them enter some
caverns in the Circus of Caracalla (Maxentius). On the following morning, having
informed the authorities of what had taken place, search was made in the caverns,
when a quantity of loose earth and a deep hole were discovered, and amid the
earth numerous recently broken fragments of earthenware vases and iron
instruments which had been used in digging. Wishing to convince myself of these
facts, and being near the spot, I entered and saw the excavations and the
fragments of vases, which resembled tubes. It is supposed that these men were
Goths, who, following the same old clues, had here unearthed a treasure.” 510
Another tale is as follows: - “I recollect that in the time of Pius IV. a Goth came
to Rome having in his possession a very ancient book, dealing with a hidden
treasure, with a serpent and a figure in bas-relief; on one side of it was a
Cornucopiae, and on the other it pointed to the earth. The Goth sought until he
found the described bas-relief on the side of an arch; then, going to the Pope,
begged for permission to dig for the treasure, which, as he said, belonged to the
Romans. After going to the people [479] he received the required permission, set
to work with a chisel at the side of the arch, and laboured until he had made a
opening. The Romans, suspicious of the enmity of the Goths, believing that they
still harboured the desire to destroy the monuments of antiquity, and fearing that
the man might undermine the arch, attacked him, in the prosecution of his work,
with such violence that, thankful to make his escape, he left his design
unfulfilled.” 511
Fables such as these were the only associations retained by the Romans of the
glorious period of Gothic rule, and the care displayed by the barbarians for the
monuments of antiquity. We shall, however, see hereafter that, during the Middle
Ages, the ignorance of the people reached such a depth that even Caesar,
Augustus, and Virgil disappeared from the sight of their descendants in the mists
of fable.” 512
Ferdinand Gregorovius has accurately stated that if one would read Cassiodorus or even
Procopius, an enemy of the Goths, as we will illustrate with just one example, one can still
witness to the true character of these poor maligned and misrepresented people even from the
primary sources:
“Now there is a certain church of the Apostle Paul, 513 fourteen stades distant
from the fortifications of Rome, and the Tiber River flows beside it. In that place
510
FI. Vacca: n. 81.
511
Fl. Vacca, n. 103. The arch itself is not specified, but may have been that of Septimius Severns. The ancient myth
concerning buried treasures ever and anon reappears in Rome. I came across it in December 1864, when, with the
sanction of the Pope, excavations were made in search of a treasure in the Colosseum. A man feigned to have
discovered an old parchment which gave an accurate description of the spot where this treasure lay hid. For fourteen
days they dug under the arch of entrance on the side of the Lateran and an engine was incessantly engaged in
pumping out the water, which rushed like a stream about the amphitheatre. The search, however, brought to light
nothing but the bones of some animals.
512
Ferdinand Gregorovius, Translated from the Fourth German Edition, Mrs. Gustavus W. Hamilton , History Of
The City of Rome In The Middle Ages, (London, George Bell & Sons, 1900, First Published, 1894. Second Edition,
Revised, 1900), 1:471-479.
513
The Basilica of St. Paul stood south of the city, outside the Porta Ostiensis which is still called Porta S. Paolo.
190
there is no fortification, but a colonnade extends all the way from the city to the
church, and many other buildings which are round about it render the place not
easy of access. But the Goths shew a certain degree of actual respect for
sanctuaries such as this. And indeed during the whole time of the war no harm
came to either church of the two Apostles 514 at their hands, but all the rites were
performed in them by the priests in the usual manner.” 515
“Catholic Truth” has wanted us to believe that the Arians were against law, order, and
Christianity, a demoralized people. The truth of the matter has shown just the opposite. They
were, however, opposed to the tyrannical Pontifical Government of Catholicism that denied
religious liberty because the Ostrogoths decreed legislation supporting religious liberty for all
men of all faiths. And for that they became the foremost enemy of the Roman Catholic Church.
History has certainly shown us that if you can tell a lie long enough it miraculously somehow
will turn into truth, “Catholic Truth.” The fact of the matter is that if the Biblical principle of
religious liberty had been endorsed as the governing principle throughout the 1260-year period
as it had been by the Arian governments, there would have never been the dark ages as we know
it today. That means there would have been no state-sponsored religious terrorism of any kind
because all religious bigots would have been outlawed from society, rendering their societies
safe from extremists. This, in turn, would have secured for all of Eastern and Western Europe a
much different history. No burning of human beings at the stake or all the other countless forms
of torture that is too gruesome to reiterate here. No exile, no loss of property or wills, no
discrimination, no loss of employment, no loss or denial of or to the marriage vow, no
Inquisition, no Crusades, and no loss of human life that historians number between 50-120
million slaughtered, men, women, and children. Oh, what an account the man of sin will have to
render at the judgment bar of God almighty, for this awful record has been faithfully chronicled
by heaven:
Revelation 18:24 “And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints,
and of all that were slain upon the earth.”
The term “Arians” which was given to them and its implied negative connotation is also
suspect and needs measured by unbiased primary sources, if they are to be found. As we have
also seen in our A.D. 508 Source Book, deception was and is the tool that was used by Satan’s
human agents to misrepresent and falsely malign those who adhered to the Bible and its
principles. This has always been the sad lot of the followers of Christ who have been the
minority throughout history:
Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,
and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”
Luke 12:32 “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give
you the kingdom.”
514
St. Peter and St. Paul.
515
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, VI. iv. 7-13. 3:321.
191
Unfortunately, this history and the methods of religious bigots and extremist, backed by the
state are to have an enormous recurrence against the faithful just before the second coming of
Christ. It has been said that you can judge a regime from its subjects. With that perspective in
mind, we shall let those who were the very first subjects under that tyrannical Pontifical
Government of Catholicism share their experience. We begin with the testimony of our first eye
witness, Procopius:
“While he was stirring up all this strife and war to plague the Romans, he also
endeavoured, by various devices, to drench the earth in human blood, to carry off
more riches for himself, and to murder many of his subjects. He proceeded as
follows. There prevail in the Roman Empire many Christian doctrines which are
known as heresies, such as those of the Montanists and Sabbatians and all the
others by which men's minds are led astray. Justinian ordered all these beliefs to
be abandoned in favour of the old religion, and threatened the recusants with legal
disability to transmit their property to their wives and children by will. The
churches of these so-called heretics-especially those belonging to the Arian
heresy-were rich beyond belief: Neither the whole of the Senate, or any other of
the greatest corporations in the Roman Empire, could be compared with these
churches in wealth. They had gold and silver plate and jewels more than any man
could count or describe; they owned many mansions and villages, and large
estates everywhere, and everything else which is reckoned and called wealth
among men.
As none of the previous Emperors had interfered with them, many people, even
of the orthodox faith, procured, through this wealth, work and the means of
livelihood. But the Emperor Justinian first of all sequestrated all the property of
these churches, and suddenly took away all that they possessed, by which many
people lost the means of subsistence. Many agents were straightway sent out to all
parts of the Empire to force whomsoever they met to change the faith of his fore-
[39] fathers. These homely people, considering this an act of impiety, decided to
oppose the Emperor's agents. Hereupon many were put to death by the
persecuting faction, and many made an end of themselves, thinking, in their
superstitious folly, that this course best satisfied the claims of religion; but the
greater part of them voluntarily quitted the land of their forefathers, and went into
exile. The Montanists, who were settled in Phrygia, shut themselves up in their
churches, set them on fire, and perished in the flames; and, from this time forth,
nothing was to be seen in the Roman Empire except massacres and flight.
Justinian straightway passed a similar law with regard to the Samaritans, which
produced a riot in Palestine. In my own city of Caesarea and other cities, the
people, thinking that it was a foolish thing to suffer for a mere senseless dogma,
adopted, in place of the name which they had hitherto borne, the appellation of
"Christians," and so avoided the danger with which they were threatened by this
law. Such of them as had any claims to reason and who belonged to the better
class, thought it their duty to remain stedfast to their new faith; but the greater
part, as though out of pique at having been forced against their will by the law to
abandon the faith of their fathers, adopted the belief of the Manicheans, or what is
known as Polytheism.
192
But all the country people met together in a body and determined to take up
arms against the Emperor. They chose a leader of their own, named Julian, the
son of Sabarus, and for some time held their own in the struggle with the Imperial
troops, but were at last defeated and cut to pieces, together with their leader. It is
said that one hundred thousand men fell in this engagement, and the most fertile
country on the earth has ever since been without cultivators. This did great harm
to the Christian landowners in that country, for, although they received nothing
from their property, yet they were forced to pay heavy taxes yearly to the
Emperor for the rest of their lives, and no abatement or relief from this burden
was granted to them.
After this he began to persecute those who were called Gentiles, torturing their
persons and plundering their property. All of these people, who decided to adopt
the Christian faith nominally saved themselves for the time . . . [45] Although
Justinian's character was such as I have already explained, he was easy of access,
and affable to those whom he met. No one was ever denied an audience, and he
never was angry even with those who did not behave or speak properly in his
presence. But, on the other hand, he never felt ashamed of any of the murders
which he committed. However, he never displayed any anger or pettishness
against those who offended him, but preserved a mild countenance and an
unruffled brow, and with a gentle voice would order tens of thousands of innocent
men to be put to death, cities to be taken by storm, and property to be confiscated.
One would think, from his manner, that he had the character of a sheep; but if
anyone, pitying his victims, were to endeavor, by prayers and supplications, to
make him relent, he would straightway become savage, show his teeth, and vent
his rage upon his subjects. As for the priests, he let them override their neighbors
with impunity, and delighted to see them plunder those round about them,
thinking that in this manner he was showing piety. Whenever he had to decide
any lawsuit of this sort, he thought that righteous judgment consisted in letting the
priest win his cause and leave the court in triumph with some plunder to which he
had no right whatever; for, to him, justice meant the success of the priest's cause.
He himself, when by malpractices he had obtained possession of the property of
people, alive or dead, would straightway present his plunder to one of the
churches, by which means he would hide his rapacity under the cloak of piety,
and render it impossible for his victims ever to recover their possessions. Indeed,
he committed numberless murders through his notion of piety; for, in his zeal to
bring all men to agree in one form of Christian doctrine, he recklessly murdered
all who dissented there from, under the pretext of piety, for he did not think that
,it was murder, if those whom he slew were not of the same belief as himself. . . .
[86] Nothing was [87] spoken of in conversation at home, in the streets, or in the
churches, except misfortune and suffering. Such was the state of the cities. . . .
At first, as has been said, he got all the shops into his own hands, and having
established monopolies of all the most necessary articles of life, exacted from his
subjects more than three times their value. But if I were to enter into the details of
all these monopolies, I should never finish my narrative, for they are
innumerable.” 516
516
The Secret History of the Court of Justinian. Boston: IndyPublish.com, n.d., 38-9, 45, 86-7.
193
Procopius gives a very graphic account of Justinian’s wife, Theodora, her birth, how she was
brought up, how she married him, and how in conjunction with him she utterly ruined the Roman
Empire. However, our purpose here is solely to witness to the true character of the man, Justinian
and the graphics supplied by Procopius serve no purpose here:
[31] As soon, however, as she [Theodora] reached the age of puberty, as she was
handsome, her mother sent her into the theatrical troupe, and she straightway
became a simple harlot, as old-fashioned people called it; for she was neither a
musician nor a dancer, but merely prostituted herself to everyone whom she met,
giving up every part of her body to debauchery. . . . [75] for she herself also, from
her earliest years, had associated with sorcerers and magician, since her character
and pursuits inclined her towards them. She had great faith in their arts, and
placed the greatest confidence in them. . . . [35] Thus did Theodora, as I have told
you, in spite of her birth and bringing-up, reach the throne without finding any
obstacle in her way. Justinian felt no shame at having wedded her, although he
might have chosen the best born, the best educated, the most modest and
virtuously nurtured virgin. in all the Roman Empire, with outstanding breasts, as
the saying is; whereas he preferred to take to himself the Common refuse of all
mankind, and without a thought of all that has been told, married a woman stained
with the shame of many abortions and many other crimes. Nothing more, I
conceive, need be said about this creature's character, for all the vices of his heart
are thoroughly displayed in the fact of so unworthy a marriage. When a man feels
no shame at an act of this kind, and braves the loathing of the world, there is
thereafter no path of wickedness which may not be trodden by him, but, with a
face incapable of blushing, he plunges, utterly devoid of scruple, into the deepest
baseness.
However, no one in the Senate had the courage to show dissatisfaction at seeing
the State fasten this disgrace upon itself, but all were ready to worship Theodora
as if she had been a goddess. Neither did any of the clergy show any indignation,
but bestowed upon her the title of “Lady.” The people who had formerly seen her
upon the stage now declared themselves, with uplifted hands, to be her slaves, and
made no secret of the name. None of the army showed irritation at having to face
the dangers of war in the service of Theodora, nor did anyone of all mankind offer
her the least opposition. All, I suppose, yielded to circumstances, and suffered this
disgraceful act to take place, as though Fortune had wished to display her power
by disposing human affairs so that events came about in utter defiance of reason,
and human counsel seemed to have no share in directing them. Fortune does thus
raise men suddenly to great heights of power, by means in which reason has no
share, in spite of all obstacles that may bar the way, for nothing can check her
course, but she proceeds straight on towards her goal, and everything makes way
for her. But let all this be, and be represented as it pleases God. ” 517
“That the emperor was not a man but, as I have already pointed out, a demon in
human shape, could be demonstrated by considering the magnitude of the
517
Ibid., 31, 75, 35.
194
calamities which he brought on the human race. For it is by the immensity of what
he accomplishes that the power of the doer is manifested. To make any accurate
estimate of the number of lives destroyed by this man would never, it seems to
me, be within the power of any living being other than God. For sooner could one
number all the sands than the hosts of men destroyed by this potentate.” 518
The following testimony is from another eye witness:
“We know this famous anecdote: “When I die, asked Napoleon I to one of his
courtesans, what would be said? – Sire, answered the interlocutor, this will be
said, that will be said! No, interrupted suddenly the emperor, what would be said
is: “phew!” The peoples said; phew! the day after the death of Justinian. The poet
Corippus told 519 that, when for the first time the successor of the dead sovereign
appeared in the Hippodrome, he was greeted by a suppliant and lamenting crowd.
“Take pity on us, cried these men, because we are dying. Come to the rescue of
your slaves”. “You are pious, whined others, you are all-powerful, see our tears,
ease our misery” It was all those to whom Justinian had extorted money, the
family of unsolvable debtors, the wives and mothers of prisoners, all the victims
of the preceding regime, imploring the mercy of the new emperor. And so
profoundly felt was, everywhere, the impression of deliverance, that the grave
Evagrius himself wrote as an ending to the story of that reign: “Thus died
Justinian, after filling the whole world with noise and troubles; and, having, as
soon as he died, received the salary of his misdeeds, we went to find, in front of
the tribunal of hell, the justice he was due.”’ 520
Ironically, the testimony of what those subjects had said at the commencement of the
Pontifical Government’s reign will be witnessed to have been said by its subjects at the end of its
prophetic rule of 1260 years, as well. The following is taken directly from the personal diary of
Cardinal Giuseppe Antonio Sala who was a priest in Rome on February 10, 1798, when General
Berthier entered that city during the French Revolution. We will begin with his personal
testimony on February 15, 1798:
“There were made a thousand attacks on the coat of arms of the Pope, some of
which had been thrown to the ground. The Patriots were shouting: “Let down
arms; the tyranny has ended; let us be free,” etc. . . .
The Jews have thrown off the former servitude and rejoice for the actual
newness [they are now considered equal citizens]. . . . [32] In the afternoon
General Cervoni went to the Pope and said to him that the Roman People had
implored the generosity of the French Nation to be freed from the oppression of
the Pontific Government; that the French had granted to them their assistance;
and that having become free, there remained to the Pope only concern for the
518
Procopius. The Secret History. Translated by G. A. Williamson. London: Folio Society, 1990, 83.
519
Corippus, In laud Just., II, 361 sq.
520
Evagrius V, 1. It must be observed though that inversely, Corippus sends him directly to the heavens (in laud.
Just. I 245-246) Cf. also Paul Silent., loc.cit, 309-310.
195
spiritual. His Holiness responded to him with few words, reminding him of
Religion, individuals, and propriety.” 521
Quite a contrast to the testimony of Christ:
Matthew 11:28 “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest.
Matthew 11:29 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and
lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”
Matthew 11:30 “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Such has been the testimony of those who have lived under the oppressive yoke of the
Pontifical government when the union of church and state controlled the consciences of all men.
CONCLUSION
As witnessed from our Appendix I, the Burgundians were defeated in 532 and annexed in 534
by the Franks for political gain. The Burgundian law code was replaced with the Lex Romana
Visigothorum law code to fully cement a uniform jurisdiction of Catholic and Frankish law.
Justinian and the Franks then formed an alliance against the Ostrogoths. Justinian sent a letter to
the leaders of the Franks as follows:
“The Goths, having seized by violence Italy, which was ours, have not only
refused absolutely to give it back, but have committed further acts of injustice
against us which are unendurable and pass beyond all bounds. For this reason we
have been compelled to take the field against them, and it is proper that you
should join with us in waging this war, which is rendered yours as well as ours
not only by the orthodox faith, which rejects the opinion of the Arians, but also by
the enmity we both feel toward the Goths.” Such was the emperor’s letter; and
making a gift of money to them, he agreed to give more as soon as they should
take an active part. And they with all zeal promised to fight in alliance with
him.” 522
In 536 came the final establishment of the French monarchy in Gaul 523 and the possession of
Provence, and this left the Franks in complete control to freely enforce the Lex Romana
Visigothorum law code throughout all of Gaul.
With the last of the three major Arian powers subdued judicially in A.D. 538 when they were
forced to relinquish Rome, the capitol of the world as we have just witnessed, the oppressive
521
Sala, G. A. Diario Romano: degli anni 1798–99. 3 vols. In Miscellanea della Società Romana di Storia Patria.
Rome: presso la Società, 1882 (1, 2); 1886 (3). 1:31-32.
522
Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001, V. v. 5-10, 3:45.
523
Methuen, 1909), 4:128, margin, AMS edition.
196
union of church and state had successfully put down all major opposition and had outlawed
religious liberty throughout all of Christendom. By this act, the church officially ushered in the
horrors of the dark ages. This has been the best kept secret of the dark ages. Another well-kept
secret has been that this event then opened the way for the enforcement of a universal Sunday
law throughout all of Christendom in A.D. 538. That proved to be the catalyst or the MARK of
her ecclesiastical authority which signaled that the Pontifical government of force, or more
accurately stated, the government of Satan, was then fully underway and, thereby, commenced
the 1260 prophetic period in A.D. 538. You cannot have a Sunday law without first denying
religious liberty and this is the real issue behind the Sunday law. Previously divorced from
Christ, no longer widowed, but married to the state, the Catholic Church was “given” a specified
time to “practice and prosper” for 1260 long years. What a witness to the universe of the “new
order” of Satan’s rule. This union of church and state continued as such with the state enforcing
the dogmas of the church until the deadly wound was administered to the papacy (Revelation
13:10) in 1798. Although there were low and high moments in the career of the papacy, never
once for 1260 years did she relinquish the position she held by granting or acknowledging the
principle of religious liberty until she was forced to do so for the first time in 1798. That was the
year the Catholic Church became a widow because the state divorced itself from the woman (the
church) and no longer enforced the dogmas of the church, thus rendering the counterfeit church
incapable of persecution. The fulfillment of that prophetic event will be illustrated fully in my
A.D. 1798 1843 Source Book.
“But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are
working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal
dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world,
the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market
places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human
authority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves will undertake
to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom. The establishment of such
a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have
received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce
what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His
will and the agents of His authority. But He said, “My kingdom is not of this
world.” He would not accept the earthly throne. . . .
Not by the decisions of courts or councils or legislative assemblies, not by the
patronage of worldly great men, is the kingdom of Christ established, but by the
implanting of Christ's nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. . .
.” 524
524
Ellen White, Amazing Grace, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2001), 13.
197
APPENDIX I
In this overview our focus will be on the rise and domination of the Catholic Franks in Gaul
up to the conquest of the Ostrogoths. There is much significant legislation by Clovis in the
Council of Orleans I in 511 and, in fact, in many of the Merovingian’s Church councils, but due
to space constraints we will be unable to include them. The reader is directed to my website
www.thesourcehh.org for all the pertinent legislation found in those church councils which will
greatly enhance this overview. Here is the list of Merovingian church councils that will be found
on my website that may be downloaded with commentary for free:
Council of Agde (Sept. 10, 506)

Council of Orleans (July 10, 511)
Council of Epaone (September 6, 517)
Council of Lyon (518-519)
Council of Arles (June 6 524)
Council of Carpentras (November 6 527)
Council of Vaison (November 5, 529)
Council of Orange (July 3 529)
Council of Marseille (May 26 533)
Council of Orleans II (June 23 533)
Council of Orleans III (May 7, 538)
At the end of the 5th century and into the 6th century there were three established barbarian
peoples:
“At the end of the 5th century three barbarian peoples succeeded in founding in
Gaul durable establishments: the Visigoths, the Burgunds, and the Franks.” 525
Pontal continues:
“In 511 Merovingian Gaul was therefore composed of:

-the Frankish kingdom that extends from the Rhine to the south of Languedoc and
to Provence;
-Gothic countries: Septimanie which remained in Visigoth hands until 711 and
shared the destiny of Spain and Provence that belonged to the Ostrogoths;
-the Burgund kingdom : Bourgogne and Franche-Comté.” 526
525
Cf. MUSSET, Les invasions, 80-92 and 111-132.
For the readers information there is a German translation as well and we have supplied that information but we
have quoted and translated from the French version:
Pontal, Odette. Die Synoden im Merowingerrich. Paderborn, Ger.: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1986.
526
Cf. EWIG, Die fränkische Reichsbildung, 259.
198
With the Visigoths uprooted in Gaul in 508 by Catholic Clovis, King of the Franks, as we
witnessed in my A.D. 508 Source Book, we need to understand the direction and fate of the
Burgundians:
“Upon the death of [Arian King] Gondebaud, his son and successor Sigismond,
grateful and devoted student of Avit, converted to Catholicism and assured the
triumph of the orthodoxy. Following Clovis’s example, he wanted to hold a
national council of his kingdom. It is in this context that the council of Epaone in
517 was called.” 527
“Sigismond returned living and victorious. Providence kept him to play the
great role that Avitus [the Burgundian bishop Avitus of Vienna] had foretold for
him: that of being, after Clovis, the second Western Catholic prince.
Gondebaud’s death in 516 marked the triumph of Catholicism. The following
year, Sigismond authorized the council meeting for the Burgundy kingdom at
Epaone. However, one must pay homage to Avitus, who did not abuse his victory,
more perhaps from prudence that by a true spirit of tolerance. We have the proof
in a long letter that he addressed around 517 to the bishop of Grenoble, Victorius,
who had consulted on the opportunity to give the Catholic cult the Arians’
basilicas.” 528
[2] “In 516 Gundobad died and was succeeded by his son, Sigismund, who may
have shared the rule with his brother Godomar. In 523 the Franks, now under the
leadership of Clovis’ sons Chlodomir, Childebert, and Clothaire (Chlotar)-
renewed their attacks against the Burgundian kingdom. Sigismund was killed, and
a part of the Burgundian kingdom was lost while Sigismund's brother, Godomar,
became king of the Burgundians. Godomar made repeated efforts to renew the
strength of his kingdom, but the Franks were determined to have Burgundy. In
532 the Burgundians were defeated and Godomar driven into flight, and in 534
the Burgundian kingdom was divided among the Frankish rulers. This was the
end of the second and the last independent Burgundian kingdom, although her
local counts remained strong and from time to time became powerful enough to
be able to rule [3] almost independent of their Frankish and later Hapsburg rulers. .
. . [5] The Burgundians were evidently willing to live up to the trust which the
Gallo-Romans had put in them when they practically invited them to become their
rulers, and we find that the Burgundians did not forcibly subject the Roman
population of their kingdom to the Burgundian customary law, but rather they
attempted to establish codes of law which would be fair to both Burgundians and
Romans. Leges barbarorum were drawn up to govern relations between
Burgundians, or between a Burgundian and a Roman; leges romanae were to
govern relations between the Romans.
527
528
Ep. VI, p. 35.
Reydellet, Marc. Royalty in Latin Literature from Sidonius Appolinarus to Isadore of Seville. Paris: Diffusion de
Boccard, 1981, 128.
199
In the case of the Burgundians, the compilation of these laws for both the
Burgundians and the Romans was undertaken by Gundobad, king of the
Burgundians from 474-516. The lawbook for the Burgundians is known variously
as Lex Burgundionum, Liber Legum Gundobadi, Lex Gundobada, la Loi
Gombette, and Gombata; that for the Romans simply as the Lex Romana
Burgundionum or, because of an early mistake in manuscripts, as the Papian.” . . .
. [6] after the Frankish conquest of the Burgundians in 532 the Breviary of Alaric,
which had been compiled by Alaric for the Roman subjects of his Visigothic
kingdom, was used to enlarge or supplement the Lex Romana Burgundionum, and
finally even replaced it.” 529
[41] “In Burgundy, the people converted to Catholicism adopted the life of the
Franks but kept their own law 530 . . . . Provence, which belonged to the Ostrogoth
state from 508 to 536 was like Burgundy the model of a dualist state 531 : Goths
and Romans were subject to parallel and [42] separate laws, administrations, and
personnel 532 . . . . [43] Burgundy followed this example, and the king Sigismond,
Catholic son of the Arian Gondebaud, gathered under the same conditions a
council at Epaone in 517. . . . After the death of Clovis the geographic context
was modified by the fact that the Frankish kingdom, treated as a private
possession, was divided between his four sons, and that the Burgun kingdom was
annexed (534) as well as Provence (536).” 533
“Final establishment of the French monarchy in Gaul. A.D. 536.” 534
With the Burgundians defeated in 532 and annexed in 534 by the Franks for political gain, the
Burgundian law code was replaced with the Lex Romana Visigothorum law code to fully cement
a uniform jurisdiction of Catholic and Frankish law. Justinian and the Franks then formed an
alliance against the Ostrogoths that we viewed earlier. In 536 came the final establishment of the
French monarchy in Gaul and the possession of Provence, and this left the Franks in complete
control to freely enforce the Lex Romana Visigothorum law code throughout all of Gaul.
529
Harold Dexter Hazeltine, Roman and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, Cambridge Medieval History, 5:722.
Fischer, Katherine, trans. The Burgundian Code: Liber Constitutionum Sive Lex Gundobada, Constitutiones
Extravagantes. 3rd series, Vol. 5, of Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of History, edited by John
L. Lamonte and published by the Univ. of Penn. history dept. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1949, 2-3,
5, 6.
530
Burgund customs and Gallo-roman laws had been codified there. Cf. G. CHEVRIER, G PIERI, La loi romaine
des Burgondes (= Jus romanum Medii aevi I 2 b, aa, 4), Mailand, 1969 and H. NEHLSEN, Lex Burgundiorum, in
H.R.G., 2, 1978, 1901-1915.
531
Cf. FOLZ, De l’Antiquité…, 110-115.
532
The Germanic subjects were governed by an especially military administration at the head of which were, in the
main garrisons, the “comites gothorum”, both civil and military heads at the same time. The Roman subjects were
administered in a more complex way but we know by the administrative correspondence of Cassiodore, quaestor of
the palace from 507 to 534, the activity of the main services of the palace: master of offices (head of offices),
quaestor (correspondence and law), count (finances, state ateliers, distribution of funds).
533
Pontal, Odette. Histoire des Conciles Mérovingiens.N.p.: Éditions du Cerf, 1989, 41-43.
534
Methuen, 1909), 4:128, margin, AMS edition.
200
APPENDIX II
Dating the Novels of Justinian’s Law Code

Compiled by
Heidi Heiks
The numbers by which we cite the Novels or Novellas, also called Constitutions, are those of
the Greek Collection of 168 Novels. This numbering of the 168 Novels also defines and corrects
the dating of the 168 Novels translated from the Latin by S.P. Scott, otherwise an excellent
primary source:
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law, Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001, 17 Volumes.
The definitive dating used here was taken from the work of a French Doctor of Law:
Noailles, Pierre. Les Collections de Novelles de L’Empereur Justinien: Origine et Formation
sous Justinien. Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1912.
Pierre Noailles states that the date that is assigned to each Novella is that of the Schoell-Kroll
edition:
Schoell, Rudolfus-Kroll, Guilelmus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae, Vol. 3, Berlin, Germany:
Apud Wiedmannos, 1895, 1959.
Dating the Novels of Justinian’s Law Code.

AD 535-565
1. January 1, 535. 21. March 18, 536. 41. May 18, 536.
2. March 16, 535. 22. March 18, 536. 42. August 8, 536,
3. March 16, 535. 23. January 3, 536. 43. May 17, 537.
4. March 16, 535. 24. May 18, 535. 44. August 17, 537.
5. March 17, 535. 25. May 18, 535. 45. August 18, 537.
6. April 15, 535. 26. May 18, 535. 46. August 18, 537
7. April 15, 535. 27. July 18, 535. 47. August 31, 537.
10. April 13, 535. 30. March 18, 536. 50. August 18, 537.
11. April 14, 535. 31. March 18, 536. 51. Sept. 1, 537.
12. May 16, 535. 32. June 15, 535. 52. August 10, 537.
13. October 10, 535 33. June 15, 535. 53. Oct. 1, 537.
14. Dec. 1, 535 34. June 15, 535. 54. Sept.18, 537.
15. August 8, 535. 35. May 23, 535. 55. Oct. 18, 537.
16. August 8, 535. 36. January 1, 535. 56. Nov. 3, 537.
17. April 16, 535. 37. August 1, 535. 57. Oct. 18, 537.
18. March 1, 536. 38. Feb. 15, 536. 58. Nov. 2, 537.
19. March 17, 536. 39. April 17, 536. 59. Nov. 2, 537.
20. March 18, 536. 40. May 18, 536. 60. Dec. 1, 537.
201
61. Dec. 1, 537. 98. Dec. 16, 539. 139. ? 535 or 536
62. Dec. ? 537. 99. Dec. 13, 539. 140. ? 566, (Justin)
63. March 9, 538 100. Dec. 17, 539. 141. March, 559
64. Jan. 19, 538. 101. August 1, 539. 142. Nov. 558
65. March 23, 538. 106. Sept. 7, 540. 143. May, 563
66. May 1, 538. 107. Feb. 1 541. 144. May, 572,
67. May 1, 538. 108. Feb. 1 541. (Justin)
68. May 25, 538. 109. May 7 541. 145. Feb. 553
69. June 1, 538. 110. April 26, 541. 146. Feb. 553
70. June 1 or 4 538. 111. June 1, 541. 147. Feb. 553
71. June 1 or 4 538. 112. Sept. 10, 541. 148. ? 566 (Justin)
72. June 1, 538. 113. Nov. 22, 541. 149. Jan. 569,
73. June 4, 538. 114. Nov. 1, 541. (Justin)
74. June 4, 538. 115. Feb. 1, 542. 150. May, 563
75. Dec. ? 537. 116. April 9, 542. 151. ? 534
76. Oct. 5, 538. 117. Dec. 18, 542. 152. June, 534
77. ? 538 118. July 16, 5 153. Dec. 541
78. Jan. 28, 539. 119. Jan. 20, 544. 154. ?
79. March 10, 539. 120. May 9, 544. 155. Feb. 533
80. March 10, 539. 121. April 535 156. ? 539?
81. March 18, 539. 122. March 544, 157. May, 542
82. April 8, 539. 123. May 546 158. July, 544
83. May 18, 539. 124. July 544-45 159. April, 555
84. May 18, 539. 125. Oct.-Jan. 543, 160. Before 535
85. April 7, 539. 126. ? 546 161. Dec. 574,
86. April 17, 539. 127. Sept. 548 (Tiberius)
87. April 18, 539. 128. June, 545 162. June, 539
88. Sept. 1, 539. 129. June, 531, 163. April, 574,
89. Sept. 1, 539. 130. March, 545, (Tiberius)
90. Oct. 1, 539. 131. March, 545 164. Dec. 574
91. Oct. 1, 539. 132. April, 544 (Tiberius)
92. Oct. 10, 539. 133. April, 539 165. ?
93. Oct. 10, 539. 134. May, 556 166. 521-523
94. Oct. 18, 539. 135. ? 557? 167. ?
95. Nov. 1, 539. 136. April, 535 168. 512
96. Nov. 1, 539. 137. April, 565
97. Nov. 17, 539. 138. ?
202
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, John S. C. The Monarchies of Continental Europe: Italy. New York: Mason Bros., 1860.
Acton, Lord. Essays on Church and State. Edited by Douglas Woodruff. London: Hollis and
Carter, 1952.
Acton, John E. E. Dalberg. Essays on Freedom and Power. Selected by Gertrude Himmelfarb.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1956.
Adams, George Burton. Civilization during the Middles Ages. New York: Charles Scribner,
1894.
Agathius. The Histories. Translated by Joseph Frendo. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975.
Algermissen, Konrad. Christian Sects. Translated by J. R. Foster.Vol. 139 of the Twentieth

Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism; sec. 14, Outside the Church. New York: Hawthorn, 1962.
Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Dignity and Duties of the Priest, or Selva, cent. ed. Vols. 3, 12 of The
Complete Works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Eng. trans., edited by Eugene Grimm. New
York: Benziger, 1886 (3); 1888 (12).
Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Dignity and Duties of the Priest, or Selva, Vol. 12 of The Complete
Works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori. English trans., edited by Eugene Grimm. Brooklyn:
Redemptorist Fathers, 1927.
Alphonsus de Liguori, St. The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection, cent. ed., 3rd ed. Vol.
3 of The Complete Works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Eng. trans., edited by Eugene Grimm.
New York: Benziger, 1886.
Amiot, François. History of the Mass. Translated by Lancelot C. Sheppard. Vol. 110 of the
Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism; sec. 10, The Worship of the Church. New York:
Hawthorn, 1959.
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2003.
Anastos, Milton. Justinian’s Despotic Control over the Church as Illustrated by His Edicts on
the Theopaschite Formula and His Letter to Pope John II in 533. Recueil des travaux de
l’Institut d’Études byzantines, no. 8, mélanges G. Ostrogorsky II. БЕОГРАД, 1964.
Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. The Facts on Roman Catholicism. Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 1993.
203
Artaud de Montor, Chevalier. The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. 1. Translated from
the French. Edited by Dr. Neligan. New York: D. and J. Sadlier, 1865.
Artaud de Montor, Chevalier. The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. 1. Retranslated,
revised from Les Vies des Papes. New York: Catholic Publication Society of Am., 1911.
Artaud de Montor, Chevalier. The Lives and Times of the Roman Popes. Retrans., rev., written
from Les Vies des Papes. 10 vols. New York: Catholic Publication Society of Am., 1911.
Askowith, Dora. “The Toleration of the Jews under Julius Caesar and Augustus.” Part 1 of The
Toleration and Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire. PhD diss., Columbia Univ., 1915.
New York: 1915.
Augustine, Rev. Charles. A Commentary of the New Code of Canon Law, 3rd ed. 8 vols. St.
Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1919.
Augustine, Rev. P. Charles. A Commentary of the New Code of Canon Law, 2nd ed., vol. 1. St.
Louis: B. Herder, 1918.
Bagnall, Roger S., A. Cameron, S. R. Schwartz, and K. A. Worp. Consuls of the Later Roman
Empire. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press (for Am. Philological Asso), 1987.
Bagnani, Gilbert. Rome and the Papacy: An Essay on the Relations between Church and State.
London: Methuen, 1929.
Barmby, Rev. James, trans. Selected Epistles of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome (Books IX.–
XIV.), pt. 2. Vol. 13 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, 2nd ser., edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1976.
Barnish, S. J. B., trans. Cassiodorus: Selected Variae. Vol. 12 of Translated Texts for Historians.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2006.
Barnum, Rev. Samuel W. Romanisn As It Is: An Exposition of the Roman Catholic System for
the Use of the American People. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Pub., 1871.
Baronio, Cæsare. Annales Ecclesiastici [Ecclesiastical annals], bk. 8. Lucca, It.; 1741.
Batiffol, Pierre. Cathedra Petri: Études d’Histoire ancienne de l’Église. Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf, 1938.
Battely, John. The Original Institution of the Sabbath. London, 1726.
Baudrillart, Alfred. The Catholic Church: The Renaissance and Protestanism. Authorized
translation by Mrs. Philip Gibbs. New York: Benziger, 1908.
204
Baus, Karl, H-G. Beck, E. Ewig, and H. J. Vogt. The Imperial Church from Constantine to the
Early Middle Ages. Translated by Anselm Biggs. Vol. 2 of History of the Church, ed. Hubert
Jedin and John Dolan. New York: Seabury Press, 1980.
Baynes, Norman H. The Byzantine Empire. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1952.
Becher, Matthias. Charlemagne. Translated by David Bachrach. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press, 2003.
Bede, the Ven. The Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. Translated by John Stevens.
Revised by Lionel C. Jane. London: J. M. Dent, 1944.
Bede. A History of the English Church and People, rev. ed. Translated by Leo Sherley-Price.
Revised by R. E. Latham. New York: Dorset Press, 1968.
Beecher, Rev. Edward. Papal Conspiracy Exposed, and Protestantism Defended. Boston:
Stearns, 1855.
Beiermann, Rev. Peter. The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine. Rockford, IL: Tan
Books, 1977.
Bemont, Charles, and G. Monod. Medieval Europe from 395 to 1270. New York: Henry Holt,
1902.
Bentley, Richard. Epistola ad Joannem Millium. Reprinted from the edition of Rev. Alexander
Dyce. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962.
Berenger, M., fils, trans. Les Novelles de L’Empereur Justinien, bk. 1. Vol. 13 of Corps de Droit
Civil Romain. Aalen, Ger.: Scientia Verlag, 1979.
Berenger, M. fils, trans. Les Novelles de L’Empereur Justinien, bk. 2. Vol. 14 of Corps de Droit
Civil Romain. Aalen, Ger.: Scientia Verlag, 1979.
Berger, Adolf. Encyclopedia Dictionary of Roman Law, new ser. Vol. 43, pt. 2, of Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia: Am. Philosophical Soc., 1953.
Berkhof, Hendrik. Kirche and Kaiser: Eine Untersuchung der Entstehung der byzantinischen
und der theokratischen Staatsauffassung im vierten Jahrhundert. Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag
ag. Zollikon, 1947.
Bihlmeyer, Karl. Church History. Revised by Hermann Tüchle, translated from the 13th Ger. ed.
by Victor Mills. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1958.
Binius, Severinus, ed. Concilia Generalia, et Provincialia, Quaecunque Reperiri Potuerunt, Item
Epistolae Decretales, et Romanor[um] Pontific[orum] Vitae . . . , bk. 2. Cologne, Ger.: Apud
Ioannem Gymnicum, and Antonium Heirat, 1606.
205
Birks, Peter, and Grant McLeod, trans. Justinian’s Institutes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press,
1987.
Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1977.
Bower, Archibald. A History of the Popes from the Foundations of the See of Rome to the
Present Time (1748–1766). 7 vols. Fasc. Kessinger Publishing: www.kessinger.net.
Bownde, Nicolas. The Doctrine of the Sabbath. . . . London, 1595.
Boyd, William K. The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. Vol. 14, no. 2, of Studies in
History, Economics and Public Law, edited by the faculty of political science of Columbia Univ.
Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2005.
Bredin, James. Was Peter the First Pope?
A Brief Account of the Roman Forgeries in the Volumes of the Councils, pt. 1.
A brief Answer to a late Treatise of the Sabbath Day. 1635.
Bromley, Thomas. Sabbath of Rest: or the Soul’s Progress in the Work of the New Birth. Leeds,
Eng.; 1744.
Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200–1000, 2nd ed.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.
Brown, Sydney MacGillvary. Medieval Europe, rev. ed. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935.
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora, rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Heinrich Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Bd. I, 2nd edition, 1906;
Burke, Redmond. “The Control of Reading by the Catholic Church.” PhD diss., University of
Chicago, 1948.
Burke, Redmond. What is the Index? Milwaukee, WI: Bruce, 1952.
Burnet, James. Aids to Justinian. London: Stevens and Sons, 1936.
Burns, Thomas. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 1984.
Bury, J. B., planner. The Cambridge Medieval History, 2nd ed., 8 vols. Edited by H. M. Gwatkin
and J. P. Whitney. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1964–1967.
206
Bury, J. B., planner. The Christian Roman Empire and the Foundation of the Teutonic
Kingdoms, 2nd ed. Vol. 1 of Cambridge Medieval History, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P.
Whitney. New York: MacMillan, 1936.
Bury, J. B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theososius I. to the Death of
Justinian, vol. 1. New York: Dover, 1958.
Bury, J. B. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theososius I. to the Death of
Justinian, vol. 2. London: MacMillan, 1931.
Bury, J. B. History of the Papacy in the 19th Century (1864–1878). Edited by R. H. Murray.
London: MacMillan, 1930.
Bury, J. B., planner. The Rise of the Saracens and the Foundation of the Western Empire. Vol. 2
of Cambridge Medieval History, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney. New York:
MacMillan, 1913.
Bury, J. B., planner. The Rise of the Saracens and the Foundation of the Western Empire, 1st ed.,
reprinted with corrections. Vol. 2 of Cambridge Medieval History, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and
J. P. Whitney. New York: MacMillan, 1926.
Byfield, Richard. The Doctrine of the Sabbath Vindicated. London, 1631.
Byles, Mather. The Christian Sabbath explained and vindicated. New London, 1759.
Cadoux, Cecil J. Catholicism and Christianity: A Vindication of Progressive Protestantism.

London: George Allen and Unwin, 1928.
Cadoux, Cecil J. The Early Church and the World: A History of the Christian Attitude to Pagan
Society and the State Down to the Time of Constantinus. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1955.
Cadoux, Cecil J. Roman Catholicism and Freedom. London: Independent Press, 1936.
Cairns, John W., and Olivia F. Robinson, eds. Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law
and Legal History. Portland, OR: Hart, 2004.
The Cambridge Ancient History, vols. 1–6, 7–9. New York: MacMillan, 1923 (1); 1924 (2);
1925 (3); 1926 (4); 1927 (5); 1928 (7); 1930 (8); 1932 (9).
The Cambridge Ancient History, 5th impress., vol. 6. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1969.
The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd impress., vol. 10. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1952.
The Cambridge Ancient History, vols. 11–14. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999 (11);
1939 (12); 1998 (13); 2000 (14).
207
The Cambridge Modern History, vols. 6, 8, 12. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1909 (6); 1907 (8);
1910 (12).
The Cambridge Modern History, vols. 8–11. New York: MacMillan, 1911 (8); 1909 (9); 1907
(10); 1909 (11).
Cameron, Averil. The Church in the Byzantine Dark Ages. Pamphlet. London: Dr. William’s
Trust, 1993.
Cameron, Averil. Procopius and the Sixth Century. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1985.
Cameron, Averil, B. Ward-Perkins and Michael Whitby, eds. Late Antiquity: Empire and
Successors, A.D. 425–600. Vol. 14 of The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.
Campenhausen, Hans von. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the
First Three Centuries. Translated from Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht, 1953, by J. A.
Baker. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1969.
Carlyle, A. J. The Second Century to the Ninth, 3rd ed. Vol. 1 of A History of Mediæval Political
Theory in the West, by R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle. Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood, 1930.
Carroll, Warren. A History of Christendom, vol. 2. Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press,
1987.
Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums: Von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft,
Bd. II, 1933; See 2 in yellow below. This entry we’re in is Voigt’s entry. Entries differ.
Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, Bd. II, 1933;
Erich Caspar, Die Lateransynode von 649 (Zeitschr. F. Kirchengesch. Bd. 51 [III. Folge Bd. 2] p.
75 ff.), 1932;
Erich, Caspar. Papst Gregor II und der Bilderstreit (ibid. Bd. 52 [III. Folge Bd. 3] p. 29 ff.),
1933;
Caspar, Erich von. Das Papsttum Unter Byzantinischer Herrschaft. Zweiter bd.: Geschichte des
Papsttums: Von Den Anfängen bis Zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Tübingen: Verlag Von J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1933.
Caspar, Erich von. Romische Kirche und Imperium Romanum. Erster bd.: Geschichte des
Papsttums: Von Den Anfängen bis Zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Tübingen: Verlag Von J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1930.
Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, Hodgkin, Thomas, The Letters of Cassiodorus. London: Henry
Frowde, 1886.
208
Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius. The Letters of Cassiodorus. Teddington, Eng.: Echo Lib., 2006.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Liguori, MO: Liguori Pub., 1994.
Cathcart, William. The Papal System: Its Origin to the Present Time. Philadelphia: Am. Baptist
Pub. Soc., 1872.
Catholic Encyclopedia. 15 vols. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
Chadwick, Henry. The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great. In Oxford
History of the Christian Church, edited by Henry and Owen Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press, 2003.
Chadwick, Henry. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times
until the Council of Florence. In Oxford History of the Christian Church, edited by Henry and
Owen Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.
Chandler, Samuel. The History of Persecution. London: J. Gray, 1736.
Chandler, Samuel, and Charles Atmore. The History of Persecution from the Patriarchal Age to
the Reign of George II, new ed. 1813.
Chapman, Dom John. Studies on the Early Papacy. London: Sheed and Ward, 1928.
Chapman, Dom John. Studies on the Early Papacy. New York: Benziger Bros., n.d.
Charanis, Peter. Church and State in the Later Roman Empire: The Religious Policy of
Anastasius the First, 491–518, 2nd ed. 1974.
Chinigo, Michael, ed. The Teachings of Pope Pius XII. N.p.: Methuen, 1958.
Chiniquy, Father. Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, 43rd ed. New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1886.
Chombaich de Colquhoun, Patrick Mac. A Summary of the Roman Civil Law, Illustrated by
Commentaries on and Parallels from the Mosaic, Canon, Mohammedan, English, and Foreign
Law, vol. 1. Reprint of 1849 ed. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman, 1988.
The Christian’s Sabbath: or, a Companion for the Service and Worship of God on the Lord’s
Day. London, 1733.
Church, Richard W. Miscellaneous Essays. London: MacMillan, 1891.
Church, Richard W. The Beginning of the Middle Ages, rev. ed. New York: Charles Scribner,
1890.
209
Claudia, Sis. M. Guide to the Documents of Pius XII (1939–1949). Westminster, MD: Newman
Press, 1951.
Clercq, Caroli de. Concilia Galliae, A. 511–A. 695. Vol. 148A of Corpus Christianorum, ser.
Latina. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1943.
Clinton, Henry Fynes. Fasti Romani: The Civil and Literary Chronology of Rome and
Constantinople from the Death of Augustus to the Death of Justin II, 2 vols. Reprint of the 1850
Oxford ed. New York: Burt Franklin, 1960.
Cloud, David W. Evangelicals and Rome: The Ecumenical End Times “Church.” Port Huron,
MI: Way of Life Lit., 1999.
Colman, Benjamin. The Doctrine and Law of the Holy Sabbath: in Two Sermons. Boston, 1725.
The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin. Vol. 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1st ser. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1979.
Constable, Giles, and Robert Somerville. “The Papal Bulls for the Chapter of St. Antonin in
Rouergue in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries.” Speculum 67, no. 4 (October 1992): 828–864.
Cooke, Ronald. The Death of the Pope of Rome. Booklet. 2007.
Cotton, Paul. From Sabbath to Sunday: A Study in Early Christianity. Bethlehem, PA: Times
Pub., 1933.
Coulombe, Charles A. Vicars of Christ: A History of the Popes. New York: Kensington, 2003.
Crakanthorp, Richard. A Treatise of the Fift Generall Councel [sic.]. London, 1637.
Croke, Brian. Christian Chronicles and Byzantine History, 5th and 6th Centuries. Aldershot,
G.B.: Ashgate, 1992.
Croly, Rev. George. Popery and the Popish Question. London, 1825.
Crowley, Jeremiah J. Romanism: A Menace to the Nation, 2nd ed. Published in 1 vol. with
author’s The Parochial School: A Curse to the Church, a Menace to the Nation. Cincinnati, OH:
Jeremiah Crowley, 1912.
Felix Dahn, Die Könige der Germanen, Abt. II-IV, 1861-1866;
Dale, A. W. W. The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth Century. London:
MacMillan, 1882.
210
Danielou, Jean, and Henri Marrou. The First Six Hundred Years. Vol. 1of The Christian
Centuries. Translated by Vincent Cronin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Dannenbauer, Heinrich. Grundlagen der Mittelalterlichen Welt: Skizzen und Studien. Stuttgart:
W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1958.
Darras, L’Abbé J. E. A General History of the Catholic Church, vol. 2, 1st Am. ed. from last Fr.
ed. New York: O’Shea, 1866 (also 1867).
D’Aubigne, J. H. Merle. History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin. 4 vols. Rapidan, VA:
Hartland Pub., 1999.
D’Aubigne, J. H. Merle. The Protector: A Vindication. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Pub., 1997.
Davis, Raymond, trans. The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), rev. 2nd ed. Vol. 6 of
Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool: Liverpool Univ. Press, 2000.
De Bujanda, Jesús M. Index Librorum Prohibitorum 1600–1966. With assistance from Marcella
Richter. Vol. 11 of Index des Livres Interdits, directeur J. M. De Bujanda. Montreal: Médiaspaul,
2002.
De Rosa, Peter. Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy. New York: Crown, 1988.
Dictionary of Popes and the Papacy. Edited by Bruno Steimer and Michael Parker. Translated
by Brian McNeil and Peter Heinigg. New York: Crossroad, 2001.
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, bk. 15, pt. 2. Begun by A. Vacant and E. Mangenot;
continued by É. Amann. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1950.
Diehl, Charles. Byzantium: Greatness and Decline. Translated from the French by Naomi
Walford. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1957.
Diehl, Charles. Études sur L’Administration Byzantine dans L’exarchat de Ravenne (568–751).
New York: Burt Franklin, 1972.
Diehl, Charles. History of the Byzantine Empire. Translated from the Fr. by George Ives. New
York: G. E. Stechert, 1945.
Diehl, Charles. Justinien et la Civilization Byzantine au Vie Siècle. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901.
Diehl, Charles. L’Afrique Byzantine: Histoire de la Domination Byzantine en Afrique (538–709),

vol. 1. Reprint of 1896 ed. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.
Diehl, Charles. Theodora: Empress of Byzantium. Translated by Samuel Rosenbaum. New York:
Frederick Ungar, 1972.
211
A Discourse Concerning the Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil. . . . London, 1682.
Franz Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reichs. 1. Teil: Regesten von
565-1025 (Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Reihe A,
Abt. I 1), 1924;
Donalson, Malcolm D. A Translation of Jerome’s Chronicon with Historical Commentary.

Lewiston, NY: Mellon Univ. Press, 1996.
Dow, Christopher. A Discourse of the Sabbath and the Lords Day. . . . London, 1636.
Dowling, John. The Burning of the Bibles. Defence of the Protestant Version of the Scriptures
against the Attacks of the Popish Apologists. Philadelphia: Nathan Moore, 1843.
Dowling, Rev. John. The History of Romanism. New York: Edward Walker, 1845.
Dowling, John. The History of Romanism, new ed. New York: Edward Walker, 1870.
Draper, John William. History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, 5th ed. New York:
Harper, 1869.
Duchesne, L’Abbé. The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, A.D. 754–1073.
Translated from the Fr. by Arnold H. Mathew. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1908.
Duchesne, L’Abbé. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution: A Study of the Latin Liturgy up
to the Time of Charlemagne. Translated from the 3rd Fr. ed. by M. L. McClure. London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1903.
Duchesne, L’Abbe. The Churches Separated from Rome. Translated by Arnold Mathew.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner; 1907.
Duchesne, L’Abbé. L’Église au VIème siècle [The church in the 6th century]. Paris: Fontemoing
(E. de Boccard), 1925.
Duchesne, L’Abbe. Le Liber Pontificalis, bk. 1. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1955.
Duncan-Jones, A. S. The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Germany. London: Victor Gollancz,
1938.
Durant, Will. The Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization—Christian, Islamic, and
Judaic—from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325–1300. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950.
Duruy, Victor. The History of the Middle Ages. Translated from the 12th ed. by E. H. and M. D.
Whitney. New York: Henry Holt, 1891.
Dvornik, Francis. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 1966.
212
Dvornik, Francis. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, 2 vols. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Ctr. for Byz. Studies, 1966.
Dvornik, Francis. The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958.
Dvornik, Francis. National Churches and the Church Universal. Westminster: Dacre Press, n.d.
Eberhardt, Newman C. A Summary of Catholic History, vol. 1. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1961.
Edward, Henry. The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, 3rd ed. London: Burns and
Oates, 1880.
Edwardson, Christian. Facts of Faith: Analyzing the Fundamental Doctrines of the Holy
Scriptures, rev., facs. Nashville, TN: Southern Pub., 2001.
Ehler, Sidney Z., and John B. Morrall, eds., trans. Church and State Through the Centuries: A
Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1954.
Elliot, Rev. Charles. Delineation of Roman Catholicism, 2 vols. New York: George Lane, 1841.
Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada: Europeo–Americana, bk. 5. Barcelona: Hijos de J. Espasa,

n.d.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. Vols. 1–30. New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 12th ed. Vols. 31–32. New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1922.
Eno, Robert B. The Rise of the Papacy. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1990.
Evans, J. A. S. The Age of Justinian: The Circumstances of Imperial Power. London: Routledge,
2000.
Evans, Malcolm, and Rod Morgan. Preventing Torture: A Study of the European Convention for
the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998.
P. Ewald, Akten zum Schisma des Jahres 530 (N. A. 10 p. 412 ff.), 1885;
The Fallibility & Falsehood of the Church of Rome. . . . London, 1676.
Farrar, James A. Books Condemned to be Burnt. London: Elliot Stock, 1892.
213
Feltoe, Rev. Charles L., trans. The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome. Vol.
12 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser.,
edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Lit. Co., 1895.
Ferguson, Everett. Studies in Early Christianity. In collaboration with David M. Scholer and
Paul Corby Finney.
Field, John. A Godly Exhortation. . . . London, 1583.
Finch, Rev. R. P. The Christian Sabbath Vindicated. . . . London, 1793.
Finlay, George. Greece under the Romans: A Historical View of the Condition of the Greek
Nation. Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood, 1844.
Fischer, Curtius T., recog. Diodori: Bibliotheca Historica, 1st ed., vol. 4. Edited by Ludovicus
Dinforf. Leipsic: Teubneri, 1888.
Fisher, George P. History of the Christian Church. New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1928.
Fischer, Katherine, trans. The Burgundian Code: Liber Constitutionum Sive Lex Gundobada,
Constitutiones Extravagantes. 3rd series, Vol. 5, of Translations and Reprints from the Original
Sources of History, edited by John L. Lamonte and published by the Univ. of Penn. history dept.
Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1949.
Franzen, August. A History of the Church. Revised and edited by John P. Dolan. Translated by
Peter Becker. Montreal: Palm Pub., 1968.
Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.
New York: Alfred Knopf, 2004.
Fremantle, Anne, ed. The Papal Encyclicals in Their Historical Context. New York: New
American Library, 1956.
Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Friedberg, Emil. De Finium inter Ecclesiam et Civitatem Regundorum Judicio: Quid medii aevi
doctors et leges statuerint. Aalen, Ger.: Scientia Verlag, 1965.
F.X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Bd. I and III, 1897 and
1907;
Funk, F. X. A Manual of Church History, 2nd impression of authorized trans. from 5th German
ed. by Luigi Cappadelta, vol. 1. St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1912.
Gallenga, A. The Pope and the King: The War between Church and State in Italy. 2 vols.
London: Samuel Tinsley, 1879.
214
Gardner, Iain, and Samuel N. C. Lieu. Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
Geanokaplos, Deno. Byzantium: Church Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary
Eyes. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1984.
Heingrich Gelzer, Byzantinische Kulturgeschichte, 1909;
Heingrich Gelzer, Das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz (Histor. Zeitschr. Bd. 86 [N.F.
Bd. 50] p. 193 ff.), 1901;
R. Génestal, Les origines du privilège clérical (Nouvelle Revue historique de droit français et
étranger 32e Année p. 161 sqq.) ; Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum ed. Eduardus Schwartz IV 2,
1914.
Gerostergios, Asterios. Justinian the Great the Emperor and Saint. Belmont, MA: Institute for
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1982.
Gerostergios, Asterios. “The Religious Policy of Justinian I and His Religious Beliefs.” PhD
diss., Boston University School of Theology, 1974.
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, rev. ed., 5 vols.
Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates, 1845.
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vols. 4–7. Edited by
J. B. Bury. London: Methuen, 1909 (4); 1911 (5); 1912 (6); 1914 (7).
Gieseler, John C. L. A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, 4th ed., rev. and amended, vol. 1.
Translated from the German by Samuel Davidson. In vol. 4 of Clark’s Foreign Theological
Library, Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1846.
Translated from the German by Samuel Davidson. In vol. 9 of Clark’s Foreign Theological
Library. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1846.
Translated from the German by John W. Hull. In vol. 30 of Clark’s Foreign Theological Library.
Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1853.
Gieseler, John C. L. A Textbook of Church History, vol. 4, AD 1517–1648. Translated and edited
by Henry Smith. New York: Harper, 1868.
Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96–454. Fasc. London: S. P. C. K.,
1952.
215
Gillespie, George. Aaron’s Rod Blossoming: or; The Divine Ordinance of Church Government
Vindicated. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1985.
Gillett, Andrew. Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411–533.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
Gillett, Charles R. Burned Books: Neglected Chapters in British History and Literature, 2 vols.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974.
Goldberg, David, and John D. Rayner. The Jewish People: Their History and Their Religion.
New York: Viking Penguin, 1987.
Goodenough, Erwin R. The Church in the Roman Empire. New York: Henry Holt, 1931.
Grant, Michael. From Rome to Byzantium: Fifth Century AD. London: Routledge, 1998.
Graves, Robert. Count Belisarius. New York: Literary Guild, 1938.
The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo 13, 3rd ed. Translated from approved sources. New
York: Benziger Bros., 1903.
The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, 6 vols. London: Samuel Bagster, 1946.
Gregorovius, Ferdinand. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 1. Translated from
the 4th German ed. London: George Bell, 1900.
Gregory the 8th, Pope. The Holy Bull. Renewed, ratified by Sixtus, Reprinted, London, 1588.
Grier, Rev. Richard. An Epitome of the General Councils of the Church. Dublin: William Curry,
1828.
Grillmeier, Aloys, S.J. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604),
pt. 1. Vol. 2 of Christ in Christian Tradition. Translated by Pauline Allen and John Cawte.
London: Mowbray, 1987.
Grillmeier, Aloys, S.J. From the Council of Chalcedon to Gregory the Great (590–604), pt. 4.
Vol. 2 of Christ in Christian Tradition. In collaboration with Theresia Hainthaler. Translated by
O. C. Dean. London: Mowbray, 1996.
Josef Gröll, Die Elemente des kirchlichen Freiungsrechtes mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der
österreichischen Entwicklung (Kirchenrechtl. Abhandlungen ed. By U. Stutz, Heft 75/76), 1911;
Growcock, Frederick. “Ecclesiastical Legislation in the Justinian Code.” PhD diss., University of
Texas, 1965.
216
Guerry, L’Abbé É, classés et commentés par. L’Action Catholique: Textes Pontificaux. Paris:
Desclée de Brouwer, 1936.
Guilday, Peter, A. K. Ziegler, M. R. P. McGuire, and J. Tracy Ellis, eds. The Catholic Historical
Review 27, no. 4, sec. 2 (April 1941–January 1942). Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of Am.
Press, 1942.
Guizot, M., and Madame Guizot de Witt. The History of France: From Earliest Times to 1848. 8
vols. New York: John B. Alden, 1884.
Alfred von Halban, Das römische Recht in den germanischen Volksstaaten, I. Teil
(Untersuchungen zur Deutschen Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte ed by Otto Gierke 56. Heft), 1899;
Hallam, Henry. History of Europe during the Middle Ages, rev. ed., vol. 1. New York: Colonial,
1899.
Hanway, Jonas. Thoughts on the Importance of the Sabbath. London, 1765.
Hardon, John A., S. J. The History of Eucharistic Adoration. Oak Lawn, IL: CMJ Marian
Publishers, 1997.
Adolf von Harnack, Der erste deutsche Papst (Bonifatius II, 530/32) und die beiden letzten
Dekrete des römischen Senats (Sitzungberichte der Preuß. Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Jahrgang 1924, philosoph.-histor. Klasse Nr. V p. 24 ff.), 1924;
Harrak, Amir, trans. from Syriac. The Chronicle of Zuqnīn: Parts III and IV, A. D. 488–775.
Toronto: Pontifical Inst. of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.
Ludo Moritz Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, Bd. I, 1897;
Ludo Moritz Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, Bd. II 1 and 2, 1900/1903;
Hastings, James, ed. Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12. Assisted by John Selbie and
Louis Gray. New York: Scribner’s, 1922.
Hauck, Albert von. Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands. 5 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche

Buchhandlung, 1912–1920.
Hayward, Fernand. History of the Popes. Translated by monks St. Augustine’s Abbey,
Ramsgate. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1931.
Heather, Peter. “Theodoric, king of the Goths.” In Early Medieval Europe 4, 145–173. N.p.:
Longman, 1995.
Hefele, Charles Joseph. A History of the Christian Councils, vol. 1 (close of Nicea–AD 325).
Translated and edited by William R. Clark. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1871.
217
Hefele, Charles Joseph. A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 2 (AD 326–429).
Translated and edited by Henry Nutcombe Oxanham. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1876.
Hefele, R. Rev. Charles Joseph. A History of the Councils f the Church, vol. 3 (AD 431–451).
Translated and edited by the editor of Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines. Edinburgh: T. and T.
Clark, 1883.
Hefele, R. Rev. Charles Joseph. A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 4 (AD 451–680),
and vol. 5 (AD 626–end of 2nd Nicea). Translated and edited by William R. Clark. Edinburgh: T.
and T. Clark, 1895 (4); 1896 (5).
Heiks, Heidi. 508 538 1798 1843 Source Book (Preliminary). Knoxville, IL: Hope International,
2005, 2007.
Hergenröther, Joseph. Catholic Church and Christian State: A Series of Essays on the Relation
of the Church to the Civil Power, vol. 1. Translated from the German. London: Burns and Oates,
1876.
Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy and Her Invaders. 8 vols. 1st ed. published 1880–1889. New York:
Russell and Russell, 1967.
Hodgkin, Thomas, trans. The Letters of Cassiodorus. A condensed translation. London: Henry
Frowde, 1886.
Hodgkin, Thomas, trans. The Letters of Cassiodorus: Being a Condensed Translation of the
Variae Epistolae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator. London: Henry Frowde, 1886.
Hodgkin, Thomas. Theodoris the Goth: The Barbarian Champion of Civilisation. New York: G.
P. Putnam’s Sons, 1902.
Hogan, Richard M. Dissent from the Creed: Heresies Past and Present. Huntington, IN: Our
Sunday Visitor Pub., 2001.
Holland, Joe. Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age 1740–
1958. New York: Paulist Press, 2003.
Honoré, Tony. Tribonian. London: Duckworth, 1978.
Hughes, Philip. A History of the Church, vol. 2. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935.
Hutton, William Holden. The Church of the Sixth Century: Six Chapters in Ecclesiastical
History. London: Longmans, Green, 1897.
Ihm, Claudia Carlen, comp. The Papal Encyclicals 1878–1903. N.p.: McGrath, 1981.
218
Index Titulorum Authentici in Novem Collationes Digesti. Reprint, Seminar (annual
extraordinary number of The Jurist), vol. 2, 1944. Washington, DC: School of Canon Law,
Catholic Univ. of Am., 1944.
Innes, A. Taylor. Church and State: A Historical Handbook, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
n.d.
Ironside, Gilbert. Seven Questions of the Sabbath. Oxford: 1637.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
13 vols. With the assistance of Charles C. Sherman and George W. Gilmore. New York: Funk
and Wagnalls, 1908–12.
Jaffé, Philippus, edidit. Einharti Vita Caroli Magni. Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1847.
Jaffé, Philippus, edidit. Monumenta Gregoriana. Bk. 2 in Bibliotecha Rerum Germanicarum.

Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1845.
Jaffé, Philippus, and Guilelmus Wattenbach, descripserunt. Ecclesiae Metropolitanae

Coloniensis: Codices Manuscripti. Berlin: Apud Weidmannos, 1874.
Janus. The Pope and the Council. Translated from the German. Boston: Roberts Bros., 1870.
Jasper, Detlev, and Horst Fuhrmann. Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages. Washington, DC:
Catholic Univ. of Am. Press, 2001.
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, ed. Studies in John Malalas. With assistance from Brian Croke and Roger
Scott. Sydney: Australian Asso. for Byzantine Studies, 1990.
John Paul II, Pope. Dies Domini. http://www.vatican.va/holy-

_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_0507.
Johns, Warren L. Dateline Sunday, U.S.A.: The Story of Three and a Half Centuries of Sunday-
law Battles in America. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1967.
Johnson, Allan C., Paul R. Coleman-Norton, and Frank C. Bourne, trans. Ancient Roman
Statutes. General editing by Clyde Pharr. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2004.
Johnson, Rossiter, C. Horne, and J. Rudd, eds. The Great Events, by Famous Historians, vol. 4.
A.D. 410–842. N.p.: National Alumni, 1905.
Jolowicz, H. F. Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law. Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1932, 1952.
Jones, Leslie Webber, ed. Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Edward Kennard Rand.
New York: Leslie Webber Jones, 1938.
219
Jones, Thomas. Mercy Triumphing over Judgement. London, 1600s?
Jungmann, Rev. Joseph A., S.J. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, vol.
1. Translated by Francis Brunner. New York: Benziger, 1950.
Jurgens, William A., sel., trans. The Faith of the Early Fathers: A Source-book of theological
and historical passages . . . , vols. 1, 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970 (1); 1979 (3).
Jurisprudentia vetus Ante-Justinianea. Lugduni Batavorum: Apud Johannem vander Linden,

1717.
Kaldellis, Anthony. Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of
Antiquity. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Confessionskunde, Bd. I, 1892;
Katz, Solomon. The Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul.
Cambridge, MA: Medieval Acad. of America, 1937.
Kazhdan, Alexander P., M.-A. Talbot, A. Cutler, T. Gregory, N. Ševčenko, eds. The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium. 3 vols. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991.
Kirsch, Johann Peter. Kirchengeschichte. Vol. 1 of Die Kirche in Der Antiken Griechisch-
Romischen Kulterweit. Freiburg Im Breisgau, Ger.: Herder, 1930.
Knabe, Lotte von. Die gelasianische Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturstreits.
Vaduz: Kraus Reprint, 1965.
August Knecht, Die Religions-Politik Kaiser Justinians I., Dissert. Würzberg, 1896
Knecht, August. Die Religions-Politik: Kaiser Justinians I: Eine kirchengeschichtliche Studie.

Facs. of 1896 ed. Elibron Classics, 2005. www.elibron.com.
Krueger, Paulus, recogn., retract. Codex Iustinianus. In vol. 2 of Corpus Iurus Civilis. Berlin:
Apud Wiedmannos, 1959.
Krueger, Paulus, recogn. Institutiones. In vol. 1 of Corpus Iuris Civilis. Berlin: Apud
Wiedmannos, 1959.
Krumbacher, Karl von. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, vol. 1. New York: Burt
Franklin, 1958?
Krumbacher, Karl von. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur: Von Justinian bis zum Ende
des Oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). Munich: C. H. Beck’sche, Oskar Beck, 1897.
220
Ladner, Gerhart B. “Justinian’s Theory of Law and the Renewal Ideology of the ‘Leges
Barbarorum.’” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 119, no. 3 (June, 1975): 191–
200.
Lancioni, Enrico. The History of the Popes. New York: Manor Books, 1978.
Landman, Isaac, ed. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. 10 vols. In asso. with Louis Rittenberg
et al, board of eds. New York: Universal Jewish Encyc. Co., 1948.
Landon, Rev. Edward. A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, 2 vols., new and rev.
ed. London: Griffith Farran, n.d.
Lang, Andrew. Myth, Ritual and Religion, vol. 1. London: Senate, 1995.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity, vol. 1. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.
Lavington, John. The Sanctification of the Sabbath, 2nd ed. Exon, Eng., 1744.
Lea, Henry Charles. The Dead Hand: A Brief Sketch of the Relations between Church and State
with Regard to Ecclesiastical Property and the Religious Orders. Philadelphia: Wm. Dornan,
1900.
Lea, Henry C. A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, vol. 1. Philadelphia: Lea
Bros., 1896.
Lea, Henry C. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, vols. 1, 2. New York: Harper,
1888.
Lea, Henry C. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, vol. 3. New York: Russell and
Russell, 1958.
Lea, Henry C. Studies on Church History. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea’s Son, 1883.
Lecky, William Edward Hartpole. Democracy and Liberty, new ed., vol. 2. New York:
Longmans, Green, 1900.
Lecky, William Edward Hartpole. Rationalism in Europe, rev. ed., vol. 1. New York: D.
Appleton, 1893.
Levillain, Philippe, ed. The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, vol. 3. New York: Routledge, n.d.
Lewis, A. H. A Critical History of Sunday Legislation from 321 to 1888 A.D. New York: D.
Appleton, 1888.
Liebs, Detlef. Römische Jurispredenz in Fallien (2. Bis 8. Jahrhundert). Berlin: Duncker and
Humblot, 2002.
221
Lindsay, Thomas M. The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, 2nd ed. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1903.
Karl Eduard Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts, 3rd edition,
1892; Ius graeco-romanum ed. C. E. Zachariae a Lingenthal, 1856 ff.;
Loomis, Louise Ropes, trans. Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis), vol. 1. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1916.
Lortz, Joseph. History of the Church. Translated and adapted from the 5th and 6th German ed. by
Edwin Kaiser. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce, 1947.
Lydus, Ioannes. On Powers, or the Magistracies of the Roman State. Translated by Anastasius
Bandy. Fasc. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1983.
Maas, Michael, ed. The Age of Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.
MacDonald, Jeffrey L. “The Christological Works of Justinian.” PhD diss., Catholic University
of America, 1995.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Florentine Histories, vol. 1. Translated by C. Edward Lester. New
York: Paine and Burgess, 1845.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The History of Florence, new trans. London: Henry Bohn, 1847.
Magoulias, Harry J. Byzantine Christianity: Emperor, Church and the West. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1970.
Malalae, Ioannis. Chronographia. Recensuit Ioannes Thurn. Vol. 35 of Corpus Fontium

Historiae Byzantinae, series Berolinensis, ediderunt H.-G. Beck, A. Kambylis, R. Keydell.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Malalas, Ioannes. Chronographia. In Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, new ed. Bonn:
Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1831.
Malalas, John. XponoipaΦia. Athens: Heliodromion Society, 2001.
Manhattan, Avro. The Vatican in World Politics. New York: Gaer Asso., 1949.
Mansi, Ioannis Dominici. Carmen elegiacum de vita sua. Trans. Aldo Marsili. Lucca, It.: Fazzi,
1984.
Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, bks. 2, 3.

Florence: Expensis Antonii Zatta Veneti, 1759.
222
Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, bk. 9, facs.
ed. Paris: Welter, 1902.
Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, vol. 9, facs.
reproduction. Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960.
Marcus, R. A. “Gregory the Great’s Europe.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 31, 5th
ser. (1981): 21–36.
Martin, Malachi. The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John
Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
Mather, Azariah. The Sabbath-Day’s Rest Asserted. Boston, 1725.
Mathew, Arnold Harris. The Life and Times of Hildebrand. London: Francis Griffiths, 1910.
Matthews, John F. Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven, CT:
Yale Univ. Press, 2000.
Maurus, Hrabanus. De institutione clericorum libri tres: Studien und Edition von Detlev Zimpel.
Bd. 7 of Frieburger Beiträge zur Mittelalterlichen Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1996.
McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes, 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper, 1997.
McCabe, Joseph. Crises in the History of the Papacy: A Study of Twenty Famous Popes whose
Careers and whose Influence Were Important in the Development of the Church and in the
History of the World. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1916.
McCabe, Joseph. The Decay of the Church of Rome. London: Methuen, 1909.
McCabe, Joseph. The Empresses of Constantinople. London: Methuen, 1913.
McCabe, Joseph. The History and Meaning of the Catholic Index of Forbidden Books. Girard,
KS: Haldeman-Julius,
McCabe, Joseph. A History of the Popes. London: Watts, 1939.
M‘Clintock, John. The Temporal Power of the Pope. New York: Carlton and Phillips, 1855.
M‘Clintock, Rev. John, and James Strong, comp. Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and
Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 1. New York: Harper, 1895.
McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium, and the
early medieval West. Cambridge, G.B.: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
223
McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and
the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.
McGiffert, Rev. Arthur C., trans. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and
Oration in Praise of Constantine. Vol. 1 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church, 2nd ser., edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961.
McKeon, Richard. “Canonic Books and Prohibited Books: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Religion
and Culture.” Critical Inquiry 2, no. 4 (Summer, 1976): 781–806.
McSorley, Joseph. An Outline History of the Church by Centuries, 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO:
Herder, 1944.
Mears, T. Lambert, trans. The Institutes of Gaius and Justinian. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange,
2004.
Meredith, Anthony. The Cappadocians. Crestwood, NY: St Vladmir’s Seminary Press, 2000.
Metz, René. What is Canon Law? Translated from the French by Michael Derrick. Vol. 80 of the
Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York: Hawthorn, n.d.
Meyendorff, John. “Justinian, the Empire and the Church.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22 (1968):
43–60.
Mierow, Herbert Edward. “The Roman Provincial Governor As He Appears in the Digest and
Code of Justinian.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1926. Colorado Springs: Colorado College
Pub., 1926.
Migne, Jaques-Paul. D. Eugyppii Abbatis Africani. Bk. 2 of Patrologiiae Latinae. 1st ed. pub. in
1848. Réimpression anastatique par Brepols, 1994.
Migne, Jacques-Paul. Gelasii I Papæ, Aviti, Faustini, necnon Joannis Diaconi, Juliani Pomerii.
Bk. 59 of Patrologiiae Latinae. 1st ed. pub. in 1848. Réimpression anastatique par Brepols,
1994.
Migne, Jacques-Paul. Justiniani, Imperatoris Augusti, Scripta Dogmatica. In Patrologiæ

Græcæ, Tomus LXXXVI. In Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, 86:1. J.-P. Migne, 1865.
Migne, Jacques-Paul. Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris, viri Partrich, Consularis, et

Vivariensis Abbatis. Book 70, Patrologiae Latinae. 1st ed. pub. in 1848. Réimpression
anastatique par Brepols, 1994.
Miller, J. Michael. The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the
Papacy. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Pub., 1995.
224
Milman, Henry Hart. The History of Christianity, rev. ed., vol. 2. London: John Murray, 1863.
Milman, Henry Hart. The History of Christianity: From the Birth of Christ to the Abolition of
Paganism in the Roman Empire, 2 vols. New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1881.
Milman, Henry Hart. The History of Christianity; including that of the Popes to the Pontifiate of
Nicolas V., 3rd ed. 9 vols. London: John Murray, 1872.
Mitchell, Stephen. A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284–64: The Transformation of the
Ancient World. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.
Mohler, James A. The Origin and Evolution of the Priesthood. Staten Is., NY: Alba House, 1970.
Mommsen, Theodorus, edidit. Chronica Minora: Saec. IV. V. VI. VII. Vol. 3 of Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, edidit Societas Aperiendis Fontibus. Berlin: Apud Weidmannos, 1898.
Mommsen, Theodorus, edidit. Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII., 3 vols. In Monumenta
Germaniae Historica: Auctores Antiquissimi. Munich: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 1981.
Mommsen, Theodorus, recogn. Digesta. Retractavit, Paulus Krueger. In vol. 1 of Corpus Iurus
Civilis. Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959.
Mommsen, Theodor, ed. Latin text. The Digest of Justinian, vol. 1. With assistance of Paul
Krueger. English translation edited by Alan Watson. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press,
1985.
Mommsen, Theodor. The History of Rome, new ed., vol. 1. Translated by William Dickson.
London: Richard Bentley, 1872.
Mommsen, Theodor. The History of Rome, pop. ed., vols. 2, 3. Translated by William Dickson.
London: Richard Bentley, 1888 (2); 1887 (3).
Mommsen, Theodor. The History of Rome, new rev. ed., vols. 4, 5. Translated by William
Dickson. London: MacMillan, 1901.
Mommsen, Theodor. A History of Rome under the Emperors. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Th. Mommsen, Ostgothische Studien (N. A. 14 p. 223 ff., 451 ff.), 1889;
Th. Mommsen, Über die Akten zum Schisma des Jahres 530 (N. A. 10 p. 581 ff.), 1885
Montesquieu. Considerations of the Causes of The Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline.
Translated by David Lowenthal; reprinted with corrections. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1999.
Moorhead, John. Justinian. London: Longman, 1994.
225
Morrison, Karl Frederick. The Two Kingdoms: Ecclesiology in Carolingian Political Thought.
Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1964.
Morse, George P. The Mass: Its Mysteries Revealed. N.p.: Catholics Committed to Support the
Pope, 1998.
Motley, John L. The Rise of the Dutch Republic: A History. 3 vols. Philadelphia: David McKay,
n.d.
Mourret, Rev. Fernand. A History of the Catholic Church, vols.1, 3. Translated by Rev. Newton
Thompson. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1931 (1); 1936 (3).
Mourret, Rev. Fernand. A History of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, 2nd impress. Translated by Rev.
Newton Thompson. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1944.
Mourret, Rev. Fernand. A History of the Catholic Church, vol. 1, 3rd impress. Translated by Rev.
Newton Thompson. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1946.
Muirhead, James. Historical Introduction to the Private Law of Rome. Third edition revised and
edited by Alexander Grant. London: A. and C. Black, 1916.
Munier, C., cura et studio. Concilia Galliae, A. 314–A. 506. Vol. 148 of Corpus Christianorum,
ser. Latina. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1943.
Munro, Dana Carleton. The Middle Ages 395–1272. New York: Century, 1922.
Myers, Philip V. N. Ancient History for Colleges and High Schools. Pt. 2 of A History of Rome.
Boston: Ginn, 1901.
Myers, Philip V. N. The Eastern Nations and Greece, rev. ed. Boston: Ginn, 1904.
Nessel, Rev. William. First Amendment Freedoms, Papal Pronouncements and Concordat
Practice: A comparative study in American Law and Public Ecclesiastical Law. Doct. diss.,
Catholic University of America. No. 412 of Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies.
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1961.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vols. 5, 9. San Francisco: n.p., 1967.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Detroit, MI: Gale, 2003.
New Catholic Encyclopedia. 15 vols. Washington, DC: Publisher’s Guild, 1967 (1–15).
New Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary. Compiled and edited under the direction of the editors of
The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Gilmary Society, 1941(?).
226
Newton, Thomas. Dissertations on the Prophecies, new ed., vol. 2. Philadelphia: James Martin,
1813.
Nicol, Donald M. The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261–1453. London: Rupert Hart-Davis,
1972.
Noailles, Pierre. Les Collections de Novelles de L’Empereur Justinien. Paris: Recueil Sirey,
1912; 1914.
Noailles, Pierre, and A. Dain, trans. Les Novelles de Léon VI Le Sage. Paris: Société d’Édition
“Les Belles Lettres,” 1944.
O., I. The Tryal [sic.] of the Truth . . . . Amsterdam, 1656.
O., J. The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment, Deformed by Popery. London, 1650.
O’Brien, Rev. J. A. The Church the Interpreter of the Bible. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor
Press, 1952.
O’Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1979.
Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 33. Edited by the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies.
N.p.: Rome, 1967.
Orr, James, J. Nuelsen, E. Mullins, M. Evans, eds. The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia. 5 vols. Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1915.
Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State, rev. ed. Translated from the German by
Joan Hussey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1969.
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991.
Paetow, Louis J. A Guide to the Study of Medieval History, rev. ed. New York: F. S. Crofts,
1931.
Palanque, Jean-Rémy. The Dawn of the Middle Ages. Translated by Dom Finbarr Murphy. Vol.
75 of the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, sec. 7 of The History of the Church.
New York: Hawthorn, 1960.
Parker, T. M. Christianity and the State in the Light of History. London: Adam and Charles
Black, 1955.
Parkes, James. The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism. Cleveland: World Pub., 1961.
227
Pastor, Ludwig, Freiherr von. The History of the Popes, vol. 35–40. Translated by E. F. Peeler.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949 (35); 1950 (36); 1950 (37); 1951 (38); 1952 (39);
1953 (40).
Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Translated by William D. Foulke. Edited by Edward
Peters. Originally published in 1907 as History of the Langobords. Philadelphia: Univ. of
Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
W. M. Peitz S. J., Martin I und Maximus Confessor (Histor. Jahrbuch Bd. 38 p. 213 ff.), 1917;
Pemble, William. The Period of the Persian Monarchie. London, 1631.
Percival, Henry R, ed. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church: Their Canons
and Dogmatic Decrees. Vol. 14 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, 2nd ser., edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1997.
Gustav Pfannmüller, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung Justinians hauptsächlich auf Grund der
Novellen, 1903;
Georg Pfeilschifter, Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Große und die katholische Kirche
(Kirchengeschichtliche Studien ed. By Knöpfler, Schrörs and Sdralek, III. Bd., 1st and 2nd Heft),
1896;
Pharr, Clyde, trans. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. In
collaboration with Theresa S. Davidson and Mary B. Pharr. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange,
2001.
Phillips, J. A. Papal Paganism. Nashville, TN: Cokesbury Press, 1924.
Pocklington, John. Sunday no Sabbath. London, 1636.
Pollock, Frederick. “Anglo-Saxon Law.” The English Historical Review 8, no. 30 (April 1893):
239–271.
Popish Cruelty Displayed. Boston: Fleet, 1753.
Porter, Edm. Sabbatum. The Mystery of the Sabbath Discovered. London, 1600s?
Powell, Mark E. “Papal Infallibility as Religious Epistemology: Manning, Newman, Dulles, and
Küng.” PhD diss., Southern Methodist University, December 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest
Information, 2005.
Prideaux. The Doctrine of the Sabbath. . . , 3rd ed. London, 1635.
Priestly, Joseph. History of the Corruptions of Christianity, 3rd ed., 2 vols. Boston, 1797.
228
Priolkar, Anant Kakba. The Goa Inquisition. With accounts given by Dr. Dellon and Dr.
Buchanan. Bombay: A. K. Priolkar, 1961.
Procopius. The Anecdota, or Secret History. Translated by H. B. Dewing. In Loeb Classical

Library, edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2004.
Procopius. Buildings. Translated by H. B. Dewing. In collaboration with Glanville Downey. In

Loeb Classical Library, edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press,
2002.
Procopius. History of the Wars. Translated by H. B. Dewing. Bks. 1–8. In Loeb Classical
Library, edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000–2001.
Procopius of Caesarea. History of the Wars: Books III and IV, vol. 2. Translated by H. B.
Dewing. London: Wm. Heinemann, 1916.
Procopius. Secret History. Translated by Richard Atwater. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan
Press, n.d.
Procopius. The Secret History. Translated by G. A. Williamson. London: Folio Society, 1990.
Procopius. The Secret History of the Court of Justinian. Boston: IndyPublish.com, n.d.
Pullan, Leighton. From Justinian to Luther A.D. 518–1517. Oxford: Clarendon, 1930.
Rabello, Alfredo M. The Jews in the Roman Empire: Legal Problems, from Herod to Justinian.
Aldershot, G.B.: Ashgate, 2004.
Rabello, Alfredo M. The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire. In Vol. 2 of Aufstieg
und Neidergang der Römischen Welt: Geshichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren
Forschung, edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Principat, Dreizehnter Bd.
Berlin: Walter de Druyter, 1980
Rabello, Alfredo M. The Legal Status of the Jews in Roman Empire and in Medieval Age.
Jerusalem: 1972.
Rahner, Hugo. Church and State in Early Christianity. Translated from Kirche und Staat im
Frühen Christentum: Dokumente aus acht Jahrhunderten und ihre Deutung (1961) by Leo D.
Davis. San Francisco: Ignatius Press,
Ramstein, Rev. Matthew. A Manual of Canon Law. Hoboken, NJ: Terminal, 1948.
Ranke, Leopold von. The History of the Popes, Their Church and State, rev. ed., vol. 3.
Translated by E. Foster. New York: Colonial Press, 1901.
229
Ranke, Leopold von. The History of the Popes: Their Church and State, rev. ed. Translated by E.
Fowler. Vol. 1, 2 in The World’s Greatest Literature, edited by Justin McCarthy et al. New
York: P. F. Collier, 1901.
Ranke, Leopold von. The History of the Popes, Their Church and State, and Especially of Their
Conflicts with Protestantism, vol. 1. Translated by E. Foster. London: George Bell, 1887.
Renna, Thomas. The West in the Early Middle Ages 300–1050. N.p.: Univ. Press of America,
1977.
Rey-Mermet, Théodule. Moral Choices. Translated by Paul Laverdure. Liguori, MO: Liguori,
1998.
Ringgold, James T. The Legal Sunday. New York: Internat’l Liberty Asso., 1894.
Ripley, George, and Charles Dana, eds. The American Cyclopedia. Vol. 1 of The New Werner
Twentieth Century Edition of the Encyclopædia. New York: D. Appleton, 1905.
Rives, James B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.
Robertson, Archibald, ed. Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Vol.
4 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser., edited
by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975.
Robinson, James T. An Introduction to the History of Western Europe, 2 vols. Rev., enlarged by
James T. Shotwell. Boston: Ginn, 1934.
Rogers, David Morrison, comp., ed. Theodoret: The Ecclesiastical History 1612. Reproduced
from 1st English ed., 1612. Vol. 287 of English Recusant Literature 1558–1640. London: Scolar
Press, 1976.
Romestin, Rev. H. de., trans. Some of the Principal Works of St. Ambrose. With assistance of E.
de Romestin and H. T. F. Duckworth. Vol. 10 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser., edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York:
Christian Lit. Co., 1896.
Roussell, Rev. Napoleon. Catholic and Protestant Nations Compared in Their Threefold
Relations to Wealth, Knowledge, and Morality. Boston: John P. Jewett, 1855.
Runciman, Steven. The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999.
Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels. Vol. 6
of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1st ser., edited
by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner, 1888.
230
Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. 14 of
A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1st ser., edited by
Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Lit. Co., 1890.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1919.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.
Schiepek, Hubert. Der Sonntag und kerchlich gebotene Feiertage nach kirchlichem und
weltlichem Recht: Eine rechtshistorische Untersuchung. In Adnotationes in Ius Canonicum, Bd.
27, Hrsg. von Elmar Güthoff und Karl-Heinz Seige. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2003.
Ludwig Schmidt, Allgemeine Geschichte der germanischen Völker bis zur Mitte des sechsten
Jahrhunderts, 1909;
G. A. Schneider, Der hlg. Theodor von Studion. Sein Leben und Wirken (Kirchengeschichtl.
Studien ed. By Knöpfler, Schrörs and Sdralek, V. Bd. 3. Heft), 1900.
Schoell, Rudolfus, recogn. Novellae. Vol. 3 of Corpus Iurus Civilis. Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos,
1959.
Hans von Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter, 1917/1921
Hans von Schubert, Staat und Kirche in den arianischen Königreichen und im Reiche Chlodwigs
(Histor. Bibliothek Bd. 26), 1912;
Schwartz, Daniel R. “Review Article: How at Home Were the Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora?”
Review of Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, by Erich S. Gruen; The
Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism, by L. V. Rutgers; Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora:
From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE), by John M. G. Barclay; and Judaea and
Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B. C. E., by Dov Gera. Classical Philology 95, no. 3 (July
2000): 349–357.
Eduard Schwartz, Über die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian (Zeitschr. Der
Savigny-Stiftung f. Rechtsgeschichte Bd. 42, Kanon. Abt. XI p. 208 ff.), 1921;
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law including The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The
Rules of Ulpian, The Opinions of Paulus, The Enactments of Justinian, and The Constitutions of
Leo, vols. 1, 12–14, 17. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001.
Scott, S. P. trans., ed. The Civil Law including The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The
Leo, vol. 15–
16. Cincinnati, OH: Central Trust Co., 1932.
231
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Enactments of Justinian: The Code, Books IX–XII, 2nd ed. In vols. 15–
16 of vols. 15–17 of The Civil Law including The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The
Leo. 17 vols. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001.
Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Visigothic Code (Forum Judicum). Boston: Boston Book, 1910.
Sellers, Robert V. The Council of Chalcedon. London: S.P.C.K., 1961.
Sellery, George C., and A. C. Krey. Medieval Foundations of Western Civilization. New York:
Harper, 1929.
Serfass, Adam. “Church Finances from Constantine to Justinian 312–565 C.E.” PhD diss.,
Stanford Univ., 2002.
Sheppard, John George. The Fall of Rome. London: Routledge, 1892.
Sheppard, Lancelot C. The Mass in the West. Vol. 3 in the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of
Catholicism; sect. 10, The Worship of the Church. New York: Hawthorn, 1962.
Shotwell, James T. A Study in the History of the Eucharist. Part of PhD thesis, Columbia
University. London: Eyre and Stoppiswoode, 1905.
Shotwell, James T., and Louise R. Loomis. The See of Peter. New York: Octagon Bks., 1965.
Martin Siebold, Das Asylrecht der römischen Kirche mit besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner
Entwicklung auf germanischen Boden, dissert. Münster, 1930.
Smith, William. The Students’ Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire by Edward Gibbon, abr. New York: Harper, 1889.
Smith, William, and Samuel Cheethan, eds. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 1.
Hartford, CT: J. B. Burr, 1880.
Smith, William, and Henry Wace, eds. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 4. London:
John Murray, 1887.
Snow, Charles M. Religious Liberty in America. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1914.
Spicer, William A. The Hand That Intervenes.Altamont, TN: Harvestime Bks., 2007.
Spinka, Matthew, trans. Chronicle of John Malalas, Books VIII–XVIII. In collaboration with
Glanville Downey. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1940.
232
Sprint, John. Propositions, Tending to Proove the necessary Use of the Christian Sabbath. .
London, 1635.
Stennet, Edward. The Insnared Taken in the Word of his Hands; or an Answer to Mr. John
Covvell. . . . London, 1679.
Stephenson, Andres. A History of Roman Law. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman, 1992.
Stewart, Charles P. The Roman Church and Heresy: With Special Reference to the Influence of
the Vatican. London: C. J. Thynne and Jarvis, n.d.
St. John, H. A. Our Banquet to Nourish Pure Thought Life. San Francisco: H. A. St. John, 1894.
Stobbe, Otto von. Die Juden in Deutschland: wahrend des Mittelalters in politischer, socialer
und rechtlicher Beziehung. Amsterdam: Verlag B. R. Grüner, 1968.
Stroll, Mary. The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1987.
Ulrich Stutz, Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens, Bd. I, 1895; the same, Arianismus
und Germanismus (Internat. Wochenschrift Jahrg. 1909), 1909;
The “Summa Theological” of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd and rev. ed. Literally translated by fathers
of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1913.
Summerbell, N. History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. Cincinnati: Office of the Christian
Pulpit, 1873.
Summerbell, N. A True History of the Christians and the Christian Church. Cincinnati: Office of
the Christian Pulpit, 1871.
Syzmanski, Rev. Ladislas. “The Translation Procedure of Epiphanius-Cassiodorus in the

Historia Tripartita, Books I and II. PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1963. In Studies
in Medieval and Renaissance Latin Language and Literature, vol. 24. Washington, DC: Catholic
Univ. Press, 1963.
Tanner, Norman P. The Councils of the Church. New York: Crossroad, 2001.
Tellenbach, Gerd. Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest.
Translated by R. F. Bennett. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1979.
Thompson, James W. The Middle Ages, 300–1500, 2 vols., 2nd ed. New York: Alfred Knopf,
1932.
Thompson, James W., and Edgar N. Johnson. An Introduction to Medieval Europe 300–1500.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1937.
233
Thorndike, Lynn. The History of Medieval Europe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1931?
Three Questions Answered . . . . Oxford, 1621.
Tomassi, Nino. Scritti di Storia Giuridica. Padova, It.: Cedam – Casa Editrice Dott, 1964.
Tomkins, Frederick. The Institutes of the Roman Law, pt. 1. London: Butterworths, 1867.
Tomlins, T. G., comp. A Universal History of the Nations of Antiquity; comprising A Complete
History of the Jews. Halifax, N.S.: Wm. Milner, 1844.
Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press, 1997.
Twiffe, William. The Christian Sabbath Defended. . . . London, 1652.
Ullman, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the
Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power. London: Methuen, 1955.
Ullman, Walter. Law and Politics in the Middle Ages: An Introduction to the Sources of
Medieval Political Ideas. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1975.
Ure, Percy N. Justinian and his Age. Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1951.
Vasiliev, Alexander A. Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1950.
Verduin, Leonard. The Anatomy of a Hybrid: A Study in Church-State Relationships. Sarasota,

FL: Christian Hymnary, 1998.
Vodola, Elisabeth. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press,
1986.
Voigt, Karl. Staat und Kirche: Von Konstantin dem Grossen Bis Zum Ende der Karolingerzeit.
Aalen, Ger.: Scientia Verlag, 1965.
W., M. The Naked Truth. . . . 1789.
Wadsworth, Benjamin. The Lord’s Day, Proved to be the Christian Sabbath, or Reasons. . . .
Boston, 1720.
Wainwright, Geoffrey, and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, eds. The Oxford History of Christian
Worship. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.
Walker, David M. The Oxford Companion to Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
234
Walker, George. The Doctrine of the Sabbath. Amsterdam, 163?.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. “The Work of Gregory of Tours in the Light of Modern Research.”

Lecture February 1950.
Wand, John W. C. Doctors and Councils. London: Faith Press, 1962.
Wand, John W. C. A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500. London: Methuen, 1974.
Watson, Alan. The State, Law and Religion: Pagan Rome. Athens, GA: Univ. of Georgia Press,
1992.
Wedewer, Hermann, and Josep McSorley. A Short History of the Catholic Church, 7th ed. St.
Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1926.
Westbury-Jones, J. Roman and Christian Imperialism. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press,
1971.
Whitby, Daniel. The Absurdity and Idolatry of Host Worship, Proved. . . . London, 1679.
Whitby, Daniel. The Fallibility of the Roman Church. London, 1687.
Whitby, Michael, and Mary Whitby. Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD. Vol. 7 of Translated
Texts for Historians. Liverpool: Liverpool Univ. Press, 1989.
White, Fr. An Examination and Confutation of a Lawlesse Pamphlet. . . . London, 1637.
White, Fr. A Treatise of the Sabbath-Day. London, 1635.
Whitting, Philip, ed. Byzantium: An Introduction. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1971.
Wilberforce, W. An Apology for the Christian Sabbath. London, 1799.
Wilkinson, B. G. Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness. Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1946.
Winter, Michael M. Saint Peter and the Popes. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1960.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. New and completely
revised from 2nd German ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1988.
Woodruff, Douglas. Church and State. Vol. 89 of Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of

Catholicism; sec. 9, The Church and the Modern World. New York: Hawthorn, 1961.
Wylie, James A. The History of Protestantism. 4 vols. Coldwater, MI: Remnant, 2002.
235
Wylie, Rev. J. A. The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects. Edinburgh:
Johnstone and Hunter, 1851.
Wylie, J. Kerr. Roman Constitutional History from Earliest Times to the Death of Justinian.
Cape Town: African Bookman, 1948.
Young, G. F. East and West through Fifteen Centuries, Vol. 2. London: Longmans, Green, 1916.
Zachariä von Lingenthal, Karl Eduard. Geschichte des Griechisch-Römischen Rechts. Aalen in
Württemberg: Verlag Scientia, 1955.
236

AD 538 Source Book (Heidi Heiks)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AD 538 Source Book (Heidi Heiks)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AD 538 Source Book (Heidi Heiks)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What time period does it cover?

What time period does it cover?

AD

All rights reserved.

Chapter 1. The Government of God verses the Government of Satan . . . . . 1

Chapter 2. The Ten Horns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 3. The Three Uprooted Horns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chapter 4. The Heruli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 5. The Visigoths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 6. The Vandals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Chapter 7. The Ostrogoths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Chapter 8. Justinian, Canon Law, and the Government of Satan . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 10. A.D. 538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D.

Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D.

The apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation have received a variety of

Gerhard Pfandl Ph.D.

The Government of God verses the Government of Satan

We want Ellen White to expand on this concept of the government of God:

1. “The law of love being the foundation of the government of God. . . .” 6

3. “The law of God is the foundation of his Government in Heaven and in

“The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God’s government; He

“Compelling power is found only under Satan’s government.” 17

“Force is the last resort of every false religion.” 18

A contributor to The Southern Watchman wrote in summation:

The Ten Horns

Daniel 7:28 “Hitherto is the end of the matter. . .”

“. . . . all the world wondered after the beast.”

The parable of the ten virgins is a symbol of the church:

Allemanni, Burgundians, Celts, Franks, Gauls, Germani, Heruli, Huns,

“Though many interpreters have tried to identify exactly 10 peoples and 10

Submitted are the previously quoted texts:

And likewise from Dr. Shea:

However the “dragon” has a secondary application, as well:

Jeremiah 51:25 “Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, [Babylon]

The Three Uprooted Horns

In Daniel 8:20 a horn represents a king or kingdom:

2) The Little Horn is to be different from the other kingdoms, and is to

A portion of the pope’s letter to Justinian reads:

The following historical excerpt by the world-renowned historian, Ferdinand Gregorovius, is

Continuing from the same source:

“The death of Pope Simplicius in 483 gave rise to a point of controversy

“The Byzantine Emperor regarded him [Odoacer] as a usurper, and only

“The Goths [Ostrogoths] established themselves permanently in Italy, which

The New Encyclopedia Britannica declares:

According to Troels Brandt, Andreas Schwarcz (2005) dates Cassiodorus’ letter to

“The Council of Agde was a proclamation of tolerance of West Gothic

Letter from Clovis to the Bishops

Letter V. of Pope Vigilius to Menna.

We begin with Pope Vigilius’s letter:

“The sources of Roman law, however, which included the Hermogenian,

“TITLE 11: RELIGION (DE RELIGIONE)

2. Emperors Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius Augustuses to Diotimus,

3. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Their dear friend,

“TITULUS V. a) DE RELIGIONE. 1. b) Impp. Arcadius et Honorius AA.

“DE IUDAEIS, SAMARITANIS, HAERETICIS ET PAGANIS.”

Novellarum of Theodosius II. Tit. III. (a)

[257] Epit. Suppl. Lat. 215.