Having acquired the status of the religion of Empire, Christianity began to establish itself more firmly in Roman society. Christians had to work alongside those who had once been happy to persecute them. They also found themselves at the centre of a major culture, with its own philosophy and traditions. Christianity, if it was to survive and thrive in this new position, could not reject out of hand everything that contradicted their religious teachings. As was seen in the last chapter, this was begun by a complete acceptance of war by people such as Eusebius in the hierarchy of the church. However, just as the traditions of Rome could not be rejected, neither could the traditions of Christianity- or it could no longer call itself Christianity. A way to incorporate both traditions needed to be found. This way needed to satisfy the philosophy of Rome and the traditions and principles of Christianity. In the area of war, this needed a reconciliation of an acceptance of war with the command to “love your enemies.” (Matt. 5:44).

In examining the concept of “Just War” Ambrose was, perhaps, an ideal choice to re-examine the theology of the newly legitimised “Roman” Church. Just as the standing of the Church reflected a fusion of Christian tradition and Rome so did Ambrose himself. In the Prolegomena to his works he is described thus;

“St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, one of the four Latin doctors of the Church, was descended from a Roman family of some distinction, some time Christian, and counting martyrs as well as state officials amongst its members.”[1]

He was a Roman Christian in the truest sense and this is reflected throughout his works. In his treatment of the subject of war he is able to call upon the philosophy of Rome, developing and sometimes replacing the writings of the early Church, to reinterpret the teachings of Jesus and call upon the examples of the Old Testament. As the majority of received tradition was pacifist Ambrose had to start, as it were, from scratch. He turned to sources that would make his thinking politically acceptable to Rome, and to others that would make it theologically acceptable to Christianity. Throughout the course of this chapter Ambrose’s ‘doctrine’ of just war will be examined focusing on his three main influences- Hebrew, Roman and Christian. These reflected not just the world that Christianity, and Christians, had come from but also the world in which they now found themselves.

The Legitimisation of War

It should not be assumed that Ambrose was the first Christian to attempt the legitimisation of war. As has been observed Eusebius began this process.[2] It was also further developed by Athanasius writing in 350CE when he referred to it in his letter to Ammonius or Amun;

“We shall find in other things that happen in life differences of a certain kind existing. For instance, it is not lawful to kill; but to destroy opponents in war is lawful and worthy of praise. Thus those who distinguish themselves in war are counted worthy of great honours, and pillars are erected proclaiming their achievements. So the same (act) in one respect and when unseasonable is not lawful, in another respect and when seasonable is permitted and allowed.”[3]

However, Ambrose was the first to discuss the classical Just War questions such as; when is war just? and, how should it be carried out? He did not discuss it in the philosophical, systematic way that Augustine went on to develop. Rather, Ambrose responded to specific situations, which, when examined together develops into a Just War theory.

In response to the question of the validity of military service Ambrose restates the position of Eusebius and Athanasius. Indeed, he glorified war in a Eusebian-like manner;

“I must no further detain your Majesty [Gratian], in this season of preparation for war, and the achievement of victory over the barbarians. Go forth, sheltered, indeed, under the shield of faith, and girt with the sword of the Spirit; go forth to the victory, promised of old time, and foretold in oracles given by God.”[4]

As the religion of the Empire it was incumbent on Christianity to support the military endeavours of the Emperor and the Empire. Christianity had moved from a position of ‘outsiders’ to the mainstream of Roman life. Ambrose, like Eusebius and Athanasius before, realised that as the religion of the Empire it would be foolish for Christianity not to support it. The culture in which Christianity now found itself in the centre of was one very much based on valour, justice and triumphs. Had Christianity withdrawn itself from this part of society it would have removed itself from the affections of the society. No Roman wished to hear their great heroes vilified because they fought for the defence/glory of Rome. Similarly, from its own conquering experiences, the Roman Empire would realise that its position and possessions were precarious, without the possibility of defence Rome would fall. Thus, the religion of the Empire, if it wanted to keep its position at the centre of the Empire must find a way to legitimise war.

For Ambrose this was relatively easy, he used the everyday thinking of Romans to provide a ‘common-sense’ background for his legitimisation, but also the writings of Cicero to provide further background to the virtues and legitimacy of war;

“Again, some are called to put their lives at risk, others their glory and the goodwill of their fellow citizens. We must, therefore, be more eager to risk our own than the common welfare, and readier to fight when honour and glory, than when other advantages are at stake.”[5]

He could also look to Christians of the past one hundred years, and as he felt it necessary he called upon the writings of the Old Testament.

 A Qualified Legitimacy

However, with the Church gaining a greater and more stable position in society the writings of Ambrose reflected this greater confidence. With Eusebius, one imagines that whatever Constantine did would have been condoned- the Church was all too aware of the fragility of its position, the persecutions were a constant cloud over their position. The Churches standing had changed in an instant and it could return in an instant. By the time of Ambrose almost a generation had passed and he was able to speak more honestly and call to task any actions he felt were unChristian. Now, a military action engaged in by the Empire was not automatically ‘just’. In a letter to the Emperor Theosdosius Ambrose writes in response to the massacre at Thessalonica. Following the murder of a number of Roman officers of the garrison by a mob, the Emperor sent orders which resulted in over seven thousand of the inhabitants of Thessalonica being put to death.

“Should I keep silence? But then my conscience would be bound, my utterance taken away, which would be the most wretched condition of all. And where would be that text? If the priest speak not to him that erreth, he who errs shall die in his sin, and the priest shall be liable to the penalty because he warned not the erring…

Are you ashamed, O Emperor, to do that which the royal prophet David, the forefather of Christ, according to the flesh did?…

Though you have waged battle most successfully, though in other matters, too, you are worthy of praise, yet piety was ever the crown of your actions. The devil envied that which was your most excellent possession. Conquer him whilst you still possess that wherewith you may conquer.”[6]

Christian, Roman and Hebrew tradition can all be found as a background to this censure. The words of Paul could be called upon to condemn those who sought to repay evil with evil;

“Do not repay evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.” (Romans 12:17)

Cicero, similarly, condemns acts of this nature in warfare;

“But nothing cruel is in fact beneficial; for cruelty is extremely hostile to the nature of man, which we ought to follow.”[7]

The Old Testament, cited by Ambrose, provides a similar precedent for his writing to Theosdosius;

“What did Elisha follow but virtue, when he brought the army of Syria who had come to take him as captive into Samaria, after having covered their eyes with blindness? Then he said ‘O Lord open their eyes that they may see.’ And they saw. But when the King of Israel wished to slay those that had entered and asked the prophet to give him leave to do so, he answered that they… must not be slain, but that rather he should help them by supplying food. Then they were refreshed with plenty of food. And after that those Syrian robbers thought they must never again return to the land of Israel… Elisha, however, wished to save, not destroy,… For it was seemly to spare an enemy, and to grant his life to an adversary when he could have taken it, had he not spared it.”[8]

It would have been unthinkable for a Christian priest before this time, when the Church was in a relatively established place in society, to ask the Emperor if he was ashamed of the things he had done and to further tell him that the instigator of the act was the devil himself whom he must conquer. This episode highlights the opportunity with which Ambrose wrote, freed from the shackles of Imperial approval and whim, he could re-evaluate war in the light of Christian principles, which led him to conclude that there are just and unjust wars.

War as an Instrument of Justice

For Ambrose, it was the responsibility of those engaging in war to think whether it was just or unjust;

“… whilst in matters of war one ought to see whether the war is just or unjust.”[9]

He goes on;

“For justice cannot exist without prudence, since it demands no small amount of prudence to see whether a thing is just or unjust. A mistake on either side is very serious. ‘For he that says a just man is unjust, or an unjust man is just, is accursed with God. Wherefore does justice abound unto the wicked?’”[10]

Further;

“It is clear from this that faith and justice should be observed even in war; and that it could not but be a disgraceful thing if faith were violated.”[11]

There is an impression in reading Eusebius, that war engaged in by the Christian Emperor would automatically be just. That the enemies of the Empire were the enemies of God;

‘And then stretching out His right hand for requital of His enemies, He eliminated them with a single rod, avenging himself with heaven-sent blows.”[12]

The ‘His’ in this passages are seemingly interchangeable- it could be God or it could be Constantine, or more likely, both. For Ambrose war is no longer automatically just when waged under the authority of the ruler, as it was for Eusebius. This Ambrosian development of the Just War theory reflects the Church’s new found ‘secure’ place in society.

This ‘development’ also again reflects the traditions with which Ambrose worked. Received Christian tradition (pre-Constantine) dismissed war as a act befitting a Christian. To call again on the words of Tertullian;

‘One soul cannot be due two masters- God and Caesar.’[13]

If there was to be a difference of opinion between the principles of God and the decrees of Caesar, Ambrose needed to be on the side of God. Thus, in writing to Theosdosius, Ambrose utilises the teachings of Christ, without decreasing the power of the Empire or the legitimacy of war. Hebrew tradition, if one reads the Old Testament, declares war to be ‘just’ if it is fought on God’s behalf and against God’s enemies- this seems of no benefit to Ambrose in discussing justice in warfare, as it is a prior restatement of the position of Eusebius.

The tradition on which Ambrose relied the most in the concept of justice in warfare is the Roman. Cicero, rather than Christian or Hebrew tradition, had examined and written about this justice in great depth. One is left in little doubt, when reading Cicero that Ambrose was drawing directly on writings such as this;

“Something else that must very much be preserved in public affairs is the justice of warfare. There are two types of conflict the one proceeds by debate, the other by force. Since the former is the proper concern of a man, but the latter of beasts, one should only resort to the latter if one may not employ the former”[14]

The Just Cause of War

If it is no longer automatically just on the basis of being a war of the Empire, or against God’s perceived enemies, on what principles should the decision of justness rest? The purpose of war and its relation to justice is a theme referred to throughout the writings of Ambrose.

“Nor, again does it look like liberality to help one who presses very hardly on widows and orphans, or attempts to seize on their property with any show of violence.”[15]

Developing this theme of non-aggression Ambrose goes on;

“For as long as we want to add to our possessions and to heap up money, to take into our possession fresh lands, and to be the richest of all, we have cast aside the form of justice and have lost the blessing of kindness towards all. How can he be just that tries to take from another what he wants for himself?

The desire to gain power also enervates the perfect strength and beauty of justice. For how can he, who attempts to bring others under his own power, come forward on behalf of others? And how can a man help the weak against the strong, when he himself aspires to great power at the cost of liberty.”[16]

Therefore, a war cannot be just in Ambrosian thinking if it is a war of oppression, as a war that “aspires to great power at the cost of liberty.” Neither can it be a war of aggression as that seeks for gain- whether of power, prestige, land or wealth. In a war of aggression is “lost the blessing of kindness towards all.” With the Roman Empire at its greatest expanse it was ‘safe’ for Ambrose to condemn these wars. It is debatable whether Ambrose would have written against the gain of land during the great years of Roman expansionism. The relative security of the Church and the political situation of the day enabled Ambrose to develop this line of thought. In developing this thinking Ambrose may be unique in Christendom, but when examined in the light of received Roman philosophy he by no means stands alone. The major writer on which he draws is Cicero. He does not recite him verbatim, but utilises him as an underlying theme- Christianising, clarifying and developing the words of Cicero to fit his situation.

This can be seen when one examines the writings of Cicero on the purpose of war;

“When, then, we are fighting for empire and seeking glory through warfare, those grounds that I mentioned a little above as just grounds for war should be wholly present. But wars in which the goal is the glory of the empire are waged less bitterly. For just as in civilian matters we may compete in one way with an enemy, in another with a rival (for the latter conquest is for honour and standing, the former for one’s civic life or reputation)…”[17]

Two of Cicero’s commentators note that he “refers back to the just cause for war… He distinguishes war for imperial dominance and glory from wars for the survival of Rome and demands that the former be waged less bitterly. Yet even they are regarded here as fought in the interests of peace, in that they defend the empire against rivals.”[18] Cicero goes on;

“But as long as the empire of the Roman people was maintained through acts of kindness and not through injustices, wars were waged either on behalf of allies or about imperial rule; wars were ended with mercy or through necessity.[19]

The overall thinking of Cicero is to be found in Ambrose, but as mentioned earlier is developed to fit his new situation.

Justice, for Ambrose, is a noble virtue;

“Great, then, is the glory of justice; for she, existing rather for the good of others than of self, is an aid to the bonds of union and fellowship amongst us. She holds so high a place that, she has all things laid under her authority, and further can bring help to others and supply money; nor does she refuse her services, but even undergoes dangers for others.”[20]

War as a weapon of justice should, therefore, only be waged to help others rather than self.

“For courage… in war preserves one’s country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice.”[21]

War must not be waged for self aggrandisement, rather for the benefit of others. In explaining this thinking Ambrose calls on the Old Testament as his justification;

“Thus, in accordance with the will of God and the union of nature, we ought… to bring help one to the other from a feeling of devotion or of duty, by giving money, or by doing something, at any rate in some way or other… Thus holy Moses feared not to undertake terrible wars for his people’s sake, nor was he afraid of the arms of the mightiest kings, nor yet was he frightened at the savagery of barbarian nations. He put on one side the thought of his own safety so as to give freedom to the people.”[22]

Ambrose also fuses this thinking with Roman tradition. This can be noted by examining similar writings of Cicero;

“Above all, they will make every effort to enable each man to keep that which is his… to stop the weak from being oppressed because of their lowly state… by whatever means they can, whether in war or at home,… Such are the deeds of men who are great; such deeds were achieved in our forefathers’ day.”[23]

The Purpose of a Just War

The purpose of war is inextricably linked with its desired outcomes. A war that desires the acquisition of land is rejected, but the war that emulates Moses’ objective of giving “freedom to his people” should be emulated. Calling on a further Old Testament example (Apocryphal) and again, the writings of Cicero Ambrose discusses the desired outcome of war. He speaks of one Eleazar, a soldier of Judas Maccabaeus, who, through his actions ended the war with King Antiochus and the Greeks. His greatest feat in the eyes of Ambrose is that he “left peace as the heir of his courage. These are the signs of triumph.”[24] War should be fought to achieve peace. This is further highlighted when one examines Cicero;

“Wars, then, ought to be undertaken for this purpose, that we may live in peace, without injustice; and once victory has been secured, those who were not cruel or savage in warfare should be spared.”[25]

The Conduct of a Just War

To achieve this then justice should be observed in the conduct of the war. If there is unnecessary force or harshness used in the hostilities then hatred rather than peace will be left. This is elucidated in the story of Elisha mentioned earlier in which “it was seemly to spare an enemy, and to grant his life to an adversary when he could have taken it, had he not spared it.”[26]

In a similar example Cicero narrates the story of Themistocles;

“After the victory in the war with the Persians, Themistocles announced in the assembly that he had a plan which would preserve the nation, but it was necessary that it should not be common knowledge. He asked that the people should give him someone with whom he could share it. Aristides was chosen. Themistocles told him told him that the Spartan fleet, which had been drawn ashore at Gytheum, could secretly be set on fire; if that were done, the Spartans’ power would inevitably be crushed. When Aristides heard this, he went into the assembly amid great expectation. He said that the counsel offered by Themistocles was extremely beneficial, but not at all honourable. The Athenians considered that something that was not honourable was not even beneficial, and on Aristides’ authority they rejected the plan completely, although they had not even heard it.”[27]

It is in this example that we can see Ambrose’s most explicit use of Cicero. In discussing exactly this point he declares the story of the Greeks and how they “preferred to gain a less advantage honourably than a greater one in shameful wise.”[28]

It would seem, from this example, that Ambrose called upon the writings of Cicero to form the basis of his ethical understanding, and then turned to more “religious” ideas to Christianise them. This is, in no way, to detract from the contribution of Ambrose. Rather, it serves to highlight his capabilities to bring different traditions together while making them acceptable to people coming from any of the traditions.

Cicero further develops the necessity of prudence in the conduct of war with a reference that Ambrose would have been familiar with, but replaced with stories from other traditions (such as the story of Elisha);

“In public affairs wrong is very often done because of the appearance of benefit. An example is our own destruction of Corinth. The Athenians were even harsher, for they decreed that the Aeginetans, who had a powerful fleet should have their thumbs cut off. It seemed to be beneficial, for Aeginus was a threat to Piraeus because it was so near. But nothing cruel is in fact beneficial; for cruelty is extremely hostile to the nature of man, which we ought to follow.”[29]

War is a weapon of force, but in order to attain peace prudence should be exercised in its conduct. Justice extends further than violence in the conduct of war;

“How great a thing justice is can be gathered from the fact that there is no place, nor person, nor time, with which it has nothing to do.”[30]

Again, there is a direct link to Cicero;

“Let us remember also that justice must be maintained even towards the lowliest.”[31]

 Thus, the Christian principles of love toward all men have been upheld when related to the doctrine of justice given by Cicero. Ambrose continues with his discussion of justice, saying that;

“It must even be preserved in all dealings with enemies. For instance, if the day or the spot for a battle has been agreed upon with them, it would be considered an act against justice to occupy the spot beforehand, or to anticipate the time.”[32]

Echoing, again, the words of Cicero;

‘Moreover, there are laws of warfare, and it often happens that faith given to an enemy must be kept. For if an oath has been sworn in such a way that the mind grasps that this ought to be done.’[33]

Honesty in warfare is a theme that recurs throughout the writings of Ambrose;

“But this is absolutely abhorrent to the idea of a Christian man. For everything gained by craft and got together by cheating loses the merit of openness.”[34]

and;

“A man’s disposition ought to be undefiled and sound, so that he may utter words without dissimulation and possess his body in sanctification; that he may not delude his brother with false words or promise aught dishonourable.”[35]

The Last Resort

A last point in the discussion of the just war that Ambrose makes is that it must be the last resort. To support this view he calls on the Old Testament example of David;

“David never waged war unless he was driven to it. Thus prudence was combined in him with fortitude in battle.”[36]

and the writings of Cicero, again, underlie his thinking;

“Something else that must very much be preserved in public affairs is the justice of warfare. There are two types of conflict the one proceeds by debate, the other by force. Since the former is the proper concern of a man, but the latter of beasts, one should only resort to the latter if one may not employ the former”[37]

Complete?

The components of Ambrose’s just war theory are thus complete. Although at first glance there seems no coherent strategy in his treatment of war, as the reader examines his writings there becomes evident a scattered, but nonetheless definite, just war theory. He declares war just if it fought as the last resort, if it is fought to help others rather than for any sort of gain, and, if it is fought in such away as to attain peace. There is an underlying theme of legitimate authority in war to make it just;

“We should be doing harm, not good, to another if we gave him money to aid him in plotting against his country.”[38]

This draws on Cicero;

“Indeed, a fair code of warfare has been drawn up, in full accordance with religious scruple, in the fetial laws of the Roman people. From this we can grasp that no war is just unless it is waged after a formal demand for restoration, or unless it has been formally announced and declared beforehand.”[39]

In coming to these conclusions Ambrose reflected the more stable political situation of the Church. With their established central part in society, the church could afford to “think” and re-examine itself. it was no longer subject to the whim of politics and could therefore stand outside of it. They needed to support and be a part of the Empire, but they were no longer reliant on it. In this situation Christian thinking was free to operate (within limited constraints) and challenge as it needed to. Ambrose also fused the Christian tradition in the Old Testament with the Roman tradition of Cicero. Christian thinking on war was thus heavily dependent on the thinking of Rome and the Hebrews rather than received Christian tradition.

The Participation of the Clergy

However, one is aware in reading the writings of Ambrose, that while there is little or nor reference to received Christian tradition in his discussion of just war, there are strong echoes of this tradition when he speaks of the participation of the clergy in war;

“But the thought of warlike matters seems to be foreign to the duty of our office, for we have our thoughts fixed more on the duty of the soul than on that of the body; nor is it our business to look to arms, but rather to the affairs of peace.”[40]

He goes on;

“It is a priest’s duty to hurt no one, to be ready to help all… Let, then, this be firmly held to in the priestly duties, namely, to injure none, not even when provoked and embittered by some injury.”[41]

In discussing the participation of the clergy in war Ambrose seems to be reaching back to the writings of the earlier Church Fathers who rejected war with statements by people such as Lactantius; “Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare.”[42]

However, where they saw such a position as incumbent upon all Christians Ambrose applied it just to the clergy. He calls on some of the later Church Fathers such as Tertullian who saw the Christians role as a prayerful, supportive role. He applied this thinking to a situation in which he defends himself to the Emperor;

“I will never willingly desert you, though if force is used, I cannot meet it. I shall be able to grieve, to weep, to groan; against weapons, soldiers, Goths, my tears are my weapons, for these are a priest’s defence…

He fears not weapons nor barbarians who fears not death, and is not held fast by any pleasures of the flesh…

It is not bodily guardianship but the Lord’s providence that is wont to fence in the servant of Christ.”[43]

Ambrose, thus, acknowledges in passing some of the thinking of the earlier Church Fathers, but can only endorse them when applied to the clergy. His, and the Church’s, Romanisation made it impossible for this, once orthodox, teaching to have any widespread application.

In his own way Ambrose used all three received traditions (Roman, Hebrew and Christian) to construct a just war theory that had elements of each in. That the Christian pacifist tradition was the major one to ‘lose out’ was perhaps inevitable as the others legitimised war which was necessary for the defence and maintenance of the Empire with Christianity as the official religion. Its role was thus to support the Empire in its endeavours but also to legitimise the regime and satisfy the spiritual needs of the Empire. To do this it needed to stand within society on an equal footing with the political and military arms of the Empire. It could not afford to be out of step and be seen to be undermining the establishment (except in exceptional circumstances). Throughout the writings of Ambrose it evident that the writings of the Hebrew and Roman traditions were his major influences. However, to say that all Ambrose did was to regurgitate a mixture of the two would be to do him a disservice. He took the writings of the Old Testament, and using them as a part of the Christian tradition applied them to the situation in which the Church and its people found themselves in. With the Roman tradition he did much more, a Roman philosopher would have seemed out of place to be quoted in the writings of a Christian Bishop, however the themes of Cicero are used and Christianised rather than plagiarised. Ambrose was in a unique position in Christian history, it fell to him to construct a theory that adhered to Christian principles (or seemed to) yet satisfied the philosophical cravings of Rome. It also served as an acceptable re-evaluation of the Empire in light of the conversion of Constantine and Christianity’s new found position in society. He did not do it in an obviously structured way (for that we turn to Augustine) but the situations in which he found himself led him to do it in a sporadic, but nonetheless valid, way.

---

[1] P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds) A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. Volume X St. Ambrose (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979) pxv.

[2] See above pp7-8

[3] Letters XLVIII

[4] On the Christian Faith Book II   Chapter XVI:136

[5] On Duties Book I:83

[6] Ambrose Letters LI:3-7,12

[7] On Duties Book III:46

[8] On the Duties of the Clergy Book III Chapter XIV:86-87

[9] Ambrose Duties of the Clergy Book 1 Chapter XXXV:176

[10] Ibid. Chapter XXVII:126

[11] Ibid. Chapter XXIX:140

[12] cit. A. Kee Constantine Versus Christ p122.

[13] On Idolatry (19)

[14] On Duties Book I:34

[15] Ibid. Chapter XXX:144

[16] Ibid. Chapter XXVIII:137-138

[17] On Duties Book I:38

[18] M.T. Griffin & E.M. Atkins (Eds) Cicero. On Duties (Cambridge U.P. 1991)p17 footnote 1

[19] On Duties Book II:26

[20] Ambrose Duties of the Clergy Book 1   Chapter XXVIII:136

[21] Ibid. Chapter XXVII:129

[22] Ibid. Chapter XXVIII:135

[23] On Duties Book II:85

[24] Ambrose Duties of the Clergy Book 1   Chapter XL:207-208

[25] On Duties Book I:35

[26] On the Duties of the Clergy Book III Chapter XIV:86-87

[27] On Duties Book III:49

[28] On the Duties of the Clergy Book III Chapter XIV:87

[29] On Duties Book III:46

[30] On the Duties of the Clergy Book I Chapter XXIX:139

[31] On Duties Book I:41

[32] On the Duties of the Clergy Book I Chapter XXIX:139

[33] On Duties Book III:107

[34] On the Duties of the Clergy Book III Chapter IX:58

[35] Ibid. Chapter XII:76

[36] On the Duties of the Clergy Book I Chapter XXXV:177

[37] On Duties Book I:34

[38] Ambrose Duties of the Clergy Book 1   Chapter XXX:144

[39] On Duties Book I:36

[40] Ambrose Duties of the Clergy Book 1   Chapter XXXV:175

[41] On the Duties of the Clergy Book III Chapter IX:59

[42] The Divine Institutes Book V Chapter XX

[43] Sermon Against Auxentius on the Giving up of the Basilicas 2,6 &9