time, and more narrowly confined in space. Not only Greece, but,
afterwards, Spain, Illyria, and Africa succumbed to it. The fictions
of the other, although ridiculous, nevertheless deceived the sharpest
minds far and wide with its trickery. What should I say about the
Eunomians, the Eutychians, the Nestorians, how can I represent the
thousands of hideous groups whose frenzy against us was so relentless,
and against whom victory was so difficult, that the heresies seemed
to be beheaded not with swords but with sticks? If we examine the
early histories of the beginnings of their kingdoms, and if we
chatter about the ridiculous nature of their kings, we must wonder at
the sudden overthrowing and replacing of rulers brought about by
Asiatic instability. Anyone who wants to learn about their
inconstancy may look at the Antiochi and Demetrii, whirling and
alternating in and out of power; the man flourishing in power today
may be driven tomorrow not merely from power, but from his native
land, exiled by the fickleness of the peoples whom he had ruled.
Their foolishness, both in secular behavior and in religious belief,
has thrived until this day, so that neither in the preparation of the
Eucharist, nor in the location of the Apostolic see do they have
anything in common with us. But if making the sacrament out of
leavened bread is defended with the apparently reasonable argument
that using yeast is not harmful when it is done in good faith, and
that the Lord had put an end to the old ways by eating lamb with
unleavened bread, and celebrating the sacrament of his own body with
the same bread, because there was no other bread, and he could not
fulfill the law at that time in any other way, to them the use of
unleavened bread, necessary at the time, did not seem a central part
of the mystery, just as the dipping of the mouthful[64] was an
indication not of the carrying out of the sacrament but of Judas'
betrayal. If, I say, these things and others also can be proposed as