Observations of Henri Valois

HENRY VALOIS' OBSERVATIONS ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES OF SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN. BOOK ONE.

^A CAPUT PRIMUM. De anno quo primum restitutus est Athanasius.

Caesar Baronius in his *Annals*, and Dionysius Petavius in his *Rationarium Temporum*, and Blondel in his book *On the Primacy of the Church*, and others, write that Athanasius was recalled from exile in the year of Christ 338, that is to say, the year after the death of Constantine, who, having seen that the aforementioned bishop was being pressed by the calumnies of his adversaries, had relegated him for a time to the Gauls. I, however, contend that Athanasius was restored in the year of our Lord 337, the very year in which Constantine died: and this I shall prove by a most certain argument, as I believe. For Athanasius writes in his *Second Apology against the Arians*, page 805, that he was released from exile and restored to his country by the younger Constantine, who also gave him letters to the people and clergy of the Alexandrian Church. Athanasius refers to these letters therein, the inscription of which is as follows: "Constantine Caesar to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria." Moreover, the subscription is of such a form: "Given at Trier on the 15th day before the Kalends of July." Both the inscription and the subscription of these letters teach what I have said, namely, that Athanasius was released from exile immediately after the passing of Constantine the Great, in the year of Christ ^B 337. For if he had been restored the following year, the younger Constantine would not have called himself Caesar, but Augustus. And Athanasius would not have been restored by Constantine the younger, but by Constantius, to whom the empire of the East had been allotted. Wherefore, since Constantine himself in those letters calls himself only Caesar, and since Athanasius testifies that he was restored by Constantine the young, it is apparent that this was done before the sons of Constantine the elder had been proclaimed Augusti by the soldiers. For indeed, after Constantine's death there was a certain interregnum; and the Roman world remained without an emperor for nearly three months, until the brothers, who were governing diverse provinces in the name of the Caesars, had come together to divide the total of the Roman empire. Constantine died on the 11th day before the Kalends of June, and in that very year the three Augusti—Constantine, Constantius, and Constans—were proclaimed on the 5th day before the Ides of September, as is read in the ancient *Fasti*, which Jacques Sirmond published falsely under the name of Idatius. This is the very thing which Eusebius writes in Book IV of *On the Life of Constantine*, that he reigned after his death, and all his diplomas and edicts were marked with his name as if he were still alive. For this reason, therefore, Constantine the younger in his letters to the Alexandrians calls himself only Caesar, since he had not yet been called Augustus. For the letters were given on the 15th day before the Kalends of July. But he was proclaimed Augustus with his brothers on the 5th day before the Ides of September. Furthermore, at that time, while the brothers were called only Caesars, the highest authority lay with the younger Constantine, since he was the eldest of the brothers by birth.

^C CAP. II. Quo anno Julius Romanæ urbis episcopus, missis in Orientem presbyteris, Athanasium et Eusebianos Romam ad synodum evocaverit.

Athanasius having returned to Alexandria, which we demonstrated in the chapter above to have occurred in the year of our Lord 337, the Eusebians, taking it ill that he had been restored, began to harass him with new accusations before the three Augusti. For they wrote letters both to Constantine and Constans, the emperors of the Western parts, in which, besides those old crimes so often sung, they accused him additionally of having stirred up many seditions in the city after his return, and of having caused many citizens to be cast into prison, to be afflicted with blows, and to be put to death by a judge. The same things they also wrote to Julius, the bishop of the city of Rome, having sent to him Macarius the presbyter, and the deacons Martyrius and Hesychius. Wherefore Athanasius was compelled to send his own presbyters with his letters, both to the emperors and to the Roman pontiff, to repel their calumnies. When, therefore, Athanasius' presbyters had come to Rome, and before Pope Julius and many other bishops of the West who were then at Rome had convicted the delegates of Eusebius in all things, at last, the delegates of Eusebius themselves asking for it, it was decided that a synod of both Eastern and Western bishops should be gathered at Rome, and that Julius should write to the Eusebians and to Athanasius, that they might be summoned to a council; so that with all present and arguing their own cause, a just sentence might be brought forth, and with the causes of discord removed, the peace of the Church might be established for the future. Therefore, Julius wrote according to the petition of the delegates to Eusebius through Elpidius and Philoxenus, presbyters of the Roman Church. He wrote also to Athanasius, commanding that they be present at Rome by a certain day to plead their case. But there is a difficulty as to what year this legation of Pope Julius set out for the East. Baronius, indeed, in his *Annals*, whom almost all others follow, assigns these accusations of the Eusebians against Athanasius, of which I spoke above, to the year of Christ 539. This I would indeed readily concede. For since Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops testify in their synodical letter that the Eusebians wrote letters to all three Augusti at once, it could hardly have happened later. For Constantine the younger, to whom they gave the letters, was killed in the year of our Lord 340. But Baronius says that that legation sent by Julius was in the year of Christ 340, in which I cannot agree with him. For if we admit that, it would be necessary that they had spent nearly two whole years on their legation, since they returned from their legation in the year 342, as Baronius admits. But it is not likely that such a space of time was wasted by the delegates; and if they had been detained so long by the Easterners, Julius would not have omitted that in the epistle which he wrote in the name of the Roman synod to the bishops of the Council of Antioch. Nor indeed would Athanasius have been silent about it, who accurately commemorates all the wiles and frauds of his adversaries. Certainly, Pope Julius complains of one thing regarding the Easterners: that they detained his delegates until the month of January, so that the day by which the synod had been appointed would pass by. But Athanasius in his *Epistle to the Solitaries* only says that the legates of Julius were detained by the Eusebians beyond the day appointed by Julius. Wherefore I believe it to be more true that this legation by Pope Julius...

was sent at the beginning of the year of our Lord 541, a little before the synod of Antioch was gathered. ^A This very thing, moreover, may be gathered from the epistle of Pope Julius to the bishops of the synod of Antioch. For in that epistle, Julius plainly testifies that those bishops complained in their letters, among other things, that Julius had sent letters not to them, but to Eusebius alone through Elpidius and Philoxenus. Therefore, the synod of Antioch was already gathered, or at least called, at the time when Julius sent those letters to Eusebius. Otherwise, the Eastern bishops would have had no cause for complaint, and Julius could have justly responded to them: "By what reasoning could I write to you, who had not yet gathered together? Could I have divined that you were coming to Antioch for the dedication, and would hold a synod there?" But Julius wrote nothing of this to them. He says only this, that he wrote to Eusebius alone, because he alone had sent the first letter to him. And Athanasius himself, in his epistle to the solitaries, signifies this same thing quite clearly. For after he said that he had set out for Rome as soon as he heard that Gregory would shortly be sent to Alexandria with a military force to invade his bishopric, he adds this: Julius sent his presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus with letters to the Eusebians, etc. The same he relates in the second Apology against the Arians, page 739: "When we had gone up to Rome," that is, when I had already gone to Rome, Julius, as was fitting, also wrote to the Eusebians, having sent his two presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus. Truly, a difficulty arises here. For if Elpidius and Philoxenus were sent by Julius into the East, with Athanasius already having entered Rome, or at least setting out for there; how can that which Julius writes in his Epistle to the Orientals stand, that Athanasius did not come to Rome of his own accord, but was summoned by his letters? I reply that Athanasius was indeed summoned by the letters of Pope Julius, but not through the legates Elpidius and Philoxenus; rather, through certain others who had delivered the letters of Julius to him before Elpidius and Philoxenus were sent to the Eusebians. For it was consonant with reason that one who is accused should be summoned first to plead his case. Certainly, Athanasius in his epistle to the solitaries explicitly distinguishes these two citations. And in the first place, he says that Julius had written letters to him, in which he commanded that a synod ought to be held, wherever Athanasius wished, so that the Eusebians might then prove the crimes they imputed to others, if they could, and firmly defend those imputed to themselves. "But the bishop of Rome, Julius, wrote that a synod ought to be held where we wished," etc. Then, on the following page, he adds that he had sailed to Rome having heard of the arrival of Gregory: that Julius had sent his presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus with letters to Eusebius; and had fixed a certain day on which he was to present himself for judgment, unless he wished to be held as a slanderer. The same Athanasius, in the second Apology against the Arians, not far from the beginning, clearly testifies that he was summoned first to the synod of Pope Julius. But the words themselves are better quoted, because they were wrongly translated by the interpreter: ^B "For it has been judged not once, nor twice, but often: first in our own country, when a gathering of nearly a hundred bishops met; second in Rome, when Eusebius had written, and both they and we were called, and more than fifty bishops gathered there as well." For judgment was passed on us not once, nor twice, but often. First, in our province, when nearly one hundred bishops had come together for that purpose. Second, at Rome, when Eusebius had written letters, and then when he himself and his companions were called by us into judgment, with more than fifty bishops gathered there as well.

CAP. III.

In what year Athanasius came to Rome.

Baronius, who says that the presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus were sent into the East by Pope Julius in the year of our Lord 340, consequently also affirms that Athanasius came to Rome in the same year, summoned, of course, by the letters of Julius. Petavius, Blondellus, and others have followed the opinion of Baronius. But I shall demonstrate, by the testimony of Athanasius himself, that they are mistaken. He, in his epistle to the solitaries, not far from the beginning, says that the Eusebians who had been summoned to Rome by the letters of Julius for ecclesiastical judgment, because they were overcome by the consciousness of their crimes, feared for themselves and dreaded the outcome of the Roman judgment, and [thus] solicited Constantius to openly undertake the protection of their sect and to persecute the Homousians, and especially Athanasius. And at first, he says, they did this: that Philagrius, being created prefect of Egypt for the second time, should be sent to Alexandria; then that Gregory, the bishop, having expelled Athanasius, should be substituted in his place. Therefore, immediately by the emperor's command, a persecution was excited at Alexandria, and Gregory, having entered with a military force, with Philagrius and the eunuch Arsatius aiding him, seized the church of Quirinus. Then some were killed, others thrust into prison; some were fined by the proscription of their goods; others had their provisions removed: for this purpose, indeed, that all might be compelled to accept Gregory, even against their will. "Athanasius, however, even before these things happened and only having heard of it, sailed to Rome," that is, even before these things occurred, Athanasius, when he had only heard of the matter, sailed to Rome. "Only having heard," that is, of the arrival of Gregory with the soldiers. Is it not clearly gathered from these things that Athanasius did not come to Rome until after the ordination of Gregory? For since he was constituted bishop at the synod of Antioch, that is, in the year 341, it is necessarily concluded that Athanasius did not come into the city before this year which I have mentioned. There is added the testimony of Socrates, who specifically writes in the second book that, after the ordination of Gregory and after his bloody entry into the city of Alexandria, Athanasius betook himself to Rome to Julius.

CAP. IV.

In what year the Roman synod was gathered in the cause of Athanasius.

Since Athanasius has marked the time of the Roman synod so distinctly, and in more than one place, it is indeed a wonder that very learned men could have been mistaken about the time of this synod. And Baronius indeed assigned this synod to the year of our Lord 341, whom others have subsequently followed. Except that Blondellus, in his book *On the Primacy of the Church*, affirms that it was celebrated in the same year, but a few months before the synod of Antioch. For he says that the letters of Pope Julius, by which he had summoned the Orientals, provided the cause for the Roman synod, while the Roman synod gave the occasion for the one at Antioch. But Baronius, even if he assigned the Roman synod to the same year as the one at Antioch, nevertheless makes the former later than the latter. For since it is clear from the epistle of Julius given to the Orientals that Athanasius remained at Rome for a year and six months while he awaited the arrival of the Eusebians; Baronius, who had written that Athanasius came to Rome in 340, found it necessary to cast the Roman synod, in which Athanasius was absolved, to the end of the following year. I, however, think it much safer to follow the faith of Athanasius in that matter than that of Baronius. Certainly Athanasius, in his epistle to the solitaries, writes explicitly that the Roman synod was celebrated after the legates of Julius, Elpidius and Philoxenus, had been dismissed by the Eusebians. The passage is on page 816, where, after he related that Elpidius and Philoxenus, the presbyters, had been sent by Julius to cite the Eusebians to plead their case, he adds that the Eusebians, having heard the name of ecclesiastical judgment, trembled to such an extent that they completely lost heart. To their usual arts, therefore, they

held fast, he says, and kept the presbyters of Julius beyond the day set for the synod, and provided vain excuses, claiming that for fear of the Persian war it was not permitted for them to set out for Rome. At length, however, he says, they dismissed the presbyters of Julius: ‘Undoubtedly, having dismissed the presbyters on this implausible pretext,’ etc. He then recounts the bloody entry of Gregory into the city of Alexandria, and the killings and exiles of bishops. And then at last he commemorates the Roman synod, p. 818: ‘At Rome, however, having gathered, bishops were about fifty,’ etc. That is, at Rome were gathered about fifty bishops, who repudiated the Eusebians indeed as suspicious, having feared to stand in judgment, and refuted the things that had been written by them. But us they received, and embraced us in communion. Does it not appear clearly from this narrative of Athanasius that the Roman synod was held only after the return of the legates? Certainly, before their return it could not have been held legitimately, nor ought it to have been. For it would be absurd if Julius, who had sent his own legates into the East in order to summon the Eusebians to his synod, had celebrated the synod before their return and before the response of the Orientals. For the principle of both law and equity demanded that the return of the legates be awaited, so that it might be known what they had done, and whether the Orientals would bring a suitable excuse for their absence: so that when all had been examined and discussed, a just sentence might be rendered according to the laws against the contumacious accusers who had not appeared when summoned. This, therefore, is absurd in the opinion of Baronius and those who have followed Baronius, in that they assert that the Roman synod—I mean that in which Athanasius was acquitted—was held before the return of the legates who had been sent into the East to cite the Eusebians. There is, moreover, another passage of Athanasius which proves what I have said more manifestly. It is held in the Second Apology against the Arians, p. 739: ‘Finally, therefore, having joined together, bishops numbering more than fifty, where Bito the presbyter assembled,’ etc. Which passage, since it was poorly translated by the interpreter, shall be placed here as it has been rendered by us. ‘Finally, bishops numbering more than fifty, having gathered in the basilica in which Vito the presbyter gathered the people, received our defense with an equal mind, and decreed that communion and love with us ought to be fostered: but against the Eusebians they were indignant, and asked Julius to write these things to them, since they had written to him first.’ Julius therefore wrote, and sent the letter by Gabianus the count. Then follow the letters of Julius, the beginning of which is this: ‘Julius to Danius, Flaccillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and those who are with them, the most beloved brothers who wrote to us from Antioch. I have read your letter which my presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus brought to me,’ etc. Finally, after the letters of Julius have been recited, Athanasius adds these things: ‘When the Roman synod had written these things through Julius the Roman bishop,’ etc. From these things we gather three points primarily which contribute to our purpose. First, that the Roman synod in which Athanasius was pronounced innocent was celebrated after the return of Elpidius and Philoxenus. Second, that the letters of the bishops of the synod of Antioch to Pope Julius, which the aforementioned legates had brought, were read in the same Roman synod. Third, that Pope Julius was asked by the bishops of the Roman synod to write back to the bishops of the Antiochene synod, and to signify to them the decree of the Roman synod. Lastly, that that letter of Julius which Athanasius reports there, and of which we have only written the beginning, is the very one which Julius wrote at the request and in the name of the Roman synod which had acquitted Athanasius. But if anyone should take the letter of Julius itself into his hands, he will discover all the things which I have said to be confirmed in it much more openly and clearly. For Julius plainly testifies in the beginning of his letter that the letters of the bishops of the synod of Antioch were indeed read in the Roman synod; and he indicates that that synod was celebrated not only after the return of his legates, but also long after the ordination of Gregory, and after his violent entry into the city of Alexandria. Certainly, he commemorates the killings and exiles of bishops, the proscriptions and imprisonments of citizens, and other crimes and sacrileges perpetrated at that time by Gregory, whom Julius does not even deign to call by the name of bishop, as can be seen on page 749; and Julius the Pope says he had received these things, as much from the letters of the bishops who had written these things to him from Egypt, as from the presbyters who had come to Rome from Alexandria. But he also writes on page 743 that a certain Carpones, formerly condemned by Alexander, bishop of the city of Alexandria, on account of the Arian heresy, together with some others condemned by him for the same perfidy, had been sent to him by Gregory, someone who was to bring the pacific, or rather, the communicatory letters of Gregory. The same thing was attempted long afterward by Georgius the Arian, when he had been substituted in the place of Athanasius. For he sent his own legates to Pope Liberius, seeking communion with the Roman Church, as we learn from the letter of Pope Liberius. Since, therefore, this legation of Carpones occurred in the year of our Lord 342, the Roman synod which was held after that legation could not have been celebrated before the year 342.

CAP. V. The opinion of Baronius is refuted, who creates two Roman synods.

I know what Baronius responds. For he says that that letter of Pope Julius, of which we spoke above, does not pertain to that Roman synod in which Athanasius and Marcellus were acquitted, but to another which was held in the year following, when Elpidius and Philoxenus had returned from the parts of the East, bringing with them the letters of the Orientals to Julius. For Baronius distinguishes two Roman synods: the one of fifty bishops, who pronounced Athanasius and Marcellus innocent in the year of Christ 341; the other held in the following year, in which the letters of the Oriental bishops which Elpidius and Philoxenus had brought were read. And Severinus Binius has followed this opinion of Baronius, as he is accustomed to do, in his edition of the councils. But we oppose to Baronius the authority of Athanasius, who acknowledges only one Roman synod, and who writes that in it he was judged innocent by the sentences of all the bishops, and that Pope Julius was asked by the bishops to respond to the Orientals who had written letters to him, just as we showed in the previous chapter. Either, therefore, Athanasius is false, who affirms this so clearly, or Baronius, who denies it. But no one will ever believe that Athanasius could have been mistaken or willing to deceive in his own cause. For to what advantage would he have done that? But let us see what reasoning compelled Baronius to distinguish two Roman synods, and to say that the letter of Pope Julius to the Orientals, which is reported by Athanasius, was written not at the request and in the name of the Roman synod which had acquitted Athanasius, but of another synod which was gathered in the following year. Baronius brings only one reason for this matter: that Julius, in the aforementioned letter, testifies that the Orientals, in the letters which they had written to him through the presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, had gravely complained that Julius had received Athanasius into communion. But Athanasius was received into communion only by the Roman synod in which fifty bishops sat. Therefore, the letters of the Orientals were written to Pope Julius after the Roman synod in which Athanasius had been acquitted of every crime and admitted to communion. From which it follows that that letter of Pope Julius which he wrote back to the Oriental bishops, not from the person of the Roman synod

by whom Athanasius had been absolved, but by the request of another synod, was given. This is Baronius’s reasoning, as can be seen in the acts of the year 341, chap. 47. But it is very easy for anyone to refute it. For, in the first place, we can deny that the Orientals in their letters to Julius complained that he had received Athanasius into communion. Certainly, in the whole of Julius’s epistle, there appears no trace of such a complaint. The Orientals had indeed complained in their letters that Julius was acting against the canons, and that he had kindled the flame of discord. But not a word is read here concerning the communion entered into with Athanasius. Pope Julius also excuses himself for having kindly received fleeing bishops, for having grieved together with grieving brethren, and for having wept with those who wept. But he says nothing more. However, let us grant to Baronius that the Oriental bishops in their letters to Julius had complained by name that he had received Athanasius into his communion. What then? Does it follow from that that the letter of Pope Julius was not written in the name of the Roman synod in which Athanasius had been absolved? Not at all. Baronius, of course, and whoever followed him, was deceived while they think that Athanasius was only received into communion in the Roman synod. Which I consider not only false, but alien to all reason. Athanasius remained in Rome for sixteen whole months, awaiting the arrival of his adversaries before the Roman synod recognized his case. Is it, therefore, credible that Pope Julius abstained from the communion of Athanasius for all that time? Yet the contrary is stated by Athanasius himself, who writes eloquently in his Apologia to the Emperor Constantius that he had come to Rome to entrust himself and all his own matters to that Church. At which time, he says, I was assiduous in the synaxes. If Athanasius was assiduous in the synaxes at Rome, then he was in communion with the Roman bishop. Furthermore, Pope Julius had summoned both Athanasius and his adversaries to Rome to plead their case. Julius, therefore, could not have refused Athanasius’s communion before the hearing of the case, lest he create a prejudice for the case. For reason of equity does not permit that. And Julius indeed fostered communion with Athanasius’s adversaries, and with Eusebius himself, since he received their letters and wrote back to them in turn. Why, therefore, would the same Julius have been more unkind to Athanasius, especially since he had immediately obeyed when summoned by Pope Julius’s letters and was present on the appointed day, while the adversaries rejected the judgment of the Roman See? Yet Julius had kindly received the presbyters of Athanasius himself, whom Athanasius had sent to Rome a little earlier to refute the calumnies of the Eusebians, and had admitted them to his communion. For Julius himself signifies this quite openly in his Epistle to the Orientals. What, therefore, could have been the reason why he would not extend the same to Athanasius himself? Finally, Athanasius, in his second Apology against the Arians, speaking of the Roman synod, clearly declares that the Roman Church had always been in communion with him. For he does not say that the fifty bishops who had gathered for the Roman synod received him into communion, but that they confirmed the communion and charity with him by their own judgments. Therefore, they were already in communion with him beforehand. Athanasius’s words are: «Καὶ ἐκύρωσαν εἰς ἡμᾶς τήν τε κοινωνίαν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην.» In his Epistle to the Solitaries, indeed, he reports the judgment of the same Roman synod in these words: «Ἡμᾶς δὲ ἀπεδέξαντο, καὶ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς κοινωνίαν ἠγάπησαν», that is: "But they approved of us and cherished communion with us." Therefore, the whole argumentation of Baronius collapses to its foundations, by which he tries to prove that two Roman synods must be distinguished, and that the letter of Pope Julius pertains to a later Roman synod, not to that earlier one in which Athanasius had been absolved. And these things could suffice to overthrow Baronius’s opinion. But lest I seem to rely on the testimony of Athanasius alone, I will prove it by the authority of Pope Julius himself. In the epistle to the Orientals, page 745 of the Parisian edition, he eloquently testifies that he is writing to them in the name of the whole synod, although not the names of all the bishops, but only his own, is prefixed to the letters. For even when he was writing his prior letters to them, by which he summoned them to the synod, he wrote in the name of all the Westerners: "And now," he says, "on the appointed day all were present, and all were of the same judgment, which I signify to you again in writing." What could be more manifest than these words? Julius says all the bishops were present on the day appointed on which he had called the synod. Can this be understood of any other synod but that Roman one in which Athanasius was heard and absolved? Let the adversaries, therefore, point out another synod which Julius called at Rome; but they will surely never be able to point one out. Furthermore, Julius adds that he is signifying the judgment of that synod to the Orientals in these later letters. This is the very thing which Athanasius had said before, that Pope Julius had been requested by the synod to write to the Orientals. You see how well the testimonies of Athanasius and Julius agree with one another; so much so that Baronius, who denies that these letters of Julius were sent to the Orientals after the Roman synod in which Athanasius was heard, seems to speak against not only Athanasius, but Pope Julius himself.

CAP. VI. Whether Athanasius came to Rome twice. The opinion of Socrates and Baronius is refuted.

Baronius writes in his Ecclesiastical Annals that Athanasius, after the judgment of the Roman synod by which he had been absolved from the crimes of his adversaries, immediately sailed to Alexandria in the year of our Lord 341, or just at the beginning of 342. And he confirms this by the authority of Socrates. But a little later, when Gregory, having been girded with armed men, had occupied the Alexandrian Church, [he says Athanasius] came to Rome again. Our Petavius followed Baronius’s opinion in his *Rationarium temporum*, as did Blondellus in his book *De primatu papæ*, and almost everyone else, to whom Socrates seems to have given grounds for error. But Athanasius himself most manifestly refutes this. For since he has spoken quite often in his books about his journey to the city of Rome, he writes that he only came to Rome once from the city of Alexandria. First, in his Apologia to the Emperor Constantius, responding to the calumnies of the adversaries who had accused him before the Emperor Constantius of having incited the Augustus Constans against his brother by his speeches, he says that he set out from Alexandria, not to the court of the Augustus Constans, but made his journey to Rome: and when he had entrusted himself and all his own matters to that Church, he was assiduous in the ecclesiastical collections and gatherings. Then, in the fourth year following, he was summoned from Rome by a letter from the Augustus Constans to Milan. But it is better to set out the Greek words of Athanasius himself, since they confirm our opinion more openly: «Ταῦτα τοίνυν εἰ καὶ ἱκανὰ πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν ἐστι, συγχώρησον ὅμως διηγήσασθαι ὅλως καὶ ἐν λογῷ παρεπιδημίας», that is: "These things, then, even if they suffice for a demonstration, allow me, nevertheless, I pray, to give you an account of my whole journey, so that you may know how rashly the adversaries slander me." Athanasius then adds: «ἐξ ἐλθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας, οὐκ εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, οὐδὲ πρὸς ἄλλους τινάς, ἢ μόνον εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἀνῆλθον», etc. Since, therefore, Athanasius testifies that he would give an account to Constantius of his whole journey and pilgrimage, if he had come to Rome twice from the city of Alexandria, he certainly ought to have mentioned it at this place, lest he seem to have concealed the truth while knowing it in the presence of the prince. Furthermore, in

the *Apology against the Arians*, he writes that he came to Rome only once to plead his case, when the Eusebians had requested of Julius that a synod be assembled at Rome to examine Athanasius's case. But of a second journey, not a single word exists in that entire *Apology*. Finally, in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, the same Athanasius, carefully recounting everything that had happened to him, makes mention of only one journey of his to the city of Rome, specifically the time when he was summoned by the letters of Pope Julius to the Roman synod. He says that after that synod, the bishops who had attended the council reported by letter to Constantius Augustus what had been done in the synod; and also signified to him everything that had been perpetrated at Alexandria by Gregory. But if Athanasius had returned to Alexandria after the judgment of the Roman synod, and had then returned again from there to the city of Rome, Athanasius would never have omitted this in this place. For this would have served his purpose most significantly, to subject to the eyes of all the evils and hardships and calamities which he had suffered at the hands of his adversaries. To this is added that Athanasius could not return from Rome to Alexandria without the consent and letters of the Emperor Constantius. It was indeed permitted for Athanasius, in order to consult for his own safety and escape the snares of his enemies, to leave Alexandria and sail to Rome. For any method of achieving safety is honorable. But to return from Rome to Alexandria under the jurisdiction of another prince, and that after a stay of two years, this was not permitted without the command of the prince. Certainly, after the Council of Serdica, that is, after the ecumenical synod by which Athanasius was judged innocent and his adversaries, on the contrary, were judged to be calumniators and heretics, Athanasius hardly dared at last to return to Alexandria; nor did he do this before he had been summoned to the comitatus by very frequent letters of Constantius. But also before this, when after the death of Constantine the Great he returned from the Gallican exile into Egypt, he had been restored by the letters of three Caesars. Therefore, if Athanasius returned to Alexandria after the Roman synod, it is necessary that then too he was fortified by the letters of Constantius. Why, therefore, does Athanasius nowhere mention these letters of Constantius, he who was accustomed to include so ambitiously and so carefully the rest of the epistles of the same prince pertaining to his own case and restoration? Socrates deceived Baronius, who writes in book two of his *History* that Athanasius, when after the violent ordination of Gregory he had betaken himself to Rome to Pope Julius, his case having been examined, was restored by Julius and returned to Alexandria with letters of the same Julius: and then, a little while later, Gregory having been removed and George substituted in his place, he fled to Rome again. But that entire narrative of Socrates and Sozomen abounds with countless errors. The greatest part of which Baronius himself as well as Blondellus have long since observed: wherefore the testimony of Socrates in the affairs of Athanasius is of no weight, inasmuch as he has said things that are contradictory and contrary among themselves. Leaving aside, therefore, the authority of Socrates, let us examine the other argument of Baronius. Thus, therefore, Baronius reasons in the deeds of the year 541, ch. 49: that Athanasius did return from Rome to Alexandria in this year, or at the beginning of the following year, can be easily understood from the fact that it is established that at the time of the aggression of the Arians against the Church of Alexandria which occurred in the following year, he was found to be there, which he himself testifies in his *Letter to the Orthodox*. Baronius repeats the same in the deeds of the year 342, where he transcribes almost the entire letter of Athanasius to the orthodox. From which it is manifestly gathered that Gregory occupied the Alexandrian Church around the solemnities of the Paschal festival, and that Athanasius, in fear of the Arians rushing into the church, secretly withdrew himself from the midst. Since these things could not have happened in the year 341, because the Antiochene synod in which Gregory was appointed bishop of the city of Alexandria, and to whose deeds he subscribed as bishop of Alexandria, occupied the greatest part of that year, it is necessary that they be assigned to the following year. This is the reasoning of Baronius. Whose opinion not only Petavius and Blondellus, but all whom I have seen thus far, have embraced.

CAP. VII.

But I, on the contrary, affirm that Baronius has fallen into a most grave error, who believed that that letter of Athanasius to the orthodox was written concerning Gregory the ^A, when it expressly bears the name of George the Arian who, long after Gregory, in the year of Christ 356, invaded the Alexandrian Church. I admit indeed what Baronius says, that these two names, to wit, of Gregory and of George, are accustomed to be confused with one another. But this confusion occurs in Latin codices only, not likewise in Greek. Since therefore that entire letter of Athanasius everywhere bears the name of George, why, with that name erased, do we substitute the word 'Gregory'? Especially since the things which are narrated there by Athanasius fit the invasion of George rather than that of Gregory. For first, Athanasius says in the said letter that George (for so it is commonly written) was requested as bishop by the Arians who were at Alexandria; which is nowhere said of Gregory. Then, George is said in the same letter to have entered Alexandria at the time of Lent. Athanasius testifies the same thing regarding his entry expressly in the *Letter to the Solitaries*. But regarding Gregory, we find this said by him nowhere. Furthermore, Athanasius writes in the same letter that the people of the city of Alexandria, when they saw the Arians at the entry of George raging with such force against the Catholics, publicly protested before the acts. Athanasius reports the same in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, at the end of which is affixed the very protest of the Alexandrians. But regarding Gregory, we find nothing of this kind done. But why do we linger in these conjectures, when it is permitted to convince by a most manifest and most certain argument that that letter of Athanasius to the orthodox was written against George, and not against Gregory? Let us therefore hear Athanasius himself clearly testifying to what I have said. Furthermore, we shall necessarily put his Greek words here, for the reason that the Latin interpreter has not in the least attained the sense of his author: which was a cause of deception for Baronius and the others. After, therefore, Athanasius said that George, being an Arian, had favored only the Arians, but was accustomed to persecute the Catholics as though they were strangers and aliens, he subjoins these things: Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ Γρηγόριον, ὅνπερ πρότερον οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον τοῖς Ἀρειανοῖς κατέστησαν, μετὰ τὸ γράψαι ἡμᾶς περὶ αὐτοῦ, πάντες ὑμεῖς οἱ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπίσκοποι ἐπίστασθε, ὡς διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν εἰκότως αὐτὸν ἀνεθεματίσατε καὶ ἀπεκηρύξατε· τούτου ἕνεκα Γεώργιον νῦν τοῖς αὐτοῖς Ἀρειανοῖς ἀπέστειλαν. Εἶτα ἵνα μὴ καὶ δεύτερον αἰσχύνην ὀφλήσωσι, γραφόντων ἡμῶν πάλιν κατ' αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο τῇ ἔξωθεν βίᾳ καθ' ἡμῶν ἐχρήσαντο, etc. Which words I translate into Latin thus: *For since Gregory, whom formerly the Eusebians had constituted bishop for the Arians, after I had written concerning him, all you bishops of the catholic Church justly and deservedly struck with anathema and deposed for his impiety, as you well know: for this cause they have now sent George to the same Arians as bishop. Then, lest they be afflicted again with shame and disgrace, when we were writing letters against them, they used external force against us, so that, the churches having been reduced to their power, they might seem to remove from themselves every suspicion of Arianism, etc.* What is more manifest than these words of Athanasius? Does he not most openly distinguish George from Gregory? And he says that Gregory was indeed formerly condemned and deposed by the orthodox bishops, namely in the synod of Serdica: George

on the other hand, was not, it seems, sent into the Church of Alexandria by the same Arians at this time. And the Arians, fearing lest George might likewise be condemned by the orthodox bishops, craftily disguising their incursion, used foreign force to occupy the churches of the city of Alexandria, that is, the help of Gentiles and Jews. For Athanasius himself writes this in the same letter and in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, where he describes the entry of George. Wherefore the aforesaid circular letter of Athanasius to all the orthodox was not written against Gregory, who had died long before, but against George, who had recently intruded himself into the Alexandrian see. Against whom also another circular letter was written by the same Athanasius to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, which in the common editions is wrongly entitled *First Oration against the Arians*, although the letter is encyclical, as I have said, to all the bishops throughout Egypt and Libya, and it ought to be joined to the circular letter of the same Athanasius to all the orthodox. For both are of the same subject matter. Furthermore, it is not necessary to respond to the remaining arguments of Baronius, by which he has attempted to strengthen his opinion. For after the truth has once been established, all the arguments that can be brought against it easily crumble. First, Baronius says that in that letter of Athanasius to the orthodox, Philagrius is named as governor of Egypt, who, he says, brought the bishop in question into the Alexandrian see; but this Philagrius led Gregory into Alexandria, as Athanasius attests in the *Letter to the Solitaries*. But what prevents the same Philagrius, who had previously introduced Gregory into Alexandria with a military force, from also having introduced George some years later? Philagrius was certainly the chief minister of the Arians. Being governor of Egypt, he had lent his aid to Valens and Ursacius and the other legates of the council of Tyre sent to the Mareotic region in the year of our Lord 335. The same man, afterwards made governor of Egypt by the emperor Constantius, introduced Gregory into the Alexandrian see: which I believe took place in the year of Christ 341. Why then could not the governor of Egypt have been created for a third time, with the support of the Arians, who were doing everything at their own discretion before the emperor Constantius, so that George, as the patron of the Arian sect, might be brought to Alexandria by a judge who was most faithful to the Arians and most suited for carrying out these things? Certainly Athanasius, in the said letter to the orthodox, page 945, says that this Philagrius had long before been abusive to the Church and the virgins. I ask, therefore, when first did Philagrius harm the Church and the virgins, if not when he led in Gregory? Therefore, the same Philagrius led in both Gregory first, and afterwards George. And Athanasius fully confirms this in the *Apology concerning his flight*, page ^B 703. As to what Baronius says in the aforementioned letter of Athanasius, that the bishop in question is said to have been appointed by Eusebius, he was deceived by the Latin translator, since in the Greek text of the letter it is not attributed to Eusebius, but to τοῖς περὶ Ευσέβιον, that is, to the Eusebians. But it is established that the Eusebian faction persisted for a very long time even after the death of Eusebius himself. Certainly Athanasius names the Eusebians everywhere in his books, although he relates things that happened a long time after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia.

CHAPTER VIII. Of the Synod of Antioch, and of the bishops who gathered there.

Thus far we have treated, with as much care and diligence as possible, the matters pertaining to Athanasius, having noted and refuted all the errors that were occurring in the *Ecclesiastical Annals*. But since, in writing of the affairs of Athanasius, we have often spoken of the synod of Antioch which was celebrated there at the dedication of the great Church, in the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the year of our Lord 341, it is pleasing to note a few things about it for the sake of those who study ecclesiastical history. In that synod sat ninety and more bishops, as is evident from Athanasius and Hilary. Baronius observes that they were for the most part Catholics and orthodox: but he affirms that there were thirty-six Arians, by whom Gregory was substituted in place of Athanasius, and those various formulas of faith were written, but not by the remaining orthodox. Blondell also followed the opinion of Baronius in his book *On the Primacy of the Pope*. But let us see, if you please, upon whose authority Baronius asserts this. He praises one author for this matter, Pope Julius, who in his *Letter to the Oriental bishops*, namely those who had gathered in this synod of Antioch, writes as follows: "Who then are they who act against the canons? Is it we, who have received the man with such proofs of the facts, or those who, solely by the thirty-six votes of those who were at Antioch, have saluted an external man as bishop, and led him to Alexandria with a military force?" This testimony of Pope Julius would be most grave and valid, if it were certain that Pope Julius said so. This letter of Julius exists in Athanasius's *Second Apology against the Arians*, written in the Greek language, as it is to the Greeks, who used no other language than Greek. Nor is there any reason for anyone to suppose that this letter was first written in Latin by Julius and then translated into the Greek language. For since Athanasius did not say this, we cannot believe it without an author. Indeed, whenever Athanasius cites any document that is translated from the Latin language into Greek, he is accustomed to warn the reader about it. Add to this that that letter of Julius is written in Greek so purely and elegantly, that it is clearly apparent that it was not translated into Greek from a foreign language. For we find that whatever has been translated from the Latin language into the Greek is always barbarian and obscure, and abounds with many errors, as students will easily observe both in Eusebius and in Socrates and the rest of the writers of ecclesiastical history. Nor is it to be wondered at that Pope Julius wrote in the Greek language to the Orientals, when he also wrote a letter in the same language to the Alexandrians, which Athanasius reports. Thus the letter of Pope Cornelius exists, written in Greek to Fabian, Bishop of Antioch. For the Roman pontiffs, since because of the authority of the apostolic see they found it necessary to respond to the embassies of the whole world, always had men skilled in the Greek language who were their secretaries. The words, therefore, of Pope Julius to the Orientals are these: Σκοπεῖτε τοίνυν τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ παρὰ κανόνας πράξαντες; Ἡμεῖς οἱ μετὰ τοσούτων ἀποδείξεων τὸν ἄνδρα δεξάμενοι, ἢ οἱ ἀπὸ τριάκοντα καὶ ἓξ μονῶν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ὀνομάσαντές τινα ὡς ἐπίσκοπον ξένον, καὶ ἀποστείλαντες εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν μετὰ στρατιωτικῆς ἐξουσίας; that is, "Who then are they who act against the canons? Is it we, who have received the man with such proofs of the facts? Or those who, from thirty-six stages, saluted at Antioch a certain man as a kind of external bishop, and sent him to Alexandria guarded by a military force?" Pope Julius rebukes the ordination of Gregory and asserts that he was made bishop of Alexandria against the ecclesiastical canons, in that he had not been ordained in the city of Alexandria, with the support of the clergy and people, but in the city of Antioch, which is distant from the city of Alexandria by thirty-six stages, that is, a journey of thirty-six days. Athanasius also observes the same flaw in the ordination of George in the *Letter to the Solitaries*, page 860, who was sent from the fiftieth stage to Alexandria to hold the bishopric of that place. But also in the *First Oration against the Arians* he objects to the very same thing to the Arian bishops, namely Cecropius, Auxentius, and Epictetus, that although they were separated by eighty stages, they nevertheless sought the bishopric of those cities to which they were unknown. 'Απὸ ὀγδοήκοντα μονῶν τυγχάνοντες, καὶ μὴ γινωσκόμενοι παρὰ τῶν λαῶν, etc. Therefore, a perverse interpretation

drawn Baronius into error. For Julius does not say that Gregory was greeted as bishop in the city of Antioch by only thirty-six bishops, but rather that since he had been designated bishop of Alexandria at Antioch, he was sent to Alexandria by thirty-six stations. For there are so many stations from Antioch to Alexandria, as is gathered from the Itinerary of Antoninus. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks in the same manner in book XVI, where, stinging the vanity of Constantius Augustus, who ascribed to himself the deeds performed bravely by Julian Caesar in Gaul, he says that he had written in a certain letter that he was present at the battle of Argentoratum and fought in the front rank, although at the time of that battle he was fifty stations apart from those places. For thus speaks Ammianus, for what others might call a journey of fifty days. Nor is Cosmas accustomed to speak otherwise in the books of *Christian Topography*, excerpts of which the most learned Emericus Bigotius, a man who has deserved very well of me, most kindly shared with me. Let this error, therefore, be removed from the *Ecclesiastical Annals*, as well as from the minds of those who, induced by the authority of Baronius, have until now held it as certain and indubitable that thirty-six bishops of the Arian faction and communion sat in the Council of Antioch. I know that many among the ancients held the opinion that they believed this Council of Antioch, of which we are now speaking, to have been collected by Arians. Thus, among others, Palladius in the *Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom*, where he writes that Elpidius, a bishop most skilled in canon law, openly affirmed before the Emperor Arcadius that the canons of the Council of Antioch had been composed by Arians. For the adversaries of John Chrysostom relied chiefly upon a certain canon of that council. When Elpidius saw this, he offered Severianus, who was a most intense enemy of Chrysostom, this condition: that he subscribe that he was of the same faith as the bishops of the Council of Antioch who had composed that canon. This, indeed, Severianus then refused to do. Yet this must be understood not as if those bishops who attended this synod had openly and clearly professed an Arian opinion. For they were Catholics by profession, as is evident both from the testimony of Hilary in his book *On the Synods* and from the letter written by Pope Julius to them themselves. Certainly the Catholic Church would never have accepted their faith and canons if they had been promulgated by Arians. How, therefore, should this passage of Palladius be understood? Doubtless, that those bishops, even if they were openly Catholic, nevertheless secretly favored the Arians. And so we must interpret Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, and others who name Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Eusebians everywhere as Arians. For it is certain that Eusebius of Nicomedia, even though he always fostered the cause of the Arians, nevertheless retained peace with Julius, the bishop of the Roman city, and communion with the Catholic Church until his death. For he even sent letters of peace to Pope Julius a little before his death, and received such in return, as Julius testifies in his *Letter to the Orientals*. Julius certainly, in that aforementioned letter which was sent to all the bishops who had attended the Council of Antioch, calls both Eusebius himself and the rest ^A *most beloved brothers*. For thus is the title of the letter conceived in Athanasius: ^B

"To Danius, Flacillus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and to those with them who wrote to us from Antioch, our beloved brothers in the Lord, greeting."

BOOK SECOND.

CHAPTER FIRST.

^A more corrupt and faulty. But in amending the affairs of Athanasius and reducing them to the norm of truth, Athanasius himself confers the greatest help to us in his books, which have reached us in great numbers and are most eloquent. In the affairs of Paul of Constantinople, however, we are destitute of this help, because, apart from the writers of ecclesiastical history, very few have made mention of him. But we shall endeavor to supply this defect by the care and diligence of ancient writers. And first, indeed, we shall inquire into the year in which he was ordained bishop of Constantinople. Socrates and Sozomen affirm that Paul was raised to the priesthood of the Constantinopolitan see during the principate of Constantius Augustus: and Baronius, Blondellus, and others, following them, refer the death of Alexander of Constantinople and the ordination of Paul to the year of Christ 340, in the consulship of Acindynus and Proculus. I, however, shall prove by two most certain arguments that Paul was already bishop while Constantine the Great was reigning. For first, Athanasius, in his Epistle to the Solitaries, not far from the beginning, where he recounts the exiles of Paul, says that he was first relegated by Constantine to Pontus. Then, in the synodical epistle of the Eastern bishops at Serdica, which Hilary reports in the fragments of his book On Synods, it is explicitly written that Paul subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius in the synod of Tyre together with the remaining bishops. He was therefore already a bishop when the synod of Tyre was gathered: which is established to have been held in the year of Christ 335, two years before the death of Constantine. The words of the synodical Epistle are as follows: "Paul, however, was present at the deposition of Athanasius, and writing his sentence with his own hand, he himself also condemned him with the rest." I know what Blondellus answers in his book on the primacy of the pope in the Church. For he says that both testimonies, both that of Athanasius and that of the Eastern bishops at Serdica, ought to be understood of Paul while he was still a presbyter. But this answer, in my judgment, is inept and futile. For if Paul was present at the Tyrian synod while still a presbyter, and subscribed to it, he must have done so in place of his bishop, Alexander. But if that is so, Paul himself is not to be said to have condemned Athanasius, but rather Alexander, whose place Paul was taking. But who would believe that of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, that he subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius? Since, therefore, Paul himself is said to have condemned Athanasius together with the rest of the bishops who had gathered in the synod of Tyre, it is necessarily concluded that he was already a bishop at that time. But as for the passage of Athanasius, it can in no way be understood of Paul while still a presbyter. For in the said Epistle to the Solitaries, Athanasius recounts from the beginning all the orthodox bishops whom the Arians had expelled from their sees. And in the first place, he names Eustathius of Antioch, then Eutropius, Euphration, Cymathius, Asclepas, Cyrus, Diodorus, Domnion, Hellanicus, Marcellus. Finally, he writes thus concerning Paul: "Concerning Paul, however, the bishop of Constantinople, I think it is unknown to no one. For the clearer the city, the less the deed can be hidden. A crime was objected to him also. And that this was false you may gather even from the fact that he who made him a defendant, Macedonius, who is now ordained bishop in his place, communicated with his defendant, whose presbyter he was, while we were present at that accusation. But since Eusebius had cast the eyes of greed ^B thither, hastening to seize the bishopric of that city: for in the same way he leaped from Berytus to Nicomedia: the accusation against Paul nevertheless remained. Nor did they cease from their snares, but persevered in slandering. And first, indeed, he was relegated by Constantine to Pontus, etc." I have deliberately placed the whole passage, diligently translated by me, here, because I shall use its testimony more often below. Furthermore, from this passage it is manifestly gathered that Paul was already a bishop when he was accused by Macedonius at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia. But that this was done while Constantine the Great was still reigning, Athanasius himself teaches, when he says that he was then present at Constantinople. Otherwise, Athanasius did not come to Constantinople until after the synod of Tyre, when he saw himself being oppressed by the faction of his enemies in that council. Nor did he come to Constantinople after that time, while Eusebius of Nicomedia was still alive. Add that Athanasius explicitly writes that Macedonius, who was accusing Paul, had communicated with Paul at that very time, and had been a presbyter under him. If Macedonius was a presbyter under Paul then, Paul must have been a bishop then. And therefore it is most true what I said, that Paul was bishop of the city of Constantinople in the times of Constantine the Great. Moreover, by the authority of two excellent writers, we learn that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, died while Constantine was still reigning. For thus Philostorgius writes in the second book of his Ecclesiastical History, page 15, where, shortly after the dedication of the city of Constantinople celebrated by Constantine the Great, he writes that Alexander, bishop of that city, departed from life: ^C Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως ἀρχιερέως Ἀλεξάνδρου, τὸν Νικομηδείας φησὶν Εὐσέβιον εἰς τὸν τῆς νεοκτίστου πόλεως ἀρχιερατικὸν μεταστῆναι θρόνον, that is, Philostorgius says, after the death of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the bishopric of the newly founded city. Theodoret writes the same in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 19. And indeed I am not disputing for the present about Eusebius, whom Theodoret and Philostorgius affirm was substituted in the place of Alexander. While I contend that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, died during the principate of Constantine Augustus, and therefore that Paul held the priesthood of that Church while Constantine was still reigning. Eusebius Pamphili had also written the same, as Theophanes testifies in his Chronicle. Nor, as Eusebius alone of all historians narrates, did Eusebius of Nicomedia hold the Constantinopolitan see when he was plotting against Athanasius at the dedication. For this is proven false even by the collation of times, etc. It seems, however, that Theophanes' memory slipped, and he put Eusebius in place of Theodoret.

CAP. II.

Whether Arius the heresiarch was received into communion by the Synod of Jerusalem.

But in this place a most valid argument is opposed to us. For since it is certain that Arius was received into communion in the synod of Jerusalem, which was gathered shortly after the synod of Tyre, or rather was transferred from the city of Tyre to Jerusalem in the year of Christ 335, it is necessary that Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, was still alive even then. For Alexander departed from this life some time after Arius. For this is the Alexander who, by his prayers, obtained from God that Arius, whom the Eusebians were threatening to introduce into the church the next day, frustrated in his hope, ^D would be extinguished by a most foul kind of death, as Athanasius testifies both in his Epistle to Serapion concerning the death of Arius, and in his circular Epistle to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, which is commonly inscribed the First Oration against the Arians. From which it is concluded that Alexander was still administering the bishopric of Constantinople in the year of Christ 336, and therefore that what I wrote above is false, that Paul, bishop of Constantinople, subscribed against Athanasius in the council held at Tyre. This is truly a most grave reason, and one which overturns our opinion from the foundation. But it must be inquired into more diligently and examined, that upon which the adversaries rely: namely, whether Arius himself was received into communion by the council of Jeru-

rerosolymitano, which was celebrated in the year of Christ 335 at the dedication of the Constantinian basilica. The synodical letter of this council is extant, reported by Athanasius in his book [i]De Synodis[/i]. Yet in that synodical letter, it is not said that Arius himself was received into communion, but rather those [i]around Arius[/i] (οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἄρειον), that is, the associates of Arius—namely, the presbyters and deacons of the Alexandrian church who had followed Arius. Certainly, the same Athanasius, speaking elsewhere of this synod, perpetually says that it was those [i]around Arius[/i], or the Arians, who were received in it. For he speaks thus both in his [i]Apology against the Arians[/i], page 801, and in his [i]Letter to the Solitaries[/i], not far from the beginning. For the beginning of that letter is missing in common copies. Someone might say that Athanasius is speaking of Arius himself. For indeed, in the book [i]De Synodis[/i], after he has reported the synodical letter of the Council of Jerusalem, which was given to the presbyters and deacons of the Alexandrian Church, he immediately appends that it had been decreed by those bishops that Arius and his followers were to be received. But I think this should be understood in such a way, not as if Arius himself were still living, but rather Athanasius spoke thus because, with the associates of Arius being received, Arius himself appeared in some way to be received. I think the same response should be given to those who object to us the synodical letter of the Council of Antioch, in which the bishops who sat in that council affirm that they received Arius into communion because they had discovered his faith to be correct. For this must be understood either in the way I have mentioned—namely, regarding the associates of Arius—or, if it is accepted as regarding Arius himself, we shall say that this did not happen at the Synod of Jerusalem, but in some earlier assembly. Certainly, Athanasius testifies in the aforementioned book [i]De Synodis[/i] that Arius and his companions had been received into communion by the Eusebians long before the Synod of Jerusalem. Furthermore, from the synodical letter of the Council of Jerusalem, it is gathered quite clearly that the bishops spoke not of Arius himself, but only of the companions of Arius. For they write in that letter that they had received letters from the Emperor Constantine by which he urged them to restore peace and concord in the Church, and to receive the comrades and followers of Arius with a placid and peaceful mind—whose faith was correct and sincere, as he had recognized both from their living voice and from the document presented to him by them. Which document Constantine himself attached to his letters to the synod. But if Constantine and those bishops were speaking of Arius, why would Constantine have later summoned Arius to Constantinople to inquire about his faith, and that after a synodical judgment and after his own approval? Why would Bishop Alexander have refused to admit Arius into the Church after these things, he who had been admitted into communion by the judgment of a most celebrated synod and approved by the judgment of the emperor? Besides, Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, testifies that he had been consulted by Serapion about a certain question that had arisen in Egypt, whether Arius had ended his final day in the communion and peace of the Church. Athanasius denies this in said letter. But if Arius had been admitted to the peace and communion of the Church by the Jerusalem council, surely Athanasius would never have denied it, nor could Serapion have been ignorant of it. Nor was the fame of the Synod of Jerusalem obscure; rather, it was by far the most celebrated of all and worthy to be compared with the Nicene synod, if we believe Eusebius, since it had been gathered from all the provinces of the Roman Empire for the dedication of the royal basilica. Finally, Athanasius, in the said letter to Serapion, mentioning the death of Arius, says that he himself was not present in Constantinople at that time when Arius was removed from the living, but that Macarius the presbyter, who was present there, wrote everything to him. Yet Macarius, the presbyter of Athanasius, was in the city of Constantinople at the time when the Eusebians, having formed a conspiracy with the Meletians against Athanasius, accused him before the Emperor Constantine regarding the canon of the linen vestment. Athanasius testifies to this in his [i]Second Apology against the Arians[/i], page 778, and after him Socrates in the first book of his [i]Ecclesiastical History[/i]. Nor do we read that Macarius the Alexandrian, the presbyter, came to Constantinople after that time. Moreover, this first accusation of Athanasius preceded the Synod of Tyre by several years. To repel and refute this, Athanasius sent his presbyters Macarius and Arius to Constantinople. Baronius, in his [i]Annals[/i], reports that this was done in the year 323 of the Nativity of the Lord.

CHAPTER III. On the first exile of Paul of Constantinople.

After the death of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, whom we believe to have died in the year of Christ 331, Paul succeeded into his place. And although he had subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius at the Synod of Tyre, nonetheless he was sought after by the Arians, and especially by Eusebius, who burned with desire for that see, through fraud and calumny. And at first, indeed, they incited Macedonium, a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, against him, so that he might object I know not what trumped-up crime to Paul. Moreover, the charge brought by the accuser was so light that, while the accusation was pending, the accuser nonetheless communicated with the accused. But the Eusebians did not cease to urge the matter, because Eusebius of Nicomedia was striving to seize that see for himself. Therefore, they did not cease to slander Paul before the prince Constantine, until he, giving ears too ready to the Eusebians, relegated Paul to Pontus, just as we reported above from Athanasius in his [i]Letter to the Solitaries[/i]. This was done in the year of Christ 356. For it could not have happened sooner, since Paul was present at the Council of Tyre in the year 335. To this Athanasius writes that he was present at that time when Paul was accused by Macedonium. But this accusation, as is gathered from the narrative of Athanasius, continued for a quite long time. Hence, it seems that Paul was not sent into exile before the year of the Lord 356. Add to this that Athanasius, in said letter, recounting in order all the bishops who were driven into exile by the fraud and calumnies of the Arians while Constantine the Great was reigning, ends his account with Paul, bishop of Constantinople. For he begins from Eustathius, bishop of the city of Antioch, whom we have demonstrated in our annotations to have been relegated in the year of Christ 329 or certainly 330. After him, Eutropius, bishop of Hadrianopolis, was driven into exile through the efforts of the Eusebians, with the support of Basilina, who had been married to Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great. After these, Euphration, bishop of Balanea, Cymatius of Paltus, another Cymatius of Antaradus, Asclepas of Gaza, Cyrus of Beroea in Syria, Diodorus of Naissus, Domnio of Sirmium, Hellanicus of Tripolis—bishops [driven into exile] because they had merely appeared to pursue the Arian heresy with hatred—some for trumped-up crimes, others with no crime objected to them, were driven from their churches by the rescript of the prince, with those who favored Arian perfidy being substituted in their place. Then Marcellus is recounted by Athanasius, and last of all, Bishop Paul of Constantinople. Marcellus, indeed, was relegated in the year of Christ 336 after the Synod of Constantinople, in which he had been deposed and condemned. Athanasius enumerates the aforementioned bishops relegated by the Arian faction in almost the same order in his [i]Apology concerning his flight[/i], where he names Carterius instead of Cymatius of Antaradus. But although Athanasius does not expressly say that Paul was condemned at that time by episcopal judgment, nevertheless from the fact that he writes that he was accused by the presbyter Macedonium, he sufficiently intimates that Paul had been condemned by a synodical sentence. Certainly Constantine, being a most religious prince, would never have sustained sending him into exile unless he had first been condemned by an ecclesiastical judgment. For thus Eustathius, thus

^A Athanasius was banished, after sentence was passed against them by the bishops. Now Paul had been accused by Macedonius, *as ou chri biokôs* [that he had lived not as he ought], as Sozomen says in Book II, chapter 3, which is to say, that he had lived basely and wickedly. Finally, the Eastern bishops in the synodical letter of the pseudo-synod of Serdica clearly testify that Paul had been condemned by episcopal judgment. For thus they speak of Maximinus, bishop of Trier: "He himself was therefore the cause of such great homicides, who had recalled to Constantinople Paul, who had long ago been condemned." Where the diligent reader will note in passing that Paul is said to have been recalled not by Pope Julius, but by Bishop Maximinus.

CAP. IV. On the first restoration of Paul.

After the death of Constantine the Great, his three sons restored to their sees the Catholic bishops whom Constantine, spurred by the Eusebians into being deceived, had banished, having given letters both to them and to the individual cities, by which they commanded that each should be received peacefully by their own citizens and clergy. Athanasius testifies to this in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, where, after listing those bishops whom I have mentioned—whom the Arians, while Constantine was reigning, had ejected from their churches and cities—he adds the following: "Seeing these things, the three brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, after the death of their father, caused everyone to return to his homeland and church, having written regarding the others to their own church," etc. Philostorgius reports the same in the second book of his *Ecclesiastical History*. But in Athanasius, these words are to be noted: *epoêsan pantas epanelthein*, "he ordered," he says, "all to return." Therefore, Eustathius of Antioch and the rest of the bishops also returned to their sees. Concerning Eustathius, however, we read this nowhere. And perhaps he may have been unwilling to use the permission and opportunity to return that was granted to him, because he saw his church besieged and occupied by the Arians. Certainly Flacillus, who had succeeded Euphronius, held the bishopric of the city of Antioch permanently, from the time of the Council of Tyre even to the Council of Antioch. Therefore, Paul, along with the others, returned from his exile in the Pontic region and recovered his Constantinopolitan see by right of postliminy. Eusebius of Nicomedia once again attacked him, having returned, with his former deceits and arts, by sending Macedonius to accuse him. That certainly seems to me to be what Athanasius hints at in that place from his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, which I quoted above, when he says, "And yet the pretext against Paul remained, and they did not neglect their intrigue, but continued to make accusations." For Athanasius wishes to say that the Eusebians, who had previously slandered Paul to Constantine, slandered him in the same way afterward to the Emperor Constantius, and finally succeeded in having Paul sent into exile by Constantius as well. Constantius, therefore, trusting in the slanders of the Eusebians, ordered a council of bishops to be held at Constantinople: by whom Paul was condemned and deposed, and Eusebius of Nicomedia was substituted in his place. So Socrates in Book II, chapter 6. ^B Who, when he says that those bishops who attended this synod were supporters of the Arian heresy, sufficiently indicates that among their number were Theodorus of Heraclea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicaea, and Ursacius and Valens, who led the Eusebian ranks. And Socrates indeed says that Paul was only deposed at that time, and not also banished. Wherefore, since Paul had at that time the free faculty of wandering, he joined himself with Asclepas, Lucius, and Marcellus, whom the Arians had, as soon as they were restored, again expelled from their cities and churches. Joined to these, Paul traveled through many cities and provinces of the Western empire, everywhere seeking the support and aid of the bishops, so that he might be restored to his see. This is taught by the synodical letter of the Eastern bishops at Serdica in these words: ^C "Then, regarding Paul and Lucius and those who are joined to such, wandering about external regions together, they were persuading the judges that those who had justly passed sentence against them were not to be believed." They speak of Marcellus, Asclepas, and Athanasius. Furthermore, I do not know whether Paul came to Rome at that time. But if it is true that Paul came to Rome at some point, it is appropriate that he came at this time. For he could not have come to Rome at any other time, as we shall see later. However, the first among the Western bishops to receive Paul into communion was Maximinus, bishop of Trier, as the Eastern bishops testify at Serdica in the Synodal [letter] cited above.

CAP. V. At what time Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the bishopric of Constantinople.

Philostorgius and Theodoret say that Eusebius of Nicomedia, upon the death of Alexander, took up the bishopric of the city of Constantinople during the reign of Constantine the Great. But Athanasius refutes them, who clearly testifies in his *Epistle to the Solitaries* that Eusebius of Nicomedia did not succeed Alexander upon his death, but invaded the place of the living Paul through force and ambition. Furthermore, Jerome writes in his *Chronicle* that Constantine, shortly before his death, was baptized at Nicomedia by Eusebius, the bishop of that place. Finally, Ammianus Marcellinus is an authority that the prince Julian was educated at Nicomedia by Bishop Eusebius, to whom he was related by blood at a distance; for so speaks Marcellinus. Now, when Julian was handed over to Bishop Eusebius to be educated, he must have been at least seven years old. For boys are not accustomed to be commended to tutors before this age. Yet Julian had scarcely completed his seven years when Constantine the Great departed from this light. Therefore, Eusebius retained the Nicomedian bishopric until the death of Constantine. ^D Certainly Constantine greatly disapproved of such transfers of bishops, as we learn from his letter to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who had constantly refused the priesthood of the city of Antioch that had been offered to him. Therefore, the opinion of those is truer who say that Eusebius of Nicomedia crossed over to the bishopric of the city of Constantinople while Constantius was reigning. Thus Socrates, Sozomen, Cedrenus, and Theophanes. And Cedrenus indeed writes that the bishopric of the city of Constantinople was offered to Eusebius by Constantius in the place of a reward, because Eusebius had first of all delivered to Constantius the testament which Constantine, dying, had entrusted to him. Socrates, however, reports this transfer of Eusebius a little after the death of the younger Constantine, that is, in the year of Christ 340, with which Baronius also agrees. But Baronius disagrees with himself, and says things which are mutually pugnacious and contrary. For when he admits that the synodical letter of the bishops of Egypt to all orthodox bishops everywhere in the world, in which they respond to the slanders of the Eusebians against Athanasius, was written in the year of our Lord 339: and yet it is established from that same synodical letter that Eusebius of Nicomedia had already by then been transferred to the bishopric of the city of Constantinople: it is absolutely absurd to defer this transfer of Eusebius to the following year. That the bishops of Egypt in that synodical letter of theirs clearly testify to that which I have said, appears from their words, which I will append here: "Although Eusebius, hindered by nothing in this matter, vituperates the creation of Athanasius: a man who himself was not created a bishop at all, and if he ever had the right of a bishop, he rescinded it himself, in that he acted as bishop for Berytus from the beginning, and having left Berytus, moved himself to Nicomedia: abandoning that chair against the laws, and invading this one by no law: of his own flock without any charity."

^C A deserter, and one who occupies another's see for no reasonable cause, he spurned the charity of his former episcopate for the sake of another's cupidity. Yet he did not even retain this same episcopate, which he had occupied with such avidity. For behold, already leaping down from there too, he obtains another's episcopate anew. Where these words are to be noted, *ἰδοὺ γὰρ κ' ἐκεῖθεν ἀποστὰς, ἀλλοτρίαν πάλιν κατέχει*, for that term *ἰδοὺ*, declares that this translation of Eusebius from Nicomedia to Constantinople had been made very recently, and shortly before these things were written. Wherefore, if this circular letter was written by the priests of Egypt in the year of our Lord's Nativity 359, as Baronius thought, Eusebius's translation to the Constantinopolitan see must have occurred in that same year or the year prior.

Chapter 6. On the second restoration of Paul, and on his second and third exile.

In the year of Christ 342, Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, died, whom not only Philostorgius but also Eusebius of Caesarea calls the Great Eusebius in his book *Against Marcellus*. Against whom I do not know why Baronius has inveighed so greatly, since it has been shown by us above that he retained peace and communion with the Roman Church until his death. After his death, the citizens of Constantinople recalled Paul to his see; the Eusebians, however, substituted Macedonius in the place of Eusebius. This matter stirred up a great tumult in the royal city, as Socrates reports in his second book. Having heard these things, Emperor Constantius, who was kept occupied in the East by the Persian war, commanded Hermogenes, master of the soldiers, that by entering Constantinople, he should drive Paul from his seat and city. For the emperor bore it with difficulty that Paul had received his Church without his consent. But the people, who burned with love for Paul, having been moved against the master of the soldiers, burned his house, seized him, and dragged him by the feet, and having miserably mangled him, threw him into the sea. This was done when Constantius and Constans were consuls for the third and second times respectively. When these things were reported to Constantius, he, being gravely moved, suddenly mounting his horse, came to Constantinople. And he indeed punished the city itself with a levy of grain; but Paul, as the author of the sedition, he deported, bound in iron chains, to Singara, a fortress of Mesopotamia. ^D Libanius speaks of this great sedition in his *Basilicus*, page 126, where he testifies that Emperor Constantius used admirable speed in making his journey, and that neither snows nor rains deterred him from his intended travel. And he says that indeed the guilty were punished by him, but that no one was put to death, since the senate of the city of Constantinople had interceded for the accused before him. Socrates indeed, and Baronius following him, say that Paul at that time came to Rome. But I would prefer to follow Athanasius, who, in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, says that Paul was relegated by Constantius to Singara, and some time later transferred thence to Emesa, for fear, likely, of a Persian incursion. The words of Athanasius are these: *Τὸ δὲ δεύτερον παρὰ Κωνσταντίου δεθεὶς ἁλύσεσι σιδηραῖς, εἰς Σίγγαρα τῆς Μεσοποταμίας ἐξωρίσθη, καὶ ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν Ἔμισαν μετηνέχθη*. That is: "And the second time, having been bound by Constantius in iron chains, he was exiled to Singara of Mesopotamia, and from there was transferred to Emesa." Since Athanasius states this so clearly, it cannot be assigned to any other time than this one of which I spoke. For that great sedition in the royal city, and the slaughter of the master of the soldiers, and Paul's restitution having been done without the emperor's consent, had not undeservedly moved Constantius to send Paul, bound in iron, into such a distant exile. From which exile, however, not long after he transferred him to Emesa, whether to gratify the Constantinopolitans, who were especially devoted to Paul, or, as I said, for fear of the Persians, who were constantly threatening Singara. Certainly, not long after, the Persians clashed with the Romans in a great battle near that fortress. Furthermore, the Arians ascribed that sedition of which I spoke, and the slaughter of men done in it, to Paul alone, as the synodal letter of the pseudo-synod of Serdica testifies: "But even regarding Paul, formerly bishop of the city of Constantinople, if any have heard of his return from exile, he shudders; and much later: Asclepas, however, when he had come to the city of Constantinople because of Paul, committed, after the barbarity of events, an atrocity, which was done in the middle of the Constantinopolitan Church after a thousand homicides which stained the very altars with human blood, after the killings of brothers and the extinctions of Gentiles, and to this day he does not cease to communicate with Paul, for whose sake these things were done."

CHAPTER VII. On the third restoration of Paul of Constantinople.

Baronius writes that Paul, having been driven from his city and Church, betook himself to Julius at Rome: and when he had received letters from him by which he was restored to his see, those letters lacked effect, since Paul recovered his Church only after the Serdican council. But I cannot agree with Baronius. For first, it is false that Paul came to Rome at that time, as I demonstrated in the previous chapter. Nor is it truer what Baronius asserts, that Paul was restored by the sentence of the Serdican synod. Certainly, in the synodal letter of the Serdican council, no mention of that matter is made. Indeed, Theodoret in his second book of *Ecclesiastical History* clearly affirms that Paul did not participate in the Serdican council at all. For the citizens of the city of Constantinople had opposed his setting out for it, having feared, namely, that he would be killed by the Arians through ambushes on the journey. But also the Eastern bishops at Serdica openly signify in their synodal letter that Paul was absent from that synod, as Blondel rightfully observed in his book *De primatu in Ecclesia*. Therefore, Paul had already recovered the place of his episcopate before the Serdican synod. Which indeed I believe was done by Constantius, either for the sake of the Constantinopolitans, who followed Paul with a certain special love and zeal; or out of fear of Constans Augustus, who in frequent letters sent to Constantius had demanded that Paul, Athanasius, and the rest of the Eastern bishops be restored to their sees. It was surely consonant with reason that, since it had finally been agreed between the two brothers, the Augusti, that a general synod should be assembled at Serdica to adjudicate the cause of the bishops, all the bishops should be released from chains and exile, so that the power of coming to the council might be available to them freely. For this reason, therefore, if I am not mistaken, Paul returned from his Singarene and Emesan exile to Constantinople. Whence, when he wished to set out for the Serdican council, he was detained by the Constantinopolitan citizens, as Theodoret teaches.

Chapter 8. On the final exile of Paul and his death.

After the death of Constans Augustus, which occurred in the year of Christ 350, the Arians, now free from all fear, rose up against the Catholic prelates much more gravely than before. And first of all, having attacked Paul, they persuade Constantius to cast him into exile, and to induct Macedonius into the Constantinopolitan Church in his place. The emperor, therefore, who had openly undertaken the patronage of the Arian perfidy, commands Philip, the praetorian prefect for the East, to drive Paul from his seat immediately. Who, having received the prince's mandate, warned by the case of Hermogenes, the master of the soldiers, decided to approach the matter more prudently. Having entered, therefore, the bath of Zeuxippus, he summoned Paul to himself, as if to consult with him concerning some public business. Who, when he had arrived, the prefect secretly let him out through a certain window, and ordered him to be snatched away to the palace. And thence, by ship

[implied continuation from previous page:] ...imposed upon him, he sent him into exile to Cucusus, a town of Cappadocia, which was later assigned to Lesser Armenia. There the Eusenians shut him up in a most restricted and dark place, depriving him of food entirely, so that they might destroy the man of hunger. After the sixth day, having entered and finding him still breathing, they strangled him with the twisted ends of a cloak, just as Athanasius writes in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*. Athanasius indeed calls this the fourth exile of Paul, though I would prefer to call it the third. For Singara and Emesa, although they are different places, must be taken as a single exile, because Paul was later translated to Emesa from Singara, to which he had first been banished.

That Socrates and Sozomen state that Paul was banished to Thessalonica by the prefect Philip is a double error, both in the identification of the place and in the notation of time. For they write that this was done shortly after the death of Hermogenes, that is, in the year of Christ 342, at which time Philip was not the praetorian prefect. Nor could Philip at that time have relegated Paul to Thessalonica, which city was then subject to Constantius Augustus, not to Constantius [Gallus], under whom Philip held the prefecture. Therefore, it is more true what Baronius writes, that these things were done against Paul by Philip in the year of our Lord 351, in which year Philip was indeed the praetorian prefect, as I have noted from the laws of the Theodosian Code in my remarks on Ammianus Marcellinus. But at that time, as I said, that is in the year 351, Paul was not banished to the city of Thessalonica, but to Cucusus, as Athanasius testifies. For how could he have been banished to Thessalonica, which was his own homeland, as Sozomen and Socrates admit? What is more contrary than homeland and exile? Therefore, Paul must have been treated kindly when he was sent to Thessalonica. What then? Someone will say: is it entirely false what Sozomen and Socrates say, that Paul came to Thessalonica and, pretending from there to set out for Corinth, sailed to Rome? I believe this to be entirely true, but it happened at a different time: namely, when Paul was first deposed and condemned, with Eusebius of Nicomedia having been substituted in his place. For at that time, Paul, having free power to wander, could have set out for Thessalonica, Rome, and other cities of the Western empire as he pleased, just as I observed above.

CAP. IX. Why Athanasius did not number Paul of Constantinople among the orthodox bishops.

One might not unreasonably wonder what the reason is why Athanasius, in his *First Oration Against the Arians*, when drawing up a list of orthodox bishops who had steadfastly asserted the Nicene faith, omitted the name of our Paul, whom it is nevertheless established fought valiantly against the Arians for the doctrine and faith of the Nicene Council. Athanasius certainly mentions Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, in the aforementioned oration. Why then did he not add to it Paul, the successor of Alexander? Nor is it the case that one should object that Athanasius in that place mentioned only those bishops who had already fulfilled their destiny, and that Paul was passed over by him because he was still living. This response might perhaps be accepted if Paul of Constantinople had still been living at the time when this first oration against the Arians was written by Athanasius. But before Athanasius wrote that oration, or rather that epistle, Paul had already departed from the living. For he died in the year of our Lord's birth 351 or 352, as I observed in the history of Socrates. This *Oration Against the Arians*, however, was written by Athanasius after the enthronement of George, in the year of Christ 356, as I noted in the previous book. Another reason for this matter must therefore be sought. For I would not believe that it was done by Athanasius without a cause or through negligence. I think, therefore, that Athanasius deliberately omitted the name of Paul in that place because, while mixed with the Arians at the council of Tyre, he had subscribed to his condemnation, as we saw above. For the same reason he also kept silent there about the name of Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, even though he had mentioned Macarius of Jerusalem. Which, indeed, is not to be believed to have been done by Athanasius out of a spirit of revenge. For Athanasius was far from such a feeling. But since Athanasius had decided to commemorate in that place only those bishops who had remained far from any crime and had always been free from every stain of Arian communion, he therefore did not wish to include in that number Paul and Maximus, whom he knew to have been polluted by the communion of the Arians at that synod at Tyre.

BOOK THREE. CHAPTER ONE.

About forty years ago, a serious controversy arose among the learned concerning the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea. Many things were then brought forward by many for its exposition, while each individual sought to draw that canon to their own side. But because very learned men were contending more fiercely with one another concerning the *suburbicarian* Churches and regions, they expounded the interpretation of Rufinus rather than the words of the canon itself. Later there arose John Launoy, a theologian of great name, who not so long ago published a book, *On the Right Interpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea*. But here, too, he struck against the same stone as those before him, and he was unable to fulfill in two editions what he had promised in the title of his work. The cause of his error was provided by the wrong path and method which he used in the exposition of this canon. For when the canon of the Nicene Council should have been explained just as it was issued by the Nicene Fathers, and after the explanation of the Greek words, the progression should have been made in order to the explanation of the interpretation of Rufinus: John Launoy, on the contrary, first investigated the meaning of Rufinus, then expounded the very words of the Nicene Fathers according to the meaning he had attributed to the words of Rufinus. We, however, omit the interpretation of Rufinus for the present, since it is more truly a paraphrase than a version. But putting forward the canon itself, as it was promulgated by those three hundred bishops, we shall attempt to explain it. Thus, therefore, the sixth canon stands: "Let the ancient customs be held, those in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the bishop in Alexandria may have authority over all these; since this is also customary for the bishop in Rome. Likewise also in Antioch and in the other provinces, let the prerogatives be preserved to the Churches; but in general it is clear that if anyone should become a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great synod has determined that such a one ought not to be a bishop." Which words Dionysius Exiguus translated into Latin thus: "Let ancient custom be preserved throughout Egypt, Libya and Penta-

Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these; because there is a similar custom for the bishop of Rome. Similarly, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the Churches. Moreover, it is generally clear that if anyone has been made bishop contrary to the judgment of the metropolitan, the great synod has defined that such a one ought not to be a bishop." ^A

CAP. II.

There are two things especially to be noted in this canon: the first is that it deals with patriarchs; the second is that it does not deal only with the ordination of these, but with the entire patriarchal right. And indeed, the former can be demonstrated thus: The Fathers of the Nicene Council, when they were looking to the peace of the Churches, decreed in the fourth canon the rite by which the election of bishops should be celebrated, and they wished them to be confirmed by the metropolitan bishops. Since, therefore, the power of the metropolitans was abundantly established in that fourth chapter, what need was there to speak again of metropolitans in the sixth? Such a repetition would be entirely pointless and superfluous, which cannot be said of men so grave. Furthermore, this sixth chapter deals with bishops who govern a diocese, not, however, with those who govern a single province. Yet metropolitans govern only one province. For they each preside over the bishops of their own province. But the patriarchs govern a diocese, that is, many provinces joined together at once, and have many metropolitans subject to them. Therefore, this canon is to be understood as concerning them, not simple metropolitans. Otherwise, the constitution of the Nicene Fathers would be mangled and imperfect. For since they had abundantly provided for the ordination of bishops, which they decreed was to be confirmed by the metropolitans, it remained for them to determine the ordination of the metropolitans themselves. This they do explicitly in canon 6, ordering that those who are "metropolitans of metropolitans" be ordained by the patriarchs. Thus, these words of our canon are to be understood entirely: "Moreover, it is generally clear that if anyone has been made bishop contrary to the judgment of the metropolitan, the great synod has defined that such a one ought not to be a bishop." Certainly, Joannes Zonaras interprets "metropolitans" in this place as "patriarchs," who are greater metropolitans. For since Alexandria is the metropolis of all Egypt, and since Antioch was called by the ancients the metropolis of the whole Orient, the bishops of those cities can be called metropolitans by right. And since the name of "patriarchs" had not yet begun to be used, the Nicene Fathers seem to have used "metropolitans" for patriarchs. ^B

CAP. III.

Certainly everyone, both the ancients and those more recent who wrote before Launoi, understood this canon as concerning patriarchs. For first, Pope Innocent, in his epistle to Alexander, understood this Nicene canon in this way: for he says that the Church of Antioch was established by the Nicene Fathers by this decree not over one province, but over its own diocese. Then he adds that the bishop of Antioch was accustomed to ordain metropolitans by a certain special right, namely by the authority of this Nicene canon. Yet these things apply only to patriarchs. For they alone have a diocese, and they ordain metropolitans, as we shall see below. ^C

To Innocent is added Jerome, in his epistle to Pammachius regarding the errors of John of Jerusalem, writing thus: "You who seek ecclesiastical rules and use the canons of the Nicene Council, and strive to usurp for yourself the clergy of others, and those who are staying with their own bishops, answer me: what does the Palestine of the bishop of Alexandria have to do with [the matter]? Unless I am mistaken, it is decreed there that the metropolis of Palestine is Caesarea, and of the whole Orient, Antioch. Either, therefore, you should have referred the matter to the bishop of Caesarea, with whom you knew how to communicate while spurning your own communion, or, if a judgment was to be sought from afar, letters should rather have been sent to Antioch." Launoi admits that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council is designated here by Jerome. Since, therefore, Jerome says that the bishop of Antioch held right over the Church of Palestine by the decree of that canon, and indeed over a metropolitan bishop, it is necessary that he understood that canon to be about patriarchs. For patriarchs were above metropolitans, and were as it were "metropolitans of metropolitans," as I said above. Whence also Jerome calls the bishop of Antioch, just as [he calls] the [bishop] of Caesarea, a metropolitan; for he adds below: "But I know why you did not wish to send to Caesarea or to Antioch. You knew what you were fleeing, what you were avoiding. You preferred to annoy occupied ears than to render the honor due to your metropolitan." Rightly, therefore, Petrus de Marca observed that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council was understood by Jerome to be about patriarchs and patriarchal right. ^D

Furthermore, Joannes Scholasticus, who was patriarch of Constantinople during the reign of Justinian, in his *Collection of Canons* recently published in Paris, understands this sixth canon to be about patriarchs. For in the first title of his *Collection*, which is "On Patriarchs," he places this sixth canon of the Nicene Council in the first position. Now Joannes Scholasticus was a patriarch, as I have already said; and consequently, he could not have been ignorant of the rights of patriarchs. Launoi's attempt to diminish his authority is entirely in vain, when he objects that he placed the seventh canon of the Nicene Council under the title "On Patriarchs," in which the honor of the bishop of Aelia is treated. For firstly, it can be answered that this was added by a more recent hand and was not written by Joannes Scholasticus himself. For why, I ask, would Joannes of Antioch have chosen to begin with the seventh canon of the Nicene Council rather than the sixth? Then it can be said that that seventh canon, although in truth it does not treat the patriarchal right of the bishop of Jerusalem, yet seems to have provided the occasion for that right to him. For by the authority of this canon, the prelates of Jerusalem gradually began to raise themselves higher.

But the eighth synod also understood this canon in no other way. For it holds this in the tenth action, chapter seventeen, "Concerning the power of the patriarchs and the advent of metropolitans to them": "The holy and universal first Nicene synod orders ancient custom to be preserved throughout Egypt and the provinces that are under it, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these, saying that such a custom has prevailed in the city of the Romans: for which reason this great and holy synod decrees that the ancient custom be preserved in all, both in elder and new Rome, as well as in the see of Antioch and Jerusalem, so that their prelates may have power over all the metropolitans who are promoted by them, and who receive the firmness of episcopal dignity either by the laying on of hands or by the giving of the pallium: namely, to convoke them in urgent necessity to a synodal assembly, or even to coerce and correct them when fame may have perhaps accused them of certain crimes." And a little later the same Fathers write concerning the councils of the patriarchs thus: "But this holy and universal synod, while not forbidding the councils that are held by metropolitans, knows much more that those are more reasonable and useful [which are] the councils of the metropolitans that are gathered by the patriarchal see; and therefore it demands that these be done. For by a metropolitan the arrangement of one province indeed is elicited: whereas by a patriarch the cause of a whole diocese is often dispensed." By which words our opinion is most openly confirmed. For the most holy Fathers say that in the sixth canon of the Nicene Council—for they designate no other canon—it is a question of patriarchs and of patriarchal right. They confirm be-

besides that which I observed above: that a patriarch differs from a metropolitan ^A chiefly in this, that a metropolitan indeed presides over one province, whereas a patriarch governs an entire diocese.

The authority of the general council, which it is sacrilege to oppose, could have sufficed. All the Greek interpreters of the canons have certainly explained this canon of ours concerning the patriarchs. Thus Zonaras and Balsamon, who certainly understood the canons better than Launoius. Nor is there any reason why one should object that the Greeks were alone in that opinion. I deny that there has ever existed anyone, whether Latin or Greek, who has accepted that canon otherwise.

CAP. IV.

CAP. V.

CAP. VI.

CAP. VII.

of this discussion we promised: that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council treats of patriarchs in so far as they are patriarchs; and that it is not to be understood solely regarding ordination, but concerning the entire patriarchal right. Now let us proceed to the rest. The said canon continues: "Because also for the bishop of Rome there is a like custom." The Greek text has it thus: ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν τῷ Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύννηθές ἐστιν. Since these words are most manifest in themselves, they have nevertheless been twisted by the various expositions of many into a most absurd sense. Inhering to the words themselves, we shall strive to investigate the opinion of the Nicene Fathers. The most holy prelates therefore offer two reasons for their decree as to why the bishop of Alexandria should have full power throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. The first is the ancient custom of those places. For thus they say: "Let the ancient custom be preserved throughout Egypt," etc. Then they offer a second reason: the example of the Roman bishop. For the words *ἐπειδὴ καὶ*, etc., have this force. Where two things are to be noted: first, that the Roman bishop is proposed as an example and norm for the remaining patriarchs; second, that nothing is set down in this canon regarding the Roman bishop, whereas something is set down regarding others, for instance, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Hierosolymitan. ^B Rightly, therefore, does Pope Nicholas write thus in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael: "Finally, if the institutes of the Nicene synod are diligently inspected, it will verily be found that the same synod conferred no increment upon the Roman Church, but rather took an example from its form for what it attributed specifically to the Alexandrian Church." Although this has been most truly said by Nicholas, Launoius nevertheless censures it in his Dissertation. For he contends that nothing was attributed to the Alexandrian pontiff by the Nicene Fathers, and he inculcates this on almost every page. But he himself is far mistaken. For when the Alexandrian pontiffs before the Nicene Council defended the power which they held over the churches of all Egypt by custom and antiquity alone, the Nicene Fathers confirmed that possession by their decree. Therefore, they did grant much to the Alexandrian pontiff, since they stabilized his power by a special canon, so that no one could henceforth oppose him. It is therefore the same as if you were to say that when the Parliament of Paris adjudicates the possession of some estate or right to one of the litigants, it grants him nothing. After the Nicene Council, the bishops of Alexandria claimed for themselves by the authority of a universal council that which they previously usurped by custom alone. Their right was therefore sanctioned and confirmed by the Nicene synod, and that by the example of the Roman bishop. For this is what these words mean: "Because also for the bishop of the city of Rome there is a like custom." It is the same as if they were saying: "The bishop of Alexandria has full power in all Egypt, because for the Roman bishop also there is the same custom." By these words the Nicene Fathers ^C manifestly acknowledge the primacy of the Roman See. For that is without doubt primal, which is the norm and rule for the others. Hence it happened that in certain ancient collections this canon is inscribed: "On the Primacy of the Roman Church." Certainly, Pope Gelasius feels this way in his Epistle to the Orientals regarding the name of Acacius (p. 183) with these words: "For by what reason or consequence must it be defended for other sees, if the ancient and venerable reverence is not deferred to the first See of Blessed Peter, through which the dignity of all priests is always strengthened and confirmed, and by the undefeated and singular judgment of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers was judged most ancient in honor?" But even before Gelasius, Pope Boniface in his Epist. to the bishops of Thessaly had observed the same, saying thus: "The precepts of the Nicene synod attest nothing else, so much so that there was no opportunity to constitute anything over it, when it saw that nothing could be conferred above its own merit. Finally, it knew that all things had been granted to it by the word of the Lord," etc. But this primacy was established much more openly in the Constantinopolitan synod, which ordained that the bishop of Constantinople should have the second place after the Roman bishop. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the Nicene Fathers, who had defined the diocese of the Alexandrian bishop, did not define that of the Roman bishop. Which was done prudently by them. For since that synod consisted almost entirely of bishops from the East, and had been gathered only to order the affairs of the East and of Egypt, it decreed nothing concerning the Roman diocese: either because it did not sufficiently know its boundaries, or because it thought that this had nothing to do with itself and the present question. Moreover, when the Fathers of the Nicene synod compare the power which the the Alexandrian pontiff had throughout the whole Egyptian diocese with that power which the Roman pontiff had, they understood entirely the power which the Roman bishop has in his diocese. For both ought to respond to each other equally: and just as the Alexandrian is compared with the Roman, so the diocese must be compared with the diocese. Otherwise, the comparison would be inept and imperfect if, in speaking of the Alexandrian pontiff, the bishops encompassed his entire diocese or patriarchate, but did not do so in regard to the Roman pontiff, instead understanding only his Roman province, which is most absurd. The Nicene Fathers, therefore, compare bishop with bishop, diocese with diocese, power with power, and custom with custom: to wit, the custom of the regions of Egypt with the custom of the Roman diocese. According to these rules, the exposition of Rufinus is to be understood, who interpreted this canon thus: "That at Alexandria and in the city of Rome an ancient custom be preserved, that either the former might have the care of the churches of Egypt, or the latter that of the suburbicarian churches." For by suburbicarian churches Rufinus understands those which are under the bishop of the city of Rome. For suburbicarian churches are spoken of in the same way as suburbicarian provinces. As, therefore, the provinces which were under the vicar of the city of Rome are called suburbicarian, so by Rufinus those churches are called suburbicarian which were subject to the bishop of the city of Rome. And just as the suburbicarian provinces constituted the peculiar diocese of the vicar of the city of Rome, so the suburbicarian churches constitute the diocese of the Roman bishop. But who the boundaries of this diocese were in the times of the Nicene Council, it would not be easy to affirm. Yet it seems most safe to me to follow the opinion of the Greek interpreters, who ascribe the whole West to the Roman patriarch, although this may displease the Romans. Certainly, the Fathers who were present at the Council of Arles do not seem to have understood the patriarchate of the Roman bishop otherwise. For thus they speak in the synodical letter which they wrote to Pope Sylvester: "It also pleased us that, before you who hold the greater dioceses, it be insinuated to all [by you] primarily." For what are those greater dioceses which the Roman bishop is said to hold, if not the provinces of the West? Which, if they are compared with the Alexandrian or Antiochene patriarchate, are found to be far larger and more extensive.

CAP. VIII. The canon of the Nicene Council having been expounded, it is now time that we refute in a few words the arguments by which Joannes Launoius strives to firm up his opinion. Launoius therefore says that the rashness of Meletius gave cause for this canon. For when Meletius had presumed to make ordinations in many regions of Egypt, the Fathers suppressed his audacity by this canon and confirmed the ancient right of the Alexandrian prelate. This is the argumentation of Launoius in chapter 1 of his Dissertation on the sixth Nicene canon. But Launoius ought to have proven before all else that this was the cause for the establishing of the canon. Of which matter, however, he brings no...

testimony, but demands that it be believed upon his own assertion. But we, especially in these matters, believe nothing without a witness. In this canon, there is question not only of the bishop of Alexandria, but also of the bishop of Antioch and other metropolitans. What did the schism of Meletius have to do with them? But if you contend that there was no other cause for the promulgation of this canon, let us grant this to you, if you please. Does it follow from this that which you desire, that in this canon one is dealing only with ordination? By no means. For a singular affair can sometimes provide the cause for a general constitution. Nor is that which you write in the same chapter any more firm, that this 6th canon is a kind of exception to the 4th canon, by which the right and power of confirming ordinations in individual provinces is attributed to the metropolitan. You, however, think that in the Alexandrian and Roman diocese the metropolitans possessed no right, in which point I cannot agree with you. For the Nicene Synod, in the said 6th canon, took nothing away from the metropolitans. This is manifestly confirmed by the clause of the canon itself, which holds thus: "That thing, however, is generally clear, that if anyone has been made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great synod has defined that this man ought not to be a bishop." Therefore, the sixth canon is not an exception and restriction of the fourth, since it rather confirms it; nor does it take away anything from the power of metropolitans, but it joins to the metropolitans the patriarchs, who are metropolitans of metropolitans. [I]

CAP. IX.

You are accustomed to say many things which you do not prove. Such is that which you say on the fifth page, that it was received by ancient custom that the Alexandrian bishop should ordain or permit to be ordained bishops, presbyters, and the remaining ministers throughout all Egypt. I readily grant you indeed regarding the bishops, that they were ordained by the Alexandrian pontiff: yet not without the consent of the metropolitan. Otherwise, what right would the metropolitans have possessed in Egypt? For it should not be thought that the metropolitans of Egypt were of a worse condition than others. But regarding presbyters and other clerics, I deny it. You bring forward, in truth, no testimony for this thing. For as to what you adduce from the first book of Sozomen, where Meletius, in the absence of Peter, who had fled during the time of persecution, is said to have laid claim to himself for the ordinations of ministers which pertained solely to Peter, that is to be understood manifestly concerning the presbyters and deacons of the Church of Alexandria, whom Meletius had instituted in the absence of Peter. And Athanasius confirms this plainly in his *Apology*, page 788, where he writes that Alexander, after the Nicene synod, having used prudent counsel, had demanded from Meletius that he give him a list containing the names of those who had been ordained by him at Alexandria: which list Athanasius indeed brings forward there. In it are recited the names of all the bishops who were of the faction of Meletius throughout Egypt. Then follow the names of the presbyters and deacons whom Meletius had ordained in the city and in the Alexandrian territory. But if Meletius had also had presbyters and deacons elsewhere, and their ordination had fallen to the bishop of Alexandria alone, Alexander would have demanded a list of them also from Meletius, as is apparent. Since Alexander did not do this, it must be said outright that either Meletius ordained none but Alexandrian presbyters and deacons, or that the ordination of clerics who were outside the parish of Alexandria pertained in no way to the Alexandrian bishop. Therefore, from that passage of Sozomen you can conclude nothing: likewise nothing from the other of Socrates, which is in book vi, chapter 7. Regarding which passage you observe thus: that Theophilus did two things. First, he constituted a bishop at Hermopolis, then he joined the clerics ordained by him to the bishop. For you believed that Ammonius and his brother, ordained by Theophilus, were clerics of the Hermopolitan Church. I see that the author of the *Geographia Sacra* was also of the same opinion. ^B But you are indeed largely mistaken. For Theophilus kept Ammonius and his brother with himself and ordained them clerics of his own Church, that is, of the Alexandrian Church. And Socrates says this so clearly that I am surprised that it was not noticed by you, a man of such great sharpness. But who could persuade himself that the presbyters and deacons of all Egypt were ordained by the Alexandrian bishop? What then would have remained for the bishops, if the ordination of clerics had been taken away from them? For a bishop, once the power of ordaining is taken away, seems in some manner to have been reduced to the order of presbyters, since a bishop differs most from a presbyter in that he has the power of ordaining, as Jerome testifies. ^C

CAP. X.

You must also note your observation which you placed in this chapter, page 8, where you inquire in what places Meletius presumed to perform illicit ordinations. For you say, "At Eleutheropolis," says Epiphanius, "Basa and Aelia, etc." You seem to have taken these cities entirely for cities of Egypt. For you wish to prove that Meletius ordained bishops and presbyters throughout the whole of Egypt. Therefore, you attributed these cities, which nevertheless are in Palestine, to Egypt. Otherwise, why did you name them? Furthermore, you name Basa for Gaza, as is rightly read in the edition of Petavius. Moreover, from this testimony of Epiphanius, it appears that Meletius celebrated illicit ordinations not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine. For when he had been condemned to the mines of Palestine which were called Phonesia, on the journey, that is, both in going and in returning, he ordained clerics. But if you wish to know in which cities of Egypt Meletius ordained bishops, you have the names of the cities and bishops in the List of Meletius which Athanasius reports. Had you read it, you could have omitted the testimony of Epiphanius. ^D

CAP. XI.

In your fourth Corollary you say that, among the ancient customs which are mentioned in the sixth canon of the Nicene council, the custom by which the Roman bishop delegated his own powers to the bishop of Thessalonica can rightly be placed. In which you are doubly mistaken: first, when you think that in the aforementioned Nicene canon certain ancient customs regarding the governing of churches are to be understood. For the Nicene Fathers understand no other custom than that which is immediately subjoined by them, namely, that the bishop of Alexandria should have power over all throughout Egypt: similarly the bishop of Antioch in his diocese, and individual metropolitans in their provinces. But that which you think, that that custom of the Roman pontiffs who mandated their powers to the bishop of Thessalonica was older than the Nicene council, the Roman council, which was recently published by Lucas Holstenius, refutes you. For there, when the origin of that custom is traced from the furthest antiquity, no evidence of it is brought forward before the pontificate of Damasus.

CAP. XII.

In your fourteenth Corollary, where you refer to the epistle of Pope Innocent to Alexander the bishop of Antioch, you wrongly criticize the most learned prelate Petrus de Marca, who had rightly noted that Innocent in the said epistle spoke concerning the patriarchal right of the bishop of Antioch and understood the aforementioned Nicene canon in that sense. The words of Innocent are: "Revolving, therefore, the authority of the Nicene synod, which explains the one mind of all priests throughout the whole world, which judged concerning the Antiochene Church [that it was] necessary for all the faithful, not to say priests, to observe, in which we know that Church was constituted over its own aforementioned diocese, not over any province." I confess that in all editions it is read *constitutum*. But if you had consulted the rules of the grammarians, they would have taught you indeed that it ought to be read *constitutam*.

^A Otherwise, to what would those words "the aforementioned Church" refer, unless perhaps you think it is a Church of a generic sort? Peter de Marca therefore acted correctly, who published this passage in that way, since it could neither be read nor should be read otherwise. Furthermore, from these words of Innocent it is completely concluded that Innocent was of the opinion that the Nicene Council had attributed patriarchal right to the Antiochene pontiff. For he says that the bishop of Antioch was established by the decree of the Nicene Council not over some province, but over his own diocese. But those who are above a diocese are called patriarchs; those who are over a province are metropolitans. Therefore, when Innocent says that the bishop of Antioch was not established over some province, ^B he sufficiently indicates that he is not a simple metropolitan. You will perhaps say that there are many who have a diocese, who however are not patriarchs: such are exarchs or primates. But I respond that these are lesser patriarchs who had metropolitans under them. Whence they also sometimes usurped the name of patriarchs. Then, it matters not whether the bishop of Antioch is called a primate or a patriarch in this passage. For your opinion is abundantly refuted if I show that Innocent does not say that the right and honor of a metropolitan were attributed by the Nicene Council to the bishop of Antioch. This is most certainly demonstrated from the things I have already said. But also the words of Innocent which follow clearly prove this. For he adds: “Whence we learn, that this was attributed to him not so much for the magnificence of the city, ^C as because it is shown to be the first see of the first apostle, where the Christian religion also received its name, and which deserved that a most famous meeting of the apostles should be held at it, and which would not yield to the see of the City of Rome, except that the latter deserved it in transit, while the former rejoices in having it received and consummated at itself.” Do you not see that Innocent is speaking here of a certain special honor and privilege, which would correspond to the magnificence of the city of Antioch, and which was almost equal to the honor and majesty of the Roman see? Innocent would be completely inept and cold if he said these things about a metropolitan right, which is common to the Antiochene with innumerable other bishops. He must therefore understand some other special right: which can be nothing other than patriarchal. You still resist, and contend ^D that the bishop of Antioch is called a metropolitan by Innocent in these words: “Therefore we think, most dear brother, that just as you as metropolitan ordain by singular authority, so you also allow the other bishops to be begotten not without your permission and knowledge,” etc. Here you, as you are wont, have embraced the error of the Mainz edition as the correct reading, and from it have concluded a false assertion that is contrary to the mind of Innocent. But if you had consulted the remaining editions—namely, the two Cologne editions, one of Crabbe, the other of Binius; the Hispanic edition of Antonio Agustín in book III of the *Epitome of Canon Law*; and the newest of all editions, the Parisian *Bibliothèque du droit canonique*, which the most learned man Guilielmus Voellus recently published together with the most illustrious man Henricus Justellus—you would have seen indeed that it should not be written *metropolitanus*, but *metropolitanos*: just as Nicolaus Faber had also emended it in the margin of the Mainz codex. Indeed, what sense would there be in your reading: “Just as you as metropolitan ordain by singular authority, so [do] you [allow] the others not without permission,” etc. If we follow your reading, the prelate of Antioch would have ordained no bishop. For Innocent commands, or rather advises Alexander, that he order the bishops positioned further away to be ordained by metropolitans or others by means of given letters, but if it so pleased him, to order the neighboring ones to come to Antioch to receive the laying on of hands. Then, what do those particles mean: “just as you as metropolitan ordain, so [also for] the rest,” etc.? Do you not see that Innocent is distinguishing here between two classes of bishops: namely, metropolitans and the rest of the provincials who are commonly called suffragans? And he says that metropolitans are indeed ordained by the bishop of Antioch with singular authority, that is, patriarchal [authority]. For only patriarchs have the right of ordaining metropolitans, as the Eighth Synod adduced above teaches. They ordain them, moreover, in two ways, as the aforementioned synod says, either by the laying on of hands, or by the sending of the pallium. Which later custom prevailed more in the West, having been introduced, as it seems, on account of the excessive distance of the places. Hence it is that in canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, by which patriarchal right was granted to the bishop of Constantinople, it is decreed by name that he should have the power of ordaining metropolitans throughout the diocese of Pontus and Asia and Thrace, but in the Barbarian territory he should also ordain bishops. The reason, however, why they gave him this power in Barbarian territory is this: that among the Barbarians there was no metropolitan, and consequently the Constantinopolitan patriarch performed the office of metropolitan in those regions.

CAP. XIII. In your seventh corollary you say that the bishop of Carthage appeared to have the same right throughout all Africa that the bishop of Alexandria had through Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that is, that he had the right of ordaining presbyters and bishops throughout all Africa. For this was the right of the Alexandrian bishop throughout the whole Egyptian diocese, as you indeed asserted in many places of your dissertation. But the canon of the Council of Carthage, from which you conclude this, does not say this, but only that it is lawful for the bishop of Carthage to take clerks from whatever Church he wishes, so that he may ordain them as presbyters or bishops for the Churches by which they were requested. Whence also the title of the canon is thus conceived: “That it is lawful for the bishop of Carthage to ordain a clerk from wherever he wishes.” He does not say *wherever* he might wish, but only *from wherever* he might wish. It was therefore lawful for the bishop of Carthage to take foreign clerks, whom he might ordain as either presbyters or bishops. But only in his own province, that is, in the Proconsular, which was also called Carthage. Outside of this province it was not lawful for him to ordain them. For the Carthaginian canon does not grant this power to him. But you will say that Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, states clearly in this canon that he bears the solicitude of all the Churches, and that therefore all ordinations pertained to him. I respond that when Aurelius says that the solicitude of all the Churches lies upon him, he is speaking of the Churches of his own province, not of all Africa. Certainly, a little before, the same Aurelius only said that he bore the solicitude of many Churches and of those to be ordained. For many and very great were the Churches in the Proconsular province; and in the city of Carthage itself, which was one of the greatest cities of the Roman empire, there were many Churches and many presbyters and deacons. But if we grant to you that the Bishop of Carthage, as primate, had care of the Churches of all Africa, it does not follow from this that he celebrated ordinations in all of Africa. For the Roman bishop also, although he bears the care of the whole Church, does not for that reason claim for himself the ordinations of all Churches.

CAP. XIV. Having set forth the sixth canon of the Nicene Council, in which we argued abundantly, as I think, about the right of patriarchs, it is pleasant now, in place of a corollary, to add certain things which pertain to the same patriarchs. It should be known, therefore, that patriarchs were accustomed to be ordained in a synod of bishops. For after the death of a patriarch, many bishops, as well metropolitans as provincials, were accustomed to assemble at the patriarchal church, as much for the sake of celebrating the funeral, as for substituting someone in the place of the deceased patriarch, by which means both his burial and his ordination would be more illustrious. So John Chrysostom, so before him Nectarius, and the rest.

^A Bishops of Constantinople are read to be ordained in a synod of bishops, as can be seen in the *Ecclesiastical Annals*. Furthermore, as soon as they had been ordained, they would send synodical letters to the other patriarchs, by which they both announced their ordination to them and set forth the formula of their faith, requesting that they, in turn, might receive from them letters of peace or communion. Indeed, even the Roman bishop, after he had been raised to the summit of the pontificate, was accustomed to send letters of this kind to the other patriarchs, his colleagues, setting forth his faith to them and asking that he be assisted by their prayers and counsel. There exists an epistle of Pope Gregory, written after this same model to all the patriarchs, in the first book of his epistles. Moreover, two synodical letters were sent at the same time. For both the bishops who had gathered for the ordination of the new patriarch wrote a synodical letter in their own name to all the patriarchs, which contained the proclamation of the patriarch newly ordained by them; and he who had been created patriarch sent his own synodical letter separately to his other colleagues. We have an illustrious example of this in Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople. For when the bishops by whom the patriarch of Constantinople had been ordained had written a synodical letter to Pope Hormisdas, he himself sent a separate synodical letter to the same Hormisdas by his own legates. And that first one was properly a "synodical" letter, seeing that it had been written by the synod and had prefixed to it the names of all the bishops who had taken part in the synod, except for Epiphanius himself. The latter, however, can only be called synodical in an improper sense. Both of these letters are found in Baronius in his *Ecclesiastical Annals*, in the year of Christ 520.

It is further to be observed that the legates of the patriarchs who brought the synodical letters were accustomed to proceed to the altar along with the patriarch to whom they had been sent and to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass. And this was a token of mutual communion between the patriarchs. We have two testimonies to this effect. The first is that of the deacon Liberatus, who in the beginning of chapter 18 of his *Breviary* writes as follows concerning Misenus and Vitalis, legates of the Roman Church to Acacius, bishop of Constantinople: "They went to Constantinople. And the aforementioned bishops were placed in custody, their papers having been taken away, so that they might not be delivered to the Catholics to whom they had been written. These, after this, Acacius expelled from custody and caused to proceed with him, so that they might be dismissed as if the priesthood of Peter had been confirmed." The second testimony is that of Gregory the Great, who in epistle 31, book VI, writes as follows to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, bishops: "The representatives of our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus, upon arriving, brought me his synodical epistle. And indeed, between us and him, as your beatitude knows, there is grievous discord on account of the claim of a profane title. But in the cause of the faith, I judged that his representatives who had been sent should be received, lest from the fault of pride, which has arisen in the Church of Constantinople against almost all priests, I should cause dissension in the faith and ecclesiastical strife for the sake of unity. But the same representatives, because they themselves most earnestly requested this, I caused to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass with me; because, just as I have striven to signify to our most serene lord the emperor, the representatives of our brother and fellow-priest Cyriacus ought to communicate with me, who, by the grace of God, have not fallen into the error of pride." ^B Here you see that, in place of what the deacon Liberatus had said, "to proceed," Pope Gregory said "to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass." Yet in the same place Gregory uses the word "proceed" in the same sense. For he thus subjoins: "But my own deacon ought not to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass with the aforementioned Cyriacus, who either has committed or follows the fault of pride by means of a profane word. Lest, if—which God forbid—he proceeds while he is placed in such pride, we should seem to confirm the vanity of a foolish title." The same Gregory, in epistle 30 of the same book, which he wrote to the Emperor Maurice, says the following on the same matter: "I have honored them more than ancient custom had been, and have caused them to celebrate the sacred solemnities of the Mass with me; because just as my deacon ought not to minister to him in exhibiting the sacred mysteries, he who either has committed the fault of pride or does not himself correct it when committed by others, so his ministers ought to have been present with me in the celebration, for I, with God keeping me, have not fallen into the error of pride."

Finally, the patriarchs themselves, if by chance they had gathered in one place, would celebrate the solemnities of the Mass together. Thus, while Basil Porphyrogenitus was emperor, Agapius, archbishop of Seleucia in Syria, having been made patriarch of Jerusalem, when he had come to Constantinople, celebrated the solemnities of the Mass together with the patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas, and with the sacred synod; as is read in the fourth book of the *Juris Græco-Romani*, page 294. The Greek words are: "Os εἰσελθὼν ἐνταῦθα, συνελειτούργησε τῷ μακαριωτάτῳ καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ πατριάρχῃ κυρίῳ Νικολάῳ, καὶ τῇ ἱερᾷ συνόδῳ." Later, while Alexius Comnenus was emperor, Sabas, bishop of Caesarea Philippi, was made patriarch of Jerusalem, who, coming to Constantinople, celebrated the solemnities of the Mass together with the most holy patriarch Nicholas and the sacred synod, as is read in the same book of the *Juris Græco-Romani*: "Συνελειτούργησε τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ πατριάρχῃ Νικολάῳ καὶ τῇ συνόδῳ." I know that Leunclavius, the most learned interpreter of the *Juris Græco-Romani*, translated the word *sulleitourgein* into Latin as "to perform the sacred ministry." But our interpretation is better, seeing that it is confirmed by the authority of Gregory the Great, as we saw above. We have an illustrious example of the same custom in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, at which the four patriarchs were present together, and in the great church of Saint Sophia they celebrated the solemnities of the Mass together; as Eustathius writes in the *Life of the blessed Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople*: "They form, he says, a certain fourfold and, in a way, golden chain: they entered into the great church, and offered the divine and unbloody sacrifice," etc.