Ecclesiastical History — Prefaces (Valesius's Preface; Petrus de Marca)

TEN BOOKS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI

Henry Valesius has amended the Greek text, having collated four manuscript codices, translated it into Latin, and illustrated it with annotations. (Paris edition, 1659.)

DEDICATORY EPISTLE

TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS AND MOST REVEREND ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND THE WHOLE CLERGY OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH.

After so many editions of the Greek Fathers which have come to light hitherto under your auspices, one thing alone remained, most illustrious Prelates: that the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea, much more amended and pure than heretofore, should be presented to Catholic men under the title and patronage of your name. For this was required by the utility of the Church, for whose benefits you assiduously provide; this was the wish of all learned men; and finally, this Eusebius himself, by a certain right of his own, seemed to demand from you. For, to speak first of the Church, what more illustrious for her praise, what more forceful for her defense, what more useful for her propagation, what more apt for restoring the gravity of manners and discipline can be brought forward than the history of ecclesiastical affairs?

Now, indeed, in order to convince heretics, nothing, in my judgment, is more effective and powerful than this kind of writing. For the minds of men with difficulty suffer themselves to be overcome by disputations and reasoning. And as often as they see themselves pressed, and have naught to answer, they do not attribute it so much to the truth as to the subtlety and craftiness of their adversaries in disputing. Indeed, it has been proven by long experience that, whether by written or by oral disputations, the spirits of heretics are ignited rather than healed. But the history of ecclesiastical affairs, because it insinuates itself more gently into the minds of readers, brings back a far easier victory over them. ^A For who is there among men of a diverse faction who, when he has attentively read through the ecclesiastical history, is not immediately suffused with shame, recognizes his own error condemned therein, and laments himself as a member cut off from the rest of the body? For since ecclesiastical history contains nothing other than the perpetual succession of the apostolic sees, the series of bishops succeeding one another, and finally the illustrious struggles of teachers and martyrs for piety: from which the former overcame the fury of the Gentiles by the fortitude of their endurance, while the latter [overcame the fury] of the heretics who

had risen up against the Church, they refuted by their writings: whoever among the heretics shall turn his eyes and mind to the reading of this history, he must needs confess that he is utterly alienated from that succession of the apostles, from that choir of doctors and martyrs, and finally from that communion of bishops. For just as they understand that their own error is condemned by the sentence of those selfsame successors of the apostles—who still occupy the same sees and chairs in which the apostles once sat, and by those very men who condemned the Novatians and Donatists and the followers of Artemon—so too ought they to be ashamed of their error and their novelty, as often as they see in ecclesiastical history, as in a mirror, the truth and antiquity ^B which is repugnant to the error and novelty of their own dogmas. And let these things be said in passing concerning the chief utility of ecclesiastical history, for the sake of which, above all, the charge of this new edition was entrusted to me by you. Nor, indeed, have you provided only for the benefits of the Church by this edition, but also for the prayers of all learned men, most of whom were hitherto deterred from the reading of our Eusebius, partly by the blunders and faults of the Greek text, and partly by the errors of the Latin translators. And lest anyone perchance think that this was said by me for the sake of diminishing the glory of others and advertising my own work, I shall here append the testimony of a most learned man, who eighty years ago passed the same judgment ^C on the Greek edition of Eusebius and on the Latin translators. He is Johannes Curterius, who, in the epistle which he prefixed to the Parisian edition, addresses Johannes Rupesucaldus in these words: "If we look into this edition of the Greek historians of the Church, what has ever been published more depraved? I often experienced this six years ago, when I delighted in reading it in Greek; and although I had brought Rufinus—whose copies are easily believed not to have been so corrupt in his time—and Musculus himself into consultation, it is so far from the case that I was helped by their versions that I found that the former (whom Jerome rightly criticizes) performed his task of rendering Eusebius with little integrity; and that the latter not only failed to notice the light ^D errors of the corrupt Greek exemplar, but, partly through sloth and partly through design, in order to favor his own party, introduced infinite errors of his own into the version." And a little later he declares as follows concerning Christophorson's interpretation: "I would not have begrudged the public utility of his book's emendations for so long, had I not thought that the promised interpretation of Christophorson was also to be awaited. For I hoped that because he was a well-learned man and a Catholic, and furthermore had been helped by good exemplars, he would produce not only a clear and safe version, but would also add annotations of various readings and corrections to the emendation of the Greek codex (which is wont not to be omitted by all translators) for public use. But it happened far differently than I expected. For if I may say this much now about his edition: that while it is indeed pious and Catholic, it is nonetheless fair to believe for many reasons that it is nascent rather than exact or perfect: so I see that little or almost no fruit has redounded to the many from the better codices which he himself used, since, however much he may have followed, changed, or added to them, he does not advise in their proper places, as he should have, either for the restoration of the Greek or for confidence and authority in his own version." Petrus Halloixius also, a man preeminently learned and diligent, in volume II, in which he has comprehended the lives of the illustrious writers of the Eastern Church, in his notes to the Life of St. Hegesippus, chapter 3, feels the same about Johannes Christophorson's version as Curterius: "In a word," he says, "almost all the errors of Christophorson, which are not few, adhere also to Baronius, since he always uses his version in citing Eusebius. Thus it happens that as others follow others, and do not examine the Greek sources, the errors of some first translator are spread infinitely to very many writers who rely solely on the authority of the former. From which it is also easy to recognize how great is the necessity of the Greek language." The same man, in the same chapter, page 731, says that he gladly notes the errors which occur in Christophorson's version, so that readers might not be led into error by his version. And many had indeed noticed the evil itself, as you see, and lamented that public damage, that such useful books of ecclesiastical antiquity were read so depraved by the fault and negligence of both the writers and the translators. Some even attempted, to the best of their ability, to apply a remedy in certain specific places. But no one has yet appeared who would undertake a new edition and emendation of the Eusebian work; either because most were deterred by the magnitude of the labor, or because they were destitute of the abundance of written exemplars and of the leisure and other subsidies which are necessary for that work. Until you, for your zeal for the republic of letters,

^A have set yourselves to this task, and have committed to me the care of editing and adorning a new edition of the Eusebian history, so that, with the errors and faults of previous editions removed, a clearer path henceforth might be paved for readers toward the most certain knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs. For which reason all students of letters certainly owe you a great debt, you who have wished to provide for their convenience and utility through our labors.

Besides those causes which I have already mentioned, which impelled you to this new edition of the Ecclesiastical History, there was also another, not at all, I think, to be passed over: namely, that you have desired to show gratitude to Eusebius, who has deserved so well of you and of the Gallican Church. Certainly there is no one among the ancient writers of the Church who has woven into his own writings so many praises of the Gallican Church, so many honors and ornaments. For if you look at its antiquity—which is the chief argument of nobility—it is he who testifies that Crescens, the disciple of the apostle Paul, came into the Gauls and there preached the Gospel. If we contemplate the holiness and doctrine of its bishops, he brings forth for us Pothinus and Irenaeus, bishops of Lyons. Of whom the former, ^B after he had ruled his church for a very long time with the best examples and teachings, finally, at over ninety years of age, finished his life with an illustrious martyrdom. The latter, indeed, a most valiant champion of the Christian faith, fought against all heresies with most luminous books.

Now, if you desire the fortitude of the martyrs and the sincere Acts of their passion, truly no Church is to be preferred to this Gallican one of ours in this matter. For we shall immediately produce the letter of the Viennese and the people of Lyons, which is the most beautiful and most ancient monument of the whole Church in this kind. Although much has already been said by many concerning its praises, no one, however, has spoken up to now in accordance with its dignity. So much does the merit and weight of that letter surpass every power of speech. And all who read it frequently will confess this. For the more it is read, the more excellent it always seems to be.

But this so famous monument of your Church we must attribute to Eusebius alone. For had he not woven it into the books of his Histories, we might perhaps now be lacking such a great treasure of ecclesiastical antiquity. But if the sincerity and simplicity of faith be sought, Eusebius commends our Gauls in these books principally for this: while he says that the persecution of Diocletian in the western parts, and especially in Gaul, was quickly suppressed, God having more kindly indulged them on account of the sincerity of their faith. ^C Now truly—and this is not the least praise of the Gallican Church—we may discover, not once, but often in these books of Eusebius, its perpetual agreement with the Roman see from those very early times. First, indeed, in the letter of the martyrs of Lyons, which they wrote while still placed in prison to Eleutherus, then bishop of the city of Rome; for when the Asians had consulted them by letters given to the brothers of the Church of Lyons as to what should be thought concerning the new prophecy which had recently arisen in Phrygia and had stirred up most serious disturbances throughout all Asia, the Gallican martyrs referred the matter to Eleutherus, so that by his intervention—he whose authority in the Church was greatest—peace might be restored to the Asians. A second example of this concord is provided by the Gallican synod, in which Irenaeus, together with several bishops of the Gauls, is said by Eusebius to have subscribed to the opinion of Pope Victor concerning the celebration of the Paschal feast. That same Irenaeus also rose up strongly against Florinus, who was disturbing the Roman Church with a pernicious schism. I pass over Reticius, Maternus, and Marinus, bishops of Gaul, who, residing in the Roman synod with Pope Miltiades, held together with him the same opinion against Donatus.

Since, therefore, so many and such great praises of the Gallican Church have been commemorated by Eusebius, it should seem strange to no one if, for such great commendations of your predecessors, you have desired to show him this gratitude, so that his Ecclesiastical History might be edited into the light under your auspices, as emended and adorned as possible. Regarding which matter, since you have chosen me alone out of all, I for my part profess that I owe you much on that account, in that you have thought of me so honorably. I understand, however, how great a burden has been imposed upon me by you: that after three Latin translators, I myself should proceed as the fourth, and undergo the same risk of reputation with them. But since it was a crime for me to resist this desire and mandate of yours, I have most willingly undertaken this labor both for your sake and for Eusebius’s, and I have digested every hardship in emending and interpreting with long-suffering patience. ^D Others indeed, better instructed in both genius and doctrine, will furnish more and better things. I have attempted to carry this out so that no one might justly and deservedly find fault with my diligence in this work. Whether I have attained to this, you, most illustrious Prelates, will judge according to your equity. But if this labor, undertaken and exhausted by me

that I have understood the labor to have been pleasing to you, I shall proceed with a more prompt and eager spirit to the edition of the remaining writers of ecclesiastical history, and with your favorable support I shall endeavor to accomplish the same in those as I have in Eusebius.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Lords, your most devoted, HENRICUS VALESIUS.

PREFACE TO THE SAME MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRELATES, REGARDING THE NEW EDITION OF EUSEBIAN HISTORY

The solemn duty of dedication being completed, it is now time, most illustrious Prelates, that I should render to you an account of my work, section by section. For since this labor was undertaken by me primarily for your sake and at your command, I both desire and hope that you, above all others, will be the readers and judges of my work. There are, therefore, three things that I have sought to accomplish in this edition. The first is the emendation of the Greek text; the second is a Latin interpretation of the same; the third is an exposition of the more obscure passages. And as far as the Latin interpretation is concerned, after the three interpreters of the Eusebian History, I have myself worked out a fourth. But the emendation and exposition of the Eusebian work, no one before us had attempted. But that I may speak of each thing in its own place and order more distinctly, I will begin first with the emendation. Whoever undertakes a new edition of ancient writers, they must necessarily take the beginning of their labor from emendation. Thus, when Origen had undertaken a new edition of the Septuagint Translators, and had found many things in them doubtful and discordant due to the variety of the exemplars, he labored first on their emendation; and having collated the exemplars of the Seventy Elders, partly with the Hebrew text, and partly with the three other editions—namely, those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus—he removed all the errors that had crept into the edition of the Seventy Elders. For he himself hinted at the same in his eighth treatise on Matthew with these words: "In the exemplars of the Old Testament, whatever things were discordant, we were able, with God granting it, to adjust, using the judgment of the other editions. For those things which seemed doubtful among the Seventy because of the variance of the exemplars, by making a judgment from the remaining editions, we have preserved what was consistent." Following the example of Origen, blessed Jerome afterwards gave to the men of his own language a new edition of the Septuagint Translators, corrected by himself and distinguished by asterisks and obeli, just as he himself testifies in various places. And that I may speak even of secular writers, Crates and Aristarchus, the grammarians who elaborated the most accurate editions of Homeric poetry, performed almost nothing other than the emendation and punctuation of that work. In the same way, therefore, when I had determined to compile a new edition of the Eusebian History, I applied all industry and diligence to its emendation. Only two editions of the Eusebian History have appeared in Greek thus far: the first is the Parisian, which Robert Stephanus printed—a man of letters who deserves the highest merit by that name, because he was the first to publish the corpus of ecclesiastical history in most elegant type; the second is the Genevan edition. But this one in its Greek text everywhere reproduced that edition of Robert Stephanus, except that it has various readings and emendations placed at the margin taken from the codices of learned men; and it filled in a few lacunae that occur in the books *De vita Constantini* from those same codices. Therefore, I had to labor upon the single edition of Robert Stephanus alone. Having collated this, indeed, with four manuscript codices of the highest quality with as much diligence as I could, I restored it in many places.

Of these four codices, the Royal library provided two for us. The former bears the insignia of Francis I; it was written more or less four hundred years ago on cotton paper and sometimes exhibits singular readings, and those differing greatly from the remaining codices. This is the one I have called the Royal codex in the annotations. The other is from the Medicean library, which, now transferred to the Royal, is known by one and the same name of the Royal library.

^C It is valued as such. This, to distinguish it from that former codex, is called the Medicean codex in our annotations. Although it is a little more recent, it was nonetheless described from a very excellent exemplar and by a learned hand. Robert Estienne had used these two exemplars in his edition of the Ecclesiastical History. And in printing the text itself, he followed the Royal exemplar almost everywhere, and, as I have observed in my annotations, he departs from its traces very rarely. However, in the division of the chapters, he expressed the Medicean codex, in which the titles are set before individual chapters, and indeed in red letters. ^D Added to these is a third codex, that of the most eminent Cardinal Jules Mazarin. Before I speak of the excellence and worth of his exemplar, the situation demands—and you, most illustrious Prelates, seem to require this of me—that a few things be said about the most eminent Cardinal from whom I received that codex on loan. For since this most eminent prince, born for the greatest of all things, embraces letters with a certain singular benevolence, we who have applied our minds to the study of letters from an early age would surely be ungrateful if we did not strive to express our gratitude to him, as much as we are able, both by voice and in writing, as much in our own name as in the common name of all learned men. Furthermore, how great is the favor and benevolence with which he pursues letters, his sweeping generosity and munificence toward learned men bears witness; which, indeed, to say nothing of others, he recently wished to extend even to me, while I expected and was not even thinking of anything of the sort. His most abundant library declares the same. For, having equipped it with countless exemplars of the best writers, partly printed and partly written by hand, he does not keep it perpetually closed like some sepulcher—as those old senators of the City of Rome whom Ammianus Marcellinus censures on that account—but opens it to all the learned as a public house; he invites individuals of his own accord; and he liberally permits the use of the hand-written codices to students, whenever they have need of them. What shall I say of the rest of his virtues and the excellent gifts of his mind? What of the wonderful moderation and gentleness with which he quelled internal commotions and tumults without the shedding of any citizen’s blood? But these things shall be said more conveniently by me at another time, or more ornately by others. For now, I have decided to pursue only those of his praises which pertain privately to the study of letters. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from saying something here about the peace, which the most eminent Cardinal now urges and promotes with every effort and industry, and which we hope will be publicly announced shortly by royal heralds. Indeed, this matter pertains especially to the advantage of letters, and there is no one who does not know that letters are the foster-children of peace, and that they rest under its shade and protection. Since, therefore, when the most eminent Cardinal was first moved to the helm of the republic, he had not himself brought about the grave war with the Spaniards but had found it already brought about, after long and accurate consideration of various plans—as is necessary in such a great matter—he finally decided that the Spaniards were to be subdued by a lasting war, and were to be warned by the very fact of how much the French possessed in arms, wealth, fortitude, steadfastness, and the other supplies necessary for war; so that the enemies, having recognized their own weakness and the power of the French, might be slower in the future to provoke our own people, either by arms or by injury. For he believed that a firm and secure peace could not be established with the enemies in any other way than when they perceived, by their frequent defeats and losses, that they were unequal to the French in carrying on the war. And so, when the Spaniards finally recognized this at a late hour, just as the Phrygians did, then at last the most eminent Cardinal, noticing that the opportune time for entering into peace had arrived, did not refuse to make it with the enemies, and to concede something regarding our own right, regarding the sum of the whole war, and finally regarding the hope and victory that we already almost had in our hands, so that he might gratify the convenience of the peoples and the prayers of all good men, and finally the desire of the entire Christian world. In this, I truly cannot admire enough his singular prudence and the wholesome wisdom of his statesmanship. For, indeed, peace has not been delayed for so long for any other reason than that it might thereafter be longer-lasting and more firm. And let these things be said in passing concerning the praises of the most eminent Cardinal. Since he has never ceased most kindly to cherish letters and all learned men in the midst of arms, it is all the more to be hoped that, in his time of peace, he will embrace the same arts with a certain special study and provident care: and that he will bring it about that our Frenchmen, who have always stood out before other nations in the glory of their arms, might now excel in the praise of letters and the study of the best arts.

^A But now it is time that we return to that from which we digressed. The third codex, therefore, which the library of the most eminent Cardinal provided for us, is by far the best and most ancient of all the Eusebian codices I have seen. For as many emendations as we found in other copies, that codex exhibits them all; and there are many other emendations in it which I did not find in other copies, as, from my annotations, studious readers will be able to learn. It was written on parchment/membranes about seven hundred years ago, most elegantly and at the same time most correctly. It also has, here and there, scholia in the margins, written now in an ancient hand, now in a more recent one, which we have described in our annotations, each in its proper place. There are also many other things in that excellent codex to be observed, partly in the accents, and partly in the distinction or punctuation. For, as far as the accents are concerned, words in that codex are often given an acute accent which in other copies have a circumflex. For example, ^B *τιός* and *καῖσαρ* are always given an acute accent in that codex. On the other hand, *πρός*, which in other codices is marked with an acute accent, is circumflexed in that codex. And I think that is more correct. But regarding the distinction, which we commonly call punctuation, this codex is so accurately distinguished that from this one codex you could learn the whole theory and science of punctuation, which is by no means of slight importance. Certainly, before I had acquired it, I had not yet perceived the usefulness and necessity of the middle distinction; which that one codex, once it was carefully inspected and examined, at length revealed to me. But we shall speak more about punctuation below. Furthermore, I have observed in that most ancient codex that whenever a full distinction or *τελεία στιγμή* is placed at the end of a line, the first letter of the following line is seen to be positioned outside the order of the others, and it slightly ^C grazes the outer margin. And that is an indication that a new chapter or a new period begins after that final mark of punctuation. I have observed the same thing in other written codices also. Certainly, in the old papers of the Royal library which contain the books of Eusebius’ *Life of Constantine*, I noticed that it is always done so whenever a new chapter begins. Furthermore, we had a fourth codex from the library of the most illustrious man, Nicolas Foucault, who, performing the office of a general proctor in the Parisian senate, at the same time administers the prefecture of the royal treasury with the highest praise. And we have used these four manuscript codices for the emendation of the books of the *Ecclesiastical History*. But we compared the books of the *Life of the Emperor Constantine* with three ancient codices. The first is that Royal one, of which I spoke above, in which, before the books of the *Ecclesiastical History*, the four books of the *Life of the Emperor Constantine* are read, written, although not by the same hand, nevertheless by an ancient one. The second place is held by the ^D old papers of the Royal library. I call "papers" those sheets which are indeed gathered in quaternions but are loose, and not bound in the manner of a codex. In these papers, besides the books of Eusebius’ *Life of Constantine*, and the same emperor’s *Oration to the Saints*, the first quaternion of the *Ecclesiastical History* is held; of which I have often made mention in my annotations. The rest, I do not know by what accident, have perished. The third codex was provided to us by the Foucault library. In which, before the four books of the *Life of the Emperor Constantine*, is prefixed Eusebius’ *Panegyric*, spoken to the same Constantine in the thirtieth year of his reign. This codex, although of a very late age, is nevertheless of the best quality, and in many places more correct and fuller than those two previous ones which Robert Estienne used in his edition. Besides these hand-written codices, we were assisted by various readings and emendations which learned men had noted with their own hand in the margins of the edition of Robert Estienne. Of which kind of codices many are still found. But we have used three primarily, which are also often mentioned in our annotations. The first was that of Adrien Turnèbe, which he had most diligently compared with the Royal and Medicean codices. But the books of the *Life of the Emperor Constantine* had been compared with a certain Anglican copy, either by the hand of Adrien himself, or of Odo Turnèbe. The second codex was that of Vulcanius: which, because René Moreau, a Parisian physician, had lent it to me, I am accustomed to call the "Moreau codex" in my annotations. This book, besides those emendations which are contained in the book of Turnèbe, contains very few others. The third codex was that of Henry Savile, a most learned man, sent to me from England by James Ussher of Armagh. For when I had noticed in Ussher’s notes to the *Martyrdom of Blessed Polycarp* that a manuscript codex of the Eusebian *History* from the Savilian library was praised,

^A I asked him by letter to transmit to me the various readings of that codex (for I assumed it had been collated in its entirety by him). He replied, however, that the codex itself—written on cotton paper and gifted to the Oxford library by Savile—had been sent to me. Moreover, he immediately sent me the edition of Robert Stephanus, in the margin of which Savile had noted emendations taken from that manuscript codex of his. However, as far as I could conjecture, Savile did not record all the readings of the written codex in the margin of that edition, but only those which he deemed good and certain. For certain readings are brought forward by Ussher from that written codex, which I later discovered had been passed over by Savile. Furthermore, the same Savile wrote many emendations in the margins of that edition from a codex of John Christophorson, which Christophorson had, of course, collated with several manuscript copies.

These are the subsidies of books with which, having been equipped, we undertook to emend the books of the Eusebian *History*. But lest anyone perhaps think that anything was changed by us rashly and at our own whim, we wish above all that readers be warned that we have done nothing without the consensus and authority of the best copies. And so it was a matter of religious principle for us, in these books, to interpolate nothing, so that we would not want to indulge our own conjecture—not even when it appeared most manifest that a passage was corrupted. Let the passage at the end of Book x of the *Ecclesiastical History*, p. 399, be an argument for this, which says thus: *Ὁ δ' ἀρετῇ πάσῃ θεοσεβείας ἐκπρεπῶς μέγιστος νικητὴς Κωνσταντῖνος.* We could have restored the true reading here with little effort, and emended *ἐκπρεπῶς* for *ἐκπρεπῶν*. For thus Gelasius Cyzicenus cites that passage of Eusebius in Book II, nor is it written otherwise in Book I of Eusebius’s *Life of Constantine*, ch. 19, where this passage is repeated in exactly the same words. In short, there is no passage emended in this edition of ours for which I have not admonished the reader in the annotations, and for which I have not provided the rationale of my emendation. ^B A not unimportant part of emendation is the distinction or punctuation, regarding which something must be said by me, lest perhaps readers be disturbed by the new system of punctuation which has been brought into this edition by me for the first time. Although, if we wish to speak accurately, it is not a new system of distinction, but a most ancient one, and one used by all the ancients, both Greeks and Latins: a system which, having been totally abolished by the negligence of more recent scholars, I have attempted in this edition to revive at least in part.

Indeed, those people of old, when writing in characters that had been recently invented, wrote in one continuous stream without any distinction at all. Since this practice held great difficulty both in reading and in pronouncing, the ancient grammarians devised three positions or distinctions, by which the continuous course of speech might be distinguished as if by certain stations and resting places. They called the first *ὑποστιγμήν*, that is, the sub-distinction; the second *μέσην*, that is, the medium distinction; the third *τελείαν στιγμήν*, that is, the final or full distinction. They marked each one with three points placed in different positions. For a point placed at the bottom of the letter signifies the sub-distinction; the medium distinction, however, which the Latins called a *mora* (pause), is signified by a point affixed to the middle of the letter. That point, moreover, which is placed at the top of the letter, denotes the final distinction.

Grammarians like Donatus, Marius Victorinus, and Diomedes in Book II teach what the force and logic of these distinctions is; the latter, for us, will be the sole authority of all in this place. "To reading," he says, "must be added positions or distinctions, which the Greeks call *θέσεις*; these, during reading, give the opportunity to refresh one's breath, lest it fail through continuation. These three are: the distinction, the sub-distinction, and the medium distinction or *mora*, or, as it seems to some, the sub-medium: their diversity is indicated by three points placed in different places." And a little later: "A distinction is a note of silence, when, the sense being finished, it is permitted to rest longer. The note of this is a point placed above the line at the top of the letter. The sub-distinction is a note of legitimate silence, by which the end of the pronunciation is suspended while the sense remains [incomplete], so that what follows must immediately succeed it. The note of this, however, is a point placed below the line. The *mora* is a distinction interposed in the continuation of the senses, holding a place intermediate between the legitimate distinction and the sub-distinction, such that it seems neither perfect in its entirety nor entirely absent; but, with the significance of pausing, it desires the beginning of another sense. And this alone preserves the function of refreshing and nourishing the reader's spirit with the briefest breath. For thus, by pronouncing, one must hold...

as one should, so that because the spirit itself is changed by a certain cessation, it may then be resumed. It is as follows: ^A

*As turnus from the rampart of Laurentum raised the signal of war,* *And the horns blared with a hoarse sound;* *And as he shook the spirited horses, and as he clashed his arms;* *The minds were immediately disturbed.*

For there are many clauses in this reading that are intermediate. First, so that those which are placed as *dixola* and *trixola* and suchlike may not be confused. Then, so that the action of the words may stand out and shine, which is moved by some emotion, whether indignation or compassion, etc. All the ancients, therefore, both Greeks and Latins, used marks of these kinds ^B of distinction or punctuation in their books: which it is agreed were still in use in the age of Isidore of Seville. For we learn this from his book of *Etymologies*, book 1, ch. 19. In manuscript copies that are slightly older, the same method of distinguishing is also perpetually preserved. But more recent writers, whether through ignorance or a certain sloth and negligence, have changed everything. And for a sub-distinction, they indeed placed commas; for the mark of a medial distinction, two dots: but the mark of the final distinction they lowered from the head to the feet of the letter. This perverse method of distinguishing almost all typographers have followed, except for Aldus Manutius. For he, in the edition of Greek books, which he printed in nearly infinite numbers, always retained that punctuation ^C which he had found in the manuscript copies. And as far as commas are concerned, I would not wish to condemn them. For it matters little which mark we use to designate a sub-distinction, provided that this mark is placed at the feet of the letter. Certainly, in that most excellent and ancient codex of the Mazarine Library, which I mentioned earlier, I found a comma placed sometimes for a medial, sometimes for a final distinction, that is, now at the middle of the letter, now at the top. Nor was the medial distinction sometimes designated by a comma alone, but also by a *sicilico* or inverted *aplê*, as Victorinus teaches in *Artis grammaticae*, book 1. But that we today place a dot at the feet of a letter for a final distinction, that, in my own judgment, can in no way be borne. ^D For not only does it conflict with antiquity, but also with reason. Indeed, reason demands that a mark placed in the same position should designate the same distinction. A dot, therefore, placed in the bottom part ought to signify the same thing as a comma that is marked at the bottom of a letter. For it is not the mark itself, but the position of the mark that varies the distinction. From which it follows that the final distinction is not correctly marked by us with a dot placed at the feet of the letter. Wherefore, not without cause have I endeavored to restore the ancient method of punctuation in this edition. And I have indeed retained the comma itself, since it is of the same value as the dot in denoting a sub-distinction; but the medial distinction I restored, as it were, postliminiously to its proper places by the authority of the manuscript codices. Its utility and necessity, moreover, the learned, as I hope, will quickly recognize. For that medial distinction is of value not only so that the breath may be taken up to continue to the beginning of another sense, and so that the action may stand out and shine more, as Diomedes writes, but also to mark the distinction of persons and dignities. Thus, somewhere in these books, where one reads *episkopōn presbyterōn te kai diakonōn*, the codex of the most eminent cardinal employs a medial distinction after the word *episkopōn*. But in most places I have also placed a dot at the head of the letter to designate a final distinction: and I would have done this everywhere, had the power of ingrained custom not recalled me from my intended plan. Furthermore, what I have performed only in part in this edition, that will eventually, as I hope, be brought to completion by others endowed with greater learning and authority who are to edit the books of the ancients hereafter. And let these things said summarily concerning our emendation and distinction suffice. Now let us come to the Latin interpretation.

I do not doubt that there will be many who wonder why, after three Latin interpreters of Eusebius, and those not meanly practiced in Greek letters, I myself have labored to produce a fourth version. To whom I first answer thus: If, after Rufinus, who first translated the books of the *Ecclesiastical History* into the Latin tongue, it was permitted to Musculus to compose a new interpretation, if, in turn, after Musculus the same was permitted to Christophorson, why should I not have the same right as the others? Among the Jews, after the edition of the Septuagint Elders, sustained by the religion of so many sacraments and the authority of so many centuries, Aquila first, then Theodotion and Symmachus, each issued new interpretations of the Old Testament.

^A Furthermore, some authors of the fifth, sixth, and seventh editions have been found, whose names are unknown; and Origen placed all these versions in his Hexapla, so that they might be read by Catholic people. Therefore, what was permitted to the Jews in the Old Testament, why should it not be permitted to me in Eusebius, especially when it is less dangerous to take such a risk with Eusebius than with the holy books of Divine Scripture? Indeed, many and very serious reasons have compelled me, even against my will, to take up the burden of this new interpretation. For when I had undertaken, by your order and under your auspices, a new edition of the Ecclesiastical History, and saw that the versions of the earlier interpreters, because of their frequent errors and misinterpretations, by no means satisfied the desires of learned men—as has been already manifested by the testimony of Jean Curter and Pierre Halloix—it was necessarily incumbent upon me to perform one of two things: either to correct the ancient interpretation, or certainly to produce a new one. Moreover, to correct the interpretation of others seemed as odious as it was troublesome and difficult in itself. For to each man his own praise and his own honor are due from us. They did whatever was in their power, and with their labor they tried to lighten and diminish our labor. Therefore, the work of each interpreter is to be praised by us rather than criticized. Rufinus, although he follows the sense of Eusebius rather than his words, is nevertheless elegant and polished, and not unpleasant to those who read him; and on that account he is highly to be praised, because he was the first to give the Ecclesiastical History to the men of the Latin tongue, a version used by the Church of the West down to our own age. Musculus adheres more strictly to the words, and in translating is brief and perspicuous, and in many places more fortunate than Christophorsonus. Christophorsonus, just as he is more diligent and learned than Musculus, so also does he proceed in a more flowing manner, and possesses a certain Ciceronian quality. Furthermore, he used manuscript copies to elaborate his interpretation; and he was the first to publish in the Latin tongue the Panegyric of Eusebius, spoken at the tricennalia of Constantine, which the printers of Geneva later struck in Greek. Here someone will say: What need then was there for a new version, when those interpreters abound in so many and such great praises? But I am recounting their praises, not exposing their faults; which indeed I would prefer to have brought forth by the testimony of others than by my own. But if anyone reads my annotations, or wishes to compare my interpretation with the version of those men, he will certainly understand how full of both how many and how great errors the interpretations of those men are, and that it was not without cause that a new version of Eusebius was enjoined upon me by you. ^B But since I have drifted into this discourse not by choice but by a certain necessity, I will say a few words in summary about the faults of the earlier interpreters. For if I wished to go through all their errors individually, my speech would extend to an immense length. Therefore, to start with Rufinus, who does not know that he added, subtracted, and changed many things in Eusebius at his own whim; and in most places is rather a paraphraser than an interpreter? For example, in book VI, concerning the miracles of Gregory Thaumaturgus, he inserted a sufficiently lengthy narrative, which is not found in our copies of Eusebius. Likewise, in book IX, he commemorates the oration of Lucian the martyr, held on behalf of our faith before a judge, which the copies of Eusebius do not recognize. But now, he has missed almost the entire tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History in his version. I say nothing here of the chapters changed by him in the sixth and seventh books, since I have admonished the reader about this matter in my annotations. How many passages of Eusebius have been wrongly accepted and interpreted by him! This is the man who made a martyr of Lugdunum out of Zacharias the priest, whose mention is made in the Gospel of Luke. This is the man who confused Biblias with Blandina. This is the man who turned Philoromus, a most noble martyr, from a soldier into a rationale military tribune. But what need is there to speak of Musculus, whose versions (for he also translated other writers into Latin) are not greatly commended by the learned? I could bring forth his innumerable errors, if I wished: among which this one stands out. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the letter against Germanus, which Eusebius records in book six, says that he was seized by soldiers at sunset and led to Taposiris. But Musculus believed that Heliodysmas was a town. For he translated it thus: "For when I had arrived with Heliodysmas, together with those who were with me, I was led by the soldiers to Taposiris." Furthermore, the same Musculus missed the entire book of Eusebius, *On the Martyrs of Palestine*, which is placed beneath book eight of the Ecclesiastical History, in his version; for what reason, I do not know. For he is one

who, believing it to be a part of that book, transferred it into the eighth book itself. Genevan printers, following this error of Christophorson, later made one book out of two from Eusebius so that the Greek might match the Latin. And these things have been said briefly concerning the faults of earlier translations; not with the intent of disparaging or diminishing the glory of any translator, but so that all scholars might understand that we have not without cause undertaken a new translation. While I would not presume to present it as perfect and absolute in every detail (for that would be an act of excessive confidence), I do confidently assert that it is free from the numerous faults with which earlier translations abound. Since three things are required above all in a version—namely, that it be faithful, elegant, and clear—I have exerted effort so that none of these should be missing from our version.

The translation is followed by annotations. In these, I have looked primarily to two things: first, that I should render an account of my emendations and set before scholars the various readings of the manuscripts; second, that I should illustrate the more obscure passages of Eusebius and explain the ancient customs and rites of the Church by comparing them with the passages of other writers. Four dissertations have been appended by me to the annotations. ^B The first of these is concerning the beginning and progress of the Donatist schism. The second is concerning the Anastasis and the martyrdom at Jerusalem. This is followed by a discussion concerning the version of the LXX Interpreters against James Ussher of Armagh. The fourth is concerning the Roman Martyrology which Rosweyde published. And these are the things which I have prepared for the illustration of Eusebian History in this edition. If to anyone these should perhaps seem light or trivial, let him consider that almost all things which are brought forth in this genre of literature are of such a kind, and they receive either value or contempt according to the zeal and disposition of the readers. For if they find an equitable and studious reader, they are highly esteemed; but if they fall upon fastidious ears, they are counted as nothing. Furthermore, what is to be expected other than something quite ordinary and mediocre, especially from me, who on account of the weakness ^C of my eyes am forced both to read and write with the eyes and hands of others? And who, while I am always hastening toward further matters on account of the magnitude of the labor, have dictated this whole work, such as it is, so hastily that I have scarcely had the leisure to reread it. For which reason indulgence should the more be granted to me, if perhaps in my annotations I have not entirely satisfied the reader's desire. As for the rest, in order to invite readers, I have placed at the very vestibule of the work a most learned epistle which the most illustrious and reverend Archbishop of Toulouse, Peter de Marca—a man most highly instructed in the knowledge of both divine and human ^D matters—wrote to me concerning the first preaching of the Gospel in Gaul. Whatever tedium or annoyance, therefore, scholars may have contracted from reading my lucubrations, they will easily wash away with the erudition and pleasantness of this epistle.

PETRUS DE MARCA, ARCHBISHOP OF TOULOUSE, TO THE MOST FAMOUS AND LEARNED HENRI VALOIS, GREETINGS.

I congratulate you, and the Church universal, for the effort you have expended—in accordance with the wishes of the Gallican clergy—in translating and adorning the *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius. You have brought to bear upon this History, which is of major importance, that same keen-witted alertness and sharpness of mature judgment—combined with the utmost erudition—which you had formerly proven to the senate of scholars in your edition of Ammianus and the excerpts of Polybius. You have now exercised this more successfully, whether in purging it of corrupt readings and the hallucinations of interpreters, or in finally illustrating it with excellent commentaries applied to the more difficult passages. Eusebius described the origins of ecclesiastical matters, having sought them out with tireless diligence; yet, he used, at times, a style tangled by the penchant of the Orientals, and, at other times, he is less understood on account of an ignorance of language and customs. By the light of your singular erudition, you have laid bare these matters, having opened the arcana of ecclesiastical antiquity, and civil matters as well, whenever the subject demanded it. From this work I have derived the greatest pleasure, not only because of that abundance of doctrine to be drawn from such reading, which I shall share in common with upright and learned men, but also because you have girded yourself to complete this arduous task through the zeal of my predecessor, Charles de Montchal, Archbishop of Toulouse, a man once most famous for his piety and learning. Since I occupy his seat, I have deemed it necessary to satisfy by these letters the debt of gratitude I owe you, which I contracted by way of succession.

Furthermore, before the final hand is placed upon the edition which currently seethes under the press, I have thought it necessary to warn you that in our dissertation *De primatu Lugdunensi* [On the Primacy of Lyons], which is published in the Appendix to the Council of Clermont, in volume XXVI of the *Concilia*, we noted certain things in numbers 104, 105, and 107 of that exercise regarding the letter of the Christians of Lyons, which Eusebius presents in Book V of his *History*, Chapter 1. ^A I have written that the *panegyris*—when the punishments were exacted from the martyrs under Antoninus—ought to be understood as referring to the assembly of the Three Gauls; which Strabo says was composed of sixty peoples, whose meaning I explained in number 102, and compared it with the corrected passage of Tacitus. I also attempted to reconcile the testimony of Gregory of Tours concerning the Athanacensian martyrs with that narrative in Eusebius. Finally, having observed the slip of Rufinus and Christophorson, I have addressed a notable passage of that same letter concerning the apprehension of the martyrs and the interrogation conducted by the tribune of the cohort that was stationed ^B at Lyons, together with the city's magistrates, not unsuccessfully, I think. This, however, I submit to the more severe censure of your judgment.

I was ending this letter when the love of country and of the truth that must be defended, on the occasion of the Martyrs of Lyons, spurred and drove me to complain to you in a few words about the injury done to the Gauls—not, indeed, by outsiders, but by our own countrymen; who, enticed by a desire for a more recondite learning, in which they are powerful and which is removed from the common people, have thought that the truth, which is in the open, was, as it were, lying hidden for them in a well. They denigrate the Gauls, whom they know to have had the care of preaching the Gospel showcased by the apostles themselves, just as much as the Ethiopians and the Indians: as if the most flourishing and neighboring nations had been held of less account than the head of the nations, Rome, which Peter and Paul consecrated with their own blood, and those most remote regions situated outside the Roman Empire. The mind of the apostles, who undertook to instruct the Gauls in the faith immediately after their arrival in Italy, was different. For the blessed Luke, departing from the company of Paul, betook himself at the command of his master to the Gauls; where he spent his primary effort in preaching the faith. Then, providing his industry in the same work through Italy and Dalmatia, he betook himself to Macedonia, about to discharge the same office. We have Epiphanius as a rich author of this account, who witnesses in his heresy [section] that which we said concerning Luke, one of the 72 disciples, to whom he says the duty of preaching the Gospel was entrusted: "He preaches first in Dalmatia, and in Gaul, and in Italy, and in Macedonia; but the beginning [was] in Gaul." ^C And that he himself performed this first in Dalmatia, Gaul, and Italy, and Macedonia; but in Gaul above the rest: or, if you prefer, "the beginning in very truth in Gaul." He testifies most clearly that he made the beginning of his preaching in Gaul, or that he held its care to be of greater importance. For these words, "the beginning [was] in Gaul," can be explained with a double meaning. But that he is said to have preached first in Dalmatia is not to be referred to Dalmatia alone, but to Gaul also, and to Italy, having taken account of Macedonia, in which he finally labored in instructing. Which phrasing is perhaps to be restored in the context, so that there is something to correspond to the word "first." And thus that "first" will not impede Epiphanius from signifying in his final words that Luke placed the beginning of his work in Gaul. ^D Learned men protest, not knowing that what Epiphanius wrote is recorded by any of the ancient authors. That is true. But the things he relates as having occurred are none the less true for that reason.

^A He derived his narrative from an older writing which, like many others, we lack. Perhaps he drew it from Hegesippus, who busied himself with disclosing the origins of the churches. The entire work of Hegesippus was extant not only in the times of Eusebius, but even in those of Jerome, and indeed of Epiphanius. It survived also into the age of George Syncellus, who brings forward a fragment of that author in his *Chronicon*, distinct from the fragments cited by Eusebius. I am more deeply grieved by the note of that man of most profound learning, who was once a very dear friend to you and to me, for in his observations upon that passage of Epiphanius, he seeks to strip us of the force of that testimony. He notes that Epiphanius is speaking of Cisalpine Gaul. Obviously, by that author we understand Cisalpine Gaul, which did not exist at the time, dating from the very days of Augustus, who instituted a new division of the provinces of the empire. He removed the name of the Gauls from Italy, which he bounded by the barrier of the Alps; he divided Italy itself into eleven regions, and the Gauls into four provinces, Narbonensis, Lugdunensis, Belgica, and Aquitanica, as Strabo, Mela, and Pliny teach. This is a method which Ptolemy also followed in his tables, as did Ammianus and the others ^B whom occasion compelled to discourse upon the Gauls and Italy. Therefore, there is no Gaul in Epiphanius other than that which is called Gaul by all authors after the birth of Christ, according to the boundaries instituted by Augustus.

Furthermore, the apostles did not only employ Luke for the informing of the Gauls in religion, but also Crescens. Paul himself is witness to this matter in 2 Tim. iv, where he teaches that Crescens had been sent into Gaul. It is indeed certain that the reading of this Pauline passage was variable, even among the ancients. For Chrysostom and Theodoret among the Greeks, and the Vulgate translator and Ambrosiaster among the Latins, read "Galatia," not "Gaul." But we have as a defender of the older and truer reading Epiphanius, who consistently writes in *Heresy LI* that they are in error who read "Galatia" in this passage of Paul, since he teaches that it should be written "Gaul." *For it was not in Galatia, as some misguided persons think, but in Gaul.* In the same way, the older Eusebius—your Eusebius—reads "Gaul" in the code of Paul, as does Epiphanius, if his words are correctly weighed and the true reading from that author is maintained from Rufinus and all the manuscript codices, as you have clearly pointed out. Theodoret, to be sure, who retains the word "Galatia" in the context of Paul, although he could have taken it to refer to Asian Galatia, preferred to refer it to our Gaul—that is, to the western Galatia. So certain was the preaching of Crescens in Gaul among all the ancients. ^C In which, they agree with the ancient martyrologies of Usuard and Ado, who, after the faith was promulgated in the Gauls by Crescens, make mention of his return to Asian Galatia.

Indeed, what prevents us from joining to Luke and Crescens, the constant companions of Paul, the Apostle Paul himself, who, as the Greeks, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and the Latins, Jerome, testify, after his first arrival in the City, where he spent two years as recorded by Luke (during which interval perhaps Luke began the preaching of the Gospel in Gaul), went to the Spains, to promulgate the Christian faith in those regions? Yet when he was seeking the Spains, it was necessary to travel by that most famous public road of the ancients, which leads from Italy through the Gauls into Baetica itself. Its description is exhibited not only by the *Itinerary of Antoninus* from Nicaea through Arles, Narbonne, the summit of the Pyrenees, Juncaria, Barcelona, and the remaining places, but also by Strabo, who was diligent in his explanation of that road; which, as it was less understood by interpreters in most chapters, we have endeavored to reveal in the first book of *Catalonia Illustrata*, the edition of which we are bringing to maturity. Paul was not idle in the instruction of the Gauls; he, to whom the salvation of the Gentiles was specially committed, provided for them from every side with such burning zeal, having traversed the regions—of which matter we shall speak more fully immediately.

^D We can also claim the work of the apostle Philip for the Gauls, and for the Britains themselves, from Isidore of Seville, in his book *On the Life and Death of the Saints*, chapter 74. "Philip preaches Christ to the Gauls; and he leads the barbarous nations—neighboring to the shadows and joined to the swelling Ocean—to the light of knowledge and the harbor of the faith." And he adds that, having fulfilled this duty, Philip moved into Phrygia, where he died at Hierapolis. But since both Baronius and others under his leadership try to withdraw this apostle from the Gauls by transferring this narrative to the Asian Galatians, it will not be tedious to transcribe here the words of the most learned man, though he be of the party of the innovators, Ussher of Armagh, from chapter 11 of *On the Antiquities of the British Churches*: "What Freculf, cited by the monk of Malmesbury, has concerning the apostolate of Philip in the Gauls, he expressed word for word from Isidore's book *On the Fathers of Both Testaments*, chapter 74. For we read in both: 'Philip preached Christ to the Gauls, and led the barbarous nations, neighboring to the shadows and joined to the swelling Ocean, to the light of knowledge and the harbor of the faith.'" Nor does the conjecture of Baronius please me here, as he transfers these things of Isidore from our Gauls to the Asian Galatians; and even less so the rashness of the recent editor of the works of Isidore, Jacques du Breuil, in substituting "Galatians" for "Gauls" in the very text (without any mention of the older reading). For besides the fact that Isidore in this same work, chapter 82, and in the Toledan Office (which is commonly called Gothic and Mozarabic), and likewise Julian, Archbishop of Toledo, writing on the prophet Nahum, and Bede (or whoever was the author of the *Collectanea* and *Flores*) assign Gaul to Philip—and the same reading, that he preached Christ to the Gauls, is found in the little book *On the Festivals of the Apostles*, which is contained in the manuscript Hieronymian Martyrology (from which Isidore transcribed almost everything into his book *On the Fathers of the New Testament*)—that mention of the barbarous nations joined to the Ocean, not the European Gauls...

is sufficiently proven. ^A

To this I thought it necessary to add the testimony of a very ancient manuscript codex from the library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris, in which that treatise of Isidore, transcribed eight hundred years ago, is contained along with other books of the same author. There, the ancient reading most explicitly asserts that Philip preached to the Gauls, just as in chapter 82 it is held that Gaul had been assigned to him. Nor should it be concealed that in the same codex it is read that Spain was given to the apostle James, and that he preached the faith to the Spaniards. The authority of this old codex should remove the suspicion conceived by some that the text might have been corrupted in that place by someone partial to the Spanish cause in previous editions.

There is indeed a debate among scholars regarding the arrival of James in Spain, arising chiefly from the fact that the apostles had not yet departed from Judea, their lots for preaching among the nations having been distributed. But just as the Spaniards can defend themselves against the novelty of the invented opinion that is usually brought against them by appealing to the authority of Isidore, who was able to draw his information from earlier sources, so we are permitted to argue the same regarding Philip, and with greater security, because his preaching in the Gauls occurred after the distribution of the provinces by the apostles, and is therefore free from that weapon with which the preaching of James among the Spaniards is accustomed to be attacked.

However, it was the intention of the apostles, by the command of Christ, to spread the Gospel wherever the world extends. Wherefore, as Eusebius noted very well in *Demonstratio Evangelica*, book III, chapter 5, they established by their own preaching not only Rome, the head of the empire, and the Roman provinces, but also other kingdoms—those of the Parthians, Armenians, Scythians, Indians, and Ethiopians: so that, ^B as Eusebius adds, crossing the Ocean, they brought the light of the faith even to the British Isles. Indeed, one must consider no one so obtuse as to persuade himself that the apostles, caring for the Britons who live on the edge of the world, were more negligent regarding the Gauls, through whom the way to Britain lies, in instructing them in the truth either by their own presence or by their legates. This they accomplished excellently through Philip, one of their own college, with Luke, Crescent, Trophimus, Paul, Martial, and others noted in the ecclesiastical lists; and it was perfected by Clement through Dionysius, Saturninus, Eutropius of Saintes, Ursinus of Bourges, and others.

Nor indeed was the seed of the Christian faith, which Philip, Luke, Crescent, and the rest had scattered in the Gauls, unfruitful; for God in his mercy, who cherished the other regions of the world, did not abandon the Gauls. Irenæus, who wrote around the year 190, book I, chapter 3, will speak for us, saying that the true faith is proven by the profession of the same doctrine which is constantly taught in the various Churches established throughout the whole world—both in the East, in Egypt and Libya; and in Germany, among the Spaniards, and the Gauls, and elsewhere. For even if, he says, in the world languages are most diverse, ^C yet the power of the tradition is one and the same. And neither do the Churches founded in Germany believe otherwise, or hand down anything else; nor do those in Iberia, nor those among the Celts, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those established in the center of the world. But just as the sun, the creature of God, is one and the same in the whole world, so also the light and the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and illuminates all men who wish to come to a knowledge of the truth.

In that climate, while our writers will generously grant their Churches to Germany and to the Spaniards without any restriction, they will struggle against Irenæus regarding the Celts: for because he spoke generally about the Celts, they will invidiously confine his meaning to a special tract neighboring Lugdunum. May such malice be far from the hearts of the Gauls; and let them not lay violent hands upon the honor of a nation which foreigners spare, and which boasts much of the name, because they do what we did in the beginnings of the faith we received. ^D Indeed, anyone who has pondered Tertullian, writing thirty years later about the Gospel received throughout all the regions of the East, will easily surmise the state in which the Christian faith was among the Gauls in the age of Irenæus. To those regions, the author immediately joins the varieties of Gætulians, the many borders of the Moors, all the ends of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the places in Britain inaccessible to the Romans but yet subject to Christ: and those of the Sarmatians, Dacians, Germans, Scythians, and of many hidden nations, provinces, and islands unknown to us, which we cannot enumerate.

By the diverse nations of the Gauls, Tertullian understands the four Gallic provinces according to the division of Augustus—Narbonensis, Lugdunensis, Belgica, and Aquitanica; from which the body of the Gauls was then composed, which was later distributed into seventeen provinces.

Wherefore, since the beginning of the preached faith in the Gauls rests upon the most ancient and firmest testimonies, from the delegation of the apostles and its reception by the Celts (as Irenæus speaks) or by the diverse nations of the Gauls (as Tertullian says), I bear with great annoyance the harshness of some toward their own country, who push back the origins of all the Gallic Churches, except for Lugdunum and a few others, to the middle of the third century. They fix, from Gregory of Tours, the beginning of the seven missionary bishops—Gratianus of Tours, Trophimus of Arles, Paul of Narbonne, Martial of Limoges, Dionysius of Paris, Saturninus of Toulouse, and Stremonius of Clermont—a little before the consulship of Decius and Gratus, that is, shortly before the year 250, whom they claim first brought the light of the Gospel into those parts of the Gauls and established it in the Churches they founded. That those first leaders were the chief agents of the Christian expedition in the provinces of Narbonensis and Aquitanica, and in the more remote parts of the province of Lugdunensis, is doubted by no one, with the records of the ecclesiastical lists and the solemn sacred monuments in agreement.

^A Since these things are performed in annual rite to the divine Being in every Church in memory of them, and since they are supported by ancient tradition, by the Martyrologies of Bede, Usuard, and Ado, and by old Acts in the designation of time, I plainly do not see why this should be called into question, especially since this truth is supported by other arguments as well.

Let the beginning of the discussion be taken from Trophimus, and let the words of the petition presented to Pope Leo by the bishops of the province of Viennensis in the year 450 be weighed: "It is known," they say, "to all the Gallican regions, nor is it unknown to the most holy Roman Church, that the city of Arles, the first within the Gauls, deserved to have Saint Trophimus, sent by the most blessed apostle Peter, as its priest, and from there the good of the faith and religion was gradually infused into other regions of the Gauls." While Gregory placed Trophimus under Decius, the college of provincial bishops, to whom the census of their churches was known, and who preceded Gregory by nearly a hundred and fifty years, teach that Trophimus was sent by Peter, and they relate it as a matter known to everyone; and they add that from him the good of the faith and religion was gradually infused into other regions of the Gauls. ^B Pope Zosimus signifies the same thing in Epistle 5: "To which city (Arles), Trophimus, the supreme prelate, from whose fountain all the Gauls received the rivulets of the faith, was first directed from this See." Furthermore, this letter of Zosimus, published by the honorable Sirmond and formerly praised both in the Council of Frankfurt and by Usuard and Ado, since it was written in 417, ought to be preferred to the testimony of Gregory of Tours in determining the epoch of Trophimus, which the synod of provincial bishops most clearly refers back to the apostle Peter; from whom Zosimus does not depart, when he teaches that Trophimus was the first to be appointed bishop in the Gauls.

Pope Leo took note of the petition presented to him by the bishops in a rescript he immediately gave them, by which he settled the old contention between the Church of Arles and the Church of Vienne regarding metropolitan dignity, by means of a division of the province of Viennensis. It is necessary to summarize the state of that controversy so that the doubts which have arisen in the minds of the learned from that not-well-understood matter, as pertains to the antiquity of Trophimus, may be the more easily removed. The city of Vienne was the metropolis of the province of Viennensis in the imperial register. Whence, according to the Nicene canons, Simplicius, bishop of that city, had formerly contended in the Council of Turin, in the year 397, that the metropolitan right belonged to him in the ecclesiastical order against the bishop of Arles. In this suit the Fathers spoke, saying that that city should enjoy the honor of the primacy which could prove itself to have been the metropolis of the province; at the same time giving counsel to the bishops for the fostering of concord, that each should recall to their own care the cities nearer to them. By this interlocutory, the dignity of the Church of Arles, which without doubt depended on the metropolitan city of Vienne in the order of civil disposition, had been brought to ruin. Wherefore Zosimus, twenty years after the synod of Turin, was appealed to ^C by the bishop of Arles, and he condemns the impudence of Simplicius of Vienne in Epistle 7, because in that council he demanded that the authority of creating priests in the province of Viennensis be permitted to him: which he says is against the statutes of the Fathers and the reverence due to Saint Trophimus: and he decides, according to the prayers of Patroclus of Arles, that the bishop of that city should possess, from that time, a series of ordinations strengthened by the times, not only in the province of Viennensis, but also in both Narbonenses. The reason for this prerogative he explains in Epistle 8, to Hilarius of Narbonne: "Since Trophimus, a priest, having once been transmitted from the Apostolic See to the city of Arles, first exhibited the reverence of so great a name toward those regions (namely, both Narbonensis and Viennensis), he not undeservedly transferred to others the authority which he had received."

Zosimus therefore clearly established the whole matter of the metropolitan primacy, *en te protoklesia*, that is, in the first calling to the faith, and in the more ancient institution of the episcopacy at Arles as performed by Trophimus. But since these rescripts of Zosimus relied indeed upon ancient custom, as he himself says, from the report of Patroclus, yet overthrew the discipline of the universal Church decreed by the Nicene synod, which had committed individual provinces to their own metropolitans, and not several provinces to one; hence it happened that Pope Boniface did not, in fact, reproach Patroclus of Arles for the usurpation of metropolitan power, but rather, while leaving him intact in the province of Viennensis, condemned his rashness in an epistle given to Hilarius of Narbonne in the year 422, because he had indeed celebrated the ordination of a bishop in the Lutubensis Church, "in a foreign province," he says, "namely in Narbonensis," which was distinct from Viennensis. That deed, however, went against the constitution of the Nicene synod, which he describes; and he warns Hilarius that, fortified by metropolitan right and relying on his own precepts, he should perform what must be done in the Lutubensis Church. Hilarius of Arles, successor to Patroclus, supported by the earlier rescript of Zosimus and by ancient custom, did not wish to obey the decree of Boniface, which was restricting the power of the bishop of Arles within the province of Viennensis. For which reason, and on account of the affair of Chelidonius, ^D and other most grave reasons, Leo PP., angry with Hilarius, harshly inveighed against him in an epistle written to the bishops of the province of Viennensis in the year 445, because he seemed to show too little regard for the majesty of the Roman See. Among other things, he objects to him that, having cast aside an infirm and unknowledgeable bishop, he had placed another bishop over him, and that in a foreign province, namely outside of Viennensis. "What does Hilarius seek for himself in a foreign province," he says, "and why does he usurp that which none of his predecessors had before Patroclus, when even that which seemed to have been conceded temporarily to Patroclus by the Apostolic See has since been changed by a better judgment?" By which words Leo most clearly signifies the earlier rescripts of Zosimus, and the later decree of Boniface, by which the power of the bishop of Arles

within the limits of the Viennensis province was restrained, so that the church, which by the fault of its own bishop Hilary could not be deprived of its ancient right in perpetuity, should suffer no injury. Therefore, he so tempered the whole matter, according to the counsel of the Council of Turin ^A long ago given to the bishops of the two cities who were contending, that he restored the greater part of the province of Viennensis to the church of Arles; with only four cities remaining with the bishop of Vienne, so that he might not seem to take away, through inconstancy or injustice, the metropolitan honor which he himself had granted; and, as he himself puts it, so that the bishop of Vienne, to whom he had assigned the metropolitan power taken away from Hilary, might not seem to have become inferior to himself. But both concerning this controversy, and also concerning the civil dignity of the city of Vienne and of Arles, we shall give an accurate discussion in the second edition of our book

On the primacies

As I have mentioned above, the exceptions which were raised against the rescript of Zosimus, regarding that chapter which concerns the ordinations in both provinces of Narbonensis granted to Patroclus, the same section clearly shows, if its words are weighed according to the rules of law. Namely, that Zosimus was deceived by the false suggestion of Patroclus, who referred to an ancient custom, which he himself was the first to usurp, of the power of ordaining in the province of Narbonensis. Then he signifies that that prerogative granted by Zosimus to Patroclus was to be understood as temporary. Finally, he uses the ^B later decree of Boniface, which, according to the prescription of the canons, had rescinded that ambitious rescript of Zosimus, which had been obtained through fraud, by granting two provinces to its own metropolitan. At length, Pope Leo, provoked by the stubborn contumacy of Hilary of Arles, without an examination of the cause and without hearing those whom it concerned, stripped the bishop of Arles of all metropolitan right even in the province of Viennensis, and adjudged it to the bishop of Vienne, as if it pertained to him by the right of a civil metropolis according to the canons, just as Simplicius had once attempted to obtain from the Fathers in the Council of Turin. The bishops of the province of Viennensis, struck by this novelty, took pains to remove this injury brought upon the Church of Arles, having taken the opportunity from the death of Hilary, and the election made by themselves of Ravennius, a man of gravest character and very dear to Leo. Therefore, in a supplicatory petition given to Leo, they trace the origin of the primacy of Arles to Trophimus, who, having been sent by Blessed Peter, was the first to establish an episcopate in Gaul at Arles: the account of which indeed of its primeval institution should be held in higher regard than that of the civil arrangement ^C which had once granted the right of a political metropolis to Vienne. That they might repel this weapon sought from the civil order, the bishops do not hesitate to propose also to Leo the civil dignity in which the city of Arles flourished in those times: namely, that the seat of the prefecture of the Gauls had been transferred there from the city of Trier, and that therefore that city was the mother of all the Gauls. Which statement is set against Vienne, which behaved itself as the mother only of the province of Viennensis. They also add: Whoever within the Gauls, namely ever since Constantine the Great and Valentinian, wished to display the insignia of dignity, received and gave the consulship in this city: that is, celebrated the consulship with games, just as that most learned man Adrian Valois, your brother by bond of letters and blood, O my most dear Henry Valois, uniquely interprets this passage in Book VI of his

On French affairs

However, this antiquity of Trophimus is confirmed ^D by the letter of Cyprian to Pope Stephen, in which he asks that letters be written by him into the Province (that is, the Narbonensis entire, which he calls by the name of the ancient Province) by which, with Marcianus the bishop of Arles removed, another might be substituted in his place; because, having spurned the admonitions of his colleagues, he obstinately adhered to the errors of Novatian. It is necessary, however, that this letter of Cyprian was written at the beginning of the reign of Stephen, when no dissension had yet intervened between those two pontiffs. And since that beginning of Stephen falls in the year 256, it follows that the beginnings of Marcianus precede the consulship of Decius. Whence it is most correctly gathered that the mission of Trophimus must be moved to earlier times, despite Gregory of Tours, namely to the age of Peter, according to the testimony of the petition of the bishops of the province of Viennensis. By the mere suspicion of forgery, thought up at will both against the letter of Cyprian and against the rescripts of Zosimus and the petition of the bishops, I would not have the supporters of Gregory free themselves from those manifest proofs. For once this method of responding and prescribing is admitted, against writings which are fortified by their style and by the faith of ancient manuscripts and editions and by the testimony of ancient authors, there falls all the delight of the geniuses for discussing literary questions. Meanwhile, one must not pass over the letter attributed to Cyprian by the distinguished V. C. Rigaltius in his notes on Cyprian, the discussion of this being brought with false arguments of the most learned man. A man truly learned, Hugo Menardus, also put forth no idle effort in refuting the arguments brought against the letter of Cyprian, and the rescripts of Zosimus, and the supplicatory petition. Which testimonies, even if they suffice for vindicating the truth, it will not be alien to praise Ado of Vienne as a witness to confirm the series of ancient tradition; whose words in his

Martyrologium

he was ordained bishop by the apostles at Rome, and was sent first to the city of Arles, in Gaul, to preach the Gospel of Christ: from whose fountain, as the blessed Pope Zosimus writes, all of Gaul received the streams of faith: and he rested in peace in the same city.

By the error of Gregory of Tours in recording the epoch of Trophimus having been corrected, we shall use a more unassailable fact to prove the refutation of a similar hallucination of the same author. Gregory casts Paul of Narbonne down to the times of Decius. We oppose to this the most abundant testimony of the very ancient Martyrology edited by Rosweyde, which the Roman Church used among its solemn rites, as Gregory the Great testifies in book vii, ep. 29. These are the words of that Martyrology on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April: "At Narbonne, of Saint Paul, bishop, disciple of the apostles." Behold, Paul, bishop of Narbonne, a disciple of the apostles, that is, instructed in the Christian faith by the apostles themselves. The cause of the case, unless the meaning of the word ^A which I have proposed is constant in the same Martyrology; for no other meaning can certainly exist according to the proper sense of the diction. I shall cite the places from which this meaning of the word is established. "The day before the Nones of January. At Crete, of Titus, disciple of the apostles. On the Kalends of May. At Paphos, of Tychicus, disciple of the apostles. On the seventh day before the Kalends of June. At Athens, of Quadratus, disciple of the apostles. The day before the Nones of August. Of Aristarchus, disciple of the apostles. The fourth [day] before the Kalends of December. Of Sosthenes, disciple of the apostles. The sixth [day] before the Kalends of January. Of Trophimus, bishop, disciple of the apostles." Wherefore the testimony of the old Roman Martyrology is explicit, as I have said, for fixing the bishopric of Paul of Narbonne in the very times of the apostles, although later than the bishopric of Trophimus. That the name of this Paul was indeed most celebrated among the ancients is taught by Prudentius in the Martyrs of Saragossa: Barcino by clear Cucufas supported Shall rise, and Narbo glorious by Paul.

But we must draw the true record of the time from the testimony of the ancient Roman Church praised above. The series of tradition is to be sought from Usuard, and from the Acts of the Life of Paul of Narbonne; and also from Ado's Martyrology, and from his own little book on the feasts of the apostles; whose words are these for the eleventh day before the Kalends of April: "The birthday of Saint Paul, whom the blessed apostles sent to be ordained bishop for the city of Narbonne." They relate that he was the very same Sergius Paulus, the proconsul, a prudent man, from whom Paul himself took his name, because he had subjected him to the faith of Christ: and who, having been left at the aforementioned city of Narbonne by the same holy apostle when he was proceeding to Spain for the sake of preaching, and having filled ^B the office of preaching not sluggishly, he was buried, crowned with miracles. Here two things are to be observed. First, indeed, the authority is absolute that Paul was prefect and bishop for the Narbonese Church from the very times of the apostles, since he was their disciple, as I have said. The second concerns the ancient fame, which connects that Paul ^C with Paul the proconsul, and makes him the same.

Furthermore, he teaches that he was ordained in the possession of the bishopric by the apostle Paul, who was traveling to Spain. This, indeed, Ado prudently did not assert as certain, but as received by a more ancient fame: the authors of which account, Braulio, Leander, Julian, and other ancient Spanish writers, are brought forward in the letters of Pope Stephen, published by the most illustrious and learned men Guillaume Catel, a senator of Toulouse, and Philippe Labbé, a priest of the Society of Jesus; a copy of which exists also in the archives of the Church of Tarragona, and whose faith and opinion we have weighed in the second edition of our book *On the Primates*.

As for Martial, this one thing is held in the ancient Martyrologies, that he had been bishop of Limoges. However, the ancient Acts of his life teach that he was one of the LXX disciples of the Lord, and was sent by the apostle Peter to the Aquitanians; which tradition the Synod of Limoges in the year 1034 embraced in the debate which was held concerning the apostolate of Martial in the Gauls.

The epoch of Dionysius of Paris follows, vexed by the disputes of most serious men: with some standing by Gregory, and casting that bishop down to the times of Decius, whereby all hope of mingling Dionysius of Paris with the Areopagite might be cut off: but with others, for the contrary purpose, referring his mission to Clement of Rome. Indeed, that Dionysius was sent into the Gauls by Clement, Bede and Usuard teach in their Martyrologies: which tradition it is certain they drew from the ancient Acts of the Life of Saint Dionysius, which long ago the V.C. and most learned Francis Bosquet, now the most worthy bishop of the Church of Montpellier, edited from manuscript codices. I discovered the name of the author of that Life in a manuscript codex of the Church of Tours, which comprises the Lives of some saints described by Fortunatus, and among others, that of Dionysius of Paris, which, as I have said, has now been edited in public. We have, therefore, Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, the contemporary of Gregory of Tours, who draws back the epoch of Dionysius of Paris to the times of Clement. Which opinion was followed by the bishops of the Gauls in a letter written to Pope Eugenius in the year 824, which is found in Baronius: from whom I think it a sin to depart, supported as they are by Fortunatus, a witness so rich.

Of Saturninus, Gatianus, and Stremonius I shall speak soon, since their cause is special. It does not escape me what may have driven learned men to depress the epoch of the seven bishops into later times, as if headlong: namely, the authority of Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours. He wrote, "Under Aurelius Antoninus, martyrdoms were first seen in the Gauls, the religion of God being received later across the Alps." Whence they conclude that no faith should be placed in the ecclesiastical tables which report that some were martyred under Domitian, or under Trajan, or Hadrian, from those prior pontiffs. I wish they had preferred to explain ^D the interpretation from the very principles of law and the rhetoricians.

^A It should not be doubted that in the time of Gregory a double opinion had prevailed, and that both relied solely on hearsay. The one which Gregory follows in this passage is that Saturninus suffered in the consulship of Decius. But the author whom he cites drew that, not from the ancient Acts of Saturninus’s passion, but from a "faithful report," as he expresses it. For the ancient Acts of the passion had either not been written at that time due to negligence, or had perished by fire during the periods of the prefects in the times of Decius, as Prudentius testifies generally regarding the Acts of the martyrs. The other opinion, also supported by its own report (a witness to which is Gregory himself, *De miraculis*, lib. 1, c. 48), held that Saturninus was sent by the disciples of the apostles, that is, more than one hundred and fifty years before Decius. So that, placed in doubt, one may be permitted to follow the latter opinion of Gregory, which coheres with that former view—which is not disputed in his work—that the prior bishops should not be separated from each other by such a long interval of time: for those who were sent not long after by Peter and Paul, and subsequently by Clement, the disciple of the apostles, propagated the beginnings of the faith throughout the Gauls. Hence it happened that Ado, in his *Martyrology*, writes that Saturninus suffered under Decius, according to Gregory’s first opinion; but Rabanus, in his *Martyrology*, follows the second, having also used the words of Gregory: "This man, however," he says, "Saturninus the martyr, as it is told, having been ordained by the disciples of the apostles, was directed to the city of Toulouse." This should be understood of Clement, by whom Saturninus is said to have been sent along with Dionysius, in the ancient Acts of St. Dionysius composed by Fortunatus of Poitiers, who confirms the second opinion of Gregory most explicitly. Although the ancient Acts of St. Saturninus teach that he was sent by Peter, and that he established churches in the city of Elusa, the metropolis of Novempopulana, then in Pamplona, and in other nations of the Spains—as Spanish authors also admit from their own records—it is better that we hold to the tradition related by Gregory, namely, that he was ordained by the disciples of the apostles, that is, by Clement, according to Fortunatus.

The same explanation must be applied to another passage, c. 8, *De gloria Confessorum*, where he relates that Bishop Ursinus preached the word of salvation to the city of Bourges, who had been sent into the Gauls by the disciples of the apostles, namely by Clement, as his very ancient Acts and Life testify.

Special proofs such as we have employed to support the ancient epoch of the five pontiffs—Trophimus, Paulus, Martialis, Dionysius, Saturninus—along with whom the cause of many others who founded churches in the Gauls is identical, as well as the general proofs from Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius concerning the antiquity of the Churches, as they assist each other, so do they also derive mutual support from one another. Concerning this matter, the most celebrated predecessor in both laws at the Academy of Toulouse, Antonius Dadinus Alteserra, has spoken diligently in *Rerum Aquitanicarum*, lib. IV, c. 9.

But as pertains to Gatianus, bishop of the Church of Tours, when his successor Gregory,

^A who had the records of his own Church clearly before him, teaches in specific terms (lib. IX Hist., cap. 31) that he was sent by the Pope of the Roman See in the first year of Decius, with some of the deeds of his episcopate also added, and since no authority from elsewhere is provided to us by which we might move him back to more ancient times, I consider it rash to dispute with Gregory regarding the state of his own Church. I think the same must be said regarding the origins of Stremonius, bishop of Auvergne; these could not have escaped Gregory, who was himself an Auvergnat by fatherland, and therefore no stranger to his own affairs. This was perhaps the reason why he was more negligent in investigating the origins of other Churches. Seeing that the beginnings of the two Churches dear to him, Tours and Auvergne, could not be equaled, he preferred to diminish the foundations of the five prior ones by leaving them undiscussed. Wherefore, since among most learned men the ancient diptychs of the Gallican Churches, in which the pontiffs who were the leaders of the preached faith are inscribed, have faltered in the assignment of time—because they seemed to conflict with Severus and Gregory—our colleagues, the most religious bishops, will be able to claim fearlessly, in their own Churches, the antiquity handed down by their predecessors, secure from the ignorance or contempt of ancient authors that is usually cast at us, and also from any loss of historical truth: which would otherwise suffer if its proper credit were detracted from ancient Acts. Thus, besides the others mentioned above, the people of Metz will claim for themselves that Clement was sent by the Apostle Peter, from the Acts whence Paul the Deacon—a writer of the middle age and of no mean authority—drew his narrative. Many other peoples will also be able to claim the first institution of their bishops, derived from the same apostle and later from Clement, from ancient Acts and Martyrologies. If their labors are rendered according to the provinces arranged by the institute of Augustus, it will be manifest how true is the sentiment of Tertullian concerning the different nations of Gaul being imbued with the Christian faith. For the Narbonensis province was cultivated not only by Crescens of Vienne, but also by Trophimus of Arles, by Paul of Narbonne—who followed Trophimus closely—and finally by Saturninus of Toulouse. Aquitania was cultivated by Martial of Limoges, Ursinus of Bourges, Fronto of Périgueux, and Eutropius of Saintes, and also by Saturninus in Novempopulania, which was a part of Aquitania. The Belgic provinces were cared for by Eucharius of Trier, Clement of Metz, Xystus of Reims, and Memmius of Châlons. ^B As pertains to the province of Lyon, faith was planted there by Dionysius of Paris, Savinianus of Sens, Nicasius of Rouen, Caraunus of Chartres, ^C and Julian of Le Mans. It remains for us to inquire about the city of Lyon: which, indeed, though it owes the beginnings of its episcopate to Pothinus, who suffered under Antoninus in the year of Christ 177, being over ninety years old—yet [it is] later than the institution of Trophimus of Arles—I do not doubt that it owes the first fruits of the faith to his zeal. For, as the bishops reported in the book offered to Pope Leo in the year 450, from Trophimus, as if from a fountain, streams of faith flowed into other parts of the Gauls; which the letter of Pope Zosimus also confirms. Wherefore, since Arles was open to the commerce of Italy, the Orient, and Africa, and for that reason was joined to Lyon, the most flourishing emporium of the Gauls, it was obvious for Trophimus to sow the seed of the Christian faith there, by himself and by other legates, which at length grew into that assembly of the faithful that deserved to be ruled by Bishop Pothinus.

It does not escape me that many things have crept into certain Acts in which the lives of those pontiffs are described, regarding their deeds, which require a healing hand to purge them; just as the Council of Frankfurt had decreed in the year 794 regarding Acts of this kind. Yet that does not hinder the truth of the mission, which is the only thing now in question, omitting the rest which will be brought into discussion by learned men, regarding whom I might perhaps disclose my opinion elsewhere. Meanwhile, I implore our friends to judge kindly what I have said, though it be foreign to their opinion, being provoked by a desire to defend the truth, for the sake of restoring the majesty of the Gallican Church, diminished in some way by the diminished antiquity of its origin: which in sacred matters is accustomed to secure no common veneration, both for Churches and for the Christian empires in which they are established. Wherefore I have thought that our traditions, which rest on truth, are not to be overturned but retained, especially since they have long since been accepted in the Roman Church and in the whole Christian world; so that we do not need that perverted diligence which they have employed who, even with false and fabricated monuments under the names of ancient authors, strive to arrogate to themselves [evidence of] the antiquity of the Christian religion, or even to confirm what is already accepted.

But you, most illustrious man, for the sake of the erudition and also the prudence in which you excel, will judge concerning this effort of ours as is fitting, and will more robustly vindicate the dignity of the Gallican Churches. Farewell.

Paris, on the Nones of September, in the year 1658.