Pope Pius I: Letters

how much is necessary, or of greater magnitude than can be restored from the things pertaining to them, let the providence of the bishop find a way, in how they may stand or be restored.

FROM THE SAME DECREES

Which church is to be re-consecrated, and which is only to be exorcized with salt.

FROM THE SAME

It is not permitted for wood dedicated to the church to be converted to the uses of the laity.

FROM THE SAME

Necessity compelling, the same godfather can serve in the catechism and in confirmation.

PIUS I PAPA

NOTICE

Pius, an Italian by nationality, son of Rufinus, brother of Pastor, from the city of Aquileia, held the see for nineteen years, four months, and three days. He was [pope] during the time of Antoninus Pius, from the consulship of Clarus and Severus. Under his episcopate, his brother Hermes wrote a book in which is contained the mandate which the angel of the Lord enjoined upon him when he came to him in the guise of a shepherd, so that holy Easter might be celebrated on a Sunday. He ordained that a heretic coming from the heresy of the Jews should be received and baptized. And he made a decree concerning the Church. He performed five ordinations during the month of December: eighteen priests, twenty-one deacons, and twelve bishops for diverse places. He was also buried next to the body of Blessed Peter in the Vatican, on the fifth of the Ides of July. And the episcopal throne was vacant for 14 days.

DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF ST. PIUS I PAPA

SYNOPSIS

SECTION I

SECTION II

IV. The latter is also asserted to be his. V. The first bishops of Vienne are restored to their see, against Tillemont. VI. The colobium was a tunic, peculiar to bishops alone. VII. The epistles of St. Pius, wrongly twisted by Blondel, Daillé, and Salmasius to support their own opinions. VIII. Approved by very many learned men.

SECTION I. When and how long St. Pius I presided.

I. Regarding the two Epistles ^A inscribed to Justus, Bishop of Vienne, a threefold opinion of learned men circulates. For some acknowledge them as sincere, others as doubtful, and many recognize them as supposititious. To these latter there has recently been added the most learned editor of the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, who for that reason has relegated these same Epistles of Pius to an appendix; ^B where, prefixing a monition, he diligently sets forth the more powerful causes of their supposititious nature, which he himself believes to be drawn primarily from Tillemont. The most recent of all, Justus Fontaninus, a man preeminent in doctrine and erudition, most brilliantly demonstrates that the Epistles of which we speak are genuine and integral; and we have therefore deemed it worth the effort to bring his arguments into the middle. But first, when and how long the holy pontiff presided, must be inquired into from the same illustrious gentleman. Thus, therefore, he speaks:

«Whoever among the supreme pontiffs recorded the deeds of the others, with their homeland explicitly stated, ^C declared with one voice that Pius was from Aquileia and the son of Rufinus. Pius, by nation an Italian, from the father Rufinus, from the city of Aquileia, says the common Anastasius and other pontifical nomenclators. Whether he succeeded Anicetus or Hyginus on the chair of Peter, the authors do not altogether agree among themselves: forasmuch as in Optatus, who lists the supreme pontiffs, Anicetus succeeds Hyginus, and Pius succeeds Anicetus, and Soter succeeds Pius. However, distinguished men, Franciscus Balduinus and Gabriel Albaspinæus, have long seen that this list of Optatus labours under a defect; ^D because Optatus, who completed his work around A.D. 370, could not have written these words: *To Damasus, Siricius TODAY*, since Siricius was not pontiff before A.D. 383. Wherefore Baronius noted that the name of Siricius had crept in from a scribe who copied Optatus in his own time. St. Augustine seems to have followed the common reading of Optatus; and Baronius believed it to be supported by St. Jerome in his *Catalogue*, chapter 21, where Anicetus is called the TENTH bishop after Peter: which number, counted from Peter, makes Pius not the predecessor of Anicetus, but his successor.

But nothing prevents Anicetus from having been both the tenth after Peter and also the successor of Pius, not his predecessor: for Jerome, not only in his *Catalogue* but also in the Eusebian *Chronicle*, which he himself translated into Latin and augmented, established Anicetus as the tenth bishop after Peter in the 230th Olympiad; where he places Pius before him, whom he calls the NINTH bishop of Rome, having excluded Anacletus or (if he is confused with Cletus) treated him as such: for Jerome does not begin the number from Peter, but from his successor Linus, of whom he says in the *Chronicle*: *After Peter, Linus first held the Roman Church*: whence Soter, the successor of Anicetus, is called the eleventh pontiff by the same Jerome. In the *Catalogue*, however, ^A he succeeds Cletus or Anacletus, and is called the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter; which is the same thing. Wherefore Papebrochius errs, thinking that Jerome had gone over to the opinion of Optatus and Augustine regarding the succession of Pius. That the matter may appear more clearly, I shall place before the eyes of the readers the pontifical order of Jerome, and the common one.

1. Order of Pontiffs according to Jerome.

II. Common Order of Pontiffs.

«Irenæus, listing the Roman pontiffs, had expressed the Hieronymian order long before in these words: *Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, but he grew under Pius, and prolonged his time until Anicetus. Cerdon however, who was before Marcion, also [lived] under Hyginus, who was the EIGHTH bishop.* ^B And a little later: *Marcion however, succeeding him, prevailed under Anicetus, who holds the TENTH place of the episcopate.* Therefore Pius was in the ninth place, and Anicetus in the tenth, according to Irenæus and Jerome. Eusebius has the same from Irenæus; where, however, he calls Hyginus the ninth bishop, not the eighth. So likewise Cyprian: because both began the number not from Linus, as Jerome, but from Peter. Irenæus seems to have followed this latter order elsewhere. But Renatus Massuet, who recently published Irenæus, whom he has excellently illustrated, contends that Hyginus is always the eighth, and Pius the ninth, called so from the Apostolic Father. Truly in the double Mabillonian *Indiculus*, both of which are very ancient, if the number is counted from Linus, who in the other occurs first, Anicetus will be the tenth and the successor of Pius. Another *Indiculus* agrees, and this one is also very old, as it is brought down to St. Sylvester. Not having observed these things, Emmanuel Schelstratius ^C argues that Eusebius is inconsistent with himself, as if in his *History* he had placed Anicetus—whom he calls the tenth pontiff—before Pius, but then had placed Pius before Anicetus in the *Chronicle*. Certainly Schelstratius, reading Eusebius, was unable to proceed further.

^A He indeed is inconsistent in defining for himself the duration of his pontificate. The same is found in the ancient Henschenian 21, Schelstratian 22, Mabillonian 23, and Pagian 24 Catalogues. Anastasius also, or Damasus, Ado of Rosweyde, Usuard of the Florentine edition, and Martinus Polonus 25, attribute more or fewer years to Pope Pius. Pearson 26 strayed very far from all these, when, preferring the single tenth-century writer Eutychius of Alexandria to all other records, he maintained that Pius had occupied the Roman cathedra from the year of the Lord 127 to the year 142; and although the ancient writers all, to a man, testify that Pius flourished under Antoninus, he himself, basing it on that Eutychius of his, pushed Pius back to the reign of Hadrian, with universal antiquity surely crying out against it.

From this dissension of opinions, nothing certain can be deduced, since the ancient Catalogues were enlarged and altered by the whim of librarians. However, while some increase and others decrease the years of Pius, I recall that saying of Livy 27: *If it is necessary to agree with some, the mean is most similar to the truth.* Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a point of conscience for me to fall back on Eusebius, who, more than others, occupied himself night and day with ecclesiastical records, and who recorded the history of Christian affairs, and in particular those of the Roman Church, for one hundred and fifty years after Pius, having before his eyes the reliable writings of Hegesippus, who was contemporary with that same Pius. On the other hand, Eutychius, a new and foreign writer—whose History was published at Oxford in the year of the Lord 1658, having been translated from Arabic into Latin by Edward Pococke—could not have known the times of the ancient Roman Pontiffs; for he was ignorant even of the deeds of his predecessors, which he could have learned from Eusebius; and as Pagius 28 well notes, he mixed coarse and foul chronological errors into almost every narrative. Furthermore, it is the more surprising that such a barbarian author has merited the trust of Pearson and Dodwell, given that it is clear from his writings that not only were the times of each Pontiff supinely ignored by him, but also that names were ridiculously corrupted: for he calls Hyginus "Eugenius" and changes Pius into "Marcus." And so, indeed, William Cave 29 observes that there are many things in Eutychius that are very similar to old wives' tales; which, if he did not invent from his own brain, he at least drew from the futile monuments of his own Church.

Eusebius, therefore, assigns fifteen years to Pius with these words 30: *When Pius, in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, had exchanged his life for death at Rome, Anicetus became the bishop of that Church.* The same number is maintained by Rufinus, the translator of Eusebius's history, and the excerptor Joannes Zonaras 31. The same is true for most all the published and manuscript copies of Eusebius of better standing, as Dodwell 32 admits: also the Eusebian Chronicle published by Scaliger and Aubert Miraeus, under Olympiad 230, as well as Nicephorus of Constantinople 33, Prosper 34, and the Chronographus Saxo 35. These confirm, Hen-

hence it seemed rightly seen in his Catalog I—which ought not to have differed from the Bucherian—that the number of Pius’s years was corrupted, and that xv was written where formerly xx had been, for the slip of writing x for v is easy. This same thing is confirmed more fully, since from the consulship of Clarus and Severus up to the two Augusti, under whom Pius is said in Catalog I to have held the pontificate, not twenty but only fifteen years passed, as the very college of consuls expressed therein renders certain: namely, from A.D. 146 to A.D. 161. I prefer this calculation to the one which pleased Tillemont, while he falsely surmises from Eusebius’s Chronicle that Pius lived from A.D. 142 to the year 157. For since in the Bucherian Catalog Pius is said to have occupied the see from the consulship of Clarus and Severus up to the consulship of the two Augusti (namely M. Antoninus Verus and L. Aurelius Commodus), it correctly follows therefrom that he ruled the pontificate from A.D. 146 to the year 161, according to the Norisian Fasti, or from the ninth year of the reign of Antoninus Pius to the first year of M. Aurelius Antoninus Verus. Wherefore I do not see why the Bucherian Catalog should be rejected, where it faithfully expresses Hegesippus and Irenaeus in the order of succession; it confirms the time assigned to Pius in history and in the Chronicle of Eusebius in every way; and the double pair of consuls expressed in the same Catalog, resting on the number of years and their limit, corrects it brilliantly.

Thus far the learned man on the time in which Saint Pius sat, intending presently to treat of the integrity of his two Epistles to Justus, Bishop of Vienne. With these points established, we consider the same Epistles (or at least one of them) to have been written around the year 161 of Christ; inasmuch as in the second of them these words are read: "Know, most blessed colleague, that it has been revealed to me that I shall soon finish the end of this life." Now Fontaninus proceeds.

SECTION II. Concerning the First Epistle of Saint Pius to Justus, Bishop of Vienne.

III. I undertake to defend more fully against the accusations of the critics, for the same holy pontiff, two sincere and genuine epistles of Saint Pius, written to Justus, Bishop of Vienne in the territory of the Allobroges, and never before Blondel confused with the Pseudo-Isidorian ones.

The former, found in an ancient codex in Germany, John James Grynaeus ordered to be published six years later in the *Monumenta sanctorum Patrum orthodoxographa*. Fabricius, whom I have already mentioned, in a letter to John Haubitius prefixed to the same *Monumenta*, testifies that he [Grynaeus] dug out this "treasury of writers," as he calls it—in which both epistles of St. Pius appear—from most ancient libraries. Peter Pithou affirms that he read the other epistle of Pius, placed after the verses of Avitus, in manuscript codices; and the Bollandist fathers report that the same is praised in a duplicate manuscript Martyrology of the Church of Vienne, where these words are read: "On the day before the Nones of May, the birthday of Saint Justus the martyr, the sixth bishop of Vienne; who, at the time when Pope Pius I sat at Rome, received a consolatory letter from him concerning the dignity of the sacred pallium (which he calls the *colobium* of the bishops) and the fervor of the faith." The aforementioned Bollandists had already recited the first of these epistles. Margarinus de La Bigne gathered both into his *Bibliotheca Patrum*; yet not from the edition of Grynaeus, nor from the Viennese archives, as Baronius thought due to a slip of memory, and from him Blondel, Pagius, and others. That the codex from which Bigne copied them was most ancient, he himself teaches in the loc. cit. with these words: "These two epistles have been revealed in these times by the Lord, and were found in the treasury of the basilica of Saint Peter in the city of Limoges, where they had lain until now, buried in a stone chest under the earth, and were so aged that they could scarcely be read." Therefore it is manifest that those who, in order to detract from the sincerity of the epistles, concocted the story that they emerged from a single Viennese archive, as Blondel, Pagius, and others did, are mistaken.

Furthermore, all the quoted writers ascribe both of them to Bishop Justus: so that John a Bosco clearly erred when he claimed the former was directed to the brother Verus. The father of the Annals commends them as clearly golden; and he pronounces them both genuine and legitimate, and declares that they are to be judged such, both for their subject matter and their admirable correspondence with the events of that time, as well as for that most simple candor of antiquity which they are known to bear in all things. Cardinal John Bona judges likewise: "The orthodox receive them, nor do the sectarians dare to reject them entirely."

Certainly Blondel, who in the *Pseudo-Isidorus* printed at Geneva in A.D. 1628 had accused them of imposture, later, having grown older and thus more prudent, completely cast off this old opinion of his concerning them, as is manifest from his later writings of A.D. 1641, 1646, and 1649. For in his books *de Primatu*, *de Sibyllis*, and in the *Apologia*, he uses the testimony of both epistles as if they most certainly pertained to the one whose name they bear; which I will explain later, as having also been done long ago by Claudius Salmasius and John Daillé, with Henry Hammond protesting. Why, therefore, they should be more suspect to us even on account of Blondel, who has not yet repented, is certainly no reason at all. Nor should the fact that Tillemont—otherwise a man of excellent standing in these studies—recently and unadvisedly transcribed that former censure of Blondel move us any more. For who would embrace an opinion that a prudent author has rejected? I do not at all wish to detract from Tillemont, though I do not agree with him here or elsewhere, out of a devotion to the truth which that pious and learned man himself cherished wonderfully once he recognized it. But now at last, let us review in order those things that displeased the critics in the first epistle of Saint Pius, with our responses added.

I. First, therefore, they think that the term "Mass" mentioned therein, used to signify the sending away of the catechumens and the subsequent administration of the sacraments, had not yet grown into use in the age of Pius. Tillemont adds that Tertullian, Cyprian, and Cornelius never used it, even though they should have used it on other occasions; and therefore it seems no older than Ambrose. But Ambrose used that term as one long since customary, not as one new. For the word *Missa* was accustomed to be used long ago to signify all offices of the Church, just as it was a word most frequent among the Romans, since from the beginning

it was common for men of rank to be sent away from the basilicas and assemblies: whence the word *Missa* was commonly used for the word *missio* to signify the assembly itself; just as *accessa* is used for *accessio*, *ulta* for *ultio*, *remissa* for *remissio*, *offensa* for *offensio*, and other things of that genus. *Missa* for *missio*—that is, the feminine past participle used for the verbal noun—is frequent among grammarians, says Joseph Vicecomes (1): moreover, *missio* in the sense of dismissal is taken from military affairs. See Barnabas Brissonius (2). Hence Avitus (3): "It is announced that the ^A *MISSA* is held in the churches, palaces, or praetoria, when the people are dismissed from the observance": for you will find this gender of noun even in secular authors. Panvinius treats this matter learnedly in his manuscript opuscule, Vatican 4975, which concerns the terms *Missarum* and *Liturgiæ*. See also Baronius (4), the Latin Glossary of Du Cange, and Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (5).

^B “When, therefore, Pius writes to Justus that he celebrates Masses with the poor in the house of Euprepia, he understands by this the assemblies, not the simple dismissal of catechumens or the administration of the sacraments, as learned men have thought. One should also note the formula ‘to perform Masses,’ which, as an old and common usage in sacred matters, is used once or again by Victor Vitensis (6). Pearson believes that the decree in Gratian (8) was compiled from this same Epistle, where it is ordained that the altar be made with four linens: concerning which we gather that Latinus Latinius, Francis of Toledo, and Francis Turrianus debated among themselves from the lucubrations of Latinius, tom. I, page 369. Certainly that decree ought to be most ancient, and derived from a sincere source: for that Epistle is sincere and most ancient.

II

“The word *superbeate*, which Blondellus marked with a peculiar character, Tillemont judged to be neither simple nor Latin. Yet it is not at all less than the standard of purer Latinity: for *superbeate* is the same as *valde beate* [very happily]; just as the writer of the golden age, Virgil, teaches us (9), where, angry at the Trojans regarding Juno, he sang:

*His accensa SUPER, jactatos æquore toto* *Troas, etc.*

that is, *valde accensa* [greatly inflamed]. And below (10) he introduces Andromache speaking, while she was loading Ascanius with gifts:

*… cape dona extrema tuorum,* *O mihi sola mei SUPER Astyanactis imago.*

^C Where *super* is explained by Servius as meaning *valde, expresse, vehementer* [very, expressly, vehemently]; Nonius Marcellus brings forward examples to the same effect. To this, who is unaware that those first Fathers of the Church, expressing not the elegance of speech but holy modesty in words and character, often used words and modes of speaking borrowed from the common people? Let us hear Jerome, writing of Hegesippus, who was contemporary with holy Pius (11): "Weaving the histories of Ecclesiastics, he composed five books IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE; so that he might also EXPRESS THE CHARACTER OF THE SPEECH of those whose life he was following."

III

“Learned men are stuck as if in the mud, where Pius calls Vienna a ^D Senatorial city. For Blondellus appends this little note in the same place: ‘But let him who can teach why Vienna is called SENATORIAL.’ Dodwell likewise, rejecting both Epistles on this very ground, sets forth this (12): ‘Pseudo-Pius calls the Viennese city SENATORIAL in both Epistles; by what right he did this, I frankly do not know.’ The same Blondellus, in his book *De Primatu*, page 713, where, receding from his earlier opinion, he acknowledged both Epistles as sincere, confesses that Vienna was indeed called Senatorial in antiquity: but he shows that he has not yet discovered whence this name clung to it, and he scoffs at Philippus Berterius as if he had been the first to report that invention on the authority of Ado: concerning which, however, Berterius never thought. But Tillemont pronounces the same word as by no means proper to the Epistle, and more consistent with any Viennese than with a pontiff of the second century. Thus critics, judging preposterously of ancient things, are carried through pathless and devious ways. But Claudius, son of Drusus, did not judge so in his oration on giving citizenship to the Gauls, among Gruter (13): where, an entire century and more before Pius, the emperor speaks as follows concerning that same city of Vienna: ‘Behold the most ornate colony, and the most powerful of the Viennese, since for a long time now it contributes SENATORS to this curia.’ Do you see whence Vienna received the epithet of Senatorial? Gregory of Tours calls a Viennese citizen and bishop, by name Virus, a Senator. He died, he says (14), Evantius, bishop of Vienna, into whose seat Virus, a presbyter from the SENATORS, was substituted by the choice of the king. Avitus, bishop of Vienna, in no way disagreeing with Gregory, has these things (15): ‘The Viennese SENATE, whose curia at that time flourished with numerous Illustrious men.’ Again, in his epistle to Festus, he calls himself a Roman SENATOR, when he was a citizen of Vienna. In addition to this, in his epitaph it is said that he was buried in the monastery of the holy apostles Peter and Paul near the SENATORIAL city of the Viennese. Thus Avitus. Ado in his *Chronicle* is the authority that the name of Senatorial was given to Vienna by the Romans, because its Senate governed the Gauls. But Philippus Berterius (16) contends that Ado was mistaken. But he erred in assigning the cause of the name: he certainly did not err in the name itself, which was assigned in antiquity.

IV

“What Pius writes concerning the presbyters educated by the apostles: ‘Who are held called by the Lord and enclosed in eternal CHAMBERS,’ Blondellus noted as worthy of an obelus because of a peculiar character. Yet here the words and meaning can be weighed. In the words, no one fails to see that Pius looked to that psalm CXLIX, 5: *Exsultabunt sancti in gloria, lætabuntur in CUBILIBUS suis* [The saints shall rejoice in glory; they shall rejoice in their beds/chambers]; concerning which see Luke xvi, 19, and Augustine (17). See the dissertation of Ludovicus Cappellus, which he entitled *Mortuorum vitam* (18). In the meaning, the famous and once widespread doctrine concerning the Receptacles of souls can be weighed. Discussing the receptacles of souls and the state after death, the ancient Fathers, from the very times of the apostles to the pontificate of Gregory XI and the Florentine Council—that is, over a space of almost fourteen centuries—were uncertain and disagreed among themselves, just as on a matter concerning which the Catholic Church had not yet defined anything: for each of them imagined that the principles in their own opinions were supplied to them from the divine scriptures. One should consult the preface to the book of saint [opp. page 156], where the cited dissertation is entitled: *De statu animorum post mortem* [On the state of souls after death].

^A From these considerations, anyone can see that the genuine antiquity of the First Epistle of Saint Pius is invincibly proven by the phrase where the souls of the Saints are said to be KEPT shut up in eternal sleeping chambers. Although this phrase seems similar to the one used by Lactantius (7), where he says that souls are DETAINED in a single, common keeping—a manner of speaking which St. Jerome could not endure in Vigilantius, and for which he reproached him, saying: "You impose chains upon the apostles, so that they are HELD in custody until the day of judgment"—nevertheless, St. Pius, as a teacher of others, took the safer and easier path, inasmuch as he explicitly placed the souls of the saints nowhere else but in celestial beatitude, calling them eternal sleeping chambers; he did not mean bodily, nor subterranean dwellings, nor ones that would only last until the final judgment, as Lactantius and Tertullian thought (8). These sleeping chambers are those mansions in the house of the Father, by which Christ designated the various degrees of glory for the blessed (9). Hence, Cardinal Thomasius of pious memory, who was far and away the most learned in interior ecclesiastical antiquity, interpreted the "sleeping chambers" in Psalm CXLIX as "mansions" (10). And these interpretations are far from the errors of those who claim that no soul is blessed before the day of judgment, concerning whom Alfonso a Castro speaks accurately (11). However, the souls of the saints are said to be held enclosed in sleeping chambers, or reserved in custody until their entry into the celestial kingdom, as Hilary of Poitiers puts it (12), because they are there liberated from all evil by the protection and fellowship of the Lord. Whence the same Hilary (13) teaches us that there is nothing to be feared from the violence of the world, since death procures the fellowship of Christ. Consult the most famous and renowned men who recently edited Hilary (14). This suffices for defending the eternal sleeping chambers of Saint Pius.

While I am transcribing these dictations of the renowned Fontanini and see Hilary of Poitiers cited by him, that excellent dissertation comes to my mind, in which the famous theologian Angelus Maria Feltrius illustrates the opinion of the same holy bishop of Poitiers regarding the state of the righteous in the bosom of Abraham before the death of Christ. In that work, which is not less diligently elaborated than it is labored over, by which he paves a way for himself to resolve that sufficiently complex question, the most learned man (15) demonstrates that the holy Father taught that celestial glory was conferred by God upon the righteous of the New Testament without waiting for the resurrection of the flesh. The more opportune use of this Feltrian disputation will be elsewhere. Moreover, the doctrine of the Catholic Church, by which we are taught that all the righteous who depart from here free from every bond of sin immediately attain the beatific vision of God, has been strenuously defended in this our own age against Burnet, Chandler, and Ruchat—who recently followed those Britons (16)—by Muratori above all others (17), Maffeius (18), the Ballerinii (19), and others: just as in the previous century by Petavius (20), Thomassinus (21), and Huet (22). Thus Fontanini continues on.

V. ^D I see another argument for the falsity of the epistle of Pius being raised by these words: *Soter and Eleutherus greet you*.

The worthy presbyters. No mention of Anicetus is thought to be made here, for the reason that he was considered by the author of the epistle to have died long before Pius in the Pontificate, an error believed to be drawn from the Henschenian Catalogue and from Anastasius. Thus Pearson (1): by whose judgment also, Eleutherus could not have been a presbyter under Pius, since he was a deacon under Pius's successor Anicetus, according to the eyewitness Hegesippus in Eusebius (2). But have we not already seen, from the ^A manuscript codices of Anastasius and from the consuls of the Bucherian Catalogue, which were later poorly handled by Henschen, that Pius is set before Anicetus, not Anicetus before Pius? Who then could the author of the epistle, at that time, have drawn that recently conceived error from? But in truth, Anicetus was not passed over because he was thought not to be alive in reality at that time; but for another reason unknown to us, or because he was far away from the City while the true Pius wrote the true epistle: for those most holy men were not always together, frequently going here and there to meet the great needs of the faithful. I proceed further. Just as it does not follow from this salutation that other presbyters and deacons did not live in Rome at that time besides Soter and Eleutherus, because Pius did not express each one individually; in the same way, it is most futile to affirm that Anicetus was passed over because he was thought by the author of the epistle to have died long before Pius, an error drawn, of course, from corrupt lists of Pontiffs. Concordius in the Acts, according to Bolland (3)—which are commended for their elegance by Tillemont (4)—is said to have been consecrated as a subdeacon by our Pius, who nevertheless makes no mention of him in the first Epistle to Justus. Concerning Eleutherus, who was included by Pius along with Soter under the name of presbyters, yet whom Hegesippus called a deacon ^B under Anicetus, Pius's successor, it is very easily answered. For St. John Chrysostom says (5) that in antiquity, deacons were also included under the name of presbyters. This came about especially when it happened that both were mentioned at the same time, as in the epistle of Pius, in which the name of the senior, or presbyter, was extended to the deacon for the sake of honor. Indeed, the same name of presbyter embraced not only deacons, but also the rest of the clergy, as is shown by the first epistle of Pope St. Cornelius (6). By a like manner, the name of deacon in the ancient Church included presbyters, as learned men have noted regarding Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 42, namely, they looked to the name of ministry, not to the rank of either one. Since the name of deacon denotes a minister, perhaps Hegesippus wished it to be understood as minister taken generally, when he called Eleutherus the deacon of Anicetus. For "minister" taken broadly is not one deacon only, but even a presbyter. Moreover, while the rest of the things in the epistle of Pius agree correctly, the single name of presbyter ascribed to the deacon Eleutherus ought not to delay us from adjudicating it to Pius for this one cause.

VI. Finally, it disturbs Blondel that Pius should call them a "perseverable palm [or branch]," and close the epistle with these words: *Cerinthus, the primarches of Satan, turns many from the faith*. But both are unhappy [arguments]: for "perseverable palm"—that is, one destined to last forever—is derived from *persevero* [to persevere], as are six hundred other things of the sort; no one, unless ^C led by a desire to refute, would deny it. Furthermore, that which is more serious, ^D which is criticized in Cerinthus: namely, that he is made out to be more long-lived than is right, since it is reported that he still turned many from the faith under Pius. But if according to the author Baronius (7), Polycarp, the disciple of the apostles, reached the times of Pius, Cerinthus could also have reached them; especially where we agree with those who believed that Cerinthus spread his heresies after Carpocrates. For Carpocrates became notorious for his errors during the reign of Hadrian. But Nicolaus Nurrius (8) makes these things of no account: since Irenæus, in whose footsteps the rest have followed, in his catalog of heretics, inverting the times, does not adhere at all to chronological order. Now Polycarp, with Cerinthus already removed and the rest of the apostles already dead, heard John, who was very old. Wherefore Epiphanius (9) writes that Cerinthus and Ebion preceded Valentinus, whom he makes posterior to them.

"Cerinthus, therefore, could not have survived under Pius: and therefore one must go to the other opinion of Baronius; that Pius is to be said to indicate not Cerinthus alive, but his heresy rampant among the sectarians and turning many from the faith. For those seduced by Cerinthus could well appear* to be such, who were drawn away from the true institute of faith by his very doctrine: just as Tatian, who had imbibed in his mind the insane opinions of Valentinus concerning the Aeons, as teaches Irenæus, whom his contemporary Clement of Alexandria supports (10). For he says that the heresiarch sprang from the school of Valentinus: not that he was ever a listener of Valentinus, but that he received his discipline, from which he had almost everything he had. Hence the author of the appendix to Tertullian's *De Præscriptionibus* affirms that Tatian was entirely of the mind of Valentinus, as Longuerue observes (11). The Gnostic portents of errors which Cerinthus devised, and which then grew into a system through Valentinus, the primary disciple of his sect, George Bull shows with a splendid apparatus of doctrine (12). Valentinus, however, under the pontificate of Hyginus, Pius's predecessor, brought wagons of wicked dogmas into Rome, and flourished under Pius, remaining until Anicetus, as is evident from Irenæus and Eusebius. Therefore Pius did not intend to speak of Cerinthus as still alive, but of the same [heresy] rampant in Valentinus against the faith of Christ: and one the word "turns" is not to be accepted for [a period of] time elapsed, as Labbe accepted (13); for it would have been very insolent to have informed Bishop Justus so late by Pius regarding the ruin brought long ago upon the Catholic religion by Cerinthus himself; which Justus had departed from Rome just then or a little before.

"As for the censorship of the semi-Greek word *primarcha* or *primarches*, with which Pius adorns Cerinthus, I pass it by, for in the time when Roman citizens were mingled with Greeks, the Greek language was so familiar in Rome that the emperor M. Aurelius wrote entire books in Greek, and Christians offered their Apologies likewise in Greek to the same emperor. Wherefore, as the distinguished Philip Bonarotius wonderfully notes (14), it is no wonder if at that time the Greek language sometimes coalesced with Latin on the lips of the people. By like manner, for the same cause, Latin words crept into Greek writings. In the genuine Epistles of Ignatius the martyr we read (15) *εὐλάπιον*, an example or exemplar; also (16) *δεσέρτωρ*, deserter; *δεπόσιτα*, deposits; *ἀκκέπτα*, acceptances (17). Even in a coin in Gisbert Cuper (18), AIVOΣ, *divus*. For it is not in

our Epistle, as Blondel suspects, that ancient codices should be thought to have exhibited "patriarch" rather than "primate," since the name of "patriarch" was unknown outside the Hebrews in the time of Pius. Nor would Pius have otherwise misused so sacred a word for the sake of Cerinthus.

^A Furthermore, that which Pius reports—namely, that the presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, died at that time—coheres exactly with the truth. For the first succession of the apostles continued until the times of Marcus Antoninus, under whose reign Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle, bore the crown of martyrdom, as Valesius notes in Eusebius. Regarding the saints Timothy and Marcus, however, who are said in this same Epistle I to have passed through the good contest, mention remains in the ecclesiastical tables for March 24th; where Baronius reports that they suffered under Antoninus, according to an ancient manuscript Martyrology of St. Cyriacus: and the Bollandist Hagiologists treat of them. Let us proceed to vindicate the second epistle of Pius.

SECTION III.

Regarding Epistle II of the same St. Pius, inscribed to Justus, Bishop of Vienna.

IV. Blondel disapproves of many things in Epistle II. They are of this sort.

I. "To make an inestimable joy" (*Gaudium inæstimabile facere*): than which expression, however, hardly anything more Latin can be brought forward, unless we are to say that Livy wrote barbarously. For Livy said: *Inæstimabile gaudium*. Cicero: *Recta et honesta quæ sunt, ea FACERE per se LÆTITIAM*. Thus, to CAUSE terror, dread, grief, and mourning occurs in Cicero and Livy; who writes that, with the Tiber having flooded the surrounding area, he caused (*FECISSE*) great terror. But nor will Blondel acknowledge the verb *recognoscere*; and yet Livy says: *Biduum ad RECOGNOSCENDAS res datum*. Virgil: *Dona RECOGNOSCIT populorum*. Tacitus: *RECOGNOSCERE spatia certaminum*. And again: *RECOGNOSCENDA dona*.

II. Why does Blondel erroneously think that the bodies of martyrs are called members of God, if Paul says, "Do you not know that your bodies are members of CHRIST? Shall I then take the members of CHRIST and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. And a little later: Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a great price. Glorify and CARRY God in your BODY."

III. He denies that the apostles took care of Stephen, which Pius nevertheless affirms. But Luke relates the matter thus: "And there arose on that day a great persecution against the Church which was in Jerusalem: and all were dispersed throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, EXCEPT the apostles. But GODLY MEN TOOK CARE OF (*CURAVERUNT*) Stephen, and made great lamentation over him." If it is most certain that the apostles remained in Jerusalem; why could they not, themselves being truly godly men, take care of the body of Stephen? Which, indeed, is to be believed that Pius learned not so much from Luke as from the tradition of the elders. To take care (*curare*) in this place pertains to funeral matters; whence Suetonius: "He ordered water and wood at the same time to be brought for TAKING CARE OF (*CURANDO*) the corpse immediately."

IV. This clause of the Epistle also displeases Blondel ^B II: "The senate of the poor of Christ greets you," constituted at Rome. He does not conceal that in the Apostolic Constitutions it is said (15): *συνέδριον καὶ βουλὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας*, the Senate and Curia of the Church: and by Ignatius (16), *εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων*, to the place of the Senate of the apostles. But whether Pius wrote similar things, let the pious judge, says the critic. But ^C since the apostle Paul used this sacred phrase (17); and since it had already become prevalent in the Church at the beginning of the second century, in which the martyr Ignatius wrote; I do not see why the pontiff Pius could not have used the same from that time on. Origen used it a little later (18): *Οὕτως δὲ καὶ βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, βουλῇ τῇ καθ' ἑκάστην πόλιν συνεξετάζων, εὕροις ἄν τινες μὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βούλευται ἄξιοί εἰσιν, εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παντὶ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ἐκείνῃ πολιτεύεσθαι*. Thus also if you compare the ecclesiastical SENATE to the senate of individual cities, you will find certain ecclesiastical SENATORS, worthy everywhere of the nations to administer the divinely constituted commonwealth. In the most ancient Liturgies illustrated by Jean Mabillon (19), you will find that Priests—that is, bishops—and seniors—that is, presbyters—are called by the ancient phrase.

But let us listen to Hermas, an ecclesiastical writer of the apostolic century (20): "You, however," he says, "shall read in this city with the SENIORS who preside over the Church, by counsel, however, not by the power of the keys." See Petavius' books on ecclesiastical Hierarchy against Salmasius. In Origen (21), in the translation of Rufinus, these things are read: "But you will announce to the presbyters of the Church. Therefore Seniors and Senate are presbyter and presbyterium." Wherefore, the Apostolic Constitutions (22) declare that the Senate and Curia are composed of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Hence, the genuine epistles of Ignatius, who suffered before Pius, teach us that there were three distinct sacred ^D ranks or orders in the Church: I. The individual bishop; II. The Presbyterium, or Senate of presbyters; III. Deacons. Henry Hammond proves each most learnedly (23). Therefore, by those words, "Senate of the poor of Christ," Pius designated his own presbyters: and the same phrase was used later by our writers of the subsequent centuries as well, Optatus (24), Ennodius (25), and Sidonius (26); among whom the Senate or presbyterium of the Church occurs not once. This presbyterium Rufi-

of the Roman clergy, it calls ^A a "Senate" (1): which terms Petavius notes (2) among the Latins have passed from the notion of age to the appellation of honor and dignity. That the custom of greeting at the end of letters was then most acceptable to Christians, we learn from the Church of Smyrna in the epistle concerning the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp, who was contemporary with Pius: for there it is read thus (3): *Greet all the saints. Those who are with us greet you*: in which matter our ancestors strove to imitate the great doctor of the Church.

These things regarding the style of the later epistle, which Beveridge calls indubitable (4), using its testimony to show that three distinct orders were established in the Church in A.D. 143: bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

^B V. Tillemont, after the criticisms of Blondel and Pearson, which I have thus far refuted, thinks that a greater difficulty is presented by the other epistle of Saint Pius, because it is recorded therein that Verus, bishop of Vienne, was taken from this life, and that Justus was appointed by the brethren in his place; which things, says the learned man (5), can in no way be reconciled with Sulpicius Severus, who asserts that no martyr of Christ died in the Gauls before the emperor M. Aurelius, or before the common year 70. To these points, he contends that this Verus, bishop and martyr, is mentioned either nowhere, or under the title of confessor, not martyr: and therefore that he belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century, and that he was present at the Council of Arles. But he maintains that in the Chronicle of Ado, bishop of Vienne, Crescens, Zacharias, and Verus (the last of whom Ado himself passes over in silence in his Martyrology) seem to have been inserted by an alien hand, and by no means by Ado, the successor of those same prelates. The learned man adds that a simple memory of Verus survives in the records of the church of Vienne, but that the eulogy of a martyr is missing from the Roman Martyrology. Such is Tillemont’s view. Therefore, I must labor here primarily to restore Verus, bishop and martyr, to his church of Vienne: for from this the sincerity of the epistle of Saint Pius will become evident.

^C Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that Ado was so supinely ignorant of the origins of his own church as not to have inserted them into his Chronicle, when he nevertheless fulfilled this accurately for other churches. Wherefore I believe that Ado himself, and no other, arranged the series of the prelates of Vienne, traced from Crescens, in his Chronicle: for Ado himself agrees with this in his Martyrology (6), where he consigned this same origin to writing in this way: *Saint Crescens sat for some years in Vienne, the city of the Gauls, and there ordained his disciple Zacharias as bishop in his stead.* Before Ado, Paul I, the Pontiff, had written the same in his epistle to Charlemagne, where he affirms that the church of Vienne deserved to have as a master Crescens, a colleague of the apostles (7). That Crescens taught the Gauls religion, Petrus de Marca gathers from Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy (8). Nor does any other church of the Gauls boast of Crescens as its prelate besides the church of Vienne. For the learned Nicholas Serarius, who strives to make Crescens bishop of Mainz (9), admits that no mention of him is held in the records of that church: ^D a fact that would not have happened to the original author. Peter the Venerable of Cluny, enumerating the founders of the churches of Gaul, says (10): *Irenaeus of Lyons, CRESCENS of Vienne, etc.* He suffered under Trajan, according to Baronius (11). His successor Zacharias, whom Martin succeeded, is recorded to have undergone martyrdom at this same time; and Verus followed this man under the same Trajan, as Ado is the author. Now, that the church of Vienne was ruled by four bishops within a short interval, no one will wonder who has considered that fifteen prelates sat in Jerusalem for thirty years, as Eusebius testifies (12): and that in the Roman church from A.D. 883 to A.D. 912, that is, in thirty years alone, fourteen pontiffs are counted, as is evident from the Annales of Baronius. Verus, therefore, whom nothing prevents from having sat until A.D. 146, the year in which Pius began to preside over the universal Church, will rightly be said to have suffered not under Trajan, but under Antoninus the Great, the authority of Sulpicius remaining intact, whose words are these (13): *Under Aurelius, son of Antoninus, the fifth persecution was stirred up: and then for the first time in the Gauls were martyrdoms seen, having been accepted later across the Alps in the religion of God.*

This passage of Sulpicius later critics, Sirmond, Launoy, and Tillemont, would have preferred to reconcile with the ecclesiastical diptychs by an interpretation drawn from the principles of the law itself and of rhetoricians: for jurists teach that the species should be derogated by the genus. Petrus de Marca in my opinion rightly judges (14) that Sulpicius speaks of general martyrdoms, namely of the slaughter of bishops together with the Christian plebs, just as happened in the churches of Vienne and Lyons under M. Aurelius; to which slaughter none similar had happened before in the Gauls. [alt-version omitted] Nor does this general slaughter itself impede that, in antiquity, other prelates perished for Christ, for example, Crescens, Zacharias, and the other Viennese; without, however, the general extermination of the Christian plebs, as happened later under Decius, who raged against the bishops alone. Yet Sulpicius did not err in weaving these matters, as he only skimmed the chief heads of them, passing over the origins of the Gallican sees, which he left entirely intact.

As to what he says, that the religion of God was accepted later across the Alps, he rightly says this in comparison with the eastern parts and Italy itself, which had been imbued with the doctrine of the faith earlier, and with a richer harvest than the Gauls, who were more tenacious of profane superstitions. Moreover, it is agreed that Vienne was situated within the Roman province rather than within the Gauls: for in the lemma of the Epistle concerning the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons in Eusebius (15), Lyons is called a city of Gaul, which was later conquered, and which was then considered outside the boundaries of the Roman province. Not so Vienne, which was properly in the Roman province; and therefore the passage of Sulpicius does not extend to it, which, however, Launoy audaciously asserted as his custom. In the same lemma, Blondel is the author that Vienne also holds the first place because of the antiquity of its Church (16); but not because the prerogative of honor in the civil order then belonged to Vienne over Lyons, by the institution of Galba, as seemed to Petrus de Marca (17).

For in the ecclesiastical governance of those first centuries, as Joannes Morinus excellently demonstrated (1), the dignity of such civil status was not at all considered.

The martyrdom of Verus is therefore correctly placed under Antoninus Pius, although not in the year where Baronius locates it, by whom he is called (2) the first bishop of the Church of Vienne, after he had already mentioned his predecessors; and this was not an error, as Blondellus thought; nor done on purpose, as though he believed him to be the first and not the fourth bishop of Vienne, as Tillemont persuaded himself: but because three, or at least two, men named Verus had filled that see at different times, as I shall presently say.

Nor does it stand in the way that, from the Chronicle of Ado (3), Verus is said to have flourished under Trajan in A. D. 101, and that Justus, his successor, was crowned with martyrdom in A. D. 163: for since the chronology of Ado falls into decay in those first times, it is sufficient that the event itself was handed down in writing by him, even if not fixed to so certain a time, due to the fact that chronological matters were dislocated by the ninth century, when Ado wrote.

But if the Verus who appears in the Chronicle of Ado is absent from his Martyrology, it does not follow from this that he crept into the Chronicle by another hand, which Guillelmus Morellus, the royal printer, published at Paris in A. D. 1561, having collated it with the edition of Jodocus Badius and with a very ancient codex of Vienne, for it escapes no one that in transcribing Martyrologies, copyists were accustomed to add some saints and omit others: whence, as many as there are codices of the Martyrology of Usuard, whether written by hand or printed, just so many thick discrepancies of readings occur in them. By a like token, Desiderius, the successor of Verus II in the same see of Vienne, who died a martyr in A. D. 607, is mentioned in the Chronicle of Ado (4), but is omitted in the Martyrology, although Ado himself described his martyrdom separately. See Cointius (5). ^B Therefore, the tradition of the Church of Vienne must be accepted, which venerates Verus as a martyr, or, to use the phrase of Ado, as one shining in confession of the faith, on the first day of August: for he triumphed over the prince of the world, as Pius bears witness; although the note of martyrdom (which elsewhere also happens often) is absent from the martyrologies of Bede, Galesinius, and Baronius; and likewise in the Carthusian and Brussels Usuard in Sollerius (6), where, however, he is called not Verus, but Severus.

From these things it is clear that this martyr Verus has nothing in common with that Verus who in A. D. 314 attended the Council of Arles, in which it is read as follows (7): *Verus the bishop, Beda the exorcist, from the city of Vienne*: yet Ado says that not Verus, but Claudius, was there (8): for perhaps Claudius died at the council, and Verus was immediately substituted for him: wherefore both could have been in attendance; unless the same man had two names, or we prefer to think Ado is wrong based on Baronius (9); just as he is wrong in affirming that that council was gathered from six hundred bishops in the time of Nicæa, to which, however, it preceded by eleven years, and consisted of only two hundred bishops. This Verus, as Baronius notes under the day of August, is the second bishop of Vienne of this name: for the third, who is more correctly called Virus, lived in A. D. 583, after Evantius and before Desiderius, according to Ado in his Chronicle and Martyrology for the first day of January. Petrus Franciscus Chiffletius (10) observes that this name Virius was not at all unknown to the ancients. A distinction post Baronius was also perceived by Bollandus (11).

^D Now let us descend to Justus, the successor of Verus. Ado in his Chronicle, namely in his own, and not in another’s work, names him not once, but a second and a third time. For under Hadrian, he says (12): "At this same time Justus, bishop of the Church of Vienne, stood out most illustrious in confession." Under Antoninus, he writes thus of the same (13): "Justus, bishop of the Viennenses, is still held to be famous." And finally under M. Aurelius (14): "Justus, bishop of Vienne, macerated by a long time of exile, becomes a glorious martyr." In the appendix to the Martyrology of Ado which Rosweydus published, on the 14th of May, these things are read concerning him: "The memory of the most blessed Justus, bishop of Vienne": and as if this reading without the expression of martyrdom were not genuine enough, Rosweydus marked it with an asterisk. Justus is listed on the same day in the Martyrology of Bede, and also in that of Usuard, in the editions of Lübeck and Cologne of A. D. 1475 and 1490, and in the Brussels codex in Sollerius (15). Again in two other MS Martyrologies of the Church of Vienne, in the calendar of the ancient Missal in the Florian MS, in the second tome of May of the Bollandists, and in the catalogue transcribed there, in which he is said to have suffered under M. Aurelius. His see is truly more correctly compressed between Antoninus and Marcus: so that, consequently, not so many years should be attributed to him as are commonly attributed.

From these things which have been said, I believe the sincerity of the epistle of Saint Pius can in no way be weakened by the things mentioned in it concerning Verus and Justus. Attalus, moreover, is said to have carried both the letters of the martyrs and the news of the triumph of Verus to Pius in this epistle of the same; because it was the custom, when a bishop wrote to a bishop, to entrust the letters only to some minister of the Church. Refer to Baronius under the 14th of February. Nor is that Attalus to be thought different from the famous Pergamene; the conflict of whom and of the rest, later endured so magnificently, is testified to in the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons written to the Asians, as found in Eusebius (16). Henricus Valesius concludes in his notes to that same letter that at that time Vienne had its own bishop, and indeed the Justus of whom we are speaking: for while the most excellent men from BOTH churches are said to have been detained, it is manifest that Vienne, just as much as Lyons, had its own bishop at that time, namely in A. D. 177, which was the 16th year of the reign of Marcus; since a church is not called by ancient writers anything but a *matrix*, which we call a cathedral. Ruinartus agrees with Valesius (12). Rightly, therefore, does Saint Pius address the newly elected Justus thus: "But you, at the senatorial city of Vienne, having been appointed in his place (that is, of Verus) by the brethren and clothed in the *colobium* of the bishops, see that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord." These things regarding the historical matter, comprised in the letters of Pius.

VI. But Blondellus and Tillemontius try to strip this *colobium* from Justus, as if it were a type of garment not at all proper for a bishop. Whether they do this rightfully, we must now inquire. The ancients, both Romans and Greeks, had a double outer tunic: one sleeved and long, which they called the *chirodotum*; the other neither sleeved nor long, which they called *colobium* in Greek and a tunic in Latin. Let Justus Lipsius (18) and Octavius Ferrarius (19) be consulted on this. Tertullian [alt-version omitted]

^A in his work *On the Pallium* famously delineated it as a garment common to both Gentiles and Christians: “Neither excessive across the legs, nor immodest within the knees, nor spare in the arms, nor tight in the hands.” But there was also another *colobium*, different from the ordinary and common one, which alone bishops used in sacred rites, and it was therefore called the *colobium* of the bishops by Pius. Mention is made of this in the Acts of Peter of Alexandria, who suffered under Maximian, which Ado translated into his Martyrology on the sixth day before the Kalends of December: for there the most holy man, recalling that Christ had appeared to him, says: “He was,” he says, “clothed in a white linen COLOBIUM, torn from the top to the bottom, and he was joining it around his chest with both hands, in such a way as to cover his nakedness”: and when I saw him, seized by excessive fear, I was finally comforted and said to him: “What is this, Lord, which I see, a TUNIC torn from top to bottom?” The same appears in the common Martyrology of Bede, and in my own manuscript codex of Usuard. Thus, Peter calls one and the same garment both a *colobium* and a tunic. To these correspond the Greek Acts published by François Combefis, where we read (2) *kolobion* and *chiton*: which the latter, Anastasius the Librarian, as translator, in Baronius (3), generally translates as a garment, although he should have translated it as a tunic.

^B Consequently, the common reading, which has *dalmatica* in place of tunic, is to be utterly scorned; the same Fell attributes this reading to the audacity of the scribes: for when officious men did not believe that a tunic corresponded to episcopal dignity, they substituted *dalmatica*. In the Ado of Rosweyd, on the eighteenth day before the Kalends of October, we discover that *dalmatica* has clearly crept in. For there, concerning Cyprian, it is read thus: *He took off his dalmatic tunic and handed it to the deacons, standing in his linen.* The word *dalmatica* is foolishly redundant. Papias and the common Alcuin write that *colobia* were changed into dalmatics because the nakedness of the arms was censured. But this wit savors more of speculation than historical truth. The *colobium* was the outer tunic: the inner one, however, was the chemise (*subucula*), as is clear from the Acts of St. Cyprian, who, having laid aside the *colobium*, or outer tunic, is said to have stood in the inner one, namely in linen. Therefore, although *colobia* lacked sleeves extended beyond the elbow, the nakedness of the arms could not thereby be censured, as it was covered by the inner tunic. The author of the *colobium* in the Latin Church was therefore not St. Sylvester or a later pontiff: but the Apostles transmitted the custom and form of this garment to their successor bishops.

• The author of *De divinis officiis* chap. xxxix (4), and Honorius of Autun (5), affirm that the *colobium* was changed into a dalmatic by B. Sylvester: and Walafrid (6) also reports that it had its beginning from the same pontiff; Cardinal Bona (7) agreed with their statements. On the other hand, Anselm of Lucca (8), having adduced Eusebius as a witness, makes Liberius the author of the dalmatic and Sylvester the author of the *colobium*. But Anselm undoubtedly drew his own [information] from the apocryphal Acts of St. Sylvester; which he attributes to Eusebius for the reason that these words occur at the beginning of the Prologue: *Our historiographer Eusebius of Caesarea, while writing his ecclesiastical history, omitted those things which he mentions in other works that he had written.* These Latin Acts, transcribed six hundred years ago—which the very learned and very pious Cardinal Thomasius once shared with me—attribute the institution of the *colobium* to Sylvester, on the occasion when Euphrosynus, a bishop from the East, having come to Rome, and approaching to sacrifice the mysteries of Christ, was wearing a most WHITE COLOBIUM: which he claimed to have been the *colobium* of Saint James. He said, however, that it was a just reverence that, while the priest assists at the divine mysteries, he should use those garments which exhibit the habit of the apostles among the priests. From this, these things are immediately added: And thus it came about that the use of COLOBIA took its beginning from Saint Sylvester ^C and his presbyters; which Mark, Julius, and Liberius used in that order. After them, however, *colobia* were changed into dalmatics. These same things occur in the Acts of Sylvester edited in Greek by Combefis (9).

But we conclude that the things narrated here about *colobia* are entirely false, from the genuine proconsular Acts of Cyprian, bishop and martyr, in which it is recorded that when he was being led to execution, he put off his *colobium* or tunic: and when he had stripped himself of the TUNIC, and had handed it to the deacons, he stood in his linen and began to endure the executioner. Thus do the ancient manuscript codices hold, as testified by Baronius (10), Ruinart (11), and John Fell in his note to Cassian, page 684, edition 11, Vatican, year 1588.

A *pallium* used to be thrown over the *colobium*: so far is it from being the case that the *colobium* itself was a *pallium*; by which name, however, it is mistakenly called in the Viennese Martyrology cited above. From this, we gather from John (12) that Christ the Lord wore both a tunic as a garment and had a *pallium* for his cloak. The fabulous Abdias (13), speaking of Saint Bartholomew: Clothed, he says, in a WHITE COLOBIUM, adorned with purple, he is invested with a white *pallium*, having a single gem on each corner. See Filippo Buonarotti (14). The Acts of Sylvester apud Combefis teach us the same custom. And indeed, in the West, long after Sylvester and Liberius himself, even in the sixth century, two brilliant testimonies confirm that bishops used the *colobium*. One is of an ancient author who described the miracles of Saint Gibrian the presbyter, a contemporary of Saint Remigius, bishop of Reims, whose words are these (15): *It seemed in a dream to one of our own, that Saint Remigius came forth from the place where he lies behind the altar, clothed in a white COLOBIUM.* Another is that of Gregory of Tours, who narrates these things (16) concerning Saint Nicetius, bishop of Lyons, with whom he had associated while still a boy: *Seizing the hem of his garment with my fingers, I so clung to his COLOBIUM, that my limbs could never touch his blessed members.*

However, as many authors as I have cited up to this point have with one voice called the *colobium* shining or white. Jerome confirms this very thing, criticizing sacred vestments of this kind (17): *What are these, I ask,* he says, *enmities against God, if I have a cleaner TUNIC: if the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon, and the rest of the ecclesiastical order proceed in the administration of the sacrifices in a white garment?* From these it appears that the sacred *colobium* was always white: which we do not read regarding the common and ordinary *colobium*, and much less regarding the dalmatic; which Bruno of Asti (18) records having been invented after other priestly garments: and that its use was granted by the supreme pontiffs only by privilege in the sixth century, Magnus Gregory (19) teaches. Indeed, Jerome turns into a crime the wearing of a white garment in common (20). Wherefore Walafrid has erred, writing thus (21): In the first times...

^A in those days, clad in a common garment, they celebrated the Masses.

These things, explained at length by us regarding the priestly colobium in the epistle of Saint Pius, contrary to the animadversions of distinguished critics, prove that from the earliest times bishops had a colobium as something peculiar to themselves and distinct from the common one; which had nothing in common with the colobium or lebitonarium of the Oriental monks, as it is called in the *Life of Saint Pachomius* ch. xiv, among the works of Isidore (1), and in Du Cange’s *Glossarium Græcum*. Rufinus (2) records that this was like a linen sack. I believe that the upper tunic, which bishops wear under the chasuble, succeeded the episcopal colobium, as is found in Amalarius (3), Rupert (4), and others.

“Finally, our Pius closes the second epistle by exhorting Justus that, amid the storms of persecutions, he should with a brave spirit openly confess the Christian religion: ‘One thing,’ he says, ‘I shall ask of thee: stand in communion, and do not forget me.’ These things displease Tillemont, who takes it ill that Pius should doubt without cause the faith and constancy of Saint Justus. But this censure is unworthy of such a great man: for how many exhortatory prayers occur that are addressed to most holy men, that they might not be turned away from the confession of the faith by stripes and hardships? That Justus lived in such times has been proved up to this point, and from the epistle itself it is known clearly enough.

VII. Thus far we have contended for the authenticity of both of Saint Pius’s Epistles. Now it remains that we examine the interpretations of those who, having accepted them as genuine, strive to draw them to the advantage of the Calvinist sect, seeking novelty in the depths of antiquity. David Blondel, who once—as we have seen—pronounced them to be suspected of imposture, later sagaciously departing from this opinion, defended both, as much in his work *De Primatu* (5) as in another, *De Sibyllis* (6). These things escaped Tillemont. For he charges Blondel with a contrary opinion, just as if he had exploded the Epistles of Pius—which were cited with the judgment of Baronius in that same book of his, *De Primatu*: in which matter the learned man, as often happens to those who write much, suffered a lapse of memory, confusing his volume on the Primacy with the Pseudo-Isidore. The same Blondel, wishing to bolster his heresy with the most ancient witnesses, if it pleases God, abuses the epistles of Pius as true in other places as well (7). For he forces upon us the idea that the prerogative of presbyters and the first see began to be transferred under Pope Pius to others by right of election and suffrage: thinking it resulted from this that Pius would write to Justus, who had been constituted bishop and had departed for Vienne shortly before: *Let the presbyters and deacons observe thee.* But lest anyone should think the presbyters were cast down from the episcopal rank because of the one to whom the common suffrage of the Church had placed them over, Blondel invents that, according to the custom of the ancestors, apostolic men, as many as had previously fed the Lord’s flock, were designated by the general name of presbyters in these words: *Those presbyters who, educated by the apostles, have lasted until us, with whom we have shared the word of God, called by the Lord, are held enclosed in eternal chambers.* Thus indeed Blondel.

But because the studies of innovators are always known to aim at one goal, John Daillé (8) and Walo Messalinus, or Claude ^B Salmasius (9), greedily snatched up these inventions as the primary leaders of the Calvinist school. But they are far mistaken. For Pius is so far from aiding their cause in any way that he thoroughly overturns it. This I demonstrate in few words and without any trouble. Pius admonishes Justus, while congratulating him on his episcopate, about diligently fulfilling his duty, so that he might offer himself as an example to the rest of the inferior rank: *Visit the prisons of the saints, lest anyone grow tepid in the faith. Approve holy martyrdoms by the Holy Spirit. Be an encourager to them that they may persevere in the faith. Let the presbyters and deacons observe thee not as a superior, but as a minister of Christ. Let the whole populace be protected by thy holiness.* Therefore, Pius commands a bishop to so exercise himself in the works of Christian piety that, although by the very prerogative of the episcopal rank he stands as the head of his own, he should nevertheless strive in modesty to equal men of an inferior order, according to the custom, naturally, of the apostolic doctrine of Saint Paul to Timothy. Aptly, therefore, does Henry Hammond, ridiculing the levity of the Blondellian argumentation, consider that Justus is extolled over the presbyters by the episcopal character (10), so that they might be commanded to observe him; and that those things said by Pius concerning the observance of the presbyters can also be said concerning that of the deacons, to such a degree that, if that foolish Calvinist exposition is admitted, one could conclude not only that presbyters are equalized to bishops, but even deacons to presbyters and bishops. For Pius speaks of both: *Let the PRESBYTERS and DEACONS observe thee not as a SUPERIOR, but as a MINISTER of Christ.* By which words Pius looked to that of the Lord (11): *He who is greater among you shall be your minister.* And again (12): *He that is greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.* Where "leader" seems to be said of him who has obtained a more sublime rank in the Church: "as the apostles had obtained, and after them the bishops," says Hugo Grotius. But no man is to be considered to have fashioned his life after Christ's example who would not want all observance to be rendered to him as a minister of Christ, certainly not as to a superior. To this pertains what Wibert writes (13) concerning the holy pontiff Leo IX: he seems to have before the eyes of his mind the dictum of the blessed Pope Gregory: *Let him not dare to be first, who has not learned to be subordinate.*

Let us proceed to examine the rest. The Calvinists babble that the presbyters educated by the apostles, of whose falling asleep Pius speaks, were bishops. I would wish that they had added whence they gather this: for Pius calls the sacred ministers of the second order, certainly not colleagues or bishops, but presbyters: *Soter and Eleutherus, worthy PRESBYTERS, salute thee.* But Verus, who was chosen as bishop of Vienne, he calls his colleague, not a presbyter: and he acknowledges Justus, constituted in the place of that same Verus by the brethren, and clothed in the episcopal colobium; by election, to witness, not by order of antiquity. Wherefore the presbyters educated by the apostles who had fulfilled their days are not the rectors of the churches who, having departed into various regions of the world, fed the Lord’s flock as bishops, as Blondel and ^D Salmasius invent; but they are those few presbyters then surviving whom Justus had known by face at Rome and nowhere else, and with whom, as subject to himself, Pius testifies he had shared the word of faith, as if he were the supreme bishop; who, when he spoke of the clergy of his own time, observed the distinction of orders and names accurately, otherwise than the sectaries babble: which Pearson also noted (14), although these golden...

^A sentences he found in a place unearthed from most ancient libraries. Joannes Jacobus Grynæus, in his preface to the *Monumenta sanctorum Patrum orthodoxographa*, says: "The two epistles of Pius, Bishop of Rome, set before our eyes as if upon a tablet, illustrious examples of a vigilant bishop, of liberality toward the Church, and of constancy in martyrdom." And a little later: "Moreover, these epistles breathe a certain singular charity toward his fellow-ministers and care for the Church." Margarinus Bigneus, Cæsar Baronius, Joannes a Bosco, Severinus Binius, Petrus Pithæus, Joannes Savaro (13), and Papirius Massonus (14), praised them with one voice as sincere. Henricus Spondanus (15) calls them absolutely golden (following Baronius). Josephus Vicecomes (16), Philippus Labbeus (17), Joannes Bona, Franciscus Maria Florentinus (18), Dominicus and Carolus Macri in their *Hierolexicon*, Carolus Cangius in his *Glossarium Latinum*, and Godefridus Henschenius on the fifth day of May, have all publicly upheld their sacred authority as having been written by Saint Pius: not to mention again the more recent heterodox writers, Dallæus, Blondellus, Salmasius, and Hammond; the latter of whom defends both of them, as accepted by himself, against the perverse interpretations of the Presbyterian dogma, catholically; whereas the others, having likewise accepted both of them as being free from any suspicion, abuse them according to their custom to confirm their own impious opinions.

"Truly, nothing could appear more ancient and truly apostolic than what shines forth in them. To indicate yet one or two more notable characters of venerable antiquity: 'colleagues,' 'brethren,' 'the laity,' and other Christian and ecclesiastical names appear throughout the genuine Epistles of Ignatius and Cyprian; and the same structure of words occasionally appears as in the epistles of Saint Pius. But as for what Pius commands regarding the care of the bodies of the martyrs, it entirely conforms to Epistle VII, al. II, of Saint Cyprian, and to that which the Church of Smyrna wrote concerning the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. Finally, with regard to what Pius signifies—that it had been revealed to him that he would die sooner—this is similar to the example of Polycarp, of whom the Church of Smyrna writes (19): 'He received a sign of revelation three days before he was taken captive.' So too did Cyprian reveal to his friends the revelations shown to him by the Lord (20). It was necessary to pursue these things at greater length, so that we might dispel all mists of suspicion from these most integral epistles."

So far the most learned man: who also elsewhere (21) contains several things regarding Hermes, the brother of St. Pius, to whom the surname "Pastor" was given; and at the same time he illustrates what the holy pontiff writes concerning the same Pastor in his second epistle to Justus, Bishop of Vienne: where he also detects the slips of illustrious men discussing Hermes and Hermas and their books. It was necessary to have warned of this, so that readers might not be deterred by those things which the learned Coutantius saw fit to annotate at that place in the aforementioned second epistle (22).

FIRST EPISTLE (23-27). TO ALL THE FAITHFUL OF CHRIST.

That the Pascha may be celebrated on the Lord’s Day: that he who withdraws property from the Church shall be judged a sacrilegious person, and if any of the ministers be disobedient to the bishop, or shall have prepared insults, snares, or slanders, he shall be handed over to the civil court.

Pius, bishop of the apostolic see, to all the Churches remaining in the same faith and doctrine in which we are:

We give thanks to God, brothers, because your faith is growing, and the charity of each and every one of you increases toward one another, so that we ourselves boast of you in the Churches of God. See, brothers, see that “no one deceives you, wanting in humility and the religion of angels ^A (28) things which he has not seen (29), walking in vain, puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from whom the whole body, assisted and held together by joints and connections, grows with the growth of God.” But put on, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, ^B kindness, humility, modesty, patience, bearing with one another, and forgiving yourselves, if anyone has a complaint against another. And as Christ has forgiven you, so also you.

I. That the Pascha may be celebrated on the Lord’s Day.

Furthermore, we wish you to know that the Lord’s Pascha is to be celebrated on the annual solemnity of the Lord’s Day (30). In these times, therefore, Hermes, the teacher of the faith (31), and of the Scriptures, shone among us. And although we ourselves celebrate the same Pascha on the aforementioned day, because some nevertheless doubted concerning it, to strengthen their souls the angel of the Lord appeared to the same Hermes in the habit of a shepherd, and commanded him that the Pascha should be celebrated by all upon the Lord’s Day. Whence we also instruct you by apostolic authority, that all ought to observe the same, because we observe the same, nor ought you to dissent from the Head in any way. Beware diligently, all of you, “lest anyone deceive you per [footnote 87]

(23-27) Of no faith among the learned. The words are those of the apostle Paul written in the second chapter to the Colossians, not as Jerome thought in epistle 251, quest. 10, against the Jewish heavenly-dwellers who believe the stars are worshipped and angels exist, nor even against the Simonians, as Bellarmine thinks; but rather against the most pernicious dogma of Cerinthus, by which he thought so humbly of Christ that he would take away all divinity from Him, teaching that He was a mere man, and would exalt above Him all the angels who had been the creators of the world. That Cerinthus thought this is clear not only from Irenaeus and Epiphanius, but also from Tertullian, *De praescript.*, ch. 28. Since, therefore, Cerinthus lowered Christ and exalted the angels, Paul with good reason—and Pope Pius in this epistle warns all other Churches, saying: “Let no one deceive you in humility” (to wit, of Christ, since by reason of the scandal of the cross he lowered Him too much, and preached that He was but a man) “and the religion of angels.” For by claiming that they were the creators of nature and the corporeal world, they preached them with too much religious fervor. The interpretation of this passage by Theodoret, and his censure of the 33rd canon of the Council of Laodicea, besides the fact that it is dangerous, is not true. For Cerinthus not only did not teach that the angels, as creators of the world, were to be worshipped and adored, but rather that they were to be held in hatred as the authors of evils. See Baronius, A.D. 60, no. 15 and following up to 20. Likewise our notes on canon 35 of the Council of Laodicea. The reason why Pope Pius warned all the Churches in this place, just as Paul did the Colossians, is that Cerinthus and his sectarians at this time were perversely teaching the same things, and had turned many from the faith, as is evident from the epistle of Pope Pius written to Justus of Vienne, which ^C we here insert for the first time in third place and order. Sev. BIN.

(29) *Which he has not seen.* It seems plausible that Paul and Pius are alluding to that which Theodoret wrote of the same Cerinthus in *Hæret. fab.*, bk. II, ch. 4, saying: “He even invented certain revelations, as if he himself had contemplated them. For to capture the faith of his listeners, he used them, lying that he had seen many things divinely, which, as Paul and Pius say, he did not see.” Baronius A.D. 60, num. 18. ID.

(30) *The Lord’s Pascha is to be celebrated on the annual solemnity.* From the words following: “And although we ourselves celebrate the same Pascha on the aforementioned day, because some nevertheless doubted from thence,” etc., it is sufficiently clear that the author of that constitution (by which it is commanded that Christians celebrate Pascha only on the Lord’s Day, occurring after the vernal equinox, so that the Paschal feasts of Christians and Jews might never coincide) was not this Pope Pius, but rather that it was instituted by the apostles, which we have noted at sufficient length above on the 8th canon of the apostles; but that Pope Pius, when this apostolic tradition had been violated by the custom of Judaizing Churches, merely confirmed and stabilized it by an issued writing and a renewed decree. See Baron. A.D. 159, num. 1 et seqq. Likewise those things which we have said above on the 8th canon of the apostles. ID.

(31) *In these times Hermes the teacher of the faith.* Who and of what sort Hermes was is evident from those things which we have said above in the notes to the Life of Pius. ID.

any astrology or philosophy (32) and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ and the right tradition; for in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that you may be filled in Him, who is the head of all principality and power, who also ordered this holy apostolic see to be the head of all the churches, He Himself saying to the prince of the apostles: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ^A Without doubt, he who acts against the commands of God sins, and he who gives consent to an erring person. "For what does it profit him to not be polluted by his own error, who gives consent to one who errs?"

II. *From whom bishops should not be accused, and concerning those who transgress the commands of the apostolic see.*

"For sheep should not reprehend their shepherd, nor, indeed, should the laity accuse the bishop, nor the common people argue against him, since 'the disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.' Bishops, moreover, are to be judged by God alone, who chose them as His own eyes. For they are not to be argued against, or accused, or lacerated by their subjects or by men of evil life, the Lord Himself giving the example, when by His own hand—and not by another—He cast the sellers and buyers out of the temple, and overturned the tables of the money-changers with His own ^B scourge, and cast them out of the temple. And as He speaks elsewhere through the Prophet, saying: 'God stood in the synagogue of the gods, and in the midst He discerns the gods.' If anyone, however, has wandered backward from his purpose, and has willingly transgressed the command of the apostolic see, he becomes infamous. Therefore, the reproaches of those who are suspected in the true faith ought to be rejected. But faith and persistence ought first to be scrutinized, and only then are those who appear irreproachable to be received, and not before; because 'a good man, as the voice of Truth testifies, produces good things from the good treasure of his heart, and an evil man from the evil treasure of his heart produces evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.' Therefore, the person and opinion and life of everyone ought to be searched out at the beginning, because the good are always harassed by the bad. For the good, though they are mixed with the bad in the Church, are found to be in agreement only with difficulty, since their thought, will, and action are dissimilar. For it profits a man nothing to fast, and to pray, and to do other good works of religion, unless the mind is called back from iniquity, and the tongue is restrained from backbiting. Whence the Prophet says: 'Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good.' For no one doing good wishes to harm another by word or deed; how much less should a faithful man come under suspicion of saying or doing things which he does not wish to suffer? ^C Because every suspicion is rather to be repelled than approved or accepted. For 'charity does not seek its own, but the things of others; because for the sake of one, the many are not to be preferred: 'Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts.' For charity is patient, it is kind. Charity does not envy, it does not act perversely, it is not puffed up, it is not ambitious, it does not seek its own, it is not provoked, it thinks no evil, it does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices with the truth; it believes all things, it hopes all things, it endures all things. Charity never fails.' I always ask you that you reject worse things, and perform better things; because we have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we may know the things that are given to us by God, and that you may follow them indifferently.

Given on the seventh day before the Ides of April, in the consulship of the most illustrious men, Clarus and Severus.

EPISTLE II (33).

*That things assigned to divine uses cannot be transferred to human uses without sacrilege.*

Pius, Archbishop of the Roman city, to the Italian brethren sends greeting in the Lord.

You know, brethren, that 'we are God’s husbandry'; therefore we ought to be His coworkers according to the grace which He Himself has given to us. But if this... [original-script column: see facsimile]

labor we have performed in His service with our strength, and have been His true helpers, and have striven to fulfill His will, truly we shall be enriched by Him, because 'each man's work, of what sort it is,' as the Apostle says, 'the day of the Lord shall declare it, and the fire shall prove it' (1 Cor. iii, 13).

^A Furthermore, it has been reported to the apostolic see that there are contentions and jealousies among you; and that some are applying property dedicated to divine uses to human uses, and are withdrawing them from the Lord God (to whom they were dedicated) so that they may serve their own ends. Wherefore, the reproach of this usurpation must be warded off by everyone, lest property dedicated to the uses of heavenly mysteries (34) be vexed by certain intruders. And if anyone dares this, let him be held a sacrilegious person, and be judged as a sacrilegious person. We have heard that those who do this even persecute the clergy and the priests of the Lord and defame them, so that they add evil upon evil and become worse, not understanding that the Church of the Lord consists in its priests and grows into the temple of God. And as he who lays waste the Church of God, and plunders and invades its property and gifts, becomes sacrilegious, so too he who persecutes its priests exists as guilty of sacrilege and is judged as sacrilegious. 'Be zealous, brethren, for the better gifts' (1 Cor. xii, 31), and do not do such things, nor associate with or consent to those who do such things; because not only those who do such things are guilty of this crime, but those who consent to the doers (Rom. i, 32). Fornication is therefore not a more serious sin than sacrilege; but just as the sin committed against God is greater than that committed against man, so it is a graver sin to commit sacrilege than to commit fornication. For concerning such people the Apostle says: 'And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I, indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though present, him who has so acted, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you and my spirit are gathered together, in the power of the Lord ^B of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord our Lord Jesus Christ. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump? Purge out, says the Apostle, the old leaven, that you may be a new dough, as you are unleavened. For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in an epistle, the same Apostle says, not to associate with fornicators; not, of course, with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or with idolaters; otherwise you would have had to depart from this world. But now I have written to you not to associate. If any man called a brother is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one not even to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them who are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves. Does any one of you, having a matter against another, dare to be judged before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints of God shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more the things of this world? If, therefore, you have judgments ^C concerning things of this world, set those who are contemptible in the Church to judge. I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man, who is able to judge between his brethren? But brother contends with brother in judgment, and this before infidels? Already, indeed, there is altogether a fault among you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why do you not rather take the wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? But you do wrong, and defraud, and that to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

...and then with laborious study he gave himself to learning the Hebrew language, and its elements. But when he had mastered this, he interpreted it, not using a right method, but in such a way as to pervert some things from the received books, rushing against the translation of the seventy-two, so as to edit otherwise the testimonies concerning Christ approved in the Scriptures. This Epiphanius says of Aquila in the aforesaid passage.

(34) In this place, sacrileges, which are thefts or robberies of goods acquired by the Church, are forbidden, and the possession of temporal goods is granted to it. For just as formerly for the Levites, although they were enriched with tithes, the possession of things was not entirely forbidden, since by the command of God (Num. xxxv) they had in the individual tribes priestly cities for dwelling, so also is the possession of the same goods not proven to be forbidden to the priests of the Christian law. For that the churches of the Christians once possessed properties under the Gentile emperors, not only do the epistles of Pope Pius and Urban written to all bishops declare, but the very edicts of the emperors, by which they ordered those things taken from them to be restored, clearly demonstrate. For in the edict of Constantine and Licinius these words are written: "But since the Christians themselves are known to have had not only those places in which they are accustomed to assemble, but also others, which did not belong privately to individuals, but to the right of their whole community, that is, of the Christians; I would wish you to command, by the law which we have set out above, that all things be restored without any controversy to the Christians, that is, to their society and conventicle." Furthermore, that all those places which he says belong to the Christians were ecclesiastical, the following edict of the same [emperors] written to Anulinus declares, in these words: "Wherefore we wish that as soon as you have received these letters from us, if any of these possessions, which belong to the catholic Church of the Christians in any cities or other places, etc."

no thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor the slanderers, nor the rapacious shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such you were, but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. Furthermore, saving in all things the apostolic authority, whatever things pertain to the observance of religion, let them be heard in their own places and by the synods of their dioceses. And if any of the priests or the rest of the clergy shall have been disobedient to his bishop, or have laid snares for him, or [offered] insult or calumny, and can be convicted, he shall immediately be handed over to the court. "But he who does injury shall receive [the recompense] for what he did unjustly. Corrupt communications evil manners do." Awake, you just, and do not sin. Given on the Ides of March, under the illustrious consuls Clarus and Severus.

EPISTLE III

EPISTLE IV

^A A senate of the poor (44) of Christ established at Rome. Greet the whole college of brothers who are with you in the Lord.

FROM THE DECREES OF POPE PIUS I

That virgins not be consecrated before the twenty-fifth year

29 Virgins should not be veiled before twenty-five years of age, unless perhaps due to the necessity of a threatened virginal modesty. And they are not to be consecrated, except on the Epiphany and at the Paschal feast of the White Garments, and on the feast days of the apostles, unless because of an urgent cause of death.

Of those who swear by the head of God or hair, or use blasphemy against God

31 If anyone has sworn by the hair or the head of God or in any other way has used blasphemy against God, if he is in ecclesiastical order, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be anathematized. And if anyone has sworn by creatures, let him be severely punished, and let him do penance according to that which the synod has judged. If anyone, however, does not report such a man, there is no doubt that he is similarly coerced by divine condemnation. And, if a bishop has neglected to amend these things, let him be severely corrected.

Of those who have committed perjury at the command of their masters

33 Whoever, compelled by a master, knowingly commits perjury, both are perjurers, the master and the soldier; the master, because he gave the order: the soldier, because he loved his master more than his own soul. If he is free, let him do penance for forty days on bread and water, and for the seven following years; if he is a servant, let him do penance for three Lents and the legitimate holidays.

Whoever commits perjury on the hand of a bishop, or on a consecrated cross, let him do penance for three years; but if on a non-consecrated cross, let him do penance for one year. But whoever has been forced, and commits perjury in ignorance, and later acknowledges it, let him do penance for three Lents.

Of him who has killed his legitimate wife without judgment

37 Whoever has killed his own wife without law or without cause and certain proof, and has taken another wife, having laid down his arms, let him perform public penance. And if he has been contumacious, and has been disobedient to his bishop, let him be anathematized, ^B until he consents. The same law shall apply to him who has killed his own senior.

The penance of him by whose negligence any of the Lord's blood drips

39 If through negligence any of the Lord's blood has dripped onto the ground, let it be licked up with the tongue, and the board scraped. If there is no board, so that it is not trampled, let the floor be scraped down, and consumed by fire, and the ashes hidden within the altar, and let the priest do penance for forty days. If the chalice has dripped onto the altar, let the minister drink the drop, and do penance for three days. If it has reached onto the altar cloth and onto another, let him do penance for four days. If it has reached to the third, let him do penance for nine days. If to the fourth, let him do penance for twenty days, and the linens which the drop has touched, let the minister wash three times, with the chalice placed underneath, and let the water of the washing be consumed, and hidden next to the altar.

That those who are possessed not minister at the holy altars

41 We define in common that none of those who are either seized on the earth and struck by demons, or in any way whatsoever are carried away by the incursions of vexation, may dare to minister at the holy altars, or indiscriminately thrust themselves into divine sacraments, except those who, given over to bodily infirmity, are found to be struck down on the earth without passions of this kind, who nevertheless themselves shall be suspended from the order and place of their office, until, in the space of one year, through the discretion of the bishop, they are found to be freed from the incursion of demons.

Of the offerings of the people

From the code of 5 books, book II, cap. 117.

That regarding the offerings which are presented by the people, and the consecrations which remain over, or regarding the breads which the faithful bring to the church, or certainly those of their own, the presbyter should have cut pieces in a clean and convenient vessel, so that after the solemnities of the mass, those who are not prepared to communicate, may receive blessings from thence every Lord's day, and on feast days, which he shall first bless with a blessing. ^{C D}