Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (5)

The new Dignities or Degrees, added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church, in the Fourth and following Centuries, were those of _Metropolitan_, _Primate_, _Archbishop_, _Exarch_, and _Patriarch_. The Title of _Metropolitan_ was given to the Bishop of the chief City of a Province, and likewise that of _Primate_, he being _primus_, or the first of the Province; for such was the original Signification of that Word in an Ecclesiastical Sense; but, in Process of Time, the Title of _Primate_ was restrained to the Bishops of some great Cities. On the contrary the Title of _Archbishop_ was originally bestowed on Metropolitans only of great Eminence and Distinction; but, in the Eighth Century, it began to be given indifferently to all Metropolitans, and even to some Bishops, distinguished by no other Title. As the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City, of a Province, was dignified with the Title of _Metropolitan_, so was the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City of a Diocese, with that of _Exarch_; which, however, we find sometimes given to Metropolitans. As for the Title of _Patriarch_, it was first common to all Bishops, but afterwards confined to the Exarchs; and lastly, to the Bishops of the Five following Cities, _viz._ _Rome_, _Constantinople_, _Antioch_, _Alexandria_, and _Jerusalem_. It was first bestowed on the Bishop of _Rome_, by the Council of _Chalcedon_[634], after it had been long common to all the Exarchs of the East, as the learned _Du Pin_ well observes[635].

[Sidenote: _The Rights and Privileges of Metropolitans._]

The Titles of Metropolitans, Primates, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, were not bare Names of Honour, but had several Rights and Prerogatives attending them. Thus the Metropolitans and Primates had, by their Prerogative, a Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, to convene provincial Synods, and to have a general Superintendency or Inspection over the whole Province. The ordaining of Bishops was a Privilege common to the Metropolitan, with the other Bishops of the same Province; but with this Difference, that the Presence, or at least the Consent and Approbation of the Metropolitan was absolutely necessary; for, according to the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of _Nice_, _He who was not ordained, or approved, by the Metropolitan, was not to be a Bishop_. This Privilege was confirmed to the Metropolitans by many subsequent Councils, namely, by those of _Arles_, _Laodicea_, _Carthage_, _Chalcedon_, _Ephesus_[636], and many others. However, in the Fifth Century, the Patriarchs of _Alexandria_ and _Constantinople_ began, in the East, to usurp this Prerogative, pretending, that no Bishops ought to be ordained in their respective Dioceses, without their Knowlege, Consent, and Approbation; and the Patriarch of _Rome_, still more ambitious and encroaching, claimed a Right to ordain the Bishops throughout all the Provinces of the West, which occasioned endless Disputes, as we shall see in the Sequel of this History. As to the Second Privilege peculiar to the Metropolitans, they had a Right to summon the Bishops of their respective Provinces to meet when they thought proper; to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting; to punish such as did not, without just Cause, comply with their Summons; and to preside in the Assembly. The general Care and Inspection, which they were charged with over the whole Province, imported, First, That all Complaints against, all Contests with or between the Bishops of the Province, were to be brought to their Tribunal; and there heard, judged, and determined, not by the Metropolitan alone, but by him and the other Bishops of the Province, in a Provincial Synod. Innumerable Instances might be alleged of Bishops thus deposed by their Metropolitans. Secondly, The Metropolitans had a Right to receive Appeals from the Sentence of inferior Bishops, and with the other Bishops, to confirm or reverse their Decrees. And, lastly, each Metropolitan was to keep a watchful Eye over the Bishops of his Province, and take care that they discharged, as they ought, the Functions of their Office. These Privileges were, in express Terms, granted to the Metropolitans, by almost innumerable Councils, which it is needless, and would be too tedious, to name.

[Sidenote: _The Rights and Privileges of Patriarchs, or Exarchs._]

As for the Patriarchs, or Exarchs; by their Prerogative, they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans, to convene Diocesan Synods, and to have a general Superintendency over their respective Dioceses, such as the Metropolitans had over their respective Provinces. [Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _not a Patriarch_.] The Bishop of _Rome_ had not the Charge of a whole Diocese, and therefore was not, properly speaking, Exarch or Patriarch: his Jurisdiction did not extend beyond the Limits of the Vicarage of _Rome_, or the Suburbicarian Provinces; and no Instance can be produced of Metropolitans or Bishops ordained by him, out of those Provinces, till the Time of _Valentinian_ III. Even in the Vicarage of _Italy_ the Metropolitans of each Province ordained all the Bishops, and were themselves ordained by the Bishops of the Province. But over the Suburbicarian Provinces the Bishop of _Rome_ exercised greater Power and Authority, than the Exarchs of the East did over the Provinces of their Dioceses; for the latter left the Ordination of the Bishops to their Metropolitans, whereas the former ordained not only the Bishops of the Metropolitan Cities, but all those of the fore-mentioned Provinces: and the Reason of this was, because these Provinces had no Metropolitans, to whom the Ordination of Bishops would of Right have belonged; so that the Prerogatives of the Metropolitans were all vested in the Bishop of _Rome_ alone. [Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Rome _have no Right to ordain the Metropolitans_.] As there were no Exarchs or Patriarchs in the West, the Bishops of each Province were, by several Councils, vested with the Power of ordaining their own Metropolitans; and that they were thus ordained in _Gaul_, _Spain_, and _West Africa_, is so manifest as to admit of no Dispute[637]. And yet the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ pretend the Bishops of that City to have a divine and inherent Right of ordaining all the Metropolitans throughout the Christian World, by themselves, their Vicars, or Delegates. To maintain this chimerical Right against the uncontestable Evidence of Facts, they tell us, that the Popes, for some Ages, neglected to exert the Power they had[638]. But from this Charge all Mankind will clear them, it being but too well known, that they never neglected the least Opportunity of exerting to the utmost the Power they had, and usurping the Power they had not. But, Cavils aside, it is evident beyond Dispute, that the Popes never knew, nor dreamt of, any such Right or Prerogative, till they were told of it by their flattering Divines; at least Pope _Leo_, surnamed _the Great_, did not; for in one of his Letters to the Bishops of _Gaul_ he disclaims, in express Terms, the Right of ordaining the Bishops of that Diocese[639]. To conclude, the Bishop of _Rome_ was the only Metropolitan in that Vicarage; and, as such, had a Right to ordain all the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Provinces, or the Provinces subject to the Vicar of _Rome_; but, for a considerable Tract of Time, there is no Instance of their ordaining either Bishops or Metropolitans out of that District.

[Sidenote: _The Title of_ Archbishop _in itself a bare Name of Honour_.]

As for the Title of Archbishop, it is in itself a bare Name of Honour; whence, in some Countries, especially in _Italy_, several are distinguished with that Title, who indeed take place of, but have no Power or Authority over, other Bishops. And thus far of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as settled in the Fourth and following Centuries, of the different Degrees that compose it, and the Prerogatives peculiar to each Degree, the Knowlege whereof is absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the many Contests and Disputes in point of Jurisdiction, which I shall have Occasion to touch upon in the Sequel of this History; for it was not at once, but by Degrees, and not without great Opposition, that the Bishops of _Rome_, extending their Authority beyond the Limits of that Vicarage, which was at that time the Boundary of their Jurisdiction, acquired the unlimited Power they now enjoy, with the arrogant Title of _Universal Bishop_.

[Sidenote: _The Donation of all_ Italy _made by_ Constantine _to the Pope, a Forgery_.]

But to return to _Sylvester_, in whose Pontificate this great Change began; I need not employ many Words to shew the Forgery of the so much boasted Donation of all _Italy_, supposed to have been made by _Constantine_ to _Sylvester_, in the Spring of the Year 324. Four Days after he had been baptized by that Pontiff, since the Instrument of that Donation is now looked upon as supposititious, by all who have the least Tincture of Learning. The Arguments they allege against it are: 1. That more than Twelve Copies of that Instrument are still extant, all differing from one another. 2. That it evidently appears, from Two Constitutions of _Constantine_, still to be seen in the _Theodosian_ Code[640], that he was not at _Rome_, but at _Thessalonica_, in the Spring of the Year 324. 3. That neither _Eusebius_, who has given us a very minute and particular Account of the Actions of that Prince, nor any other contemporary Writer, has so much as hinted at so memorable a Fact. 4. That all the antient Writers, both _Greek_ and _Latin_, agree, that _Constantine_ was not baptized at _Rome_, but at _Nicomedia_, when he lay at the Point of Death[641]. Let those, who stand up in Defence of that Donation, give satisfactory Answers to these Reasons, and I shall conclude with them, that _Italy_ being, by such a Donation, disjoined from the Empire, the Emperors who succeeded _Constantine_, had no Claim or Title to that Country; that none of their Constitutions were binding there; and consequently that, by the Inhabitants of _Italy_, Recourse ought to be had, in all Cases, not to the Civil, but to the Canon Law: for such pernicious Doctrines have been broached, published, and maintained, as natural Deductions from _Constantine_’s great Generosity to _Sylvester_[642]. In _Rome_ is still to be seen, in a most sumptuous Chapel, close to the _Lateran_, the Baptistery or Font in which _Constantine_ is said to have been baptized. The Chapel is adorned with noble Paintings, representing that august Ceremony, as performed by _Sylvester_, in the magnificent Drapery, and stately Apparel, of the present Popes. Four Days after this Ceremony, _Constantine_, sensible of his Obligations to _Sylvester_, rewarded him for his Trouble with a Fee, as _Luchesini_ the _Scolopian_ expresses it, answering in some Degree to the Greatness of the Favour he had received at his Hands; a Fee worthy of so great a Prince, of so great a Pope[643]. [Sidenote: Constantine _baptized at_ Nicomedia, _and not at_ Rome.] The Fee, which that Writer, otherwise a Man of Learning, makes a long and tedious Descant upon, was no less than the City of _Rome_, and all _Italy_. That _Constantine_ was baptized at _Nicomedia_, and not at _Rome_, is affirmed, in express Terms, by _Theodoret_[644], _Sozomen_[645], _Socrates_[646], and _Photius_[647], among the _Greeks_; and, among the _Latins_, by St. _Ambrose_[648], St. _Jerom_[649], and the Council of _Rimini_[650]. _Emmanuel Schelstrat_, on one Side, ashamed to reject, or even to question such Authorities, but, on the other, unwilling to rob _Sylvester_ of that Glory, will have _Constantine_ to have been baptized in both Places. It is well known, says he, that _Constantine_, in the Latter-end of his Life, was greatly biassed in favour of the _Arians_, and their Tenets. Now a Practice obtained among them of rebaptizing such as came over to their Sect from the Catholic Church; and, to conform to this Custom, _Constantine_ was, in all Likelihood, prevailed upon by _Eusebius_, the _Arian_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, who assisted him on his Death-bed[651]. Thus _Schelstrat_. But it is certain, that, in _Constantine_’s Time, the _Arians_ allowed the Validity of Baptism administred by the Catholics; for, long after, we find St. _Austin_ upbraiding them with the Practice of rebaptizing, as a Novelty lately introduced among them[652]. Besides, who is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that, in those early Times, a very bad Custom universally prevailed, at least among Persons of Distinction, who embraced the Christian Religion, namely, that of putting off their Baptism to their Death-bed, or till they were upon the Point of exposing themselves to some great Danger? Thus _Theodosius the Great_, though he had not only openly professed the Christian Religion, but given many Instances of an extraordinary Piety, yet did not chuse to be baptized till he fell dangerously ill at _Thessalonica_[653]. In like manner _Valentinian_ II delayed his Baptism till the Approach of a Battle with the Barbarians, when he sent, in great Haste, for St. _Ambrose_ to administer that Sacrament to him. But while the good Bishop was crossing the _Alps_, on his Way to _Vienne_, where the Emperor then was, he received the melancholy News of his having been inhumanly murdered by some of his own Officers, at the Instigation of _Arbogastus_. His Death was greatly lamented by St. _Ambrose_, who, in the elegant Oration, which he pronounced on Occasion of his Obsequies, maintained, that the fervent Desire of Baptism had the same Effect as the Sacrament itself; and consequently, that the Sins of the deceased Prince being thereby cancelled, it was not to be doubted, but from this Life he had passed to eternal Bliss[654]. Innumerable Instances of the same Nature occur in History, which were, it seems, utterly unknown to the Author of the Acts of Pope _Sylvester_, upon whose sole Authority the Fable has been credited of _Constantine_’s receiving Baptism at the Hands of _Sylvester_, soon after his Conversion. That Impostor, whoever he was, is supposed to have lived in the Eighth Century, long after the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death had been utterly abolished. [Sidenote: _What gave Countenance to the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death._] What gave Countenance to such a Custom, was an Opinion then generally received, and still held by the Church of _Rome_; _viz._ That by the Waters of the sacred Font Men were washed clean, not only from the original, but from all other Sins. This proved a great Encouragement to Vice when Piety began (and it began but too early) to decay among Christians; and therefore the Fathers of the Church, especially _Basil_, his Brother _Gregory_ of _Nyssa_, and St. _Ambrose_[655], employed all the Oratory they were Masters of, in crying down such a pernicious and wicked Custom, as they style it; so that it was at last quite laid aside. Whether Confession ought not, on the same Account, to be put down, I shall leave the Reader to judge; and only observe here, by the way, that had the Virtue and Efficacy, ascribed now to Confession, been known in those Times, Sinners needed not have delayed Baptism to the Point of Death, since their Sins had been no less effectually cancelled by Confession, than by Baptism.

[Sidenote: _Spurious Pieces ascribed to_ Sylvester.]

As for the Letter from the Council of _Nice_ to _Sylvester_, his Answer, the Acts of a Council of 275 Bishops, supposed to have been held by him, at the Request of the Fathers of _Nice_, to confirm their Canons and Decrees[N12], his Letter to the Bishops of _Gaul_, in favour of the Church of _Vienne_; the Acts of Two other Councils, said to have been held by him at _Rome_; they are all Pieces universally rejected by Men of Learning, and deemed no less fabulous than the Instrument of _Constantine_’s Donation, and that Prince’s Journey with _Sylvester_ to the Council of _Nice_, as it is related in the Acts of the latter, even in those which _F. Combesis_ published in 1660. They are in _Greek_, and that Writer undertakes to defend them as genuine[656]; but we need no other Proof than the Account they give of that Journey, to conclude them incapable of being defended. _Sylvester_ died on the 31st of _December_ 335. after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Twenty-one Years, and Eleven Months[657].

-----

Footnote N12:

The Style of the Letter from the Council to _Sylvester_ is quite
barbarous and unintelligible. It begins thus: _Gloriam corroborata de
Divinis Mysteriis. Ecclesiasticæ utilitatis quæ ad robur pertinent
Ecclesiæ Catholicæ & Apostolicæ ad sedem tuam_ Romanam _explanata & de
Græce redacta scribere confitemur--Nunc itaque ad vestræ sedis
argumentum accurrimus roborari_. The rest is written in the same
Style; the Consuls are called _Sovereigns_, and the Letter is dated
Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council. The Design of the
Impostor was, to make the Fathers of _Nice_ recur to _Sylvester_ for a
Confirmation of their Decrees. _Sylvester_’s Answer is of a piece with
the Letter of the Council; it supposes him to have added something to
the Council; mentions the Cycle of _Victorinus_, who was not born in
_Sylvester_’s Time, nor many Years after; and bears a false Date. As
for the Council said, and by some still maintained, to have been held
at _Rome_, to confirm the Canons of _Nice_, it was utterly unknown to
all the Antients. And who can believe, that none of the Antients
should ever have heard of a Council held in the Metropolis of the
Empire, and consisting, as we are told, of Two hundred and
Seventy-five Bishops, or, if they had heard of it, that they would
never have mentioned it? Besides, it is said to have been held at
_Rome_, in the Presence of _Constantine_; and it is certain, that the
Emperor was not in _Rome_ at the Time the Council is supposed to have
been held. The Canons, which are supposed to have been made on this
Occasion, contain Regulations repugnant to the Practice of those
Times, and which it was then impossible to observe. The first Canon
relates to the Time when _Easter_ was to be kept; but what is there
determined no Man can know. The Second is no less unintelligible than
the First: _Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam
Compaginem Salutationis plebi tuæ innotescat_. These are the Words of
this Canon. The Third forbids the Ecclesiastics to appear before
secular Judges, let the Action be what it will; which is repugnant to
the Discipline of those Times. The Fourth will have those, who enter
themselves among the Clergy, to pass through all the Degrees, and
fixes the Time which they are to continue in each Degree. They are to
be Janitors or Door-keepers one Year, Lectors or Readers Twenty,
Exorcists Ten, Acolytes Five, Subdeacons Five, Deacons Five, and
Priests Six; so that none under Threescore could attain to the
Episcopal Dignity; which is highly absurd in itself, and contrary to
the Practice of those Times.

-----

-----

Footnote 560:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 561:

Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 562:

Euseb. ib. & concil. t. 1. p. 157.

Footnote 563:

Euseb. & concil. ib.

Footnote 564:

Conc. Gen. t. 1. p. 106.

Footnote 565:

Concil. p. 1425.

Footnote 566:

Concil. ib.

Footnote 567:

Concil. ib.

Footnote 568:

Bar. ad ann. 314. n. 68.

Footnote 569:

Concil. p. 1425.

Footnote 570:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 7.

Footnote 571:

Soz. p. 430.

Footnote 572:

Theodoret. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 573:

Bar. ad ann. 326. n. 20.

Footnote 574:

Gal. Cyz. de Nic. concil. l. 2. c. 5. p. 68.

Footnote 575:

Con. t. 2. p. 50.

Footnote 576:

M Socr. l. 1. c. 23.

Footnote 577:

Facund. l. 8. c. 1.

Footnote 578:

Id. l. 2. c. 1.

Footnote 579:

Niceph. chron.

Footnote 580:

Theod. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 581:

Euseb. in vit. Const. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 582:

Euseb. l. 1. c. 1. Vales. in not. p. 223.

Footnote 583:

Bar. ad ann. 325. n. 56-59.

Footnote 584:

Surius, to Jul. p. 159.

Footnote 585:

Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 14.

Footnote 586:

Vide Elli. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. p. 98, & seq.

Footnote 587:

Inn. in epist. ad Vict. c. 3.

Footnote 588:

Hier. in c. 2. Isal.

Footnote 589:

Vide Basil. ep. 319.

Footnote 590:

Grot. de imp. summ. potest. c. 11. n. 8.

Footnote 591:

Orig. in Ezek. hom. 3.

Footnote 592:

Justin. apol. 2. p 98.

Footnote 593:

Tert. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 594:

Idem ib. p. 99.

Footnote 595:

Cyp. ep. 38. p. 90.

Footnote 596:

Id. ep. 10. p. 30.

Footnote 597:

Tert. ib. p. 39.

Footnote 598:

Id. ib. p. 709.

Footnote 599:

Cyp. de laps. n. 4. p. 278.

Footnote 600:

Tertull. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 601:

Orig. hom. de Engast. vol. 1. p. 28.

Footnote 602:

Cyp. ep. 10. p. 29. ep. 11. p. 32. ep. 12. p. 37.

Footnote 603:

Ign. ad Smyrn. p. 6.

Footnote 604:

Cyp. ep. 66. p. 195. Tert. de præscript. p. 89.

Footnote 605:

Idem, ep. 68. p.201.

Footnote 606:

Tert. advers. Hermog. p. 266. & de præscript. p. 70, 71.

Footnote 607:

Orig. contra Cels. l. 6. p. 279. Clem. Alex. strom. l. 1. p. 207. l.
6. p. 472, &c.

Footnote 608:

Clem. Alex. strom. l. 6. p. 472.

Footnote 609:

Cyp. ep. 33. p. 76.

Footnote 610:

Ign. ep. ad Magnes. p. 31.

Footnote 611:

Acts. vi. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Footnote 612:

Const. Apost. l. 2; p. 31, 32.

Footnote 613:

Acts vi. 6.

Footnote 614:

Just. apol. 2. p. 97.

Footnote 615:

Idem ib. p. 98.

Footnote 616:

Tert. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 617:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 618:

Prud. de coron. mar. p. 71.

Footnote 619:

Idem ib. p. 91.

Footnote 620:

Conc. t. 1. p. 1448.

Footnote 621:

Hier. ep. 85.

Footnote 622:

Cyp. ep. 55, 72, 52.

Footnote 623:

Apud Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 624:

Cyp. ep. 14, 26, 31. Euseb. l. 5. c. 16. & l. 7. c. 30. Act. concil.
Carth. apud Cyp. p. 443.

Footnote 625:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, & 24.

Footnote 626:

Act. concil. Carth. p. 443.

Footnote 627:

Cyp. ep. 59.

Footnote 628:

Zos. l. 2. p. 623.

Footnote 629:

Pet. de Mar. l. 6. deconc. c. 1.

Footnote 630:

Lup. can. 4. Nic. par. 1.

Footnote 631:

Schel. antiq. illust. part. 1. disser. 1. c. 3. art. 1.

Footnote 632:

Leo All. de eccl. occid. & orient. conses. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 633:

Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. diss. 1. n. 6.

Footnote 634:

Concil. t. 4. col. 58. Evagr. l. 2. c. 18.

Footnote 635:

Du Pin, c. 6. n. 5.

Footnote 636:

Conc. Arel. can. 50. Laod. can. 12. Carth. can. 12. Eph. act. 4, &c.

Footnote 637:

Vide Du Pin. dissert. i. n. 13.

Footnote 638:

Idem ib.

Footnote 639:

Leo, ep. 89.

Footnote 640:

Cod. Theod. l. 4. de navicul. & l. un. de his qui veniam ætat.]

Footnote 641:

Vide Petr.de Marca, l. 3. c. 12. l. 6. c. 6. Schelstrat. antiq.
illustr. par. 2. dissert. 3. c. 8. Got. in chron. cod. Theod. ann.
324. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 4. c. 61.

Footnote 642:

Afflict. in constit. in prælud. quæst. 2. n. 2. & q. 20. n. 1. Tappia
de jur. regni, l. 1. & de leg. l. 1. n. 6. Ponte de potest. Proreg.
tit. II. n. 26.

Footnote 643:

Luch. de imp. potest. in Ital.

Footnote 644:

Theod. l. 1. c. 32.

Footnote 645:

Soz. l. 2. c. 34.

Footnote 646:

Socr. l. 1. c. 39.

Footnote 647:

Phot. cod. 127.

Footnote 648:

Ambros. serm. de obitu Theodos.

Footnote 649:

Hier. in chron.

Footnote 650:

Soz. l. 4. c. 18.

Footnote 651:

Schelst. antiq. illust. part. 2. dissert. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 652:

Aug. de hæres. c. 48.

Footnote 653:

Socr. l. 5. c. 6. Sozom. l. 7. c. 4.

Footnote 654:

Amb. orat. in fun. Val.

Footnote 655:

Greg. in orat. de bapt. Amb. in ser. de sanct. & alibi.

Footnote 656:

Comb. act. &c. p. 258.

Footnote 657:

Buch. cycl. p. 267. 273.f

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE. MARK,
_Thirty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 336. ]

_Sylvester_ was succeeded by _Mark_, on the 18th of _January_ 336. He is passed over by _Theodoret_[658], but named by _Optatus_[659], _Ruffinus_[660], St. _Austin_[661], St. _Jerom_[662], and _Sozomen_[663]. We know nothing certain either of his Life or Administration. [Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _ordained by the Bishop of_ Ostia.] _Anastasius_ indeed tells us, that by him the Bishop of _Ostia_ was first appointed to ordain the Bishop of _Rome_, and to carry the _Pallium_ or Pall; where _Baronius_ observes, that the Pall is here mentioned for the First time[664]. But _Anastasius_ is not a Writer we can depend upon. It is certain, however, that the Bishops of _Ostia_ have long enjoyed this Privilege; for it is mentioned by St. _Austin_[665], and likewise in a Memorial presented by the Clergy of _Rome_ in 418. to the Emperor _Honorius_, on Occasion of the Election of Pope _Zosimus_[666]. The Letter which the Bishops of _Egypt_ are said to have written to this Pope, and his Answer to them, are rejected even by _Baronius_[667], and very justly; for the Pope’s Answer is dated Eighteen Days after his Death. He died on the 7th of _October_ the same Year he had been chosen[668], and was buried in the Cœmetery of _Balbina_, which was thenceforth called after his Name[669]. His Body is now worshiped in the Church of St. _Laurence_ at _Florence_, though no Mention is made by any Writer of its having ever been translated thither[670].

-----

Footnote 658:

Theod. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 659:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 660:

Ruffin. l. 10. c. 22.

Footnote 661:

Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 662:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 663:

Soz. l. 2. C. 20.

Footnote 664:

Bar. ad ann. 336. n. 64.

Footnote 665:

Aug. coll. die 3. c. 16.

Footnote 666:

Vide Du Pin dissert. 1. n. 13.

Footnote 667:

Bar. ibid. n. 60, 61.

Footnote 668:

Soz. l. 2. c. 20. Hier. chron. Buch. p. 267. 273.

Footnote 669:

Front. cal. p. 141.

Footnote 670:

Bolland, Pont. p. 50.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE, JULIUS, CONSTANTINE, and his Three _Thirty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_ CONSTANTIUS, Sons, Rome. and CONSTANS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 337. _Falsely said to have held a great Council at_ Rome.]

Upon the Death of _Mark_ the See was vacant for the Space of Four Months, that is, to the 6th of _February_ 337. when _Julius_ was chosen[671]. He is said to have held a Council of an Hundred and Sixteen Bishops in the _December_ of the same Year[672]. But the Date of this Council puts _Baronius_ to a Stand; for in the Date are marked the Consuls, the Year of the Emperors, and the Indiction. Now, according to the Consuls, it must have been held in 337. according to the Year of the Emperors, in 340. and, according to the Indiction, in 347. The Annalist spares neither his Words nor his Labour to solve, or rather to patch up, this Difficulty; but, being sensible, after a long, tedious, and puzzling Descant, that he labours in vain, he concludes, that the Text has been altered[673]. He might have saved himself a great deal of Trouble, by owning at once what has been plainly proved since by _Blondel_[674], _viz._ that no such Council was ever held.

When _Julius_ was raised to the Pontificate, the celebrated _Athanasius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, lived in Banishment at _Treves_; but the Year following he was allowed to return to his Church by the Three Emperors, _Constantine_, _Constantius_, and _Constans_, who had succeeded their Father in 337. [Sidenote: _The_ Arians _write to_ Julius _against_ Athanasius.] The _Eusebians_, that is, the _Arian_ Faction headed by _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, at whose Instigation he had been banished by _Constantine_, alarmed at his Return, writ bitter Letters against him to the Three Princes, and likewise to the Bishop of _Rome_. To the latter they dispatched with their Letters _Macarius_ a Presbyter, and the Two Deacons _Martyrius_ and _Hesychius_. _Athanasius_ no sooner heard of this Embassy than he, in his Turn, dispatched some Presbyters to oppose the Attempts of his Enemies, and defend his Innocence against the Calumnies, which he well knew they were sent to spread against him, not only at _Rome_, but all over the West[675]. [Sidenote: _They desire_ Julius _to assemble a Council_.] Upon their Arrival, _Macarius_ privately withdrew from _Rome_, and the other Two were so confounded by the Deputies of _Athanasius_, at a private Conference held before the Pope, that, to gain Time, they had no other Resource but to appeal to a Council, which they begged the Pope to assemble, and to give timely notice thereof both to _Athanasius_ and the _Eusebians_. They bragged that, before the Council, they would make good the Charge they had brought against _Athanasius_, and offered to take _Julius_ himself for their Judge[676]. This Offer, we may be sure, was readily accepted by the Bishop of _Rome_, who immediately writ to _Athanasius_ inviting him to the Council, and at the same time desired the Deputies of the _Eusebians_ to acquaint their Party, that, agreeably to their Request, a Council should be soon convened. _Athanasius_, upon the Receipt of the Pope’s Letter, set out, without Delay, for _Rome_, where he arrived in the Latter end of the Year 339. After his Arrival the Bishop of _Rome_ dispatched _Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, Two of his Presbyters, with Letters to the _Eusebians_, summoning them to the Council, which their Deputies had demanded, and acquainting them with the Time and Place in which it was to be held[677]. The Place was _Rome_, and the Time the Month of _June_ 341. according to the most probable Opinion. [Sidenote: _They decline appearing at the Council of_ Rome; _assemble one at_ Antioch; _and there depose_ Athanasius;] The other Bishops assembled at the Time appointed; but the _Eusebians_, instead of appearing at the Council of _Rome_, which had been convened at their Request, assembled one at _Antioch_, and there, without waiting for the Determination of _Julius_, whom they had chosen for their Judge, deposed _Athanasius_, and appointed _Gregory_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ in his room; nay, they even detained the Deputies sent by the Pope till the Time appointed for the Meeting of the Council was expired, that they might afterwards plead, as they did, the Shortness of the Term prescribed for them to meet in[678]. [Sidenote: _who is declared innocent in the Council of_ Rome.] In the Council of _Rome_ the Cause of _Athanasius_ was examined, and he, after the strictest Scrutiny, declared innocent with one Voice by the Fifty Bishops who composed it[679]; so that _Julius_ and the rest continued to communicate with him as a Bishop[680], which was declaring him unlawfully deposed. Several other Bishops, who had been deposed by the _Arians_, came to lay their Complaints before the Council, and, among the rest, _Marcellus_ Bishop of _Ancyra_, and _Paul_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. The former had been condemned as an Heretic by a Council held at _Constantinople_ in 336. and consisting intirely of _Arian_ Bishops. As nobody appeared against him during the Fifteen Months he continued at _Rome_, and the Declaration of his Faith, which, at the Request of _Julius_, he gave under his own Hand, was judged quite orthodox by the Pope and the Council, he was readmitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church[681]. But whether they did not judge too favourably of his Belief, may be very much questioned: _Epiphanius_ at least was no-ways satisfied with it[682]. And truly it would be no easy Task to clear him from the Heresy of _Sabellius_ and _Samosatenus_, denying the Trinity of the Divine Persons[683]: but to examine so perplexed and intricate a Point, would be foreign to my Purpose. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Athanasius _nor any other Bishop restored by_ Julius.] _Socrates_[684] and _Sozomen_[685] write, that _Julius_, by the Authority of his See, reinstated all the Bishops who had been displaced by the _Arians_; that he supported and defended their Innocence with Letters full of Vigour and Liberty; severely reprimanded those who had deposed them; summoned some of them to appear at _Rome_, in a limited Time, to justify their Conduct; and, lastly, that he threatened to treat them as they deserved, if they did not forbear raising Disturbances in the Church. In virtue of these Letters, says _Socrates_, the Bishops were restored to their Sees. But _Sozomen_ names only _Athanasius_, and _Paul_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. It is surprising, that the Advocates for the See of _Rome_ should allege the Testimony of these two Writers, to prove that the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_ was acknowleged by the Orientals; that his Jurisdiction was universal; when they themselves must know (for I cannot suppose them so ignorant as not to know) that the Historians whom they quote were grosly mistaken. For it is manifest from _Athanasius_[686], that _Julius_ writ only two Letters to the _Eusebians_; one before the Council met, inviting them to it; and the other, while the Council was still sitting, which I shall speak of hereafter; and in neither of these does _Julius_ take upon him either to threaten or command. The above-mentioned Historians seem to have jumbled these two Letters together, and to have made a Third out of them, with some Improvements of their own. As to his restoring the deposed Bishops to their Sees, it is certain he did not, since _Athanasius_ continued in the West till the Year 349. when he was restored by the Council of _Sardica_. _Paul_ indeed was reinstated sooner, but not till the See of _Constantinople_ became vacant by the Death of _Eusebius_, who had been translated from _Nicomedia_ to that City. I appeal to the _Roman_ Catholics themselves, and leave them to judge whether it is at all probable, that the Emperor _Constantius_, and the Oriental Bishops, incensed as they were against _Paul_ and _Athanasius_, whom they had condemned and deposed in Two Synods, should, out of Respect to the Pope, suffer them thus tamely to return to their Sees, and drive out those whom they had placed in their room. This had been owning themselves guilty, and reversing the Sentence they had but lately pronounced, which, as will appear, they were no-ways in an Humour to do.

[Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write to_ Julius;]

While the Council of _Rome_ was yet sitting, the Pope’s two Deputies, _Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, returning from the East, delivered to _Julius_ a Letter from the _Eusebians_, which may pass for a Master-piece of the Kind; for, without departing from, or intrenching upon, the Respect that was due to the Bishop of the Imperial City, they, at the same time, commend, censure, menace, and rally him in a most cruel Manner. They begin with alleging several frivolous Excuses for not appearing at the Council, such as the _Persian_ War, which, by the way, did not prevent their assembling at _Antioch_; the Shortness of the Term prescribed for their Meeting; the Pope’s writing only to some of them, and not to all, as he ought to have done; and finally, his writing to them in his own Name alone, which was tacitly taxing him with taking too much upon him. They then launch out ironically, it seems, into the highest Encomiums on the Church of _Rome_, styling her the first of all Churches, the School of the Apostles, the Metropolis of true Piety. However, the first Preachers of the Gospel, add they, came out of the East; and, after all, we ought to be looked upon as Inferiors to none, though perhaps we may not have such numerous and flourishing Churches as some have, since the want of Numbers may be abundantly supplied by the Piety of a few. As to Rank, we are all equal, the Greatness of the Cities, in which we preside, adding nothing to the Dignity we all enjoy. In the next place, they express great Concern at the little Regard shewn by some to the Decisions of Councils, which ought to be revered by all, and deemed immutable. This was modestly censuring the Pope for not acquiescing to the Decrees of the Councils of _Tyre_ and _Constantinople_ condemning _Athanasius_. [Sidenote: _and threaten to separate themselves from his Communion_.] In the End they allege several Things both against _Athanasius_, and _Marcellus_ Bishop of _Ancyra_; and conclude with telling _Julius_, that if he renounced all Correspondence and Intercourse with the Bishops they had deposed, and acknowleged those they had placed in their room, they would continue to communicate with him; but if he refused to comply with their Decisions and Decrees, they should think themselves obliged to act in a very different Manner[687]. _Julius_ was so mortified with this Letter, that he suppressed it for some time, hoping the _Eusebians_ would send Deputies, who, he presumed, would express their Sentiments by Word of Mouth, and in a different Style. But, none appearing, he was obliged to lay the Letter he had received before the Fathers of the Council, who, after expressing the greatest Indignation against the _Eusebians_, advised the Pope to answer it; which he did accordingly, by that excellent Letter, which has been preserved intire among the Works of _Athanasius_. [Sidenote: Julius_’s Answer to their Letter_.] He begins with complaining, in very modest Terms, of the Animosity they betrayed in their Letter, to which he thought he had given no Occasion; unless they had taken it amiss, that he had summoned them to the Council; which he could not persuade himself they did, since, at the Request of their Deputies, he had appointed the Council to meet, and, at their Request, invited them to it. As for the Regard due to the Decrees and Decisions of Councils, he told them, that they had trespassed the first against the Decrees of the Oecumenical Council of _Nice_, by admitting the _Arians_ to their Communion, which he conceived to be more criminal in them, than it was in him to receive _Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_. He reproaches them with another Transgression of the Canons of the Church, namely with that of passing from one Bishoprick to another, which _Eusebius_ had done. He then justifies his Conduct with regard to _Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_; exhorts the _Eusebians_, with great Zeal and Earnestness, to find out some Remedy against the Evils and Disorders that reigned in the East, which he describes at Length; and concludes with complaining of the Orientals for condemning and deposing Bishops, those especially of the Apostolic Sees, without the Concurrence or Knowlege of their Brethren in the West[688].

_Julius_, finding his Letter made no Impression on the _Eusebians_, applied with several other Bishops to the Emperor _Constans_, who, at their Request proposed to his Brother _Constantius_ the assembling of an Oecumenical Council, in order to put an End to those unhappy Divisions. [Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica.] To this Proposal _Constantius_ agreed; and accordingly, by the Command of the two Princes, a numerous Council met in 347. at _Sardica_, the Metropolis of _Dacia_ in _Illyricum_[689]. _Julius_, apprehending it dangerous to abandon his Flock at that Juncture, did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies _Archidamus_ and _Philoxenes_, who signed in his Name[690]. The Orientals came, but withdrew soon after, upon the Council’s refusing to exclude _Athanasius_, and some others, whom they had condemned[691]. But by the orthodox Bishops, who remained, the Acts of the Council of _Rome_ were confirmed, _Athanasius_ and Three other Bishops declared innocent; and those, who had been placed in their room, not only deposed, but anathematized, and intirely cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church[692]. The Council, before they broke up, writ several Letters; and, among the rest, one to the Emperors; one to the Bishop of _Rome_; and a circular Letter to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, acquainting them with what had passed, and exhorting them to join the Council, and declare to the World, that they accepted their Decrees by subscribing to them[693]. The circular Letter was subscribed first by the great _Osius_ Bishop of _Cordoua_, and in the Second place by the Pope’s Legates[694]. In their Letter to _Julius_ they beg him to notify their Decrees to the Bishops of _Sardinia_, _Sicily_, and _Italy_, lest any of them should receive Letters of Peace and Communion from the Bishops they had condemned[695]. In this Letter the Council says, or rather is made to say, That _it is very meet or reasonable, that all Bishops should acquaint their Head, that is, the See of St._ Peter, _with what passes in their respective Provinces_[696]. I agree with _Blondel_[697], that this Passage is foisted in; but cannot acquiesce to the only Reason he alleges to support his Opinion, _viz._ the Barbarity of the _Latin_ Expression (_valde congruentissimum est_); for such a Slip might easily escape Men wholly bent on defending the Truth, and speaking it; and besides, we are not certain, that this Letter was originally written in _Latin_. The want of Connexion between that Sentence, and what is said both before and after it, is, I think, a more convincing Proof of Forgery.

[Sidenote: _Canons of the Council of_ Sardica _relating to the Bishop of_ Rome.]

By the Council of _Sardica_ several Canons were made; but I shall only take notice of those that regard the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Third Canon in the _Greek_, or the Fourth in the _Latin_ Translation by _Isidorus_, it is ordered, that if any Bishop shall think himself unjustly condemned, his Judges shall acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_ therewith, who may either confirm the first Judgment, or order his Cause to be re-examined by such of the neighbouring Bishops as he shall think fit to name[698]. _Osius_, who was greatly addicted to the See of _Rome_, begged the Council to grant this Honour to the Memory of St. _Peter_. The Fourth Canon, according to the _Greek_, adds, That the See of the deposed Bishop shall remain vacant till his Cause shall be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Fifth Canon, which by some Mistake is the Seventh in _Dionysius Exiguus_, it is ordered, that if a Bishop, condemned in his own Province, shall chuse to be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and desires him to appoint some of his Presbyters to judge him in his Name, together with the Bishops, the Bishop of _Rome_ may grant him his Request. [Sidenote: _The Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced._ _Several Circumstances concur in his Favour._] Thus was the pernicious Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced and authorized. It must be observed, that the Oriental Bishops had all left the Council: those who remained were all zealous Opposers of _Arianism_. At the Head of their Party was the Bishop of _Rome_. In the Heat of their Zeal they thought they could not confer too much Power upon him; and so made a Concession intirely repugnant to the Discipline of the primitive Church, and which he could never have obtained, had not those Dispositions worked strongly in his Favour. This will not be surprising to those, who have attended to History, and seen how much the Ambition of Princes, and Heads of Factions, is often advanced beyond its due Bounds by the indiscreet Fervour of Party-Zeal. To the Council of _Sardica_, acting under this Influence, the See of _Rome_ is indebted for the so much boasted Privilege of receiving Appeals; and _Julius_ was very thankful for it. [Sidenote: _The Popes claim as their original Right, what was granted them as a Favour._] But his Successors, looking upon such an Obligation as a Diminution of their pretended Sovereignty, have had the Assurance to claim it as their original Right: but that such a Right was unknown to their great Friend _Osius_, to the Fathers of the Council, nay, and to the Pope himself, and his Legates, is manifest, since what they now claim as their original and inherent Right, was by _Osius_ begged of the Council as a Favour, and, as such, granted by the Council, and accepted by the Pope and his Legates. This Power of receiving Appeals, only with respect to the judging and deposing of Bishops, has been extended by the Popes to all Causes; and great Encouragement has been given to such as recurred to their Tribunal on the slightest Occasions. _Concerning Appeals in the smallest Causes, we would have you to know, that the same Regard is to be had to them, for how slight a Matter soever they be made, as if they were for a greater_, says Pope _Alexander_ III. in his Letter to the Bishop of _Worcester_[699]. The scandalous and intolerable Abuse of this Power in the Popes has obliged several Princes, even when Superstition most prevailed, to restrain their Subjects by severe Laws from recurring to _Rome_. Nay, other Councils of far greater Authority than that of _Sardica_, finding no other Means to put a Stop to the daily Encroachments of the See of _Rome_, have thought it necessary to revoke the Privilege, which that Council had too rashly granted, as we shall see in the Sequel of the present History.

[Sidenote: _Decrees of the Council of_ Antioch _revoked by the Council of_ Sardica.]

It had been decreed but Six Years before, by the Council of _Antioch_, that, if the Bishops of the same Province disagreed in judging one of their Brethren, the Metropolitan might call in those of the neighbouring Province to judge with them; but if they agreed, and were unanimous either in condemning or absolving, their Judgment should be irreversible. Both these Decrees were revoked by the present Council, though intirely agreeable to the antient Practice and Discipline of the Church. [Sidenote: _The Pope has no Power to summon Bishops to_ Rome.] But yet this Council, however favourable to the Pope, did not grant him the Power of summoning Bishops to _Rome_, in order to be judged there by him. He was only impowered to examine the Judgment given in the Province; and, in case he found it to be wrong, to order another in the same Province, to invite to this new Synod the Bishops of the next Province, and to send his Legates to it as he thought fit.

[Sidenote: Osius _did not preside at the Council of_ Sardica _as the Pope’s Legate_.]

At this Council the Pope’s Legates assisted; but Osius presided, as we are told in express Terms by _Theodoret_[700], by _Sozomen_[701], and by the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_[702]. Besides, his Name is the first in the Subscriptions, as they have been transmitted to us by _Athanasius_, who assures us, that _Osius_ was the Chief, and presided in all the Councils at which he assisted. He signed the first, and in his own Name: after him signed the Legates, not in their own, but in the Pope’s Name; _Julius Romæ per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros_; which is a sufficient Confutation of _De Marca_, and the other Popish Writers, pretending, without the least Foundation, that _Osius_ presided in the Name of _Julius_.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica _a Council of no great Authority_.]

It is to be observed, that the Canons of this Council were never received in the East, nor even in the West by the Bishops of _Africa_; and that they were not inserted by the Council of _Chalcedon_ into the Code of Canons approved by them, as Rules to be universally observed: so that, after all, the so much boasted Council of _Sardica_ is a Council of no great Authority. Of this the Popes themselves were well apprised; and therefore, recurring to Fraud, attempted, as we shall see hereafter, to impose upon the World the Canons of _Sardica_ as the Canons of _Nice_.

[Sidenote: Athanasius _retires to_ Naissus.]

_Athanasius_, though declared innocent by the Council, did not think it adviseable to return to his See, being informed, that the _Eusebians_ had prevailed upon the Emperor _Constantius_ to issue an Order, impowering and commanding the Magistrates of _Alexandria_ to put him to Death, without further Tryal, in what Place soever he should be found within the Precincts of that Jurisdiction[703]. [Sidenote: _Is recalled by_ Constantius.] He therefore retired to _Naissus_ in _Upper Dacia_, and there continued from the year 347. to 349. when _Constantius_ chose rather to recall him, and the other exiled Bishops, than engage in a Civil War, with which he was threatened by his Brother, if he did not[704]. Before his Departure for the East he went to _Rome_, to take his Leave of that Church, and his great Protector _Julius_, who, on that Occasion, writ an excellent Letter of Congratulation to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People of _Alexandria_. Of this Letter we have Two Copies, the one in _Socrates_[705], and the other in _Athanasius_[706]. The former contains great Commendations of that Prelate, which, out of Modesty, were, as I conjecture, omitted by him.

[Sidenote: Ursacius _and_ Valens _retract all they had said against_ Athanasius.]

_Julius_ had, soon after, the Satisfaction of receiving a solemn Retractation made by _Ursacius_ Bishop of _Singidunum_, and _Valens_ Bishop of _Mursus_, Two of _Athanasius_’s most inveterate Enemies, publicly owning, that whatever they had said or written against him was utterly false, groundless, and invented out of pure Malice: at the same time they embraced his Communion, and anathematized the Heresy of _Arius_, and all who held or defended his Tenets. This Act _Valens_ writ with his own Hand, and _Ursacius_ signed it; whereupon they were both admitted by _Julius_ to the Communion of the Church[707][N13]. This Retraction, though not at all sincere, but merely owing to Policy, greatly contributed to the Justification of _Athanasius_. I find nothing else in the Antients, concerning _Julius_, worthy of Notice. [Sidenote: Julius _dies_.] He died on the 12th of _April_ 352. having governed the Church of _Rome_ Fifteen Years, Two Months, and Six Days[708]. He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_, on the _Aurelian_ Way, where he had built a Church[709], and to have been removed from thence in 817. by Pope _Paschal_ I. to the Church of St. _Praxedes_, and again from that, by _Innocent_ II. in 1140. to _St. Mary’s_ beyond the _Tyber_[710]. _Bede_, whom the Authors of the modern Pontificals have followed, tells us, in his Martyrology[711], that _Julius_ was sent into Banishment, where he suffered much for the Space of Ten Months, till the Death of _Constantius_, a zealous Promoter of _Arianism_. [Sidenote: Julius _was not banished by_ Constantius.] But that Historian was certainly mistaken, since _Constantius_ was never Master of _Rome_ in _Julius_’s Time, and his Brother _Constans_ was a great Friend to _Julius_, and all the orthodox Bishops. [Sidenote: _Spurious Pieces ascribed to him._] Of the many Writings ascribed to _Julius_, none, except his Two Letters, are authentic, the one to the _Eusebians_, and the other to the Church of _Alexandria_, of which we have spoken above. _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ mentions Seven Epistles, which, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, were ascribed to _Julius_[712]; but, at the same time, he assures us, that they were not written by him, but by _Apollinaris_ the Heresiarch; and the Monks of _Palæstine_, in the Account they gave of the _Eutychians_, in the Time of the Emperor _Anastasius_, assure us, that they seduced great Numbers of People, by ascribing the Works of _Apollinaris_ to the Fathers, namely to _Athanasius_, to _Gregory Nazienzen_, and to _Julius_[713]. _Gennadius_ ascribes to _Julius_ a Letter to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Corinth_, greatly favouring of the Heresy of _Eutyches_ and _Timotheus_[714]; but _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ evidently proves that Letter to have been written by _Apollinaris_; and as his it is quoted by his Two Disciples _Valentine_ and _Timotheus_[715]. The Orientals have a Liturgy, which they suppose to have been composed by _Julius_: this Supposition, however groundless, shews him to have been in great Repute in those Parts[716].

-----

Footnote N13: