Metrophanes

ON SAINT METROPHANES

BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

ABOUT THE YEAR 225.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Metrophanes, Bishop of Constantinople (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR C. J.

§. I. His Cult among the Greeks and Latins. What Acts of him are extant.

As much as it is established about the public veneration formerly and now given through churches to S. Metrophanes; so much is it not established about most other things pertaining to him: namely about his origin and Imperial family, about the time and end of his Episcopate, about his great age, and other things. The veneration is established, Memorial of him in the calendars of the Greeks: from the temple, constructed in honor of Metrophanes a little after the death of Constantine the Great, which, collapsed by age, Justinian restored: the same veneration is established from the Arabic-Egyptian Martyrology; from the Syriac Kalendar, from the Mosca Ephemeris, from the Typicon of Saba, from the Menologion of the Emperor Basil, as Codinus testifies. It is established likewise from other Greek Rituals, but especially from the great printed Menaia, which display a very solemn Office concerning him on this day, June 4, and add an ample eulogy, in almost the same words by which two Synaxaria in Mss. present it — the one of our Parisian College, the other of Chifflet; and it is of this kind.

[2] Metrophanes lived in the time of Constantine the Great, the first among Christians of the Emperors, son of Dometius; who was brother of the Emperor Probus, and begot two sons, Probus and Metrophanes. Dometius was moderate and prudent: whence considering, that the cult of idols was false and erroneous, approaching the Christian Faith, he was baptized, Eulogy from the Menaia. and going to Byzantium contracted familiarity with Titus, Bishop of that city, a holy man and full of God; from whom also enrolled in the order of Clerics, after his death he received the Episcopal Chair. To Dometius succeeded his son Probus (the Menaia wrongly add τοῦ βασιλέως, "of the Emperor"; as if this Probus was the son of the Emperor Probus: which is contrary to what was said at the beginning of this Eulogy); and when he had ruled that church for 12 years, he migrated to the Lord. And at once Metrophanes, Probus's brother, Dometius's son, ascended the Patriarchal See. Whom Constantine the Great, when he had found Bishop of Byzantium, and had contemplated his virtue, probity of morals, and sanctity of life; is said, not less on his account, than on account of the situation of the city (which he saw most convenient, both because it excelled in the temperature of the air and abundance of fruits, and because adjacent to the sea it overlooks two parts of the world, Europe and Asia), to have held that region in love; and wondrously affected toward it, to have spared no expense in raising there a city, which

would surpass all, however many had been founded by men, and would prevail over all: in which he also established his power and empire, transferred to it from ancient Rome.

[3] Furthermore, in the first Synod, which was assembled at Nicaea, Metrophanes, hindered both by old age and by sickness, did not appear (for already then, with the strength of nature failing by age, he kept his bed); but he sent Alexander, a venerable man and the one holding the first place among his Presbyters, in his place; and chose the same afterwards as his successor. For when the Emperor returned to Constantinople with those holy Fathers of the now dissolved Synod, it is said to have been divinely revealed to Metrophanes that Alexander would be his successor, and to Alexander, Paul — men plainly very fitting and most pleasing to God, his successors in the Episcopate. And thus at last the blessed old man died, and was translated to the heavens above: whose feast is celebrated in the most holy great church, in his venerable shrine, which is situated near S. Acacius the Megalomartyr, in the Heptascalon. Thus far the printed Menaia; to which the two cited Synaxaria superadd: ἔνθα τὸ τίμιον καὶ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ κατακεῖται λείψανον. "Where his venerable and holy Relics rest." But the Menologion of the Emperor Basil, which is more contracted than the above, says: τὸ λείψανον αὐτοῦ ἐνέθη ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ: "His Relics were placed in his sacred shrine."

[4] His memorial among the Latins in the Martyrology. His memorial was transferred from the Greeks to the Latins; in whose Martyrology it is now read on June 4, "At Constantinople, of S. Metrophanes, distinguished Bishop and Confessor." Baronius first (so far as I know) brought him there from the Menologion, by the work of Sirletus translated into Latin, and afterwards published in print by Canisius; which however I should wish the reader to be warned is faulty in Metrophanes (to be silent of the rest), since it attributes to him not a few things which are of his father Demetius, as they are narrated by us in no. 2. With these Eulogies furthermore partly agree, partly disagree, the things which are read of Metrophanes in the historical Oration, about the things done at Nicaea by the Synod on account of the deposition of Arius; and in the Oration about what was done at the Council of Nicaea: as Lipomanus from a Greek Ms. of the library of S. Mark at Venice, with Peter Francis Zinus as interpreter, published it in tome VI of the lives of the holy ancient Fathers; and from there Surius on the 10th day of July: and it is the same as that which Combéfis published in Greek-Latin in the new Auctarium of the library of the Greek Fathers tome 2 col. 573, under this title: Τὰ πραχθέντα ἐν Νικαίᾳ παρὰ τῆς συνόδου ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει Ἀρείου κ.τ.ἑ. "The Acts at Nicaea by the Synod in the cause of the deposition of Arius, etc." This Combéfisian edition scarcely or not at all differs, as to the Greek text, which we have integrally, from the older Photian one; except only as to the title, which in Photius is read thus in Cod. CCLVI: Πολιτεία τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων Μητροφάνους, καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ βίος Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Μεγάλου βασιλέως. "Conversation of the holy Fathers Metrophanes and Alexander, in which also the life of Constantine the Great Emperor." More prolix than each of these Orations is another in the Vatican Codex marked 1667, which thence we have described with this title prefixed: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων καὶ Ἐπισκόπων γενομένων ταύτῃ τῇ θεοφυλάκτῳ καὶ βασιλίδι πόλει Μητροφάνους καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου. Ἐν ταυτῷ δὲ καὶ ὁ βίος τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς Κωνσταντίνου, γενομένου Βασιλέως ἡμῶν. "Life and manner of living of the holy Fathers and Bishops of this God-guarded and imperial city, Metrophanes and Alexander. In the same is read also the life of our pious Emperor Constantine."

[5] From this title, to say nothing of the context of the Oration, it sufficiently appears that its author, or rather collector, lived at Constantinople. But if anyone compares this title with the Photian one prefixed, he will find such similarity of each, that, if not in words, in fact it could seem the same. Furthermore from this, Photius contracted the same, and more from the arguments of the Orations, similar among themselves, it may be conjectured that Photius drew his own from that one. But that conjecture will be much more probable to one considering Photius's judgment, which at the end of his Excerpts he pronounces about the style of the Oration, from which he excerpted the aforesaid, in these words: Ὅτι ἡ συγγραφὴ, ἐξ ἧς ἡ παροῦσα προῆλθεν ἐκλογὴ, οὔτε παντελῶς εἰς τὸ διηκριβωμένον καὶ σοφὸν τῆς φράσεως καὶ τῆς διανοίας ἐκμεμόρφωται· οὔτε πρὸς τὸ χυδαῖον, καὶ ἠμελημένον διαπέπτωκεν. Εἰ δὲ τίνα παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ἱστορεῖ, τοῦτο διαίτης καὶ κρίσεως ἄλλης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκλογῆς οὔδε συντομίας. "The history, from which these selected portions are produced, is not entirely formed with a polished and learned phrase and judgment; nor is it fallen into a vulgar and neglected style. If it narrates some things otherwise than others, that is of another arrangement and judgment, not of selection nor of an epitome." These things Photius says of the primitive treatise; whence he drew his own; which aptly square with ours also.

[6] I am now in doubt whether to publish this our treatise here or not. The Edition may be persuaded by the fact that only excerpts thence are extant in print; that the integral context may be desired by the learned; that the title promises the Lives of SS. Metrophanes and Alexander, indeed also of Constantine the Great, which are proper to our Work on the Acts of the Saints, and if neglected would perish. To forego the edition now however pleases, although the whole treatise, or rather Oration as you may prefer to say, long ago for exercise's sake I rendered from Greek into Latin. The reason for forbearing, not the least to me, is that what is promised in the title is not provided in the Oration. for various reasons. For the least part of it pertains to Metrophanes, of whom we treat here, and to Alexander, of whom we shall treat on August 28; and to Constantine, of whom we treated on May 21: nor are more things related of them, than what they did on the occasion of the Council of Nicaea, whose Acts especially are commemorated; and therefore the title which we produced above from Surius could and should rather be prefixed to the work, than the one prefixed. There can also be added to the premised reason for foregoing, that in that treatise, with more than oratorical license, some things are at times augmented: that what is narrated does not sufficiently agree at times with the more approved writings of other authors: that (to taste a few) in number 33 Alexander is feigned, who had died long before, not to have admitted Arius, ordered by the Emperor to return to Alexandria; which act Socrates lib. 1 cap. 27 rightly attributes to Athanasius, Alexander's successor: that in number 34 it is read that Constantine died before Arius; with Socrates cap. 38 and 39 and others teaching the contrary: that in the same place Constantine is narrated to have written his son Constantine in his testament as heir of the East, when he had truly written Constantius, with Socrates cap. 39 as witness: that finally the greater part of the work is taken word-for-word from the history of the Council of Nicaea by Gelasius of Cyzicus, and from the ecclesiastical history of Socrates.

[7] Therefore that Work being set aside, as it is unpublished, it will help only to have here noted that its Author, whom we have said was a Constantinopolitan, seems to have collected his materials from three different monuments; of which one has Gelasius of Cyzicus as author, from whom our author copied the second chapter of the second book, Its middle part is taken from Gelasius of Cyzicus; about Arius and his heresy; the third, about Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria and his encyclical letters to other Bishops against Arius; and the fourth, about the letter of Constantine, sent through Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria for the reconciliation of Alexander and Arius: he copied them, however, with few things omitted, and incorporated them in his own work in nearly the same words. From here he tastes the beginnings of the fifth and sixth chapters, also the end of the seventh, then almost entirely copies the thirteenth on the disputation of the old Bishop, knowing nothing but Christ and Him crucified, with the clever Philosopher, and his victory over him; then as if retracing his step he sets down the ninth, tenth, and eleventh on the holiness and deeds of Paphnutius, on the deed of Spiridion toward the robbers, and on his daughter raised from the dead, to indicate where the treasure deposited was. And these things indeed from Gelasius.

[8] The earlier part briefly indicates Constantine's boyhood, adolescence, martial virtue, flight to his father, piety, empire, wars against Maxentius and Licinius. But it indicates these things in such a way that it seems equally to indicate, the first part pursues the Life of Constantine, that the Author was contemporary with Constantine. For he says of Constantine (not of Alexander Bishop of CP., as Allatius wrongly writes in the Diatribe on Simeon's writings p. 89): Ὁν καὶ ἔφηβον ὄντα ἐθεασάμεθα ἐνταῦτα ἥκοντα κατὰ τὴν Παλαιστινῶν χώραν, συνόντατε τῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ τῶν Βασιλέων Διοκλητιανῷ, ἡνίκα πρὸς τὴν Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου πόλιν ἐπεστρατεύοντο. "Whom even as an adolescent we saw here, making the journey into Palestine, in the train of the senior of the Emperors, Diocletian, when they were waging war on Egypt and Alexandria." Nor do I observe anything in that earlier part, which could not have been first written by a contemporary. Yet the aforementioned manner of speaking would not at once persuade me of that, since at least the remaining two parts were written long after. For the second must acknowledge Gelasius of Cyzicus as author, as we have already said, or certainly the one from whom Gelasius collected his.

[9] The last borrows much from Socrates. But in the third part it begins to follow some of the deeds of Metrophanes and Alexander, I know not whence drawn; thence it copies Socrates in many things, and from his first book chapters 25 and 26 about the Presbyter, who interceded for Arius before Constantia, and through her before Constantine; and about Arius's recall to Constantinople by letters of the Emperor and his feigned profession of the Nicene faith, narrates almost the whole. Afterwards from chapter 38 it tastes what pertains to Arius's fraudulent oath before the Emperor: and finally pursues the other things of this heresiarch up to his unhappy end, to be attributed to the prayers of Alexander of Constantinople. But before I end this paragraph, it must be indicated that Allatius saw in the Vatican the same Oration, from which ours has been described; and having perhaps read the beginning, pronounces in the Diatribe page 89 cited a little earlier, that its Writer lived in the very age of Metrophanes and Alexander, Bishops of CP. But how that cannot be maintained, may be clearly seen from what has been said thus far. The words from the higher number cited by us would have induced him so to pronounce; speaking of the Emperor Constantine, not of Bishop Alexander: which, that they may obtain what Allatius wishes, about the writer of the first part, narrating Constantine's life in epitome, that he was contemporary with him; they will never certainly obtain for the whole oration; nor would Allatius have intended this if he had read it entirely.

§. II. Whether Metrophanes died before or after the Council of Nicaea?

[10] It can be said to have happened to Metrophanes, what is wont to happen to stars, which mostly lie hidden, or doubtful

give scarcely any sign of themselves except by a tiny light. If these appear at times more luminous by an unusual concurrence of stars, they at once turn the eyes of astrologers upon themselves, Clear matters at times are obscured by disputing, and prepare minds for disputation; and it often happens that those who strive to bring greater light thus to a new and shining star, rather pour darkness over the light; and what to the eyes by themselves appears clear, they render obscure to the mind by their disputation. Most of the Acts of Metrophanes lie hidden in shadow: those things which pertain to the time of his Episcopate emerged somewhat clearer, with Eusebius of Pamphilus bringing light to them; who both lived, and held an Episcopate, and was present at the Council of Nicaea at the same time when Metrophanes lived, when he was Bishop of Byzantium, as Eusebius's text shows when he could not be present at the Council on account of old age; but sent in his place his Presbyter Alexander. Eusebius, in the Life of Constantine book 3 chap. 7, after he has enumerated the various nations and Bishops who came to Nicaea, continues thus: Αὐτῶν τε Σπάνων ὁ πάνυ βοώμενος, εἷς ἦν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἅμα συνεδρεύων. Τῆς δέ γε βασιλευούσης πόλεως ὁ μὲν προεστὼς ὑστέρει διὰ γῆρας· πρεσβύτεροι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ παρόντες τὴν αὐτοῦ τάξιν ἐπλήρουν. "Of the Spaniards themselves one of most celebrated name sat with the rest. About the Prelate of the imperial city, But the Prelate of the imperial city was absent, hindered by old age; but his Presbyters were present, who filled his place." Thus Eusebius: upon the understanding of whose meaning, the decision of the proposed question nearly depends; namely, who is to be understood by the Prelate of the imperial or rather reigning (βασιλευούσης) city — whether the Constantinopolitan or the Roman.

[11] Socrates, who lived a hundred years later than Eusebius, lib. 1 cap. 8, cites him, whom they understand to refer to the Constantinopolitan and inserts the text just cited into his history in just so many words: so that no more understanding can be drawn from him than from the other. It will be permitted to draw it from Gelasius of Cyzicus, who flourished in the same century as Socrates, although about 40 years junior to him. He, in the history of the Council of Nicaea, lib. 2 cap. 5, similarly cites Eusebius; and copies his whole chapter 7 of book 3, κατὰ λέξιν "word for word," as he says. And indeed everything corresponds word for word with the Valesian edition of Eusebius; except that the only sentence which we produced above, Gelasius of Cyzicus is somewhat more verbose with him, and most clearly expressed it allows no doubt that above by "imperial city" Constantinople is to be understood: as will soon appear from his words. Either, therefore, he found Eusebius thus written; or, interpolating Eusebius, he so explained him. If the first, the case is decided: since then Eusebius himself must be reckoned to be speaking. If the second, it can equally seem decided: since the greatest authority here ought to be Gelasius, both because he lived only one century after Eusebius, and because he treats only of the history of the Council from his stated purpose. The words of Gelasius therefore in the cited place are these: Αὐτός τε Σπάνων ὁ πάνυ βοώμενος ὁ Ὅσιος, ἐπέχων καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦ τῆς μεγίστης Ῥώμης ἐπισκόπου Σιλβέστρου, σὺν πρεσβυτέροις Ῥώμης Βίτωνι καὶ Βικεντίῳ, τοῖς πολλοῖς ἅμα συνεδρεύων. Τῆς τε νῦν βασιλευούσης πόλεως ὁ μὲν προεστὼς, Μετρωφάνης τούνομα, διὰ γῆρας ὑστέρει· πρεσβύτεροι δὲ αὐτοῦ παρόντες τὴν αὐτοῦ τάξιν ἐτέλουν· ὧν ὁ εἷς Ἀλέξανδρος ἦν ὁ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν Ἐπίσκοπος τῆς αὐτῆς γεγονὼς πόλεως. "He also, the most celebrated of the Spaniards, Hosius, who held the place of Silvester, Bishop of Great Rome, with the Roman Presbyters Vitus and Vincent, sat in the Synod with the rest. But of the city in which the empire now rests, the Prelate, named Metrophanes, was absent because of old age: but his Presbyters were present and filled his place: of whom one was Alexander, who after Metrophanes became Bishop of the same city."

[12] Photius read Gelasius, and from him so writes in his Library Cod. 88. And Photius Λέγει δὲ, τὸν μὲν Ὅσιον τὸν τοῦ Κουδρούβης, καὶ Βίτωνα καὶ Βικέντιον Ῥωμαἳκοὺς Ἱερέας, ἐκ προσώπου Σιλβέστρου τοῦ Ῥώμης παρεῖναι. Εὐστάθιον δὲ τὸν Ἀντιοχείας, αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον· Ἀλέξανδρον δὲ, ὃς τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου ἀξίωμα εἶχε, εἰς πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κονσταντινουπόλεως Μετροφάνους παρεῖναι. Ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἀκωλύετο βατυτάτῳ γήρα· ἐπεὶ αὐτῷ ὁ χρόνος τοῦ βίου ὑπὲρ τὰ ἕκατον ἐξέτεινεν ἔτη. "Gelasius reports that Hosius indeed, Bishop of Cordova, and Vitus and Vincent, Roman Presbyters, legates of Silvester the Roman Prelate, were present at the council: Eustathius the Bishop of Antioch, was present himself in person; Alexander, then already shining in the Priestly dignity, appeared as legate of Metrophanes himself, the Constantinopolitan Bishop. For he himself was hindered from coming by his heavy old age: since the time of his life exceeded a hundred years." These things from Gelasius Photius, who flourished in the IX century, himself Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople, of Metrophanes his predecessor.

[13] The tripartite History, which for the favor of his friend Aurelius Cassiodorus, at the beginning of the VI century, Epiphanius Scholasticus made Latin, from Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoret, thus interprets the text of Socrates (which we have said wholly agrees with the Eusebian) that by the "imperial" or "reigning" city, Tripartite History. whose Bishop because of old age could not be present at the Council, he expressly understands Constantinople, although, with his mind occupied from the preceding Lection from Theodoret, manifestly errs in the Bishop's name, which he adds, "Alexander," thus saying lib. 2 cap. 1: "But of the imperial city the Prelate Alexander, on account of old age, was absent: but his Presbyters present filled his place." For it is most certain that Alexander did not absent himself, but was present at the Council, either then already Bishop of CP., as is here asserted without sufficient foundation, or only Presbyter and Legate for the Bishop.

[14] To the cited authors there can be opposed especially Sozomen and Theodoret, About the Roman they understand Sozomen and Theodoret; who seem to have understood Eusebius differently from these, or certainly themselves feel otherwise. Each flourished in the V century, contemporary with Socrates. And Sozomen indeed lib. 1 cap. 17, enumerating the Prelates of Apostolic Sees who appeared at the Council, makes no mention of the Constantinopolitan; saying only: Ἰούλιος ὁ Ῥωμαίων Επίσκοπος διὰ γῆρας ἀπελιμπάνετο. "Julius, the Bishop of the Romans, was wanting on account of old age." But if anyone wished tenaciously to maintain that here Sozomen speaks from Eusebius's mind, as if he had understood by the Bishop hindered by old age from coming to the Synod the Roman Pontiff; let him consider, how he can make that Pontiff Julius, but they obtain little against us, who was created Pontiff at least ten years after the Synod, and presided more than 15 years. But if here Sozomen speaks from his own sense and error, he obtains nothing at all against Metrophanes, since he does not even treat of the Constantinopolitan Bishop. Nor does the similar text of Theodoret in chapter 7 of book 1 obtain more, although it suppresses the name of the Roman Pontiff, and so may be understood of Silvester. For the reason why he did not come to the Synod, namely old age, and indeed according to Theodoret extreme, because such grave old age could not fit the Roman; βαθὺ, could not conveniently apply to Silvester, who survived the Synod by fully ten years. Rather have hindered him, as also his successors the Roman Pontiffs, from coming to Councils celebrated in the East, the distance of places, the difficulty of journeys, and especially the solicitude of all the churches, by which they were compelled, as in a watchtower, to stand day and night, vigilant for the necessities and conveniences of theirs placed wherever.

[15] More strongly the same Authors urge us in regard to Alexander of Constantinople, as also not against Alexander of CP. the successor of Metrophanes; whom they seem to hint was already at the time of the Synod, and even before, Bishop of Byzantium. But since they themselves and all others admit, or must admit, that Alexander lived by living a full 15 years after the Synod was dissolved, and acted strenuously many things against Arius and his sectaries, with Socrates lib. 2 cap. 6 as witness; bravely indeed, with Sozomen himself as witness; how was it that through old age and extreme age (which the single cause of his absence is alleged by all who followed Eusebius) he was not able to betake himself to Nicaea, a road neither long nor inconvenient, and especially as he was called there by the Emperor? Certainly nothing but the gravest age, of the kind which not Alexander but Metrophanes, who died scarcely after the Synod ended, was suffering, could have so retarded one thus called. This being posited, what seem to militate against, must be explained. And that in the first place will not detain us much, that Sozomen lib. 1 cap. 18 expressly calls Alexander "Bishop of the Constantinopolitan Church." For the case there narrated, that he miraculously imposed silence upon a pertinacious Philosopher, whose disputation with the Philosopher proves nothing more. has no connection with the Synod; and could have happened both after it, as is more probable from Theophanes, and before. Not to say that Sozomen himself gives little credence, as appears from his manner of speaking, to that narration; and seems not to have known Alexander well enough, when he makes him unskilled in disputation, and commended only by the probity of his life: when nevertheless even from Sozomen himself we have seen that he strenuously and bravely acted against the heretics.

[16] More strongly Theodoret urges, Now to Theodoret. He is plainly to be reckoned to speak, not from Eusebius's mind, but from his own, and that founded on the Letter of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria, of which afterwards. For lib. 1 cap. 3 enumerating the primary or Patriarchal Prelates, who lived about the time when, on account of the audacity and conventicles of Arius, that Alexander sent a circular letter to other Bishops mostly; of the Byzantine Church he speaks thus: Τῆς δὲ Κονσταντινουπόλεως κατὰ τοῦτον αὐτὸν τὸν καιρὸν Ἀλέξανδρος τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἠξιοῦτο λειτουργίας, ἀποστολικοῖς χαρίσμασι λαμπρυνόμενος. Τότε τοίνυν ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων Ἀλέξανδρος, ὡρῶν τὸν Ἄρειον τῷ τῆς φιλαρχίας κατεχόμενον οἴστρῳ, … καὶ συλλόγους ἰδίους ποιούμενον, τοῖς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἡγεμόσι, τὴν τούτου βλασφημίαν διὰ γραμμάτων ἐδήλωσεν. "About this same time Alexander was honored with the sacred liturgy of the Constantinopolitan See, with the letter inscribed to Alexander of CP., shining in apostolic gifts. At that time then Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, perceiving that Arius was raging with the gadfly of ambition… and gathering private conventicles, made known to the Prelates of the Churches by letters his blasphemy." By which Theodoret hints that Alexander was already then Bishop of Byzantium, when by Alexander of Alexandria letters were given to his Co-Bishops about Arius's contumacy; which happened some years before the Nicene Council. Nor do they overthrow his authority, on the present question, nor is it cast down by his authority from Ms. codices who by disputing strive to evince from ancient parchments, that the letter of Alexander of Alexandria, cited by Theodoret of the Valesian edition cap. 4, did not bear the title which there is prefixed, calling Alexander already then Bishop of Constantinople. For, even if they convince of that, the opinion of Theodoret will nevertheless be consistent; since not only in the title of the Letter, but also in the context of chap. 3, he makes Alexander, as we have seen,

Bishop of Constantinople at that time, when Alexander of Alexandria wrote the circular letter about Arius. That learned men, laboriously disputing about the title of the letter, did not observe this, can seem surprising.

[17] Whence then did Theodoret draw that opinion? Not from Eusebius, Yet he errs, not from Eusebius, since he nowhere, so far as I know, makes mention by name either of Metrophanes or of Alexander, Bishops of CP.; indeed not even of the letter of the Alexandrian Prelate inscribed to the Constantinopolitan. Therefore Theodoret must have read that letter elsewhere, or rather that copy of it (for it is gathered from its content that it was encyclical) which was specifically inscribed to Alexander, and after his death undergone in the Episcopate was found among his monuments. But now nothing is more probable, but perhaps from that very letter than that those who found the letter, reading on its front: Τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ ἀδελφῷ καὶ ὁμοψύχῳ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐν Κυρίῳ Χαίρειν. "To the most venerable and like-minded brother Alexander, Alexander, greetings in the Lord"; added (as is customary) to its outer part their note, by which it might be distinguished at first sight from other letters; and thus to the one Alexander, the author of the letter, of Alexandria; to the other to whom the letter was inscribed, the title of Constantinople, to which the title was added by posterity, from the recent memory of the Episcopate of each, they noted; both that they might distinguish each from himself and from other homonyms by that addition; and that the memory of their Alexander, by reason of the Episcopate of Constantinople, might endure longer and more worthily in that letter. The note furthermore which was added to the letter, may have been the same which Theodoret prefixes as the title to his chapter 4, where he integrally proposes the mentioned letter, namely this: Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἐπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπιστολὴ, πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον Ἐπίσκοπον Κονσταντίνου πόλεως. "Letter of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople." Neither certainly of these Prelates can be presumed to have added that note to the letter. Therefore the one who collected the monuments of Alexander after his death may have added it; and he may have called the Bishop himself Constantinopolitan; not respecting the time at which the letter had been given; but that at which the collector himself wrote the note, when in fact Alexander had held the Episcopate.

[18] Now, suppose Theodoret had got hold of such a copy; and such Theodoret got hold of. what else would he transcribe, than what he was reading in so authentic a copy? It could be evident to him, that the other Alexander, when the letter was written, was Bishop of Alexandria; why should he doubt, whether at the same time the other also was Bishop of Constantinople; when in the same title an Episcopate was equally ascribed to each? Hence furthermore the knot is easily resolved for us, indissoluble to those feeling otherwise, as we touched above, how Theodoret was induced to feel, that Alexander of Constantinople was already then Bishop, when the Alexandrian wrote his letter, as he asserts cap. 3. For so, according to our opinion, he had to speak from preconceived understanding of the title prefixed to the letter; not indeed that which was more conformable to truth, but which to a reader could seem more obvious. But if the scrutinizers of ancient codices object, that this title, which is read today in the Greek editions of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, does not exist in some Mss., I shall reply, it exists in others. Why then could it not have existed as well as not existed in the original Theodoretan collection? or why is this title rather said to have been added to these, than removed from those Mss.?

§. III. The same argument is elucidated, by inquiring how long and when Alexander, Metrophanes's successor, was Bishop of CP.

[19] After we have shown that Eusebius's text is to be understood of Metrophanes, Alexander's time in the Episcopate, who burdened by old age could not appear at the Council, and so lived at that time, his own time also must be assigned to Alexander, who succeeded Metrophanes; namely defining when he began to preside as Bishop, when he ceased. Most authors who treat of him assign to his See 23 years: which number the Paschal Chronicle, as it is defined by most, and perhaps only it, contracts diminished by two-thirds and more, to 7 years: but the Latin edition of Nicephorus made nearly 800 years ago by the interpreter Anastasius enormously increases it; ascribing to him 63 years, with a most manifest and intolerable excess. But also 7 years are as much too few as 23 years can seem too many. This will soon appear, when, as the foundation of our Chronology, it cannot be maintained we shall have placed as fixed the year in which Alexander died. Socrates, besides granting his Episcopate 23 years, also distinctly asserts that he died under the Consuls Acindynus and Proculus, who designate the year 340 of the common era; in which year also my Colleague Franciscus Baertius, in the Acts of Paul on June 7, places the death of the same Alexander and the ordination of Paul his successor; with Pagi and most others holding the same opinion. From this furthermore it ought to follow, by counting back 23 years, that he was created Bishop in the year 317.

[20] But that this cannot be maintained, is proved first by the authority of many, who deny then because in the year 324 he was not yet Bishop, that Alexander was Bishop at the time of the Council of Nicaea, celebrated in 325. Among the deniers are reckoned the Author of the Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander, of whom we have treated in §1; also Gelasius of Cyzicus (not so meretricious in faith as Natalis Alexander depicts him, in the Acts of the Synod in more than one place); and the Synodical Booklet, of which the following § will speak more amply. The same cannot be maintained secondly, on account of the authority of Theophanes, who although he himself also asserts to Alexander 23 years in the Episcopate; nevertheless accurately teaches that Metrophanes still presided around the year 319 on page in my edition 26; then because his predecessor still lived in the year, where calculating particularly the times of Constantine the Emperor and Alexander the Bishop, he says: "Constantine, in the thirteenth year of his Empire setting out for Byzantium, first found Metrophanes, who held the Prelacy before Alexander." The 13th year of Constantine embraces the end of 318 of the common era from July 25, and the beginning of 319 up to the same day. But how long Metrophanes still lived, this author does not define in this place, yet it could in some way be defined from his chronological brackets (which Goar pleased to call "Canonia") interposed in the text — unless Papebrochius before Tome III of March had demonstrated that not all are Theophanes's own; but many were designated by him by lines alone, which afterwards the scribes filled in, by adding numbers, but ineptly. If this is not the case in this place, Theophanes could be said to have given the beginning of Metrophanes's Episcopate from the sixth year of the reigning Constantine, indeed even 321, which begins in the month of July of the year 311 of the common era. But since the author of the Canonia numbers 10 years to his Episcopate, Metrophanes must have died after the month of July of the year 321, in which also the author places the beginning of Alexander his successor, since he joins it to the 16th year of Constantine the same.

[21] according to the Paschal Chronicle, 323 The Alexandrian Chronicle (which Papebrochius most recently judged to be called Constantinopolitan, but its illustrator Cangius more correctly judged it should be named the Paschal) defers the death of Metrophanes by two years, since it affirms that under Constantine Augustus IV (rather III) and Licinius III Consuls, in the year of the common era 313, he first presided over the Byzantine Church, and indeed for a decade: so that consequently he must have died in the year 323: in which Alexander also succeeded, from Cedrenus, 325; with the same Chronicle as witness, under Consuls Severus and Rufinus. Cedrenus, perhaps speaking most distinctly here of all, in the Compendium on page in my edition 272, says, "In the ninth year of Constantine reigning (which year for the greater part denotes 315 of the common era) Metrophanes was created first Bishop of Byzantium": in which dignity having spent 10 years living, he would have died in 325.

[22] Now I thus. The major part of Authors say Alexander presided over the Constantinopolitan Church as Bishop for 23 years: but scarcely one or another of the same, who, with the rest nearly silent about his death, so far as I know, defines the time at which either he himself, or his predecessor Metrophanes began to preside. Indeed that one or another (certainly Theophanes, or his interpolator, who defines the beginning of Alexander's Episcopate in his brackets, and grants the same 23 years) places its beginning later than that the space of 23 years could have elapsed before the year of Christ 340, in which a truer opinion with Socrates maintains the death of Alexander happened, as we have seen above. But those who place the beginning of Metrophanes's presidency at a certain time, obtain greater faith here and are to be believed to have had greater care for Chronology than others, so determine it; that after the 10 years to be given to him, they can in no way find the 23 years pretended for Alexander's Episcopate. For consider the definitions of the Authors whom we have just produced. You will conclude that Alexander was created Bishop, from Theophanes indeed, in the year 321 ending or the following beginning; from the Paschal Chronicle, in the year 323; from Cedrenus finally, in the year 325. And these three above the rest not only distinctly speak of the beginning of the Episcopates either of Metrophanes only, because of the distinction of times, or also of Alexander; but they themselves also (which it will help to have observed) assert without doubt; that these Bishops, either as the first, or among the first, ruled the Church of Byzantium.

[23] Since these things are so definitely treated by them; with others scarcely asserting anything pertaining hither besides the 23 years of Alexander; I seem to be able to conclude, that the earlier ones more accurately examined the moments of times; the later ones less solicitous about the time and origin of the mentioned Episcopates, were intent chiefly on the narration of deeds done; and thus one after another wrongly contributed 23 years to Alexander in the Episcopate, I know not first found in whom; or by an error, either their own or of the scribes, induced posterity into a similar error. How 23 years through error But the occasion of erring may have been given by the Episcopate of Alexander of Alexandria, who held that See 23 years. For the same name Alexander, common to each; the same time at which they lived together; the same zeal of religion against Arius; the same Council at which they were present; the same Episcopal dignity, could have brought it about that someone took one for the other; and the 23 years owed to the Alexandrian, ascribed to the Constantinopolitan; and others afterwards followed this one.

[24] It could also be, that what the author by Greek iota with an accent added had so written ι᾽, the scribe took as κ, joining to the accent τοῦ Iota a lower forward stroke; and so for ten, which ι᾽ signifies, expressed twenty through κ; and universally the number ιγ᾽, or thirteen, which most closely approaches our opinion, so changed into κγ᾽ or twenty-three, could have been ascribed to Alexander's episcopate, by manifest error: which is also more manifest, as we have touched above, in the Latin version of the Nicephorian Chronography, which Anastasius made 800 and more years ago; but Contius at Paris, and Camerarius at Leipzig, with their notes each, in the last century at about the same time took care to print

it. For in these editions are attributed to the Episcopate of Alexander 63 years, with a plainly intolerable excess. But what, if the numerical sign L is said here by error to have been placed before the letters signifying the number XIII? Then certainly, with L removed, they too would confirm our opinion.

[25] Finally if you deny altogether that there has been an error in the number 23, or to be imputed to the memory of them, and contend that it has been written from the mind of Socrates and Sozomen; I shall impute a lapse to their erring memory, nor shall I think that I have committed a great crime; since memory in similar things easily errs, and elsewhere the aforesaid authors have so erred more than once. As an example, the Pontificate of Julius I, to which Sozomen lib. 4 cap. 7 attributes 25 years, and had Cassiodorus and Nicephorus Callistus as followers of his error; wandered in other similar things. when nevertheless it is established that Julius nowhere completed the 16th year of the Pontificate. Therefore there should be taken away here from the Sozomenian years nine or ten, that the time of Julius may be held defined: take away just as many from those attributed to Alexander; and you will have similarly the time of his See defined, 13 years, or, which is our opinion, 14.

[26] Before I proceed hence to the following Paragraph, it helps to recall to memory the text of Theophanes cited in no. 20, where it is read that Constantine the Emperor going to Byzantium first found Metrophanes, who held the Prelacy before Alexander. Nicephorus adds in the Chronicle that this happened when, on account of the war undertaken against Licinius, he was going there. Constantine's journey to Byzantium proves The year, indeed, in which this journey was made, Theophanes adds the 13th of his Empire, which signifies for a part 318 and 319 of Christ; but Nicephorus defines the same year from the time of the war, indeed the second, undertaken against Licinius. Constantine undertook it in the year 323, and finished it the following, defeating Licinius in a double battle, one near Adrianople in the month of July, the other near Nicomedia in the month of September: when, with the Eastern Empire added to the Western, made Monarch of each, he first entered Constantinople, that Metrophanes still lived in the year 324. from when he had begun to reign. In this year 324, therefore, according to the cited authors, Metrophanes must be said to have lived: since in this year, Constantine the Emperor first set out for Byzantium; however much another year Theophanes expresses, and has Baronius and others as followers of his error, marking the second Licinian war in the year 318.

§. IV. The time and age at which Metrophanes died are determined.

[27] The reasons and authorities of moments which we have produced in the previous Paragraph, duly weighed; That Metrophanes died after the Synod it can scarcely be doubted, about the genuine understanding of the Eusebian opinion. For that he speaks of the Constantinopolitan Bishop, who, hindered by extreme age, was forbidden to come to Nicaea, most openly assert Gelasius of Cyzicus, citing Eusebius; the Patriarch Photius in the Library, taking some things from Gelasius; Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite History, explaining Socrates. To whom must be added the great printed Menaia of the Greeks, which we made Latin in paragraph I; nor less the Synaxaria Mss. there indicated, both the Claromontane and the Chiffletian: also the Menologion of the Emperor Basil; which without doubt conspire in the same opinion. To whom here can also be added, is established by the authority of many; the last interpreter of the Eusebian sense, Nicetas Choniates, who firmly confirms our assertion, thus speaking in Labbé tome 2 of Councils col. 106: "Eusebius of Pamphilus lib. 3 of the life of Constantine the Emperor writes that the Constantinopolitan Pontiff was indeed absent from the Nicene Synod, on account of old age: but suppresses his name: but in his place he says presbyters appeared. But from the Acts of the Synod it is established that Metrophanes at that time was Bishop of Constantinople. But that he, on account of his decrepit age, did not sit in the Synod: Nicetas Choniates also acceding to this. but Alexander the Presbyter, who also distributed the Synodical letters through Europe, supplied his place." Thus far Nicetas, to whom in the Acts of the Council Gelasius bore the torch; deprived of which Sozomen and Theodoret seem to have understood Eusebius otherwise: if indeed they had him before their eyes, and were not led into error from elsewhere. Certainly no fair estimator of things would have thought, that so much in the present question should be attributed to these two, that they could overthrow or diminish the authority of others (whom we have produced).

[28] Valesius, feeling the contrary, Nor do we delay here on the scruple of Valesius, who, in his Annotations on the proposed place of Eusebius, holds that explanation cannot be borne: because Constantinople had not yet been dedicated, nor adorned with the term of imperial city, when the Synod was gathered at the city of Nicaea. As if indeed Eusebius thus speaking, ought to respect the condition of the city as it then was, when the Synod was celebrated; rather than that in which it was when he himself was writing his history about the life of Constantine. is here conveniently explained, But he wrote that, with Constantine already dead, about fifteen years after the Synod was celebrated, and a decade after the new city was dedicated, so that he could deservedly call it Constantinople and royal or βασιλεύουσαν: as we now also, when we speak of things done at Byzantium before the dedication, very often use the nomenclature of Constantinople, preferring terms more commonly known to more obscure ones, the arguments of others obtaining little against him. and ones of more eminent dignity to less noble ones. As to what someone urges against Valesius from the word βασιλευούσης, as if that necessarily implies the present time to the writer, and signifies the city which now rules: and that the same word is placed to the difference of Rome, which Eusebius constantly calls βασιλίδα πόλιν, not βασιλεύουσαν, in two places; little wounds Valesius: for βασιλεύουσα notes at least the imperfect past as well as the present time; and equally signifies a city which was ruling, and which rules: but Eusebius also calls Rome βασιλεύουσαν πόλιν, in the Constantinian life lib. 1 cap. 39. Wherefore without these supports we sufficiently confront Valesius, by the explanation of the Eusebian text which we have given.

[29] The same is established from the heavy age of Metrophanes: To this we draw an even firmer argument from the significance of the whole Eusebian opinion, than from the bare terms produced by Valesius. Eusebius says, and it is the opinion of all, that the Bishop of the royal city did not appear at the Synod on account of heavy age. To whom, I ask, by stronger right does this fit: the Roman Bishop Silvester, who survived the Council a full ten years and more; or the Constantinopolitan Bishop Metrophanes, who shortly after died worn out by old age? namely 100 years, if we believe Photius; 117, however, if we believe his Acts of whatever kind. We add also another firmest argument, to demonstrate that Metrophanes at the time of the Council of Nicaea was Bishop of Constantinople; also from this, that Alexander before the Synod was not Bishop: taken from this, that Alexander, who according to the opinion of all next succeeded Metrophanes, at that time was not Bishop. Hear Gelasius lib. 2 cap. 6 of Synodical History toward the end. After he has described the number of Bishops who had come to Nicaea, and listed the names of some who stood by Arius; he soon adds: τούτοις γενναίως ἀντηγωνίζοντο οἱ ἐν ἁγίοις Πατέρες ἡμῶν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Κονσαντινουπόλεως τότε Πεσβύτερος ὦν, καὶ Ἀθανάσιος Ἀρχιδιάκονος τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐκκλησίας· διὸ καὶ φθόνος ὥπλιστο κατ᾽ αὐτῶν. "Against these Arians our holy Fathers fought generously, Alexander, who then was Presbyter of Constantinople; and Athanasius, from Gelasius in the Acts of the Synod Archdeacon of the Alexandrian Church: wherefore envy too armed itself against them." "Then," he says, τότε, when the Fathers were dealing at Nicaea, Alexander was a Presbyter, as Athanasius was Archdeacon, and together they were fighting impiety. About Athanasius it is most certain that he was then Deacon-in-chief or Archdeacon, as Gelasius rightly speaks in his age, not rightly reprehended by F. Natalis Alexander: what then is there, why he should be said to err in the Presbyterate of Alexander? Indeed more clearly even, he distinguishes the Presbyterate of the same Alexander from his Episcopate lib. 2 cap. 26 and 36, in both places toward the end speaking thus in entirely the same words Ἀλέξανδρος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τότε Πρεσβύτερος ἔτι ὦν· εἰς ὕστερον δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς Ἱερατείας τῆς αὐτόθι ἐκκλησίας λαχών. and in the Synodical Booklet "Alexander of Constantinople then (when he subscribed the Synodal Acts, and brought them soon to the other Churches) was only a Presbyter: but afterwards obtained the Episcopate of the same Church." Add to these the Synodical Booklet in Labbé, tome 2 of Councils col. 84, where after he has enumerated the Patriarchs, Roman, who presided at or attended the Council: Alexandrian, Hierosolymitan, Antiochene, who presided at or attended the Council: Ἐκ προσώπου, he says, Μητροφάνους Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ἀλέξανδρος Πρεσβύτερος. "Legate of Metrophanes, Bishop of Constantinople, was Alexander the Presbyter."

[30] Metrophanes died in the year 325. Let us therefore establish from the premises, that Metrophanes survived the Council of Nicaea. But let us similarly establish from the heavy age, by which then he was pressed, that he did not survive long; and let us believe, if it please, the Acts themselves, that he died a brief time after the Synod was dissolved, with Alexander his successor not yet returned from the journey, which he is read to have undertaken for the purpose of publishing the Decrees of the Synod (which surely within a two-month space from the Synod, ended in the month of August, with the year 325 of the common era still running, can and ought to have been done) he must be said to have died this very year in the month of September or October, the death of Metrophanes. If anyone, however, would have him die on the 4th of June, as the Acts have, because on that day his memory is celebrated in the church; the same must say that he died in the year following the Synod, 326. According to this opinion, indeed, the matter being more maturely weighed, we wish corrected, Whence certain things said elsewhere must be corrected. what was insinuated on this occasion in the Greek-Mosca Ephemeris, before tome I of our May, on the 4th of June, as if the Oration there, on this score, of falsity and meretricious faith were charged, because it brings to visit Metrophanes Bishops returning from the Synod: when it is established that Metrophanes died before the Synod. For we have now seen that this is so much not established, that it is established rather that he survived. Similarly Hermantius in his Athanasius can be emended; Natalis Alexander, in his fourth century part 2 page 127, and many others, who are of the same opinion which we followed in the Ephemeris, but now wish corrected. The great age attributed to Metrophanes cannot be admitted:

[31] But now the age of Metrophanes calls us to itself. From Photius in the library Codex 88 he is gathered to have been more than a centenarian; and Codex 256, determinately to have died in the 117th year of age; as also determinately our Acts hold, of which Photius Codex 256 has an epitome. Such a great age, indeed, and one rendered nearly incredible; especially from this, that it implies that nearly equally great was the age of his father Dometius, and of Probus his brother; whom the Menaia and Synaxaria cited in §. 1 make his predecessors in the same Episcopate, with the Acts however silent about this matter. For since they hold that Metrophanes presided over the Byzantine Church 10 years, and his brother Probus (who must have been the elder) 12 years;

it is gathered that Demetius the father, to whom Probus succeeded, because it implies an equally great age for his father and brother: died 22 years before Metrophanes; about as many years as he must also nearly have been, when he begot this son: and so an equal time of life must be attributed to each. But Probus, just as he ceased to live a full 10 years before Metrophanes, so several years (certainly one) before him began to live, and thus would not have been distant from his brother's age by many years. To this, if we give 117 years of life to Metrophanes, who died in the year of the common era 325 or 326; his birth must necessarily be assigned to the year 208 or 209. And again, which cannot stand with the age of Probus the Emperor. going back 22 years, his father Dometius would have been born in the year 186 or 187: from which it follows further, that Probus the Emperor, whom we have seen above asserted to be Dometius's brother, probably elder by birth, exceeded by as many years his ninety-fifth or sixth year of age, as he himself came to light before Dometius: for it is established that Probus passed from the living in the year 282: and since it is probably established that he reigned no more than six years (Vopiscus says he died in the fifth), he would have been a nonagenarian when he took up the reins of empire. who under Valerian was a young man.

[32] But that strays too much from the truth. For the Emperor Valerian (he was created in the year 253) in his two Epistles in Vopiscus on Probus, commends him made Tribune by himself to his son Gallienus and to the Praetorian Prefect Gallicanus; calling him an adolescent, a youth, beardless; and excuses himself why he made a beardless one Tribune, against the institution of the divine Alexander. We may grant therefore to Probus 23 years, when Valerian began to reign in the year of the common era 253; it follows that he was brought to light in the year 230; and since we have said he died in the year 282, it will further follow that he completed only 52 years of life: which age was equal to the labors and journeys undertaken by him. Suppose now Dometius a little younger by birth than Probus; or, if you wish, even a twin; Metrophanes was not begotten by him before the year of Christ 250: in which if he is set to have been born; he will have lived to the age of 75 or 76, which, with weakness added, may seem so grave, as to have prevented him from coming to the Synod, and even snatched him from the living.

[33] But these suppose an uncertain foundation, Thus far not badly the discourse seems to proceed, and the age of Metrophanes is in some way to be defined; if however the foundations of discourse and definition do not waver. For Vopiscus throws me a scruple, who acknowledges no brother of Probus, where he yet should acknowledge, as enumerating his family. For he says, Probus was sprung from Pannonia, from the city of Sirmium, from a more noble mother than father, with moderate patrimony, with no great affinity;…his father, by name Maximus;…died in Egypt, with wife and son and daughter left. He left a son, with Vopiscus as witness, Probus's father, not sons: unless perchance it should please anyone to suspect, that Probus the Emperor had a brother Dometius. that Vopiscus is treating there only of legitimate offspring, not of illegitimate and bastard, such as Dometius might have been. But since such are not commonly numbered among brothers, and the Menaia themselves call Probus and Dometius brothers, what reason is there to suspect either to be a bastard; and this one rather than that? Wherefore if they are brothers, as the Menaia speak, let them be uterine; if they are not such, as Vopiscus judges, let them not even be bastards.

[34] What if he had him as son? But what after all, if we make Dometius not the brother of Probus the Emperor, but his son? as the Greek Acts of S. Adrian do, recently described for us from the Codex of the Caesarean Library, where they are reported on the 26th of August. For those make their Adrian and Dometius brothers, sons of Emperor Probus, who after the death of their father embraced the Christian religion. To Dometius furthermore they ascribe the Byzantine Episcopate after the death of Titus, and two sons Probus and Metrophanes (which the Menaia also do). That Probus the Emperor left sons Vopiscus neither asserts nor denies, except perhaps by being silent; but he asserts that Probus's posterity, either out of hatred of envy or from fear, fled the Roman state; and in Italy, around Verona and Benacus and Larius, and in these regions, placed their hearth. Where the flight of Probus's posterity, which is ascribed to hatred, envy, or fear, might more rightly perhaps be said to have been undertaken from love of the Christian religion; but then Metrophanes would not have been much over 55 years when he died. and what was first instituted at Verona, may later have been promoted to Constantinople. And thus Vopiscus could seem to favor the opinion proposed in this very number. But these things cannot be reconciled with the great old age of Metrophanes, who died around the Council of Nicaea. For we have gathered above from Vopiscus, that Probus the Emperor was not born before the year of the common era 230: therefore in the year 250 he begot Dometius, and he in the year 270 Metrophanes; for the life of this one no more than 55 or 56 years remain, which can in no way be called heavy age and long senility.

§. V. That there were Bishops at Byzantium before Metrophanes, is not proved by the authority of either Nicephorus, the Patriarch or Callistus, both following Pseudo-Dorotheus.

[35] We have said some things above about the succession of the Byzantine Bishops, Titus, Dometius, Probus, Metrophanes, The Byzantine Bishops from Pseudo-Dorotheus of whom thus far I could not elicit anything sufficiently certain from elsewhere, and I doubt whether anything can be elicited at all from elsewhere. S. Nicephorus indeed in his Chronography also numbers the same Byzantine Bishops together with their predecessors in a continuous series, taking his beginning from S. Andrew the Apostle: but he numbers them in nearly the same words, in which they are read in the Commentary of the fictitious Dorotheus: so that you may not undeservedly say, that Nicephorus had in hand and followed that Commentary; S. Nicephorus also produces them, more zealous for the glory and antiquity of his See, than intent on investigating and discerning truth. He corrects, however, the gravest error of the Commentary; but in correcting commits no less a grave one. For after the Commentary has adjudged a 7-year Episcopate to Castinus, soon it adds: Ὁ οὖν Κωνσταντῖνος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ αὐτοῦ ἔτει ἐκκλησίαν ἄλλην ἀνίστησιν ἔσωθεν τοῦ Βυσαντίου, κατὰ τὸ βορειον μέρος, … Εὐφημίας τῆς Μάρτυρος τῶν οἶκον προσαγορεύσας, κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν καιρὸν μαρτυρησάσης αὐτῆς. "Constantine therefore in his first year raised another church in Byzantium itself, toward the north, … and called it the house of Euphemia the Martyr, who through that very time was affected by martyrdom."

[36] See here whether you wish to explain ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ αὐτοῦ ἔτει as the first year of Constantine the Emperor himself, or rather of Castinus the Bishop. correcting his palmary error, One or the other necessarily must be said; but neither can be reconciled with truth in any way. Nor in the first year of Castinus's Episcopate (which explanation, however, is more obvious) could Constantine have built the church of S. Euphemia; since by the calculation of the very Commentary and the death of Metrophanes established by us, the death of Castinus must have preceded the birth of Constantine by nearly 30 years. But neither could this have happened in the first year of Constantine himself, already Emperor. For he, in the first years of empire — quite many — intent on subduing the enemies in the West, did not even look upon Constantinople with his eyes during that whole time: nor absent could he take care to have a church built for the Christians in a city subject then to the dominion of another, and indeed the most bitter persecutor of Christians.

[37] Nicephorus could not have failed to see things so ἀδύνατα (impossible). Wherefore he attributes the building of the Euphemian church not to Constantine the Emperor; but he himself running into another but to Castinus the Bishop himself. But unhappily fleeing Charybdis he fell into Scylla, by erecting a temple for the Martyr S. Euphemia long before she underwent martyrdom, indeed perhaps before she began to live; so that one must say, either Nicephorus did not consider the time of S. Euphemia's martyrdom, or made his own computation too carelessly and rashly. For he himself places between the death of Castinus and the beginning of Constantine's empire three Bishops, Titus, Dometius, and Probus, and universally ascribes to them 69 years of their Sees: which subtracted from the year of the common era 306, in which Constantine began to reign, the death of Castinus must have fallen in the year 237. But now Euphemia is established from her Acts to have contended for Christ and the faith under Diocletian at Nicomedia, and probably toward the end of his Empire a little before Constantine took it up. To this holy Nicephorus there consents (as to the Byzantine Bishops and other things just touched) another Nicephorus, Nicephorus Callistus consents to him, surnamed Callistus, lib. 8 hist. Eccles. cap. 6; so that either he borrowed from him his own, or each, following the same Pseudo-Dorotheus, fell into the same errors. Wherefore no other refutation is needed against Nicephorus Callistus, than we have brought against the Saint. and similarly is convicted of erring. One thing I have wondered at, that Lord du Cange, otherwise most accurate, citing both Nicephori for the Euphemian temple, founded in Petrion by Castinus, did not observe their preposterous chronology there. Constantine indeed also founded a church of S. Euphemia at Constantinople, but not in Petrion, nor in the first years of his empire.

[38] Each leans on the Commentary of Pseudo-Dorotheus, What number Bishop, then, of Byzantium or Constantinople, shall we establish Metrophanes? We have just said that both Nicephori lead a perpetual series of Bishops from the Apostle Andrew to Metrophanes. But since they have entirely followed the excerpts from the Commentaries of Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre, of a Procopius I know not whom, they deserve in this matter no more credit than Procopius himself. But when I say Procopius here, I should like the Reader to understand Dorotheus, commonly called Bishop of Tyre; or rather understand the Synopsis "On the Life and Death of the Prophets, Apostles, and the 70 disciples," long since attached to him, and therefore rightly to be entitled Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre. That Synopsis refutes itself in Obadiah, Jonah, Jeremiah, Elisha and others: long since declared of no credit, and Bellarmine warns "On Ecclesiastical Writers" that there are numbered there among the 70 Disciples of Christ those who are named by the Apostle Paul, even if they were Gentiles or women; and that all those are feigned not only disciples of the Lord, but also Bishops. "I should not have mentioned," he says, "so fabulous a book, had I not seen it cited by many and not least esteemed."

[39] Now first integrally published, All the learned now assent to Bellarmine, who have at some time read that Synopsis, published in the Libraries of the Holy Fathers and elsewhere. They will assent indeed more, who have considered the same most recently printed by Cangius in Greek-Latin with the Paschal Chronicle. For although in many things, say in the Apostles and 70 disciples, those editions agree, the ancient Latin and the most recent Latin-Greek: nevertheless they disagree, in that the former weaves rather long Lives of the Prophets; but this scarcely ascribes anything but the name of one or another Prophet: again and chiefly, in that

this (with the other entirely silent) at length lists the first Bishops of Byzantium up to the fourth century; and in the end makes the author or collector of itself a certain Procopius, who endowed with the dignity of presbyterate, distinguished in holiness of life and eloquence, with its conclusion and the name of the new author, and ever versed in all elegance and experience in the disciplines, when he had come upon the historical Commentaries of the most holy and most blessed Bishop and Martyr Dorotheus, left all these things to us in writing. Therefore let us give thanks to his labors and immortal memory, now and always and for ever and ever. Amen.

[40] Thus is terminated the Synopsis or Commentary of the Cangian edition. and inserted into it the Bishops of Byzantium, From which it is understood that Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre became the primary author of that Commentary: but from him all his things copied around the year of Christ 525, as we shall soon see, Procopius: and these Procopian things were proposed by some third person, as they now are. When I consider this Procopian Commentary more attentively (so it will more rightly be called than Dorothean), as it superadds to other Synopses about the Apostles and Disciples, however many I have seen, as I have just said, a series of Byzantine Bishops, and other things, for establishing the antiquity and even the primacy itself (if it please the Heavens) of the Constantinopolitan See above the rest of the Patriarchal Sees and the Roman itself, which in praise of the Church of CP. these, I say, considering, I am pleased to suspect, that this part, as a new patch, was unhappily added to the rest of the Synopsis, perhaps somewhat more ancient, around the year 525; in which Pope John came to Constantinople, and there was some contention, or at least danger of contention, about the first place of sitting between Pope John and Epiphanius the Patriarch of that city. For there it is bidden, after the Byzantine Bishops are listed, that Procopius declare the age in which he lived, and not obscurely indicate the intention with which he wrote; namely of exalting the Constantinopolitan Church, not only above the rest of the Patriarchal (which in the 4th century the Greeks had already attempted by a canon thrust into the first Council of CP., certainly constantly rejected by the Roman Pontiffs) but also above the Roman itself, if not in the dignity of being the first Evangelical preacher, at least in the priority (to use a philosophical term) of preaching. For he contends that Byzantium had the Gospel announced and Bishops given by the Apostle Andrew earlier than Rome by Peter. But let us hear the very words of the fabulous Synopsis.

[41] After he has finished the series of his Bishops in Metrophanes, he proceeds thus: "These things left by Dorotheus, distinguished in every kind of virtues, in Latin Commentaries, makes them more ancient than the Roman. have been excerpted by us, under the Consuls Philoxenus and Probus, when John Bishop of Rome came to Constantinople. For when persuaded by the Archbishop of the city to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries with him on the Nativity of Christ; he refused to do this, unless he himself should first celebrate the Sacred Mysteries before the Bishop of the city: for that Rome had had a Bishop earlier than Constantinople. With contention arising from these things, the Constantinopolitans coming together among themselves, showed from the great Dorotheus's Commentaries that the Constantinopolitan Episcopate was more ancient than the Roman. And John indeed, Bishop of the Romans, asserted that Dorotheus's writings were true; nevertheless contended that he should be preferred to the Constantinopolitan, because he held the place of the Prince of the Apostles: for which cause finally the prerogative was yielded to him, not because the Roman Episcopate was earlier than the Constantinopolitan."

[42] Some absurd things are tasted from that Commentary, So it pleased the Greek man, in favor of his Patriarch, to speak with Greek faith: that his fatuity may plainly appear, and his authority utterly perish from a Commentary so badly composed, I shall not waste my labor, if I taste some absurd and inept things from that narration of the Bishops of CP., since I know no one has done this in particular thus far. That Commentary on the Bishops begins in this way: "The great Pontiff Dorotheus himself left in writing that the venerable shrine of the holy and unconquered martyr Euphemia in Petrion was first founded by a certain Titus. Which Titus indeed, about the church of S. Euphemia, when he was Bishop of Byzantium, and in that city ended his life by martyrdom, was deposited by the old walls." The church here ascribed to Titus as founded, of S. Euphemia, afterwards is attributed to Castinus the Bishop, or certainly to Constantine the Emperor: and which here is placed in Petrion; afterwards it is located at the Anemodulion: when nevertheless the same church must necessarily be treated of in both places.

[43] After these things he continues, adding that from the time when S. Andrew the Apostle came to Byzantium, or rather Argyropolis, so great a multitude of Christians flowed there, that in other places nowhere were so many found: not at Antioch, I believe, or at Jerusalem, or at Rome. about the Christians converted at Byzantium, Soon he so joins the persecutions of Licinius and Diocletian, that he says Titus was put to martyrdom under them. When nevertheless it is established that nowhere was Licinius Emperor or Caesar, with Diocletian reigning. To say nothing, that, according to the Author's calculation, Titus must already have died before Diocletian began to reign. What kind of monster is what he subjoins? When he had said Titus was killed under Licinius and Diocletian, he then ascribes the Empire (namely after Diocletian) to Carus and his sons, in an entirely preposterous order: to whom besides he wrongly attributes, and about the empire of Carus, that they progressed indiscriminately to the punishments of Christians, killing of them up to a thousand each day. Behold however he wondrously resuscitates Licinius, whom he had just said before Carus had exercised the tyranny with Diocletian; about Licinius reigning again, now after Carus's death he says he stayed at Nicomedia, and there killed Adrian the son of Probus, whom however his Acts already cited make the brother of Probus (the Emperor, that is), I know not with what credit on either side.

[44] Let us proceed further. He affirms that Titus, of whom above, was the first Bishop of Constantinople, about the Episcopate of Titus, as he distinguishes it from Byzantium: namely about 50 years before Constantinople was dedicated, both his Episcopate (if indeed he ever was Bishop) and his life ended. But these things themselves are as it were preambles for the author to the Catalog of Byzantine Bishops. Hence he seems to take up the matter seriously, beginning with Andrew the Apostle, whom he denies entered Byzantium, on account of the cruelty of Zeuxippus, about the unknown cruelty of Zeuxippus, then ruling that place. Who is this Zeuxippus and whence? I shall say with Baronius, on the year 44 no. 31, citing a similar text of Nicephorus probably drawn from this ours of ours: "These things waver in credit, on account of the open lie about the tyrant Zeuxippus: for no tyrant was active in the time of Claudius in Thrace, which province a Prefect was governing in supreme peace." Andrew is said first to have constituted Stachys at Argyropolis Bishop of the Byzantines. He was succeeded by Onesimus, of whom Paul the Apostle makes mention in the Epistle to Philemon. about the feigned Episcopate of Onesimus, Here all antiquity protests, in the Epistles of S. Ignatius Martyr, and very many ancient Martyrologies, which constantly call Onesimus, Paul's disciple, and commended by him to Philemon, Bishop of Ephesus, successor of S. Timothy and Martyr; as is to be seen in our Historical Commentary on that Saint, on the 16th of February, and in the Menology of Sirletus on the 1st of December.

[45] To Onesimus our author gives Polycarp as successor, and lists the remaining successively his Bishops up to Metrophanes, about the excess of years attributed to the Bishops, who is placed as the twenty-second. He also ascribes years of the See to individuals; yet no mention is made of their holiness, of their martyrdom or death, of their deeds, as if he had been ignorant of all these, content to have assigned or fabricated for each the duration of his Episcopate. But also how aptly he has distributed this, I wished to investigate, and I have found of Episcopates alone, with no Interepiscopates numbered, 306 years; which if you subtract from the 325 years of the common era, as many as we have said had elapsed when Metrophanes died, you will conclude that in the 20th year of the same era Stachys was first ordained Bishop of Argyropolis by S. Andrew the Apostle, at least 10 years before he himself had been called to the Apostolate; and 13 years before the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if to these 13 years you add another 11, which, with Baronius and Henschenius as witnesses, elapsed from the ascension of the Lord, before the Apostles each went into his own province, to preach the Gospel; you will be compelled to conclude that Stachys (whom our author wishes the first Bishop of Byzantium created by Andrew) had been Bishop there for at least 24 years, before Andrew set out for there.

[46] But also Argyropolis, of which the Author of the Synopsis frequently makes mention, plucks at my ear. He says, that there an altar was raised to Christ by the Apostle Andrew, and Stachys constituted Bishop, and many bodies of saints deposited. What, I ask, is this Argyropolis, to be celebrated by so many titles, where here are placed in some manner the cradles of the Byzantine and Constantinopolitan Church? about Argyropolis known to no one at the time, No mention of it has it befallen me thus far anywhere to find, in the first centuries of the Christian era, except in this our author. The first, whom besides I know to have mentioned it, is Nicephorus Callistus; who lib. 14 cap. 24, places Argyropolis as one of the suburbs of Constantinople, opposite Chrysopolis; and asserts that it was first given that name by Atticus, Bishop of CP., who flourished at the beginning of the 5th century. But now whence has he drawn it, who is feigned the first author of the Commentary, and who in Metrophanes ending his Catalog, wishes to seem to have written under him; indeed says he recently entered the Episcopate: whence, I say, has he drawn the word Argyropolis, only inserted a full century after Metrophanes?

§. VI. What number Bishop of Byzantium Metrophanes was.

[47] I confess, against the common opinion of the middle age, and the most common of the more recent, Bishop of Byzantium the first, or among the first, Metrophanes, I am about to write, if I place Metrophanes as the first Bishop of Constantinople or rather of Byzantium, flourishing three centuries after the birth of Christ already elapsed. I shall place him, however, with peace to those feeling otherwise, for so long as I have begun to assert it, until a better and more ancient authority compels me to change my opinion: namely, that it is most probable; that Metrophanes was the first, or certainly among the first, Bishop of Byzantium to have sat. The authority of both Nicephori looking hither, whom posterity nearly followed, is already overthrown in the Pseudo-Dorothean or Dorotheo-Procopian Commentary. The same Nicephori, in saying that Christ was preached at Byzantium by Andrew, with neither Nicephorus obtaining anything against, a church founded, Stachys ordained Bishop, drew from the same Commentary: and are arraigned by Baronius on the year 44 no. 31 (and can be arraigned by the same right in the rest, whom they afterwards number as Bishops), as having received those things from apocryphal sources.

[48] Besides, the same Baronius thinks that the Byzantine Church was erected by the Apostle Peter. or by the letters of Pope Agapetus: The reason why he so thinks, I read on the same year 44 no. 12, drawn from the Epistle of Pope Agapetus, written from Constantinople to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem, about the deposition of Anthimus and the substitution of Mennas in the Constantinopolitan See, which was read in the Council of CP. under Mennas, and is reported at the end of its first Action, in Labbé tome 5 col. 47. There are read in that Epistle, for the commendation of Mennas, the following: "And we believe that this also has been added to his (Mennas's) dignity, that from the times of Peter the Apostle, the Eastern Church never received any other Bishop ordained by the hands of our See."

"And perhaps either for the demonstration of his own praise, or for repelling the insults of enemies, so great a thing has happened; that he himself may seem similar to those whom, sometimes in these parts, the election of the first of the Apostles himself ordained."

[49] which conveniently explained Just as these words moved Baronius to attribute the foundation of the Byzantine See to Peter rather than Andrew; so they do not even bring me enough argument why I should also ascribe it to Peter. For what is said there, that the Apostle Peter ordained some "in these parts at some time," I know not why it should especially be referred to the Church of CP. For since a little before the Pontiff speaks simply of the Eastern Church, and says that from the times of Peter the Apostle, no other ever, except Mennas instituted by himself, received as Bishop, ordained by Roman Pontiffs; with best right these words "in these parts" are understood of the Eastern, as the Eastern Church is distinguished from the Western; in which everywhere the Roman Pontiffs ordained Bishops; not so in the Eastern: in which then at length after the times of S. Peter, who at least at Antioch had instituted his successor, a Bishop ordained by himself, Agapetus accounts honorific and glorious to one so ordained; asserting nothing whether by Peter the Apostle at Constantinople, or at Antioch, or at Alexandria a Bishop was ordained sometime: but that he was ordained by him in the Eastern Church, of which the Antiochene part is the first See of Peter and afterwards of the Bishops instituted by him.

[50] But if anyone wishes altogether, that the premised words must be understood of Constantinople; he will not at once compel us to give indubitable credit to their author, performing the role of an Encomiast of Mennas rather than of a Historian, the letters of Gelasius, likewise Pope, are opposed, and writing in passing about a matter to all writers thus far unknown for five centuries. Indeed someone may oppose to Agapetus Gelasius, his predecessor likewise Roman Pontiff, who in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, makes Byzantium a parish of the Heraclean Church; and Codinus, who attributes the right of ordaining the Patriarch of CP. to the Bishop of Heraclea; because, he says cap. 20 "On Offices," Byzantium of old pertained to the Bishop of Heraclea; namely as a parish, as Gelasius says, making Byzantium a parish of Heraclea. and as part of the territory subject to the Heraclean Bishop. For everywhere among medieval writers parish is taken for a district of Episcopal right, as province for a district of Metropolitan right, as Cangius teaches in his Glossary under "parochia." Therefore Byzantium was a parish, and was afterwards made an Episcopate, which around the year of the common era 330, Constantine the Great separated from the province of Europe, or from its Metropolis Heraclea, as the Paschal Chronicle says, with the Prefect of the Praetorium and the Prefect of the city and the other greater Magistrates constituted in it.

[51] But let us produce stronger arguments of our assertion. The Paschal Chronicle, just cited, That Metrophanes was the first Bishop is proved by to whose illustration Cangius subjoined the Dorotheo-Procopian Commentary often mentioned, acknowledges no Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Bishop before Metrophanes: but in the 8th year of Constantine's Empire, that is of the common era 313, finally places the beginning of that Episcopate, The Paschal Chronicle and Theophanes with these words: "Of the Byzantine Church the first to preside is Metrophanes for 11 years": then subjoining his successor, he says, "Under the Consuls Severus and Rufinus," that is in the year of Christ 323, "of the Byzantine Church the second to preside is Alexander for 7 years." The chronographical Tables interposed in the text of Theophanes, of whatever author they are, begin to fill in the brackets destined for the Patriarchates, as to the Constantinopolitan, two years earlier, namely in the sixth year of Constantine, and then, when before they had known only three Eastern Patriarchs, to be added to the Roman Patriarch, they begin a fifth series of this kind, writing: "Of Byzantium first Bishop Metrophanes for 10 years." The authority of these is greatly to be confirmed from the catalogs of the CP. Patriarchs in Mss., of which we have found several ancient ones, as Charles of S. Paul, Abbot of Fuliensis, says in his Sacred Geography page in my edition 217, in the royal Library, "and in all Metrophanes, Constantine's synchronus, is listed first": who also "First Archpriest and great of the city of Constantinople," and ancient Mss. he is called in a very ancient Greek Ms. The very Greek words in the margin he adds: Πατριᾶρχαι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἀρχιθύτης πρώτιστος ἐν πόλει μέγας ἄριστος ἀνὴρ, Ἱερὸς Μετροφάνης.

[52] Cedrenus in the Compendium does not make Metrophanes altogether the first Bishop, but is the fourth in Cedrenus, saying, "In the ninth year of Constantine reigning, Metrophanes was created the 4th Bishop of Byzantium." He had constituted the first under Antoninus Caracalla, who from the year 211 to 217 reigned, saying, that at that time the first Bishop of Byzantium was constituted, Philadelphus (the Dorotheo-Procopian Commentary is ignorant of him) and presided 3 years. For before, as the same continues, for an octennium a certain Presbyter had presided over the Church. He places the second under the empire of Maximinus, Eugenius, who occupied the Byzantine Episcopate and held it 25 years.

[53] The third Bishop I do not find in Cedrenus, who certainly must have sat longer than can be believed, not rightly placing the three earlier ones. if the Author entered upon his accounts rightly. For Antoninus Caracalla, in whose time he asserts Philadelphus sat, ceased to live in the year 217, nearly 100 years before the Episcopate of Metrophanes: of which Philadelphus filling three, Eugenius twenty-five, they leave seventy roughly to be assigned to the unnamed third Bishop. To say nothing, that from the death of Antoninus Caracalla to the empire of Maximinus 18 years intervened; in whose time however he wishes each to have held his Episcopate; Philadelphus under Antoninus for only three years, Eugenius however under Maximinus for 25 years, so that between each Bishop a huge gap of at least 15 years intervenes; and a far hugest follows up to Metrophanes of easily 50 years, scarcely to be filled by the Episcopate of one.

[54] We have seen thus far, how insipidly the Dorotheo-Procopian Commentary speaks about the first Bishops of Byzantium, We place the same Metrophanes as the first Bishop and those who follow it whether from inadvertence or from ambition, the two Nicephori, both the Patriarch and Callistus: to whom can also be numbered a certain Gregory the Monk, and the Catalog of Byzantine Bishops edited by Leunclavius. We have seen also how much Cedrenus draws back the beginning of those Bishops, perhaps naming Bishops, who in place of the Heraclean Bishop, attended to the sacred things of Byzantium, more properly to be called Chorepiscopi. We have seen also how little to itself consistent he makes a succession, of three found I know not where by him, up to Metrophanes, whom he calls the fourth, more truly to be called the first, as the Authors a little earlier cited by us call him; Theophanes, the Paschal Chronicle, the Mss. codices, to which we also think it should altogether be subscribed, and no other Bishop should be acknowledged before him at Byzantium; relying both on Theophanes, and we confirm from the silence of Eusebius, not citing others; and on the cited Chronicle, expressly so asserting, in words; both also (and if I am not mistaken most solidly) on the silence of Eusebius, who both in the Ecclesiastical History and the Life of Constantine, and in the Chronicles, although he makes mention by name of various Churches and the Bishops presiding over them, nowhere however, so far as I know, does he make mention of the Byzantine, except only in the Life of Constantine book 3 chap. 7, where through τὸ "the Prelate of the imperial city," which we have said is to be understood of the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan Metrophanes.

[55] Certainly Valesius, who among his Indices added to Eusebius, also lists the order of Bishops of the city of Rome, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem according to Eusebius, and adds also some of Laodicea in Syria, and of Caesarea in Palestine; knows no Byzantine, no Constantinopolitan: whom yet it was fair to be listed by Eusebius, when nevertheless from his stated purpose he should, who in chapter 1 of his Ecclesiastical History prefaces, that he describes "the successions of the holy Apostles and the order of times, from the birth of Christ to his own times; and lists those who especially in the most celebrated cities ruled the Churches not without praise; and who at times in the order of times in their own age preached the word of God either by voice or by writings, and finally those who both in earlier memory and in their own age, for the defense of religion endured torments and death itself, fought most bravely." And not much after he repeats, that "he commits to the memory of posterity, if not of all, certainly of the most illustrious successions of our Savior's Apostles in those Churches, which even now are held most celebrated." But now, please, what city was more celebrated in Eusebius's age than Constantinople? To whom of the Apostles, except Peter, must Andrew yield in dignity or holiness? Did no one in the pretended succession of Bishops preach the word of God either by voice or by writings? Did no one from so great a number, in so many persecutions, even Byzantium's own under Zeuxippus, as Pseudo-Dorotheus wishes, confirm the faith with his blood? To this Eusebius himself, who some years after Constantinople was built and dedicated survived, in praise of Constantine and his city wrote many things laboriously, would he have been silent about the highest praise, which from the antiquity of faith, announced to the Byzantines through the Apostle Andrew or, if you prefer, Peter; from the perpetual series of Bishops, led down to his own times; from the zeal, holiness, and nobility of them (especially if the brothers and nephews of the Emperors had presided there) could be derived? When nevertheless he is silent about all these things, which were the aptest and proper material for his writing, a contrary authority, and indeed greater than the Dorotheo-Procopian, must be produced, that I should believe the Bishops, who are pretended, ever existed at Byzantium.

[56] In so great a number of pretended Bishops, of only one Stachys I find mention made in the Roman Martyrology, Stachys ordained Bishop by Andrew is objected on the last day of October, with these words: "At Constantinople, of S. Stachys, Bishop, who was ordained by Blessed Andrew the Apostle as the first Bishop of the same city." This Baronius first inserted into the Roman Martyrology, taken from the Menology of Sirletus, on that very last day of October, so reporting: "S. Stachys was constituted Bishop by the Apostle Andrew, who also built a Church at Argyropolis, into which an innumerable multitude of Christians used to gather, whom the blessed Bishop was teaching; and when he had lived thus 17 years, he slept in peace." With these the printed Menaia coincide, with this almost sole difference, that they name the place where the Bishop was ordained by Andrew the Apostle, Byzantium; and that they ascribe to his Episcopate only 16 years. But whence furthermore are these things drawn? That Stachys was constituted Bishop by Andrew the Apostle, Baronius will deny, as we have seen in no. 48. for invalid reasons. That he built a church at Argyropolis, Argyropolis itself denies, which then was no place from no. 46. That an innumerable multitude of Christians flocked there, the very beginnings of the pretended Church scarcely allow us to believe, especially with the persecution of Zeuxippus, as Pseudo-Dorotheus wishes (whose phrase these and the premised savor), agitated. Certainly the Menaia, equally as the cited Menology, seem in many things to have followed the inept Commentary of which we treat; and this will appear more manifestly, if you compare with this very thing what they and especially the Menology have on the 26th of August about two Adrians, Martyrs, one the husband of Natalia, the other the son (as in both places is said) of Probus the Emperor, brother of Dometius, Bishop of Byzantium.

[57] Yet let us grant something above this Commentary to the ritual books, That being granted, however, though later than it; and not only let us acknowledge Stachys as a Saint: but also let us concede that he was a Bishop, and indeed if you wish, set over Byzantium by the Apostle Andrew: who will confirm his succession down to Metrophanes for nearly three centuries, without following the often-mentioned Commentary? Was no Saint among so many Bishops of the primitive Church, founded by an Apostle, except one Stachys alone? Was Byzantium alone, among so many storms of persecutions, raging widely about, how do you prove that he had successors? always immune from tempest; so that no Bishop there shed his blood for the faith? The ritual books certainly acknowledge none before Metrophanes, neither a holy nor a Martyr Byzantine Bishop; indeed not even the Commentary itself acknowledges anyone, except one Titus, whom he says ended life by martyrdom, and performed many miracles, such as the Savior had performed. And yet all these things together with their author hide from the sacred writers. Why then, since the Episcopate could have begun in him and ended. when under Zeuxippus so atrocious a persecution is said to have been moved against the followers of Christ, that the Apostle Andrew did not dare to enter Byzantium; why, I say, could not that Episcopate in Stachys have begun, and soon ended in him?

[58] Nor let anyone oppose to me the authority of Baronius, in the Martyrology on the 20th of February referring "At Constantinople, of S. Eleutherius Bishop and Martyr"; Eleutherius in vain is made Bishop by Baronius: whom he afterwards in his Notations makes the eighth in order Byzantine Bishop, citing for his case each Nicephorus, the Bishop in the Chronography, and Callistus in the history lib. 8 cap. 6 and lib. 15 cap. 23. But that authority of Baronius was not of so much weight to our Predecessors, that they dared to place among the Saints whom he in the cited place makes Saint and Bishop Eleutherius; content to have reported him among the Passed Over, and to have shown how vainly witnesses are cited for the holiness of this Eleutherius, who did not even dream of his holiness; much less mentioned him in their writings, as may be seen in them in the cited places, and in our February among the Passed Over on the 20th day col. I at the end.

[59] The temple too, which was sacred to S. Eleutherius at Constantinople, and one of whose Clerics, of a dissolute life, his temple is not of a Bishop, but only of a Martyr. punished by death from heaven, Callistus writes lib. 15 cap. 23, Baronius wrongly ascribes to the pretended Bishop Eleutherius; whereas it is only of a Martyr; whom he himself, from the Menology of Sirletus, transferring into his Martyrology on the 4th day of August says was of the Senatorial order at Constantinople; and for Christ in the persecution of Maximian was beheaded by the sword. To this same Martyr that church in the cited place must Callistus be reckoned to attribute, since he calls him only Martyr, not also Bishop; as the Synaxaria in Cangius in CP. Christiana on the 15th of December ascribe it to him, on which the feast day of this S. Eleutherius the Martyr is celebrated among the Greeks, although also on the 4th of August it is celebrated by the same as well as by the Latins. For celebrated was his memory at Constantinople, both because he originated from Byzantium, and because he was of the Senatorial order and Chamberlain of the Emperor: so that it is no wonder that the Constantinopolitans built a temple to their native too, who built indiscriminately for all who were more famous in martyrdom and holiness, of whom there was special memory or Relics among them.