Paul

ON SS. PAUL, FORTUNATUS, MACARIUS OR MACER, PRIMOSUS, ACCADIUS OR ACHACIUS, MOCHUS OR MONACHUS,

MARTYRS IN AFRICA OR ELSEWHERE.

From four copies of the Hieronymian Martyrology and other Mss.

Fortunatus, Martyr in Africa or elsewhere (S.)

Macarius, or Macer, Martyr in Africa or elsewhere (S.)

Primosus, Martyr in Africa or elsewhere (S.)

Accadius, or Achacius, Martyr in Africa or elsewhere (S.)

Mochus, or Monachus, Martyr in Africa or elsewhere (S.)

G. H. & D. P.

The four copies of the Hieronymian Martyrology open this 7th of June with the Martyrs reported in the title, but with notable diversity, both in the very names of the Saints, and concerning their arena; and varied is their succession in the calendars of others. The most ancient Epternach has thus: "On the 7th Ides of June. In Africa of Paul, Martyrs attributed to Africa, Fortunatus, Macarius, Primosus, Accadius, Mochus." The Mss. of Reichenau in Swabia and Rheinau in Switzerland report these: "In Africa of Paul, Fortunatus: and in Byzantium, that is Constantinople, of Macarius." The two former are also attributed to Africa, in the Ms. Ado of Queen Christina of Sweden. But the Corbey copy of the Hieronymian Martyrology has thus: "In the city of Byzantium, of Paul, Fortunatus, Macer, Primosus, Achacus, Monachus." The Mss. Vatican of S. Peter, Trier of S. Maximinus, Tournai and Liessies; by others to Byzantium, "In Byzantium the birthday of SS. Paul, Fortunatus": and is added in the two last, "and of Achaicus the monk." Another Ms. of Queen Christina of Sweden, published by Holstenius; "At Constantinople the birthday of SS. Fortunatus the Bishop, and four others." But this Episcopate is not attributed by others to Fortunatus. Notker: "In Byzantium the nativity of SS. Primosus, Fortunatus, Macer, and Macarius monk." But Macer and Macarius are the same single name to others, and Achaicus is called monk. The Blume copy shows another arena, in this way: or to Bigarecium "In Begarecium, of Paul, Fortunatus, Macer, Primosus, Catharus monk." What if Begarecium was a place of Africa, and "Bagarecii in Africa" should be read? What if, because the place was unknown, on the occasion of S. Paul Bishop of Constantinople, occurring on this day; since perhaps among these Martyrs Paul was first named, these too were inscribed at Constantinople? or to Bizacium, whether in Africa: What if someone has converted Bizacium, the capital of the Byzacene province in Africa, into Byzantium? In the Lucca copy the arena was omitted: but in listing the Martyrs it agrees with the Corbey copy. Ms. of Aachen: "The birthday, of Fortunatus, Paul, Macarius, Primosus, Magnus, and Arosus," in place of Achaicus or Accadius and Macer. In the Mss. of Augsburg, Gellone, one of S. Gallus, and the Parisian of Labbé, without arena mention is made of Paul, Fortunatus, Macer or Magirus, and Primosus or Primasus. In the Ms. of Reichenau, Primosus. These things we have more accurately deduced for this reason, that the reader may give a fair judgment on them, or from other Mss. confer greater light. This Saussay seems to wish to exhibit in the Supplement of the Gallican Martyrology, when he writes: "At Vigantium, within the Cevennes mountains, in the Episcopate of Nimes, the birthday of SS. Paul, Fortunatus, and Achazius monk." Thus he. But it would be desirable that he had added his proofs to these; the more so, that I have not been able thus far in all Gaul to find either Vigantium, or the Cevennes mountains, much less in the diocese of Nimes: and when the sought names should be found, yet not without more certain proof would I ascribe to Gaul of these Saints either the martyrdoms or the bodies, also at Vigantium in Gaul. unless still present; since most easily it could have crept upon some scribe, to write Vigantium for Byzantium, perhaps wrongly found for Bizacium. In the Ms. Barberini are reported on June 8, SS. Paul, Fortunatus, Macarius monk, who pertain hither.

ON SAINT PAUL,

BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, MARTYR.

ABOUT THE YEAR 350.

COMMENTARY ON HIS LIFE; COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS.

Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, Martyr (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR F. B.

PREFACE

His several feasts, Writers of his Life, Eulogies.

[1] By the Latins is venerated on this VII of June S. Paul Bishop of Constantinople: who, if we look at the calumnies and persecutions and exiles endured from the Arians, must be held no less than the great Athanasius; By the Latins and what to him most learned lucubrations for orthodox faith have brought praise, to him the very act of martyrdom endured abundantly supplied. About him so has today's Roman Martyrology: "At Constantinople the Birthday of S. Paul, Bishop of the same city, who often expelled by the Arians for the Catholic faith, and restored by S. Julius the Roman Pontiff, at last by the Emperor Constantius the Arian relegated to the small town of Cucusus in Cappadocia, was there cruelly strangled by the snares of the Arians, and migrated to the heavenly kingdoms: whose body, with Theodosius Emperor, was translated to Constantinople with the highest honor." Almost the same have other Martyrologies, and famous to the Greeks, besides what is said here about the translation of the body; since yet, on account of such celebrity, his memory is held on this day. For the Greeks first venerated this Saint on the 6th of November, probably because on that day occurred his glorious Martyrdom: which the Menaia of the Greeks printed at Venice have, and the metric Kalendar with this verse:

Οὔνεκα ὁμολογεῖ Παῦλος Θεὸν, ἄγχεται ἕκτῃ.

"On the sixth the throat was closed for Paul, for the name of Christ."

[2] Afterwards however the Greeks again transferred the feast to the Sunday next to November 6: for so on the same sixth day asserts the Synaxarium of the Greeks, preserved in the Parisian College of the Society of Jesus, with these words: Τελεῖται δὲ ἡ τούτου σύναξις ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησία, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κυριακῇ. "His Synaxis is celebrated, in the great Church, on Sunday." Since therefore in the Synaxarium no mention is made of the church of S. Paul, in which under Theodosius the Great the body of this Saint was placed; on various days. but his feast is said to be celebrated in the major church; it becomes probable to me that at some later time, when perhaps by some chance the former temple lay collapsed, the sacred Relics were again brought to the major church; and that on a Sunday, more suited to so great a festivity; and hence arose the custom of venerating this glorious Martyr on such a day with solemn Office: especially since June 7, on which the other translation was made, is impeded among the Greeks with most solemn cult of S. Theodotus the Martyr, as we have said on May 18, when we treated of the same Saint.

[3] As to the writers of the Life and Passion of this most holy Prelate; collector of the life anonymous: we have from the Vatican codex 808 the same written in Greek, which Lipomanus used, and which here he ascribed to Symeon Metaphrastes: but that it is not by this Author appears even from this, that Photius also read, praised, and transferred it into his Library, writing at least 60 years before Metaphrastes. But whoever that collector was, since he scraped together most things from Socrates and Sozomen, he must, more recent than they and older than Photius, have lived in the 6th or 7th century. He, however, seems not so much to have provided this, that he should write a history of the Acts; as to praise the Saint with some more solemn feast for a sermon, which the exordium hints at. not very accurate. But just as it often happens, that Encomiasts of this kind less attend to the order of deeds done and the times of each, than to the things themselves; so these Acts of the anonymous Author are not very rightly ordered as to Chronological reason; and contain very many things, not so much pertaining to S. Paul as to Athanasius; and those more amply explained which it would have been fitting to touch briefly; since it was nearly impossible for the writer of this Life not often to make mention of S. Athanasius. Therefore I have judged it least necessary to have that Life given here for printing; especially since the same series of narration, although in other words, is found in Photius in the Library page 1419: but I have judged it more useful from the aforesaid Authors, according to the Chronology established in the Acts of S. Athanasius on May 2, to collect anew. This indeed I shall execute, yet not so very solicitous to recede less from them, as often as it should happen that greater authority or reason of no slight moment requires, that what they have said happened earlier, I in narrating postpone; and again I place before, what they have related later. For it could easily happen that in time and other such circumstances, writing a full century after the matter done, they hallucinated; which yet does not prevent them from meriting some credit as to the history itself, in which it is not so easy to err for a serious and diligent investigator of deeds done. I confess however there is scarcely any history more intricate, with Authors varying among themselves and speaking obscurely; so that scarcely fewer things are to be disputed than narrated.

[4] Eulogy from S. Athanasius: Before all things receive the witness of his martyrdom irrefragable S. Athanasius, in the Epistle to the Solitaries: "But about Paul of Constantinople the Bishop, I think it is unknown to no one, for the more famous the city, the less the deed can be hidden. Against him too a crime was objected: and that it was false even from this you may gather, that he who made him guilty, Macedonius, with us present at that accusation, communicated with his accused, of whom he was Presbyter. Yet hither when he had cast his eyes, Eusebius, to seize the Episcopate of that city (for in the same manner from Berytus to Nicomedia he leapt across), there was not lacking some appearance of calumny against this Paul; nor were they ignorant or forgetful of their own snares, but persevered in accusing. And first indeed by Constantine he was relegated to Pontus, afterwards by Constantius bound in iron transported to Singara of Mesopotamia, and thence to Emesa; finally fourth, to Cucusus of Cappadocia near the deserts of Taurus he was snatched: in which place

[5] I exhibit another from the Menaia printed at Venice, not indeed by a contemporary Author, another from the Menaia. but written from the tradition of the Constantinopolitan Church after several centuries, and therefore in many circumstances less accurate: Παῦλος, ὁ μέγας Ὁμολογήτης, ὑπῆρχεν ἐκ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης, Νοτάριος γενόμένος καὶ Ὑπογραφεὺς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Διάκονος τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας· ὅνπερ οἱ ὀρθόδοξοὶ μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου Πατριάρχην προχειρίζονται Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Κωνστάντιος δὲ ὁ Βασιλεὺς, Ἀρειανὸς ὤν ὑποστρέψας ἀπὸ Ἀντιοχείας ἐκβάλλει τοῦτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου, καὶ ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου εἰσάγει Εὐσέβιον τὸν Νικομεδίας· ὁ δὲ καταλαβὼν τὴν Ῥώμην, εὗρε τὸν μέγαν Ἀθανάσιον, ἐκβεβλημένον κᾀκεῖνον ὑπὸ Κωνσταντίου τοῦ οἰκείου θρόνου. Διὰ γραμμάτων οὖν τοῦ Βασιλέως Κώνσταντος ἀπολαμβάνουσιν ἀμφότεροι τοῦς οἰκείους θρόνους· καὶ πάλιν ἐκβάλλονται παρὰ Κωνσταντιου τῇ τῶν Ἀρειανῶν συμβουλῇ. Τότε γράφει Κώνστανς πρὸς τὸν Ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Κωνστάντιον, οτι εἰ μὴ ἀπολάβοιεν τοὺς θρόνους αὐτῶν, ἐλεύσομαι μετὰ δυνάμεως κατά σου. Ἀπέλαβεν οὖν τὸν θρόνον ὁ θεῖος Παῦλος· μικρὸν καὶ μετὰ θάνατον Κώνσταντος ἐξορίζεται εἰς Κουκουσὸν Ἀρμενίας, καὶ ἀποκλεισθεὶς ἐν οἰκήματι λειτουργῶν, ἀπεπνίγη παρὰ τῶν Ἀρειανῶν μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου ὡμοφορίου, παραδοὺς τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ Κυρίῳ.

"The great Confessor Paul, born at Thessalonica, was Notary and Amanuensis of Alexander the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, Deacon of the same holy Church. The orthodox after the death of Alexander ordained him Patriarch of Constantinople. But Constantius the Emperor, being Arian, returning from Antioch, expels him from the throne; and against him introduces Eusebius of Nicomedia. Paul therefore coming to Rome found the Great Athanasius, equally by Constantius's order expelled from his own Throne. Then both through the letters of the Emperor Constans receive their Sees: but again, at the instigation of the Arians, through Constantius are expelled. Constans then writes to his brother, that unless they received back their Chairs, he himself would come against him with an army. Thus the divine Paul restored to the Episcopate, soon after the death of Constans was again compelled into exile to Cucusus of Armenia, and there shut in a public prison; and, strangled by the Arians with his own Episcopal Pallium, offered his soul to the Lord."

[6] But when he is called Confessor, you should not understand this with today's signification of this word, in what sense he is called Confessor, as opposed to Martyr; but with the older, by which this title was wont to be given by the Church even to Martyrs, especially if they had endured exiles and other calamities before death. Nor, when you hear Alexander and Paul called Patriarchs of Constantinople, should you suppose that in the times of Constantine the Great and Constantius, in which they presided over the aforesaid Church, this had the prerogative: for then nothing above the rest of the Bishops (if you except the amplitude and splendor of the city) did they obtain of dignity; and Patriarch. but it afterwards was conferred on their successors in the first Council of Constantinople, and it was decreed that the Bishop of the Royal city should have the second place of honor, after the Roman Pontiff. Although the learned for no light causes judge this Canon to be supposititious: yet they seem to concede this, that immediately after the Council was concluded, by those who were still present, it was established, and the Bishops of Constantinople began to use that jurisdiction. Finally that this Saint lived in the IV century, as is to all undoubted; so, in what year he was born, or consecrated Bishop, or given the crown of martyrdom, is not equally certain: about which, from various indications, it has seemed

best to establish that he was born at the beginning of this IV century: then in the year 325 he attended the Council of Nicaea, Chronology of his life. Notary of S. Alexander of Constantinople; 336, by Constantine the Great was sent into Pontus; 340, was ordained Bishop and deposed under Constantius; 341, restored to his See, with Eusebius dead; 352, again ejected, and again through Julius and Constans restored; and again through Philip the Prefect sent to Thessalonica, and thence set out for Rome; 347, after the Council of Sardica, was again received at Constantinople; 350, with Constans the Emperor killed, at last at Cucusus an exile was strangled.

CHAPTER I.

Adolescence of S. Paul: first exile under Constantine: Episcopal Ordination: deposition under Constantius.

[7] Born at Thessalonica, That S. Paul was born at Thessalonica testifies his Eulogy among the Greeks, and Socrates lib. 2 cap. 16; and there is nothing that prevents asserting that. But the year in which he came to light cannot certainly even by groping be found: yet something about this can be said by conjecture, deduced from the time at which he is known to have been Bishop and Presbyter. For let us posit, with Socrates and Sozomen, that Paul in the year 340 of the common era succeeded Alexander, who had died; let us add, that in the Council of Tyre in the year 335 he was present for the same, surely already then a Presbyter; let us finally believe, also at Constantinople, as is very probable, that Canon XI was observed, not so long before established at the Council of Neocaesarea, gathered in 314; which commands before the year 305. that a Presbyter not be ordained before the age of 30. With these admitted, Paul must at least before the year 305 have been born, and indeed as long before the year 335 as he received the Presbyterate. The same is deduced from this, that in the year 325 he was present at the Nicene Council, Notary of Alexander, sent there by the Bishop of CP. Metrophanes, as we judge. For Paul must then have had the age of 20 years; he was present at the Nicene Synod 325: and so he was in no way born after the year 305. But neither was he born much before: since by Alexander, near to death, designated successor in the Episcopate in the year 340, in Socrates he is called "young in age," in respect of Macedonius; who about 20 years later, say under the sixtieth of this century, began to propagate his own heresy, called from his name, deposed from the episcopal See, and at least for some time survived.

[8] Godefroy Hermant, in the most recent French Life of S. Athanasius, writes that at the time of the Council of Nicaea Paul was already a Deacon; a young Notary, whose opinion to follow, it would need to be confirmed by older authority. Certainly Gelasius of Cyzicus in the History of the Council, making mention of him, only calls him Lector and Notary, and seems not to have been about to omit his worthier title, if he had had it. If however anyone shall contend that Gelasius found nothing in the monuments about Paul beyond the Office of Notary, and so deceived, added the Order of Lector from himself, because Notaries (with Goar in the Greek Euchologion as witness) were chosen from Lectors, I shall not greatly oppose: and then nothing will prevent

[9] Now let us hear the very history of his Election and Consecration from Socrates, Chosen as successor by Alexander of CP., referring it to the times of Constantius lib. 2 cap. 6: "Alexander, Bishop of the Constantinopolitan Church, who had strenuously fought against Arius, when he had spent 23 years in the Episcopate, but had lived 98, migrated from this light, with no one substituted in his place. He gave however to those in whose hands lay the right of electing, the mandate that they should elect one of two whom he himself named; and, if indeed they should wish him who would be both fit to teach and conspicuous for integrity of life and manners, they should take Paul, whom he himself had ordained Presbyter; in age indeed still young, but in prudence an old man. But if they preferred him who would be commended only by external appearance of gravity, they should choose Macedonius, older in age, who had long been Deacon of that Church. Hence indeed in choosing the Bishop a greater contention arose, which troubled the Church. For the people was divided into two parts, these favoring the Arian dogma, those defending the decrees of the Nicene Council. And with Alexander surviving, the Homousians indeed had been superior, with the Arians dissenting and over their own dogma fighting among themselves: but after he died, the contest was doubtful on both sides: hence the Homousians indeed designated Paul as Bishop, the Arians transferred their zeal to Macedonius. And in the church which is now called of Eirene, and is contiguous to that which is now called Great and of Sophia, Paul is ordained Bishop; in which surely the suffrage of the deceased Alexander seemed to have prevailed."

[10] This Macedonius here is said, when Alexander was dying, to have been only a Deacon: whether he ordained Macedonius Presbyter? but Athanasius in the Epistle to the Solitaries, as we have seen above, expressly affirms that he was already Priest when he accused Paul, with Athanasius present. Then what is said, "commendable only for external appearance of gravity," is not so to be understood, that Alexander judged the impiety of his soul to be covered by the mask of piety (for in what way would he have wished even to mention electing such a one?), but, that, since he was of mediocre virtue, by a certain affected gravity he had won for himself some name of sanctity among the people. But that Alexander erred in this afterwards became evident, who would that he had been the last deceived in such matters. Surely if what Macedonius was, such Alexander had even suspected him to be, in no way would he have compared him with Paul, or thought him worthy of the Episcopate. How much in the premises Socrates differs from Athanasius, to define is not greatly pertinent, nor should it be defined if all this history of Paul's election, with Baronius, as fabricated by the Macedonians, we could reject. Let us hear him on the year 340 no. 16: "When I consider the integrity of Alexander the Bishop, I cannot be led to believe, that by him Macedonius too together with Paul, was then named for making the election of the Bishop of Constantinople: To Baronius reputing the election of Paul fabulous, since he most studiously had followed the side of the Eusebians, and was chosen as legate by them with others against Athanasius at the Tyrian assembly. Certainly indeed, what sort he was, I think Alexander could in no way have been ignorant. That these things were so about him in the Tyrian assembly, Athanasius from the Acts of the same in the second Apology often demonstrates: wherefore I am easily led to this opinion, to think that both Socrates and Sozomen borrowed these things from Sabinus, that Macedonian writer of histories, who in praise of his Author is thought to have invented those things about Macedonius's nomination by Alexander made, etc."

[11] But, with peace to the Most Eminent Baronius; if Sabinus wished to invent for the favor of his Author, and could persuade others to believe it: why did he not invent a more praiseworthy eulogy of Macedonius? But neither did Socrates give credit to Sabinus, as immediately after the cited place Baronius himself confesses. For he says, Sabinus wove for his own apologies rather than histories; and what seemed worthy of reprehension, he was wont to throw upon the Catholics. Finally Sozomen not obscurely signifies, that he has this history from Catholic witnesses, when he says; that the Macedonians themselves confess each was praised by Alexander; but the encomium of Paul they transfer to Macedonius, and that of Macedonius to Paul. The rest, which Baronius brings, makes nothing to the present matter; since to one considering it is clear that that Macedonius who in the Tyrian Assembly followed the Eusebians' side against Athanasius is altogether other than the one we treat of here. For Macedonius in the Tyrian Assembly Athanasius's adversary, at least from the year 335 was Bishop, and (as Athanasius from the Alexandrian Synod reports) putrid in age and intellect: but the other of the same name, who opposed Paul of Constantinople under the imperial rule of Constantius, in the year 342 first was ordained Bishop, and in the year 360, after various tragedies of his insanity, devised and propagated a new heresy, by which he pronounced the Holy Spirit altogether alien from divinity.

[12] Meanwhile Paul, before he acceded to the Episcopate, had already endured his first exile, Paul still Presbyter relegated by Constantine, and that under Constantine the Great, by whom, with Athanasius as witness, he was relegated into Pontus. But in what year he was relegated, as it cannot easily be defined, with the authors being deeply silent about it; so it can not inconveniently be established, that that exile happened within the last seven years of Constantine; during which very many both Presbyters and orthodox Bishops of various Churches are known to have been punished with exile, with Constantine offering too easy ears to the Arians. If however anyone wishes that in the year 336, with the conciliable of Constantinople striving, as Athanasius went into Gaul exiled, perhaps at the same time as S. Athanasius so Paul was sent into Pontus; I see no inconvenience in it. For what hate they did not dare to pour upon Alexander of Constantinople, on account of the authority and integrity of the man, perceived and approved by the Emperor; they could turn upon his Presbyter Paul, the more, that in the Council of Tyre he did not consent with the Arians against Athanasius; as I judge more probable, than that he subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius, recalled. as only the Arians, accustomed to lie in similar matters, blather. Furthermore, recalled, Paul returned from Pontus to Constantinople, when from Gaul Athanasius to Alexandria in the year 338; for then most of the orthodox exiles for the faith, by the consent of the three brother Emperors, returned to their own; with their father Constantine dead the preceding year.

[13] Hence the deeds of Paul are more obscure up to his Episcopal ordination, made after the death of Alexander in the year 340, as I have touched above from Socrates. But scarcely had he been ordained, and ordained Bishop in 340 with Macedonius behind him, when his indignation kindled the ambition of Eusebius the Nicomedian Bishop of crossing to the Constantinopolitan See, and fashioned their and others' accusations against Paul: "For at once those who sided with Eusebius of Nicomedia approached the Emperor Constantius against the most holy Paul; bringing with many calumnies also this: 'Without your decree, Emperor, with Alexander dead, he placed himself on the throne of Constantinople.' But the Emperor, ordering an assembly of heretics to be gathered at Constantinople against the divine Symbol, ordered Paul the Confessor to be ejected from the church, and in his place Eusebius, before of Berytus, then Bishop of Nicomedia, to be introduced." So it is said in the Synod of Constantinople of Constantius, Tome 2 of the Councils of Labbé edition col. 88 and 89. Equal things has Socrates lib. 2 cap. 7, speaking thus: "But the Emperor Constantius, not long after Paul's ordination, for whom soon expelled is substituted Eusebius of Nicomedia. entering Constantinople, burned with most grave wrath on account of that ordination; and with a Council of the Arian Prelates collected, took the Episcopate from Paul, and designated Eusebius, translated from the city of Nicomedia, Bishop of Constantinople. These things so done, the Emperor set out for Antioch." From these two texts is patent first, that under Constantine the Great Paul was not Bishop: since he is accused that without the decree of Constantius, then ruling, he made himself Bishop. Is patent secondly, that that Conciliable of Constantius, before the year 340, in which Paul was ordained, was not held.

[14] But what calumnies, just indicated, were these, by which in this Arian Conciliable Paul was accused, on account of the calumnies of Macedonius, it is difficult to define, with S. Athanasius silent. Another Conciliable of the Arians, under the title of the Sardican Council, accuses him, that on account of him a thousand homicides were perpetrated at Constantinople, that altars were stained with human blood, brothers killed, and Gentiles extinguished: but for inventing these accusations, after the second and third exile, the occasion was first given. But perhaps from Sozomen we shall draw some light. So therefore he speaks lib. 2 cap. 3: "With Alexander dead, the Priesthood of the Constantinopolitan Church Paul obtained: who, as the Arians indeed and Macedonians assert, had obtained this Episcopate for himself, against the opinion of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theodorus of Heraclea which is in Thrace, Bishops; to whom, as neighbors, the Ordination pertained. But, as nearly all the rest affirm, (as it appears from Sozomen,) on the testimony of Alexander, in whose place he succeeded; by the Bishops, who then by chance were staying at Constantinople, he was ordained. For Alexander, now born 98 years, of which 23 in the Episcopate he had spent most bravely, when he was about to migrate from this life, with the Clerics asking him, to whom after him the Church should be entrusted; 'If,' he said, 'you seek a man endowed with piety, and at the same time fit to teach; you have Paul; but if you prefer a man fit for secular affairs and for conversation with Judges, Macedonius is preferable.' And that each was adorned by the testimony of Alexander, the Macedonians also confess: but they affirm Paul to have been better instructed for doing things and for speaking; but they attribute the testimony of pious and religious life to Macedonius, and slander Paul on the contrary as having indulged in delights and a more relaxed life. Therefore from their confession, Paul appears to have been most eloquent, and in the Church to have taught with highest praise. But for the various accidents of fortune and for conversing with the more powerful, that he was not rightly equipped, the things themselves testify. For he discharged no envies of adversaries, just as those are wont to do who in such matters are skillful. Indeed, although he was very dear to the multitude, yet by the fraud of those who at that time rejected the faith established at the Nicene Synod, he endured many calamities; and first indeed as if accused of having lived disgracefully, was ejected from the Constantinopolitan Church."

[15] On the illegitimate Ordination, It is certain that here are narrated by Sozomen those things which, after the death of S. Paul a full century elapsed, the Arians and Macedonians believed and spread about him; probably the same which against him both with the Emperor and in the Conciliable had been brought forward in their midst. The first head of accusation seems therefore to have been this, that he had obtained the Episcopate for himself, against the opinion of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theodorus of Heraclea; to whom, as neighbors, the Ordination pertained. Perhaps also to confirm their accusation they produced Canon IV of the Nicene, in the Labbean collection tome 2 col. 30, "A Bishop ought, especially indeed by all who are in the Province, to be constituted etc." For that such a Canon in the same Synod was sanctioned, the agreement of nearly all interpretations and collections proves. But Paul and other Orthodox rightly believed that they were excused from the observation of this Canon; since those who were among the Comprovincials were suspect of heresy; and at Constantinople then there were several Orthodox Bishops, through whom he could be legitimately ordained, and the approval of the absent abundantly supplied, especially with necessity urging; and that according to the same Canon, which thus continues: "But if this should be difficult, either on account of impending necessity, or on account of the length of the journey; with three altogether gathered in the same place, with the absent also bearing their suffrage and assenting in writing, let the Election be made."

[16] The other head of accusation will have been that Paul indulged in a more relaxed life and lived disgracefully, and so was to be punished with the penalty of deposition, and on impurity: with Canon LXX prescribing it among the 80 Arabic in Labbé Tom. 2 Col. 315: "If any Bishop be caught in adultery, or in any similar crime, he is to be deposed, nor is he any more to be restored to the same grade etc." That Paul was accused of such a crime, again Sozomen insinuates lib. 3 cap. 10 when he says, that Constans observed, that not because of the disgrace of life Paul had been deposed, what the sentence contained. Add the Arians' impudence, by which they did not fear to accuse several Orthodox Bishops of the same crime, with even false witnesses suborned, as they did in Athanasius and afterwards in Aphraates; but to their own confusion, when the imposture could be detected. But that this accusation was a mere calumny against Paul, but falsely. rightly and briefly Athanasius proves, from the fact that Macedonius, who accused him, communicated with him; which was in no way licit to him by the Canons, if the crime had been true. These accusations, if truly brought against the Saint, as from Sozomen we seem rightly to gather; wonder, reader, at the zeal of the Heretics for the observance of the Canons, namely then when they think them useful for establishing heresy, otherwise hardly scrupulous: as is patent in Eusebius, at whose instigation Paul was being prosecuted. For he not long before, against Canon XV of the same Council, had exchanged the Berytan Episcopate, to which he had been ordained, with the Nicomedian; and now was attempting, with Paul ejected, to cross from the Nicomedian to the Constantinopolitan, and in fact did cross. But to the second head of accusation the great Athanasius can seem to have looked, when to the Solitaries most truly he said of the heretics: "Imitators of truth, although they appear holy, although they appear pure, are made guilty, when it pleases them, when they have invented the cause they will."

[17] The Author of our Ms. judges that Paul, after his deposition, whether at that time he set out for Rome? set out from the East for Rome, and there with S. Athanasius and other exile Bishops, before Julius the Pontiff, pleaded his cause. Athanasius indeed from the year 339 to the beginning of 341 stayed at Rome, awaiting his accusers: but about Paul's journey into Italy at that time, in Socrates and Sozomen and other Authors there is deep silence; whence I suspect the Author of the Manuscript reported the Saint's second exile, during which he set out for Rome, twice; especially since he reports the same circumstances of each journey, and the same outcome. Therefore it seems more probable to me, that the holy Prelate either in Pontus, or perhaps at Constantinople, modestly lived to God alone and to himself, waiting with long-suffering for the time of divine mercy and consolation. But Eusebius (as Socrates says) having gained the Constantinopolitan See, could in no way rest: but every (as is in the proverb) stone he moved, that what he had proposed he might bring to an end, namely, that he should delete from the symbol "Consubstantial," and cast Athanasius from the Alexandrian See. He chose Antioch therefore for celebrating his conciliables, and at last under the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the year 341, with the Emperor Constantius present, a Synod gathered at Antioch: and (lest I be longer in those things which pertain to Athanasius) here he was deposed from the Episcopate, and in his place was intruded Gregory that sacrilegious one; who with such fury and cruelty rushed upon the Church, that Athanasius, who to avert this storm, if he could, had hastened from Italy to Alexandria, was compelled to withdraw secretly, and set out for Rome.

[18] Meanwhile the crafty and wretched Eusebius, as our Ms. says, With Eusebius dead, he recovers his See. having executed as much evil as he had decreed, even sent legates to B. Julius the Roman Archbishop, denouncing the accusations brought against Athanasius; and had asked, that with the cause called to himself he might be willing to be the Judge of those things which against Athanasius had been done… but prevented by death he never understood, what by the judgment of Julius Bishop of Rome had been constituted about Athanasius and those adhering to him: for surviving a brief time after the Synod, the wretch perished. Hence with the power of choosing another made by the death of the invader, the Orthodox, to whom the innocence of their Prelate had been sufficiently proven, again received B. Paul, and brought him into the Church; with Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza in Palestine, exhorting and confirming them. From what has been said it is shown, the palmary lie of the Arians, when they say in their pseudo-Sardican Synod, that Paul subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius. For neither could he have done that, in the Tyrian conciliable, in the time of which he was not yet Bishop: nor at the Antiochene, then by the Arians themselves deposed; nor before the Episcopate, since then a Presbyter of S. Alexander, with him he stood wholly for Athanasius; in this happy, that time did not permit that by them he should be deceived.

CHAPTER II.

Various exiles of S. Paul.

[19] Scarcely had B. Paul been received by the orthodox into his church, With Macedonius ordained against Paul, when the Arians at the same time in the church, which now is called "at Paul's," ordained Macedonius Bishop; and that was done by those who before had given service to Eusebius disturbing everything, but at that time obtained all authority as if by successorial right, namely Theognus of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodorus Bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, Ursacius of Singidunum in upper Moesia, Valens of Mursa in upper Pannonia. But Ursacius and Valens, afterwards led by repentance, offered a libellus of satisfaction to Julius the Bishop; and subscribing to the doctrine of Consubstantiality, were received into Communion: but then fighting sharply for the Arian perfidy, they stirred up the most grievous movements of wars against the Churches; a tumult arises. of which wars one was that which by Macedonius was done at Constantinople: for from this intestine war of the Christians, frequent seditions arose in the city, and many perished by their violence. Thus Socrates lib. 2 cap. 12, or, as our Ms. has more briefly: "At the same time it happened that by the Arian Bishops, in the church now called 'at Paul's,' the impious Macedonius was ordained Bishop: for which reason a tumult was raised in the Imperial city, and very many in the seditions arising perished overwhelmed." For seditions, as Sozomen testifies, frequent existed in the city, not unlike wars, with the populace on each side rushing upon each other in turn.

[20] In so great a perturbation of all things S. Paul remained at Constantinople; while meanwhile Athanasius staying at Rome, and there in his cause a Synod was celebrated before Julius the Pontiff; until he also, in the year 342 ejected at Constantinople, is compelled to come there. The matter done thus narrates Socrates lib. 2 cap. 13. "When the Emperor Constantius had heard these things, who then stayed at Antioch, he mandated Hermogenes the Master-of-soldiers, whom he had sent into the parts of Thrace, Hermogenes attempts to expel Paul by force: that passing through Constantinople, he should in passing dislodge Paul from the Church. He, entering Constantinople, stirred up the whole city, while he tries by force to eject the Bishop: for at once a sedition of the people followed, and all were ready to defend the Bishop. But when Hermogenes insisted on expelling Paul with a military hand; the multitude of the people exasperated,

as is wont to happen in such things, rushed upon him with violent impulse; and with his house burned, and feet bound with a cord, dragging him through the city, killed him." These things were done with the two Augusti as Consuls, namely Constantius III and Constans II, that is in the year 342. Most alien indeed were these things from the meekness of the Saint: but who can restrain the fury of an angry populace, interpreting its own cruelty as zeal for faith? but in the tumult he is killed. But these things perhaps fame also amplified, which is wont to augment all things; or by the Macedonians, to establish greater envy against the Orthodox, were partly fabricated. The Arians indeed augmented all these things in their conciliable, held at Philippopolis under the name of the Sardican Synod, when so atrociously they cried out against Paul and Asclepas. Let us hear them: "Of Paul," they say, "once Bishop of the Constantinopolitan city, after the return of his exile, if anyone shall hear, he will shudder." And again lower, "Asclepas when to the city of Constantinople, on account of Paul, had come; after the immensity of things and atrocity, he committed what were done in the middle of the Constantinopolitan Church, after a thousand homicides, which polluted the very altars with human blood, after slaughters of Brothers and extinctions of Gentiles &c." Two things in these the heretics sin by their impudence, that they augment all by lying, and that they ascribe to Orthodox Bishops what they themselves had perpetrated (if indeed they had been done), and which they could not have averted, unless they had permitted heretics to dominate in their churches.

[21] But Constantius the Emperor, having heard of the slaughter of Hermogenes, says Socrates, immediately departing from Antioch, The Emperor himself expels Paul, by swift change of horses ran to Constantinople. And Paul indeed he expelled from the city, but the city itself he punished; from the daily provision which his Father had given to the Constantinopolitans, taking away more than 40 thousand modii: for before nearly 80 thousand modii of grain, conveyed from the city of Alexandria, were distributed to the citizens.

[22] So the storm, which had raged against Athanasius, returned to Alexandria, in the year 341, also poured itself upon Paul at Constantinople in the year 342; and as before he, fleeing Alexandria, had come to Rome, so now Paul set out for the same place, the most certain asylum of all the Orthodox. Paul comes to Rome with other exiles: For although Athanasius says, Paul bound in iron transported to Singara in Mesopotamia, and thence to Emesa, as if he had been the author of seditions and slaughters; it can easily be understood, that he afterwards permitted greater liberty, could escape to Rome. Socrates continues the same lib. cap. 15: "Furthermore Athanasius after long labors at length arrived with difficulty in Italy. Meanwhile in the parts of the West Constans, the youngest of Constantine's sons, alone administered the Empire, with his brother Constantine killed by the soldiers. At the same time also Paul Bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra (which city is of lesser Galatia), Lucius finally of Hadrianople, one for one cause, another for another, accused and expelled from their Churches, came to the Royal city. Where when before Julius, Bishop of the Roman city, they had laid out their case: he, which is the prerogative of the Roman Church, with more free letters fortified them and sent them back to the East; restoring each his See, who are restored by Pope Julius, and at the same time rebuking those who had temerariously deposed the above-said Bishops. So they departing from Rome, and relying on the letters of Bishop Julius, each occupied his own Churches; and sent letters to those to whom they had been inscribed. But these, having received Julius's letters, took the reprimand as an insult; and with a Synod called together at Antioch gathered in one, with letters written by the common opinion of all, more sharply accuse Julius."

[23] Hermant, who had referred this coming of Paul and others into the City to the year 339 or 340, says the very circumstances argue an error, if in this year 343 those Orthodox Bishops are said to have come to Rome. But he himself assigns no such; nor do I see anything that opposes a more certain history, and so why I should recede from Socrates and Sozomen. On the contrary, that the Arians could so many Bishops from various parts of the East, scarcely yet restored by the Emperors' letters, immediately expel again, without a graver witness I do not think to be believed (this however in his own opinion would have to be said), and it is enough that we wonder that in Athanasius and Paul it could have been done. But to Paul the letters of the Roman Pontiff could not suffice, to take counsel and confidence of returning: indeed not only with the Arians was his matter, but also with the angry Emperor. Paul also through letters of Emperor Constans, He received therefore also letters of Constans to his Brother, with the Author of our Ms. as witness with these words: "Furthermore B. Paul, leaving the East, sought the West, over which Constans, brother of Constantius, ruled: and there finding the great Athanasius, to S. Julius the Roman Archbishop, and to other Bishops present from Italy (namely in the Roman council, according to Labbé, III, begun the preceding year after the Alexandrian slaughter) expounded all: wherefore equipped from them indeed with Synodal letters; from Constans the Emperor with Imperial letters, he again returns; and arriving at Constantinople, with great joy of the Church is received."

[24] But that he received the letters of Constans, no small thing contributed the arrival of Legates from the East, either at the request of the Emperor (as Socrates thinks) or for another cause sent. These were Narcissus the Cilician, Theodorus the Thracian, Maris of Chalcedon, and Marcus the Syrian; who (besides not daring to bring forth the Antiochene faith at Rome or before the Emperor of the West, but handing over another composed by themselves) were not for responding to the Emperor's questions, in the case of Paul and Athanasius. So Constans, when he observed that they had unjustly laid snares against Paul and Athanasius, nor on account of crimes or vileness of life, as the sentence of deposition contained, but on account of dissent of faith, had averted from their communion; which S. Maximinus of Trier obtained for him. sent them back to their fatherland, since they had not been able to persuade what they had come for. But also S. Maximinus Bishop of Trier, with the Arians rejected, communicated with Paul; and, as he was gracious with Constans, by his commendation seems to have effected, that he should receive from the same Emperor letters to his Brother. But what reward he received therefore from the Arians, let us hear from their Synodical letter in the pseudo-Sardican Conciliable to Donatus of Carthage: "Maximinus of Trier," they say, "the whole Council condemned, because he did not wish to receive our Episcopal colleagues whom we had sent to Gaul: and because with Paul of Constantinople, a nefarious and lost man, he himself first communicated; and because he was the cause of so great a slaughter, that Paul should be recalled to the city of Constantinople; on account of which many homicides were committed. Therefore the cause of so many homicides was he himself, who recalled Paul, once condemned, to Constantinople."

[25] Furthermore Constantius the Emperor, staying at Antioch, when it had been reported to him that Paul had again occupied his See, took the matter very ill, nor did the letters of his Brother avail to soften his mind. So Philip the Prefect of the Praetorium, as having greater power than the rest of the Rectors of the Provinces, and called second from the Emperor, he mandates by epistle, that he expel Paul from the Church and bring Macedonius in his place into it. So the Prefect Philip, fearing the sedition of the people, set about circumventing Paul. He hides the mandate of the Emperor with himself; but under the appearance of public business going to the public bath, called Zeuxippus, he summons Paul to him honorably; saying that such necessity is present, Yet again he is expelled. that he must come as soon as possible. Paul obeyed: who when called he had come, immediately the Prefect showed him the mandate of the Emperor. And the Bishop indeed, observing himself condemned with no cause spoken, patiently bore it: but the Prefect, dreading the impulse of the multitude standing around (for most, led by rumor and suspicion, had gathered there), orders one of the gates of the bath to be opened; through which Paul, led into the Palace, and cast into a ship prepared for that, is at once sent into exile: and the Prefect commanded him to set out for Thessalonica, the Metropolis of Macedonia (from which city Paul was even from his ancestors descended), and to live in that city: and indeed he conceded the faculty of going to the rest of the cities of Illyricum, but to the parts of the East he forbade approach. Paul therefore, beyond expectation expelled from the Church and from the City at once, is quickly led away.

[26] But Philip the Prefect of the Emperor, going forth from the public Baths, hastened directly to the church. There was with him Macedonius, as if from a machine

[27] A difficulty here Baronius raises, judging that this relegation of Paul under Philip the Prefect must be referred to the year 351, after the death of Emperor Constans. "But what," he says on the year 342 no. 47, That this persecution pertains to this time "both Socrates and Sozomen subjoin after these about the persecution of Paul Bishop of Constantinople, stirred up by Philip the Prefect; that this happened, not at this time or near this, but after the Sardican assembly will be manifest in its place." And again on the year 351 no. 36, "They have hallucinated," he says, "Socrates and Sozomen, while they think the last exile of Paul (who, it has been said above, was exiled more often) happened before the Sardican Council: for after it, it is clear that Paul was restored by the favor of Constans." But, to confess the truth, Baronius himself seems to have erred, when he says Socrates and Sozomen placed Paul's last exile before the Sardican Synod. For these three different proscriptions of Paul they report, the last of which they expressly assert happened after the death of Constans: but they omitted the first, by which under Constantine the Great he was relegated; as also Baronius was silent about it: who besides placing the third after the Sardican, was compelled to confuse it with the fourth. But I, while I consider the matter more attentively, would rather reject this whole history of Philip's persecution as fabulous (which however I do not see how it can be done), than place it after the Sardican. For who would believe what however would follow thence, that Macedonius from the year 342, in which with Hermogenes killed for the second time under Constantius the Saint was ejected, is shown by historical reason; up to 351 abstained from the Constantinopolitan episcopate, to which he so greatly aspired? or that Constantius for so long deferred the prayers of the Arians, uniquely desiring Macedonius, and left the Royal city destitute of a Bishop? Yet from the hypothesis this would follow: since not before Macedonius was declared Bishop at Constantinople than Paul was removed by Philip. Then those who have written about Paul affirm that he, ordered to go into exile for the last time, was snatched to Cucusus. But in this persecution of which we now treat, he was led to Thessalonica, and there ordered to remain: yet so, that through all Illyricum, he was free to go where he wished: from which it is patent that these were different exiles, and badly confounded into one.

[28] But since we have no more weighty witness in this matter than Athanasius, his words, brought in the previous Commentary, must be explained; and shown, from them nothing against us, but for us much to be proven. To one considering, then, it is manifest whom the authority of Athanasius favors, that he treats of four different

exiles, and not only of the place of exile changed four times. For he says, that he was relegated by Constantine into Pontus, and by Constantius bound in iron led to Singara of Mesopotamia: which no one easily will understand of mere change of place with Baronius, perhaps led into that opinion by the error of Nannius the interpreter, who says Paul was relegated to Pontus not by Constantine, as the Greek text of Athanasius has; but, "through them," namely the Eusebians. That also which is said, "to Singara of Mesopotamia, thence to Emesa, finally fourth to Cucusus etc." the Latin interpreter badly translated, "thence to Emesa, and from Emesa to Cucusus." But you will say, that he was led to Thessalonica, Athanasius seems to have been ignorant. He was not ignorant indeed. For how would he say "fourth," unless besides the three exiles he enumerates, he acknowledged another. But because it was not so much an exile as a kind of dismissal to the fatherland; he did not wish to number among the passions of the Martyr what did not have so great force, for demonstrating the cruelty of the Arians against the Orthodox Bishops, which in this place was especially his purpose. But this explanation of Athanasius's words let no one find strange: for whether you follow Baronius's opinion or ours, some similar must be applied.

[29] But we have not yet exhausted the difficulty which Philip the Prefect of the Praetorium raises. nor does the error in naming the Prefect of the Praetorium oppose. Since in the year 343, in which we think the above-related happened, and which he is said himself to have executed, he was not yet performing that office (as from Laws written in that year to Leontius the Prefect of the Praetorium, is sufficiently clear), but undertook the administration of this office in the year 346, and therefore I had thought that to that time the third exile of Paul should be transferred: especially since nothing would oppose, but that S. Paul should be said to have attended the Sardican council. But because it is asserted that Constantius was at Antioch when Paul was being led to Thessalonica; but in the year 346, not at Antioch, but at Constantinople he would have been, I have changed my opinion. We must therefore reckon that Socrates and Sozomen, in place of Leontius by error placed Philip, or by anticipation called him Prefect of the Praetorium, who was then only Master of the soldiers, such as Hermogenes, the other had unsuccessfully attempted to execute the Emperor's mandate the preceding year.

CHAPTER III.

Things done in the Sardican Synod concerning Paul and his martyrdom.

[30] Paul interpellates Constans again, "Not long after, says Socrates, Paul from Thessalonica feigning to go to Corinth, sailed to Italy, about to relate before the Emperor of those parts, how little his letters had availed with the mind of his brother. He, having heard these things not without sorrow, called a Synod of the Western Bishops to Milan: to which also came from the Eastern delegates Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius the Cilician, and others of the Arian faction. These were carrying with them a Faith written in many words. But the Western Bishops, not because they were ignorant of the Greek tongue, who calls a Synod to Milan; or because they did not at all understand them; but truly because ὁμούσιον (consubstantial) was not expressed, and they wished to innovate nothing, did not at all admit them; asserting the Nicene Faith to suffice, and nothing further was to be curiously inquired into." Scarcely anything else about this Milanese Synod do we find committed to letters: but we gather from what follows here, more and more to Constans was made known the…

[31] When the Emperor's letters, by which he mandated that Paul and Athanasius should be restored to their Sees, profited nothing (for the people was nearly continually agitated by seditions, then to Sardica: and Constantius gave his ears, filled with the calumnies of the Arians, deaf to his Brother), Paul and Athanasius demand to be called to a Council, that both their business and the cause of Faith might be terminated by the sentence of a general Synod; and they were teaching that for no other cause had they been deposed than that Faith might be subverted. Therefore a general Council is again indicted at Sardica, which city is of Illyricum; and that by the opinion of the two Emperors; of whom one had demanded this by letters, but the other, namely the Emperor of the East, had willingly agreed. The eleventh year was being passed from the death of the Father of the two Augusti, that is, begun on May 21 of the year 347; or (if the Synod was begun earlier) it was the eleventh pair of Consuls, counting the extremes; as Socrates is wont often to designate time. But the Consuls were Rufinus and Eusebius, at which time the synod was gathered at Sardica; and from the parts of the West about three hundred Bishops came together, as Athanasius writes; but from the East only seventy-six were present, Sabinus reports; of whose number was Ischyras Bishop of Mareotis; whom those very ones by whom Athanasius had been deposed had constituted Bishop of that region. For some pleaded weakness of body, others pretended the narrowness of the appointed time, casting all the blame on Julius the Bishop of the Roman City: when nevertheless from the time when the Synod had been indicted, and when Athanasius, awaiting the convening of the Synod, was staying at Rome, a space of one year and six months had intervened, namely from the Council of Milan ended in the year 345 ending, to the summer of the year 347: unless perhaps this space of time, taken from the Epistle of Julius to the Antiochene Synod, Socrates wrongly transferred hither; since it pertains to the II Roman Council. Whatever it be, that Athanasius did not stay at Rome during that intermediate time, is established from his Life no. 167.

[32] But a difficult disquisition occurs here on both sides. Whether Paul attended this Theodoret denies: Whether Paul was present at the Sardican Council, as Socrates with Sozomen says; or otherwise, as Theodoret believed; for so he speaks Hist. lib. 2 cap. 5: "Constantius ordered the Bishops of the East and West to convene at Sardica … for many other evils of the Church lay beneath, which demanded Synodical care and remedy: for the Arians had accused even Paul Bishop of Constantinople, the most acrid defender of right Faith, as the author of sedition (namely after the slaughter of Hermogenes), with other crimes added, which against the heralds of true piety they are wont to invent. But the people did not allow him to be led to Sardica, since they feared the snares of the adversaries." Little moves me, I confess, the authority of Theodoret narrating these things. For if Paul was at Constantinople, and the Arians truly had prepared snares for him; how did Constantius not by force compel him to set out for Sardica? Then, what snares could he fear at Sardica, with so many Orthodox present, Athanasius, Hosius, and the legates of Pope Julius, in a Council convened for this end, that the innocent might be absolved, and the Arians' calumnies openly detected? More weight with me would have, but the perpetual silence of the Sardican Council about Paul to deny that he was present, the perpetual silence in the Acts of the Synod about Paul: for in what way about so distinguished a Bishop of the most named city, so calumniously accused by the Arians (as we shall see), if he had been present, could the Fathers of the Sardican Council have been silent? This argument, although negative, Baronius made so much of, that he thought therefore, with Socrates and Sozomen set aside, Theodoret must be adhered to. I think however that a not incongruous reason can be assigned, on account of which the Sardican Synod judged that express mention of Paul should not be made by itself. For since Paul, not so much by the Arian Bishops, as by the Emperor and his ministers had been expelled; indeed from his first restoration in the year 341, in no further Synod had he been accused; but only by military hand, not by Ecclesiastical sentence cast from the Episcopate; more express mention of him would have been odious to the Fathers before the Emperor: whose mind, sufficiently otherwise hostile to the Orthodox, does not favor Theodoret, they would have feared for this cause to be more inflamed. Content therefore they were to declare Paul innocent by a general clause, while they say in their letter to all Bishops, "We have pronounced our beloved Brothers and fellow-ministers Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and the other fellow-ministers, who are with them, innocent and pure."

[33] nor the pseudo-Sardican But neither from the Conciliable of the Arians of the same name can a sufficiently certain argument be drawn, by which to affirm that Paul was present at the Sardican, or to deny it. The Arians seem to assert that he was present at the Synod, when in col. 704 in Labbé they thus speak: "But we say of Asclepas, who 17 years ago was stripped of the honor of the Episcopate, then of Paul and Lucius, and as many as are joined to such. These going around together to outside regions, persuaded the judges, that those who against them rightly brought sentence were not to be believed; that by this kind of commerce, they might procure for themselves some way to return to the Episcopate; … After so many and so great sentences they thought to restore the judgment … and they come as defenders in place of judges, in place of defenders accused, at the time when their defense was not valid … when their accusers face to face arraigned them." These last words affirm those whom the Arians accused were present, among whom is numbered Paul: but who would believe heretics so impudent, that they would dare to assert that Paul could not defend himself, when by his accusers he was being arraigned face to face; if it would be patent to all, that he at that time was far absent. Yet it could be answered not incongruously, that since here they speak generally of all, they need not necessarily be understood of Paul. But neither for confirming Theodoret's opinion makes another place of the same Conciliable col. 706 at the end, which thus has: "But Asclepas when to the city of Constantinople on account of Paul had come, after the immensity of things and atrocity, he committed what were done in the middle of the church … and today with Paul, on whose account these things were done, does not cease to communicate: but also those Western Bishops through Asclepas communicate with Paul, receiving writings from him and sending them to him." Indeed, someone will say, following Theodoret's opinion, if Paul had been present, there would not have been need to communicate with him by letters, and superfluous to accuse anyone of that thing; since it would be much more grievous, to admit a present one in the Synod to communion. But that communication with Paul through letters is not adduced, to show that the Westerns had already incurred the penalties of excommunication (for enough for this from the Arians' judgment was that Athanasius, Marcellus and others deposed at Antioch were attending the Synod), but to establish odium against the Orthodox, because at that time they communicated through letters with Paul, on whose account so many and so great homicides had been perpetrated, and so that these too were rightly imputed to them.

[34] It is patent therefore that neither for Theodoret, nor for Socrates and Sozomen, from all these can anything be concluded

[35] When therefore all had convened at Sardica, the Eastern Bishops indeed shunned the sight of the Westerns, denying that they would come into conversation with them, unless they should first eject Paul and Athanasius from their assembly, and renounce communion with the others deposed by them. But when Protogenes of Sardica and Hosius Bishop of Cordova could in no way bear that Paul and Athanasius should be excluded from the consessus; With the Eastern Bishops schismatically departing from Sardica the Easterners immediately departed; and returning to Philippopolis, a city of Thrace, with a Council held separately, openly damned by anathema the word Consubstantial, but inserting the word and opinion ἀνόμοιον (unlike) in their letters, transmitted in every direction. But the Bishops constituted at Sardica, first condemned them on account of the deserted Council, then

despoiled the accusers of Athanasius of their dignity; and confirming the formula of the Nicene faith, rejected indeed the word "unlike," but more openly promulgated the word "Consubstantial," and sent letters written about this in every direction also themselves: to Paul and to Athanasius too, and to others ejected by the Arians for the cause of faith, restored their Sees. Paul, and Athanasius, and others are absolved. But the Bishops, both those who sat at Sardica, and those who at Philippopolis of Thrace had held a separate Council, when each had done what seemed to himself, returned each to his own city.

[36] So with the Sardican Synod ended, Paul returned neither to Constantinople nor at least to Thessalonica; but to Italy, with the remaining exile Bishops, to Constans the Emperor. Indeed then perhaps he first came to him, With Constans threatening his Brother with war, and not before the Milanese. But he, when he had understood the outcome of the Sardican Council, signified all that had been done there to his Brother Constantius; and exhorted that he restore Paul and Athanasius to their Sees. But when Constantius daily deferred the execution of this matter, the Emperor of the West offered him again this option, that either he should receive Paul and Athanasius with restored dignity, and render to them their Churches; or, if he had not done this, he should be his enemy, and forthwith expect war. unless he restore them, But the letters which he wrote to his Brother are of this kind: "Here are with me Athanasius and Paul, whom indeed for the cause of piety I have learned by inquiry are suffering persecution. If therefore you shall have promised that you will render to them their Sees, and animadvert against those who without cause pursue them; I will send the Men to you: but if you refuse to do these things, as I have said; know I would have you that I shall come there, and against your will I shall render to them their Sees." When the Emperor of the East had learned these things, he was reduced into greatest difficulty: and immediately with not few Eastern Bishops summoned, he proposed to them his Brother's conditions, and asked what was to be done. They said that it was better that the Churches should be conceded to Athanasius, than that civil war should be undertaken. So the Emperor constrained by necessity, called Athanasius to him. Meanwhile the Emperor of the West, sends Paul with two Bishops and the rest of honorable apparatus to Constantinople, equipped both by his own and by Synodal letters; whom coming to Constantinople Constantius had honorably received; Paul recovers his See. and Macedonius for a brief time yielded his place to Paul, holding meetings in some private church of the city. That time was more than two years, and so cannot be called brief, except with respect to the forty years during which the Arians dominated at Constantinople.

[37] Our Ms. continues: "Therefore with Saints Paul and Athanasius restored to their Sees, With Constans dead Orthodox doctrine was reflowering, and the Church with admirable joy enjoyed their legitimate Bishops and Doctors of right faith. Until with Constans taken out of the way, Magnentius obtained the Empire. Then the seeds of Arius again kindle Constantius against Saints Paul and Athanasius; again commands, again threats, again most rapid flight, again through all land and sea the persecution of Saints Paul and Athanasius. And first indeed Paul Bishop of Constantinople, Constantius orders to be deported into exile: whom those who were leading him away Paul is strangled at Cucusus. in the town of Cappadocia Cucusus strangled." The glorious Martyrdom of this holy Prelate fell in the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrianus, that is the 350th year of Christ: which when Socrates lib. 2 cap. 16 calls the fourth after the Sardican Council; it is clear that he in such computations takes the end of the previous year for an entire one: for the Sardican Council (as we have said with him as witness) was celebrated under Rufinus and Eusebius as Consuls, that is in the year 347. Baronius establishes Paul as dead in the year 351: but I find no reason why that death should be so long deferred, since Constans at the beginning of the year 350 was carried off by a fatal death: with the news of which death brought to the East, the Arians are not to be believed to have long delayed before they accused Athanasius and other defenders of the Nicene faith before Constantius: whose fury against the Orthodox, already for one or two years by the Brother's arms, as by a kind of opposed dam, restrained; with him removed, like a torrent poured itself forth. And so will abundantly suffice nearly nine months for those things to be done, which between the death of Constans, at the beginning of the year; and Paul's, undergone on November 6, probably intervened.

[38] This their cruel deed the Arians strove to hide; but in vain. The crime patent with the Arians denying. About this it helps to hear Athanasius discussing in the Epistle to the Solitaries. "The Eusebians," he says, "with this crime committed, without any shame, as everywhere mendacious, invented another cause for the extinct man, as if he had perished from sickness, when far otherwise is established to all the inhabitants of that place. For indeed Philagrius, at that time the Vicar of those places, and the histrionic of all that they wished; but yet astonished and grieving over this crime (I believe because another, and not he himself rather, was the author of his death), disclosed the matter to very many, and among the rest known to me to Serapion the Bishop, that Paul had been shut up by the Eusebians in the most strait and most obscure place, and left there to perish from hunger; then after six days, when the Eusebians entered with him, having found the man still breathing, by force strangled the Bishop, and by that kind of end closed his life; and said that the minister of inflicting the death had been Philip the Prefect." But whether, as the printed Menaia indicate, he was strangled by the Episcopal Pallium, with all others silent, we cannot altogether affirm; yet probable this narration of Athanasius makes. For when they thought him extinct from hunger, and rather entered the prison, that the body of the dead

CHAPTER IV.

Solemn Translation of the Relics, and the cult among the Greeks.

[39] After thirty years of persecution Paul, as we have said, taken out of the way, Macedonius at Constantinople obtained the Churches: who having gained greatest liberty with the Emperor, what cruel, what horrible persecution he stirred up against the Orthodox, it does not pertain here to narrate at greater length; since these can be read everywhere in the Authors, nor do they pertain to the Acts of the glorious Martyr. Let it suffice to have said one thing testified to all: the persecution was no less than that which those suffered who under Pagan Emperors were compelled to adore idols. This lasted for thirty years, namely from the year 350 to 380. But since Socrates and Sozomen counted forty years, they began from the year 340, when Eusebius, with Paul deposed, invaded the Constantinopolitan See: although (as we have seen) his possession was not interrupted only once. Nevertheless with the persecution raging so horridly: "He showed," says our Ms., "the Lord of all, how truly He had said, that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church: and at last through Gratian raised up the Emperor Theodosius, truly great, truly pious, at Sirmium in the city of Illyricum, by race a Spaniard, but in faith perfect son of S. Gregory the Theologian. He advancing against the Barbarians, returned victor to Constantinople, on the 24th day of the month of January, under the Consulate of Gratian V and his own I, in the year 380. He in the very beginning of his coming, expelled the Arians, refusing to consent to the Nicene faith, from the churches, and restored them to the Catholics: then at the beginning of the month of December of the same year, with the Council at CP. ended called the second General Council at Constantinople: to which, in the year 381, on the 15th day of the month of May, 150 orthodox Bishops gathered. In that Council the Arians, openly professing they did not wish to embrace the doctrine of Consubstantial, by the order of the Emperor, were ejected from the Council, the Church, and the city; with the whole Synod approving. Then with S. Gregory Nazianzen freely abdicating the Constantinopolitan Episcopate, in his successor was elected Nectarius, and was consecrated with all the aforesaid Bishops imposing hands." Since these things do not greatly pertain to S. Paul, I have wished briefly to touch on them, to follow the order of time: he who wishes them more amply deduced, let him approach Socrates lib. 5 in various chapters, Sozomen and Photius, and S. Gregory himself.

[40] While these things which I have said above were being done at Constantinople and through the East, after the death of S. Paul; the sacred Body of this Martyr from Cucusus to Ancyra, on what occasion unknown, was translated, solemnly the Relics are translated to CP. and there was held in veneration. Until the Emperor Theodosius, with the Constantinopolitan Synod finished (as our Ms. has from Socrates and Sozomen), took care to have it translated thence to the Royal city, with the Bishops still present who had attended the Synod. These therefore with their Clergy, with much veneration and most pious apparatus; the Constantinopolitan Citizens; the Emperor himself, with the whole Senate and bodyguard; the Bishop Nectarius, with all the Clergy and religious people of the Royal city, went forth far beyond Chalcedon to meet these most sacred Relics; and venerably and religiously received them, with immense joy, praising God, and with concordant voice singing psalms and hymns together, with much honor carried them through the middle of the city; and so deposited them in the church of the ancient Eirene, in which he himself had constituted his Episcopal Chair, and from which he had been snatched and sent into exile, that he might be killed. There through the whole night with festive vigils celebrated, with greatest joy and ineffable alacrity of mind, in the morning all this multitude, with the priests happily following with psalms and canticles, transferred the same sacred pledge thence to the church marked with his name, near to S. Anastasia in the Mauriani tract. And when all these things, according to the merits of his pious conversation, had been thus accomplished, in a sacred and venerable in all memory tomb they buried him. Then all the Bishops, with the divine and religious Clergy and the Emperor himself, for many days honored him with sacred vigils; and with great praises celebrated his many persecutions, exiles, and death, on account of Religion and orthodox faith, by which he obtained the felicity of eternal goods: of which may we all also be made worthy, by the prayers and intercession of S. P. N. Paul the Confessor, through the grace of Christ, to whom be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen." Thus our Ms.

[41] From what has been said we gather that this solemn Translation was performed, as I said in the previous Commentary, into the church which retained the name from him on the 7th of June, in the year 381. For the Synod, begun in the middle of the month of May, was not long protracted: and immediately from the Synod, indeed it still continuing, the sacred pledge began to approach Constantinople from the parts of Ancyra. But this Church, which after the Relics of S. Paul were brought received its name from him, his persecutor Macedonius had built, that it might be a fortress and stronghold of his heresy: but divine providence converted the same into a trophy of orthodox faith, and a monument of the most glorious Athlete: for it is, with Sozomen as witness, a most great and most illustrious shrine. But, as often in similar things is wont to happen, when the Church was everywhere called of S. Paul, and was said in it the Body of the same Saint was buried: it happened, says Sozomen, that many, ignorant of the truth of the matter, and especially women and very many

of the people, suspected that Paul the Apostle had been buried there. Nor did this error among the common people always remain hidden: with time it ascended to the worthier and chief, even Princes of the same nation. whence afterwards the Head was brought to Gaul. Hence indeed probably it happened, that in the 13th century some Greek (no doubt of not infirm note) for a distinguished gift to the Queen of the French carried away as a tomb the Head of S. Paul the Apostle. The Queen brings the new thing, and to herself thus far unheard of, to Clement IV, who from 1265 to 1268 presided over the universal Church. The Pontiff partly unteaches the error, asserting that the Head of S. Paul the Apostle is nowhere but at Rome.

[42] Since therefore it is right to believe that that Greek was altogether an impostor, indeed that truly that head for such was held at Constantinople; one could suspect that

[42] These are what about the holy Bishop and Martyr, who endured so much from the Arians, I could find, and through a chronology not entirely unlike the truth, arrange. In these if anything has been erred, do not wonder, mindful of the most learned man Godefroy Hermant, who after he diligently scrutinized everything pertaining to this history, at length before the Sardican Council, with the third expulsion narrated, ending says: "The rest of this life, so intricate, it is difficult to relate in due order; since the contemporary Authors, from whom we ought to draw, treated of him in very few words, and as if passing to other matters, narrated only a few things about his sufferings, and those not sufficiently distinct."

APPENDIX I.

On the body of S. Paul at Venice.

Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, Martyr (S.)

BHL Number: 6588

BY THE AUTHOR C. J.

[44] At Venice on the 7th day of June is venerated, Paul Bishop of Constantinople and Martyr; Cult at Venice, in the whole city indeed under the rite of a semi-double Office from the Common of a Pontiff Martyr; but in the church of the Nuns of S. Lawrence, where his Body honorably rests, under the rite of a proper double, at least as far as the Lections of the second Nocturn and the Prayer pertain, whose tenor is here: "Almighty eternal God, who consecrated this day with the martyrdom of B. Paul, your Martyr and Pontiff; grant, we ask, that we who venerate the passion of so great a Bishop, strengthened by his faith and constancy, may merit to have his help in the present, and his fellowship in the future." This holy Martyr first became known to us from the Order for reciting the divine Office, according to the rite of the Patriarchal Church and diocese of Venice, customarily printed every year: from knowledge of the name was born the desire of knowing a little more, about his life, deeds, martyrdom: but the desire impelled me, when a few years ago, namely 1686 of Christ, I had landed at Venice, that at the first time I should approach the Church of S. Lawrence, to learn in person what absent I had desired.

[45] in the church of S. Lawrence: The first or ancient church of his name was built by Angelo Participatio, Doge of Venice, at the beginning of the ninth century, as Sansovino testifies, together with the church of S. Severus in the islands which were called the Gemellae. That each was committed by the same to the care of certain Monks, says the same Sansovino, others deny; and only Presbyters were constituted there: in this however they agree, that in the year 841 each church passed into the right and power of Holy Virgins, by Orso, nephew of Doge Angelo and Bishop of Olivolo, introduced under the rule of his sister Romana, which is of Nuns of the Order of S. Benedict: as first Abbess, according to the norm of the Benedictine Rule. But these when they had undertaken the Cluniac reform, under Abbess Trionissa Gradenica; under such discipline progressed so happily, with the chief families of the Venetian nobility placing their daughters there; that by their wealth and power so much splendor and amplitude, so many sacred Relics and sacred furniture, accrued to the church of S. Lawrence, that no one could seem second in all Venice; after, namely, with the old destroyed, a new one from the foundations was built by Sicara Carosia the Abbess, at the end of the 12th century.

[46] There, what especially makes for our matter, where is seen the nearly intact assembly of bones. is to be seen, through a clear crystal, with greatest decor exposed upon two altars venerable bones of the holy Martyrs Barbarus, of whom we treated on the 14th of May, and Paul Bishop of Constantinople, of whom we now treat; that I say nothing about the Relics of S. Candida Virgin and Martyr, and of the holy Plato and Ligorius likewise Martyrs, and also of the blessed Leo Bembus and John Plebanus Confessors. The bones therefore of Paul in a chest, as I have said, transparent are seen, so ordered and fitted together among themselves, that they form a body in nearly all its members complete, with few lacking to its integrity. But how it was brought and often translated from place to place, to one desiring to explain, into our hands came an Italian little book, which D. Paulinus Flamma, Prior of the Crucifers, compiled about the year 1645, inscribed: "True origin of the churches of the glorious Martyrs Lawrence and Sebastian."

[47] From the archive of the very church afterwards was offered, that very original Latin writing, Those were found under the altar in the year 1493 April 10. which Flamma had contracted into an Italian epitome, and that sufficiently obscure, and is of this kind: "In the year of the Lord 1493, on the 10th day of the month of April, with Augustine Barbadicus being Doge in the distinguished city of Venice, was found the Body of S. Paul the Martyr and Bishop in the Church of S. Lawrence of Venice, which already for twice 167 years, in the same had been hidden. With the Venerable D. Elisabeth Molino Abbess presiding in the same Monastery. While the aforesaid D. Abbess, and D. Sacristans who then were, wished to build an altar to S. Lawrence, by destroying the old altar which was there, in it they found a certain marble tomb, in which was that Body, wrapped in certain woollen cloths; and had over the chest a certain ivory pyx, in which was nothing except a few ashes: and it was unknown whose it was, and there was no one who could remember when it had been placed there: because, as I have already said, 267 years had now elapsed. The aforesaid Ladies therefore wavering, what was to be done about this matter, immediately announce this to the Most Reverend Patriarch Thomas Donato: he indeed then held by infirmity, through the Venerable man Jacobus of S. Daniele his Vicar, with certain religious men, sent to see this. Who with the tomb inspected, the Body seen, judged it to be of none other than some Saint; and ordered it to be taken up, and in some honest place placed, until something certain should be had. He commanded besides the Nuns themselves to inquire diligently through all the books of the monastery, if perhaps in any of them some matter about this might exist. The Venerable Ladies therefore began devoutly and humbly to pray, that God might deign through his mercy to show his name."

[48] After several days, a certain Lady, and recognized whose they were, while she was in Choir, praying for this, saw beside her a certain most ancient Missal, and almost obliterated: which taking up, she said: "O if God would deign to show me the name of his servant!" And opening it, she found at the beginning written, what Bodies and what Relics of Saints, and in what place in the said Church lay. And searching the individual places, they found all in their places as in the said book is written. About this so

[49] Whether he wrote a little book on Patience? Would that there had similarly been preserved books containing the aforesaid Life and Passion; that yet they were of no other Paul than the Constantinopolitan, the day of the cult taken from antiquity proves. That day was probably brought with the body from Constantinople. But when or by whom it was brought to Venice, we shall now seek in vain. The printed Lections, with the Translation by Theodosius the Emperor cared for indicated, only add: "Then at Venice in the church of S. Lawrence with greatest veneration it is kept": and finally so end: "He composed a little book on patience with such charm, that in wondrous manner it excites to bear willingly all tribulations." I do not know whence this could have been had; since neither Jerome nor Photius mentioned this Paul among Ecclesiastical Writers. Because slightly differ Patience and Penitence, I suspect the occasion taken from Gennadius, with whom cap. 31 is read: "Paul the Bishop (uncertain who, probably some Latin) wrote on penitence a little book, in which he gives a law to penitents, that they ought so to grieve for sins, lest beyond the measure of sadness, by immensity of despair they be submerged."

[50] Translation of the year 1617. The History of the Translation made in the year 1617, because it was common to SS. Paul and Barbarus, has been given in the Appendix to May 14: here it will suffice to have indicated that it was most solemnly made on February 2; and that in the chest these things are read: "The body of S. Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, who was killed by the Arians in the year of the Lord 355, was placed in this chest, on the Kalends of February 1617, in the year of the Lord 1617 by Venetian custom, with the Reverend Lady Adriana Contarena as Abbess."

APPENDIX II.

Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, Martyr (S.)

C. I.

This will contain the Dissertation on the year in which died S. Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, successor of S. Metrophanes, of whom on June 4, but predecessor of S. Paul, of whom we have treated here; whose Ordination and the rest of the Chronology of deeds done depends chiefly on that death. But because in Metrophanes above the year 340, in which Alexander died, I rather supposed than proved; and the treatment of this matter is going to make no less for illustrating what there, than what here was disputed: I thought that this Dissertation should be placed in that place which is more common to both disputations premised, that is at the end of this very Tome; lest on account of it, not yet fully completed, a hindrance should be cast to the running press.