for papalist writers to explain why the state of things was so different in the fourth century. Surely, one would expect a monarch to summon his parliament.

NOTE 59 (see note I on p. 138).-The Council of Arles (314) in its second synodical letter to Pope Silvester heads its letter as follows, "Domino sanctissimo fratri Silvestro Marinus vel coetus episcoporum qui adunati fuerunt in oppido Arelatensi" (see Hefele, Councils, E. tr., i. 184). The wording of this inscription seems to make it clear that Marinus of Arles presided.

NOTE 60 (see note 6 on p. 138).-On the whole subject of the sixth Nicene canon compare Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of Nicaea (pp. 22-26), and also his Roman See in the Early Church (pp. 75-81, and pp. 481-483). Rufinus (Hist. Eccl., i. 6, P. L., xxi. 473) defines the sphere of the pope's jurisdiction, to which an implicit allusion is made in the canon, as consisting of the suburbicarian churches. Such a definition conveys a true representation of the sphere of the pope's metropolitical jurisdiction in the beginning of the fifth century, when Rufinus published his history. But at the time of the Council of Nicaea that sphere included the whole of Italy. See the Additional Note 1, p. 434.

NOTE 61 (see p. 141).—It must be said that during the years which followed the Nicene Council there was one important matter, in connexion with which the Church of Rome, under the guidance of S. Julius, committed herself to the wrong side. That matter was the formal approval which was given by Rome in 340 to Marcellus of Ancyra. On

2

1 I will here put on record what must be called Dr. Rivington's grotesque account of S. Silvester's view of the situation. He says (Prim. Ch., pp. 159161): "The way, then, in which S. Silvester elected to govern the Church was by a council in the East, which the Emperor hailed for the fulfilment of his own desire for the unity of the Church as the safeguard of his empire. S. Silvester knew well that papal infallibility does not act like magic. . . . S. Silvester considered that the circumstances of the case demanded the apparatus of a council rather than an ex cathedra judgement from himself." This is of a truth making bricks without either clay or straw.

? Some time before 336 Marcellus wrote his book against Asterius the sophist. Extracts from this book have been preserved by Eusebius of Cæsarea in his replies to it. It is from these extracts that our knowledge of the teachings of Marcellus is principally derived. Cardinal Newman, in his first Dissertatiuncula critico-theologica (Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 20, 21), has given a conspectus of the principal points in the Marcellian heresy, gathering them out of Eusebius' replies. Newman points out that there is no good reason for throwing doubt on Eusebius' testimony, which is corroborated in various ways. It is true that the Council of Sardica tried to whitewash Marcellus, on the ground that the statements, which Marcellus had made as an inquirer, had been wrongly taken by his opponents as if they represented his avowed opinions. But, as Bishop Lightfoot says (Smith and Wace, D. C. B., s.v. Eusebius of Cæsarea, ii. 342), "The quotations given by Eusebius speak for themselves." And similarly the Jesuit Petavius (De Trin., I. xiii. ii.) observes: "As far as we can gather from Marcellus' own words, quoted by Eusebius, it appears that he taught seriously, and as the expression of his own opinion, some altogether absurd and heretical things." S. Basil and the Eastern Church had good grounds for the horror with which they regarded Marcellus' teaching. See also p. 231, note 2, and p. 236.

this personage, and on his heretical opinions, see Dr. Robertson (S. Athanasius, Prolegomena, pp. xxxv., xxxvi., xliv., and also p. 116, note 5), and see also Dr. Bright (S. Athanasius Orations against the Arians, Introduction, p. xliv.), and Cardinal Newman (Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 182). Hefele says of Marcellus, "Neither does Marcellus present the idea of a true God-man, but sees in the miraculously born JESUS a man in whom the Logos, the évéрyela Spaσtikh of God, dwells. . . . Thus Marcellus, to a certain extent like Paul of Samosata, makes Christ a man in whom God dwells."1 Dr. Gwatkin says of S. Julius, "His one serious mistake was in supporting Marcellus". . . "Knowing... what his [Marcellus'] doctrine was, we must admit that the Easterns were right in resenting its deliberate approval at Rome." 2 See also p. 291, note 1, and p. 325, note 4.

...

NOTE 62 (see p. 142).—Hefele has shown very conclusively that the canons of Sardica do not allow the appeal of a bishop from the sentence of the synod of his province to be heard at Rome. The appeal must be heard in the neighbourhood of the province to which the bishop belonged. See Hefele's Councils, E. tr., ii. 117, 118, 124-128.

NOTE 63 (see note I on p. 149). Reasons for supposing that the see of Aquileia became a metropolitical see before the death of Constantius.— I will set down in this note some facts which seem to me to make it highly probable that the Bishop of Aquileia was a metropolitan, not only in the early part of the fifth century,3 but also during the last forty years of the previous century.

1. When at the Easter festival of the year 404 the persecution of S. Chrysostom, which had been going on for some months, was reaching its climax, the saint addressed a long letter to the most influential bishops of the Western Church, imploring their help and countenance. Three copies of this letter were sent, one addressed to Innocent, Bishop of Rome, another to Venerius, Bishop of Milan, and the third to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia. Innocent and Venerius were undoubtedly metropolitans; and the fact that S. Chrysostom appealed for help to Chromatius, in exactly the same terms as those which he employed in his letters to Innocent and Venerius, supplies a strong reason for believing that Chromatius also was a metropolitan. The persecuted saint, having shown how iniquitous and uncanonical the proceedings against him had been, implores these three great prelates to write letters declaring the said proceedings to be null and void, and making it clear that his communion with them remained unbroken.'

2. In the year 402 S. Jerome wrote his Apology against the Books of Rufinus. In the course of an attack on S. Epiphanius, Rufinus had

1 Hefele, Councils, E. tr., ii. 32.

2 Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy, p. 67.

3 The fact that Aquileia was metropolitical in the time of S. Leo (440-461) is outside of all possible dispute (cf. S. Leon. Ep. i. ad Aquileiensem Episcopum, cap. ii. and Ep. ii. ad Septimum Episcopum Altinensem, cap. i., P. L., liv. 594, 597).

4 Cf. S. Chrysost. Opp., ed. Ben., tom. iii. p. 520.

declared that the reason why certain persons were helping forward the conspiracy against Origen was, because they were accustomed in their discourses and books to plagiarize from Origen, and they wished to deter men from reading that author, lest their thefts from him should be discovered. S. Jerome replies, "Who are these persons?... You ought to give their names, and to specify the men themselves. Are the blessed Bishops Anastasius and Theophilus and Venerius and Chromatius and the whole synod of the Catholics, both in the East and in the West, to be esteemed to be plagiarists of Origen's books, because, being moved by the same Spirit, they have pronounced a similar sentence, and publicly denounce Origen as a heretic?" In this passage S. Jerome, besides making a general reference to the whole episcopate of the East and West, selects four representative names, namely (1) the Pope of Rome, (2) the Pope of Alexandria, (3) the Metropolitan of Milan, and (4) S. Chromatius of Aquileia. It seems clear to me that Aquileia was a metropolitical see in 402.

3. At the Council of Aquileia, held in 381, S. Ambrose was present, and was in many respects the mouthpiece and leader of the assembly. Nevertheless, in the first paragraph of the acts of the council, which contains a list of the bishops who took part in it, the name of S. Valerian of Aquileia occurs first, and the name of S. Ambrose second. And similarly, in the list of those present, which is found at the end of the acts, S. Valerian heads the list and S. Ambrose follows immediately after him.3 It seems to me impossible to suppose that a suffragan bishop would take precedence of his metropolitan in a council attended not only by bishops of the province, but by the representatives of distant churches. Bishops from Africa, Gaul, and Western Illyricum sat at this council along with bishops from North Italy. And when one remembers the unique position which S. Ambrose occupied in the West, the closeness of his relations with the Emperor, and the way in which distant churches referred to him as an oracle, the impression is forced upon one that he certainly would have occupied the first place, if the bishop of the city where the council was held had not been as much a metropolitan as he was himself, and 1 S. Hieron. Apol. adv. libr. Rufin., ii. 22, P. L., xxiii. 445.

2 S. Ambros. Õpp., P. L., xvi. 955.

3 P. L., xvi. 979.

Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chrétien, 2o édit., p. 32) says, "L'influence d'Ambroise se fait sentir souvent dans les affaires de l'église orientale, à Antioche, à Césarée, à Constantinople, à Thessalonique ; c'est lui qui est chargé de donner un évêque à Sirmium dans un moment critique. À Aquilée, il dirige un concile où se règlent les dernières difficultés laissées par la crise arienne dans le pays du bas Danube. Mais c'est surtout en Gaule et en Espagne que l'on semble considérer l'autorité ecclésiastique de Milan comme un tribunal supérieur et ordinaire." On p. 35 Duchesne says, "Il y a donc, en Occident, vers la fin du IV Siècle, une tendance universelle à considérer l'évêque de Milan comme une autorité de premier ordre, à l'associer au pape dans les fonctions de magistrat ecclésiastique suprême, de juge des causes majeures et d'interprète des lois disciplinaires générales.'

66

The Ballerini, in their Observationes in Dissert. v. Quesnelli (pars ii. cap. v. § 2, P. L., lv. 607), speaking of the precedence of bishops at councils, say, 'Neque enim post horum [sc. metropolitarum] institutionem in more fuit ut metropolitani (quicumque adessent) simplici episcopo quantumvis antiquiori locum cederent."

still more, if that bishop had been one of his own suffragans. It has often been the case, both in earlier and later times, that councils have had more than one president; and to me it seems probable that S. Valerian and S. Ambrose were joint presidents of the Council of Aquileia. S. Valerian, on account of his seniority by consecration, and on account of the synod being held in his cathedral city, would be reckoned as first president, and S. Ambrose would be second president. But while the place of highest dignity was reserved for the older prelate, one can well imagine that S. Valerian would be the first to wish that the practical work of conducting the proceedings should be left in the competent hands of his junior colleague. Or it may be that the Emperor, who convoked the council, had by some authoritative act made S. Ambrose to be the causae cognitor." Any way, it seems evident that in 381 the Bishop of Aquileia was a metropolitan.1

4. Some confirmation of this conclusion seems to result from the fact that the synodical epistle of the Council of Constantinople, held in 382, is addressed to Damasus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, Britonius of Trier,2 Valerian of Aquileia, Acholius of Thessalonica, Anemius of Sirmium, and to the other bishops assembled in the city of Rome.3 Here Valerian of Aquileia is named before Acholius of Thessalonica, who was undoubtedly a metropolitan and more than a metropolitan, being the vicar of the Roman see throughout Eastern Illyricum, and in that capacity having metropolitans subject to him.*

5. In this connexion it is worth mentioning that there is no evidence that either S. Valerian or S. Chromatius ever attended any of the provincial synods held at Milan during the episcopate of S. Ambrose, or that S. Ambrose ever exercised in any way metropolitical jurisdiction over them. Such jurisdiction cannot be safely inferred from the fact that in 388 he probably consecrated S. Chromatius at Aquileia. If the consecration had taken place at Milan, the case might be different. In the

It is fair to say that Duchesne is of opinion (Origines du Culte Chrétien, 2de édit., pp. 30, 31) that at first the whole of the Vicariate of Italy was subject to the metropolitical jurisdiction of Milan. He goes on to say, "Vers le commencement du cinquième siècle, ce ressort fut divisé en deux par l'institution de la métropole d'Aquilée." I am ready to admit that in the early part of the fifth century the province of Aquileia was enlarged at the expense of the province of Milan by the transfer of the bishops of Western Venetia to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Aquileia. But I cannot think that at the Council of Aquileia in 381 S. Valerian was a mere suffragan of S. Ambrose.

2 Trier was the capital of Gaul and the chief place of imperial residence in that country, in fact, the second capital (Milan being the first) of the whole Western empire. It seems to me the more probable view that there were still no metropolitans in Gaul in 382, and that therefore Britonius owes his precedence to the imperial dignity of his city. Britonius should, I think, be identified with Pritannius, who was Bishop of Trier in 383 (cf. Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr., ii. 49, P. L., xx. 157). 3 Cf. Coleti, ii. 1143.

4 Compare p. 157.

5 S. Ambrose's province extended into Venetia, at least into its Western portion. This can be established by passages in the fifth and sixth letters of the Saint which are addressed to Syagrius of Verona. I do not think that S. Ambrose's fifth letter (§ 8) proves that Altinum in Eastern Venetia belonged to his province. In the time of S. Leo the whole of Venetia belonged to the province of Aquileia.

fifth and sixth centuries the metropolitans of Aquileia used to consecrate the metropolitans of Milan at Milan, and the metropolitans of Milan used to consecrate the metropolitans of Aquileia at Aquileia.1 S. Ambrose's action in 388 may have been one of the precedents on which the later custom was based.

6. In the Roman synod under Damasus, which condemned and deposed Auxentius of Milan, and which was held near the end of the year 371,2 a synodical epistle was addressed to the bishops of Illyricum, the inscription of which ran thus: "The bishops assembled in sacred synod at Rome, Damasus, Valerian, and the rest, to the beloved brethren, the bishops established in Illyricum, health in the Lord." Here the special mention of Valerian, and his being placed in juxtaposition with Damasus, suggest that he, like Damasus, was already a metropolitan in 371. In the synodical epistle to which reference has been made, it is mentioned that the Bishops of Venetia and of Gaul had complained, presumably to Damasus, that Auxentius of Milan and other bishops were embracing heretical opinions. If the bishops of Venetia took any common action, they must have had S. Valerian of Aquileia as their leader.

I do not think that it is at all probable that Auxentius would have consented to have his province diminished by the erection of Aquileia into a metropolitical see, with an opponent like S. Valerian as its occupant. I am therefore inclined to think that the see of Aquileia became metropolitical before the accession of S. Valerian, and, if so, it would seem to me probable that the new provinces of Milan and Aquileia were separated from the Roman province at the same time. I have stated elsewhere that the most likely time would appear to be the period from 356 onwards, when, first Felix II., and afterwards Liberius were living in great subservience to the heretical Emperor, Constantius. Fortunatian of Aquileia had joined the Emperor's communion, and Auxentius, the newly-appointed Bishop of Milan, also belonged to it. Constantius' ecclesiastical advisers were, for the most part, Eastern bishops, who

1 Cf. Pelag. I. Ep. ad Joann. Patric., P. L., lxix. 411.

Some authorities assign this synod, in my opinion wrongly, to the year 369. Compare pp. 299 and 543.

3 Coleti, ii. 1041.

I have retained the reading Venetensium, in deference to the concordant testimony of Theodoret, Sozomen, and the Latin codex used by Holstenius. In the Latin translation of the Patrum_Testimonia, put forward in his defence by Eutyches at the Constantinopolitan Council of 448, which has been published by Dom Amelli in the Spicilegium Casinense (pp. 98, 99) from the Cod. Novar. xxx. (66), the reading is Bessorum in lieu of Venctensium. Cassiodorus (Hist. Tripart., v. 29, P.L., lxix. 1006) has Venetorum.

5 See p. 434.

S. Jerome (De Viris Illustribus, cap. xcvii., P. L., xxiii. 697) says of Fortunatian, "In hoc habetur detestabilis, quod Liberium, Romanae urbis episcopum, pro fide ad exsilium pergentem, primus sollicitavit ac fregit, et ad subscriptionem haereseos compulit." On which passage Bishop Hefele observes (Councils, E. tr., ii. 236), “According to this, Fortunatian had advised (sollicitavit) Pope Liberius to this weakness when he was first going into exile, and subsequently, after his return to Sirmium, actually seduced him into it (fregit)." Hefele (Op. cit., p. 210) says that it was at the Council of Milan in 355 that Fortunatian subscribed against Athanasius, and entered into communion with the Arians.