Sozomene in that Chapter doth plainly declare that both the Apollinaries were* 1.1 excommunicated by Theodotus, not for any heresie, but bicause they kept companie with Epiphanius that wicked Sophister. Neyther was Apollinaris as yet fallen to his heresie, as it is manifest in the storie: for being vpon repentance absolued by Theo∣dotus, he was afterwarde againe excommunicated by one George, the successor of Theodotus in his Bishoprike, bicause he kept companie with Athanasius, whome George being an Arrian coulde not abide. In this time of his excommunication, by∣cause he could not by any intreatie perswade George to receyue him into the Church againe, of purpose he published an heresie, for the which he was afterwarde condem∣ned* 1.2 in a Synode at Rome. And therefore sayth the storie: If George had receyued Apollinaris being repentant, like as Theodotus had done before, I suppose that this heresie had not bene raysed of him. So that you are farre wyde, and giue great suspition that eyther you haue not read the storie, or else of purpose meane to delude the Reader.
The wordes that the storie vseth to signifie, Theodotus excommunicating them, be these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: did separate them from the Church. The wordes which you haue recyted be not spoken of Theodotus, but of George his successor, who also did excommunicate Apollinaris, not both the father and the sonne, as Theodotus did, but onely the sonne (as I haue sayde) before he fell into his heresie, and there∣fore before he was condemned at Rome. So that he did not (as you say) execute the decrée of that Councell, but did himselfe excommunicate.
Neyther doe the wordes helpe you one whitte by any meanes, for what other thing can you gather thereof, but that he pronounced the sentence of excommunica∣tion agaynst him? euen as it is the maner in our Church, though he be excommuni∣cated by the same person onely, which pronounceth the sentence. And if that the right of excommunication had not béene in George onely, why is there mention that hée woulde by no meanes be intreated to absolue him? For I am sure that you will* 1.3 graunt (and indéede you haue before so affirmed) that absolution is of the same qua∣litie in this respect with excommunication: and it is there witnessed, that Apollinaris did oftentymes desire him to receyue him againe into the felowship of the Churche. So that it is manifest, that in those dayes, the Bishop alone did excommunicate.