The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. XL. That Proclus succeeded Maximianus the Bishop.

MAximianus having quietly governed the Churches two years and five months, died in the Consulate of Areobindus and Aspar, on the twelfth of April. That day hapned to fall on the week of Fasts, [to wit] the week which immediately precedes the Feast of Easter: and it was the * 1.1 fifth day of that week. At which time the Emperour Theodosius made a prudent provision for this affair. For least a debate should arise, again about the Election of a Bi∣shop, which might raise a disturbance in the Church; he delayed not, but whilest Maximia∣nus's body lay as yet unburied, ordered the Bi∣shops that were present [in the City] to place Proclus in the Episcopall Chair. For the Let∣ters of Celestinus Bishop of Rome, wherein he ap∣proved of a 1.2 this [Election,] were then come; which Letters he had sent to Cyrillus [Bishop] of Alexandria, to Johannes [Bishop] of An∣tioch, and to b 1.3 Rufus [Bishop] of Thessalo∣nica; informing them, that nothing hindred him (who had been nominated and actually was Bi∣shop of one City,) from being translated to ano∣ther. Therefore after Proclus was placed in the Episcopall Chair, he made a Funerall for the body of Maximianus. But we have now an op∣portunity of speaking something in short concer∣ning Proclus.

Notes

• * 1.1

  That is, Thursday in the Passion week.
• a 1.2

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] as did S^r Henry Savill and Christo∣phorson. Moreover, I agree with Baro∣nius, who (at the year of Christ 434,) has truly remarked, that these Letters of Caelestine Bishop of Rome were not written on this year, but two years before; to wit, when (after Nestorius's deposition,) they were busie about Electing a Bishop of Constantinople. 'Tis certain on this year (when Arcobindus and Aspar were Consuls) Caelestine was dead, and Xystus had succeeded him in the Bishoprick of Rome. Vales.
• b 1.3

  Valesius has told us before (at note (c.) on chap. 36,) that Rusus Bishop of Thessalonica was deputed the Vice-gerent of the Apostolick See [that is, Rome] throughout Achaia and Macedonia. He adds here, that he had the same Vice-gerency throughout Illyricum, as the Epistles of Innocentius and Bonifacius Bishops of Rome do declare, which are to be seen in Lucas Holstenius's Roman Collection. For (continues Valesius) the Bishops of Thessalonica had that priviledge from the times of Pope Damasus, as we learn from the same Collection. Balsamo (in his comments on the Synod in Trullo, pag. 359, Edit. Paris. 1620.) affirms, that the Bishops of Thessalonica were hereto∣fore the Legates of the Roman Bishop; and that the Bishop of Rome has a power of constituting Legates in the Constantinopolitane Patri∣archate; but denies that he has a power of ordaining Bishops; wherein Balsamo is much mistaken. For those Provinces, which then when Balsamo wrote, were under the Constantinopolitan Prelate, had here∣tofore been under the Bishop of Rome. Further, the Nicene Synod has determined, that the ancient usages should be observed. Thus far Vale∣sius. But, as you see, he gives no reason to confute what Balsamo has said, to wit, that the Bishop of Rome has no power to ordain Bishops within the Constantinopolitane Patriarchate. And therefore I will (and so may the Reader too, if he pleases) suspend my belief, till some rea∣sons are assigned. This passage in Balsamo (here quoted by Vale∣sius) occurs in D^r Beveredge's Synod. Tom. 1. p. 154. See the Learned Doctors notes, pag. 126.