n. To whom that basilica was consecrated Procopius does
not say. Was that basilica the church of SS. Peter and Paul which
Procopius mentioned before recording the erection of SS. Sergius and
Bacchus? Is he speaking of two or of three churches? The reply to this
question must take into account two facts as beyond dispute: first,
that the church of SS. Peter and Paul, as the letters cited above make
clear, was earlier than the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus;
secondly, that the basilica united to the latter sanctuary was
dedicated to the two great apostles; for scenes which, according to one
authority,[97] occurred in S. Peter's took place, according to another
authority,[98] in the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. In the face of
these facts, Procopius is either mistaken in regard to the relative age
of the two sanctuaries, or he has not expressed his meaning as clearly
as he might have done. To suppose that two sanctuaries dedicated to the
great apostles were built by Justinian within a short time of each
other in the same district, one within the palace, the other outside
the palace, is a very improbable hypothesis. The question on which side
of SS. Sergius and Bacchus the basilica of SS. Peter and Paul stood,
seems decided by the fact that there is more room for a second building
on the north than on the south of Kutchuk Agia Sofia. Furthermore,
there are traces of openings in the north wall of the church which
could serve as means of communication between the two adjoining
buildings. Ebersolt, however, places SS. Peter and Paul on the south
side of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.[99]

A remarkable scene was witnessed in the church in the course of the
controversy which raged around the writings known in ecclesiastical
history as 'The Three Chapters,' the work of three theologians tainted,
it was alleged, with the heretical opinions of Nestorius. Justinian
associated himself with the party which condemned those writings, and
prevailed upon the majority of the bishops in the East to subscribe the
imperial decree to that effect. But Vigilius, the Pope of the day, and
the bishops in the West, dissented from that judgment, because the
authors of the writings in question had been acquitted from the charge
of heresy by the Council of Chalcedon. To condemn them after that
acquittal was to censure the Council and reflect upon its authority.
Under these circumstances Justinian summoned