was already Patriarch of Antioch, and known under that title, since the other two were, so to say, only accidental additions, not necessarily to continue after his death, Maximos used the form "Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and of all the East," with Antioch first. We shall see how this title has maintained itself, illegally, among his successors (p. 224). Maximos built a Patriarchal church at Jerusalem, and he had one already at Cairo. For Egypt and Palestine he appointed Patriarchal vicars, which practice has continued ever since.
In 1849 Maximos summoned a synod at Jerusalem, which was to complete the work of that of 'Ain Trāz in 1835. But at once strong opposition showed itself. Three bishops, those of Tyre, Beirut, and Ba'albek, wrote to Rome to protest. They did not see the good of a new synod, they resented Maximos's lordly ways over his Metropolitans, they did not want to go to Jerusalem at all. However, he held his synod, with great external pomp. One of the first questions that came up was what to do with Athanasius Totūnǵī, who had now repented. The folly of Maximos's mania for ordaining bishops was shown most clearly in this case. Had Totūnǵī been a priest, no doubt a post could have been found for him easily; but a bishop must, according to Melkite ideas then, have some sort of diocese. He was not a monk, so they could not send him back to his monastery. The wretched man who had already given so much trouble now gave more by causing the great quarrel between the Patriarch and Ag'apios Ri'āshī, Metropolitan of Beirut. In order to provide Totūnǵī with a see, Maximos said he would cut off Ǵebail from the diocese of Beirut, and make him bishop of that new see. Ri'āshī was furious, and appealed to Rome. Maximos at his synod then told the Metropolitans to suspend Ri'āshī from the use of pontificalia. They said they could not do so till the bishop's case had been heard. Ri'āshī succeeded this time, and Totūnǵī was not made bishop of Ǵebail; but the quarrel between Ri'āshī and the Patriarch continued, and caused the chief trouble of the end of Maximos's reign. The Salvatorian monks also were opposed to the synod, and sent protests to Rome. It made forty canons. There are many things in its acts which would offend Propaganda. First Maximos declares that he holds this synod in the fullness of his Patriarchal power, again ignoring the need of Roman approval. When the acts were sent to Rome, the authorities there also blamed the magnificence with which the Patriarch loved to surround himself, the pomp of his titles repeated over and over again, the exaggerated claim to authority over his
