BOOK Ft1 Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century , third edition, p. 405.

Ft2 Of these, Sections 51, 71, and 81 come into the present volume.

Ft3 These are comprised in the present volume as far as Section inclusive.

Ft4 Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 297.

Ft5 Upon the theological views of Eusebius of Nicomedia, cf. Jahn (Repet in Gottingen), Marcellus von Ancyra , 1867, p. 37 sq.

Ft6 Socrates, Hist . Eccl . 1. 14.

Ft7 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 20, and Gelasius, Vol . Actorum Concil . Nic . lib. 3. c. 2, in Mansi, Coll . Concil . t. 2, p. 939; and Harduin, Coll . Conc . t. 1, p. 459.

Ft8 Philostorg. Supplem . ex . Niceta , p. 540, ed. Vales. Morgunt.

Ft9 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 20.

Ft10 Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 2. 21.

Ft11 Philostorg. 1. 10, p. 469, ed. Vales.

Ft12 Gelas. 3. 3.

Ft13 Renaudot, Hist . Patriarch , (Alex .), 1713, p. 83. Wetzer, Restitutio Veroe Chronologioe Rerum ex Controversiis Arianis … Exortarum , Francof. 1827, p. 2.

Ft14 This document, lately discovered in Egypt, is the introduction in Syriac to the Paschal Letters of S. Athanasius, also discovered in Syriac.

These were first edited by the Anglican scholar, Cureton, in London, under the title, “The Festal Letters of Athanasius , discovered in an Ancient Syriac Version , edited by William Cureton, M.A., F.R.S., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen, Assistant-keeper of Manuscripts in the British Museum.” A German translation of this newly discovered and important document was edited by Larsow, Professor at the Grey Friars Convent at Berlin, in 1852. An account of it is given by me in the Tubingen Theologischen Quartalschrift , 1853, No. 1.

Ft15 Rufin. Hist . Eccl . 1. (10) 14.

Ft16 Epiph. Hoeres . 68. 6.

Ft17 Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 2. 17.

Ft18 This testimony of the Synod, contained in an Encyclical Letter, Athanasius brings forward in his Apologia contra Arianos , c. 6, p. 101, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.

Ft19 Sozom. 3. 19.

Ft20 Memoires pour servir a l ’Hist . Eccles . t. 6. p. 357, ed. Brux. note 8, Sur le Concile de Nicee .

Ft21 Philostorg. 2. 7; Socrat. 1. 14.

Ft22 Rufinus also, 1. (10) 11, fixes the recall of Arius later, and with Sozomen (2. 27, fin.) connects it with the Synod of Jerusalem in 325, mention of which will be made below. Cf. Tillemont, t. 6. note 9, Sur les Ariens .

Ft23 Socrat. 1. 23.

Ft24 That he was related to Julian the Apostate, the cousin of Constantine, has been stated by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 22nd book of his history. Cf. Tillemont, t. 6. pp. 108, 321, note 3, Sur les Ariens .

Ft25 Socrat. 1. 23.

Ft26 In this light entirely was it represented to the Emperor, e .g . by Constantia’s Arian court chaplain, an ally of Eusebius. Socrat. 1. 25.

Ft27 Socrat. 1. 23.

Ft28 Athanas. Apolog . c. 6; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 19, 20.

Ft29 Athanas. Apolog . c. 6.

Ft30 Eusebius was held to be orthodox by Socrates, Theodoret, Gelasius of Cyzicus, Bull, Cave (in the Appendix to the Hist . Lit .), and Valesius (in the biography of Eusebius, which he prefixed to the History of the Church by the latter). He was declared, on the contrary, to be an Arian by Petavius, Baronius, Montfaucon, Clericus, the Ballerini, and others.

Even Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome had not a good opinion of him. The true view is given by Mohler, Athanas . 2. 36-47; Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ , second edition, p. 792 sqq.; Haenell, De Eusebio Coes . religionis Christi Defensore , 1843; Ritter, Eusebii Coes . de Divinitate Christi Placita , Bonnae 1823-4.

Ft31 Mohler, l.c. . pp. 37, 40 sq.

Ft32 Socrat. 1. 23; Sozom. 2. 18; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 21.

Ft33 Theodoret, 1. 21.

Ft34 Wetzer, Restitutio Veroe Chronologioe , etc . pp. 6, 7; Tillemont, t. 7, pp. 11,298, note, Sur St . Eustathe .

Ft35 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 22.

Ft36 Athanas. Historia Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 4, p. 274, T. 1. P. i. ed.

Patav.

Ft37 Vita S . Athanasii , p. 19, in the first volume of the edit. Patav. Opp . S . Athanasii .

Ft38 Theodoret, Soc., Sozom.; Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 4.

Ft39 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 22; Socrat. 1. 24.

Ft40 Cf. my article on the Meletian schism in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7, p. 42 sqq.

Ft41 Hilary, Fragm . 2, p. 1287, No. 6; Fragm . 3, p. 1314, No. 11, ed.

Bened.

Ft42 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 29; Socrat. 2. 5; Sozom. 3. 8; Tillemont, t. 7, p. 117, ed. Brux., and note 11, Sur les Ariens .

Ft43 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 5, and the Vita S . Athanasii , in the first volume of the Benedictine edition, p. 20.

Ft44 See vol. 1, p. 414.

Ft45 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 59; Sozom. 2. 21.

Ft46 Cf. p. 5 sq. Montfaucon in the Vita Athanasii , already so frequently quoted, pp. 18, 21, is of opinion that Arius had been allowed to return from exile in 328, but that not until 331 had he been permitted to go to Alexandria. He tries thus to reconcile the statement in the letter of Eusebius and Theognis (Socrat. 1. 14) with the relation concerning Constantia’s chaplain (Socrat. 1. 25), and the statement of Athanasius (Apolog . c . Arian . c. 59).

Ft47 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 59; Socrat. 1. 23; Sozom. 2. 18. The succession of events to be related here has been better given by S.

Athanasius than by Socrates and Sozomen; we shall therefore follow the former.

Ft48 Sozom. 2. 18.

Ft49 Socrat. 1. 25.

Ft50 All this has been most circumstantially related by Socrates (1. 25, 26), in part also by Sozom. 2. 27, also by Rufinus, Hist . Eccl . 1, but more briefly and at an earlier date. Valesius, in his notes on Socrat. 1. 25, doubts the truth of the whole account; but Tillemont (t. 6, note 10, Sur les Ariens ) and Walch, Ketzerhist . 2. 489, are probably right in contradicting him.

Ft51 Apologia contra Arianos , c. 59, t. 1. P. 1. p. 141, ed. Patav.; Soz. 2. 22. Ft52 Athanas. Apolog . c. 60; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 2. 22.

Ft53 Rufin. 1. 11; Sozom. 2. 27.

Ft54 Apologia contra Arian . c. 60.

Ft55 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 60.

Ft56 Larsow, Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, p. 70.

Ft57 Larsow, l.c. . pp. 77, 80. In the old preface to these Festal Letters (Larsow, p. 27, No. 3) there is a false statement; and what is said of the Festal Letter of 331 (namely, that it was written on his return from the court) belongs to the Festal Letter of the year 332, as is shown by S.

Athanasius’ own words (ibid . pp. 77 and 80).

Ft58 Athanas. Apologia contra Arianos , c. 60, 61; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 2. 22; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 26, 27 (inexact).

Ft59 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 63; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 7. 23.

Ft60 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 60.

Ft61 This writing of Ischyras is to be found in Athanas. 1. c. 64. That Ischyras had thus early written this letter, and certainly before the new accusation against Athanasius, presently to be related, is clear from Athanas. l.c. . c. 65.

Ft62 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 65-67; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 2. 28.

Ft63 This Synod must be placed in the year 334, as clearly appears from the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius (p. 28.

No. 7), and from Sozomen (2. 25). In the latter passage the Synod of Tyre in 335 declares that that of Caesarea had taken place a year before. That of Sardica says the same in the Epistola Synodica , published by the Eusebian party (Hilar. Oper . Fragm . 3, p. 1311, ed.

Benedict. 1693). If, however, Sozomen in the commencement of the chapter already cited, says that from the summons of Athanasius to Caesarea to his arrival in Tyre thirty months had elapsed, this is not contradictory to the foregoing statement: for (a) the Synod of Caesarea would certainly have been notified to Athanasius considerably earlier than the time of its commencement; (b) neither did he come at once to Tyre, but some time only after the opening of the Council; and lastly (c), the thirty months of Sozomen may he partly numerus rotundus , and not quite an accurate measure of time.

Ft64 Sozom. 2. 25, and preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, p. 28.

Ft65 Athanas Apolog . c . Arian . c. 65.

Ft66 This letter is found in Athanas. l.c. . c. 68.

Ft67 Athanas. l.c. . 67.

Ft68 For the Emperor’s letter to John Archaph, see Athanas. l.c. . c. 70.

Ft69 The preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, published by Larsow, p. 28, fixes the Synod of Tyre in the year 336, not, as is generally supposed, in 335.

Ft70 Euseb. Vita Constantine , lib. 4. c. 40-42. Printed in the Collections of Councils by Mansi, t. 2, p. 1139 sqq., and Hard. t. 1, p. 539, where also the other documents referring to the Council of Tyre, which we shall quote singly from their sources, especially from the Apologia Athanasii , are conveniently collected.

Ft71 Socrat. 1. 28.

Ft72 Cf. Athanas. Apolog. c . Arian . c. 73, 74, 77.

Ft73 Athanas. l.c. . c. 80; Sozom. 2. 33; Rufin. 1. (10) 16.

Ft74 Athanas. l.c. . c. 71.

Ft75 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72. According to the preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius (published by Larsow, 1852, p. 28), Athanasius set out on the 17th Epihi (July 11, 336) to travel from Alexandria to Tyre. There is here a mistake of a year. Compare Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1853, No. 1, p. 163 sq.

Ft76 Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft77 Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft78 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 54.

Ft79 Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft80 Baron. Annal . ad. ann. 334, n. 4.

Ft81 Their names are in Athanas. Apolog . contra Arianos , c. 78. Later they made this a ground of complaint against him. See below.

Ft82 Athanas. l.c. . c. 71.

Ft83 Athanas. l.c. . c. 74.

Ft84 Athanas. c. 85.

Ft85 Compare the conclusion of the Egyptian bishops’ letter in Athanas. l.c. . c. 78. Eusebius also plainly shows ( Vita Const . 4. 41) his own injustice towards the orthodox of Egypt.

Ft86 Epiph. Hoer. 68. 7.

Ft87 Sozomen (2. 28) calls him Ischyrion.

Ft88 Sozomen (2. 25) speaks of a bishop’s seat instead of an altar; but, in the first place, Ischyras had only assumed the part of priest, and therefore had no bishop’s seat in his sacrarium; besides which, Athanasius, in his Apologia , which is here the best authority, always speaks of an altar-table (pra>peza ), for instance, c. 74.

Ft89 Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft90 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72.

Ft91 Socrat. 1. 29.

Ft92 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian c. 69. That Arsenius was now first discovered, and that he only now wrote to Athanasius, appears from Socrates 1. 29, Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . c. 1. 30, and from Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 72; while in c. 69 Arsenius’ letter to Athanasius is only given by anticipation. Accordingly, the Benedictines (Vita S . Athan . p. 24. ed.

Patav.) have ascribed the discovery and repentance of Arsenius to a too early date, in the year 333; and it is far more likely that the discovery of the lost one was only made shortly before the Synod, so that the opponents of Athanasius knew nothing of it. In Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 27, Pope Julius says that afterwards Arsenius was amongst the friends of Athanasius.

Ft93 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 30; Socrat. 1. 29 sq.; Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft94 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 30.

Ft95 Sozom. 2. 26.

Ft96 Rufin. 1. 27.

Ft97 Theodoret, 1. 30.

Ft98 Rufin. l.c. .; Theodoret, l.c. .

Ft99 Philostorg. 2. 11.

Ft100 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72.

Ft101 Cf. the letter of Bishop Alexander of Thessalonica in Athanas. l.c. . c. 80, and the letter of the Egyptian bishops, ib . c. 77.

Ft102 See above, p. 17.

Ft103 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72, 83.

Ft104 Athanas. l.c. . c. 73-75.

Ft105 Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 250.

Ft106 The two letters of the clergy of Mareotis, Athanas. 50.c . c. 74, 75.

Ft107 Athanas. l.c. . c. 77.

Ft108 Athanas. l.c. . c. 78.

Ft109 Athanas. l.c. . c. 79.

Ft110 Athanas. l.c. . c. 80.

Ft111 Letter of Dionysius, Athanas. l.c. . c. 81.

Ft112 Apologia c . Arian . c. 82.

Ft113 For good reasons the Eusebians did not at all desire their protocols to come before the public, and especially before the eyes of Athanasius, and were very angry when Pope Julius later on imparted to him these acts. Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 83.

Ft114 Sozom. 2. 25; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c 85. According to Socrates (1. 32), the Synod of Tyre had twice pronounced sentence upon Athanasius; namely, the anathema, immediately after his flight, and the deposition pronounced after the return of the synodal deputation.

Ft115 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 43 sqq.; Socrat. 1. 33; Sozom. 2. 26; Theodoret, 1. 31.

Ft116 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 84; de Synodis Arimin . et Seleuc . c. 21, 22 (t. 1. P. 2. p. 586, ed. Patav.); Rufin. 1. (10) 11; Sozom. 2. 27.

Ft117 Socrat. 1. 36.

Ft118 According to the preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius (p. 28), he arrived at Constantinople on the 2d of Athyr (October 29) 336, which is another mistake of a year. Cf. above, p. 15, note 2.

Ft119 Natalis Alexander, in a special dissertation (21 to Section. 4 of his Hist . Eccl .), endeavored to show that Athanasius had rightfully appealed to the Emperor, and that generally, in like cases of unjust sentences pronounced by church authorities (thus in legal, not in purely ecclesiastical matters), an appeal to the Emperor could be made (ab abusu ). Against this the Roman censors raised objections; and Roncaglia wrote a special treatise against the recursus ab abusu , which in the later edition of Natalis Alexander was appended to the above dissertation. Roncaglia represents the matter as if with Athanasius there was no question of appeal from the sentence of a competent judge, and thus no appeal at all, but only a petition for imperial protection against a party which, through misuse of the imperial favor, had treated him with injustice. Neither was it an appeal, because Athanasius had not even waited for the sentence of the Synod, but had beforehand addressed himself to the Emperor. We add that, in any case, Athanasius did not address himself to the Emperor in order that the latter (namely, the secular judge) should decide, but that the affair might be examined by a fresh Synod, namely, of ecclesiastical judges. It must not either be overlooked, that at Jerusalem not only had the law of the Church with respect to Athanasius been violated, but also the natural law, according to which no man may be judged by his enemies.

Ft120 Athanas. l.c. . c. 66; Sozom. 2. 28. That Constantine was, nevertheless, not displeased with the Synod of Tyre, is seen from the praise which he soon after bestowed upon it, when the Alexandrians desired the return of Athanasius. Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft121 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 87.

Ft122 Cf. the conclusion of Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft123 Socrat. 1. 35; Sozom. 2. 28.

Ft124 Socrat. 1. 35; Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 87; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 31.

Ft125 Larsow, p. 28.

Ft126 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 9.

Ft127 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 87.

Ft128 Athanas. Historia Arian . ad Monachos , c. 50.

Ft129 Athanas. Historia Arian . l.c. ., and Apologia c . Arian . c. 29, 87.

Ft130 Concerning Asterius, and the treatise of Marcellus against him, cf.

Jahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , pp. 38-46 and p. 49 sqq.

Ft131 Socrat. 1. 36; Sozom. 2. 33; Tillemont, l.c. . t . 7. tit. Marcel . d ’Ancyre .

Ft132 Epiph. Hoeres . 72, h.

Ft133 Hilarii Fragm . 2. n. 21, p. 1299, ed. Bened.

Ft134 Petav. Dogm . Theol . t. 2. lib. 1. c. 13.

Ft135 Baron. Annal . ad ann. 347, n. 55, 61.

Ft136 Natalis Alexander, Section. 4. Diss . 30.

Ft137 Collectio nova Patrum , t. 2. p. 51, printed in Vogt. Bibl . Hist . Hoeresiol . t. 1. p. 293.

Ft138 Athanas. 2. 22 sqq.

Ft139 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ , second edition, p. 864 sqq.

Ft140 Hippolytus, etc., p. 217.

Ft141 Adv . Marcell . lib. 2., and De Eccles . Theologia , lib. 3.

Ft142 Somewhat older and less detailed are the Monographies on Marcellus of Ancyra , by Klose (Hamburg 1837, and Wittenberg 1859).

Ft143 Zahn, ut supr . p. 318.

Ft144 See a comparison between Marcellus and Sabellius in Zahn, l.c. . p. 215.

Ft145 Socrat. 1. 36; Sozom. 2. 32.

Ft146 Socrat. 1. 37; Sozom. 2. 29.

Ft147 Socrat. 1. 37.

Ft148 Athanas. Opp . t. 1. p. 269 sqq. ed. Patav. Athanasius was indeed in Treves when these things took place, and Arius died; but his priest Macarius was just then in Constantinople, and he relies on his statements. Athanasius gives a shorter account of the death of Arius in his Ep . ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyoe , c. 19.

Ft149 Athanas. de Morte Arii , c . 2 .

Ft150 So says Athanasius in his Epist . ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyoe, c. 19, t. 1. P. 1. p. 229, ed. Patav. So also Sozom. 2. 29. According to Rufinus, 1. (10) 12 and 13, on the contrary, Arius died on Sunday morning.

Ft151 Athanas. de Morte Arii , c. 2, 3; Socrat. 1. 37, 38; Sozom. 2. 29, 30; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 14; Rufin. 1. (10) 13; cf. Tillemont, t. 6. p. 126, ed. Brux.; Walch, Ketzerhist . 2. 500 sqq.

Ft152 Athanas. l.c. . c. 4.

Ft153 Athanas. Ep . ad Episc . Aegypti , etc., c. 19; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 51.

Ft154 Socrat. 1. 38.

Ft155 Yet, even by all this the Emperor’s eyes were not fully opened, and he neither recognized the innocence of Athanasius nor the real plans of the Eusebians, whose orthodoxy and zeal for the peace of the Church he no longer doubted (Tillemont, t. 6. p. 127, ed. Brux.).

Ft156 Athanas. de Morte Arii , c. 4; Sozom. 2. 29.

Ft157 Sozom. 2. 30; Socrat. 1. 38. [See on this whole subject Newman’s essay on the death of Arius, in Essays on Scripture and Ecclesiastical Miracles , Pickering 1870.] Ft158 Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft159 Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft160 Sozom. 2. 32.

Ft161 Socrat. 2. 6, 7; Sozom. 3. 3, 4.

Ft162 Valesius remarks on this passage that only the Bishop of Heraclea, and in no wise the Bishop of Nicomedia, had had metropolitan rights over Constantinople so long as it was not raised into a patriarchate.

Ft163 Historia Arianor . ad Monachos , c. 7.

Ft164 Compare our remark upon the thirty-ninth canon of Elvira, vol. 1, p. 152 sq.

Ft165 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 62.

Ft166 Walch, Ketzerhist . 2. 513.

Ft167 Tillemont, Hist . des Empereurs , t. 4. p. 267, ed. Venise 1732. The great difference made by Athanasius between Constantine the Great and his son Constantius appears from his Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 50.

Ft168 Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft169 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 32.

Ft170 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian c. 87.

Ft171 See Tillemont, Hist . des Empereurs , l.c. . p. 268; Socrat. 1. 39; Sozom. 2. 34; Rufin. 1. (10) 11.

Ft172 Sozom. 2. 34; Socrat. 1. 39.

Ft173 According to the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S.

Athanasius (p. 29), Constantine died on the 27th Pachon (May 22) 338.

Compare above, p. 17, note 7.

Ft174 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 64, 66.

Ft175 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 312 sq.

Ft176 Philostorg. Hist . Eccl . epitome 2. 16.

Ft177 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 337.

Ft178 Tillemont, l.c. . pp. 317, 667.

Ft179 Athanas. Historia Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 8.

Ft180 Philostorg. 2. 18.

Ft181 Epiph. Hoer . 68-9.

Ft182 Theodoret, 2. 1.

Ft183 Pagi fixes it only in the year 336. Critica in Annales Baron . ad. ann. 336, n. 4.

Ft184 Compare Larsow, Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, p. 28; No. 8, p. 29; No. 10, pp. 104, 105, 106, 108, 112, 114 sqq.

Ft185 Found in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 87; Theodoret, 2. 2; Socrat. 2. 3; Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft186 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 312.

Ft187 Especially by Valesius in his Observat . in Socratem et Sozom . lib. 1. c. 1, in the appendix to his edition of the Hist . Eccl . of Socrates and Sozomen.

Ft188 Theodoret, 2. 1.

Ft189 Pagi, ad ann. 338. 3.

Ft190 Vita Athanasii , p. 35 in the first volume of the Opp . S . Athanas . ed.

Patav.

Ft191 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 17.

Ft192 Euseb. Hist . Eccl . 9. 10.

Ft193 Memoires pour servir a l ’Hist . Eccl . t. 8. p. 30, in the title concerning S. Athanasius, art. 31.

Ft194 Athanasius says this himself in his Apolog . ad Constantium , c. 5.

Ft195 Cf. Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . t. 4. p. 667; Pagi, ad ann. 338, n. 3.

Ft196 Athanas. Hist . Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 7.

Ft197 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 318.

Ft198 Apolog . ad Constantium , c. 5.

Ft199 Athanas. Apolog , ad Constantium , c. 5.

Ft200 Socrat. 2. 2; Sozom. 3. 1.

Ft201 Gregor. Nazianz. Orat . 12, p. 390.

Ft202 Cf. the testimony of the Egyptian Synod concerning this, Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 7.

Ft203 Rufin. 1. (10) 11; Socrates, 1. 39, 2. 2; Sozom. 3. l; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 3.

Ft204 Cf. above, page 11. Philostorgius (2. 1), however, differs from the above authorities, when he says that the Emperor entrusted his will to Eusebius of Nicomedia; and Valesius agrees with him (in his Notes to Socrat. 1. 39), as he is of opinion that Constantine would rather have entrusted his will to a bishop, or to some other great person, than to a simple priest. But still, in the first place, a court chaplain was a very important person; and, secondly, Constantine wished to have the will kept secret until Constantius’ arrival, and a court chaplain was certainly better fitted for such a commission than a personage of high rank.

Ft205 Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 2. p. 1275.

Ft206 Baron. ad ann. 337. 9.

Ft207 Rufin. 1. (10) 11.

Ft208 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 2.

Ft209 Theodoret, 2. 2; Socrat. 2. 2; Sozom. 3. 1.

Ft210 Tillemont, Memoires , t. 3. p. 324.

Ft211 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 7; Socrat. 2. 7; Sozom. 3. 4. Liber Synod in Mansi, l.c. . p. 1275.

Ft212 Cf. Mohler, Athanas . 2. 50.

Ft213 Socrat. 2. 4; Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft214 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 9.

Ft215 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 3-19; Mansi, l.c. . t. 2. p. 1279 sqq.

Ft216 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 19, 24; Encycl . ad Episc . Epist . c. 6.

Ft217 So say the Egyptian bishops in their letter (at the end of 339 or the beginning of 340) quoted in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 19, from which it appears that Pistus was only appointed for the Arian community in Alexandria, and that Remi Ceillier (Histoire generale des auteurs sacres , t. 5. p. 161) and Mohler (Athanas . 2. 52) were not right in assuming that the Eusebians had already deposed S. Athanasius and raised Pistus to his place. The two latter scholars maintain that the promotion of Pistus took place at an Eusebian Synod at Antioch; but Tillemont had before remarked that this was not mentioned in the original documents of this Synod. Tillemont, Memoires , t. 6. p. 129, ed. Brux. Epiphanius (Hoer . 69. 8) also says that Pistus was appointed by the Arians bishop of Alexandria.

Ft218 We find these three chief points in the apology for Athanasius, drawn up by the Egyptian Synod, as cited in Mansi, l.c. . p. 1279 sqq; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 3 sqq.

Ft219 Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft220 Mansi, l.c. . pp. 1279, 1302. Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 3, 17, 18; Hist . Arian . ad Mon . c. 9. In the latter place Athanasius gives an imaginary address of the Eusebians to the Emperor, in which they represent to him how very necessary his help was to them.

Ft221 Julius, cited in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 24.

Ft222 Cf. the letter of Pope Julius in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 22, 23; 23, 27; ibid . c. 83.

Ft223 See above, p. 23 sqq.

Ft224 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 83.

Ft225 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 9; Apolog . c . Arian . c. 22, 24.

Ft226 Athanas Apol . c . Arian . c. 1.

Ft227 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 5, 7, 18; Mansi, l.c. . 1279 sqq.

Ft228 Historia Arian . ad Monachos , c. 9.

Ft229 Letter of Pope Julius in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 22, 24; ibid . c. 20; and Historia Arian . ad Monach . c. 9.

Ft230 Cf. the letter of Pope Julius in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 29.

Ft231 Athanas. Encyclica Epist . ad Episc . c. 2, p. 89, ed. Patav., and Historia Arian . c. 9, p. 276.

Ft232 Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 75, p. 307.

Ft233 Athanas. Epist . Encycl . ad Episcopos , n. 3, pp. 89, 90.

Ft234 Preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, published by Larsow, p. 30, No. 11.

Ft235 Athanas. Epist . Encycl . ad Episcopos , c. 5, p. 91.

Ft236 Epist . Encycl . c. 5; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 11, p. 277.

Ft237 Epist . Encycl . ad Episc . n. 4, p. 91; Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 10, p. 276.

Ft238 Larsow gives a plan of the town of Alexandria, with its churches, in the third plate of his German edition of the Festal Letters of S.

Athanasius.

Ft239 Epist . Encycl . ad Episcop . c. 4 et 5, p. 91.

Ft240 Historia Arian . ad Monachos , c. 11, p. 277.

Ft241 Apologia contra Arianos , c. 29, 30.

Ft242 Socrat. 2. 9-11; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft243 In the treatise “Controversies concerning the Synod of Sardica,” in the Tubinger Theolog . Quartalschrift , 1852, vol. 3. p. 368 sq.

Ft244 Larsow, l.c. . p. 129.

Ft245 Larsow, l.c. . pp. 115, 124.

Ft246 Cf. Tubinger Quartalschrift , 1853, vol. 1, p. 150.

Ft247 Ibid . p. 163 sqq.; cf. above, p. 14, note 1; p. 17, note 7; p. 38, note 3.

Ft248 Printed in the third volume of the Osservazioni Letterarie of the year 1738, and in the Patavian edition of the works of S. Athanasius, t. 3. p. 89 sqq.; cf. Tub . Quartalschrift , 1852, book 3. p. 361, and 1853, book 1, p. 150.

Ft249 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 29, 30, t. 1. P. 1. p. 117, ed. Patav.

Ft250 Hist . Arian . ad Morachos , c. 14, c. 74, 75, pp. 278, 307; Epistola Encycl . ad Episcopos , c. 2, p. 89.

Ft251 Socrat. 2. 9-11; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft252 Athanas. Epist . Encycl . c. 5.

Ft253 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 33.

Ft254 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 13, 14; Vita S . Antonii , c. 86.

Ft255 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 25, p. 114.

Ft256 Julii, Epist . in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 22, 25.

Ft257 Ibid . c. 25; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 11, p. 277.

Ft258 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 25.

Ft259 Ibid . c. 26.

Ft260 Ibid . c. 34.

Ft261 Athanas. Apolog . c : Arian . c. 21, p. 111, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Bened. Patav.

Ft262 Ibid . c. 29.

Ft263 This is generally said to have been in 342; but as we must alter the date of Athanasius’ arrival in Rome to the year 340 (see above, page 50), we must decide in this case for 34l.

Ft264 Ibid. c. 20.

Ft265 Ibid . c. 33.

Ft266 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 20, 27.

Ft267 Ibid . c. 21-35.

Ft268 Cf. above, p. 48.

Ft269 Cf. p. 59, note 2.

Ft270 Hilarius, de Synodis , c. 28, p. 1168, ed. Bened.; Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 3. 5; Socrat. Hist . Eccl . 2. 8; Athanas. de Synodis , c. 25, t. 1. P. 2. ed.

Patav. p. 589. According to the two latter, only ninety bishops were present.

Ft271 Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft272 Constantine the Great died on May 22, 337.

Ft273 See above, p. 52.

Ft274 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian , c. 22, 23, 25.

Ft275 Athanas. de Synodis , c. 22, 25, 26, p. 587 sqq.

Ft276 The idea, that in the whole thirty-six bishops were present at this Synod, arose from a false reading of the words of Pope Julius cited by Athanasius, Apol . c . Arian . c. 29. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 6, p. 328, note 27, sur les Ariens .

Ft277 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. . p. 328, note 26, sur les Ariens .

Ft278 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. .

Ft279 Socrat. 2. 8; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft280 Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft281 This much controverted statement may have originated in the words of Pope Julius I. cited above (p. 56), that the matter ought, in the first instance, to have been referred to Rome (Athan. Apolog . c . Arian . 35), and a decision obtained from thence. Mohler (Athan . 2. 66) has missed the point of e]nqen when he translates it “then” instead of “thence.”

Ft282 Harduin, Coll . Concil t. 2, p. 434.

Ft283 Ibid . p. 1156.

Ft284 Harduin, l.c. . t. 3, p. 1890.

Ft285 Harduin, l.c. . t. 4, p. 78.

Ft286 Hilar. de Synodis , seu de Fide Orientalium , c. 32, p. 1170, ed. Bened.

Ft287 Ad ann. 341. 34.

Ft288 In his remarks on our Synod in Mansi, l.c. . p. 1347.

Ft289 See above, p. 59.

Ft290 Cf. Harduin’s notes on the acts of this Synod in his Collect . Concil . t . 1. p. 590, and in Mansi, l.c. . t. 2. p. 1306.

Ft291 Cf. Pallad. Vita Chrysostom , c. 8, p. 78, 79; Socrat. 7. 18; Sozom. 8. 20; Innocent I. Epist . 7, ad Clerum et Popul . Const. p. 799, ed.

Constant. Of course the sentence or canon to which the adversaries of Chrysostom referred must be distinguished from the fourth and twelfth true Antiochian canons.

Ft292 Critica in Annales Baronii , ad ann. 341. 7 sqq.

Ft293 Histoire gener . des auteurs , etc., t. 5. p. 660, 7.

Ft294 Historie der Kirchenversammlungen , p. 170.

Ft295 Kirchengesch ., Part 6, p. 60.

Ft296 Socrat. 2. 8.

Ft297 Memoires pour servir , etc., l.c. . p. 329, note 28, sur les Ariens .

Ft298 Socrat. 2. 8.

Ft299 Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft300 That which is cited by Remi Ceillier (l.c. . p. 659) in order to show that the canon rejected by Chrysostom and his friends is not identical with the fourth and twelfth Antiochian canon, is altogether untenable.

Compare Tillemont, l.c. . p. 329, note 28, sur les Ariens , and Fuchs’ Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen , Part 2, p. 59.

Ft301 Socrat. 2. 10; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft302 Critica in Annales Baron . ad. ann. 341. 12.

Ft303 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. . p. 329, note 28, sur les Ariens .

Ft304 Athanas. Apolog c . Arian . c. 30.

Ft305 Tillemont, l.c. . p. 329, note 27, sur les Ariens .

Ft306 In the appendix to their edition of the work of Leo the Great, t. 3, p. 25.

Ft307 Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. Diss. 26, p. 453, t. 4. ed. Venet. 1778. Ft308 See below, Section. 70.

Ft309 Tillemont, t. 7, p. 328, note 26, sur les Ariens , and t. 7, p. 11 in the treatise concerning S. Eustathius.

Ft310 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 30-34.

Ft311 See above, pp. 62, 64.

Ft312 Socrat. 1. 24.

Ft313 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian , cc. 21, 25, 26, 30, 35.

Ft314 Printed in Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 2. 1307 sqq.; Harduin, Coll . Concil . t. 1. pp. 590 sqq.; Bevereg. Synodicon sive Pandectoe Canonum , t. 1. pp. 430 sqq.; lately in Bruns, Canones Apostolorum , etc., P. 1. pp. 80 sqq. (also under the name of Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica ). Commentaries on these canons were published by Bevereg. l .c . t. 2. Annotat . pp. 188 sqq.; Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 6, pp. 135 sqq. ed. Brux. 1732; Van Espen, Commentarius in Canones , etc.; Opus Posth . p. 139 sqq. ed. Colon. 1755; Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1824, pp. 42 sqq. (by Dr. Herbst).

Ft315 Kanw= ordo clericorum , cf. Suicer, Thesaurus , s. h. v. and the sixteenth canon of the Synod of Nicaea; cf. vol. 1, p. 422.

Ft316 Cf. the eighth Apostolical canon, and Kober, Kirchenbann , pp. 57 sqq.

Ft317 Cf. Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 382. Almost the same rules are found in the Apostolical canons, Nos. 9-12 incl.

Ft318 This agrees with the Apostolical canons Nos. 3-16, and the sixteenth Nicene canon. Cf. Kober, Deposition , p. 44.

Ft319 This canon, which was employed for the confirmation of the deposition of Athanasius, and later for the overthrow of S.

Chrysostom, is really only a repetition of the twenty-ninth Apostolical canon, and the Fourth General Council (in whose collection this canon was the eighty-third) had no hesitation in appealing to it, and having it read out word for word. Cf. Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. ii. p. 434.

Ft320 This canon is in all essentials identical with the thirty-first and thirtysecond Apostolical canons, and was also cited by the Fourth General Council. Cf. Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 440.

Ft321 The same is found in the thirty-third Apostolical, and in the fifth Nicene canon. Cf. Kober, ut supr . p. 221.

Ft322 Cf. the thirty-fourth Apostolical canon.

Ft323 Concerning the kanonikai< ejpistolai< cf. Suicer, Thesaur . under the word kanoniko>v Ft324 Cf. Dr. Friedrich Maassen, Primat . des Bischof von Rom und die alten Patriarchalkirchen , Bonn 1853, p. 3. In ancient times the ecclesiastical and civil provinces had generally the same boundaries.

Ft325 Cf. Canon Apostol . No. 35.

Ft326 Kellner, Das Buss . und Strafverfahren , p. 61.

Ft327 Cf. Kober, Depos . p. 388. The like is decreed by the twenty-ninth Apostolic canon. This rule, however, like Canon 4, would seem to have been purposely drawn up, or at least renewed and emphasized, by the Synod at Antioch with a view to Athanasius.

Ft328 Cf. Canon Apost . 36.

Ft329 Cf. Kober, Depos . p. 387. The right of appealing to a superior court, namely to Rome (cf. Synod of Sardica, c. 3-5), is here not generally forbidden, but only in cases where the sentence of the first court has been unanimous. Cf. Ballerin. Ed . Opp . S . Leonis M., t. 2, p. 943.

Ft330 The General Council of Chalcedon in its eleventh sitting referred to our canon, which in its collection was the ninety-fifth. But a part of the sixth Nicene canon had already decreed the same.

Ft331 The first part of the thirty-seventh Apostolic canon gives a like rule.

Our canon, however, with certain differences, was repeated at Chalcedon (Sess . 11) as the ninety-sixth of the general collection.

Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. 2, p. 551.

Ft332 Cf. the second part of the thirty-seventh Apostolic canon.

Ft333 Cf. Canons 4 and 6 of the Council of Nicaea.

Ft334 penthkosth< comprehends the whole time between Easter and Pentecost, so that the 4th week of Pentecost is the 4th week after Easter. Cf. Bevereg. Annot . ad Can . 37 Apostol .

Ft335 Cf. Canon Apost . 38, and Canon Nicoen . 5; Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 222.

Ft336 Canon Apost . 14, Nicoen . 15.

Ft337 Canon Apost . 36.

Ft338 Cf. Canon Apost . 76.

Ft339 Cf. Canon Apost . 40b.

Ft340 Cf. Canon Apost . 41.

Ft341 Cf. supr . pp. 58-64.

Ft342 Mansi, t. 6, p. 1159.

Ft343 Socrat. 2. 8; Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft344 Cf. his letter in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 23, 34, 35.

Ft345 For instance, the acts of the Mareotic investigation.

Ft346 Socrat. 2. 10; Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft347 Athanas. de Synodis , c. 22. This and the three following Antiochian Creeds are also printed in Mansi, Coll . Concil . t. 2, pp. 1339 sqq.; and Harduin, Coll . Concil . t. 1, pp. 606 sqq.

Ft348 Cf. Sozom. 3. 5. Concerning Lucian, the teacher of Arius, see above, vol. 1, pp. 238, 9. Also an Arianizing Synod of Caria, under Emperor Valens, repeated this creed; see Mansi, 3. 398, and Sozom. 6. 12.

Ft349 Hilary, de Synodis , c. 28.

Ft350 Cf. against this, Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , p. 73.

Ft351 Socrates and Hilary (de Synodis c. 30) did not read e[kaston ajf eJka>stou but only e[kasta Ft352 Hilary, l .c . c. 31. If the synod understood uJpo>stasiv to mean substance, as did many Arians, then this expression was certainly heretical. Cf. Mohler, Athanas . 2. 57, 58.

Ft353 Cf. Mohler, Athanas . 2. 57.

Ft354 Hilar. l .c . c. 32.

Ft355 That is, “as personal Being, is with God,” Mohler, Athanas . 2. 58; or, “is with God in His own Person,” Baur, Lehre der Dreieinigkeit , 1. 477.

Ft356 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 25.

Ft357 Socrat. 2. 18.

Ft358 uJpo>stasiv used in the sense of substance. Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 298, note 1.

Ft359 Pagi, l .c . ad ann. 341, n. 14 sqq. and 34; Ceillier, l .c . p. 661 and 647.

Ft360 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 22 sqq.

Ft361 See above, pp. 58, 66.

Ft362 Hilary, De Synodis , c. 32.

Ft363 Socrat. 2. 12, 13; Sozom. 3. 7.

Ft364 Socrat. 2. 16.

Ft365 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 25; Socrat. 2. 18; Sozom. 3. 10.

Ft366 See supr . p. 80.

Ft367 Hilarii, Opp . Fragm . 3. c. 27, p. 1322, ed. Bened.

Ft368 Athanas. Apol . ad Constant . c. 4.

Ft369 Sozom. 3. 11. According to Socrat. 2. 20, the tumults in Alexandria had made the return of Athanasius impossible.

Ft370 Ammian. lib. 15. Cf. the notes of Valesius with Socrat. 2. 8.

Ft371 Athanas. Apolog . ad Constant . c. 4; Remi Ceillier, l .c . t . 5, p. 280.

Ft372 Athanas. Apolog . ad Constant . c. 4, p. 236, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.; Hilar. Pictav . Fragm . 3, p. 1315, ed. Bened.

Ft373 Socrat. 2. 20; Sozom. 3. 11; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 4.

Ft374 Athanas. Apolog . ad Constant . c. 4, p. 236.

Ft375 Socrat. 2. 19, 20; Sozom. 3. 11.

Ft376 De Synodis , c. 26, p. 589, t. 1. P. 2. ed. Patav.

BOOK Ft377 Socrat. 2. 20; Sozom. 3. 12.

Ft378 Constantine the Great died on the 22d of May 337, as we said before at p. 38.

Ft379 Also printed in the Patavian edition of Opp . S . Athanasii , t. 3. p. sqq.

Ft380 This he did in his dissertation De Epochis Sardicensium et Sirmiensium Conciliorum , which has become famous; first printed in vol. 1 of his Supplem .

Fta1 Cf. the Migne edition of the works of S. Jerome, t. 8, p. 682.

Fta2 Mamachi, ad Joh. D. Mansium de ratione temporum Athanasianorum , etc., Epistoloe 4. Romae 1748.

Fta3 Wetzer, Restitutio Veroe Chronologioe Rerum ex Controversiis Arianis … Exortarum , Francof. 1827.

Fta4 Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , No. 3, pp. 360 sqq.

Fta5 Cf. my review of Larsow’s book in the Tubing . Quartalschrift , 1853, Heft 1, p. 146 sqq., and above, page 3, note 3.

Fta6 Larsow, the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, etc., p. 141.

Fta7 Larsow, l .c . p. 31, No. 15. This preface belonged originally to another collection of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, now extant, and was added to those newly discovered by a later copyist. See Gluck, in the Vienna Acad . Der Wissenschaft . Philos . Histor ., Klasse 1855, Bd. 17, S. 65.

Fta8 Both dates are combined in a peculiar manner in the heading of an ancient codex of the decisions of Sardica, in Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. 1, p. 635. Here it is said that the Synod had been held under the Consuls Leontius and Sallustius (in the year 344) in the 381st year of the (Spanish) Aera (343, according to Dionysius’ reckoning). Cf. concerning the Spanish Aera, my treatise “Aera” in vol. 1 of the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte Fta9 There is more on this subject in my review of Larsow’s book, Quartalschrift , 1853, p. 163 sqq. Cf. also above, p. 14, note 1; p. 38, note 3.

Fta10 See above, p. 50 sq.

Fta11 See above, p. 84.

Fta12 If we went upon the supposition that Athanasius had already fled from Alexandria to Rome about Easter 339, then of course we could still less place the Synod of Sardica later than 343, but rather in the beginning or middle of that year, and we might suppose the stay of S.

Athanasius in Milan and Gaul, perhaps also in Rome, to have been somewhat longer (perhaps one or two months longer).

Fta13 Athanas. Historia Arianor . ad Monachos , c. 20, p. 281, t. 1. P. 1. Ed.

Patav.

Fta14 Athanasius, De Synodis , c. 26, p. 589, t. 1. P. 2. ed. Patav. Cf. above, p. 65.

Fta15 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 21, p. 281 sq.

Fta16 Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1852, p. 376.

Fta17 See above, p. 85.

Fta18 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 47, p. 130, ed. Patav. See above, p. 9.

Fta19 In its Epist . Encycl . in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 44; also in Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 3, p. 58.

Fta20 Cf. above, p. 84. Supported by a statement of Socrates, 2. 20, Binius (in his Notes on the Council of Sardica in Mansi, l .c . p. 75), and after him others, have maintained that Pope Julius had assembled this Synod.

Socrates, l .c ., says: “Many who did not appear at Sardica had tried to excuse their absence on the plea of the short space of time, and to throw the blame on Pope Julius.” It cannot, however, be denied that Socrates here confuses the Synod of Sardica with that of Rome (see above, p. 53), and that he ascribes to the former what was said of the latter Synod in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 25. The question as to who assembled the Synod of Sardica is treated of particularly by Natal.

Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. Diss . 27, artic, 1, p. 454, ed. Venet.

Fta21 In the letter from the Synod to Pope Julius in Mansi, t. 3, p. 40; and Harduin, t. 1, p. 653.

Fta22 Sardica (Ulpia Sardica), formerly belonging to Thrace, afterwards the capital of Dacia Ripensis, was situated in the so-called Illyricum Orientale, and therefore belonged to the empire of Constantius, but still to the Roman patriarchate (see vol. 1, p. 400; and cf. Wiltsch, Kirchl . Statistik , Bd. 1. secs. 44, 80, 88). Attila destroyed this city; but it was rebuilt, and still exists under the name of Sophia (Triaditza) in Turkey in Europe, lying 59 miles west of Constantinople. It has now about 50,000 inhabitants, of whom 6000 are Christians, and is the seat of a Greek metropolitan and an Apostolic (Catholic) vicariate. But the Vicar-Apostolic of Sophia has lived for some time in the neighboring Philippopolis, which played so great a part in the history of the Synod of Sardica.

Fta23 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36, and Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Cf. the Introduction to the Epist . Concil . Sardic . ad omnes Episcopos in Mansi, 3. 58; Harduin, l .c . p. 662.

Fta24 In Mansi, 3, p. 132; Harduin, 1. 676; Hilar. Pictav . Fragm . 3. n. 16, p. 1315, ed. Bened.

Fta25 In their synodal letter itself (Mansi, t. 3, p. 133) the Eusebians say, that of the six bishops who had been sent as commissaries from Tyre to Mareotis (cf. above, p. 23), five had been present at Sardica (the sixth, Theognis of Nicaea, had died before. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 7, p. 141, ed. Brux., in the treatise concerning the Arians, art. 38).

Thus it is clear that Maris, Macedonius, Ursacius, Valens, and Theodore were present at Sardica; and as the names of the three first are not among the signatures, they must be added to the number seventy-three.

Fta26 Socrat. 2. 20; Sozom. 3. 12.

Fta27 Cf. vol. 1, p. 272.

Fta28 See above, p. 66.

Fta29 Mansi, 3. 138 sqq.

Fta30 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . p. 97, 132, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.; also in Mansi, 3, p. 66; Harduin, t. 1, p. 667 sqq.

Fta31 Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta32 Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen , Thl. 2. sqq.

Fta33 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 7.

Fta34 Hilar. Pictav . p. 1292 sq.; Mansi, 3. 42; Harduin, 1, p. 655.

Fta35 Cf. the Dissertation of the Ballerini in the third volume of their edition of the works of Leo I. p. 42 sqq.; also printed in Galland. De Vetustis Canonum Collect . t. 1, p. 290.

Fta36 c. 11, Dist . 16.

Fta37 Ballerini, l .c . p. 43; and in Galland. l .c . p. 291.

Fta38 Cf. concerning this, sect. 66 infr .

Fta39 Cf. Ballerini, l .c . p. 43; Galland. l .c . p. 291.

Fta40 Works of Leo I. t. 3.

Fta41 Viz. that Euphrates of Cologne and Gratus of Carthage had also been present at Sardica. The Synod sent the former, as we shall see later, as its ambassador to the Emperor Constantius; but that Gratus was present appears from the Greek text of the seventh Canon of Sardica, and from the fifth Canon of the Synod of Carthage in 348 (Mansi, 3, p. 147; Harduin, 1. 686).

Fta42 Also printed in Mansi, 3. 43 sqq.; and Ballerini, ll . cc .

Fta43 Apolog . c. 50.

Fta44 Ballerini, l .c . p. 43. n. 4, p. 292; and in Galland.

Fta45 See Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36; Mansi, 3. 51; Harduin, t. 1, p. 655.

Fta46 Cf. Wiener Akad . der Wissenschaft . Phil . Hist ., Klasse 1855, Bd. 17, S. 65.

Fta47 Theodoret, 2. 8.

Fta48 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 17.

Fta49 Ballerini, ed. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 42. n. 2. et p. 598 sq. note 2. Also in Mansi, 6, p. 1210, note sq.

Fta50 Mansi, 3. 66; Harduin, 1. 690; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 50.

Fta51 Hilar. Fragm . 2, p. 1290; Mansi, 3. 40; Harduin, 1. 653. The last sentence of the quotation is considered by Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers . Bd. 2. S. 128, as interpolated.

Fta52 Mansi, 3, p. 5 sqq.; Hard. 1. 637 sqq.

Fta53 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 49, 50; Mansi, 3, p. 42, 66; Hard. 1. 651, Fta54 Histor . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 16.

Fta55 Ibid . c. 15.

Fta56 Theodoret, 2. 15.

Fta57 Sozom. 2. 12.

Fta58 Mansi, 3, p. 131 sqq.

Fta59 Remi Ceillier, Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres , t. 4, p. 668, 669.

Fta60 Cf. supr . vol. 1, pp. 39, 281.

Fta61 This is also the view of Petrus de Marca (De Concordia Sacerdotii el Imperii , lib. 5. c. 4). Cf. Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 27, art. 2, p. 455, ed. Venet., where the question of the Presidency at Sardica is more particularly treated of.

Fta62 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 50. In the signature of the letter to Pope Julius, in Hilary, p. 1292, they do not, however, appear.

Fta63 Cf. the Ballerini Catalogue, mentioned above, p. 94.

Fta64 Socrat. 2. 20.

Fta65 Mansi, 3, p. 134; Hard. 1. 678.

Fta66 Sozom. lib. 3. c. 11.

Fta67 Mansi, t. 3, pp. 63, 131, 133.

Fta68 Mansi, t. 3. 131; Hilar. Fragm . 3. p. 1314.

Fta69 Walch, Historie der Kirchenvers . p. 176.

Fta70 See the Synodal Letter of the Orthodox in Hilar. p. 1291, 11; Mansi, t. 3. 40.

Fta71 In Mansi, p. 133; Hilar. Fragm . 3, p. 1316, n. 18.

Fta72 Mansi, t. 3. 63.

Fta73 Cf. the Synodal Letter of the Orthodox, in Athan. Apol . c . Arian . c. 48. Further, Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta74 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta75 Athanas. l .c . c. 18.

Fta76 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36, 45; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta77 In this case the Synod of Sardica would only have had to approve the former decisions, instead of making a new and impartial investigation of the whole affair.

Fta78 We have already shown that there were abundant materials at hand for a final decision; therefore the Synod rightly rejected a proposition which only aimed at putting aside the affair, and postponing the final decision ad Graecas Calendas .

Fta79 Mansi, 3, pp. 131-134; Hilar. Fragm . 3, p. 1315, n. 14 sqq.; Harduin, 1, p. 675 sqq.

Fta80 Athanas. Apol. c . Arian . c. 36.

Fta81 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 76; Apol . c . Arian . c. 45.

Fta82 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 44.

Fta83 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta84 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 16; Hilar. Fragm . 2, p. 1294, n. 16.

Fta85 Mansi, l .c . t, 3. 62; Harduin, t. 1, p. 666.

Fta86 Mansi, t. 3, p. 62.

Fta87 Ibid . t. 3, p. 59.

Fta88 Remi Ceillier (Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, pp. 670, 680) is of opinion that Arsenius himself was present at the Synod of Sardica, and he appeals for this to Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 28; but that which is there thus related, “Arsenius, said to be dead, suddenly appeared alive before the Synod,” had already taken place at Tyre in 335.

Fta89 Mansi, t. 3, p. 62, and the Synodal Letter to the Alexandrians; ibid . p. 51; Harduin, t. 1, pp. 666, 658.

Fta90 Mansi, t. 3, p. 62. Cf. above, page 24.

Fta91 Hilar. Pictav. Fragm . p. 1287, n. 5. Cf. above, page 24.

Fta92 Mansi, t.3. 62; Hard. t. 1. 666.

Fta93 The principal treatise of Marcellus against Asterius, not the su>ntagma or confession of faith, which Marcellus had already given to Pope Julius, and which, as Athanasius says, was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica, Cf. Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos . This su>ntagma had not either been the ground of the accusations of the Eusebians. Cf.

Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , Gotha 1867, p. 77.

Fta94 Mansi, t. 3. 63; Hard. t. 1, p. 666.

Fta95 P. 31.

Fta96 P. 89.

Fta97 Mansi, t. 3, p. 63; Hard. t. 1, p. 666; cf. above, page 9.

Fta98 Mansi, t. 3, p. 63; Hard. t. 1, pp. 666, 667.

Fta99 Mansi, t. 3, pp. 55, 66; Hard. t. 1, pp. 659, 667.

Fta100 Mansi, t. 3, p. 66; Hard. t. 1, p. 667.

Fta101 Athanas. ad Episc . Aegypti et Libyoe , c. 7.

Fta102 Cf. note 2 of the Benedictine editors on Athanas. Apol . c . Arian .

Fta103 Theodoret, 2. 16.

Fta104 Athanasii, Tomus ad Antiochenses , c. 5. Opp . t. 1. Pars 2, p. 616, ed.

Patav. p. 772, edit. Paris.

Fta105 Athanas. l .c . c. 10, p. 619, ed. Patav. p. 776, ed. Paris.

Fta106 Theodoret, 2. 8.

Fta107 Lib. 4. c. 24.

Fta108 Cf. on this the notes by Binius in Mansi, 3. 83 sqq., and those by Fuchs (Bibliothek der Kirchenvers . vol. 2, p. 143 sqq.). Natalis Alexander treats particularly of this in the twenty-ninth Dissertation to his Kirchengesch . of the fourth century. Edit. Venet. 1778, t. 4, p. sqq.

Fta109 Sozomen, 3. 12.

Fta110 Ballerini, edit. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 589 sqq.; Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 4, p. 1202.

Fta111 Sozomen, 3. 12.

Fta112 Ballerini, l .c . p. 597; Mansi, l .c . p. 1209.

Fta113 Mansi, t. 6. 1213 sqq.; Ballerini, l .c . p. 605 sqq.

Fta114 Athanasius only says, “Some wished this.” See above, p. 106.

Fta115 Quoted in Mansi, t. 7, p. 463; Hard. t. 2, p. 647.

Fta116 Ballerin. edit. Opp . S . Leonis M ., t. 3, p.30 sqq. Spittler’s Critical Examination of the decisions of Sardica in Meusel’s Geschichtsforscher , part 1, Halle 1777; reprinted in Spittler’s Sammtl . Werken , published by Karl Wachter, vol. 8, p. 126 sqq. Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers . vol. 2, p. 104. In earlier times some learned men, like the Gallican Richer (Hist . Conc . Generale , t. 1, p. 98, ed. Colon.), have considered the Latin text alone to be the original; others, for instance Walch (Gesch . der Kitchenvers . p. 179), the Greek.

Fta117 Printed in Justelli, Bibliotheca Juris Canon . Veteris , Paris 1661, fol. t. 2, p. 603.

Fta118 On Tilius, cf. vol. 1, p. 355.

Fta119 Cf. vol. 1, p. 375, note 5.

Fta120 T. 1, p. 482 sqq.

Fta121 Section 5. Printed in Mansi, t. 6, p. 1141 sqq., and in the Ballerini edition of the works of Leo the Great, t. 3, p. 513 sqq.

Fta122 In Mansi, t. 3, p. 22 sqq.; Hard, 1, p. 635 sqq.

Fta123 In Mansi, t. 3, p. 30 sqq.; Hard. l .c .

Fta124 Cf. Ballerin. edit. Opp . S . Leonis M., t. 3, p. 33, n. v.

Fta125 In the Greek text three canons are wanting which the Latin has, and vice versa in the latter two canons are wanting which the Greek text has; and that from their having exclusive reference to the Thessalonian Church.

Fta126 Cf. Kober, Deposition , 1867, p. 68 sq.

Fta127 Commentarius in Canones et Decreta juris veteris ac novi , etc., Colon. 1755, fol. p. 265 sqq.

Fta128 Cf . supr , p. 54.

Fta129 Cf . Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 19.

Fta130 Cf. above, page 72, and Quartalschrift , p. 20; Van Espen, l .c .

Fta131 Van Espen, l .c . p. 266.

Fta132 Fuchs, l .c . p. 106.

Fta133 Van Espen, l .c . p. 266.

Fta134 Instead of pri>siv judicium , as Isidore and the Prisca rightly have it, Dionysius reads concilium , which gives this meaning: “so that a fresh Council should take place.” Still this does not affect the chief point.

Fta135 According to the Greek text, and that of Dionysius, those who had pronounced the first judgment were to write to Rome; and Fuchs (l .c . p. 107) rightly adds, that they were to do this at the desire of the condemned. But, according to Isidore and the Prisca , the right or the duty of bringing the affair before Rome, also belonged to the neighboring bishops. I believe that the last interpretation has only arisen through a mistake, from a comment belonging to the next sentence being inserted in the wrong place, of which we shall again speak in the following note. It only remains to be remarked here, that Isidore and the Prisca have not the name Julio , and that its insertion has given occasion to the Gallicans for an hypothesis, of which we shall speak later. But Hardouin’s conjecture, that instead of Julio , perhaps illi may be read, is entirely gratuitous, contrary to the Greek text, and plainly only a stratagem against the Gallicans.

Fta136 The Greek text does not say expressly who had to decide as to the necessity of a fresh investigation; but the Latin of Dionysius does so, and assigns the decision to the Pope. This difference is, however, of no importance; for clearly he, to whom they had written on the subject, i .e . the Pope, must decide on this point. Cf. the treatise (by Herbst) concerning the Council of Sardica, in the Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 23. The rule that the Pope was to constitute the court of second appeal of those bishops who were near the Church province in question, is expressly contained in the Greek text, but is wanting in the Latin, in Dionysius, as well as in Isidore and the Prisca , who only generally remark that the Pope had to name the judges of the court of second appeal. Now, if we assume that already in early times a reader of the Latin text observed this omission, and by use of the Greek text put in the margin of his copy, after the words judicium renovetur , the words ab allis (or illis ) episcopis qui in provincia proxima morantur , then this gloss might easily, by a later copyist, have been inserted too soon by one line in the text. Thus it came to pass that the Prisca and Isidore, who in general harmonize far more with each other than with Dionysius, accepted this addition, and placed it in a context, where it would mean that “the bishops of the neighbouring provinces might also write to Rome” (see preceding note); while Dionysius never accepted this gloss.

Fta137 Again, the Greek text does not say who had to decide on this point, as does the Latin: si autem probaverit (scil . Papa ). This, however, is explained by what has been said above. No difference exists as to the fact, for, according to the context of the whole canon, this decision could belong to no other than the Pope. Cf . Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 24.

Fta138 The difference existing in this passage between the Greek and Latin text does not alter the sense, for the Latin text also says clearly: “If the Pope decides to abide by the judgment of the court of first appeal, then the decision shall hold good.” Under such circumstances we cannot see how it could have been supposed that the Latin text had here been falsified in the interest of Rome, in Isidore and the Prisca , because it there stands: quoe decreverit Romanus episcopus , confirmata erunt .

Cf. Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 24 sq.; Van Espen, l .c. p. 267; also Fuchs, l .c . p. 107. In truth, the Latin text plainly does not here attribute more right to the Pope than does the Greek; for the decreverit Romanus episcopus here simply refers to the decision that no new inquiry should take place. Cf. Palma, Proelect . Hist . Eccl . in Collegio Urbano , 1838, t. 1. P. 2, pp. 92, 93. Neither must we understand before the verb decreverit , which in Dionysius stands without any subject, Synodus Provincialis , as Van Espen thinks (p. 267), but Pontifex Romanus ; for the decision, according to the Greek text, as well as the Latin of Isidore and the Prisca , belongs to no other than the Pope.

Fta139 In Bevereg. Synodicon sive Pandectoe , t. 1, p. 487-489.

Fta140 S . Leonis M. Opp . ed. Baller., t. 2, p. 950.

Fta141 Van Espen, l .c . p. 268.

Fta142 Palma, l .c . pp. 89, 92.

Fta143 Walter, Kirchenrecht , 11th edition, p. 34, note 27.

Fta144 Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 28, propos, 2, p. 464, ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta145 De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imp . lib. 7. cap. 3. n. 10.

Fta146 Memoires , etc., t. 8 in the treatise of S. Athanasius, art. 50, p. 48, ed.

Brux. 1732.

Fta147 De Antiqua Ecclesioe Disciplina , diss. 2 § 3, p. 86, ed. Magunt 1788.

Fta148 Fleury, Hist . Eccl . Livre 12, § 39.

Fta149 Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, p. 684.

Fta150 Neander, Kirchengeschichte , vol. 3, 2d ed. p. 348.

Fta151 Stolberg, Gesch . des Relig . Jesu , vol. 10, p. 489. 9. His words, “In such a case,” show plainly that he, like us, referred the canon to the appeal after the first sentence.

Fta152 Eichhorn, Kirchenrecht , vol. 1, p. 71.

Fta153 Kober, Deposition , etc., p. 390.

Fta154 Fuchs, l .c . p. 108.

Fta155 Rohrbacher, Histoire universelle de l ’eglise , t. 6, p. 310.

Fta156 Ruttenstock, Instit . Hist . Eccl . t. 2, etc., 128.

Fta157 Can. 7 in Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca .

Fta158 The Greek text has poi~v ajgcisteu>ousi th~| ejparci>a| the Latin, “qui in finitima et propinqua provincia sunt,” — which is no important difference.

Fta159 According to Mansi’s proposed correction of the text, which we have already inserted.

Fta160 De Concord . Sacerd . et Imp . lib. 7. c. 3, § 11, p. 1001.

Fta161 Instead of tou~ ejpisko>pou we should probably read toupouv, ejzarkei~n Cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 26, note 10.

Fta162 Also received into the Corp . Jur . Can . c. 36, causa 2. 9. 6.

Fta163 De Concord ., etc., lib. 8. c. 3, § 6.

Fta164 Cf. Ballerin. Observ . in Part 1. diss. 5; Quesnelli, in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 2, p. 951. 14.

Fta165 Du-Pin, De Antiqua Eccles . Discipl . diss. 2. c. 1, Section. 3, p. 86 sq. ed. Magunt.

Fta166 Richer, Hist . Concil . General , lib. 1.c. 3, Section. 4, p. 93, ed. Colon.

Fta167 Febron. De Statu Eccles . cap. 5, secs. 5, 6.

Fta168 Nat. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 28, propos, 1, p. 461 sqq.

Fta169 Ballerin. ed. Opp . d . Leonis , t. 2, p. 947 sqq., and especially p. sqq.

Fta170 Palma, l .c . pp. 86-89.

Fta171 Roskovany, De Primatu Rom . Pont . Augustae Vindel 1834, pp. 191, 195.

Fta172 Cf. Nat. Alex. l .c . p . 463 a : “Mos enim solemnis est veteribus conciliis, cum antiquas Ecclesiae consuetudines legesque non scriptas renovant, illas proponere, quasi de novo instituerint,” etc.

Fta173 Cf. the Pope’s letter in Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 22, 23, 25.

Cf. above, page 54.

Fta174 Cf. below, Section. 67.

Fta175 Richer, Hist . Conc . General , lib. 1.c. 8, Section. 4, p. 90.

Fta176 In Concordatis nationis German integris , etc., t. 2, p. 25, t. 3, pp. 129-132.

Fta177 Spittler, in the treatise, “Critical Examination of the Sardican Decisions,” first printed in Meusel’s Geschichtsforscher , Part 4. Halle 1777; again, in Spittler’s Sammtlichen Werken , published by Karl Wachter, Part 8, p. 129 sq.

Fta178 Cf. Du-Pin, De Antiqua Eccl . Discipl . diss. 2. c. 1. Section. 3, pp. 86, 88, ed. Magunt.

Fta179 Cf. Van Espen, l .c . p . 269; Marca, l .c . Section. 14; Du-Pin, l .c. p. 90, ed. Magunt.

Fta180 Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 28, propos, 2, p. 463 sqq.

Fta181 l .c . p. 951 sqq.

Fta182 Palma, l .c . p. 92.

Fta183 That is, in the letter written by him in the name of Charles the Bald to Pope John VIII. Cf. Nat. Alex. l .c . p. 465 a ; Marca, l .c . lib. 7. c. 3, Section. 14.

Fta184 Palma, l .c . p. 86. Palma repeats the same in somewhat different words in p. 91: de quibuslibet ecclesiasticis judiciis , in quibus ad eum (the Pope) fuerit appellatum .

Fta185 Ballerini, l .c . pp. 950, 951; Palma, l .c . p. 93.

Fta186 Opp . S . Leonis , t. 2, pp. 947-950; Palma, l .c . pp. 88, 89, 92.

Fta187 Walter takes the same view in his Kirchenrecht , 11th edition, p. 34, note 27, which accepts without alteration, and exhibits very clearly, the results of the Ballerini’s examination.

Fta188 Cf. supr . pp. 122, 123.

Fta189 Palma, l .c . p. 90, expressly says this.

Fta190 Palma, l .c . p. 88.

Fta191 Cf. supr . p. 117.

Fta192 Cf. Palma, l .c . p. 93; Ballerini, l .c . p. 950, n. 10.

Fta193 Canon 3.

Fta194 Canon 3.

Fta195 Canons 3 and 5.

Fta196 Canon 5.

Fta197 Canon 4.

Fta198 I could not obtain an ancient treatise concerning the Synod of Sardica in general, and the three canons just mentioned in particular, by Marchetti, Del Concilio di Sardica e de ’ suoi Canoni su la forma de Giudizi Ecclesiastici , Rom. 1783; but to judge from Marchetti’s other writings, the loss may not be great.

Fta199 Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 356.

Fta200 Cf. my treatise on pseudo-Isidore in the Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1847, pp. 641, 647, 653 sqq., 658 sqq., and the article:

Hincmar of Rheims, Hincmar of Laon, and pseudo-Isidore, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte.

Fta201 In Dionysius and the Prisca 5 and 6, in Isidore 6.

Fta202 The two old Greek scholiasts, Balsamon (in Bevereg. 1. 490) and Aristenus (ibid . p. 492), have thus interpreted the text; and of later writers, especially Van Espen, l .c . p. 269 sq.; Tillemont (t. 8, p. 48), and Herbst (Tub . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 32).

Fta203 Instead of plurimi , one codex reads non plurimi . But although Hardouin (Collect . Concil . t. 1, p. 642 ad marg.) declares the last reading to be by far the best, it is neither critically supported, nor calculated to remove the difficulties of interpretation.

Fta204 The ordinare , which is wanting in Dionysius, stands in Isidore and the Prisca . Moreover, as according to the fourth Nicene canon this single bishop might not consecrate any other, — for this, three bishops were needed, — the words must necessarily have this meaning: “If he from carelessness neglects himself to take the initiative, and to summon bishops from the neighbouring provinces for the consecration of new colleagues,” etc.

Fta205 In the Prisca it stands very similarly: Et populi confugerint ad vicinos provincioe episcopos .

Fta206 Convenire , sc. per literas .

Fta207 Flodoard, Geschichte der Rheimser Kirche (lib. 3. c. 20).

Fta208 Van Espen, l .c . pp. 269, 270.

Fta209 C. 9, dist. 65.

Fta210 In Bevereg. t. 1, p. 491.

Fta211 Also in Bevereg. t. 2. Annotat , p. 200.

Fta212 Printed in Mansi, t. 6, p. 1204; and in Leonis Opp . ed. Ballerini, t. 3, p. 591.

Fta213 S . Leonis Opp . t. 3, p. 32. 4.

Fta214 Hardouin, Coll . Concil . t. 1, p. 823 ad marg.

Fta215 Mansi, t. 3, p. 585, note 4.

Fta216 Ballerini, ed. Opp . S . Leonis . M . t. 3, p. 41.

Fta217 In his treatise concerning the Sardican decrees, Sammtl . Werke , vol. 8, pp. 147 sq.

Fta218 Hardouin et Mansi (ll . cc .).

Fta219 If they confused the canon of Sardica with one of the Nicene canons, the reason was the same, doubtless, as in the case of Zosimus. Cf. vol. 1, pp. 356 sq.

Fta220 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 8.

Fta221 C. 28, causa 23, quaest. 8.

Fta222 Gratus of Carthage was, as we know, a member of the Synod of Sardica, and does not here bear favorable testimony to his countrymen.

Fta223 Here the Latin text in Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca has pupillis instead of laicis , which seems better. But the old Latin translation from the Greek probably read lai`koi~v as the corrupt version liutius instead of laicis shows. Mansi, t. 6, p. 1205. In other respects the Greek and Latin in this canon agree tolerably accurately.

Fta224 The Emperor Justinian, in his Novella 6 c. 2, for instance, demanded that every bishop should at least appear once at the Court; but in the seventh and thirteenth Council of Toledo, the bishops are ordered to appear at the Court, where the rescue of a fellow-creature depends upon it. Cf. Van Espen, l .c . pp. 271 sq.

Fta225 Concerning these petitions to be presented by the bishops, cf. also Van Espen, l .c . p. 272.

Fta226 According to Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , the first half of the ninth canon.

F227 The text of Dionysius: ne episcoporum improbitas nitatur , gives no good meaning; but instead of nitatur should probably be read notetur , as Isidore has it. The Prisca gives: ne episcoporum importunitas depravetur .

Fta228 So Zonaras explains this passage in Bevereg. t. 1, p. 494; also Fuchs, l .c . p. 118; Van Espen, l .c . p. 273.

Fta229 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , the second part of the ninth canon.

Fta230 According to the Latin text, it was expressly ordered that every bishop should send in his petition through the metropolitan. But the Greek text does not express clearly any such order. Yet the Greek scholiasts found such in it, because the eleventh Antiochian canon had already ordered the like, namely, that everything should pass through the hands of the metropolitan.

Fta231 Kat ajkolouqi>an ajkolou>qwv (see Zonaras in Bevereg. t. 1, pp. 495, 496)= in consequence = at once, at the same time.

Fta232 The old Latin translation of the Greek text so often mentioned is here useless, because it is so corrupt.

Fta233 See Mansi, t. 3, pp. 39, 42.

Fta234 This passage is, of course, also wanting in the Greek scholiasts and in the old Latin translation. And in the Corpus Jur . Can . the whole ninth canon is wanting.

Fta235 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 13.

Fta236 1 Timothy 3:6. St. Paul here understands by neophyte one who shortly before was still a heathen. Such a neophyte, says the canon, does he resemble who is suddenly taken from worldly business to be a bishop.

Fta237 Van Espen, l .c . p. 275 sq.

Fta238 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 14.

Fta239 Thus do Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus interpret it in Bevereg. l .c . t. 1, p. 488 sq.

Fta240 Concerning such doings of the episcopi invasores , cf. Kellner Das Buss und Stafverfahren gegen , Kleriker , Treves 1863, p. 30; Kober, Deposition , etc., 1867, p. 122 sq.

Fta241 Elvira, canon 16.

Fta242 Van Espen, l .c . p. 276, also his Jus . Eccl . t. 1. P. 1. tit. 3, c. 10 et 11.

Fta243 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 15.

Fta244 According to the Latin text of Dionysius, it is: — “Some bishops do not reside in their cathedral town, either because they have more possessions in other places, or from affection to their relatives; … but from henceforth they shall only be absent for the space of three weeks.”

Isidore and the Prisca , however, are nearer the Greek text, as instead of resident (as says Dionysius) they more rightly read possident .

Fta245 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 16.

Fta246 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 17.

Fta247 Instead of ajqro>n perhaps ajqw~on “innocent,” should be read, for the Latin text has innocens , and so also has the old Latin translation.

Fta248 Here the Latin text, instead of metropolitan , has episcopos finitimos , because at that time the metropolitan constitution was not so developed and so universal in the East as in the West. Cf. Ballerini, ed. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 32.

Fta249 Zonaras understands by this the nearest metropolitan, and remarks that this never came into practice. Bevereg. t. 1, p. 503.

Fta250 On this, cf. Kober, Kirchenbann , 1863, pp. 88, 222.

Fta251 Zonaras (l .c .) takes this to mean: “If any clerics of the diocese to which the complainant belongs know him to be arrogant, they shall reprimand him per correptionem fraternam .”

Fta252 See vol. 1, pp. 386 sq. and supr . p. 72; but this canon is in Corpus Juris Can . c. 4, causa 11. quaest. 3.

Fta253 See p. 97.

Fta254 Mansi, 6, p. 1207. Cf. also Ballerin. edit. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 31. n. 3.

Fta255 C. 1, dist. 61.

Fta256 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 19.

Fta257 Kober, Suspension , etc., 1862, p. 46 sqq. and p. 143 sq. and p. 292, here understands not the absolute invalidity of such an ordination, but only suspension.

Fta258 Part 2, p. 123, note 125.

Fta259 Van Espen, Commentarius in Canones et Decreta , etc., p. 278, ed.

Colon. 1755, fol.

Fta260 Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. 1, p. 686; Mansi, t. 3, p. 147.

Fta261 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 20.

Fta262 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 21.

Fta263 Cf. Canon 16.

Fta264 Cf. Kober, Deposition , p. 500 sqq., p. 60.

Fta265 In the Synodal Letter of the Eusebians from Philippopolis (quoted in Hilar. Fragm . 3, p. 1317, n. 20), mention is made of a quarrel between Protogenes of Sardica, and a bishop of Thessalonica. The name of the latter is not clearly given, but it should probably be read “Aetio.”

Besides, the text is so corrupt that it is uncertain which of the two attacked the other. On this passage, cf. the notes of the Benedictine editors on this passage in Hilary.

Fta266 This explanation was adopted by Dr. Herbst in the Tubinger Theol . Quartalschr . 1825, p. 34; also by Hergenrother, Photius , vol. 2, p. 338.

Fta267 Bevereg. t. 1, p. 505; t. 2. Annot . p. 201.

Fta268 Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 8, p. 49 in the treatise of S. Athanas. art. 52.

Fta269 Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, p. 691.

Fta270 Cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschr . 1825, p. 34.

Fta271 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 11.

Fta272 In Bevereg. t. 1, p. 507, canon 20 ends here, and No. 21 begins.

Fta273 The Greek scholiasts explain these words a little differently, but the meaning is not substantially altered.

Fta274 Concerning ,kana>kiov = via publica , cf. Suicer, Thesaur . in loc .

Fta275 Van Espen, l .c . p. 275.

Fta276 Concerning this, cf. above, pp. 3, 87.

Fta277 Larsow, Festal Letters of S . Athan . p. 31.

Fta278 See vol. 1, p. 327.

Fta279 See vol. 1, p. 328.

Fta280 Larsow, pp. 141, 50, No. 18.

Fta281 Larsow, l .c . pp. 33, 50, No. 21.

Fta282 In the year 350 the Alexandrians kept their Easter on the 8th April, the Romans on the 15th April; in 360, the former on the 23d April, the latter on the 19th March; in 368, the Alexandrians on the 20th April, the Romans on the 23d March. Cf. Ideler, vol. 2, p. 251, and the tables of Professor Galle in Larsow, p. 47. The further history of the Easter question we have given above, vol. 1, pp. 329 sqq.

Fta283 Athanas. Apologia c . Arian . c. 44 sqq.; Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. sqq. Also in Mansi, t. 3, p. 57 sqq. and p. 69 sqq.; Hard. t. 1, p. 662; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . t. 2, p. 8.

Fta284 Cf. the marginal note in Mansi, t. 3, p. 58, and Ballerin. in their edit. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 31-32. But the old Latin translation from the Greek text, which was discovered by Maffei at Verona, and edited by the Ballerini and Mansi, differs from the Latin original. Cf. above, pp. 94, 132.

Fta285 See above, pp. 24, 46.

Fta286 See above, pp. 29 sqq., 104.

Fta287 See above, p. 105.

Fta288 Cf. above, p. 93.

Fta289 On the pretended Sardican Creed, which in Theodoret and elsewhere appears added to this Synodal Letter, cf. above, pp. 106 sq.

Fta290 Mansi, t. 3, p. 55; Hard. t. 1, p. 655.

Fta291 This Synodal Letter is twice given in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. sqq.; c. 41 sqq. The first time it is addressed to the Church of Alexandria, the second time to the bishops of Egypt and Libya; but it is in fact one and the same document. That the second form given by Athanasius was also originally intended for the Alexandrians in specie , and not for the bishops of Libya and Egypt, appears from c. 43, where Alexandria is spoken of as “your town,” and Athanasius as “your bishop.” Accordingly, the second form was probably nothing more than a copy of the letter to the Alexandrians made for the Libyan and Egyptian bishops. This second form is, moreover, word for word the same as the first in the greater part of its contents; only the passage concerning the Alexandrian priests Aphthon, etc. is wanting, but it has two additions, one at the end of c. 42, and another in c. 43. See next page, notes 1, 4. On the connection of these two forms, cf. the Admonitio of the Benedictine editors to their edition of the Apologia Athanasii , n. 8, p. 95, edit. Patav.

Fta292 The second form in Athanasius, l .c . c. 42, has here the addition: “Not only you, but also others of our fellow-servants have been injured, and have complained of it with tears.”

Fta293 This letter from the Synod to the Emperors no longer exists; the Synod, however, mentions it in its letter to Pope Julius, in Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. 1291, n. 12.

Fta294 Secular officers had indeed practiced all kinds of violences in Egypt in order to introduce Arianism. Cf. above, pp. 48 sq., 52.

Fta295 In the second form of this Synodal Letter the names of the most distinguished Eusebians are here inserted, Athanas. l .c . c. 43.

Fta296 Mansi, t. 3, p. 66; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36, c. 49.

Fta297 It is now only extant in Latin, with considerably injured text, in Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. 1297, and in the Collectio Cresconiana (cf. Baron. ad ann. 347. 24), and was perhaps from the first only written in Latin. It is also printed in Mansi, t. 3, p. 40 sq.; Hard. t. 1, p. 653 sq.

Fta298 Cf. above, p. 96. Blondell held this passage — Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur , si ad caput , i.e. ad Petri Apostoli sedem de singulis quibusque proviciis domini referant sacerdotes — to be an interpolation, on account of its barbarous Latin, i .e . valde congruentissimum (Blondell, De Primatu Ecclesioe , p. 106).

Remi Ceillier (Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, p. 696), on the other hand, remarked that the barbarous Latin might be explained by the supposition that the letter had been first written in Greek, and that we have only a translation. But Remi Ceillier could not deny that this sentence interrupted the train of thought of the letter, and looked like something inserted in parenthesis. Bower (History of the Popes , vol. 1, p. 192) and Fuchs (Biblioth . der Kirchenvers . vol. 2, p. 128) have urged this still more strongly; the latter especially has confidently urged the conjecture that this sentence was originally a gloss added ad marginem by a reader of the letter, and taken into the text by a later copyist. But Remi Ceillier, in order to save the sentence, says that the Synod had only intended by these words to point en passant to its decision with regard to the appeal to Rome.

Fta299 This deacon, however, did not sign the Synodal acts; this was done by the two priests only. See Mansi, t. 3, p. 66; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 50.

Fta300 That is, in the provinces immediately under the Papal jurisdiction.

Fta301 Apolog . S . Athanas . c. 53.

Fta302 The name of this Ingenius appears twice in signatures, in Athanasius, Apolog . c. Arian, c. 74, p. 151; and Epist . Encyl . ad Episc . n. 7, p. 317, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.

Fta303 Mansi, t. 6, p. 1217; Baller. l .c . p. 607 sqq.

Fta304 Mansi, t. 6, p. 1219: Baller. l .c . p. 609.

Fta305 Mansi, l .c . p. 1221 sqq.; Baller. l .c . p. 611 sqq.

Fta306 Socrat. 2. 20.

Fta307 Hilar. Pictav. Fragm . 3, p. 1307-1326; Mansi, 3, p. 126-140; Hard. 1, p. 671 sqq.

Fta308 The rightful bishop of Carthage was named Gratus. See above, pp. 97, 137.

Fta309 See above, pp. 31 sq.

Fta310 Our text, corrupt in so many places, has presbyterum Narchen , probably instead of Ischyram .

Fta311 See above, pp. 18-20. Cf. pp. 48 sq.

Fta312 We see that the Eusebians attribute the outrages which occurred at the intrusion of Gregory (cf. supr . pp. 18 sq.) to Athanasius. With equal right, one who attacks another might throw the blame of the blood shed upon the one attacked, because, if he had not defended himself, all would have ended quietly.

Fta313 Here is especially meant the letter of defense of Athanasius sent by the Egyptian and Libyan bishops. See above, pp. 53 sq.

Fta314 Nothing is anywhere said of this. Possibly Athanasius, who was not himself present at the Synod of Antioch in 330, only did not afterwards expressly protest against it.

Fta315 See above, p. 98.

Fta316 Hilary gives this twice: once in our passage (Fragm . 3, p. 1322), again in de Synodis , c. 34, p. 1172. Cf. Mansi, t. 3, p. 137. 125.

Fta317 Cf. Athanas. de Synodis , c. 26, 1. 2., and above, p. 79.

Fta318 Soc. 2. 20.

Fta319 De Synodis , c. 35 sq.

Fta320 In Mansi, t. 3, p. 134; Hilar. Fragm , 3, p. 1319, n. 23.

Fta321 Tillemont, Memoires , t. 6, in the treatise on the Arians, art. 39, p. 142, ed. Brux.

Fta322 Histoire Generale , t. 4, p. 699.

Fta323 In Hilar. l .c . p. 1317, n. 19; Mansi, t. 3, p. 133.

Fta324 It is this passage to which Tillemont and Remi Ceillier appeal in Mansi, t. 3, p. 133, and Hilar. l .c .

Fta325 Mansi, t. 3, p. 130.

Fta326 Cf. Walch, Historie der Kirchenvers . p. 180; Fuchs, l .c . 150, note; Remi Ceillier and Tillemont, ll . cc .; Neander, Kirchengesch . 2. 2 (vol. 4), p. 739, second edition.

Fta327 Fuchs, l .c .

Fta328 See the remarks in Mansi, t. 3, p. 195. Also Tillemont and Remi Ceillier, ll . cc .

Fta329 Augustine, Contra Crescon . lib. 3, c. 34, lib. 4, c. 44; Epist . (former y 163), ad Eleusium , c. 3.

Fta330 Baron. ad ann. 347, n. 62, c. 72-74, 96-98; Remi Ceillier, l .c . pp. 698, 699; Tillemont, l .c .

Fta331 See above, pp. 84, 90.

Fta332 Cf. vol. 1, p. 3. [The Latrocinium of Ephesus in 449 is a classical instance.] Fta333 See above, p. 93.

Fta334 We find the result of this circulation of the decrees of Sardica in c. of the Apology of S. Athanasius contra Arianos of the year 350. See above, p. 93.

Fta335 Natalis Alexander, Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 27, art. 3.

Fta336 Cf. vol. 1, p. 356, supr . p. 133. Also the successors of Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, even Leo the Great and the twelfth Synod of Toledo in 681, made this confusion, cf. Hard. t. 2, pp. 26, 38; t. 3, p. 1720, n. 4; Ballerin. Opp . S . Leonis M . t. 2, p. 1171, and Tub . Quartalschr . 1852, p. 402 sqq.

Fta337 Apolog . contra Arian . c. 1.

Fta338 Sulp. Sev. Hist . lib. 2.

Fta339 Socrat. Hist . Eccl . lib. 25. c. 20.

Fta340 In Hard. t. 3, p. 317 A.

Fta341 Vol. 1, p. 4.

Fta342 Harduin, t. 3, p. 1659 C.

Fta343 Harduin, t. 3, pp. 135 B, 1814 A.

Fta344 Cf. above, pp. 171 sq.

Fta345 Cf. Quartalschrift , 1852, p. 407.

Fta346 Gregor. M. liber 2. Epist. 10. Isidor. Hispal. Etymolog . liber 6. c. 16; see above, p. 2.

Fta347 In their edition of the works of S. Leo, t. 3, p. 1., and in Galland, De Vetustis Canonum Collect . t. 1, p. 301.

Fta348 De Controversiis Christ . Fidel , t. 2, pp. 5 and 3, ed. Colon. 1615.

Fta349 De Concord . Sacerdotii et Imp . lib. 7, c. 3, n. 5.

Fta350 Historia Concil . Gen . t. 1, p. 89.

Fta351 Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres , t. 4, p. 697; Remi Ceillier here says rightly: “l’eglise qui est l’arbitre de ces sortes de questions, n’a point juge a propos de lui donner rang parmi ceux qu’elle respecte sous ce titre.”

Fta352 Gesch . der Relig . Jesu Chr . vol. 10, p. 490 sq.

Fta353 Kirchengesch . second edition, vol. 3, p. 349.

Fta354 Annales , ad ann. 347, n. 7-9; cf. Tubing . Quartalschr . l .c . p. 412.

Fta355 Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 27, art. 3.

Fta356 In their edition of the works of S. Leo, t. 3, p. 49, also in Galland, l .c . pp. 300 sqq.

Fta357 In his additions to Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . l .c .

Fta358 Proelectiones Hist . Eccl . quas in Collegio Urbano habuit , Jo. Bapt.

Palma, Romae 1838, t. 1. P. 2, p. 85.

Fta359 Cf. Natal. Alex. l .c .; Scholion, 3. t. 4, p. 460, ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta360 Historia Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 18, 19.

BOOK Fta361 For instance, he relates here (l .c . c. 19) the persecution of Bishop Theodulus of Trajanople in connection with events which only took place after the Synod of Sardica. And yet the bishop died even before the Synod of Sardica dispersed, as appears from its Encyclical in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 45. Cf. the notes of Benedictine editors on Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 19.

Fta362 See p. 161.

Fta363 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 18, 19.

Fta364 Ibid . c. 18.

Fta365 Ibid . c. 19.

Fta366 Cf. Athanas. Apolog . ad Imperat . Constantium , c. 4. Athanasius celebrated Easter 344 at Naissus; at Easter 345, he was at Aquileia, as appears from the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S . Athanasius . See in Larsow, the Festal Letters of S . Athanasius , pp. 31, 32.

Fta367 Ibid . c. 3, c. 15. Athanasius was falsely accused of having at that time excited the Emperor Constans against his brother Constantius, and defends himself against this (c. 3). In the other passage (c. 15) he speaks of service having been held in a church not yet consecrated at Aquileia, in presence of the Emperor Constans. He says this in his own defence, because he had done the same.

Fta368 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 20; Theod. Hist . Eccl . 2. 8.

Fta369 Philostorg. Fragm . lib. 3. n. 12, p. 485, ed. Mogunt.; Hist . Eccl .

Theodoreti, etc.; Socrat. 2. 22; Sozom. 3. 20.

Fta370 Tillemont, etc., t. 8. note 62, sur S . Athanas . p. 295, ed. Brux.

Fta371 Thus relate Athanasius, Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 20, and still more circumstantially, Theodoret, 2. 9, 10.

Fta372 See above, pp. 85, 89.

Fta373 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 26; Socrat. 2. 19, 20; Sozom. 3. 11; Mansi, t. 2. 1362; Hard, t. 1. 627.

Fta374 Photinus (fwteino>v ) means “man of light;” they, however, ironically named him “man of darkness.”

Fta375 That which comes of the will is accidental; the Son, however, is absolute, therefore begotten, not of the will, but of the nature of the Father. Cf. Athanas. Orat . III. cont . Arian . c. 62; Neander, Kirchengesch . second edition, 2, p. 737, note 2. Cf. below, p. 194, note 2.

Fta376 See above, p. 85.

Fta377 See below, p. 189.

Fta378 See c. 25 of the Hist . Arian .

Fta379 Vol. 1, p. 357 sqq.

Fta380 Part 1, p. 123.

Fta381 Friedrich, Kirchengesch . Deutschlands , vol. 1. 1867, pp. 277-300.

Fta382 Reuch. Theol . Literaturblatt , 1866, No. 11, p. 347.

Fta383 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 21. The chronological statement given in this passage is probably to be understood thus: About Easter 344, the affair of Euphrates of Antioch, took place, on account of which, a few weeks later, a synod was held, Bishop Stephen deposed, and Leontius raised to his place. In consequence of this, Constantius recalled many adherents of S. Athanasius (in the summer of 344). Ten months later, Gregory of Alexandria died, on the 26th of June 345, as says the preface to the Festal Letters of S . Athanasius , No. 18. This preface, indeed, gives the death of Gregory in the same year in which it reports the return of S. Athanasius, viz. 346; but he places these two events together, not on account of their chronological proximity, but because of their intrinsic connection. If Athanasius returned to Alexandria in 346, Gregory must necessarily have been already dead in 345, as Constantius only invited Athanasius to return after the death of Gregory, and, as he himself says, he waited for Athanasius a full year before he even began his return journey. Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 21 sq., and Apolog . c . Arian . c. 51. According to Theodoret (2. 4. 12), Gregory, after having desolated his flock, like a wild beast, for six years, was murdered by his own adherents; cf.

Mamachi, de ratione temporum , Athanas. p. 190, n. 5.

Fta384 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 31; Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 21.

Fta385 Athanas. Apol . c. Arian. c. 51.

Fta386 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 21.

Fta387 Athanas. Apol . ad Imper . Constantium , c. 4.

Fta388 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 51. The Benedictine editors, in their Vita Athanasii , p. 48, ed. Patav., are of opinion that Athanasius first went from Aquileia to Rome, and only from thence to Gaul.

Fta389 Preserved to us in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 52 sq.

Fta390 Ibid . c. 51.

Fta391 Athanas. Apol . ad Imper . Constant . c. 5, and Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 22.

Fta392 They are preserved in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 54-56 incl., and Hist . Arian . c. 23.

Fta393 Socrat. 2. 23; Sozom. 3. 20.

Fta394 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 57; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 25; Hard. 1. 690; Mansi, 3. 174.

Fta395 Cf. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 25, and Gregor. Nazianz. Encom. S.

Athanas. Section. 16. Cf. the Vita Athanasii , p. 49 of the Benedictine edition (Patav.), Mohler’s Athanas . 2, pp. 82-85, and the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S . Athanasius , in Larsow, p. 32, No. 18.

Fta396 Socrat. 2. 26; Sozom. 4. 1.

Fta397 Cf. Mohler, Athanasius , vol. 2, p. 85, and what is there cited from Gregory of Nazianzus.

Fta398 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 28.

Fta399 Socrat. 2, pp. 20-22; Sozom. 3, p. 24.

Fta400 This mission, and also the Synod of Carthage in question, took place shortly after the Council of Sardica was ended. It is generally placed in 348, chiefly going upon the supposition that the Sardican Synod was held in 347. But Tillemont has brought forward another and certainly weak reason for the date 348, and even Mansi here agrees with him.

Cf. Tillemont, Memoires , t. 6, in the treatise les Donatistes , art. 45, p. 47, ed. Brux., and Mansi, t. 3, pp. 93, 118.

Fta401 Cf. our treatise on the Donatists in the Kirchenlexicon by Wetzer and Welte, vol. 3, p. 259, and Optat. Milev. de Schismatic . Donatist . lib. 3. c. 1, 2.

Fta402 Cf. canon 3 of Nicaea, vol. 1, p. 380.

Fta403 Cf. canons 13 and 15 of Sardica. See above, pp. 147, 151.

Fta404 The text of these canons of the Council are to be found in Mansi, t. 3, p. 143 sqq., and in another recension of the text, ibid . p. 151 sqq.; also in Hard. t. 1, p. 683; and, best of all, in Bruns, l .c . p. 111 sqq.; in German, in Fuchs, Biblioth . der Kirchenversamml . vol. 3, p. 30 sqq.

Fuchs has here given a general introduction, well worth reading, on the subject of the African Synods.

Fta405 See above, p. 31.

Fta406 But Marcellus’ opinions were really neither Ebionite nor Sabellian, and he opposed Sabellianism. Cf. Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , Gotha 1867, pp. 191-215.

Fta407 Ruins of Sirmium (the birthplace of the Emperor Probus) are still to be found at Mitrowitz, in the country of Peterwardein.

Fta408 Zahn, l .c . p. 189 sqq.

Fta409 Cf. the passage from Vigil of Tapsus, in Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit , vol. 1, p. 547, note.

Fta410 Marias Mercator, Diss . de XII. Anathem . Nestorii , p. 164, in Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit , vol. 1, p. 547, note.

Fta411 Epiphan. Hoer . 71. 3; Baur, l .c . p. 546 sq. note 40.

Fta412 Zahn, p. 191 sqq.

Fta413 Cf. Baur, l .c . p. 547, note; Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi , vol. 1, pp. 881, 882, note.

Fta414 Klose, History and Doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus , 1837, p. 78 sq.

Fta415 In Athanas. De Synodis , c. 26, n. 5. et 6, p. 591, ed. Patav. They here ascribe to both the doctrine that the Logos is not eternal, and that the kingdom of the Son should have an end. How Marcellus understood the last point we showed above, p. 105; but whether Photinus agreed in this is doubtful. Cf. Baur, l .c . p. 548; Dorner, l .c . p. 882.

Fta416 A review of these different chronological systems is given by Walch, Ketzerhistorie , vol. 3, pp. 52-56. The principal writings on it are:

Petav. Diss . de Photino , etc., printed in Mansi, t. 3, p. 185 sqq., and the refutation by Sirmond, Diatriba , examen continens , etc., printed in the Dissertations of Marca, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imp . p. sqq. of the Frankfort edition of 1708. A treatise by Marca on the same subject is to be found in the same place, p. 319. All the discussions between Petav. and Sirmond concerning Photinus, etc., are collected in the fourth vol. of the Opp . Sirmondi , p. 531 sqq. of the Parisian edition, and p. 369 of the Venetian edition. The other principal writers on the subject are: Matthew de la Roque, a Calvinist theologian at Geneva, in his Dissert . Duplex : I. De Photino , etc., II. De Liberio , 1670, and in his Considerations servants de reponse a ce que M . David a ecrit contre la Dissert . sur Photin . 1671; Mansi, in his well-known dissertation, de Epochis Sardicensis et Sirmiensium Conciliorum (Collect . Concil . t. 4, p. 87 sqq.); Pagi, Crit . in Annales Baron . ad ann. 347. 8, and 76; 349. 49; 350. 6; 351. 10 sqq.; Tillemont, Memoires , t. 6. arts. 41, 44, 46; the treatise, Sur les Ariens , and notes, 36, 39, 40, 41; also Constant in his notes on the Benedictine edition of the works of S. Hilary; Montfaucon, in the Vita S . Athanasii (vol. 1 of the Benedictine edition of his works); Fabricius, Biblioth . Groeca , vol. 11, p. 378; Remi Ceillier, l .c . t. 4, p. 704 sqq.

Fta417 Hilar. Fragm . 2. n. 19, p. 1296; Deutsch, in Walch, l .c . p . 44.

Fta418 Cf. a letter of Valens and Ursacius to Pope Julius in Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. 1297; Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 58; Sozom. t. 3, p. 23; Hard, t. 1, p. 691; Mansi, t. 3, p. 166; cf. Fuchs, l .c . vol. 2, p. 172 sqq.

Fta419 All four are mentioned by Pope Liberius in Hilary, Fragm ., 5. n. 4, p. 1331, but Athanasius (de Synodis , c. 26) omits Demophilus.

Fta420 We learn this from a letter of Pope Liberius, preserved in the Fragments of S. Hilary (Fragm . 5. n. 4, p. 1331, ed. Bened.), also in Mansi, t. 3, p. 202. It was formerly erroneously believed that the Synod of Milan, here mentioned by Liberius, had preceded the Synod of Sardica. It was, however, the Synod just mentioned which was meant.

Liberius wrote this letter after the Synod of Arles in 353 or 354; now, if he says those Eusebian ambassadors had been in Milan eight years before, this points to the year 345.

Fta421 Hilarii, Opp . Fragm . 2, p. 1296, n. 19.

Fta422 At the Synod of Milan in 345 they had, indeed, pronounced the anathema upon Arius, but still, as it appears, would not enter into communion with Athanasius. They were, in fact, his personal enemies.

Now, however, they showed an inclination for this also, from fear of deposition, not from inward conviction, as their subsequent relapse shows.

Fta423 Where this letter may be found was stated p. 189, n. 2.

Fta424 Hilar. l .c .p. 1298.

Fta425 In Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 58, p. 139, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.; Hilar. l .c . .p. 1298; Mansi, t. 3. 161.

Fta426 Hilar. l .c .

Fta427 In their notes on Hilar. Fragm . 2, p. 1295 sq.

Fta428 Hilar. Fragm . 8. n. 2, p. 1344; Mansi, t. 3, p. 304.

Fta429 Hilar. Fragm . 2. n. 21, p. 1299; Sozom. 4, p. 6.

Fta430 Hilar. l .c . n . 21.

Fta431 Hilar. Fragm. 2. n. 22, 23, p. 1299.

Fta432 Hilar. Fragm . 2. n. 22, 23, p. 1300.

Fta433 Ibid . 2. l .c . n. 2.

Fta434 See note b on Hilar. Fragm . 2. n. 21, p. 1299.

Fta435 Zahn in his work on Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 80.

Fta436 Remi Ceillier, l .c . t. 4, p..714 sq.

Ftb1 Marcellus was soon again driven from the See, perhaps in consequence of the Synod of Sirmium of 347 or 349. Cf. Sozom. 4. p. 2; Soc. 2. p. 29.

Ftb2 Tillemont, t. 6. art. 45, Sur les Ariens, p. 149.

Ftb3 Soc. 2:29; Sozom. 4:6.

Ftb4 Cf. the notes of Valesius on Soc. 2. p. 29.

Ftb5 Athanas. de Synodis, c. 27; Hilar. de Synodis, c. 38, p. 1174 sqq.; Socrat. 2. p. 30; also printed in Mansi, t. 3. p. 257 sqq.; Hard, t. 1. p. 702.

Ftb6 See above, p. 80.

Ftb7 In Athanas., Hilar., Socrat. ll. cc. Cf. on them, Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers vol. 2. pp. 188 sqq.

Ftb8 Because Photinus declared the unbegotten Logos to be eternally resting in the Father, he was accused of really teaching two Gods, because two unbegotten, the Father and the Logos. The Synod, however, here says, instead of Logos, Son, although Photinus made the same distinction between both as did Marcellus of Ancyra. Cf. above, pp. 31 sq., and the anathemas, Nos. 10, 15, 16, 26.

Ftb9 This meaning is given by the Greek text; the Latin makes it somewhat different: “Et si quis unum dicens Deum, Christum autem Deum ante saecula Filium Dei obsecutum Patri in creatione omnium non confitetur, anathema sit.”

Ftb10 This is partly directed against Sabellianism, partly against Marcellus and Photinus, in so far that, according to both, the Logos was unbegotten, and the unbegotten rested upon Christ, through the ejne>rgeia drastikh> Ftb11 Plainly against Photinus, who, by the Son understanding only the union of the divine with the human, declared the Son to be later than Mary; and the passages of Scripture which were brought forward in opposition to him, and which speak of the eternity of the Son, he explained thus: that “the Son was only eternal in the foreknowledge of God, but not in His own existence.” Cf. Baur, l.c. 543; and Neander, Kirchengesch. 2d edition, part 3, vol. 4. p. 817.

Ftb12 Baur is of opinion that it is not a saying of Photinus himself which is here anathematized, but a statement which he falsely ascribed to the Catholic Church, as in the twelfth anathema. But it appears to us to be in truth an opinion held by Photinus himself, only inaccurately expressed, which is here anathematized.

Ftb13 The doctrine of Photinus is here again inaccurately quoted, for he applies the terms ejndia>qetov and proforiko>v to the Logos alone, and not to the Son. Klose (Geschichte und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus, p. 72) has not translated this sentence quite correctly, and has confused the subject and predicate.

Ftb14 Cf. the note on anathema 2.

Ftb15 In Hilary this is the twenty-third anathema.

Ftb16 See above, p. 187; Klose, l.c. pp. 77 sq.

Ftb17 Cf. above, the note on anathema 2.

Ftb18 This anathema also refers to the opinion of Photinus, that the Logos was not properly a person. Cf. Klose, l. c. 92.

Ftb19 However Arian these words may sound, yet in the further exposition no other meaning is attached to them than that the Son is so far not equal to the Father, but subordinate to Him, as He has His esse, and with it His power, not ex Se, but ex Patre. Hilarius Pictaviensis (De Synodis, n. 51, p. 1182) also in his commentary on this passage has taken these expressions in bonam partem as opposed to the complete identification of the Father and the Logos by Photinus. But it must not he forgotten that they were Eusebians and semi-Arians from whom these anathemas proceeded.

Ftb20 ‘From this point the numbers of the anathemas are the same in Hilary as in the Greek text. Concerning the meaning of this anathema, cf. the note on the one following.

Ftb21 Athanasius and those of the Nicene belief took offence at the Arianizing expression, “the Father begat the Son of His will,” for that which comes of the will is accidental; but, they added, the Son was not begotten of the will, but of the nature of the Father. Against this the Eusebians had already raised objections in their fifth Antiochian formula (the marko>sticov ), as we have seen above, p. 180, and declared that “the Father had begotten the Son of His will.” Because they were now reproached with this, and these words were taken to mean that the Son was degraded to the level of creatures, which were also created of the will of God, they drew up the twenty-forth anathema for the refutation of such reproaches. But at the same time they desired to repudiate the Athanasian formula, “of the nature of God,” and “with necessity,” and therefore immediately added the twenty-fifth anathema.

Ftb22 Plainly against Marcellus and Photinus; cf. above, pp. 31, 187.

Ftb23 Soc. 2:29; Sozom. 4:6.

Ftb24 Concerning the literature of the question, of. above, p. 188, and Walch, Ketzergeach. vol. 3. p. 52 sqq.; also Fuchs, l. c. p. 187, where in particular a short account is given of two striking treatises of an Italian scholar, Josaphat Massari (1778 and 1779), on the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus, and that of Ariminum.

Ftb25 Soc. 2:30; Sozom. 4:6; Epiphan. Hoer. 71, c. 1 sqq.

Ftb26 Mansi, t. 3. pp. 236, 631.

Ftb27 Remi Ceillier, t. 4. p. 743.

Ftb28 Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. 3:63.

Ftb29 Soc. 2:26 Ftb30 The letter was originally in Latin. Two not quite accurate similar Greek translations of it are to be found in Athanas. Apolog. ad Imp.

Constantium, c. 23, and Hist. Ariam ad Monachos, c. 24. This letter is also mentioned in the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, in Larsow, l.c. p. 33, No. 22.

Ftb31 In the Vita S. Athanas. p. 52, ed. Patav.

Ftb32 Thus relates Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacra, lib. 2. p. 345, in the sixth volume of the Bibl. Max. PP. Lugd. 1677. Cf. pp. 52 et 53 of the Vita S. Athanasii in vol. 1. of the Benedictine edition.

Ftb33 Concerning Leontius, cf. above, p. 182.

Ftb34 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos.

Ftb35 Ibid. c. 30, 31.

Ftb36 In Hilar. Fragm. 4. p. 1327, and Mansi, t. 3. p. 208.

Ftb37 Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, p. 263 sq.

Ftb38 Cf. the whole account of Athanasius in his Hist. ad Monachos, c. sqq. See below, p. 211.

Ftb39 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. c. 36.

Ftb40 Hilar. Fragm. 5. n. 2, p. 1330.

Ftb41 Athanas. Apol. ad Const. Imp. c. 6, 11, 19.

Ftb42 Cf. Hilar. Fragm. 2. n. 3, p. 1285.

Ftb43 Sozom. 4:9; Vita Athanas. p. 54, in vol. 1. of the Benedictine edition.

Ftb44 He was so rejoiced at this victory that he assumed the title of aijw>niov basileu>v of which Athanasius and other Fathers of the Church ironically remarked, “The Arians call a man eternal, while they refuse this title to the Son of God.” Cf. Athanas. De Synodis, c. 3.

Ftb45 Theodoret, 2:11.

Ftb46 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 5. Cf. above, pp. 5, 9, 11.

Ftb47 Ibid. c. 6.

Ftb48 Athanas. Apol. ad Const. Imp. c. 19 sqq.

Ftb49 Athanas. Apol. ad Const. Imp. c. 14 sqq. Cf. p. 179, n. 1.

Ftb50 Ibid. c. 2 sqq.

Ftb51 Ibid. c. 6 sqq.

Ftb52 Hilar. Fragm. 5:2, p. 1330.

Ftb53 Ibid. Fragm. 5:l, p. 1330.

Ftb54 Ibid.

Ftb55 Cf. the letter of Liberius to Hosius, in Hilar. Fragm. 6. p. 1334, and in Mansi, t. 3. p. 200.

Ftb56 Mansi, t. 3. p. 200; Hilar. l.c. 1335, 3.

Ftb57 Hilar. l.c. p. 1331, n. 2.

Ftb58 Mansi, t. 3. p. 200; Hilar. Fragm. 6. p. 1335, 3.

Ftb59 Cf. Hilar. ad Constant. August. lib. 1. p. 1222, n. 8, and Fragm. 1. p. 1282, n. 6. The acts of this Synod have not come down to us.

Ftb60 Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacra, lib. 2. p. 346, in vol. 6. of the Biblioth.

Max. PP. Lugd. 1677.

Ftb61 Sulpic. Sever. l.c.

Ftb62 Hilar. Fragm. 5. p. 1332, n. 5.

Ftb63 Athanas. Apol. ad Imp. Const. c. 27.

Ftb64 Hilar. Contra Coast. Imper. p. 1246.

Ftb65 “Vincent rose later again to great authority in the Church. Cf.

Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2:22. [He is probably the same priest who was one of the Pope’s representatives at the Council of Nice, and he had on many subsequent occasions shown great constancy in maintaining the orthodox faith. He happily retrieved his character at the heretical Synod of Rimini in 359. ] Ftb66 Hilar. Fragm. 6. p. 1335, 3; Mansi, t. 3. p. 200.

Ftb67 For instance, Caecilian of Spoleto, Mansi, t. 3. p. 201.

Ftb68 See the letter from Liberius to Eusebius of Vercelli, in Mansi, t. 3. p. 204.

Ftb69 Hilar. Fragm. 5. pp. 1329-1333.

Ftb70 Cf. his two letters to Eusebius, in Mansi, t. 3. pp. 204, 205.

Ftb71 Mansi, t. 3. pp. 205, 206.

Ftb72 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2. p. 15.

Ftb73 Socrat. 2. p. 36; Sozom. 4. p. 9.

Ftb74 Probably also Hilary; see below, p. 209, note 4.

Ftb75 Printed in Mansi, t. 3. p. 237.

Ftb76 Mansi, t. 3. p. 236.

Ftb77 Mansi, t. 3. p. 237.

Ftb78 Hilar. lib. 1. ad Const. August. p. 1222 sqq., note 8.

Ftb79 Hilar. l. c. p. 1223.

Ftb80 Vita S. Athanas. In the first volume of his Opp. p. 57. ed. Patav.

Ftb81 Hilary, l. c. p. 1223 sq.; Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 76; Sulpic. Severus, l.c. p. 346.

Ftb82 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 33, 34.

Ftb83 Lucifer, in libro: Moriendum esse pro Dei Filio, in vol. 4. of the Biblioth. Max. PP. Lugd. p. 243 b.

Ftb84 In reckoning up the confessors of the Councils of Arles and Milan, he mentions also Bishop Paul of Treves. Cf. Tillemont, t. 6. n. 40, Sur les Ariens, p. 334 b.

Ftb85 Athanas. IHst. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 76.

Ftb86 Lucifer. Calar., De non Conveniendo cum Haereticis, p. 222 sq. in vol. 4 of the Bibl. Max. PP. Lugd. 1677.

Ftb87 Tillemont (t. 6. art. 51, Les Ariens, p. 155 b) maintains, that at the Synod of Milan the Eusebians had for the first time openly declared for the Arian dogma, while before they had only made use of ambiguous formulas. Schrockh (part 6. p. 100), however, remarks that this cannot be maintained with any degree of certainty, as we no longer possess the dogmatic letter of the Emperor to which the signatures were demanded. It is only so far correct that the Eusebians decidedly made common cause with the whole body of Arians against Athanasius and the Nicene faith; but that they now changed their dogmatic position of semi-Arianism for thoroughgoing Arian views is improbable, in view of the conflicts which shortly followed between Arians and Semi-Arians.

Ftb88 It appears that Hilary of Poitiers was not present at the Synod of Milan. Cf. Vita S. Hilarii in the Benedictine edition of his works, p. 91.

Ftb89 Lucifer was banished to Germanicia in Syria, Eusebius to Scythopolis in Palestine, Dionysius to Cappadocia in Syria, where he was placed under the control of the Arian bishops.

Ftb90 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 33, 34, 41; Rufinus (Hist. Eccl. 1:20) also places bishop Rhodanius of Toulouse among the exiles, but his banishment seems to belong to another time. Cf. Tillemont, t. 6 note 43, Sur les Ariens. Many inaccuracies with regard to the Synod of Milan are contained in an ancient short biography of Eusebius of Vercelli in Ughelli, Ital. Sacr. t. 4 p. 758 sqq.; it is better given in Mansi, t. 3 p. 247.

Ftb91 Hilar. Fragm, 6 p. 1333.

Ftb92 Jerome, De Viris Illust. c. 97.

Ftb93 Tillemont, l.c. t. 6 art. 51 in the treatise Les Ariens, p. 156 a, ed. Brux.

Ftb94 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 31.

Ftb95 Athanas. l.c. c. 32.

Ftb96 Ibid. c. 42.

Ftb97 Ibid. c. 41.

Ftb98 Concerning the influence of the eunuch upon Constantius, cf. Athanas. l.c. c. 37.

Ftb99 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 35-39. His speech, recorded by others, is given by Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2:16.

Ftb100 Theodoret, l. c. 2 p. 16.

Ftb101 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 40.

Ftb102 Sozom. lib. 4:11; Athanas. l. c. c. 75; Tillemont, l.c. t. 6. p. 165, ed.

Brux. Concerning Pope Felix, cf. Bower, History of the Popes by Rambach, vol. 1. pp. 209, 220 sqq., and Diss. 32, art. 3 of Natalis Alexander, in his Hist. Eccl. Section. 4, against which Roncaglia, in an appended criticism, tries to prove Felix the rightful Pope, Liberius having resigned. Pagi had already maintained the same (Critica in Annal. Baron. ad ann. 355, n. 3, and ann. 357, No. 16 sqq.), on the ground that Felix’s name appears in the office-books, not only as a legitimate Pope but as a saint, because Constantins, whom he had called a heretic, had him put to death. He is commemorated on July 29.

It is certain that Athanasius says Felix was raised to the episcopal chair by anti-Christian wickedness. Cf. Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 75.

Ftb103 Athanas. Hist. Arian ad Monachos, c. 42, 45.

Ftb104 Athanas. Apol. de Fuga sua, c. 6.

Ftb105 Also mentioned in the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, in Larsow, l. c. p. 35, No. 27.

Ftb106 This event is treated of in the preface before mentioned, in Larsow, l. c. p. 35, No. 28.

Ftb107 Vita Athan. in vol. 1 of the Benedictine edition, pp. 65, 67, ed. Patav.

Ftb108 l.c. p. 66 no. 10.

Ftb109 This letter bears the title of Epistola ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, and is printed t. 1 P. 1 p. 213 of the Opp. S. Athanas.

Ftb110 Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos. Also, Anomianus Marcellinus, the heathen historian, compares this George to a viper (Hist. lib. 22 c. 11).

Ftb111 On the 30th Mechir = 24th February 357, as says the preface in Larsow, l. c. p. 36, No. 29.

Ftb112 The Alexandrians indeed drove him away some time after, but he was very shortly restored by violence, and the city severely punished, Athan. De Synodis, c. 37; Sozom. 4:10.

Ftb113 Vita S. Athanas. l.c. p. 64 n. 16, 17; Athanas. Apolog. de Fuga Sua, c. 6, 7; Hist. Arian.

Ftb114 Vita S. Athan. l. c. p. 69 n. 19, 20, 21; Athan. De Fuga Sua, c. 7; Hist. Arian. ad Monachos.

Ftb115 Theodoret, lib. 2 c. 14.

Ftb116 Larsow, l.c. 86, No. 30 p. 37, No. 32.

Ftb117 Printed in t. 1 P. 1 p. 234 sqq. of the works of S. Athanas. ed. Patav.

Ftb118 Lib. 1. Ad Constantium Augustum, p. 1218, ed. BB. Cf. Reinkens, Hilary of Poitiers, 1864, p. 112, 118.

Ftb119 He was soon after also deposed at Beziers.

Ftb120 Cf. the Vita S. Hilarii, l.c. pp. 92, 96.

Ftb121 Concerning this, cf. what has been already said, and also Lucifer Calar. Moriendum esse pro Del Filio, p. 245, 246 in vol. 3 of Bib.

Max. PP. Lugd. 1577; Athanas. De Fuga, c. 5; Hist. Arian. ad Monach. c. 45, 67, 68, 74.

Ftb122 Lucifer, l.c. 247; Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. c. 30, 67, 68, 74.

Ftb123 Lucifer, l.c. 244, 246.

Ftb124 Epit. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 16.

Ftb125 We find the statements of the ancient Fathers as to his life collected in Tillemont, l. c. t. 6 art. 64 sq. the treatise, Les Ariens.

Ftb126 We find further particulars concerning his life in Tillemont, l. c. art. 96 sqq.

Ftb127 Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. Epit. lib. 8. c. 18.

Ftb128 Ou=tov than tecnologi>an ajpefhne Theodoret. Herr. tab. lib. 4. c. 3, p. 356, ed. Schulze.

Ftb129 Epiph. After. 76, c. 10, p. 924 sqq., ed. Patav. Col. 1682.

Ftb130 Petavius has here, p. 925, falsely translated ejxousi>av as if it was ejxousi>av but at p. 943 he has given the same sentence rightly: “Quod genuit, potestate producit.” As here, so also in the fifth thesis of Arius in Epiphanius, we must read ejxousi>av not ejx (ex substantia), as according to the Aetian, and indeed the Arian. doctrine in general, the Son proceeded not from the substance, but from the Will, the Power of the Father.

Ftb131 All ejxousi>av uJposthsa>shv aijto> cf. the preceding note.

Ftb132 Epiphan. l.c. p. 930.

Ftb133 The ajpologhtiko>v was refuted by Basil the Great, and Eunomius therefore wrote five new books which he named the “Defence of the Defence” against Basil. Philostorgius (lib. 8 c. 12) maintained that Basil, on reading the first of these books, was so enraged at it that he \lied. Photius, however, remarks that Eunomius only published this work after the death of S. Basil. (Photii, Bibl. Cod. 138.) It is certain that for the very reason that Basil was then dead, his brother Gregory of Nyssa wrote twelve books against Eunomius.

Ftb134 Extracts from the Aetian and Eunomian remains are given by Schrockh, Kirchengesehichte, vol. 6 p. 117 sqq.; Dr. von Baur, Lehre yon der Dreieinigkeit, vol. 1 p. 362 sqq.; and George Augustus Meier, Lehre yon der Trinitat, Hamb. 1844, vol. 1 p. 176 sqq.

Ftb135 Cf. Baur, l.c. p. 362 sq.

Ftb136 Cf. Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, 2d edition; and Baur, Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, part 1 p. 380.

Ftb137 Cf. Dorner, l.c. p. 857. Concerning this inconsistency of the Anomoeans, Baur, l. c. p. 375, very justly says: “It is as if the contradiction of the Infinite and the Finite were laid in God Himself.

The Being and the Will of God bear the same relation to each other as the Infinite and the Finite; for if the Will of God were as infinite and unbegotten as the Being of God, essentially one with the absolute Being of God, then the Will of God could not have been the moving principle of the creation of the Son, without the same inconsistencies arising as with the identity of Substance. Between the Being and the Will of God there is therefore a great gulf; God, as to His Being, is quite other from God as to His Will. The Being of God is Infinite, but the Will is limited to the Finite,” — that is, it only produces the finite.

And p. 379: “The principle of finiteness (i.e. the Will of God) being thus transferred to the Godhead, removes, per se, that very idea — the absolute idea of God — which it is the first necessity of the Anomoean system to maintain.”

Ftb138 Baur, l. c. p. 368 sqq.; Dorner, l. c. p. 885. Of this activity of the Son Eunomius maintains, very singularly, and without connection with the rest of his system, that “this activity of the Son was contained in the foreknowledge of God, in an unbegotten manner, even before the First Begotten Himself came into existence.” He therefore considers this activity of the Son to be inherent in God, that is, in the knowledge of God, before its actual realization in creation, in distinction to its subsequent actual appearance.

Ftb139 Cf. Baur, l.c. p. 372 sq.

Ftb140 So e.g. Philostorgius, lib. 3 c. 3.

Ftb141 Sotrat. Hist . Eccl. 4:7; Epiph. Haer. 76, p. 989.

Ftb142 Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. lib. 4. c. 3, p. 357, ed. Schulze.

Ftb143 Dorner, l. c. p. 859; cf. Baur, l. c. p. 383.

Ftb144 Philostorg. Fragm. lib. 1 c. 8. Cf. vol. 1 p. 295.

Ftb145 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 3:8.

Ftb146 Philostorgius, 2:14, 15.

Ftb147 See above, pp. 29, 104.

Ftb148 Socrat. 1:36; Athanas. Orat. I. contra Arian. c. 30, p 343, ed. Patav. Orat. II. contra Arian. c. 37, p. 399, and De Synodis, c. 18, p. 584.

Ftb149 Cf. concerning him, above, p. 51.

Ftb150 Cf. concerning it, Reinkens, Hilary of Poitiers, 1864, pp. 15 sqq.

Ftb151 Sozom. 4:12.

Ftb152 Hilary, De Synodis, p. 1156, ed. Bened.

Ftb153 Hilar. l.c .c. 11; Athan. De Synodis, c. 28, t. 1. P. 2. p. 594, ed.

Patav.; Socrat. 2:30, p. 124, ed. Mog.

Ftb154 This view of the insufficiency of the human understanding is more old-Arian than Anomoean. Cf. above, p. 224.

Ftb155 In the heading of the formula itself.

Ftb156 Socrates, h. e. 2:31; Sozom. 4:12; Athanas. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. c. 45; Apolog. c. Arian. c. 89, 90; Apolog. de Fuga, c. 5.

Ftb157 Sozom. 4:12-15.

Ftb158 Hilar. De Synodis, pp. 1151 et 1155.

Ftb159 Biblioth. Max. PP. Lugd. t. 4 p. 300; Bibl. PP. Galland, t. 5 p. 250.

Ftb160 Cf. the letter of George of Laodicea in Sozom. 4:13; Mansi, t. 3 p. 287.

Ftb161 Sozom. 4:13.

Ftb162 Hilary, De Synods. n. 12, p. 1158, also refers to this Synod.

Ftb163 Cf. Mansi, l. c. p. 271, in the Synodal Letter of the Synod of Ancyra.

Ftb164 These names appear among the signatures to the Synodal Letter, according to which George of Laodicea was not himself present; perhaps he, like many others, was hindered by the winter. Cf. p. 271 of the Synodal Letter in Mansi, i.e. Concerning the Synod of Ancyra, of.

Reinkens, Hilary of Poitiers, pp. 164 sqq.

Ftb165 Epiph. Haer. 73, n. 2-11; also printed in Mansi, t. 3. pp. 270-288.

Ftb166 Mansi, l.c. p. 275.

Ftb167 Cf. above, p. 222.

Ftb168 Cf. pp. 222 and 220, n. 2.

Ftb169 Hilarii Opp. ed. Bened. pp. 1158-1168.

Ftb170 Sozom. 4:13, 14.

Ftb171 P. 212.

Ftb172 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2:17; Socrat. 2:37, p. 141, ed. Mog.; Sozom. 4:15; Sulpic. Sever. l.c. 2:39, in the Biblioth. Max. PP. Lugd. t. 6. p. 346. Professor Reinerding of Fulda (Beitrage zur Honorius und Liberiusfrage, 1865, p. 60) finds an inconsistency in this account, for it says, “The Emperor conceded the recall of Liberius, which gave rise to disturbance among the friends of the latter, and then he called him back.” This is certainly inconsistent. Our account, however, truly says, “At first the Emperor conceded that Liberius should return, and in union with Felix should fill the Papal office. At such a decision (two Popes) disturbance arose, and now the Emperor allowed Liberius to:return as the sole occupant of the Papal See.”

Ftb173 Acta Sanctorum, t. 6. Septembris (23d September), p. 572 sqq., especially pp. 598 sqq.

Ftb174 Zaccaria, Dissert. de Commentitio Liberii Lapsu.

Ftb175 Palma, Praelectiones Hist. Eccl. t. 1. P. 2., Romae 1838, p. 94 sqq.

Ftb176 The passages referring to this have already been quoted in note 1 of the preceding page.

Ftb177 Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 41.

Ftb178 Reinerding, Beitruge zur Honorius und Liberiusfrage, 1865, p. sqq.

Ftb179 Acta Saanctorum, l. c. p. 601 sqq.

Ftb180 The Benedictine editors of the works of S. Athanasius (in their Admonitio to the Epist. ad Serapionem, N. 11) indeed maintained that Leontius died later, as Socrates, 2:37, states. We cannot, however, agree with them here, but must rather allow, with the Bollandists, that Leontius was certainly dead at the time of the alleged weakness of Liberius, and that Eudoxius was then his successor, as Sozomen (4:15, compared with c. 13 and 14) very expressly relates. And if this is so, the Historia Arian. ad Monachos must necessarily have been written before the fall of Liberius, which only took place some time after the Synod held by Eudoxius at Antioch. Cf. above, p. 228, and Sozom. 4:15.

Ftb181 This he says expressly in his letter to them, c. 3, which is prefixed to the Historia Arian. ad Monachos, Opp. t. 1. P. 1. p. 272, ed. Patav.

Ftb182 He says this also in his Epist. ad Scrap. c. 1, l. c. p. 269.

Ftb183 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 89.

Ftb184 Athan. Hist. Arian. c. 41.

Ftb185 All this has been rightly understood and expressed by an older colleague of Stilting’s, the celebrated Papebroch, in his treatise on Athanasius in the works of the Bollandists, t. 1 Magi Prolog. p. 186, and chap. 19, n. 220; 25. n. 296.

Ftb186 Hilar. Contra Constantium Imperatorem, c. 11.

Ftb187 “O te miseram, qui nescio utrum majore impietate relegaveris, quam remiseris,” p. 1247, ed. Bened.

Ftb188 Palma, l. c. p. 102; Reinerding, l. c. p. 29.

Ftb189 Sozom. 4:15.

Ftb190 This Synod drew up four symbols, which Athanasius gives in his De Synodis, c. 22 sqq. But probably the fourth Antiochian symbol is here meant, which was also repeated Philippopolis and at the first Sirmian Synod in 351.

Ftb191 Socrat. 4:12.

Ftb192 C. 97.

Ftb193 Pp. 240 sq.

Ftb194 Stilting, in the Acta Sanct. t. 6 Septembris, p. 605 sqq.; Palma, l. c. p. 102 sq.; Reinerding, l. c. p. 38 sqq., p. 43.

Ftb195 S. Hilarii Opp. Frag. 6. p. 1335, n. 4.

Ftb196 See above, p. 203.

Ftb197 Hilar. Opp. Frag. 6 n. 7, p. 1337.

Ftb198 Sozomen, 4:15.

Ftb199 In Mansi, t. 3 pp. 219 sqq. (pseudo-Isidore) and pp. 225 sqq. (old ancient forgery); cf. also Bolland. Acta SS. Sept. t. 6 pp. 625 sqq. in the treatise of P. Joannes Stilting on Liberius.

Ftb200 Pp. 200 sq.

Ftb201 Baron. in Append. t. 3. ad ann. 352.

Ftb202 Hilar. Opp. ed. Bened. p. 1327, not. a. Acta SS. l.c. p. 580 sqq.

Tillemont alone does not dare entirely to reject this letter, l. c. t. 8. Vie de S. Athanas. art. 64, note 68.

Ftb203 Stilting, l. c. p. 580 b, rightly says: “Stylus est adolescentis alicujus linguam Latinam discentis, qui prima praecepta nec dum satis intelligit, et certe non satis novit cogitationes suas nitido et claro uteumque sermone exprimere.”

Ftb204 Hilar. Fragm. 5. p. 1330.

Ftb205 Theodoret, 2:16.

Ftb206 De Virginibus, c. 1:3; cf. Stilting, in the Acta SS. l. c. p. 532 b and p. 630 a.

Ftb207 The Benedictine editor of Hilary has only accepted this reading in the notes, p. 1338, note h, and has taken his text: prius quam ad comitatum s. imperatoris literas Orientalium destinarem episcoporum, from a codex of Sirmond he had not himself seen. Cf. Stilting, l. c . p. 584 a. n. 43, 44.

Ftb208 Baron, Append. t. 3 p. 25.

Ftb209 Palma, l. c. p. 170; Ballerini, De vi ac ratione Primatus, chap. 15:8, p. 298, ed. August. 1770. The literary journals of Rome of the 17th April, and Fuchs in his Biblioth. der Kirchenvers., vol. 2. p. 187, give some account of Massari’s work on the Synod of Rimini, in which these three letters, as well as the earlier Studens paci, are all declared to be spurious. See above, p. 198, note 3.

Ftb210 Sozom. 4:15.

Ftb211 Jerome, Catalog. seu de Viris Illust. c. 100.

Ftb212 l.c. pp. 514 sqq.

Ftb213 [These arguments, from internal evidence, against the genuineness of the fragments of St. Hilary, and the three disputed letters of Liberius, must, of course, depend entirely for their force on the absence of external evidence. Dr. Newman appears to entertain no doubt on the subject, for he several times quotes the fragments in the text and appendix of his Arians of the Fourth Century (3d ed. 1871) without any hint of suspicion. See pp. 332, 436, 437. Cf. also note appended at the end of this volume.] Ftb214 See above, p. 238.

Ftb215 Theodoret, 2:16.

Ftb216 Sozom. 4:12.

Ftb217 De Synodis, c. 87.

Ftb218 Cf. p. 677, and Stilting in Acta SS. l.c. p. 611, n. 170; Palma, l. c . p. 106.

Ftb219 Hilar. De Synodis, c. 29 sqq. and c. 38 sqq.

Ftb220 Stilting in Acta SS. l. c. pp. 612 sqq.; Palma, l. c. p. 105.

Ftb221 That which they call the third Sirmian formula of 359 was certainly later than the return of Liberius; but for us this is the fourth Sirmian formula.

Ftb222 Hilar. De Synodis, c. 12.

Ftb223 Sozom. 4:15.

Ftb224 See above, pp. 200 sq.

Ftb225 [On the vexed question as to what formula precisely Liberius subscribed, see the third appendix to Newman’s Arians (ut supra) on “the Confessions of Sirmium.”] Ftb226 Contra Constantium, n. 11, p. 1247.

Ftb227 Ibid. n. 2, p. 1239.

Ftb228 Page 235. [For the argument on the other side the reader may compare Renouf’s “Note on Liberius,” cited at the end of this volume, not for the purpose of pronouncing on the points at issue, but as giving a luminous exposition, from the pen of a learned Roman Catholic critic, of the adverse view to the author’s on an important historical controversy.] Ftb229 Philostorg. Fragm. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4:8, 9.

Ftb230 Ibid. c. 10.

Ftb231 Sozom. 3:19, 4:16.

Ftb232 Soc. 2:37.

Ftb233 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 1:7.

Ftb234 Sozom. 4:16.

Ftb235 Sozom. 4:16, and the notes of Valesius on this passage.

Ftb236 Sozom. 4:16; Athanas. De Synodis, c. 1:7; Philostorg. 4:10.

Ftb237 Sozom. 4:17.

Ftb238 We obtain this date from the letter of Bishop Germinius of Sirmium in Hilar. Fragm. 15 n. 3, p. 1363, from the signature of Valens in Epiphan. Herr. 73, c. 22, and from the heading of the formula itself in Athanas. De Synodis, c. 7.

Ftb239 Letter of the bishop Germinius of Sirmium in Hilar. Fragm, 15 p. 1362.

Ftb240 Sozom. 4:17; Soc. 2:37.

Ftb241 Cf. also the note b of the Benedictines on Athanas. De Synodis, c. 8.

Ftb242 Hilar. Fragm. 15 p. 1363.

Ftb243 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 8; Socrat. 2:37.

Ftb244 We learn these details from Epiphanius, Haer. 73, 22. Whether this passage in Epiphanius, from Eijv thstin to the end of c. 22, also belongs to the memoir by Basil of Ancyra, given in the weeding chapter, or proceeds from Epiphanius himself, is doubtful. Cf. the notes of Dionysius Petavius on this passage in his edition of the works of S. Epiphanius, t. 2 Animadv. ad Haer. 73, c. 22, p. 823, edit.

Colon. 1682.

Ftb245 At any rate, it goes as far as the passage discussed in the preceding note, beinning Eiv thstin ; but even this passage may, as we have said, perhaps belong to Basil’s treatise.

Ftb246 Cf. his Animadversiones on Epiphan. Haer. 73, c. 12, in the second volume of his edition, pp. 321 sq.

Ftb247 The documents relating to the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia, which are to be found scattered in Athanasius, Hilary, and elsewhere, and are quoted by us in what follows from those sources, are conveniently collected in Mansi, Coll. Conc. t. 3 pp. 294-326, and less completely in Harduin, t. 1 pp. 711 sqq.

Ftb248 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 8; Sozom. 4:17; Sulpic. Sev. Hist. Sacra, 1:2 p. 346 b, in the Biblioth. Max. PP. Lugd. 1677, t. 4.

Ftb249 Hilar. Fragm. 8 p. 1346, and Fragm. 7 p. 1342; Jerome, Adv. Lucifer. t. 4 p. 300; Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 347 a; Remi Ceillier, Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres, t. 5 p. 520.

Ftb250 Histoire Generale, etc. t. 5 p. 520.

Ftb251 Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 346 b.

Ftb252 Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 520.

Ftb253 In Hilar. Fragm, 7 p. 1340.

Ftb254 Sozom. 4:17.

Ftb255 Hilar. Fragm. 7 p. 1341.

Ftb256 P. 248.

Ftb257 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 8.

Ftb258 Theodoret, Hist. 2:18; cf. also Sozom. 4:17.

Ftb259 Sozom. 4:17.

Ftb260 De Synodis, c. 9.

Ftb261 In the Definitio Catholica published by the Synod and preserved in Hilar. Fragm, 7 p. 1341.

Ftb262 In the document given in Hilar. l. c. p. Ftb263 In the document given in Athanas. De Synodis, c. 11, and in Hilar. l. c. p. 1342. The Synod there calls itself Catholica Synodus. In the document itself there is no mention of the deposition of Anxentius and Demophilus, though there is in Athanas. l. c. c. 9. On this el. Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 325.

Ftb264 In Hilar. Fragm. 8 p. 1344; Athanas. De Syndis, c. 10; Sozom. 4:18; Socrat. 2:37; Theodoret, 2:19.

Ftb265 Sulpic. Sev. l. c . p. 346 b.

Ftb266 P. 1346.

Ftb267 In Athanas. De Synodis, c. 55, Sozom. 4:18, p. 565. Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 531, is of opinion that only ten deputies were at first sent from the orthodox side, and that the four other names which occur in the eighth fragment of Hilary indicate that the Synod later again sent four deputies to the Emperor with their answer to his cold letter.

Ftb268 Sozom. 4:19; Socrat. 2:38, p. 139, ed. Mog.; Theodoret, 2:19, p. 100, ed. Mog.

Ftb269 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 55; also in Soc. 2:38, p. 139.

Ftb270 De Synodis, c. 29.

Ftb271 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 3 sq.

Ftb272 Athanas. De Synodis c. 3; Socrat. 2:37, p. 134, ed. Mog.; cf. above, p. 202, note 1.

Ftb273 Socrat. 2:30, in fine, p. 126, ed. Mog.

Ftb274 Cf. the notes of the Benedictines on Athanas. De Synodis, c. 29.

Ftb275 Theodoret, 2:21; Socrat. 2:37, in fine, p. 141; Sozom. 4:19, p. 569.

The latter, however, also adds many incorrect statements.

Ftb276 Athanas. Ep. ad Afros, c. 3, t. 1. P. 2. p. 714, ed. Patav.; and Hilar. Contra Auxent. p. 1267, and Fragm. 11 p. 1358; Sozom. 4:19, p. 569.

Ftb277 That this was brought forward, we see from the letter of the Gallicart bishops to the Orientals, in Hilar. Fragm, 11 n. 1 p. 1853: “Sub auctoritate vestri nominis ad usiae silentium sunt coacti.” The same deceit was subsequently practiced at Rimini. Sozom. 4:19, p. 569.

Ftb278 Athanas. l. c.

Ftb279 Socrat. 2:37, p. 141. This formula of Nice was, as Athanasius (De Synodis, c. 30) states, sent from Constantinople to Rimini, either because it was first transmitted to the Emperor from Nice, and then to the bishops at Rimini, or because it was first composed at Constantinople, and sent from thence to Nice, and from Nice to Rimini.

Cf. Fuchs, Biblioth. vol. 2 p. 257, note 285.

Ftb280 Hilar, Fragm, 8 p. 1346.

Ftb281 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 30; Theodoret, 2:21.

Ftb282 This is the sense given in the text of Athanasius (l.c.); in Theodoret, however, it is said: “The Father and the Son shall not be called one and the same hypostasis.”

Ftb283 Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 347 a; and Hilar. Fragm. 8. n. 7, p. 1347.

Ftb284 Sulpic. Sev. l. c.

Ftb285 Sulpic. Sev. l. c.

Ftb286 This appears from the answer in Hilar. Fragm. 9 p. 1347.

Ftb287 Sozom. 4:19, p. 569.

Ftb288 We are constrained thus to understand the passage in Rufin. Hist.

Eccl. 1. (10) 21, although Rufinus himself interprets the account which had reached him somewhat differently, thus: “they were asked if they prayed to the oJmoou>siov , or to Christ.”

Ftb289 Augustin. Contra Maximinum Arian. lib. 2. c. 14, n. 3.

Ftb290 Sulpic. Sev. l. c.

Ftb291 Hilar. Fragm. 9 p. 1347.

Ftb292 Even those who had already signed were not to be released until all had signed, in order the more easily to induce the minority to yield.

This appears from the command given to Taurus, quoted by Sulpicius Severus (l. c.), and the letter before mentioned from the bishops who had already yielded to the Emperor, given by Hilary, Fragm. 9 p. 1347.

Ftb293 Sulp. Sev. l. c. These additions may probably be taken as identical with the anathemas given by Hilary (Adv. Lucifer. t. 4. pp. 299, 300), as having been spoken at that time by Valens to appease the orthodox: “Si quis negat Christum Deum, Dei Filium ante secula genitum, anathema sit. Ab universis consonatum est: anathema sit. Si quis negat, Filium similem Patti secundum scripturas, anathema sit. Omnes responderunt: anathema sit. Si quis Filium Dei non dixerit aeternum cum Patre, anathema sit. Ab universis conclamatum est: anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit creaturam Filium Dei, ut sunt creaturae caeterae, anathema sit. Similiter dictum est, anathema sit. Si quis dixerit, de nullis exstantibus Filium, et non de Deo Patre, anathema sit. Omnes conclamaverunt: anathema sit. Si quis dixerit, erat tempus quando non erat Filius, anathema sit.”

Ftb294 Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 347 a.

Ftb295 In Augustine, Opus Imperf. contra Julianum, lib. 1 c. 75.

Ftb296 In Hilar. Fragm. 10 p. 1349. [It is the result of this heretical Council of Rimini which St. Jerome described in the well-known words, “Ingemuit totus orbis et Ariamum se esse miratus est.”] Ftb297 See p. 248.

Ftb298 Socrat. 2:39, gives the number one hundred and fifty. Athanas. (De Synodis, c. 12) 160; cf. also Hilar. Contra Constantium Imper. n. 12, p. 1248.

Ftb299 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 12.

Ftb300 According to Socrates, 2:39, p. 147, they numbered thirty-four; but according to Epiph. Haeres. 73, c. 26, they were forty-three (cf. the note of Petavius, a. h. 1. in the appendix to vol. 2); according to Hilary, l. c., only nineteen.

Ftb301 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 12; cf. also Socrat. 2:39, p. 147.

Ftb302 Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 346 b.

Ftb303 His reasons for this are given by Hilary in his work, Contra Constantium Imper. c. 2 p. 1239.

Ftb304 Socrat. 2:39, p. 146; Sozom. 4:22.

Ftb305 Socrat. 2:39, 40; Sozom. 4:22.

Ftb306 Athanas. De Synodis, c. 12; Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 346 b.

Ftb307 Socrat. 2:39, p. 147; Sozom. 4:22, p. 573.

Ftb308 Athanas. l. c.; Socrat. 2:39, p. 147; Sozom. 4:22, p. 573.

Ftb309 Hilar. Contra Constant. Imp. c. 12, p. 1248.

Ftb310 Hilar. l. c. n. 13, pp. 1248 sq.

Ftb311 Hilar, l. c. n. 12, p. 1248.

Ftb312 It is known that the Synod in Encoeniis, in 341, drew up several formulas. It is not said which is here meant.

Ftb313 Socrat. 2:39, pp. 147, 148.

Ftb314 Ibid. l. c. p. 148.

Ftb315 Ibid. c. 40, p. 148.

Ftb316 Ibid. c. 40, p. 149.

Ftb317 Socrat. 2:40; Sozom. 4:22.

Ftb318 Theodoret, 2:26.

Ftb319 Socrat. 2:40, p. 148; Sozom. 4:22, p. 514.

Ftb320 Socrat. 2:40, pp. 149 sq.; Epiphan. Haer. 73, 25; Athanas. De Synodis, c. 29.

Ftb321 Hilar. Contra Constantlum Imper, n. 14, p. 1249.

Ftb322 Socrat. 2:40, p. 150.

Ftb323 Socrat. 2:40, p. 151.

Ftb324 Socrat. l. c.; Sozom. 4:22, p. 576; Hilar. l. c. p. 1250.

Ftb325 Socrat. l. c. p. 151; Sozom. l. c. p. 576.

Ftb326 Socrat. 2:40, p. 151.

Ftb327 Sozom. 4:22, p. 576.

Ftb328 Socrat. 2:40, pp. 151, 152; Sozom. 4:22, p. 577.

Ftb329 Socrat. 2:40, p. 155; Sozom. 4:22, p. 577, and 4:24, p. 582.

Ftb330 Sozom. 4:23, p. 577; Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 346 b.

Ftb331 Theodoret, 2:27, p. 111, ed. Mog.

Ftb332 Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 347 a.

Ftb333 Socrat. 2:41; Sozom. 4:23; Hilar. Contra Const. Imp. c. 15, p. 1250; Theodoret, 2:27.

Ftb334 Theodoret, l. c. Cf. also the article, Cyril of Jerusalem, in the Kirchenlexicon, by Wetzer and Welte, vol. 2 p. 974.

Ftb335 See above, p. 263.

Ftb336 Theodoret, 2:27.

Ftb337 Theodoret, l. c. p. 113, it is true, says oJmoou>siov , but it ought without doubt to be oJmoiou>siov , because Silvanus and Eleusius had already the year before at the Synod of Ancyra (in the last anathema)anathematized the oJmoou>siov , and they were heads of the Semi-Arians. Only in 366 did they also accept the creed of Nicaea. Cf.

Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 552; and Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenversammlung, vol. 2 p. 273, note.

Ftb338 Theodoret, l.c.; cf. below, pp. 272 sq.

Ftb339 Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 347 a.

Ftb340 In the heading of this letter there are names of bishops who did not belong to the deputies from Seleucia, but yet were with these at Constantinople. Cf. Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 554.

Ftb341 Hilar. Fragm. 10 n. 3, p. 1351.

Ftb342 Hilar. l. c. n. 3, p. 1351.

Ftb343 See above, pp. 257, 260.

Ftb344 Sozom. 4:23; Sulpic. Sev. l. c. p. 347 a; Basil. M. Epp. 244-263; Hilar. Contra Constant. Imp. n. 15, p. 1250. It appears that the signature of Hilary himself was not demanded as he was not a Synodal deputy, and there could be no hope of obtaining it from him.

Ftb345 Jerome, Dial. adv. Luciferianos, n. 19.

Ftb346 Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb347 Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb348 Sulpic. Sev. Hist, lib. 2 l. c. p. 347; Hilar. lib. 2 ad Const. c. 3, p. 1226.

Ftb349 Cf. above, p. 257; also Mansi, t. 3 p. 331; and Hard. t. 1 p. 725.

Ftb350 The Synodal Letter concerning this deposition, addressed to the Arian Bishop George of Alexandria, whose deacon Aetius was, is given in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2:28, and also in Mansi, t. 3 p. 325, and Hard. l. c. Cf. also Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb351 Philostorg. lib. 5 c. 1, 2.

Ftb352 Epiph. Haer. 76.

Ftb353 Socrat. 2:38-42; Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb354 Socrat. 2:42; Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb355 Socrat. 2:43; Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb356 According to Sozom. l. c. , the deposition of Eustathius at the Synod of Gangra preceded his deposition at Constantinople in 360.

Ftb357 Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb358 Sozom. 4:25; Socrat. 2:42. Cf. above, p. 268.

Ftb359 Gregor. Naz. Orat. 21; Basil. M. lib. 1. Contra Eunom. t. 1. p. 210.

Ftb360 Sozom. 4:25, 26; Socrat. 2:42, 43.

Ftb361 Sozom. 4:24.

Ftb362 Sozom. 4:25.

Ftb363 Philostorg. 7:6.

Ftb364 Sozom. 4:26; Socrat. 2:43.

Ftb365 Sozom. 4:26, 27; Gregor. Naz. Orat. 19; Basil. M. Epist. 51; Jerome, Chronic. ad ann. 371. [Dianius had baptized Basil, who was greatly attached to him, but after this act of apostasy ceased to hold intercourse with him. Two years later, Dianius, when on his deathbed, sent for Basil and solemnly professed his adherence to the Catholic faith.] Ftb366 See Hilar. Patav. Fragm. 11 p. 1353; Hard. t. 1 p. 727; and Mansi, t. 3 p. 358.

Ftb367 Cf. my treatise on the Meletian schism in the Kirchenlexicon by Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7. pp. 42 sqq. [See also Newman’s Arians, pp. 372 sqq.] Ftb368 [“At this critical moment Constantins died, when the cause of truth was only not in the lowest state of degradation, because a party was in authority and in power who could reduce it lower still; the Latins committed to an anti-Catholic creed, the Pope a renegade, Hosius fallen and dead, Athanasius wandering in the deserts, Arians in the Sees of Christendom, and their doctrine growing in blasphemy and their profession of it in boldness every day. The Emperor had come to the throne when almost a boy, and at this time was but forty-four years old.

In the ordinary course of things, he might have reigned till orthodoxy, humanly speaking, was extinct.” — Newman’s Notes on Treatises of Athanasius, p. 127 e, quoted in 3d ed. of Arians, p. 362.] Ftb369 Rufin. Hist. Eccl. 1 (10) 27, 28.

Ftb370 Cf. the heading and signatures of the Synodal Letter, of which more will be said later.

Ftb371 Rufin. l. c.

Ftb372 Rufin. Hist. Eccl. 1 (10) 28; Athanas. Epist. ad Rufinianum, Opp. t. P. 2 p. 768, ed. Patav.

Ftb373 Rufin. l. c. 1 (10) 29.

Ftb374 So says the copy of the Epist. Athanasii ad Rufin., which was read at the second Synod of Nicaea, Actio 1; cf. Hard. t. 4 p. 58. The same is said in the Auctor vitoe S. Eusebii, quoted in Mansi, t. 3 p. 356.

Ftb375 Jerome, Adv. Lucifer. p. 302.

Ftb376 Rufin. l. c. 1 (10) 29.

Ftb377 Cf. the Synodal Letter (called Tomus) in Athanas. t. 1 P. 2 p. 616; also in Mansi, t. 3 p. 347; and Hard. t. 1 p. 731.

Ftb378 Cf. Rufin. l. c. 1 (10) 29, with the Synodal Letter in Athanasius, l. c. p. 617; in Mansi, l. c. p. 350. Socrates (Hist . Eccl. 3:7) quite incorrectly relates that the Synod decided that “the expressions uJpo>stasiv and oujsi>a should not be used at all with reference to God.” The correct account is given in the Synodal Letter.

Ftb379 Gregor. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 409.

Ftb380 Mentioned in the Synodal Letter in Athanas. l. c. p. 619, n. 9; Mansi, l. c. p. 354.

Ftb381 Cf. the Synodal Letter, p. 618, n. 7, in Athanas. l. c., and p. 350 sq. in Mansi, l. c. ; also Rufin. l. c.

Ftb382 In Athanas. Opp. t. 1 P. 2 p. 613, ed. Patav.; in Mansi, t. 3 p. 346; Hard. t. 1 p. 730; in German, Fuchs, Biblioth, der Kirchenvers. vol. p. 282.

Ftb383 Cf. Remi Ceillier, Hist. Generale, etc., t. 5 p. 591, and note 2 of the Benedictine editors on Athanas. t. 1 P. 2 p. 615, ed. Patav.

Ftb384 Augustin. De Agone Christiano, c. 30, T. 6 p. 260, ed. Bened.; Jerome, Adv. Lucif. p. 301.

Ftb385 Athanas. De Fide ad Jovianum Imperat. c. 2, t. 1 P. 2 p. 623, ed.

Patav.

Ftb386 Philostorg. lib. 9 n. 4.

Ftb387 Philostorg. lib. 7 c. 6.

Ftb388 Philostorg. lib. 7 c. 5.

Ftb389 Sozom. 4:27.

Ftb390 Ibid. 4:27; Socrat. 2 c. 38, 45.

Ftb391 Basil. M. Epist. 251, p. 388.

Ftb392 [Valens succeeded Julian in 364, after the short intermediate reign of Jovian. Arcadius became Emperor in 395.] Ftb393 When Athanasius was not only restoring peace among the Christians, but also gaining over many heathens, the Emperor Julian declared that “he had indeed allowed the Galileans to return to their fatherland, but not to their Churches (Sees), and was angered that Athanasius, that enemy of the gods, who had so often been banished by the Emperors, should have dared without special orders to return to Alexandria.”

Julian. Ep. 6, 26; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 3:9.

Ftb394 The Synodal Letter is given in Athanas. Opp. t. 1 P. 2 pp. 622 sqq. ed. Patav.; and Theodoret, 4:3. In the latter place the letter has an additional sentence, in which is expressed the hope that Jovian might long remain Emperor. Baronius conjectured that the Arians had inserted this sentence for the purpose of making Athanasius appear a false prophet. But others think that, as Jovian died so soon afterwards, the sentence in question was again withdrawn. The Synodal Letter is also printed in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 366 sqq.; and Hard. t. 1 p. 789; translated in Fuchs, l. c. p. 293.

Ftb395 Socrat. 3:25.

Ftb396 This Synodal Letter is given by Socrat. 3:25, and Sozora. 6:4; also printed in Mansi, t. 3 p. 370, and Hard. t. 1 p. 742.

Ftb397 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 4:12.

Ftb398 Sozom. 6:7; Socrat. 4:2, 3, 4.

Ftb399 Sozom. l. c.

Ftb400 Sozom. 6:10; Socrat. 4:12.

Ftb401 Socrat. 4:16; Sozom. 6:14; Theodoret, 4:24.

Ftb402 Socrat. 4:6; Sozom. 6:8. The further statement of these two historians, that Eunomius was then appointed bishop of Cyzicus by Eudoxius is incorrect. The promotion of Eunomius took place at an earlier time; in 366, however, he was no longer in possession of the See of Cyzicus. Cf. Philostorg. 5:3, and Theodoret, 2:27, 29, and the notes of Valesins on Socrat. 4:7.

Ftb403 Socrat. 4:12; Sozom. 6:11.

Ftb404 Socrat. 4:12.

Ftb405 Cf. Sehrockh, Kirchengesch. vol. 12 p. 31.

Ftb406 Socrat. 4:12.

Ftb407 The documents referring to this are found in Hilar. Fragm. 13, 15 p. 1359 sqq. ed. Bened.

Ftb408 Socrat. 4:12; Sozom. 6:12.

Ftb409 Ibid. 6:12; cf. above, p. 77.

Ftb410 Because of his exertions in this direction, the sixth general Synod says: Da>masov oJ ajda>mav th~v pi>stewv . Mansi, t. 11 p. 661; Hard. t. 3 p. 1420.

Ftb411 The chronological order of the Roman Synods held under Damasus is very uncertain. After the example of Walch (Hist. der Kirchenvers. p. 213), we here follow Merenda in his Gesta S. Damasi, Rotate 1754.

Ftb412 The original letter of the Synod in Latin is to be found in Hard. t. 1 p. 773, and Mansi, t. 3 p. 443; a Greek translation had been already given by Sozom. 4:23, and Theodoret, 2:22. This Synod also published a Tome addressed to the Orientals, which, besides the Synodal Letter just mentioned, contained some other explanations concerning the faith, the rest of which arc printed in Mansi, t. 3. pp. 459-462.

Ftb413 Hilar. Pict. Contra Auxent. p. 1267, n. 7 sqq.

Ftb414 See the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S.

Athanasius Larsow, l. c. p. 46.

Ftb415 Cf. Schrockh, Kircheugesch. vol. 12 pp. 41 sqq.

Ftb416 The rest of the acts are to be found in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 481 sqq.; also, in Merenda, l. c. pp. 44, 202, who, at the same time, opposes the date of this Synod accepted by Mansi.

Ftb417 Hard. t. 1 p. 795; Mansi, t. 3 pp. 491 sqq. We possess a special treatise upon the Synod of Valence by Dr. Herbst, Professor at Tiibingen, in the Tubing. Theol. Quartalschr. 1827, pp. 665 sqq.

Ftb418 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 4:9; Mansi, t. 3 p. 386; Hard. t. 1 p. 794; cf.

Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenversamml. vol. 2 pp. 373 sqq.

Ftb419 Theodoret, lib. 4 c. 3; Mansi, t. 3 p. 90.

Ftb420 Cf. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 4:7, in fine.

Ftb421 Remi Ceillier, t. 5 p. 609.

Ftb422 Mansi, t. 3 p. 499; Basil. M. Ep. 235 (alias 264).

Ftb423 Basil, Ep . 237.

Ftb424 Mansi, t. 3 pp. 502, 506 sq.

Ftb425 Sozom. 6:25; Theodorct, 5:10; Merenda, l. c. pp. 53 sqq.

Ftb426 Socrat. 5:2; Sozom. 7:1; Theodoret, 5:2.

Ftb427 Socrat. 5:4; Sozom. 6:2.

Ftb428 Ep. ad Olymp. de Vita et Obitu S. Macrinae.

Ftb429 See above, pp. 287 sq.; cf. Hard. t. 1 p. 776; and Mansi, t. 3 pp. sq., where the signatures of the Antiochians are given.

Ftb430 Mansi, t. 3 p. 511; cf. the Notes of Valesius on Theodoret, 5:3.

Ftb431 Remi Ceillier, l. c. pp. 621, 627.

Ftb432 The letter of the Synod to the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian II. is to be found in Hard. t. 1 p. 839; and Mansi, t. 3 p. 624; cf. Fuchs, l. c. p. 363.

Ftb433 The document in question has been preserved by Theodoret, 5:11, but no doubt with an incorrect heading, according to which the letter of Damasus and his Synod was addressed to Bishop Paul of Thessalonica; but, at that time, S. Acholius was bishop of that town, therefore the correct reading would be Paulinus of Antioch (the bishop of the Eustathians). The document is also printed in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 486 sqq.; Harduin, t. 1 p. 517.

Ftb434 Mansi, t. 3 p. 517.

Ftb435 Concerning which, cf. Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1826, pp. sqq.; and Coleccion de Canones de la IgIesia Espanola, Madrid 1849, t. 2 pp. 123 sqq.

Ftb436 Sulpic. Sev. Hist. Sacra, lib. 2.

Ftb437 Mansi, t. 3 pp. 633 sqq.; Hard. t. 1 pp. 805 sq.

Ftb438 Mansi, l. c. pp. 635 sqq.

Ftb439 Cf. Mandernach, Geschichte der Priscill. 1851, pp. 20 sqq.

Ftb440 Cod. Theod. lib. 16 tit. 1; De Fide Cathol. 1:2.

Ftb441 Socrat. 5:7; Sozom. 7:5.

Ftb442 Cod. Theod. 1:6, de Haeret.

BOOK Ftc1 Also named Laodicea ad Lycum, and not to be confounded with Laodicea in Syria.

Ftc2 Cf. Hardouin’s note in his Collect. Concil. t. 1 p. 779; also in Mansi, t. 2 p. 563.

Ftc3 Concil. Trull. can. 2 in Hard. Coll. Concil. t. 3 p. 1659.

Ftc4 In Corpus Jur. Can. c. 1. Dist. 20.

Ftc5 Baron. Annal. t. 4 Appendix, pp. 916 sq. ed. Mog. 1601.

Ftc6 Jerome, Proef. ad Librum Judith.

Ftc7 Cf. vol. 1 pp. 370 sq.

Ftc8 For instance, Epist. 47, ad Furiam: “Si cui tamen placet volumen recipere;” cf. vol. 1 p. 371, note 1.

Ftc9 See p. 189.

Ftc10 See pp. 193, 198.

Ftc11 See p. 199.

Ftc12 In the letter of the Arian party at Sardica only one Phrygia is named.

Hardouin, t. 1 p. 671; Mansi, t. 3 p. 126. The Ballerini, in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 3 p. 21 n. 12, laid special weight upon this, in order to show that the Synod of Laodicea took place later than that of Sardica. Cf. above, p. 95.

Ftc13 Pagi, Critica in Annal. Baron. ad. ann. 314, n. 25.

Ftc14 Marca’s opinion was repeated by Van Espen, Commentar. in Canones et Decreta Juris, etc., Colon. 1754, pp. 156 sq.

Ftc15 Philostorgius, 8:3, 4.

Ftc16 Epiphan. Hoer. 73, c. 26.

Ftc17 C. 2 Dist. 16.

Ftc18 In order to dispose of this difficulty, Pagi raises the further hypothesis that the Synod of Laodicea was indeed Arian, but that its canons were subsequently received by the orthodox Church.

Ftc19 Printed in Mansi, t. 2. pp. 563 sqq.; Hard. t. 1. pp. 781 sqq.; Bevereg. Pandectoe Canonum, t. 1. pp. 453 sqq.

Ftc20 Their commentaries are printed in Bevereg. l. c.

Ftc21 Van Espen, Commentar. in Canones et Decreta Juris Veteris ac Novi, Colon. 1754, pp. 157 sqq.

Ftc22 Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1823, pp. 3 sqq.

Ftc23 Van Espen, l. c. p. 151.

Ftc24 Ibid, l. c. p. 158.

Ftc25 Corpus Jur. Canonici, can. 4, causa 26. quaest. 7.

Ftc26 Vol. 1 pp. 424 sq.

Ftc27 Gratian, Decret. c. 9, Dist. 46.

Ftc28 See vol. 1 pp. 420, 421.

Ftc29 Can. 84; Hard. t. 1 p. 984; Mansi, t. 3 p. 958.

Ftc30 Hard. t. 3 p. 774. The Photinians have often been identified with the followers of Paul of Saraosata, for instance by Rufinus, in his translation of the nineteenth (twenty-first) Nicene canon, in his Hist.

Eccl. 1 (10) c. 6.

Ftc31 Mansi, t. 5 p. 585.

Ftc32 Mansi, t. 2 p. 591; Fuchs, Bibl. de Kirchenvers. vol. 2 p. 322; Remi Ceillier, t. 4 p. 727.

Ftc33 Baron. Annal. t. 4 Append. n. 6 p. 916; Binius in his notes on this Synod in Mansi, t. 2 p. 595; Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 727.

Ftc34 Tillemont, Memoires, etc. t. 2 p. 200; Baron. Annal. ad ann. 260, n. 16.

Ftc35 Tertull. De Veland. Virg. c. 1.

Ftc36 Epiph. Hoer. 48, 1.

Ftc37 Ep. 75 of those of Cyprian.

Ftc38 Ep. ad. Amphiloch. Opp . t. 3 p. 20, ed. Ben.

Ftc39 Tillemont, l. c. p. 200 a.

Ftc40 On this, cf. my treatise on Montanus, in the Kitchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7 pp. 204 sq.

Ftc41 Cf. the treatise above quoted, p. 261, and Bevereg. Synodicon S.

Pandectoe Canonum, t. 1 p. 456.

Ftc42 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 5 c. 16.

Ftc43 Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. part 2 p. 324.

Ftc44 Van Espen, l. c. p. 160.

Ftc45 Epiph. Hoer. 79, 4.

Ftc46 Neander, Kirchengesch. second edition, vol. 3 (2:1) pp. 322 sq., note 2.

Ftc47 Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol 2 p. 324.

Ftc48 Cf. Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 1 part 1 p. 438.

Ftc49 Cod. Theodos. 50:16 tit. 2, 1:27.

Ftc50 Cf. Neander, l.c.

Ftc51 On this, cf. the Const. Apost. lib. 8 c. 19.

Ftc52 See Bevereg. Synodicon, t. 1 p. 458.

Ftc53 Dist. 32.

Ftc54 Van Espen, l. c. p. 161.

Ftc55 Cf. canon 4 of Nicaea, vol. 1 p. 381. In Corpus Jur. Can. this canon is given according to the translation of Dionysius Exiguus, in Gratian, c. 4, Dist. 24.

Ftc56 Commentarius in Canones, etc., pp. 161 sq.

Ftc57 Cf. our remarks on canon 4 of Nicaea, vol. 1 pp. 385 sq.

Ftc58 Commentar. in Canones, etc., p. 161.

Ftc59 [The latter custom still prevails in France.] Ftc60 Hist. Eccl. 5:24.

Ftc61 Augustine, Ep. 28 and 31.

Ftc62 Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 4 part 3 p. 535 sqq.

Ftc63 Cf. Binius’ notes in Mansi, t. 2 p. 596, n.; and Herbst, in the Tubing.

Theol. Quartalschrift, 1823, p. 25.

Ftc64 Van Espen, Commentarius, etc., 1 c. p. 162; Neander, Kirchengesch. l. c. p. 601.

Ftc65 Bingham, Origines, etc., lib. 3 c. 7 Section. 2.

Ftc66 l. c. pp. 565 sq.

Ftc67 Cf. Const. Apost. lib. 2 c. 59, lib. 8 c. 33, lib, 5 c. 15; of. Neander, l. c. p. 565, note 2; and Quartalschrift, l. c. p. 26.

Ftc68 Van Espen, l. c. p. 163.

Ftc69 Ibid.

Ftc70 See Bevereg. l. c. t. 1 pp. 461, 462.

Ftc71 Lib. 2 c. 57. (Gratian adopted this canon in can. 15, Dist. 93.)

Ftc72 Cf. Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 4 part 1 pp. 140-143; Augusti, Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 11 p. 389.

Ftc73 Van Espen, l. c. p. 165.

Ftc74 C. 26, Dist. 23.

Ftc75 Cf. Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 4 part 1 p. 191.

Ftc76 Cf. Binterim, l. c. vol. 1 part 1 p. 328.

Ftc77 C. 27, Dist. 23.

Ftc78 Cf. the preceding canon, and c. 28, Dist. 23.

Ftc79 Lib. 8 c. 13.

Ftc80 Vol. 1 pp. 427 sqq.

Ftc81 Van Espen, l. c. p. 167.

Ftc82 Corpus Juris, c. 16, Dist. 93.

Ftc83 Van Espen, l. c. p. 167.

Ftc84 Gratian has adopted this canon, c. 2, Dist. 69.

Ftc85 Van Espen, l. c. 167.

Ftc86 This canon is also to be found, c. 3, Dist. 42.

Ftc87 Euseb. Hist. Eccl 9:10.

Ftc88 C. 4, Dist. 42.

Ftc89 Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 2. part 2. pp. 3-84.

Ftc90 Cf. above, canon 16, and Neander, Kirchengesch. second edition, vol. 3 (2:1) pp. 566, 569.

Ftc91 C. 28, Dist. 81.

Ftc92 Compare above, can. 10.

Ftc93 C. 66, causa 1 Qu. 1.

Ftc94 Theodoret, Opp. t. 3 p. 490, ed. Nosselt et Schulze, 1771.

Ftc95 Augustin. Contra Faustum, lib. 20 c. 21; Euseb. Proep. Evang. lib. c. 15; cf. Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, l. c. pp. 33 sq.

Ftc96 Cap. 16 [i.e. the only three angels whose names are mentioned in Scripture].

Ftc97 Cf. Van Espen; Commentar. l. c. p. 169. [The Synod declared these angels to be evil spirits. See Neander’s Church Hist. vol. 5 p. 80.] Ftc98 In his Vita Tiberii, c. 36, he relates: “Expulit et mathematicos;” in the Vita Vitellii, c. 14, he mentions the edict of this Emperor: “Quo jubebat…urbe Italiaque mathematici excederent.”

Ftc99 Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1823, pp. 36 sqq.

Ftc100 See Bevereg. Pandectoe Canon. t. 1 p. 471.

Ftc101 C. 5 Dist. 18.

Ftc102 Cf. above, p. 69.

Ftc103 Adopted in the Corpus Juris, c. 86, Dist. 5 de Consecratione.

Ftc104 Cf. above, canon 22.

Ftc105 Cf. Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1823, pp. 39 sq.; Mayer, Gesch. des Katechumenats, 1868, pp. 75 sq.

Ftc106 Cf. Bevereg. l. c. p. 249; and Bingham, Origines Eccl. lib. 10 c. 2 see. 9; also Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1823, p. 41; Mayer, Gesch. des Katechumenats, 1868, p. 103.

Ftc107 Tertullian, De Bapt . c. 7, 8.

Ftc108 Leo Allat. De Missa Proesanct . Section. 12; cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , l . c . p. 41; Rheinwald, Archoeologie , p. 344, note 2; Fuchs, Bibl . der Kirchenvers ., vol. 2 p. 333, note 397.

Ftc109 Cf . supra , pp. 298 sqq.

Ftc110 Cf. above, canon 49.

Ftc111 Canon 48. See Hard. t. 3 p. 397.

Ftc112 C. 8, causa 33:9, 4.

Ftc113 C. 37, Dist. 5 De Cosecratione .

Ftc114 C. 61, in Hard. t. 3 p. 398.

Ftc115 C. 10, Dist. 44.

Ftc116 Van Espen, l .c . p. 175.

Ftc117 Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4 p. 733.

Ftc118 Neander, l . c . p. 328.

Ftc119 Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , l . c . p. 43.

Ftc120 Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten , vol. 1 part 2 pp. 386-414.

Ftc121 Augusti, Denkwurdigkeiten vol. 11 pp. 159 sqq.

Ftc122 Thomassin, De Nova et Vet Eccl . Discipl . P. 1 lib. 2 c. 1:2.

Ftc123 De Proepiscopis Trevirensibus , 1845, pp. 1 sqq.; cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1845, p. 572.

Ftc124 Cf. Binterim, l . c . p. 405, and Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1845, p. 573.

Ftc125 Canon 5, Dist. 80.

Ftc126 Luft, Liturgik , vol. 2 p. 138; Kayser, Beitrage zur Gesch . der Erklarung der Kirchenhymnen , No. 1, Paderborn 1866, p. 49.

Ftc127 [First and Second of Samuel, E. V.] Ftc128 The chief difference between them is that the list of the Apostolic Canons mentions three books of Maccabees and, in the New Testament, two of the Roman Clement and the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

Ftc129 Herbst-Welte, Einleitung in A . T . part 1 pp. 31 sqq.; Lucke, Einleitung in Offenbarung Johan , 1832, p. 335.

Ftc130 Newly printed in the collection of his works, published by K.

Wiichter, vol. 8 pp. 66 sqq.

Ftc131 The still older Latin translation, named Prisca , does not here come under consideration, as it has none of the Laodicean canons.

Ftc132 Van Espen, Commentar . l . c . p. 176.

Ftc133 Cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1823, p. 44; Spittler, l . c . p. 103.

Ftc134 Spittler, l . c . pp. 91 sqq.

Ftc135 The collection of John of Antioch is printed in Justell, Biblioth . Juris Canon ., Paris 1661, t. 2 p. 600.

Ftc136 Canon 67, Hard. t. 3 p. 398; Spittler, l. c . pp. 120 sqq.

Ftc137 Spittler, l . c . pp. 110 sqq., 121 sq. The Ballerini (S . Leonis Opp . t. p. 441, note 48) showed that this canon 60 is to be found in some ancient though much altered copies of the Isidorian translation, and not in others.

Ftc138 Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1823, pp. 44 sqq.

Ftc139 Biblioth . der Kirchenvers ., vol. 2 p. 336.

Ftc140 Schrockh, Kirchengesch ., second edition, vol. 6 p. 252.

Ftc141 Cf. above, p. 323, note 1.

Ftc142 When Martin of Braga arranged his collection of different canons of various Synods, the Western Church already possessed a complete canon of Scripture, and for that very reason he might have omitted the sixtieth Canon of Laodicea, especially as he did not include all the Laodicean canons. What Spittler urges besides, in order to make it probable that the original Isidorian collection was also without this canon, seems to me bold, far-fetched, and hypercritical in the highest degree. As, moreover, the omission of the sixtieth Laodicean canon may be explained as above shown by Dallaeus and Van Espen, there remains, infact, only one single case of omission, i.e. by John of Antioch.

Ftc143 Spittler, l . c . p. 79.

Ftc144 Cf. Spittler, l . c . pp. 72-76.

Ftc145 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 1152.

Ftc146 On this cf. Van Espen, in his Commentarius in Canones , etc., l . c . p. 129, and the Ballerini in their edition of the works of S. Leo the Great, t. 3 p. 24.

Ftc147 Baron. Annal . t. 3 ad. ann. 361, n. 44.

Ftc148 In his notes on the Synod of Gangra in Mansi, t. 2 p. 1115.

Ftc149 On this question cf. Van Espen, l . c . p. 129.

Ftc150 See above, vol. 1 p. 77.

Ftc151 In Mansi, t. 2 p. 1121.

Ftc152 In their edition of the works of S. Leo, t.. 3 p. 24.

Ftc153 Printed in Mansi, Coll . Concil . t. 2. p. 1095; Hard. Coll . Concil . t . 1. p. 500; Bruns, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica , seu Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum , 1839, P. 1. p. 106.

Ftc154 Through an error in printing, the words cai< taxeiv are omitted in Mansi, t. 2 p. 1101, which Fuchs, in his Bibliothek der Kirchenvers ., vol. 2 p. 310, did not observe.

Ftc155 These canons are printed in all collections of the Councils, namely, in Mansi, t. 2 pp. 1101 sqq.; Hard. t. 1 pp. 534 sqq.; Bruns, l . c . pp. sqq.

Ftc156 See Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 58.

Ftc157 C. 12, Dist. 30.

Ftc158 C. 8, Dist. 31.

Ftc159 This double error of Gratian’s has already been observed and censured by the Roman revisers in their notes on c. 8, Dist. 31; see the Bohemian edition of the Corp . Jur . Can .

Ftc160 In Bevereg. Pandectoe Canonum , t. 1 p. 41.

Ftc161 Lib. 32 c. 13.

Ftc162 S. Gregory III. Penitential Canons , c. 29, in Hard. t. 3 p. 1876.

Ftc163 C. 13, Dist. 30.

Ftc164 C. 37, Causa 17. Quaest. 4.

Ftc165 C. 38. See above, pp. 324, 325, note 1.

Ftc166 Vol. 1 p. 435.

Ftc167 Annales , t. 3 ad ann. 361, n. 55.

Ftc168 See Binius’ notes on this passage in Mansi, t. 2 p. 1117.

Ftc169 In Moy’s Archive , etc, 1866, book 5.

Ftc170 See their edition of Opp . S . Leonis M ., t. 3 pp. 124, 685, 755.

Ftc171 Cf. Van Espen, l . c . p. 131.

Ftc172 In Gratian, c. 10, Dist. 30.

Ftc173 In Gratian, c. 11, Dist. 30.

Ftc174 Van Espen, Commentarius , etc., p. 132.

Ftc175 Cf. supra , p. 73.

Ftc176 Epist . I . ad Corinth . c. 38.

Ftc177 Epist . ad Polyc . c. 5.

Ftc178 C. 4:5, Dist. 30, and c. 9, Dist. 31.

Ftc179 Socrat. Hist . Eccl . 2:43; Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 3:14.

Ftc180 Van Espen, l .c . p. 133. In the Corpus Jur . Can . this canon is found as c. 1, Dist. 42.

Ftc181 On this compare the article bh>rov in Suicer’s Thesaurus , and Walch’s Antiquitates Pallii Philos . p. 245.

Ftc182 Socrat. 2:43.

Ftc183 Cf. Van Espen, l .c . p. 133.

Ftc184 Tertull. De Spectac . c. 23; Cyprian, Ep. 61 ad Euehratium; Ambros. Lib . 4 Epist . 15; Chrysost. Opp. t. 7 p. 22. Cf. my treatise on the severity of the life and views of the early Christians, Tub . Theol . Quartalschr . 1841, p. 400, and Contributions to Kirchengesch . etc., 1864, vol. 1 p. 30.

Ftc185 Gratian adopted this canon in his decrees, C. 6, Dist. 30.

Ftc186 C. 3, Dist. 30.

Ftc187 In Gratian, C. 14, Dist 30.

Ftc188 In Gratian, C. 1, Dist. 30.

Ftc189 Commentarius , l . c . p. 135.

Ftc190 C. 2, Dist. 30.

Ftc191 Commentarius , l. c . p. 136.

Ftc192 Bevereg. Pandect ., t. 1. p. 425.

Ftc193 Commentarius , l . c . p. 136.

Ftc194 Fuchs, Biblioth . der Kirchenvers ., vol. 2. p. 318.

Ftc195 Epiph. Hoer . 75, 3.

Ftc196 C. 16, Dist. 30, and c. 5, Dist. 41.

Ftc197 Socrat. Hist . Eccl . 2:43; Sozom. 3:14; of supra , pp. 226, 273.

Ftc198 Basilii M. Epist. 223, n. 3; 226, 251.

Ftc199 Baronii Annal . t. 3 ad ann. 361, n. 53.

Ftc200 Nouvelle Bibliotheque , etc., t. 2 p. 339, ed. Paris 1693.

Ftc201 This heretic is mentioned by Epiphan. Hoer . 40:1.

Ftc202 Memoires , etc., t. 9 p. 296, note 28, sur S . Basile . This question is further discussed in the Vita S . Basilii , which the Benedictines published before the third volume of their edition of the works of S.

Basil, c. 5 n. 4 sqq., and in Walch, Ketzerhistorie , vol. 3 pp. 542 sqq.

Ftc203 Sozom. 3:14, p. 520, ed. Mog.

Ftc204 In their Vita S . Basilii .

Ftc205 See above, p. 326.

Ftc206 Socrat. 2:43.

Ftc207 Sozom. 4:24. Cf. the notes of Valesius on Socrat. 2:43, and on Sozom. 4:24.

Ftc208 For instance, Blondel and Tillemont; cf. Tillemont, l .c . p. 295, note 27, sur S . Basile . Baronius also places it in the lifetime of Constantius the Great and Bishop Hosius of Corduba, Annal . t. 3 ad ann. 389, n. 45. Concerning the supposed presence of Hosius at the Synod of Gangra, see above, p. 325.

Ftc209 Remi Ceillier, Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres , t. 4 p. 735. This argument was first discovered by Valesius in his notes on Socrat. 2:43.

Not withstanding which, he has most inconsistently declared Sozomen right regarding the date of this Synod.

Ftc210 That Peter was not appointed bishop before 380 is admirably shown by Tillemont (l . c . p. 343, note sur S . Gregoire de Nysse ), and it is equally certain that he was present as bishop at the second General Council in 381. But that he was the immediate successor of Eustathius is a mere conjecture, and is stated by none of the ancient Fathers.

Ftc211 In their edition of the works of S. Leo I. t. 3 p. 24.

Ftc212 Cf. above, p. 326.

BOOK Ftc213 Cf. my treatise oft Gregory of Nazianzus in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 4 pp. 736 sqq.

Ftc214 Cf. above, p. 271.

Ftc215 Socrat. Hist . Eccl . lib. 5:7; Sozom. Hist . Eccl . lib. 7:5.

Ftc216 Socrat. 5:8; Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita , vers. 1509 sqq., t. 2 pp. 753 sq., ed. Paris 1842. The Latin metrical version of this poem (by Billius) gives, in 5:1513, the principal reason for the calling of this Synod in the words: firmet ut thronum mihi , i .e . to establish Gregory in the See of Constantinople. But the Greek text has: wJv ph>xontev eujsebh~ lo>gon = “ut stabiliant pietaris doctrinam.”

Ftc217 Socrat. 5:8. The Imperial letter of convocation is no longer extant.

Ftc218 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . v. 6.

Ftc219 The Latin signature of Agrius Immontinensis of Spain does indeed appear among the names of those present; but Hardouin, in his marginal note (Collectio Concil . t. 1 p. 818), has remarked upon the spuriousness of this reading.

Ftc220 In the oldest Latin translations of the canons of this Synod among the signatures there indeed appear the names of three Roman legates, Pasehasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface (Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 6 p. 1176); but this is a mistake, for these legates were only present seventy years later at the fourth General Council.

Ftc221 Theodoret, l. c. 5:9.

Ftc222 See vol. 1. pp. 9 sq.

Ftc223 Baronius, Annales Eccl . ad ann. 381, n. 19, 20; cf. Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1419.

Ftc224 Gregor. Nazianz. Carmen de Vita , v. 1509, p. 753, and vv. 1798 sqq. p. 769, in the second volume of the Parisian edition of 1842. In the latter place (vv. 1798 sqq.) Gregory expressly says, that when, after the death of Meletius of Antioch, divisions arose among the members of the Synod (see below, p. 346), the Egyptians and Macedonians were quickly summoned to make peace. This alone disposes of various conjectures which were raised as to the later arrival of the Egyptians.

Cf. Baronius, ad ann. 381, n. 19, 53; Papebroch, in note 43, sur Gregoire Naz . Moreover, it is very possible that the Egyptians and Macedonians were invited to the Synod as early as the other bishops, but that, as they did not immediately appear, after the death of Meletius they were summoned again.

Ftc225 Socrat. 5:6.

Ftc226 Theodor. Hist . Eccl . lib. 5:8; Socrat. 5:8; Sozom. 7:7. A list of the bishops present at Constantinople is given us by Dionysius Exiguns, and in the Prisca , a still older Latin collection of canons. The latter contains 147 names, and is printed in Hard. t. 1 p. 814, in Mansi, t. 3 p. 568, and in the Ballerini edition of the works of S. Leo, t. 3 p. 556.

Among other names, that of S’s., Peter of Sebaste, the brother of S.

Basil, is missing, while Theodoret expressly mentions him. But it contains the signatures of Meletius of Antioch and Nectarius of Constantinople, who, however, were not bishops at the same time, as the latter was only chosen some time after the death of the former.

Concerning the lists of signatures, cf. Tillemont, Mem. t. 9 p. 882, n. 42, sur St . Gregoire Naz .

Ftc227 Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita , vv. 1514 sqq., l . c . p. 755; Gregor, Nyss. De Melet . pp. 587, 589.

Ftc228 Cf. the above-mentioned list of bishops present, in Mansi, t. 3 p. 568, and Hard. t. 1 p. 813, where Nectarius appears as president, Hergenrother (Photius , vol. 1 p. 86, note 69) doubts his presiding.

Ftc229 Sozom. 7:7.

Ftc230 Elias, Vicar of Jerusalem, was therefore certainly wrong in maintaining, at the sixth session of the eighth (Ecumenical Council, that Timothy of Alexandria presided from the first. Cf. Mansi, t. 16 p. 85; Hard. t. 5 p. 827.

Ftc231 Van Espen (Commentarius in Canones , etc., p. 181, ed. Colon. 1755), differing from all others, maintains that Meletius only presided at the earlier Synod which had to fill the See of Constantinople; but that the General Council only began with the arrival of the Egyptians, and that then Timotheus of Alexandria presided, but Nectarius only at the later Synod of 382.

Ftc232 Theodoret, l .c . v. 6.

Ftc233 Theodoret, l . c . v. 7.

Ftc234 See above, p. 341.

Ftc235 It was not Timotheus of Alexandria, as Theodoret (v. 8) wrongly states, but his predecessor, Peter, who had raised Maximus to the See of Constantinople. Cf. the notes of Valesius on Theodoret, v. 8.

Ftc236 Cf. my treatise concerning the Meletian Schism in the Kitchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7 pp. 42 sqq.; and Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita Sua , v. 1535, p. 755, ed. Par. 1842. The Easterns thought Meletius, the Latins the Eustathian Paul, the rightful bishop of Antioch.

Ftc237 Cf. canon 15 of Nicaea, and Theodoret, l . c . v. 8; Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita Sua , v. 1525; Gregor. Nyss. De Melet . p. 592.

Ftc238 Gregor. Nyss. De Melet . l . c .; Theodoret, l . c . v. 8.

Ftc239 Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita Sua , v. 1572 sqq., pp. 757 sq.

Ftc240 Cf. the Letter of the Synod of 382, in Theodoret, l . c . v. 9, p. 211, ed.

Mog., and Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita Sua , pp. 763 sqq.

Ftc241 According to Theedoret, v. 8, the Egyptian party had even entirely separated from communion with Gregory. The list of the bishops’ signatures indeed only mentions two Egyptian bishops, Timotheus of Alexandria and Dorotheus of Oryrynchus; but in the first place, that list is not complete; and secondly, even these few Egyptian bishops may have found adherents among the other members of the Synod. [The Egyptian bishops based their objection on the sixteenth Nicene canon against the removal of any cleric from one See to another (supr . vol. p. 423), and accused Gregory of having held successively the three Sees of Sasime, Nazianzus, and Constantinople; the fact being that he had passed from Nazianzus, the place of his original ordination, to Constantinople. Their real ground of offence was apparently the recognition of Gregory, before their arrival, in preference to Maximus, who was their countryman.] Ftc242 They were probably displeased with him on account of his zeal in the Antiochian matter, where he blamed them.

Ftc243 Concerning Nectarins, cf. Assemani, Biblioth . Jur . Orient . t. 3 p. 14; Hergenrother, Photius , vol. 1 pp. 36 sqq.

Ftc244 Theodoret, v. 8; Socrat. v. 8; Sozom. 7:7, 8; Gregor. Naz. Carmen de Vita , pp. 771 sqq., where are contained many severe judgments of Gregory’s on this Synod. The very full and also magnificent farewell speech which Gregory addressed to the Synod is to be found as Orat . 42 (formerly 32) in the first volume of Opp . S . Gregorii , ed. Bened., Paris 1778, pp. 748 sqq.; also in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 582 sqq.

Ftc245 Socrat. v. 8.

Ftc246 Cf. above, p. 285.

Ftc247 Socrat. v. 8.

Ftc248 Sozomen, 7:7, 9; Theodoret, v. 8.

Ftc249 [i.e. The so-called Nicene Creed, in its present form, with the additional clauses.] Ftc250 Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 9 p. 221, art. 78, in the treatise S. Gregoire de Naz .; Remi Ceillief, Histoire des Auteurs Sacres, t. 5 p. 646.

Ftc251 Hard. 1 . c . t. 2 p. 647; Mansi, t. 7 p. 463.

Ftc252 Niceph. Callisti, Hist . Eccl . lib. 12 c. 13.

Ftc253 Concil. Florent. Sess. 23, in Hardouin, t. 9 p. 294.

Ftc254 Epiph. Ancorat . c. 121.

Ftc255 C. 12, Epiph . Opp . t. 2; Ancorat . c. 60 and 121, and the notes of Petavius on c. 60, p. 372 of the Animadversiones , t. 2, Opp. S. Epiph. ed. Col. 1682.

Ftc256 Tillemont, Memoires , t. 9 p. 222, art. 78, in the treatise S . Gregoire Naz. Remi Ceillier, who (1. c. p. 646) accepted this hypothesis, has, by a defect of memory, destroyed the whole argument — viz. by the statement that Epiphanius had died before the holding of the second General Council. We may add, however, that the similarity between the text of Epiphanius and that of the Synod is not so great as Epiphanius supposes, and especially that there is a marked difference in the passage relating to the Holy Ghost, which is the chief point concerned, as given by Epiphanius. It runs thus: Kai< eijv to< a[gion pneu~ma pisteu>omen, to< lalh~san ejn no>mw|, kai< khru>xav ejn toi~v profh>taiv kai< katabanhn, lalou~n ejn ajposto>loiv, oikou~n ejn aJgi>oiv ou[twv de< pisteu>omen ejn aujtw~|, o[ti ejsti< pneu~ma a[gion, pneu~ma qeou~, pneu~ma te>leion, pneu~ma para>klhton, a]ktiston, ejk tou~ patromenon, kai< ejk tou~ uiJou~ lahbano>menon kai< pisteu>omenon.

Ftc257 So far, this creed is nearly the same as the Nicene.

Ftc258 This addition, directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, is already contained (not indeed in words, but in sense) in the Antiochian Creed of 341; of. above, pp. 76, 79, 80.

Ftc259 The more explicit doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost was clearly added in contradiction to the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian errors.

Ftc260 Epist . 102 (formerly Orat . 52), t. 2 p. 93 of the new edition, Par. 1842.

Ftc261 At the Synod of Florence, Bessarion, on the strength of a letter of Cyril’s to Acacius, maintained that the Synod of Ephesus had forbidden any other creed but the one then existing to be used in the churches (Hard. t. 9 p. 110, Conciliengesch., vol. 7 p. 690). By the creed then existing was meant the Nicene-Constantinopolitan; cf. infr . Section. 140 ad fin .

Ftc262 Actio 2:5 in Hard. Collect . Concil ., t. 2 pp. 287 and 454; Mansi, t. p. 958, and t. 7 p. 111.

Ftc263 Actio 18, in Hard. t. 3 p. 1398.

Ftc264 In Hardouin, t. 1 p. 814; in Mansi, t. 3 p. 566; also Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole , Breslau 1842, p. 111.

Ftc265 In Mansi, t. 3 pp. 567, 574; in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole , pp. sqq.

Ftc266 Socrat. v. 8.

Ftc267 This also appears from a letter of the Emperor Theodosius of the 30th July 381. See below, p. 369.

Ftc268 Mansi, t. 6 p. 1174, and in the Ballerini editions of the works of S.

Leo, t. 3 p. 553.

Ftc269 Mansi, t. 3 pp. 566, 571; Hard. t. 1 pp. 809, 810.

Ftc270 Mansi, t. 3 p. 574.

Ftc271 Baller. ed. Opp . S . Leonis M., t. 3 p. 12.

Ftc272 Mansi, t. 7 p. 445; Hard. t. 2 p. 638.

Ftc273 Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers ., vol. 2 p. 411.

Ftc274 Socrat. 5:8; Sozom. 7:9; Theodoret, 5:8.

Ftc275 Bevereg. Synodicon seu Pandectoe Canonum , etc., t. 2; Annot . p. 98; Baller. ed. Opp . S . Leonis M., t. 3 p. 10.

Ftc276 See Bevereg. Pandect . t. 1 pp. 85, sqq.

Ftc277 Memoires, etc., t. 9 art. 76, 77, in the treatise: S . Gregoire de Naz .

Ftc278 Bevereg. Pandect . t. 2; Annotat . pp. 89, sqq.

Ftc279 Commentarius in Canones , etc., pp. 186, sqq., Colon. 1755.

Ftc280 Tubing . Quartalschrift of the year 1826, pp. 389, sqq.

Ftc281 See above, p. 348.

Ftc282 Rufin. Hist . Eccl . 2 (11) 20; Hard. t. 2 p. 647; cf. above, p. 348.

Ftc283 Theodoret, 5:8.

Ftc284 Cf. above, pp. 269, 280, 283.

Ftc285 See above, pp. 29, sqq., 53, 104, sq.

Ftc286 Others translate the words: toukhsin ejpisko>pouv , “those bishops placed over the dioceses, i.e. patriarchatcs;” but this is certainly wrong. Cf. the notes of Valesius on Socrat. 5:8.

Ftc287 Valesius is of opinion that the Synod by this also intended to censure Meletius of Antioch, who, by the ordination of Gregory of Nazianzus, had interfered in the diocese of Thrace. See the notes of Valesius on Socrat. 5:8.

Ftc288 On this cf. vol. 1 pp. 381, 382, 391, 392.

Ftc289 Concerning the extent of the patriarchate of Egypt, and the other dioceses mentioned, of. vol 1 p. 395.

Ftc290 With reference to this, Socrates, 5:8, says that this Synod “appointed patriarchs, while it divided the provinces.”

Concerning the title of patriarchs, however, cf. vol. 1 p. 391.

Ftc291 Cf. supr , vol. 1 pp. 393, 396.

Ftc292 Kober, Deposition , Tubingen 1867, pp. 394, sqq.

Ftc293 Baron. Annal . ad ann. 381, n. 35, 36.

Ftc294 Socrat. 5:8; Sozom. 7:9.

Ftc295 In Bevereg. Synodicon, t. 1 p. 90. [Justinian, however, comes more than a century and a half later.] Ftc296 Pet. de Marca, De Constant . Patriarch . Institutione , at the end of his work, De Concordia Sacerdot . et Imperil , appendix, pp. 155, sqq.

Ftc297 Photius , vol. 1 p. 32.

Ftc298 Socrat. 5:8.

Ftc299 Theodoret, Ep . 86, ad Flavianum; cf. vol. 1 p. 895.

Ftc300 Cf. supr . p. 69.

Ftc301 See above, pp. 341, 347.

Ftc302 Mansi, t. 7 p. 442; Hard. t. 2 p. 635.

Ftc303 See below, p. 371.

Ftc304 C. 3, Dist. 22.

Ftc305 [The fourth Lateran] Ftc306 Hergenrother, Photius , vol. 2 pp. 324, 338, sqq.

Ftc307 Cf. below, pp. 371, 378, and the notes of Valesius on Sozom. 7:9.

The Synodal Letter of the Latins to the Emperor Theodosius is contained in Hard. t. 1 p. 845; Mansi, t. 3 p. 631.

Ftc308 Theodoret, l .c . v. 9.

Ftc309 In his Epist . ad Episcopos Illyr .; cf. Marca, De Concordia Sacerd . et Imper . lib. 5 c. 21, n. 10.

Ftc310 Cf. above, p. 352.

Ftc311 Cf. Tub . Theol Quartalschr . 1852, p. 411.

Ftc312 Cf. above, pp. 278, sq:, and my treatise on the Meletian schism in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7 pp. 42, sqq.

Ftc313 Cf. Bevereg. Pandectoe , t. 2; Annotat . p. 97, and Tillemont, Memoires , t. 9 art. 77, in the treatise, S . Gregoire Naz . p. 221, ed.

Brux. 1732.

Ftc314 In Mansi, t. 3 pp. 459-462; Hard. t. 1 p. 772; cf. above, p. 288, note 2.

Ftc315 See above, p. 291.

Ftc316 See above, p. 292, note 2.

Ftc317 Baronins, however (ad ann. 381, 26), and Fuchs, Biblioth . der Kirchenvers . vol. 2 p. 418, understand by the to>mov tw~n Dutikw~n the letter of Paul in 380. Cf. on the other hand, Marca, De Concordia Sac . et Imp . lib. 1 c. 4, n. 5.

Ftc318 Theodoret, 5:9.

Ftc319 In Theodoret, l .c . v. 9, p. 211, ed. Mog.

Ftc320 Cf. the marginal note of Hardouin at t. 1 p. 772; and Mansi’s, on t. 3. p. 459.

Ftc321 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 459 C, and p. 461 D.

Ftc322 Hard. t. 1 p. 845 B; and Mansi, t. 3 p. 631 C.

Ftc323 Bevereg. Pandectoe , etc., t. 2; Annotat . p. 97.

Ftc324 Commentarius in Canons , etc., p. 191, ed. Colon. 1755.

Ftc325 The preceding sentence treats of those who are not only under accusation, but already condemned.

Ftc326 Cf. supra p. 352.

Ftc327 Nicolai I. Epistola 8, in Hard. t. 5 p. 150.

Ftc328 Bevereg. Pandectoe , t. 2; Annotat . pp. 98 sqq.; Van Espen, Comment . in Canons , etc, pp. 192, sq.

Ftc329 A sort of Novarians who derive their name from their teacher Sabbatius, who defender[ the Quartodeciman (Jewish) practice as to the keeping of Easter; cf. Sozom. 8:18.

Ftc330 Viz., “left hand;” but ajri>stouv (best) is probably the right reading.

Ftc331 The same was required of the Novatians at Nicaea, canon 8, vol. 1 p. 412.

Ftc332 Cf. supr . p. 230.

Ftc333 The Marcellians and Photinians; cf. Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra , 1867, p. 96.

Ftc334 The word is used here in the widest sense, as this title was often given to the catechumens of the lowest class. Cf. vol. 1 pp. 153, 156, 163.

Ftc335 The reason that some sects, especially the Montanists and Sabellians, whose baptism the Council of Nicaea (CAN. 19) does not appear to have declared invalid, are here included, probably is that at the time of the Council of Nicaea these sects still used the Church formula of baptism, but afterwards discontinued it. Cf. Mattes, in his treatise on heretical baptism, in the Tubing . Quartalschr . 1849, p. 580, Anm. 1.

Ftc336 Bevereg. Pandectoe , t. 2; Annotat . p. 100, sqq.; Van Espen, l .c . p. 194.

Ftc337 Gesch . des Katechumenats , pp. 55, sqq.

Ftc338 Ibid . p. 59.

Ftc339 Mansi, t. 3 p. 557; Hardouin, t. 1 p. 807.

Ftc340 The 30th of July is therefore the terminus ad quem of this Synod. Cf, Remi Ceillier, l .c . pp. 653, sq.

Ftc341 Cod. Theodos. 1:3; De Fide Cathol . t. 6 p. 9; also printed in the notes of Valesius on Socrat. 5:8.

Ftc342 Sozomen, 7:9.

Ftc343 Socrat. 5:8.

Ftc344 Cf above, p. 359, and the Epistola Synodi Ital . ad Theodosium in Hard. t. 1 p. 845; Mansi, t. 3 p. 631.

Ftc345 The letter in question is in Theodoret, l . c . 5:9. As, however, at that time the whole West had still not received this Synod, it is clear that the expression oijkoumenikh> must not be here understood in its fullest meaning. The assembled bishops could only say, “We, for our part, acknowledge that Council as oecumenical;” or they might, which comes to the same thing, understand oijkoumenikh> in the same sense as the Africans did their “universalis.” Cf. vol. 1 p. 3, and vol. 2 p. 175.

Ftc346 Photius, De Synodis , p. 1143, ed. Justelli; printed in Mansi, t. 3 p. 595.

Ftc347 Leo I. Epist . 106 (alias 80) ad Anatolium , c. 2; cf. also Diss . I . de Vita Leonis , in the second vol. of the Ballerini edition, p. 525.

Ftc348 Gregorii, lib. 7 Epist . 34, p. 882, ed. Bened.

Ftc349 “Sicut sancti Evangelii quatuor libros, sic quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerari me fateor. Nicaenum scilicet, in quo perversum Arii dogma destruitur; Constantinopolitanum quoque, in quo Eunomii et Macedonii error convincitur; Ephesinum etiam primum, in quo Nestorii impietas judicatur; Chalcedonense vero, in quo Eutychetii Dioscorique pravitas reprobatur.” — Lib, 1 Epist . 25, p. 515, t. 2; cf. vol. 1 p. 2.

Ftc350 See Van Espen, Commentarius , l . c . 185.

Ftc351 It was recited at the first sitting at Ephesus; Hard. t. 1 p. 1363; Mansi, t. 4 p. 1138.

Ftc352 In Hard. t. 2 p. 95 b, and 106 b; Mansi, t. 6 p. 626 d, and p. 643 a.

Ftc353 In the Actio I . of the Constantinopolitan Synod of 448, in Hard. t. 2 p. 111 a; Mansi, t. 6 p. 651 d.

Ftc354 See above, pp. 350, sq.

Ftc355 Cf. the Praefatio of the Ballerini in the 3rd vol. of their edition of the works of Leo the Great, p. 54.

Ftc356 In his edict against the three chapters in Hard. t. 3 p. 303.

Ftc357 Hard. t. 2 p. 635; Mansi, t. 7 p. 442.

Ftc358 S. Leonis M. Epist . 106, n., ed. Bailerini, t. 1 p. 1165; Mansi, t. 6 p. 203.

Ftc359 In Hard. t. 2 p. 855.

Ftc360 Cf. the remark of the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 3 pp. 53 and 151 sqq.; also Thiel, De Decretali Gelasii , Brunswick 1866, p. 23. But in the later and altered text of the decree of Gelasius, De libris recipiendis , which has been received into the Corpus Jur . CAN . c. 3, the Synod of Constantinople is mentioned.

BOOK Ftc361 Cf. supr . p. 287.

Ftc362 Cf. Gelpke, Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz . 1856, part. 1 pp. 91, sq.

Ftc363 See vol. 1 p. 272.

Ftc364 The acts of this Synod, printed in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 599, sqq., and Hard. t. 1 p. 826, in German in Fuchs, Biblioth . der Kitchenvers ., vol. 2 pp. 442, sqq., are to be found in Vigilius of Thapsus, and also in many codices of the Ambrosian etters, as they are probably composed by Ambrose. See Ambrosii Opp. Epist. 8 t. 2 p. 786, ed. Bened., Paris, and t. 3 p. 820, ed. Venet. 1751. Peter Franz Chiffiet (in his Vindic . Opp . Vigilii , p. 37) declared these acts to be spurious; but the Benedictine editors of the works of S. Ambrose (l .c . p. 758 of their treatise, Ordo Epistolarum S . Ambros .), and Fuchs, l . c . p. 433, refuted this opinion.

Ftc365 A similar letter to the bishops of Gaul, also preserved in Vigilius of Thapsus, is found in Mansi, t. 3 p. 615, and in Ambros. Epist. 9 l .c . t. p. 844, ed. Venet.

Ftc366 Cf. supr . p. 287.

Ftc367 These letters are found in Ambros. Epp . 4:10, 12, pp. 844, 849, 851, ed. Venet.; in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 615, 621, 623; Hardouin, t. 1 pp. 835, 837, 838. On the Council of Aquileia cf. also Bannard (Canon at Orleans), Gesch . des heiligen Ambrosius , translated into German by Professor Bittl in Munich; Herder, 1873, pp. 174 sqq.

Ftc368 We learn this from a codex at Paris, still unedited, employed by Waltz and Bessel, which contains, among other things, an anonymous letter to Ambrose (probably from Palladius), and fragments of a letter of the Arian Bishop Maximus. See Bessel, Uber das Leben des Ulfilas , etc., Gottingen 1860, pp. 2, 3, 6, 9; and Waltz, Uber das Leben und die Lehre des Ulfilas , Hanover 1870.

Ftc369 See footnote ftc305. supr . p. 359.

Ftc370 Both letters are found in Ambros. Epp . 13, 14, pp. 854, 858, ed.

Venet.; in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 630, sq.; Hard. t. 1 pp. 844, sq.; in German in Fuchs, l .c . pp. 560, sqq. The latest biographer of Ambrose, Baunard, l . c . p. 179, acknowledges that Ambrose was here mistaken.

Ftc371 Gregor. Naz. Epist . 130 (alias 55) t. 2 p. 110, ed. Paris, 1842.

Ftc372 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . v. 9; Mansi, t. 3 p. 582; Hard. t. 1 p. 822, translated into German in Fuchs, l .c . pp. 424, sq.

Ftc373 Kuhn, Dogmatik , part 2, Trinitatslehre , Tubing. 1857, p. 419.

Ftc374 See Section 98, Can. 5. sq.

Ftc375 It is a disputed point whether the Synod here had in view the fourth canon of Nicaea, or the sixth canon of Sardica, and designated the latter as Nicene. We have already, at pp. 133-4, treated in detail of this, and shown that the Fathers of Constantinople quoted the sixth canon of Sardica, which they held to be Nicene (see vol. 1 pp. 356 sq.), but in a text which, though differing somewhat from ours, is indeed the original and correct one, and which answers to an old Latin translation (in a Veronese codex) still extant.

Ftc376 Theodoret, Mansi, Hardouin, Fuchs, ll . cc .

Ftc377 See above, pp. 360, sqq.

Ftc378 Ambrose had hardly arrived at Rome when he was taken ill, and was confined to his room for months, so that he could not take part in the business of the Council. Cf. Baunard, Gesch . des hl . Ambrosius , etc., pp. 181 sqq.

Ftc379 Cf. the letter of the Synod of Constantinople in Theodoret, l . c ., and Jerome, Ep . 86, ad Eustoch . n. 6 (in Vallarsi, Ep. 108).

Ftc380 Rufin. De Adulterat . Libr . Origin . in t. 5 Opp . S . Hieron , p. 253, ed.

Bened. (not received by Vallarsi and Migne).

Ftc381 Sozom. 7:11; Bower. Gesch . der Papste , part 1 p. 333.

Ftc382 Socrat. 5:10; Sozom. 7:12.

Ftc383 Socrat. and Sozom. ll . cc .; Mansi, t. 3 pp. 643, sqq.

Ftc384 Socrat. and Sozom. ll . cc .

Ftc385 It is at least very probable that the creed of Eunomius, still extant, is that of the year 383.

Ftc386 In his notes on Socrates 5:10.

Ftc387 Mansi, t. 3 pp. 646, sqq.

Ftc388 Socrat. 5:10.

Ftc389 Socrat. 5:10; Sozom. 7:12.

Ftc390 Sozom. 7:12.

Ftc391 Socrat. 5:10.

Ftc392 Cf. supr , pp. 292, sq.

Ftc393 Cf. Bernays On the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus , Berlin 1861, pp. 8, 9.

Ftc394 Bernays concludes from this appeal to the Emperor, that in the accusation against Priscillian not only had “causes of faith and morals” been dealt with, but also points of accusation which legally formed the basis of a criminal case. The accusations were. (1) of “maleficium,” i.e. sorcery, magic, and the like (because Priseillian had occupied himself with the so-called Zoroastrian and other books of magic, from which he derived his comparison of the parts of the human body with the signs of the zodiac); and (2) concerning nightly assemblies for prayer, which had only recently been forbidden by Valentinian I. Accordingly, as Bernays, in opposition to the general view, strongly insists, Priscillian and his adherents were not executed for heresy.

Ftc395 This is all told by Socrates at the conclusion of his Historia Sacra , t. p. 348 of the Biblioth . Max . PP ., Lugd. 1677; of. Lubkert. De Hoeresi Priscillianistarum , Hafniae 1840, pp. 67, sqq.; and Mandernach, Gesch . des Priscillianismus , Treves 1851, pp. 28, sqq.

Ftc396 [Narses and Leucadius.] Ftc397 Just at that time, from 384 to 398, we meet with a Felix in the old catalogues of the Bishops of Treves. Cf. Binterim, Deutsche Concilien , vol. 1 p. 282.

Ftc398 This is also related by Sulpicius Severus in his Dialog . 3 n. 15, p. of the Biblioth . Max . l . c .; of. Mansi, t. 3. pp. 679 sqq. [On the subject of S. Martin and the Priscillianists, see Newman’s Hist . Sketches , vol pp. 195, sqq.] Ftc399 Printed in Hardouin, t. 1 p. 858; Mansi, t. 3 p. 670; and in the Ballerini edition of the works of Leo, t. 3 p. 448.

Ftc400 Cf. below, pp. 387, sq.

Ftc401 The Novatians were also called Montenses, perhaps because confounded with the Montanists. Cf. my treatise on the Novatian schism in the Kitchen-lexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7 pp. 662, sq.

Ftc402 See vol. 1 p. 409.

Ftc403 In their ed. of Leo’s works, t. 3 p. 450, note 28, given in Hard. t. 1 p 1061; Mansi, t. 3 p. 1034.

Ftc404 Hard. t. 1 p. 1235; Mansi, 4 p. 379.

Ftc405 In the second volume of his edition of the works of S. Leo; also printed in the Ballerini edition, t. 3 p. 962.

Ftc406 In his History of the Roman Popes , vol. 1 p. 366.

Ftc407 Epist . Pontif . t. 1 p. 643.

Ftc408 Remi Ceillier, t. 5 p. 684.

Ftc409 Ballerini, l .c . pp. 986-1011.

Ftc410 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 1032; Hard. t. 1 p. 999.

Ftc411 Hincmari, Opp . t. 2 p. 461.

Ftc412 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 658; and Hard. t. 1 p. 849.

Ftc413 Cf. note 14 of the Ballerini on the heading of the Synodal Letter, l .c . p. 448.

Ftc414 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 1033; Hard. t. 1 p. 1000.

Ftc415 See below, p. 395, note 7, and vol. 1 pp. 162, 174.

Ftc416 Cf. Ballerini, l . c . p. 449, not. 25.

Ftc417 Sozom. 7:15.

Ftc418 Sozom. 7:15; Theodoret, 5:21.

Ftc419 Photius, Biblioth . Cod . 52. Theodoret (4:11) indeed speaks with tolerable distinctness of the zeal of Flavian and S. Amphilochius against the Massalians, but without mentioning that Synods had been held. Cf. also Tillemont, Memoires , t. 8; the treatise, Les Massaliens , and the appended note, 2 p. 225, and p. 352, ed. Brux. 1732.

Ftc420 Fabricii Bibl . Groeca , vol. 11 p. 387.

Ftc421 So says Marca in his Dissert . de Veter . Collect . Canonum , c. 5 (in the appendix to his Concordia Sacerd . et Imper .); and Mansi, t. 3 p. 687.

The list of the consuls in the Synodal acts is damaged by a clerical error.

Ftc422 In Hardouin, t. 1 p. 951; Mansi, t. 3 pp. 691, sqq. anti pp. 867, sqq.; in German in Fuchs, Bibl , der Kirchenvers ., vol. 3 pp. 42, sqq.

Ftc423 See below, pp. 396, sq.

Ftc424 Baronius and Justellus have attacked the genuineness of this Council, but Peter de Marca (De Vet . Collect . Canonum c. 5, n. 2 sqq.) and Pagi (Crit . ad Ann. 387, n. 26) have defended it.

Ftc425 The letter of Siricius in question is found in Hard. t. 1 p. 852; and Mansi, t. 3 p. 663.

Ftc426 Hard. t. 1 p. 853; Mansi, t. 3 pp. 664, sqq.

Ftc427 See above, p. 885.

Ftc428 Hard. t. 1 p. 959; Mansi, t. 3 p. 862.

Ftc429 Tillemont, Memoires , t. 10, note 41, Sur St . Ambroise , p. 324, ed.

Brux. 1732. Mansi also agrees with this reckoning, t. 3 p. 686.

Ftc430 Thus in the Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Afric . n. 48, in Hard. t. 1 p. 886; Mansi, t. 3 p. 738.

Ftc431 See above, p. 346.

Ftc432 Ambrosii Epist . 56 t. 3 p. 1089, ed. Venet. Cf. Baunard (canon at Orleans), Gesch . des hl . Ambrosius , German Trans. by Bittl, Freibg. 1873, p. 347.

Ftc433 For a further account of the Meletian schism and its termination, see my treatise concerning it in the Kitchenlexicon , of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7 p. 45.

Ftc434 That this Bonosus was meant appears from the letter (of Ambrose)to be quoted in the following note, and it is very well proved by Remi Ceillier, Hist . Generale des Auteurs Sacres , etc., t. 5 p. 709.

Ftc435 The Benedictines suppose this letter, although in it the passage frater noster Ambrosius occurs, to be composed by Ambrose himself in the name of a Synod which took place somewhat later than that of Capua.

Lucas, Holstenius, and others ascribe it to Pope Siricius. Cf. note b of the Benedictines on S . Ambros . Opp . t. 3 p. 1091, ed. Venet.

Ftc436 Cod . Can . Eccl . Afric . n. 48, in Hard. t. 1 p. 886; Mansi, t. 3 p. 738.

Ftc437 What Ferdinand Ribbeck, in his work, Donatus und Augustinus (Elberfeld, 1858, pp. 238, sqq.), says concerning the Synod of Hippo is necessarily wrong in many points, because the critical researches of the Ballerini were quite unknown to him, and he had not even an available text of the abbreviated statutes of Hippo.

Ftc438 Possidius, Vita Augustini , c. 7.

Ftc439 In his Synodal Letter in Mansi, t. 3 p. 893; Hard. t. 1 p. 969.

Ftc440 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 732; Hard. t. 1 p. 882.

Ftc441 In Hardouin and Mansi, ll . cc .

Ftc442 He says: “Gesta hujus Concilii ideo descripta non sunt, quia ea, quae ibi statuta sunt, in superioribus probantur inserta.” Hardouin and Mansi, ll . cc .

Ftc443 Cf. the declaration of the third Council of Carthage in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 915 and 733; Hard. t. 1 p. 882, after c. 33 in the Cod . Canon Eccl . Afric .

Ftc444 The objections raised against this, for instance, by Remi Ceillier (t. p. 665), were removed by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo I., t. 3 pp. 78, sqq., printed in Mansi, t. 3 pp. 909, sqq.

Ftc445 In vol. 3 of the works of Leo, p. 88; in Mansi, t. 3 p. 917. The earlier inaccurate text is found in Hard. t. 1 p. 971; Mansi, t. 3 p. 894.

Ftc446 That this creed really belonged to the Synod of Hippo is shown by the Ballerini, l .c . Proefat . p. 80, see. 3.

Ftc447 S . Leonis M . Opp . ed. Ballerini, t. 3 p. 90, note 80; in Mansi, t. 3 p. 932, n. 30.

Ftc448 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 917.

Ftc449 It had hitherto belonged to the Numidian primacy. Cf. No. 17 in the Codex Can . Eccl . Afric ., and Van Espen, Comment . in Canones , etc., p. 315. Moreover, according to the African usage, “primas ” is identical with “primae sedis episcopus” or “senex.” While in other provinces the bishop of the civil metropolis was also the head of the ecclesiastical province, and therefore called metropolitan, in Africa the arrangement was that the bishop who had been longest consecrated was head of the province, and his See called prima sedes (cf. vol. i. pp. 162, 174; Marca, De Primatibus pp. 10 sq., in the Appendix to De Concord.

Sacerd. et Imperii; and Van Espen, l. c. p. 357). But disputes often arose as to seniority, and the following canon is designed to meet them.

Carthage was the only exception in Africa, as the Episcopal See of this civil capital was at once the first and also the Patriarchal See of Africa.

Ftd1 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 919, sqq.

Ftd2 [The “Dominus vobiscum,” restricted to those in holy orders.] Ftd3 We find a milder decision in canon 11. See below, p. 425.

Ftd4 See above, p. 395.

Ftd5 This canon appears to have been suggested by Augustine in specie, as he shortly before, in 392, complained to Bishop Aurelius of the scandals which took place at the agape in the martyr chapels and cemeteries. See Aug. Epist. 22.

Ftd6 Two further canons, which the Ballerini adopt, belong, according to their own observation, not to the abridgment of the Synod of Hippo, but one to the third Council of Carthage in 397 (its second), the other to the Council of Carthage in 401. Cf. Ballerini, Edit. Opp. S. Leonis, t. iii. p. 102, note 10, p. 103, note 18.

Ftd7 In Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1080; Mansi, t. viii. p. 646.

Ftd8 See above, p. 395, canon 1.

Ftd9 The Epitome gives this resolution in Nos. 3 and 4 of its first series. See above, pp. 395, sq.

Ftd10 Mansi, t. iii. p. 733; Hard. t. i. p. 882.

Ftd11 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 742, 775, 799; Hard. t. i. pp. 887, 903, 919.

Ftd12 In Justell. Biblioth. Jur . Can. t. i. pp. 449, 450, 451, 454.

Ftd13 Sulpicius Severus, Dialogus 2, n. 15.

Ftd14 See above, p. 385.

Ftd15 Fortgesetzten Sammlung von alten und neuen Theol. Sachen, Buchern, etc., Leipzig, 1746; cf. Walch, Historie der Kirchenvers. p. 233.

Ftd16 Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, vol. xi. p. 465.

Ftd17 Le Concile de Nimes et S. frelix, Eveque de cette ville a la fin du IV Siecle, Nimes, 1870.

Ftd18 Reusch, Theol Literaturblatt, 1870, No. 23.

Ftd19 The “septem provinciae” are : — Alpes maritimae, Viennensis, Narbonneusis I. et II., Aquitania I. et II., Novempopulania. See Leveque, l.c. 8.

Ftd20 The divisions which were to be combated at Nimes were occasioned (a) by the Ithacians and their Bishop Felix of Treves, (b) by the intrusion of Priscillianism, and (c) by the arrival of Manichean sectaries who had been driven from the East by the imperial edict of 389.

Ftd21 “Letters of peace” = “epistolia.” See canon 6, and cf. canon 13 of the Synod of Orleans in 533.

Ftd22 Perhaps the same who in the Gallia Chrisi. (t. i. col. 73) is mentioned among the five first Bishops of Auch, and in him we must recognise the president of the Synod of Nimes.

Ftd23 He was supposed to be the Ursus whose consecration was declared invalid by Pope Zosimus in 417 (Mansi, t. iv. p. 361); but Abbe Leveque shows (p. 19) that this Ursus only became bishop about 411.

He suggests “Ursio,” an otherwise unknown Gallican bishop, who is mentioned in canon 3 of the Synod of Turin of 401.

Ftd24 The only well-known bishop of this name in Gaul was S. Genialis, the first Bishop of Cavaillon, who is supposed to have lived somewhere about the year 322 (Gallia Christ. t. i. p. 940). According to this document, the time of his episcopate might be placed about seventy years later, as no bishop was known of between him and Bishop Julian, who occupied that See from 439 to 451.

Ftd25 Perhaps the first Bishop of Tarbes (Gallia Christ. i. 1225).

Ftd26 Is he the Bishop of Cahors mentioned by Gregory of Tours in book c. 13 of his history? But this Alitius was then still a priest. See Leveque, l. c. p. 20.

Ftd27 Not the renowned Bishop Aper of Toul, who lived in the latter part of the fifth century. Cf. Leveque, l.c. p. 20.

Ftd28 Bishop of Nimes, crucified by the Vandals in the beginning of the fifth century. Gallia (Christ. t. i. instrumenta (in the Appendix), pp. 136, 137; cf. Leveque, l.c. pp. 22, sqq.

Ft2 Perhaps Bishop of Limoges (Gallia Christ. ii. 501).

Ftd30 At the Synod of Turin in 401 this Remigius, together with Octavius and Treferius mentioned below, was acquitted of the charge of having performed some unlawful consecrations. His See is unknown.

Ftd31 Perhaps S. Apodemius, who in 407 went from the shores of the ocean and the furthest boundaries of Gaul to Bethlehem, in quest of S.

Jerome (S. Hieron. Opp. ed. Bened. t. i. P. i. pp. 168, 188).

Ftd32 The fourth Bishop of Meaux.

Ftd33 First Bishop of Vence (Gallia Christ. iii. 1212).

Ftd34 See above, note 7.

Ftd35 This Bishop and Urbanus, mentioned below, are probably the same who also signed the decrees at the Council of Valence in 374 (cf. supr , p. 289). Tillemont supposes Nicesius to have been Bishop of Mayence (Tillemont, Memoires. t. viii. p. 235, ed. Brux. 1732). Addo’s Chronicle, however, mentions an Archbishop Nicesius of Vienne.

Ftd36 S. Evantius (Ovan) was the seventh Bishop of Autun.

Ftd37 Perhaps the same who in 440 still occupied the See of Embrun. But, in that case, he could not have been present at the Council of Orleans in 461, as Mabillon believed.

Ftd38 Probably S. Urban, Bishop of Langres. Cf p. 405, note 12.

Ftd39 S. Melanius of Troyes. Cf. Leveque, l.c. p. 22.

Ftd40 Cf. supr. p. 405, note 7.

Ftd41 This account is contained in the Collect. Can. Eccl. Afric. after c. 33; Mansi, t. iii. p. 732; Hard. t. i. p. 882.

Ftd42 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 854, sq.; cf. Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 51, sqq.

Ftd43 Hergenrother, Photius, vol. i. p. 37.

Ftd44 Mansi, t. iii. p. 851; Hard. t. i. p. 955; Assemani, Biblioth. Juris.

Orient. t. iii. pp. 2, 11 sq.

Ftd45 Mansi, t. iii. p. 752; Hard. t. i. p. 894.

Ftd46 See above, p. 401.

Ftd47 Cf. the heading and the introductory words of this Synod in the Codex Canon. Eccl. Afric. between c. 33 and 34. Mansi, t. iii. p. 733; Hard. t. i. p. 882.

Ftd48 It is a mistake to suppose that this letter was only addressed to those Byzacene bishops who remained at home, and the objections of Hardouin and others to the signature of Aurelius are equally untenable.

Cf. Ballerini, Opp. S. Leonis, t. iii. p. lxxx. n. ii. p. 87, nota 12. On this Synod cf. also Van Espen, Commentar. in Canones, etc. Colon. 1755, p. 325.

Ftd49 See Mansi, t. iii. pp. 926, sqq. For the sake of brevity we only give here these new portions, and refer for the second Breviarium to pp. 394, sqq. above.

Ftd50 Cf. Kober, Der Kirchenbann, Tubingen, 1863, p. 440.

Ftd51 See above, pp. 395, 400.

Ftd52 See above, p. 391.

Ftd53 In their edition of the works of Leo, t. iii. praef, pp. lxxix.-lxxxvii.

Fuchs followed the Ballerini in his Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 58, sqq.

Ftd54 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 916-930. In the same volume, pp. 875, sqq., Mansi also gives the older and less accurate revision of the Synodal Acts.

Only the latter is found in Hard. t. i. pp. 959, sqq.

Ftd55 See Hardouin, t. i. pp. 975, sqq.; Mansi, t. iii. pp. 945, sqq.

Ftd56 In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, t. iii. p. lxxxviii.

Ftd57 The Ballerini have edited these 104 canons according to their original order, l.c. pp. 653, sqq.

Ft d58 See above, p. 395, note 7.

Ft d59 Ballerini, l.c. p. xc.

Ft d60 Ballerini, l.c. pp. lxxxix.-xci.

Ft d61 Ballerini, l.c . p. xci. On this supposed Synod, cf. also P. de Marca, De Veter. Collect. Can . c. 7, in the appendix to his work, Concord Sacerd. et Imp.

Ft d62 Against Nestorianism, or against the views of Liborius. See below.

Ftd63 All this is directed against the Manichean, Novatian, Pelagian, and Priscillian errors.

Ftd64 Imposition of hands marks the third degree of penance. In this stage a sick person received absolution and the Holy Eucharist, but was obliged, if he lived, to fulfil the works of penance. Cf. Frank, Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche, Mayence, 1867, p. 826.

Ftd65 See Frank, l.c. 826.

Ftd66 [i.e. where there is no priest to give them the sacraments.] Ftd67 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 945, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 975, sqq.; Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 458 sqq.

Ftd68 Cf. Ideler, Lehrbuch der Chronologie, p. 405.

Ftd69 This document is found, after the fifty-sixth canon, in the Codex Canon. Eccl. Afric. in Mansi, t. iii. p. 752; Hardouin, t. i. p. 894; cf.

Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. p. 95.

Ftd70 Ballarsi, in his edition of the works of S. Jerome, t. i. p. 537; Mansi, t. iii. pp. 981, sqq.; cf. below, Section. 115.

Ftd71 Printed in Mansi, t. iii. p. 976.

Ftd72 Cf. Pagi, ad ann. 401, n. 2 sqq.; and Mansi, l.c . p. 979.

Ftd73 The letter of the Synod of Jerusalem is found in Mansi, t. iii. p. 989.

Ftd74 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 1020, 1022; Waleh, Hist. der Kirchenvers. p. 245.

Ftd75 Mansi, l.c. pp. 992, sqq.

Ftd76 Mansi, l.c., and Pallad. Vita Chrysost. c. 13. The canonical question (as to the interference of Chrysostom in another patriarchate or exarchate, that of Ephesus) shall be noticed further on, in connection with the twenty-eighth canon of the Fourth General Council. Cf.

Hergenrother, Photius, vol. i. p. 40.

Ftd77 In Mansi, t. iii. pp. 997 sqq. and p. 1013 sqq.; Hard. t. i. p. 990; of.

Florez. Espana Sagrada, t. xvi. pp. 49-129 and 319-830; Mandernach, Gesch. des Priscill. 1851, pp. 47 sqq.; Lubkert, De Hoer. Priscill. 1840, pp. 85, sqq.

Ftd78 See below, Section. 167.

Ftd79 “Confiteri” is often used in the Holy Scriptures for “Dei laudes decantare,” and hence “confessor” comes to mean “cantor ;” cf. Du Cange, Glossar.

Ftd80 See canon 6.

Ftd81 On the “Lucernarium,” cf. the notes of Binius in Mansi, t. iii. p. 1016.

Ftd82 Cf. Kober, Kirchenbann, 1863, pp. 192 sq.

Ftd83 According to Roman law, by concubinage was understood every unequal marriage, as in the earlier ages between patricians and plebeians, or between a citizen and a freed-woman. But, after the passing of the “Leges Canuleia, Julia,” and “Papia Poppaea” (A.D. 11), an alliance of the kind above mentioned received all the rights of marriage, and concubinage included only (a) the alliance of a senator, his son (or daughter) with a “libertina” (or a “libertinus”); (b) the alliance of a citizen with an actress, or generally with a member of a class looked down upon; (c) the alliance of a patron with a freedwoman.

Cf. Waiter, Gesch. der Rom. Rechts, pp. 540, 554. According to this, in the second part of this canon, by “concubina” is probably meant a wife of lower rank, who could be again dismissed (see the remark of the Correctores Romani, on c. 4, Dist. 34, where this canon is quoted); but not so in the first part, as such concubinage could only take place between unmarried persons.

Ftd84 In the third volume of their edition of the works of Leo I. p. xcii.

Ftd85 In Mansi, t. iii. pp. 968, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 986, sq.

Ftd86 Cf. Pagi, ad ann. 401, n. xxi.

Ftd87 In Mansi, t. iii. pp. 752, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 894, sqq.

Ftd88 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 766, sq. and 770, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 898, sqq.

Ftd89 See Mansi, t. iii. pp. 763, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 895, sq.

Ftd90 Van Espen (Commentar. in Canones, etc., Colon. 1755, pp. 340, sqq.) gives an explanation of this and the following canons.

Ftd91 See below, p. 425.

Ftd92 Ballerini, l.c. pp. xcii., sqq.

Ftd93 Mansi, t. iii. p. 770; Hard. t. i. p. 899.

Ftd94 I have entered more fully into the case of the Maximianists, those Donatist rigorists whom the Primians opposed, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. iii. p. 259. Van Espen (Commentar. 1.c. p. 346) gives an explanation of this and the following canons.

Ftd95 See above, p. 400, canon 37.

Ftd96 See above, p. 402.

Ftd97 According to canon 7 of the second series of the Breviarium of the canons of Hippo of 393 (supr. p. 397), a bishop in such a case was also excluded from communion in his own diocese. Cf. canon 20 of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon.

Ftd98 Concerning the meaning of this canon, cf. Van Espen, Comment. etc., p. 321.

Ftd99 Cf. above, p. 423.

Ftd100 (Cf. supr. p. 392. Concerning the anathema pronounced upon the dead, cf. Kober, Kirchenbann, etc., p. 91.

Ftd101 Cf. supr. p. 423.

Ftd102 Cf. Supr. p. 422.

Ftd103 Cf. the remarks of Mansi, t. iii. p. 863.

Ftd104 In Mansi, t. iii. pp. 859 sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 958, sq.

Ftd105 Remi Ceillier has more concerning this in his Histoire des Auteurs Sacres , etc., t. x. pp. 706, sq.

Ftd106 Cf. Remi Ceillier l.c. p. 707. Concerning this canon Peter de Marca says: “Ex eodem canone colligitur, hanc praerogativam illi episcopo deberi in unaquaque provincia, qui eam civitatem obtinebat, quae in laterculo imperii metropolis dignitate fruebatur.” P. de Marca, De Primatu Lugdun.

Ftd107 Kellner, Das Buss-und-Strafverfahren, etc., Treves, 1863, p. 58.

Ftd108 Cf. supr. pp. 386, 392.

Ftd109 Baller. l.c. p. xciv. n. 1.

Ftd110 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 183, sqq., and p. 1139; Hard. t. i. pp. 907, sqq.

Ftd111 These Acts also were first placed in right order by the Ballerini, l.c., who were followed by Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 120, sqq.

Ftd112 In Africa the bishop who had been longest ordained was the superior of the others, and was called “episcopus primae sedis;” cf. supr. p. 396, n. 7.

Ftd113 On this, cf. Marca, De Primatibus, p. 11, in the appendix to De Concord. Sacerd. et Imperii ; and Van Espen, Commentar. l.c. p. 357.

Ftd114 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 358.

Ftd115 He had formerly been a Donatist but had returned to the Church.

When divisions arose in Vaga on his account, he himself, in a letter to the Synod, offered his resignation. Cf. Epist. SS. Alypii et Augustini, viz. Ep. lxix. of the Letters of S. Augustine, t. ii. p. 238, ed. Migne; and Van Espen, l.c. p. 358.

Ftd116 Cf. above, canon 1.

Ftd117 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 359.

Ftd118 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 1133, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 1081, sqq.

Ftd119 The text is not distinct.

Ftd120 These were four very learned Egyptian monks and ecclesiastics, formerly intimate friends of Theophilus. Their names were: Dioscurus (consecrated Bishop of Little Hermopolis), Ammonius, Euthymius, and Eusebius. Cf. my treatise on the Origenist controversy in the Kirchenlexicon, of Wetzer and Welte, vol. vii. p. 847.

Ftd121 Sozom. viii. 17.

Ftd122 Cf. Photii, Biblioth. Cod. 159; printed in Mansi, t. iii. p. 1142; Hard. t. i. p. 1038.

Ftd123 Socrat. vi. 15; Sozom. viii. 17.

Ftd124 Biblioth. Cod. 59, printed in Mansi, t. iii. pp. 1141, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 1037, sqq.

Ftd125 On dekanoi> , cf. Suicer’s Thesaur. t. i. p. 835. By dekanoi> was generally understood monastic superiors, of whom the Church (diocese) of Constantinople numbered no less than 950.

Ftd126 Palladius relates that Chrysostom had advised the faithful after Communion to drink water, or to eat a “pastile” (little cake), in order not to spit out any of the Sacrament. He had been accused on this point also, and this was the only true accusation. Mansi, t. iii. p. 1150.

Ftd127 Mansi, t. iii. p. 1150.

Ftd128 From Palladius in Mansi, l.c. p. 1150.

Ftd129 From Palladius in Mansi, ll. p. 1151.

Ftd130 Mansi, l.c.

Ftd131 Cf. supr, p. 432, No. 2.

Ftd132 Theophilus did not occupy the post of President, probably in order to appear just and tolerant, because Chrysostom had brought counter charges against him and others.

Ftd133 I.e. five more than at the beginning.

Ftd134 Because he had called the Empress a Jezebel.

Ftd135 Mansi, t. iii. p. 1151.

Ftd136 Mansi, t. iii. p. 1095.

Ftd137 Cf. supr, pp. 68, 70.

Ftd138 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 1154, sq., 1158.

Ftd139 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 787, sq., p. 1155; Hard. t. i. pp. 911, sq.; cf. Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 125, sqq.

Ftd140 In No. 93 of the African canons.

Ftd141 Cf. above, p. 425.

Ft142 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 794, 1115; Hard. t. i. pp. 915, sq.; translated by Fuchs, l.c. pp. 131, sqq.

Ft143 Cf. LL. 38, 39, Cod. Theodos. De Hoereticis, and my treatise on the Donatists in the Kirchenlex. of Wetzer and Welte, vol. iii. p. 260.

Ft144 Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius in Canones, etc., p. 368, in his comments on the ninety-seventh canon of Africa.

Ft145 Under canons 93 and 94 in Mansi, t. iii. pp. 798, 799; Hard. t. i. pp. 918, 919; translated in Fuchs, l.c. p. 135.

Ft146 Baller. edit. Opp. S. Leonis, t. iii. p. xcv.

Ftd147 “Idib. Juniis,” not “Juliis,” should be read, as is shown by the remark in Mansi, t. iii. p. 799, not. 4, and Hard. t. i. p. 919, ad margin.

Ftd148 Between canons 94 and 106. In Mansi and Hard. ll. cc.; translated into German in Fuchs, l.c. pp. 137, sqq. Van Espen has a commentary on this, Commentarius, etc., pp. 365, sqq.

Ftd149 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 366.

Ftd150 Thus at that time the right of founding new Sees was not reserved to the Pope. Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 368.

Ftd151 Cf. supr. p. 441.

Ftd152 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. pp. 368, sq.; Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. p. 140. This rule was abolished in 418; see below, Section. 119, canon 9.

Ftd153 The text of this canon is much corrupted, and very difficult to be understood. Cf. Van Espen, l.c. pp. 369, 370.

Ftd154 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 370, and Corpus Jur. Can. c. 5, causa xxxii, quaest. 7, where this canon is adopted from Isidore as emanating from the Synod of Mileve.

Ftd155 See footnote ftd5.

Ftd156 Cf. Van Espen, l.c . p. 371.

Ftd157 Mansi, t. iii. p. 810; Hard. t. i. p. 926; Fuchs, l.c. pp. 147, sqq.

Ftd158 Mansi, t. iii. p. 310; Hard. t. i. p. 926.

Ftd159 Cf. my treatise on the Donatists, l.c. p. 260.

Ftd160 According to Muratori, in the year 405; but according to Assemani and Mansi, in 410. Cf. Mansi, t. iii. p. 1166.

Ftd161 Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. Pars i. p. 366.

Ftd162 Mansi, l.c.

Ftd163 Printed in Mansi, t. iii. pp. 1167, sqq., and t. vii. pp. 1181, sqq.

Renaudot (Liturg. Orient. t. ii. p. 272) and the younger Assemani (in his Biblioth. Codic. Oriental Flor. p. 94) say that a codex with twentysix canons of this Synod is to be found at Florence.

Ftd164 Cf. Walch, Historie der Kirchenvers. pp. 257, sq.

Ftd165 The Acts are in Mansi, t. iv. lap. 1, sqq. Cf. also Tubing.

Quartalschrift, 1852, book 1 pp. 148, sq.

Ftd166 Mansi, t. iv. pp. 7-283. Hardouin, t. i. pp. 1043-1190, translated into German in Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 151, sqq.

Ftd167 More concerning it will be found in my treatise on the Donatists in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. iii. pp. 260, sqq.

Ftd168 Printed in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 287, sqq.; Hard. t. i. p. 1190; on this, cf.

Walch, l.c. p. 260, and Remi Ceillier, l.c. t. xii. pp. 708, sqq.

Ftd169 Learned men have treated much of the origin of the Pelagians. To me their fundamental doctrine, that “man is virtuous entirely of his own merit, not of the gift of grace,” seems to be a rehabilitation of the general heathen view of the world. Thus Cicero says: “For gold, lands, and all the blessings of life, we have to thank the gods; but no one has ever thanked the gods for his virtues.” “Virtutem antem nemo unquam acceptam Deo retulit,” Cic. de Nat. Deorum, lib. iii. c. 36. Cf. Kuhn, Quartalsch. 1846, pp. 226, sq. Modern Paganism takes quite the same view. Once when I was in company with a Protestant Rationalistic member of the Government, and among other things remarked that, “without the grace of God, virtue is impossible to us,” that gentleman replied, “That may be so in the Catholic dogma, but all well-educated Protestants are of quite another opinion.” If Luther had heard this!

Ftd170 See the Ballerini edition of the works of S. Leo, t. iii. p. 846, n. v.

Ftd171 S. Aug. De Gratia Christi et Peccato Orig. lib. ii. c. 2, 3, 4, and Marius Mercator in his Commonitorium super Nomine Coelestii, etc.

Both these fragments of Augustine and Marius Mercator are printed in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 290, sqq.; the former also in Hard. t. i. p. 2001 (really 1201).

Ftd172 The text of the six propositions of Celestius is given by Marius Mercator in his work, Commonit. super Nomine Coelestii, who professed to have still in his possession the Acts of the transactions at Carthage (Gestorum Exemplaria). See Marii Mercat. Opp. ed. Migne, t. 48 of the Cursus Patrol. pp. 69, 70. Augustine gives these propositions from memory rather differently, and in a somewhat different order; and also in Marius Mercator we find another more peculiar text (in his lib. Subnotat. in Verba Juliani, l.c . p. 115). Here the six propositions run thus: “1. Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret sive non peccaret, fuisset moriturus. 2. Quoniam peccatum Adae ipsum solum laesit, et non genus humanum. 3. Quoniam infantes, qui nascuntur, in eo statu sunt, in quo Adam fuit ante praevaricationem. 4. Quoniam neque per mortem Adae omne genus hominum moriatur, quia nec per resurrectionem Christi omne genus hominum resurgat. 5.

Quoniam infantes, etiamsi non baptizentur, habeant vitam aeternam. 6.

Adjecit praeterea: posse hominem sine peccate esse et facile Dei mandata servare, quia et ante Christi adventure fuerunt homines sine peccato, et quoniam Lex sic mittit ad regnum coelorum, sicut Evangelium.” We see that the chief difference is in No. 5, where something is said which is not contained in the first list of the six propositions, and No. 6 comprises that which is contained above in Nos. 5 and 6.

Ftd173 Mansi, t. iv. p. 293.

Ftd174 In his Apologia pro Libertate Arbitrii, cc. 3, 4, printed in the Bibl.

Max. PP. t. vi. p. 148; and in Mansi, t. iv. p. 307; Hard. t. i. p. (really 1207); translated with notes in Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 320, sqq.

Ftd175 In Augustine, lib. i. Contra Julian. cap. v. n. 19.

Ftd176 Pope Zosimus gives an unfavorable description of them; see Baron. ad ann. 417, 25, sq. But as the Pope was at first deceived by the innuendoes of the Pelagians, Tillemont (Memoires, etc., t. xiii. pp. 677, ed. Venise) undertook a defence of these two Gallican bishops.

Ftd177 August. De Gestis Pelag . c. 1.

Ftd178 Cf. his Apologia in Mansi, l.c. p. 310.

Ftd179 August. Epist. 146.

Ftd180 Cf. August. De Gestis Pelag . cc. 25, 21; and Remi Ceillier, t. xii. p. 715.

Ftd181 The accounts of this Synod are to be found scattered in Augustine. In the following notes we shall quote the places in question. They are collected in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 315, sqq.; also in Hard. t. i. pp. 2009, sqq. (really 1209); in German in Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 328-337. A collection of the Pelagian propositions discussed at this Synod, taken from Augustine, Ep. 186 (formerly 106), and from other sources, but possessing no great worth, is given by Mansi (l.c. pp. 311, sqq.), after the example of earlier collectors of Councils Ftd182 We learn this from August. De Gestis Pelag. c. 1; also printed in Mansi, t. iv. p. 316; and Hard. t. i. p. 2009.

Ftd183 August. l.c. 3.

Ftd184 Angust. l.c. 3, n. 9, 10; Mansi, l.c.; Hard. l.c. [The fact here recorded, and St. Augustine’s comment on it, are important, as showing that Origen’s Universalist theory was regarded as heretical in the Church.] Ftd185 August. l.c. 4, and the commencement of c. 5; Mansi, l.c.; Hard. l.c.

Ftd186 August. l.c. 5 et 6; Mansi, l.c. p. 317; Hard. l.c.

Ftd187 August. l.c. 6, and De Peccato Orig. lib. ii. c. 11; Mansi, l.c.; Hard. l.c. p. 2010.

Ftd188 August. De Peccato Orig. lib. ii. c. 11, De Gatis Pelagii, c. 11; Mansi, l.c. p. 318; Hard. l.c. p. 2011.

Ftd189 August. De Gestis Pelagii, c. 12; Mansi, l.c. p. 318; Hard. l.c.

Ftd190 In August. l.c. 13; Mansi, l.c.; Hard. l.c.

Ftd191 August. De Gestis Pelag. c. 14; Mansi, l.c.; Hard. l.c. pp. 2011, 2012.

Ftd192 De Gestis Pelag. c. 14, n. 37, and c. 15, n. 38; Mansi, l.c. ; Hard. l.c . p. 2012.

Ftd193 August. De Gestis Pelag. cc. 18-20; Mansi, l.c. p. 320; Hard. l.c . p. 2012.

Ftd194 2 Jerome, Epist. 79 (in Ballarsi, Ep. 143).

Ftd195 Histoire du Concile de Diospolis; Daniel, see his Ouvrages, tom. i. p. 635.

Ftd196 Cf. the Synodal Letter of Carthage, to be treated of presently.

Ftd197 August. Epist. 175, formerly 90; Mansi, t. iv. pp. 321, sqq.; Hard. t. i. p. 2013 (really 1213); Ballerini, edit. Opp. S. Leonis M . t. iii. pp. 128, sqq.; translated in Fuchs, Bibl. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 338, sqq.

Ftd198 The pseudo-Isidorian Collection ascribes to the Synod twenty-seven canons also, But these all belong to other Synods. They are printed in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 326, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 1217, sqq.; translated in Fuchs, ll.c. pp. 346, sqq. Their spuriousness was shown by Schelstraten, Antiq. Eccl. Afric. Diss. iii.; Noris, Hist. Pelag. lib. i. c. 10, and Hardouin and Mansi in the notes on these.

Ftd199 Printed in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 854, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 1221, sqq.; Ballet. edit. Opp. S. Leonis M . t. iii. pp. 141, sqq.; translated in Fuchs, l.c. pp. 346, sqq.

Ftd200 See their Letter in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 337, sqq.; Hard. t. i. p. 1203; Baller. l.c. p. 149; Fuchs, l.c. pp. 351, sqq.

Ftd201 In Mansi, t. iii. pp. 1071, sqq., 1075, sqq., 1078; Hard. t. i. pp. 1025, 1028, 1030; Ballet. l.c. pp. lg4, 144, 149.

Ftd202 August. De Peccato Orig. c. 2, 5, 6; also in Mansi, t. iv. p. 358; translated in Fuchs, l.c. pp. 369, sqq.

Ftd203 Mansi, t. iv. p. 350; Baron. ad ann. 417, n. 19, sqq.

Ftd204 It is found in the Appendix to vol. x. of the Benedictine edition of the works of Augustine; also in Mansi, t. iv. p. 355; Baron. ad ann. 417, n. 31; and in German in Fuchs, l.c. pp. 363, sqq.

Ftd205 Mansi, t. iv. p. 353; Baron. ad ann. 417, n. 25, sqq.

Ftd206 This fragment of the Synodal Letter is found in Prosper, Contra Collatorem, c. 5, printed in Mansi, l.c. pp. 376 and 378 in the Nota a.

Cf. also August. De Peccato Orig. c. 7, 8, and lib. ii. ad Boniface, c. 3.

Ftd207 In the Appendix to vol. x. of the works of Augustine; and in Mansi, t. iv. p. 366.

Ftd208 Thus says a very ancient codex of the prooemium of this Synod given in Mansi, t. iv. p. 277; and Baller. ed. Opp. S. Leonis M. t. iii. p. 165.

Ftd209 Given in the Codex Can. Eccl. Afric. Nos. 103-127; Mansi, t. iii. pp. 810-823, and t. iv. p. 377; Hard. t. i. pp. 926, sqq.; in Bailer. ed. Opp.

S. Leonis M. t. iii. pp. 165, sqq.; translated in Fuchs, l.c. pp. 373, sqq.

A commentary on this was given by Van Espen, Comment. in Canones, etc., ed. Colon. 1755, pp. 373, sqq.

Ftd210 Collec. Can. Eccl. Afric.

Ftd211 Baller. l.c. pp. xcvi. sq.

Ftd212 The text in Mansi, t. iii. p. 814, is here disfigured by an error in printing, the words “etiam facere diligamus” occurring two lines too early. Hardouin and the Ballerini have the right text.

Ftd213 In 407, canon 5 (No. 99 of the African canons). See above, p. 443.

Ftd214 This canon, in distinction to canon 13, treats of the case where a bishop effects no union in his own episcopal city.

Ftd215 “The same is contained in canon 28 of the Codex Can. Eccl. Afric.

Cf. Van Espen, l.c. pp. 321, sq.

Ftd216 Canon 1 of the second series of the Council of Hippo of 393 is here meant. See above, p. 397.

Ftd217 According to canon 5 of the Synod of Hippo of 393. See above, p. 397.

Ftd218 See above, p. 387.

Ftd219 A short document of this Synod, containing the canons in question, is found in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 379, sq.; Hard. t. i. p. 1235.

Ftd220 See vol. i. p. 356, and supr. pp. 119, sqq.

Ftd221 We learn this from the fact that in his fourth demand, now to be discussed, he threatened Bishop Urban with deposition if he did not retract.

Ftd222 Cf. above, p. 461. The Ballerini (ed. Opp. S. Leonis, t. ii. p. 963) rightly observe that this only prohibited priests and deacons, but not bishops, from appealing to Rome.

Ftd223 We learn all this from the letter of the Carthaginian Synod of 419 to Pope Boniface in Mansi, t. iii. p. 831; Hard. t. i. p. 942.

Ftd224 They run thus: Can. Sardic. 5 (7). “If a bishop deposed by his comprovincials has appealed to Rome, and the Pope considers a fresh examination necessary, then he (the Pope) shall write to the bishops living nearest the province in question, that they may thoroughly investigate the matter, and deliver a sentence in accordance with the truth. But if the appellant can induce the Bishop of Rome to send priests of his own to constitute, with the appointed bishops, the court of second instance, and thereby to enjoy the authority belonging to himself (the Pope), — i.e. to preside in the court, — it shall be open to him to do so. But should he think the bishops alone sufficient for this court of appeal and for this decision, he shall do what seems to him good.” Can. Sardic. 14 (17). “A priest or deacon excommunicated by his bishop shall have the right to take refuge with the neighboring bishops, until the matter shall be investigated, and the sentence of his own bishop confirmed or corrected,” etc.

Concerning the bona fides of the Pope in this confounding of the Sardican and Nicene canons, cf. vol. i. p. 356, and Tub. Quartalschrift, 1852, p. 404; also concerning the whole dispute between the Pope and the Africans, cf. Van Espen, Commentar. in Canones, etc., Colon. 1755, pp. 292, sqq.; Dupin, De Antiqua Ecclesioe Discipl. Dissert. ii.

Section. 3, pp. 140, sqq. ed. Mogunt. 1788; Capelli, De Appellatione Eccl. Afric. ad Rom. Sedem., Romae, 1772; Christ. Lupus, Divinum ac Immobile S. Petri citra fidelium Appellationes adsertum Privilegium, Diss. ii.; Melchior Leydecker, Hist. Eccles. Afric. t. ii. pp. 505, sqq.; and the Observationes of the Ballerini in i. Partem Dissertationis v.

Quesneli, in vol. ii. of their edition of the works of Leo, pp. 958, sqq.

Ftd225 Cf. supr. p. 172.

Ftd226 This letter to Zosimus is lost, but the chief contents are repeated in the Synodal Letter to Pope Boniface in Mansi and Hardouin, ll. cc.

Ftd227 We learn this from a short and very corrupt letter of the Pope to his legates, which Mansi (t. iv. p. 451) gives from a codex of Freising, dated the 26th April 419, viz. a month earlier than the Synod now to be discussed.

Ftd228 Cf. the heading of the Synodal Letter in Mansi, t. iii. p. 830; Hardouin, t. i. p. 939. The Acts of this Synod are in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 401-415 and 419, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 1241, sqq. The Ballerini, in vol. iii. of their edition of the works of Leo the Great, pp. xcviii., sqq., give the true version of the course of proceedings at this Synod.

Ftd229 This, I believe, must be the meaning of the somewhat unintelligible text of the speech of Faustinus.

Ftd230 See above, p. 463. In Mansi, t. iv. p. 405, the addition, “ex Sardicensi Concilio,” has plainly been inserted in the text from a marginal note.

The right reading is to be found in the text of the Ballerini, and also in Mansi, t. iv. p. 422.

Ftd231 That the Papal legates at last declared themselves agreed on this point, appears from the letter of the Synod to Pope Zosimus, which speaks of “this unanimous decision.”

Ftd232 See canon 1 in the Collectio Canon. Eccl. Afric. in Mansi, t. iii. p. 710, t. iv. p. 423; Hard. t. i. p. 867.

Ftd233 This rather too comprehensive and pompous title was given by Justellus (Biblioth. Jur. Can. t. i. p. 321) to the collection of these African canons, put together in 419 by Dionysius Exiguus. He himself gave his collection a far more modest title (Statute Concilii Africani), and it was only in one manuscript of the collection of Dionysius that Justellus found this pretentious heading. — These Statute Concilii Africani were also translated into Greek, even before the Trullan Synod, and therefore Justellus (l.c.), Hard. (t. i. pp. 861, sqq), and Mansi (t. iii. pp. 699, sqq.), besides the original Latin text, also adopted the Greek version. Yen Espen, in his Commentarius in Canones, etc., Colon. 1755, pp. 305-384, published a commentary on this collection.

Cf. also Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. i. pp. 300, 308, and vol. iii. p. 417. That which is given in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 477, sqq., under the title of Concilium Africanum, tempore Bonifacii I. Coelest. I., is only an imperfect copy of the Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric.

Ftd234 See above, p. 390.

Ftd235 See above, p. 186.

Ftd236 See above, p. 390.

Ftd237 See above, p. 397.

Ftd238 See above, p. 396.

Ftd239 See above, p. 397.

Ftd240 See above, p. 399.

Ftd241 See p. 424.

Ftd242 P. 461.

Ftd243 Cf. Ballerin. edit. S. Leonis M. t. ii. pp. 966, sq. On the other hand, cf.

Van Espen, Commentar. p. 321.

Ftd244 The Antiochian Synod says: “is deposed” (kaqaireqei>v ); but the Africans render it “excommunicatus fuerit.” Cf. supr, p. 68.

Ftd245 The meaning of the expression “propositum” is obscure, and therefore also the meaning of the last part of the canon. Hardouin, in the marginal note on this passage, t. i. p. 879, makes “propositum” identical with “vocatio, professio,” which would give it the following meaning: “he must employ it in conformity with his clerical office.”

Van Espen (Commentarius in Canones, etc., p. 323), upon the authority of Balsamon and Zonaras, assigns another meaning to it, viz. “he can dispose of it as he likes; but if he has proposed (‘propositum’) to Ftd247 Cf. pp. 395, 406.

Ftd248 See above, p. 408.

Ftd249 See above, p. 398.

Ftd250 See pp. 407, sq.

Ftd251 See above, p. 407.

Ftd252 See above, p. 418.

Ftd253 See above, p. 422.

Ftd254 See above, p. 422.

Ftd255 See above, p. 423.

Ftd256 See above, p. 423.

Ftd257 Cf. above, p. 424.

Ftd258 Cf. above, p. 424.

Ftd25 9 Cf. above, p. 427.

Ftd260 Cf. above, p. 439.

Ftd261 Cf. above, p. 440.

Ftd262 See above, p. 441.

Ftd263 See above, p. 442.

Ftd264 See above, p. 442.

Ftd265 See above, p. 443.

Ftd266 See above, p. 444.

Ftd267 See above, p. 444.

Ftd268 See above, p. 458.

Ftd269 See above, p. 458.

Ftd270 Section above, p. 459.

Ftd271 See above, p. 460.

Ftd272 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 827, sqq., t. iv. pp. 435, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 938, sqq.

This document, moreover, was drawn up in the names of all the bishops who were present at the first session, and were now represented by the deputies.

Ftd273 “That this was issued on the day after the second session, viz. on the 31st May 419, appears from the words of Archbishop Aurelius in canon 133 of the Codex: “Die sequenti … venerabili fratri et coepiscopo nostro Bonifacio rescribemus.”

Ftd274 See above, p. 464.

Ftd275 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 830, sq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 939, sqq.; translated in Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. iii. pp. 404, sqq.

Ftd276 In Mansi, t. iii. p. 835; Hard. t. i. p. 946. According to the right way of reckoning, however, Easter in 420 fell on the 18th April.

Ftd277 Mansi, t. iii. p. 838; Hard. t. i. p. 946. According to an old account in Mansi (t. iv. p. 434), Bishop Atticus had also written to Pope Boniface, but the Ballerini (l.c . t. iii. p. cii.) reject this. On the occasion of his answer to the Africans, Atticus is also said to have made a declaration concerning the form of the litteroe formatoe, supposed to have been prescribed at Nicaea, printed in Mansi, l. c., and still better in the Ballerini, l.c. pp. 452, sqq.

Ftd278 Of these, the creed of Nicaea is still preserved, but not the canons, in Mansi, t. iii. pp. 835, 838; and Hard. l.c.

Ftd279 Baronius, ad ann. 419, n. 14, sqq., and after him Mansi, t. iv. pp. 399, sqq., gave a short account of this from a Vatican Codex.

Ftd280 Mansi, t. iv. p. 435. Cf. Hergenrother, Photius, vol. i. p. 47.

Ftd281 Mansi, t. viii. pp. 752, sqq.

Ftd282 A short account of this Synod is given in Mansi, t. iv. p. 441, from Assemani’s Biblioth. Orient. t. ii. p. 507, and t. iii. p. 374.

Ftd283 Mansi, t. iv. pp. 449, sqq.; Hard. t. i. pp. 879, 935, sq.; translated in Fuchs, l.c . p. 431, sq.; cf. Baller. edit. Opp. S. Leonis M. t. iii. p. ciii.

Ftd284 Cf. canon 29 in the Codex Can. Eccl. Afric., which is the first original canon of the Synod of Carthage of May 25, 419. See p. 470.

Ftd285 See above, p. 470.

Ftd286 Ibid.

Ftd287 See above, p. 475.

Ftd288 See above, p. 471.

Ftd289 See above, p. 471.

Ftd290 Mansi, t. iv. pp. 474, 475 (not found in Hardouin).

Ftd291 It appears that some. time earlier another Carthaginian Synod (the nineteenth) had been held, which was mentioned at the Council of Carthage of 525. Cf. Ballerini, l.c. p, ciii., n. 2. The twentieth Synod of Carthage is also mentioned by them, p. civ., n. 3.

Ftd292 Mansi, t. iii. pp. 839, sqq. t. iv. p. 515; Hard. t. i. pp. 947, sqq.

Ftd293 As to the date, cf. Mansi, t. iv. p. 517.

Ftd294 This written confession and the accompanying letter are printed in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 518, sqq.; and Hard. t. i. pp. 1261, sqq.

Ftd295 Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 2, p. 1119. [Eng. trans, vol. iv. pp. 332, 333.] Ftd296 Mansi, t. iv. pp. 477-518.

Ftd297 Mansi, t. iv. p. 538.

Ftd298 [The Massalians were also called Euchites, from their view that prayer is the only means of grace, and Enthusiasts, from their extravagances.

These sectaries arose in the fourth century, and were first condemned at the Synod of Sida in 383 (cf. supr. p. 389), and finally at the Council of Ephesus in 431. They reappeared, however, in the twelfth century, when, like the Albigenses and other mediaeval sects, they reproduced a form of Manichean error. ] Ftd299 Mansi, t. iv. p. 542.

Ftd300 As to the date, cf. Mansi, t. iv. p. 546.

Ftd301 Mansi, t. iv. pp. 543, sqq.

Ftd302 [The controversies on the Incarnation, here referred to, extend over the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth (Ecumenical Councils, closing with the condemnation of the Monotholite heresy, at the Third of Constantinople, in 680.] Ftd303 One of the principal historical difficulties of the question lies in the contradiction between these words of S. Hilary, and a note, giving the names of the authors of the confession. I do not believe S. Hilary to be ‘the author of this note. He would not have called the first Sirmian confession the “perfidiae Ariana.” Nor would the Emperor have been satisfied with a subscription to the first Sirmian, which was already obsolete. Petavius (Animad. in Epiphan. p. 316) says, “Hoc certissimum est neque priori illi contra Photinum editae subscripsisse, et si ex tribus Sirmiensibus aliquam admiserit, non aliam quam secundam, cui et Osius assensus est comprobasse.” That Liberius did sign one of them, seems to be not less manifest from the evidence.