CHAPTER - Fta181 Cf. on this subject P. de Marca, De Primatibus, c. 73, p. 52, where it is shown that Pope Gregory the Great, and afterwards Pope Hilary, rejected the pretensions of the Archbishop of Arles, and restored the metropolitans, whom he had wronged, to their rights.

Fta182 On the Comm. Peregr. cf. below canon 2 of the Synod of Agde, in the year 506 (Section 222), and canon 16 of the Synod of Serida (Section 237). Of. Kober, Suspension etc., S. 8 ff.

Fta183 Mansi, t. 5 p. 1189 sq., with notes variorum. Without these in Sirmond, Concil. Gall. t. 1 p. 65 sqq., and Hardouin, t. 1 p. 1747.

Anew revision of the text of these canons was made by the monks of S.

Maur in their new collection of the Gallican Synods, of which only the first volume appeared in 1789, reprinted by Bruns, Biblioth.

Ecclesiastes t. 1 P. 2 p. 116 sqq.

Fta184 Reprinted in Mansi, l.c. p. 1194 sq.; Hardouin, t. 1 p. 1751; and Bruns, l.c. p. 121.

Fta185 Printed in Sirmond, Concil. Galliae, t. 1 p. 71; Hardouin, t. 1 p. 1783. Best in Mansi, t. 6 p. 434 sqq., and Bruns, l.c. p. 122 sqq. (Here with the variations of the S. Maur edition, of. above, note 1, p. 159.)

Fta186 Compare Sirmond’s note on this canon in Mansi, t. 6 p. 443 sq.

Fta187 This was otherwise in Rome, where the chrism was applied twice, at baptism and at confirmation; and this is now the universal practice.

Fta188 Cf. Mayer, Gesch. des Katechumenats, Kempten 1868, S. 188. Du Pin, Novelle Biblioth. t. 4 p. 367, t. 17 p. 204, and Sirmond’s note in Mansi, l.c. p. 444.

Fta189 In Hardouin, t. 1 p. 851.

Fta190 Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1745.

Fta191 Cf. Sirmond’s note in Mansi, l.c. p. 444; and Kober, Deposition etc.

S. 71 f.

Fta192 Cf. Sirmond’s note a. h. l.

Fta193 Cf. on this subject Meckell, Abhandlung uber die romischen Ordines, in the Tubingen Theol. Quartalschr. 1862, S. 81.

Fta194 The Secretarium is a building adjoining the church, which embraced several divisions, Diaconicum, Salutatorium, and Metatorium, and in which Synods were often held. Cf. Binterim, Denkw. Bd. 4 Thl. 1, S. 139 ff. [Cf. Dictionary of Christ. Antiquities, s.v .] Fta195 Cf. my short treatise on the fast on Easter Eve in the Beitruge zur Kirchengesch, etc., Bd. 2 S. 292.

Fta196 Cf. Tillemont, Memoires, etc., t. 15 p. 69. Remi Ceillier, l.c. p. 784.

Fta197 In Sirmond, Concil. Gall. t. 1 p. 76 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 1 p. 1787 sq.; Mansi, t. 6 p. 451 sqq.; Bruns, l. c. p. 127 (with the variations of the incomplete S. Maur collection of Concil. Gall. See above, p. 159, note 1).

Fta198 Cf. Frank, Die Bussdisciplia, 1867, S. 734 and 912 f; and Kober, Kirchenbann etc., S. 527 f.

Fta199 Memoires, t. 15 p. 843. Cf. Remi Ceillier, t. 15 p. 601; Walch, Hist. der Kirchenvers, S. 294.

Fta200 These fifty-six canons are printed in Sirmond, l. c. p. 103 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 771 sqq.; Mansi, t. 7 p. 876 sqq.; Bruns, l. c. p. sqq. (according to the edition of S. Maur, cf. above, p. 159, note 1).

Fta201 Cf. Du Cange, Glossar. s.h.v.

Fta202 Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. t. 1 pp. 50 and 623; Mansi, t. 6 p. 459; cf.

Baron. ad ann. 444, n. 1 sqq.; Pagi, Crit. in Annales Baron. ad ann. 444, n. 2; Tillemont, l.c. t. 15:426.

Fta203 Cf. Epist. 10 of Leo the Great, to the bishops of the province of Vienne, in t. 1 p. 632 of Ballerini’s edition, and in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1243, c. 2.

Fta204 Printed in Mansi, t. 6 p. 461 sqq.

Fta205 Cf. the above quoted Epist. 10 of S. Leo, c. 3; and Tillemont, Mem. t. 15 p. 70 and p. 844; and the fifth Dissertation of Quesnel (printed in Ballerini’s ed. of the works of Leo), which treats of this very subject.

Fta206 Hardouin, t. 2 p. 550; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1203, and t. 7 p. 274 sqq.

Fta207 In Hardouin, t. 2 p. 579; Mansi, t. 7 p. 465, and t. 7 p. 315 sqq.; especially p. 326 sqq., where the Acts of this Synod at Antioch are given.

Fta208 Hist, der Kirchenvers. S. 296.

Fta209 Mansi, t. 7 p. 317; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 573, in the letter of Sabinian to the Emperors.

Fta210 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 491.

Fta211 Cf. Mansi, t. 5 p. 489 sqq.; Florez, Espana Sagrada, t. 6 p. 121; Bower, Gesch. der Papste [History of the Popes, originally written in English] under Pope Leo the Great.

Fta212 Printed after the 15th letter of Leo in Ballerini, t. 1 p. 711 sqq., in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1302 sqq.

Fta213 S. Leonis M. Ep. 15 in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1288 sqq.

Fta214 Mansi, t. 6 p. 491.

Fta215 Thus by Baronius, ad ann. 447, n. 16; Pagi, Critica, ad ann. 405, n. 16 and 17; and by Mandernach in his Gesch. des Priscillianismus, Trier 1851, S. 64 ff; Liibkert, De hoeresi Priscill. 1840, p. 107.

Fta216 In Mansi, t. 3 p. 1002 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 1 p. 993 sqq.

Fta217 Pope Leo, in his letter to Turibius, c. 1, in which he sets forth the antitrinitarian doctrine of the Priscillianists, employed this expression in reference to the Holy Spirit: Qui de utroque processsit, Mansi, t. 5 p. 1290. The Spanjar is followed these words of Leo when they used the filioque. For the rest, the creed was recited at Rome so late as the ninth century without the filioque. See Hergcnrother in the Tiibing. theol.

Quartalschrift, 1858, S. 606, 614.

Fta218 The Monophysitism which is here opposed is that of the Priscillians.

Fta219 The Priscillianists denied the personal distinction in the Trinity, in the same way as the Sabellians. The Son was therefore, in their view, only a Power of God, but not eternally begotten of the Father. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhintorie, Bd. in. S. 464 f.; and Mandernach, l. c., S. 8 and 69.

Perhaps it should also be said: The Son (the Power of God) could not in fact be born as pure spirit, but only in appearance (docetically).

Fta220 Cf. above, p. 176.

Fta221 In opposition to the universal law of the Church, the Priscillianists omitted, in the baptismal formula, the conjunctions (et... et), so that Father, Son, and Spirit appeared identical. Cf. Mandernach, l.c. S. 17.

Fta222 In his Vita S. Germani, lib. 1 c. 19.

Fta223 In his Hist. eccl. gentis Anglorum, 1:17; Mansi, t. 6 p. 487 sqq.

Fta224 Pagi, ad ann. 429, n. 2 sqq. Cf. Lingard, Antiquities of the Anglo- Saxon Church, chap. 1.

Fta225 Gesch. der Altirischen Kirche, Freib. 1867, S. 75 f.

Fta226 Leonis Mag. Epist. 17 ad universos eplscopos per Siciliam, in Baller. t. 1 p. 727 sqq.; in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1314; cf. t. 6 p. 493.

Fta227 The names of the bishops present are given in Hardouin, t. 2 p. 515; Mansi, t. 7 p. 218. Cf. the following note.

Fta228 We find this in the Acts of the tenth session of Chalcedon, in Hardouin, t. 2 p. 511 sqq.; Mansi, t. 7 p. 214 sqq.

Fta229 Cf. Tillemont. Memoires, t. 15 p. 473.

Fta230 The decree on the subject, dd. 6 Kal. Novb., without mention of the year, is in Hardouin, t. 2 p. 510; Mansi, t. 7 p. 210.

Fta231 In Hardouin, t. 2 p. 518 sq.; Mansi, t. 7 p. 221 sqq. Cf. Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. 6 S. 75 ff.

Fta232 In the ninth and tenth sessions of Chalcedon, in Hardouin, t. 2 pp. and 511; in Mansi, t. 7 pp. 198 sqq. and 211 sqq.

Fta233 Hardonin, t. 2 p. 534; Mansi, t. 7 p. 251; Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 448, n. 10.

Fta234 In Hardouin, t. 2 p. 538; Mansi, t. 7 p. 255.

Fta235 Tillemont, t. 15 p. 474 sq. and p. 897 sq.; Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. S. 69, and Hist. der Kirchenvers. S. 299. In opposition to this hypothesis, reference might be made to the statements of the indictments in the Acts of Tyrus and Berytus, since that of Tyre is noted as Indict. 1, that of Berytus as Indict. 2. But Tillemont has remarked (l.c. ) that such statements of indictments are often inaccurate and later additions. He is mistaken, however, when he thinks that the 10th of the month Peritius, according to the Syrian reckoning, is not the 25th of February, as is stated in the Acts of Tyre. Cf. Ideler, Lehrb.

Der Chronologic, S. 182.

Fta236 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 499-502; Pagi, ad ann. 548, n. 9.

Fta237 In Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 503 and 511; Mansi, t. 7 pp. 198 and 211.

Fta238 So Noris, Tillemont, Pagi, and Walch. Baronius, on the contrary, and Mansi (6 p. 501) are for the year 448.

CHAPTER - Fta239 According to Theodoret, Epist. 83 ad Dioscur., some taught “that the divine nature was often changed into the human, that the human was changed into the divine.” This latter is Eutychianism proper. An earlier form of the error, on the contrary, as Katerkamp remarks (Kirchengesch. Bd. 3 S. 162), was taught by several Apollinarians of that time, who took in a quite literal sense the sentence, “the Word was made flesh.”

Fta240 Katerkamp (Bd. 3 S. 162) says: “Cyril did not persist in requiring that the Orientals should anathematize Nestorius.” This is incorrect. See above, p. 132.

Fta241 Lib. 1 Epist. 419, p. 108, and 496, p. 124.

Fta242 Cf. Tillemont, t. 15 in the Dissertation on S. Leo, art. 9 p. 43i; and t. 14 in art. cli. on S. Cyril.

Fta243 Assemani, Biblioth. juris orient, t. 1 p. 467 sq.

Fta244 T. 15 p. 871, note 5 on the art. “Theodoret,” n. 24.

Fta245 The imperial decree is given by Mansi, t. 5 p. 417, and Hardouin, t. p. 1719. It has no date; but it is clear from the governor’s appended letter of publication, that it was made known April 18, 448.

Fta246 Theodoret, Epist. 85 ad Basil, and Epist. 86 ad Flavian.

Fta247 Theodoret, Epist. 79 ad Anatol., Epist. 80 ad Eutychium, Epist. 81 ad Nomum, Epist. 82 ad Euseb. episc. Apam.

Fta248 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 589; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 71.

Fta249 Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. t. 1. p. 856.

Fta250 Theodoret, Ep. 95 ad Antiochum praefect., and Ep. 101 ad Celerinam.

Fta251 Cf. his letters to Pope Leo the Great, in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1015, c. 222 of the Synodicon.

Fta252 Mansi, t. 7 p. 62; Hardouin, t. 1 p. 422.

Fta253 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 651, 639, 863; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 110, 103, 234.

Fta254 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 627, 856; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 95, 229.

Fta255 Mansi, t. 6 p. 631; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 98.

Fta256 Liberati Breviar. c. 11 in Galland. Biblioth. PP. t. 12 p. 138.

Fta257 Leonis Epist. 20 in Ballerini, t. 1 p. 737; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 1; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1323. The complete letters of Leo are also given in Mansi, t. 5 and 6, and in accordance with the ed. of Ballerini. Hardouin has only some of Leo’s letters, and these from the editions before that of Quesnel.

Fta258 Epist. 35 in Baller. l.c. p. 877; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 11.

Fta259 Epist. 2 in Sirmondi Opp. t. 2 p. 8.

Fta260 Dogmat. theol, lib. 1 De Incarnat. c. 14, Section 4, t. 4 p. 30.

Fta261 Lib. 8 c. 5, and lib. 12 c. 5, in Galland. Biblioth. PP . t. 11 pp. 751 and 806.

Fta262 Tillemont, t. 15 p. 493, and Baller. ed. Opp. S. Leonis, t. 2 p. 448, in the notes.

Fta263 [See art. “Eulogiae” in Dict. of Christian Antiq.] Fta264 Theophan. Chronographia ad ann. 5940, t. 1 p. 150, ed. Classen, in the Bonn collection of the Byzantines.

Fta265 The names of those present are given in the Acts of the seventh session. These Acts, however, were embodied first in the Acts of the Robber-Synod, and then, along with these, in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Mansi, t. 6 p. 649 sqq.; Hardcain, t. 2 p. 109 sqq. A translation of them (in extract) is given by Fuchs in his Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. 4 S. 861 ff.

Fta266 Mansi, t. 6 p. 674; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 126.

Fta267 Mansi, t. 6 p. 651 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 110 sq.

Fta268 An erratum in Mansi, l.c. p. 654, may here easily produce great perplexity. According to the reference given there ad marginem, the whole from Et magnus Athanasius was spoken at Chalcedon, while it really belongs to the Synod of Constantinople. The right reading is Constantinopoli acta instead of Chalcedone acta. The latter words must be put back several lines to Sancta Synodus dixit. Similar errors often occur in Mansi’s book.

Fta269 Hardouin, t. 2 p. 127; Mansi, t. 6 p. 679.

Fta270 Instead of ejk du>o qu>sewn , some said, in the same sense, ejn du>o qu>sesi . Mansi, t. 6 p. 695; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 731. The latter was probably brought forward in the creed at Chalcedon as the more accurate expression.

Fta271 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 657-698; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 114-139.

Fta272 Hardouin, t. 2 p. 139 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6 pp. 698-706.

Fta273 Mansi, t. 6 p. 706; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 148.

Fta274 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 707-711; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 146 sq.

Fta275 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 711-715; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 147 sq.

Fta276 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 715-719; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 150 sq.

Fta277 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 719-724; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 153-155.

Fta278 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 723-730; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 155 sqq.

Fta279 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 730-734; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 158 sq.

Fta280 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 734-738; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 159 sq.

Fta281 Mansi, t. 6 p. 739; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 163.

Fta282 Mansi, t. 6 p. 742 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 163 sq.

Fta283 Mansi, t. 6 p. 746; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 167.

Fta284 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 746-754; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 167-172.

Fta285 Eutyches, Ep. ad S. Leonem, among the letters of S. Leo the Great in the edition of the Ballerini, t. 1 No. 21 p. 739; Mansi, t. 6 pp. 1828 and 1014.

Fta286 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 629; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 98.

Fta287 Epist. ad Leonere, see above, note 2, and below, p. 205 f.

Fta288 Cf. Leonis Epist. 23, in Bailer. t. 1 p. 763; in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1338; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 1; Liberat. Breviar. c. 11 in Galland. Biblioth. t. 12.

Fta289 Cf. the letter of Flavian to Pope Leo among the letters of the latter, No. 26 in Bailer. t. 1 p. 786; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1351; Hardouin, t. 2 p. sq.; and the autor anonym, of the Breviculus histor iae Eutychianistarum, published by Sirmond in the Appendix codicis Theodos. p. 112, where it is said: Offenditur imperator.

Fta290 Eutyches, Epist. ad Leonem among the letters of the latter, No. 21 in Bailer. t. 1 p. 739 sqq.; Mansi, t. 5 pp. 1323 and 1014. Quesnel supposes that this letter to Leo was a circular letter, and that identical copies were sent to other bishops. Cf. Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. 6 S. 161.

Fta291 Cf. note 12 of the Ballerini on Epst. 23, and notes 13-16 on Epist . 21.

Fta292 Whether the now lost answer or’ Leo to the previously mentioned letter of Eutyches is meant, or the celebrated Epist. dogmatica Leonis, is doubtful. Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 163.

Fta293 Among the letters of Leo, No. 25 p. 775 sqq. in the ed. of the Ballerini; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1347; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 21. Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 161f.

Fta294 Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 161 and 163.

Fta295 Cf. the complaint of Eutyches in Mansi, t. 6 p. 641; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 103 sq.

Fta296 Cf. the complaint of the monks in Mansi, t. 6 p. 864; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 234.

Fta297 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 693; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 138.

Fta298 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 836; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 218.

Fta299 S. Leonis Ep. 22 in Baller. t. 1 p. 745 sqq.; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1330; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 8. Cf. Waleh, l.c. S. 165.

Fta300 In Baller. l. c. pp. 761-765; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1338 sqq.

Fta301 In Bailer. l. c. p. 767; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1341 sqq.

Fta302 Peculiarly to an utterance of Cyril’s, which had been approved by the Synod of Ephesus (p. 48). We gave it above (p. 21) in italics.

Fta303 In Baller. l.c. p. 782 sqq.; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1351 sqq.

Fta304 In Baller. l.c. p. 781, Nora a; and in Mansi, l.c. p. 1351, Nota a.

Fta305 S. Leonis Epist. No. 27, p. 792, ed. Bailer.; in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1359.

Fta306 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 597; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 78. Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 171.

Fta307 In Liberat. Breviar. c. 11; in Galland. t. 12 p. 139; and in Mansi, t. 6. p. 539, and 8 p. 824; in Hardouin, t. 2 p. 7. Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 171.

Fta308 The letter of Eutyches to the Emperor, in Mansi, t. 6 p. 764, and Hardouin, t. 2 p. 177.

Fta309 Mansi, t. 6 p. 757; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 173.

Fta310 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 757-761; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 173-176. A translation of the Acts of this and the following commission (abridged) is given by Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. 4 S. 385 ff.

Fta311 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 753-771; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 171-182.

Fta312 Mansi, t. 6 p. 782 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 187.

Fta313 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 771-791; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 181-193.

Fta314 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 791-798; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 195.

Fta315 Mansi, t. 6 p. 810; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 203.

Fta316 Mansi, l.c. p. 811; Hardouin, l. c. p. 203.

Fta317 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 811-814; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 203 sqq.

Fta318 Mansi, l.c. p. 814 sqq.; Hardouin, l. c. p. 206.

Fta319 Mansi, l.c. p. 817; Hardouin, l. c. p. 208.

Fta320 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 817-822; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 208 sq.

Fta321 Fuchs, in his Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. 4 S. 398, says on this point: “That Flavian was interrogated on the subject is not said.

Probably he would not have found it difficult to defend himself, for the whole circumstance could prove nothing against the legality of the proceedings against Eutyches…. As Eutyches had not appeared after two citations, it could hardly have been hoped that he would appear at the third. In this case he must have been condemned; and why should not Flavian in that case have prepared the judgment beforehand?”

Fta322 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 821-828; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 209-213.

CHAPTER - Fta323 Liberat. Breviar. Hist. Eutych. c. 12, in Galland. BibIioth. PP. t. 12 p. 140; and Theophanes, Chronographia, ad ann. 5940, t. 1 p. 154, ed.

Bonn. (alias, p. 86). Pagi contends that the Empress Eudocia had also interceded for Eutyches, Crit. ad ann. 449 n. 7 (on account of the absence of the Empress at the time), and after him, Walch, Ketzerhist.

Bd. 6 S. 200, Anm.

Fta324 Mansi, t. 6 pp. 1045 and 1099; Hardouin, t. 2 pp. 345 and 379.

Fta325 In Mansi, t. 6 p. 588 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 71. German in Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kitchenvers. Bd. 4 S. 335. That Ibas had been exiled by the minister Chrysaphius, at the request of Entyches, in order to keep him at a distance from the Synod, is asserted by Liberatus in his Breviar. c. 12, in Galland. Bibl. PP. t. 12 p. 140. It appears, however, that this banishment really took place after the Robber-Synod. Cf.

Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6 S. 204.

Fta326 Mansi, t. 6 p. 593; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 76. This Monophysite abbot, Barsumas (a Saint of the Jacobites), must not be confounded with the contemporaneous Nestorian bishop, Barsumas of Nisibis. Cf. on both, the Kitchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, under the article “Barsumas.”

Fta327 Mansi and Hardouin, ll. cc.

Fta328 Mansi, t. 6 p. 596; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 75.

Fta329 Mansi, t. 6 p. 597; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 77.

Fta330 On the presidency at Ephesus, cf. vol. 1 p. 43. Dioscurus said afterwards, at the Council of Chalcedon, that Juvenal and Thalassius had presided in common with him, which Natalis Alexander calls a falsehood. It is also contradicted by the contents of the imperial edict quoted above.

Fta331 Mansi, t. 6 p. 600; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 80; Fuchs, l.c. S. 341.

Fta332 Mansi, l. c. p. 589; Hardouin, l. c. p. 77; Fuchs, l. c. S. 340.

Fta333 Cf. Leonis Epist. 31 ad Pulcheriam, c. 4, D. 856, ed. Bailer. In Mansi, t. 5 p. 1401.

Fta334 L.c., and Ep. 37, p. 886, ed. Baller. in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1424.

Fta335 This letter of Leo’s, No. 28 in the collection of Ballerini, is printed in Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. t. 1 pp. 801-838; in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1366; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 290 sqq.; German in Fuchs, l.c. Bd. 4:S. 312 if.; partially also in Arendt, Leo d. G. u. seine Zeit, Mainz 1835, S. 232 ff.

The original text is Latin; the Greek translation printed with it was probably made immediately after its arrival in Constantinople, and read at the Synod of Chalcedon. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6 S. 182 ff.

Numerous notes to this letter are given by Quesnel and the Ballerini, and all printed together in the second volume of the ed. of the Ballerini, p. 1407 sqq. We remark that Gennadius, De Viris illustr. c. 84, says that many regard Prosper of Aquitaine as having conceived this letter; but he vindicates the authorship of Pope Leo himself.

Fta336 Leo episcopus dilectissimo fratri Flaviano constantinopolitano episcopo. Cap. 1. Lectis dilectionis tuae litteris, quas miramur fuisse tam seras, et gestorum episcopalium ordine recensito, tandem quid apud vos standali contra integritatem fidei exortum fuisset, agnovimus: et quae prius videbantur occulta, nunc nobis reserata patuerunt. Quibus Eutyches, qui presbyterii nomine honorabilis videbatur, multum imprudens et nimis imperitus ostenditur, ut etiam de ipso dictum sit a propheta: Noluit intelligere, ut bene ageret; iniquittem meditatus est in cubili suo ( Psalm 35:4). Quid autem iniquius, quam impia sapere, et sapientioribus doctioribusque non cedere? Sed in hanc insipientiam cadunt, qui cum ad cognoscendam veritatem aliquo impediuntur obscuro, non ad propheticas voces, non ad apostolicas litteras, nec ad evangelicas auctoritates, sed ad semetipsos recurrunt; et ideo magistri erroris existunt, quia veritatis discipuli non fuere. Quam enim eruditionem de sacris novi et veteris testamenti paginis acquisivit, qui ne ipsius quidem symboli initia comprehendit? Et quod per totum mundum omnium regenerandorum voce depromitur, istius adhuc senis corde non capitur.

C. 2 Nesciens igitur quid deberet de Verbi Dei incarnatione sentire, nec volens ad promerendum intelligentiae lumen in sanctarum Scripturarum latitudine laborare, illam saltem communem et indiscretam confessionem sollicito recepisset auditu, qua fidelium universitas profitetur credere se in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui natus est de Spiritu sancto et [ex?] Maria Virgine. Quibus tribus sententiis omnium fere haereticorum machinae destruuntur. Cum enim Deus et omnipotens et [aeternus] Pater creditur, consempiternus eidem Filius demonstratur, in nullo a Patre differens, quia de Deo Deus, de omnipotente omnipotens, de aeterno natus est coaeternus; non posterior tempore, non inferior potestate, non dissimilis gloria, non divisus essentia: idem vero sempiterni genitoris unigenitus sempiternus natus est de Spiritu sancto et [ex?] Maria Virgine. Quae nativitas temporalis illi nativitati divinae et sempiternae nihil minuit, nihil contulit, seal totam se reparando homini, quierat deceptus, impendit; ut et mortem vinceret, et diabolum, qui mortis babebat imperium, sua virtute destrueret. Non enim superare possemus peccati et mortis auctorem, nisi naturam nostram ille susciperet, et suam faceret, quem nec peccatum contaminare, nec mors potuit definere. Conceptus quippe est de Spiritu sancto intra uterum matris virginis, quae illum ita salva virginitate edidit, quemadmodum salva virginitate concepit. Seal si de hoc Christianse fidei fonte purissimo sincerum intellectu, hanrire non poterat, quia splendorem perspicuae veritatis obcacatione sibi propria tenebrarat, doctrinae se evangelicae subdidisset. Et dieente Matthaeo: Liber generatlonis Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham ( Matthew 1:1): apostolicae quoque predicationis expetisset instructum. Et legens in epistola ad Romanos: Paulus servus Jesu Christi, vocatus apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium Dei, quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum cartiere ( Romans 1:1): ad propheticas [quoque], paginas piam sollicitudinem contulisset. Et inveniens promissioncm Dei ad Abraham dicentis: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes ( Genesis 12:3, 22:18): ne de hujus seminis proprietate dubitaret, secutus fuisset apostolum dicentem: Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini ejus. Non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, sed quasi in uno, et semini tuo, quod est Christus ( Galatians 3:16). Isaiae quoque praedicationem interiore apprehendisset auditu dicentis: Ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et pariet filium et vocabunt nomen ejus Emmanuel ( Isaiah 7:14), quod est interpretatum, nobiscum Deus ( Matthew 1:23). Ejusdemque prophetae fideliter verba legisset, Puer natus est nobis, fillus datus est nobis, cujus potestas super humerum ejus, et vocabunt nomen ejus magni consilii angelus, admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus fortis, Princeps pacis, Pater futuri seculi (9:6). Nec frustratorie loquens, ita Verbum diceret carnem factum, ut editus utero virginis Christus haberet formam hominis, et non haberet materni corporis veritatem. An forte ideo putavit Deminum nestrun Jesum Christum non nostrae esse naturae, quia missus ad beatam Mariam semper virginem angelus ait: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in to, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi: ideoque et qued nascetur ex to sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei? (Luc. 1:35) ut quia conceptus Virginis divini fuit operis, non de natura concipientis fuerit caro concepti. Sed non ita [nobis] intelligenda est illa generario singulariter mirabilis et mirabiliter singularis, ut per novitatem creationis pro-prietas remota sit generis. Fecunditatem enim virgini Spiritus sanctus dedit, veritas autem corporis sumpta de corpore est; et aedificante sibi sapientia demure ( Proverbs 9:1): Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. 1:14): hoc est, in ea carne, quam assuresit ex hemine, et quam spiritu vitae rationalis animavit.

C. 3 Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturm et substantive, et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab aeternitate mortalitas: et ad resolvendum conditionis nostrae debitum, natura inviolabilis naturae est unita passibili: ut, qued nostris reinedils congruebat, unus atque idem mediator Dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus, et mori posset ex uno, et mori non posset ex altero. In integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris. Nostra autem dicimus, quae in nobis ab intitio Creator condidit, et quae reparanda suscepit.

Nam illa, quae deceptor intulit, e thomo deceptus admisit, nullum habuerunt in Salvatore vestigium. Nec quia communionera humanarum subiit infirmitatum, ideo nostrorum fait partixeps delictorum. Assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens: quia exinanitio illa, qua se invisibilis visibilem praebuit, et Creator ac Dominus omnium rerum unus voluit esse mortalium, inclinatio fuit miserationis, non defectio potestatis. Proinde qui martens in forma Dei fecit hominem, idem in forma servi factus est homo. Tenet enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura: et sicut formam servi Dei forma non adimit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit. Nam quia gloriabatur diabolus, hominem sua fraude deceptum divinis caruisse muneribus, et immortalitatis dote nudatum duram mortis subiisse sententiam, seque in malis suis quoddam de praevaricatoris consortio invenisse solatium; Deum quoque, justitiae exigente ratione, erga hominem, quem in tanto honore condiderat, propriam mutasse sententiam; opus fuit secreti dispensatione consilii, ut incommutabilis Deus, cujus voluntas non potest sua benignitate privari, primam erga nos pietatis suae dispositionem sacramento occultiore compleret; et homo diabolicae iniquitatis versutia actas in culpam, contra Dei propositum non periret.

C. 4 Ingreditur ergo haec mundi infima Filius Dei, de coelesti sede descendens, eta paterna gloria non recedens, novo ordine, nova nativitate generatus. Novo ordine, quia invisibilis in suis, visibilis factus est in nostris; incomprehensibilis voluit comprehendi, ante tempora manens esse coepit ex tempore; universitatis Dominus servilem formam, obumbrata majestatis suae immensitate, suscepit; impassibilis Deus non dedignatus est homo esse passibilis, et immortalis mortis legibus subjacere. Nova autem nativitate generatus, quia inviolata virginitas concupiscentiam nescivit, carnis materiam ministravit.

Assumpta est de matre Domini natura, non culpa.; nec in Domino Jesu Christo, ex utero virginis genito, quia natovitas est mirabilis, ideo nostri est natura dissimilis. Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo; et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et humilitas hominis, et altitudo Deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ira homo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et carne exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis. Et sicut Verbum ab aequalitate paternae gloriae non recedit, ita cato naturam nostri generis non relinquit. Unus enim idemque est, quod saepe dicendum est, vere Dei Filius, et vere hominis Filius. Deus per id, quod in principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat aloud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. 1:1); homo per id, quod Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Ib. 1:14). Deus per id, quod omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil (Ib. 1:3); homo per id, quod factus est ex muliere, factus sub lege ( Galatians 4:4). Nativitas carnis manifestario est humanae naturae; partus virginis divinae est virtutis indicium. Infantia parvuli ostenditur humilitate cunarum; magnitudo Altissimi declaratur vocibus angelorum. Similis est rudimentis hominum, quem Herodes impie molitur occidere; sed Dominus est omnium, quem magi gaudcnt suppliciter adorare. Jam cum ad praecursoris sui Joannis baptismum venit, ne lateret, quod carnis velamine divinitas tegeretur, vox Patris de coclo intonans dixit: Hic est Filius mens dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui ( Matthew 3:17). Quem itaque sicut hominem diabolica tentat astutia, eidem sicut Deo angelica famulantur officia ( Matthew 4:1). Esurire, sitire, lassescere atque dormire, evidenter humanum est.

Sed quinque panibus quinque millia horninum satiare (Joan. 6:5), et largiri Samaritanae aquam vivam, cujus haustus bibenti praestet, ne ultra jam sitiat (Joan. 4:10); supra dorsum maris plantis non desidentibus ambulare, et elationes fiuctuum increpata tempestate consternere (Luc. 8:24), sine ambiguitate divinum est. Sicut ergo, ut multa praeteream, non ejusdem naturae est, flere miseretionis affectu amicum mortunto (Joan. 11:35), et eundem remoto quatriduanae aggere sepulturae, ad vocis imperium excitare redivivum (Ib. 5:43), aut in ligno pendere, et in noctem luce conversa, omnia elementa tremefacere ( Matthew 27:45,51); ant claris transfixum esse, et paradisi portas fidei latronis aperire; ita non ejusdem naturae est, dicere: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. 10:30); et dicere: Pater major me est (Joan. 14:28). Quamvis enim in Domino Jesu Christo Dei et hominis una persona sit; aliud tamen est, unde in utroque communis est contumelia, aliud unde communis est gloria. De nostro enim illi est minor Patre humanitas; de Patre illi est aequalis cum Patre Divinitas.

C. 5 Propter hanc ergo unitatem personae in utraque natura intelligendam, et Filius hominis legitur descendisse de coelo, cum Filius Dei carnem de ea virgine, de qua est natus, assumpserit. Et rursus, Filius Dei crucifixus dicitur ac sepultus, cum haec non in divinitate ipsa, qua Unigenitus consempiternus et consubstantialis est Patti, sed in naturae humanae sit infirmitate perpessus. Unde unigenitum Filium Dei crucifixum et sepultum omnes etiam in symbolo confitemur, secundum illud Apostoli: Si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum mojestatis crucifixissent ( 1 Corinthians 2:8). Cum autem ipse Dominus noster atque Salvator fidem discipulorum suis interrogationibus erudiret, Quem me, inquit, dicunt homines esse Filium hominis? Cumque illi diversas aliorum opinionesretexuissent, Vos autem, ait, quem me esse dicitis? Me utique, qui sum Filins hominis, et quem in forma servi atque in veritate camis aspicitis, quem me esse dicitis? Ubi B. Petrus divinitus inspiratus, et confessione sua omnibus gentibus profuturus: Tu es, inquit, Christus Filius Dei vivi ( Matthew 16:16). Nec immerito beatus est pronunciatus a Domino, et a principali petra soliditatem et virtutis traxit et nominis, qui per revelationem Patris eundem et Dei Filium est confessus et Christum: quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad salutem, et aequalis erat periculi, Dominum Jesum Christum aut Deum tantummodo sine homine, aut sine Deo solum hominem credidisse. Post resurrectionem vero Domini (quae utique veri corporis fuit, quia non alter est resuscitatus, quam qui fuerat crucifixus et mortuus), quid aliud quadraginta dierum mora gestum est, quam ut fidei nostrae integritas ab onmi caligine mundaretur?

Colloquens enim cum discipulis suis, et cohabitans atque convescens, et pertractari se diligenti curiosoque contactu ab eis, quos dubietas perstringebat, admittens, ideo et clausis ad discipulos januis introibat, et flatu suo dabat: Spiritum sanctum, et donato intelligentiae lumine, sanctarum Scripturarum occulta pandebat; et rursus idem vulnus lateris, fixuras clavorum, et omnia recentissimae passionis signa monstrabat, dicens: Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego sum. Palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere (Luc. 24:39); ut agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanere; et ita sciremus Verbum non hoc esse quod carnem, ut unum Dei Filium et Verbum confiteremur et carnem. Que fidei sacramento Eutyches iste nimium aestimandus est vacuus, qui naturam nostram in Unigenito Dei, nec per humilitatem mortalitatis, nec per gloriam resurrectionis agnovit. Nee sententiam beati Apostoli et evangelistae Joannisexpavit dicentis: Omnis spiritus, qui confitetur Jesum Chrisstum in carne venisse, ex Deo est: et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est; ethic est and-christus (1 Joan. 4:2, 3).

Quid antera est solvere Jesum, nisi humanam ab eo separare naturam, et sacramentum [fidei], per quod unum salvati sumus, impudentissimis cvacuare figmentis? Caligans vero circa naturam corporis Christi, necesse est ut etiam in passione ejus eadem obcaecatione desipiat. Nam si crucem Domini non putat falsam, et susceptum pro mundi salute supplicium verum fuisse non dubitat, cujus credit mortem, agnoscat et carnem; nec diffiteatur nostri corporis hominem, quem cognoscit fuisse passibilem; quoniam negatio verae carnis, negatio est etiam corporeae passionis. Si ergo christianam suscepit fidem, et a praedicatione Evangelii suum non avertit auditum, videat, quae nature transfixa clavis pependerit in crucis ligno, et aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi, intelligat, uncle sanguis et aqua fluxerit, ut Ecclesia Dei et lavacro rigaretur et poculo. Audiat et beatum Petrum apostolum praedicantem, quod sanctificatio Spiritus per aspersionem fiat sanguinis Christi. Nee transitorie legat ejusdem apostoli verba dicentis: Scientes, quod non corruptitilibus argento et auro redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis, sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni incontaminati et im-rnaculati Jesu Christi ( 1 Peter 1:18). Beati quoque Joannis apostoli testimonio non resisrat dicentis: Et sanguis Jesu Filli Dei emundat nos ab omni peccato (1 Joan. 1:7). Et iterum: Hoec est victoria, quae vincit roundum, fides nostra (1 Joan. 5:4). Et: Quis est qui vincit mundum, nisi qui credit, quoniam Jesus est Filius Dei? Hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus; non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniamspiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et [hi] tres unum sunt (lb. 5:5 ss.). Spiritus utique sanctificationis, et sanguis redemptionis, et aqua baptismaris; quae tria unum sunt et individua manent, nihilque eorum a sui connexione sejungitur; quia catholica Ecclesia hac fide vivit, hac proficit, ut in Christo Jesu nec sine vera divinitate humanitas, nec sine vera credatur humanitate divinitas.

C. 6. Cum antem ad interlocutionem examinis vestri Eutyches rcsponderit, dicens: “Confiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse Dominum nostrum ante aduna-tionem; post adunationern vero unam naturam confiteor;” miror tam absurdam tamque perversam ejus professionem nulla judicantium increpatione reprehen-sam, ct sermonem nimis insipientem nimisque blasphemum ita omissum, quasi nihil quod offenderet esset auditum, cum tam impie duarum naturarum ante incarnationem unigenitus Dei Filius fuisse dicatur, quam nefarie, postquam Verbum carofactum est, natura in co singularis asseritur.

Quod ne Eutychcs ideo vel recte vel tolerabiliter aestimet dictum, quia nulla vestra est sententia confutatum, sollieitudinis tuae diligentiam commonerous, frater carissime, ut si per inspirationem misericordira Dei ad satisfactionem causa perducitur, im-prudentia hominis imperiti etiam ab hac sensus sui peste purgetur. Qui quidem, sicut gestorum ordo patefecit, bene coeperat a sua persuasione discedere, cunt vestra sententia eoarctatus profiteretur se dicere, quod ante non dixerat, et ei fidei acqniescere, cujus prius fuisset alienus. Sed cure anathematizando impio dogmari noluisset praebere consensure, intellexit eton fraternitas vestra in sua manere perfidia, dignumque esse, qui judicium condemnationis exciperet. De quo si fideliter atqne utiliter dolet, et qnam recte mots sit episcopalis auctoritas vel sero cognoscit, vel si ad satisfactionis plenitudinem omnia, quae ab eo male sunt sensa, viva voce et praesenti subscriptione damnaverit, non erit reprehensibilis erga correctum quantacnnque miseratio, quia Dominus noster verus et bonus pastor, qui animam suam posuit pro ovibus suis (Joan. 10:15), et qui venit animas horninum salvare, non perdere (Luc. 9:56), imitatores nos sure vult esse pietatis; ut peccantes quidera justitia coerceat, eonversos antem misericordia non repellat. Tunc enim demum fructuosissime fides vera defenditur, quando etiam a sectatoribus suis opinio falsa damnatur. Ad omnem veto causam pie ac fideliter exsequendam, fratres nostros Julinto Episcopum et Renatum Presbyterum Tituli sancti Clementis, sed et filium meum Hilarum Diaeonum vice nostra direximus. Quibus Dulcitium Notarium nostrum, cujus fides nobis est [saepe] probata, sociavimus; eonfidentes adfuturum Divinitatis auxilium, ut is, qui erraverat, damnata sensus sui pravitate, salvetur. Deus to incolumem custodiat, frater carissime. — Data Idibus Junii, Asturio et Protogene viris clarissimis Consulibus.

Fta337 Cf. the 35th letter of Leo, where he says quite correctly: He who teaches this must assume that the human soul which Christ took was before the birth of Mary in heaven, which would be as erroneous as the teaching of Origen concerning the pre-existence of the soul.

Fta338 To this letter the Pope subsequently (after the Robber-Synod) added a number of patristic testimonies, Latin and Greek, for the confirmation of his teaching, and sent them by his legates, Bishops Abundius and Asterius, and the priests Basil and Senator, to Constantinople (cf. Epist. 71). This appendix was produced there before the Synod of Chalcedon (Epist. 88); but in the second session of Chalcedon itself, only Leo’s letter was read, without the appendix. Cf. Ballerini edit.

Opp. S. Leonis, t. 1 p. 798 sq., and t. 2 p. 1425.

Fta339 Epist. 29, in Baller. p. 839 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 15; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1391.

Fta340 Epist. 30, p. 847, ed. Bailer.; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1398; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 18.

Fta341 S. Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. t. 1 p. 846, n. 5; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1395, n. 5.

Fta342 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6 S. 189 f.

Fta343 S. 483, n. 4.

Fta344 Epist. 31, in Baller. p. 853; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1401.

Fta345 Epist. 32, in Bailer. p. 859 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 15; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1406.

Fta346 The imperial edict calls Leo, in accordance with the official style of the period, a dispositio sancta, cf. the fourth note of the Ballerini on the text of our letter. We must not translate the words dispositio sancta “divine order,” as in the Katholik, 1872, S. 132.

Fta347 Epist. 33, in Baller. p. 863 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2 p. 19; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1410.

Fta348 Cf. the Admonitio of the Ballerini, p. 874, n. 4.

Fta349 Epist. 34, in Baller. p. 869 sq.; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1413.

Fta350 Epist. 35, in Baller. p. 875; Mansi, l.c. p. 1415; Arendt holds (l.c.) that these two letters (Epp. 34, 35) are only one, the contents of which have (by the copyist) been improperly separated.

Fta351 In regard to the time, cf. note 3 of the Ballerini on Ep. 36, p. 385; in Mansi, t. 5 p. 1423, note 3.

Fta352 Epist. 36, in Baller. p. 885; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1423. Quesnel would maintain that Leo had wished for the Synod to be held in ltaly, so that his influence in it might be increased. But this theory is quite fanciful.

Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 210.

Fta353 Epist. 37, in Baller. l.c. p. 886; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1424.

Fta354 Epist. 38, in Baller. l.c. p. 887; Mansi, t. 5 p. 1425.

Fta355 Theodoret, Epist. 16 and 112, Opp. t. 4 p. 1076 sqq. and p. sqq., ed. Schulze. ftb1 A special dissertation in Latin on the Synodus lhstrikh< was put forth by Schurzfleisch, at Leipzig 1699; but it is of no great value. We shall draw attention to the labors of Tillemont and Walch at the proper places. ftb2 Further on him and the papal legates generally, see below, pp. 255 ff.

And 257 ff. Quesnel considered that the legates whom the Pope sent to the Oriental councils, represented not the Pope merely, but the whole Western Church. Cf. on the other side, the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 2. p. 1175. ftb3 In Sirmond. Appendix Codicis Theodos. p. 113. ftb4 In Mansi, t. 6. p. 606 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 83 sqq. ftb5 In Mansi, t. 6. p. 927 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 269 sqq. ftb6 Mansi, t. 6. p. 612; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 85. ftb7 Arendt, in his Monograph on Leo (S. 242 and 483), and others speak quite unhesitatingly of the fact that the legate required the reading of two papal briefs (the letter to the Synod and the Epistola dogmatica to Flavian). The Greek text of the Acts, however, has with gra>mmata also the word ejpistolh< in the singular, and thus speaks in the first place only of Leo’s letter to the Synod. But in this Leo had appealed to his Epistola dogmatica to Flavian, and the reading of this was the chief wish of Leo and his legates. Schrockh (Kirchengesch. Thessalonians 18. S. 461) asserts erroneously that the letter of Leo to the Synod, but not the Epistola dogmatica, was read. Neither of these writings was read. ftb8 Mansi, t. 6. p. 614 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 88. The injustice involved in this is also recognized by Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 254 f. In other respects the latter (l.c. S. 218) has misunderstood the text of our Acts.

By aliae divinae litterae ad Dioscurum, which John read out, must not be understood a second letter of Leo’s, but an Imperial letter termed in law language divinae. The correct view was seen already by Tillemont, Memoires, etc., t. 15. p. 556. ftb9 a Mansi, t. 6. p. 620; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 90 sq. ftb10 Mansi, t. 6. p. 625; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 96. ftb11 Mansi, t. 6. p. 624 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 93; cf. below, § 179, p. 252. ftb12 Mansi, t. 6. p. 630 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 97 sq. ftb13 Mansi, l.c. p. 633; Hardouin, l.c. p. 100. ftb14 Mansi, l.c. p. 640 sqq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 102 sqq. ftb15 Here there was obvious injustice. If one party, Eutyches, was allowed to speak, his opponent ought to have been heard also. ftb16 Mansi, l.c. pp. 643-650; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 105-110. ftb17 In Mansi, l.c. p. 654; Hardouin, l.c. p. 111. Mansi and Hardouin have here not always rightly indicated ad marginem to which Synod the particular sentences and exclamations belong, whether to that of Constantinople, to the Robber-Synod, or to that of Chalcedon, at which last, as we know, the Acts of the first two were read, so that now the minutes of the former Synods are contained in that of Chalcedon. The sentence on p. 654 in Mansi, and p. 111 in Hardouin: Sancta Synodus dixit: Et haec universalis Synodus sic sapit. Et post has voces sequentia libelli Eusebii, evidently belongs to the Robber- Synod, while Hardouin ascribes it to the Council of Chalcedon. So Mansi attributes to the Council of Chalcedon the somewhat lengthy section: Et magnus Athanasius etc., whilst it belongs to that of Constantinople. ftb18 Mansi, l.c. pp. 658-674; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 114-126. ftb19 Mansi, l.c. p. 675; Hardouin, l.c. p. 126. ftb20 Mansi, l.c. p. 686; Hardouin, l.c. p. 134. Tillemont could not understand (l.c. 560) what the Robber-Synod meant by this interruption. We may suppose that they meant to say: “It was not the Bishop of Amasia (Seleucus) who said this at Constantinople, but the Bishop of Sinope,” who was then called Antiochus, as we learn from the Acts of Chalcedon (Hardouin, l.c. pp. 369 and 474; Mansi, l.c. pp. 571, 1085). But this Antiochus was certainly not present at the Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 448 (Hardouin, l.c. p. 167 sqq.; Mansi, l.c. p. 750 sqq.). Perhaps Basil was at an earlier period Bishop of Sinope, and had uncanonically exchanged this for the see of Amasia, which was now brought against him as a reproach by his opponents, as though they said: “He was never Bishop of Amasia, he is Bishop of Sinope.” ftb21 Mansi, t. 6. p. 687 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 133 sq. Here, too, both in Mansi and in Hardouin, the indications as to the Synod to which each particular part belongs are often inaccurate. It should be: The words oJ qesfile>statov ejpi>skopov Satourni~nov to to>n me>llonta aijw~na (in Mansi, l.c. p. 688; Hardouin, l.c. p. 133) belong to the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople. The further words: Aijqe>ricov to ajnaginwske>sqw ta< eJxh~v , the Robber-Synod. That which follows:

Kai< ejn tw~| ajnaginw>skesqai to ajpo tou~ aujtou~ scedari>ou ajne>gnw (in Mansi, l.c. p. 689; Hardouin, l.c. p. 136), to the Council of Chalcedon. In this manner alone is the matter intelligible. ftb22 Mansi, l.c. p. 738; Hardouin, l.c. p. 162. ftb23 Mansi, l.c. pp. 739 and 743; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 163 and 166. ftb24 Mansi, l.c. p. 746 sq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 767. ftb25 Mansi, l.c. pp. 753-822; Hardouin, l.c. top. 171-210. ftb26 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. p. 562; Mansi, l.c. p. 831 sq. ftb27 In Mansi, l.c. pp. 833-862; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 217-232. The old Latin translation of these votes is more complete than the present Greek text. ftb28 Mansi, l.c. pp. 839, 845, 851; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 220, 223, 227. ftb29 Mansi, l.c. pp. 861-867; Hardouin, l.c. p. 233 sqq. ftb30 Mansi, l.c. p. 867 sqq. Hardouin, l.c. p. 236 sqq. ftb31 Not the fourth, as is erroneously stated by Mansi, l.c. p. 871. ftb32 Mansi, l.c. pp. 871-902; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 237-254; cf. above, p. 70 f. ftb33 On this appeal, and the canonistic controversy connected with it, and its literature, cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 257 ff. It is asked here whether Flavian appealed to another OEcumenical Council, or to Pope Leo, or to both. Pope Leo speaks in his letters on the subject (Epp. 43, 44) only of an appeal in general, in consequence of which a Synod was to be summoned. The Emperor Valentinian III, on the contrary, says:

Flavian had appealed to the Roman bishop (Ep. 55 among those of Leo), and the same is asserted by the Empress Placidia (Ep . 56 among those of Leo), and Liberatus in his history (Breviarium ) of the Eutychian sects (see p. 257). Quesnel expressed the opinion, in a separate dissertation (De causa Flaviani, printed in the Ballerini edition of the works of Leo, t. 2. p. 1133 sqq.), that Flavian had only appealed to the council, and had handed over his appeal to the Roman legates, so that the Pope might see to the convoking of a new Synod. The Ballerini, on the other hand, think (l.c. p. 1153 sqq.) that the appeal was addressed to the Pope and to a Synod (but a Roman, not an OEcumenical). ftb34 Mansi, t. 6. p. 927 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 268 sqq. Besides AEthericus, Basil, and Seleucus, the priest Longinus also subscribed as representative of Bishop Dorotheus of Neocaesarea, although this last had been a member of the Synod of Constantinople. Of Bishops Longinus, Meliphthongus, and Timotheus, on the contrary (see above, p. 242), there is as little any signature to be found as of Flavian. They appear to have been of firmer character. ftb35 Mansi, t. 6. p. 583 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 70. ftb36 Mansi, t. 6. p. 623 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 93. ftb37 A kind of inferior deacons. See art. in Dicty. of Christian Antiquities. ftb38 Mansi, t. 6. p. 827 sqq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 214 sqq. ftb39 Mansi, l.c. p. 986; Hardouin, l.c. p. 311. ftb40 Mansi, t. 7. p. 68; Hardouin, l.c. p. 423. ftb41 Leonis Epist. 44, in Baller. pp. 909-917; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 14 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 23. ftb42 Epist. 45, p. 919 sqq.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 19 sqq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 29. ftb43 Epist. 46, p. 925 sqq.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 23 sqq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 34. ftb44 Epist. 47, p. 929 sq.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 27. ftb45 Epp. 48, 49, 50, 51, p. 930 sqq.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 28 sqq. ftb46 Epist. 95, p. 1077; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 138. ftb47 Theodoret, Epist. 113, Opp. 4. p. 1187, ed. Schulze. Also among the letters of Leo in the Ballerini Collection, No. 52, p. 941. In Mansi, t. 6. p. 35. A special treatise on the deposition of Theodoret and his restoration by the Synod of Chalcedon, by Quesnel, is reprinted with the criticisms of the Ballerini, in their edition of the Works of Leo, t. 2. p. 1237 sq., 1257 sq. ftb48 Theodoret, Epist. 145, t. 4. p. 1244 sq., ed. Schulze. ftb49 Theodoret, Epist. 147, ed. Schulze, t. 4. p. 1275 sqq. ftb50 Nos. 55-58 among the letters of Leo, in Ballerini, t. i. p. 961 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 50 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 35 sqq. Eudoxia was a daughter of Theodosius II, Galla Placidia, a sister of Arcadius and Honorius; but Valentinian III was sister’s child of Theodosius II, a son of that Galla Placidia and of the Patrician, afterwards Caesar, Constantius. ftb51 Prosperi Chronic. in Basnage, Thesaur. t. i. p. 304. ftb52 In the appendix of Sirmond ad Codicem Theodos. p. 113 sqq. The account here given of the death of Flavian, with which that of Prosper (see above) also agrees, is the more probable; and when Barsumas was called his murderer at the Synod of Chalcedon, this must be understood to mean that, by his ill-treatment of Flavian, he was indirectly the cause of his death. Nicephorus, lib. 14, 100:47, says that Flavian died on the third day after the Synod, in consequence of the ill-treatment which he received. ftb53 On the proceedings against Domnus, Quesnel composed a special dissertation, reprinted, with the criticisms of the Ballerini, in the edition of Leo’s Works, t. 2. p. 1183 sqq. and 1215 sqq. ftb54 Liberati Breviar. 100:12, in Galland. t. 12. p. 140. ftb55 Evagrii Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 10. ftb56 According to the testimony of the Breviculus already adduced, Flavian died considerably later in exile. ftb57 Theoph. Chronographia, ad ann. 5941, p. 145 sq. of the Bonn edition of Classen, a. 1839. ftb58 Theodoret, Epist. 116, p. 1196 sq., ed. Schulze. ftb59 Printed in the Ballerini edition of Leo’s Works, t. 2. p. 1410 sqq. ftb60 In the Praefat. to his edition of the Antiqua Versio Concilii Chalced , n. 30. sq. in Mansi, t. 7. p. 665. ftb61 Leonis Opp., ed. Baller. t. 2. p. 1411 sqq., in their annotations to the treatise of Quesnel referred to above. With them agreed also Walch, Ketzerhistorie, Bd. 6. S. 250 ff. ftb62 Tillemont, Memoires, t. 15. p. 577.

CHAPTER - ftb63 Printed in Mansi, t. 7. p. 495, and by Hardouin, t. 2. p. 673, among the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon. A second ancient Latin version of this imperial edict is found among the Acts of the fifth OEcumenical Synod in Mansi, t. 9. p. 250, and Hardouin, t. 3. p. 105, with the variation that here the books of Diodorus of Tarsus and of Theodore of Mopsuestia are mentioned among those which are forbidden. ftb64 Liberat. Breviar. 100:12, in Galland. t. 12. p. 140. ftb65 Theodoret, Epp. 113, 116, 118, p. 1187 sqq. t. 4., ed. Schulze. ftb66 Cf. Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. t. 2. p. 1237 sqq. and p. 1257 sqq., and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 272 ff. ftb67 Theodoret, Ep. 119, p. 1200, l.c. ftb68 So the deacon Hilarus says in the letter referred to above to Pulcheria, No. 46 among the letters of Leo, ed. Baller. t. i. p. 926 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 24 sqq. ftb69 Cf. on the Libellus, vol. 1. p. 78. ftb70 In Mansi, t. 6. p. 509; Hardouin, t. v. p. 1523. ftb71 Mansi, t. 6. p. 1009; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 323. Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 290; Tillemont, l.c. p. 603. ftb72 This agreement is clear from Leonis Ep. 61, p. 984, and Ep. 69, p. 1008, ed. Baller.; in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 65 and 83. ftb73 Leonis Epp. 43, 44, in Bailerin. t. i. pp. 901-918; Mansi, t. 6. p. 7 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 23, 27. Cf. above, p. 255 f. The 44th letter was probably written a few days later than the 43d. Cf. Ballerin. l.c. p. 898, n. 7; and Mansi, l.c. p. 6, n. 7. On the interchange of the Nicene and Sardican canons, see vol. 1. pp. 356 and 369. ftb74 Leonis Epp. 45, 46, in Ballerini, t. i. p. 919 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 19 sqq.

Cf. above, p. 256. ftb75 Epist. 54. On the date of this letter of the Ballerini, l.c. p. 957, note 8; and Walch, l.c. S. 210. ftb76 “Among the letters of Leo, Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, in Baller. t. i. p. sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 35 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 50 sqq. Cf. above, p. 257. ftb77 Epist. 62, 68, 64 among those of Leo, in Baller. t. i. p. 985 sqq.; in Hardouin, t. 2. p. 39 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 67 sqq. ftb78 Epist. 59, in Baller. p. 975 sqq.; in Hardouin, t. 2. p. 31; Mansi, t. 6. p. 58 sqq. ftb79 Epist. 60, in Baller. p. 982; Mansi, t. 6. p. 64. ftb80 Epist. 61, in Baller. p. 983; Mansi, t. 6. p. 65. ftb81 Epist. 67, 68, in Baller. p. 1000 sqq.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 78 sqq. Epistles 65 and 66 refer to the controversy respecting the Gallican primacy. ftb82 Among the letters of Leo, No. 97, ed. Baller. p. 1080; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 141. ftb83 Epist. 53, among the letters of Leo, p. 953, in Baller. ftb84 Epist. 69, in Baller. p. 1005; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 88 sqq. ftb85 Epist. 71, in Baller. p. 1011; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 88. ftb86 He was a widower. After his elevation to the throne, he married Euphemia, his daughter by his first marriage, to Anthimus, afterwards Emperor of the West. ftb87 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 307. ftb88 Leonis Epist. 73, p. 1017 sqq. t. i. ed. Baller.; in Hardouin, t. 2. p. 4l; Mansi, t. 6. p. 94. ftb89 Epist 76, p. 1023, l.c. ; in Hardouin, t. 2. p. 41; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 93. ftb90 Among the letters of Leo, No. 77, p. 1027, t. i. ed. Baller.; in Hardouin, t. 2. p. 43; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 99 sqq. ftb91 Opp. t. 4. ed. Schulze, p. 1229 sqq. ftb92 Cf. Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. 2:2; and Leonis Epp. 79 and 80. ftb93 Mansi, t. 7. p. 85 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 435 sqq. ftb94 See further on this subject below, in the history of the Council of Chalcedon. ftb95 Walch, Ketzerh. Bd. 6. S. 306; Historic der Kirchenvers. S. 305; Remi Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacres, t. 14. p. 649; Hardouin, t. i. in the Index ad ann. 450. ftb96 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 316; Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. t. i. p. 1487, where also the fragment in question is printed. It is also given twice in Mansi, t. 6. p. 513, and t. 7. p. 775. ftb97 They are mentioned in the letter of Leo (Ep. 80) to Anatolius. ftb98 Leonis Epist. 78, 79, 80, 81, p. 1083 sqq. t. i. ed. Baller.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 103 sqq. ftb99 That is, they received again their sees and ministered again in their churches, but they were still excluded from intercourse with the other bishops, and from participation in Synods and the like. Cf. Quesnel’s note 1 in this place (printed in Baller. t. 2. p. 1462 sq., and Morin. Exercit. Ecclesiastes lib. 2. Exercit. 17, 18, 19). ftb100 Dioscurus, Juvenal, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia Eustathius of Berytus, etc., were the heads of the Robber-Synod. The latter distinguished himself at it by misunderstanding the words of Cyril and expressly declaring, that “after the Incarnation there was only one nature to be acknowledged.” Cf. above, p. 246. ftb101 Cf. note 7 of the Ballerini on Epist. 78, and their note 5 on Ep. 81. ftb102 Epist. 82, p. 1043 sqq., in Mansi, t. 6. p. 112. ftb103 We see this from the beginning of his Epist. 83. ftb104 Leonis Epp. 83, 84, 85, 86, p. 1045 sqq., ed. Baller. t. i.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 114 sqq. ftb105 Epist. 88, in Baller. l.c. p. 1046; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 114 sqq. ftb106 Epist. 84, p. 1048. That Eutyches had still many adherents, particularly among the monks of his convent, is proved by the complaint which Faustus and many other archimandrites at this time forwarded to the Emperor. They complained that these people had yielded no obedience to the exhortations of Anatolius and his Synod.

The Emperor should therefore permit that they should be treated according to the monastic rules, and should correct themselves in accordance with these or be subjected to greater punishment. The Emperor was also asked to permit the archimandrites to arrange what was necessary in the hole in which they lived (Eutyches’ convent), i.e. appoint a Catholic abbot. Mansi, t. 7. p. 76; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 423. ftb107 Epist. 85, in Baller. l.c. p. 1050; Mansi, t. 6. p. 118. A second letter to Anatolius, dated June 19, 451, recommends two priests to him, but contributes nothing to the preliminary history of the Council of Chalcedon. ftb108 Epist. 86, Baller. l.c. p. 1052; Mansi, t. 6. p. 119. ftb109 “When Marcian put forth this summons, he had not yet received the representations of Leo to a contrary effect, for the envoys who had been commissioned to convey them did not depart from Rome until the beginning of June 451, whilst the edicts of convocation had been issued at Constantinople in May. If the Emperor had been more accurately acquainted with the views of the Pope on the subject, he might probably have been induced to desist from his purpose; as, however, he knew nothing of this, he was therefore bound to believe that, in accordance with the previous views of Leo, he was only doing what he wished. It is probable that the still divided condition of the Church in the East aroused in him the desire to assemble an OEcumenical Council, and thereby conclusively and thoroughly to put an end to the disturbances, embarrassments, and dissensions which, in spite of all the pains which had been taken on the subject, were not yet put an end to.” ¾ Arendt, Leo d. Gr. S. 264. ftb110 Printed in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 551 and 553; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 45 sq. ftb111 Epist. 89, p. 1060, t. i. ed. Baller.; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 125 sqq. Perthel says, in his monograph on Leo I (Jena, 1843, S. 71): “The Emperor is requested in this letter to assign the presidency at the Synod to Paschasinus.” This is incorrect. There is nothing in the letter of a request or an assignment (by the Emperor). It says: Praedictum fratrem et coepiscopum meum vice mea Synodo convenit praesidere, and Peter de Marca is quite right when he asserts that the right of the papal legate to preside did not depend upon the will of the Emperor. De concord, sacerd, et imp. lib. 5:6. ftb112 Cf. note 4 of the Ballerini on Epist. 89. ftb113 This was Maximus, who had been put in the place of Domnus, and had been ordained by Anatolius. Even Pope Leo recognized him later.