ftb129 The literature respecting the Council of Chalcedon is rich, and so early as the sixth century, the Church historian Evagrius treated of this Synod in his Historia Ecclesiastes lib. 2. 100:2, 4, 18; also Bishop Facundus of Hermiane in Africa, in his work Pro defensione trium capitulorum, lib. 5. 100:3, 4, and lib. 8. 100:4 (in Galland. Biblioth.

PP. t. 11. p. 713 sqq.), and the Carthaginian archdeacon Liberatus, in his Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, 100:13 (in Galland. l.c. t, 12. p. 142 sqq.). To the more recent literature respecting the Synod of Chalcedon belong: (1) Baron. Annal ad ann. 451, n. 55 sqq. (2) Richer, Hist. Concil. general. lib. 1. 100:8. (3) Tillemont, Memoires etc., t. 15. p. 628 sqq. in the article on S. Leo the Great. (4) Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. sec. 5. t. 5. p. 64 sqq. and p. 209 sqq. ed. Venet. 1778. (5) Du Pin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque etc. t. 4. pp. 327-366. (6) Remi Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacres, t. 14. p. 651 sqq. (7) Quesnel, Synopsis Actorum Concilii Chalced. in his Dissert. de vita etc. S. Leonis in the ed. of Ballerini of S. Leo’s Works (t. 2. p. 501 sqq.). (8) Hulsemann, Exercitat. ad Concil. Chalcedon.

Lips. 1651. (9) Cave, Historia Litteraria etc. 311 sqq. ed. Genev. 1705. (10) Benzelii Vindiciae Concilii Chalcedon. contra Gothofred.

Arnold, 1739 and 1745. (11) Bower, History of the Popes, var. edd. and in German, by Rambach, vol. 2. (12) Van Espen, Commentar. in canones et decreta juris veteris etc. Colon. 1755, pp. 209-258. (13) Walch, Ketzerhistorie, Bd. 6. S. 329 ff. (14) Walch, Historie der Kirchenversammlungen, S. 307 ff. (15) Arendt, Papst Leo der Grosse, Mainz, 1835, S. 267-322. (16) Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, 1853, 2te Aufl. 2ter Theil, 1 Abtheilung, S. 117 ff. ftb130 Cf. the note of the Ballerini in t. 2. p. 501 of their edition of the Works of Leo the Great. ftb131 In Galland. Biblioth. PP. t. 12. p. 143. ftb132 Cf. Tillemont, Memoires, t. 15. p. 916, note 44 Sur S. Leon. ftb133 In Mansi, t. 6. p. 155; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 659; and in the Ballerini edition of Leo’s works, t. i. p. 1099. ftb134 Leonis Epist. 113, in Baller. t. i. p. 1194; in Mansi, t. 6. p. 220. ftb135 On the Codex Caes. No. 57 at Vienna, and on other codices of the Acts of Chalcedon, or of single documents respecting it, cf. Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, ed. Harless, t. 12. p. 650. ftb136 [An order of monks (, the ajkoimhtai<, “sleepless”). Cf. Suicer, s.h.v. ] ftb137 In Mansi, t. 6. p. 938, t. 7. pp. 79, 118, 183, 194, 203 sqq.; in Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 243, 431, 455, 495, 502, 507 sqq.; in Baluzii Nova Collectio Concil. pp. 1165, 1251, 1258, 1285, 1291, 1296; also printed in Mansi, t. 7. p. 707. Also made clear by the declaration of Rusticus himself, that he did not merely compare the minutes of the first session and correct them, as Quesnel supposed, in Baller., edit. Opp. S. Leonis, t. 2. p. 1519. Cf. Baluz. l.c. p. 971, n. 22, and Mansi, t. 7. p. 661, n. 22. ftb138 Baluz. l.c., in the Praef. to his restoration of the versio antiqua, p. 971, n. 21; also printed in Mansi, t. 7. p. 661, n. 21. ftb139 The new translation of this document by Rusticus is to be found in Hardouin, t. 2. p. 491 sq.; Mansi, t. 7. p. 178 sq.; while the translation of the versio antiqua is found in Baluz. l.c. p. 1285, and in Mansi, t. 7. p. 731. ftb140 Cf. the note of the Ballerini, t. 2. pp. 1518, 1519. ftb141 Cf. vol 1. p. 68 of our History of the Councils. ftb142 Even in the Preface to vol. 1. p. 6., where Hardouin enumerates the older collections of Councils, he does not mention the supplementary volume of Baluze; and although he acknowledges, p. 7. sqq. and p. 12., that he has borrowed much from Baluze and has made use of his examination of manuscripts, etc., he does not give the title of Baluze’s work. ftb143 Baluzii Nova Collectio Concil. p. 1400 sqq. His preface to it, and the outline of the whole which he gave, were also printed by Mansi (t. 7. p. 777 sqq.); but without the notes which he placed below the text of each particular document of the Codex encyclicus, as he had done with the versio Rustici. ftb144 Judex was the title of high state officials, even of those who had no precisely judicial functions = magnates and proceres. See Du Cange, Glossar. t. 3. p. 1570. Many such Judices are also mentioned in the Acts of the fifth OEcumenical Council. ftb145 Mansi, t. 6. p. 563; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 53. ftb146 The left was the place of honor. See Baron. ad ann. 213, 6, and 325, 58. ftb147 On the convocation and presidency of the Synod of Chalcedon, cf. my treatise in Moy’s Archiv fur kath. K.-R. Bd. 2. Heft 9, 10. Cf. also History of Councils, vol. 1. p. 31 ff. ftb148 In the collection of the letters of Leo, No. 98, in Baller. t. i. p. 1087; Mansi, t. 6. p. 147; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 655. ftb149 Among the letters of Leo, Nos. 98, 100, 110, and 132, in Baller. l.c. pp. 1097, 1100, 1114, 1120, 1182, and 1263. ftb150 Ep. 103, in Baller. 1.c. p. 1141; Mansi, t. 6. p. 185. ftb151 Mansi, t. 6. p. 579; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 66. ftb152 Mansi, t. 6. p. 565 sqq., and t. 7. p. 429 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. sqq. and 627 sqq. ftb153 Among the letters of Leo, No. 98, in Baller. t. i. pp. 1089 and 1100; Mansi, t. 6. p. 148; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 655. Only in the Greek text, not in all the Latin translations, of the synodal letter is the number given. ftb154 Tillemont, Memoires etc., t. 15. p. 641. ftb155 Its Acts are found in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 563-938; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 54- 274; abridged in German, Fuchs, Bibliothek de Kirchenvers. Bd. 4. S. 331 ff., and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 334 ff. ftb156 Arendt (Leo d. Gr. u. s. Zeit. S. 270) says: “ Su>nodon ejto>lmhse poih~sai ejpitroph~v di>ca tou~ ajpostolikou~ qro>nou meant only that he had, without the permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the Synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.” A similar view was taken by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 2. p. 460, note 15. Cf. vol. 1. of this History, p. 7. [It should be remarked that there is no trustworthy evidence whatever that the Pope either joined in convoking the Synod of Nicaea, or was represented by the president. ftb157 Mansi, t. 6. p. 584 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 69. ftb158 Mansi, t. 6. p. 586 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 70 sq. ftb159 Mansi, t. 6. p. 590 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 71 sqq. ftb160 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 593-600; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 75-80. ftb161 The old Latin translation has here misunderstood the original, giving: in secretario fueram positus. ftb162 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 601-606; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 79-83. ftb163 The papal legate Paschasinus expressed himself on this subject in such a manner that Quesnel concluded from it that he had recognized the precedence of the see of Constantinople over those of Alexandria and Antioch (in contradiction to other declarations of Rome). Compare on this subject our commentary on canon 28 of Chalcedon, below §200. ftb164 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 606, 607; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 83. ftb165 The documents read are found in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 607-615; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 83-87. ftb166 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 615-618; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 87-90. ftb167 The Acts read are given in Mansi, l.c. pp. 618-623; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 90-94. ftb168 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 623-626; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 94. ftb169 Mansi, 1.c. pp. 626, 627; Hardouin, l.c. p. 95. ftb170 Mansi, l.c. p. 631; Hardouin, l.c. p. 98. ftb171 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 634-639; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 99-102. ftb172 The Acts read are given in Mansi, l.c. pp. 639-643; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 102-106. ftb173 Mansi, l.c. p. 643; Hardouin, l.c. p. 106. ftb174 Mansi, l.c. pp. 646-655; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 106-114. ftb175 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 658-674; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 114-126. ftb176 Hardouin, t. 2. p. 126; Mansi, t. 6. p. 674, where, at the words: Et cum legeretur epistola sanctae memoriae Cyrilli , it should be noted that that which follows took place at Chalcedon. ftb177 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 674-678; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 126, 127. ftb178 Mansi, l.c. p. 678 sq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 127. ftb179 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 679-683; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 130 sq. ftb180 Mansi, 1.c. p. 686 sq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 131 sq. ftb181 Mansi, l.c. p. 690; Hardouin, l.c. p. 135. ftb182 The present Greek text says nothing here of Flavian. ftb183 Mansi, t. 6. p. 690 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 135. ftb184 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 691-698; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 135-139. ftb185 Mansi, l.c. pp. 698-730; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 139-158. Cf. above, pp. 191 and 248. ftb186 Mansi, t. 6. p. 739; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 163. ftb187 Mansi, l.c. p. 743; Hardouin, l.c. p. 166. ftb188 These Acts read are in Mansi, l.c. pp. 743-827; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 167-214. ftb189 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 747, 827; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 167, 214. Cf. above, p. 246 and p. 306. ftb190 “An inferior order of church-officers who fulfilled the duty of hospital attendants and nurses to the sick poor, whom they relieved from the alms of the faithful.” ¾ Dicty. of Chr. Antiq. ftb191 Mansi, t. 6. p. 827 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 214 sq. ftb192 Mansi and Hardouin, ll. cc. ftb193 Mansi, l.c. pp. 831-862; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 215-234. Cf. above, p. 249. ftb194 Mansi, l.c. pp. 862-870; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 234-238. Cf. above, p. 250. ftb195 Mansi, l.c. pp. 871-902; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 238-254. Cf. above, p. f. ftb196 Mansi, l.c. pp. 902-935; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 254-271. Cf. above, p. 251. ftb197 In this they went against the demand of the Pope, that there should be no more discussion on the faith. Cf. Katholik, 1872, February S. 139. ftb198 Mansi, t. 6. p. 985 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 271 sqq. ftb199 The second and third sessions are in many manuscripts exchanged; that the ordinary numbering, however, which we follow, is the right one, was shown by Tillemont (t. 15. note 45, Sur S. Leon, p. 916), from the chronological dates connected with each session. The Ballerini, on the contrary, would maintain, supporting themselves upon Facundus (see p. 285, note), that these dates are also doubtful and of more recent origin; that our second session is in reality the third, and vice versa. Cf. Baller. ed. Opp. S. Leonis, t. 2. p. 502, nota. The Acts of the second session are in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 938-974; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 274-310. Abridged in German, Fuchs, BibIiothek der Kirchenvers.

Bd. 4. S. 411 ff., and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 341 ff. ftb200 Mansi, t. 6. p. 953; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 285. Here the superior metropolitans of the great districts (= civil dioceses) are already named patriarchs, cf. vol. 1. p. 391. ftb201 Mansi, t. 6. p. 955; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 286 sq. ftb202 Mansi, t. 6. p. 962 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 299 sqq., have even given these patristic passages, but note that they are wanting in most manuscripts. That they were not read in our second session, is shown by the Ballerini, l.c. t. i. p. 798, n. 8. ftb203 Mansi, t. 6. p. 971; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 306. ftb204 Mansi, l.c. p. 663, t. 7. p. 971; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1275, t. 2. pp. and 307; cf. above, p. 21. ftb205 Mansi, t. 6. p. 971 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 307. This is the substance of a longer exposition in Cyril, l.c. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1290; Mansi, t. 4. p. 1078; see above, p. 30 f. Exactly the same words were used by Cyril in a letter to Acacius of Melitene. See Mansi, t. 5. p. 322; see above, p. 144. ftb206 Cyril says the same in the synodal letter quoted above. See Hardouin, t. i. p. 1286; Mansi, t. 4. p. 1071 sqq. ftb207 Mansi, t. 6. p. 974 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 307 sqq. ftb208 The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 975-1102; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 310-382. Arendt thinks (Papst Leo u. s. Zeit, S. 279) that this session took place in a chapel of the church of S. Euphemia, because the Acts say, ejn tw~| marturi>w| th~v agi>av . . . Eujfhmi>av . . . . But it is the church itself of the Holy Martyr which is thus designated. ftb209 Arendt says (S. 279): “The absence of the senate seems astonishing; but it is not so in fact, for the chief work of the session was, as is clear from the contents of the Acts, the definite pronouncing of the judgment on Dioscurus. The reasons involved were half ecclesiastical, half political. In regard to the political element, the senate had already given their judgment; in regard to the other, the ecclesiastical, which lay entirely outside their sphere, the senate had no need to be present, and their absence only shows how fully the State recognized the necessity that the purely ecclesiastical proceedings should be free and independent, and as little as possible influenced, but left to the spiritualty.” ftb210 Mansi, t. 6. p. 986; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 311. ftb211 This incident is brought forward by the synodal deputies somewhat later. Mansi, t. 6. p. 995; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 315 D. ftb212 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 987-995; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 314 sqq. ftb213 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 995-1003; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 315-319. ftb214 That these were friends and assistants of Dioscurus, is clear from the close of the complaint of Ischyrion. See below, p. 325. Walch, l.c. S. 350, has erroneously confounded them with the witnesses whom Theodore was ready to bring forward. ftb215 Mansi, t. 6. p. 1006 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 322 sqq. ftb216 The complaint adds, “The cruelty of Harpocration had been seen at the Robber-Synod in his ill-treatment of Flavian and of Proterius, then a priest, now a bishop.” As Proterius did not become Bishop of Alexandria until after the deposition of Dioscurus, the words, “now a bishop,” must be a later addition. Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 352. ftb217 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 1011-1019; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 326 sqq. ftb218 Mansi, t. 6. p. 1022 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 331 sqq. ftb219 Mansi, t. 6. p. 1030 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 335 sqq. ftb220 Mansi, t. 6. p. 1035 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 339. ftb221 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 1038-1047; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 339-346. ftb222 Their votes are given in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 1047-1080; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 346-365. The old Latin translation has preserved 186 votes, with reasons assigned. The reasons given vary; but least frequently is disobedience to the Synod given as a reason for his condemnation. ftb223 The subscriptions are given in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 1080-1094; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 365-376. The list here given has 294 subscriptions of bishops (or their representatives), among them those of Juvenal, Thalassius, Eustathius of Berytus, and Eusebius of Ancyra (not, however, of Basil of Seleucia). As, however, the four former associates of Dioscurus just named were not present at the third session (see above, p. 322), it appears that they and the other forty-nine bishops (and priests) whose names stand after theirs, did not subscribe until afterwards. ftb224 Mansi, t. 6. p. 1094; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 378. ftb225 Mansi, t. 6. pp. 1095-1102; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 378 sqq. The two latter documents, the two letters to the Emperors and to Pulcheria, are now extant only in Latin. It is remarkable that, in the letter to Pulcheria, only a single reason is specially assigned for the deposition of Dioscurus, his withholding of the papal letter. ftb226 The Acts of this session are given in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 1-97; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 382-446. An abridgment in German. by Fuchs, l.c. S. 437 ff.; Walch, l.c. S. 360 ff. The list of those present, which is placed at the head of the Acts, is very defective. ftb227 As we saw (p. 319), a commission of bishops were within the five days to confer with Anatolius concerning the faith. That they held meetings for this purpose is expressly said by the bishops of Illyricum (331); besides, it may be concluded from the subsequent expressions of Paschasinus that they had had a conference, and had thus taken the very resolution which Paschasinus now announces to the commissioners, and which is in conformity with the results of the second session. We shall meet with a later and important transaction of this commission in the introduction to the fifth OEcumenical Synod. ftb228 Mansi, t. 7. p. 7 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 386. ftb229 Mansi, t. 7. p. 10 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 386 sqq. ftb230 This had taken place at the assembly and council which they held with Anatolius, as the bishops of Illyricum explain in what follows. ftb231 Mansi, t. 7. p. 27 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 399 sqq. Fuchs (l.c. S. 438) maintains that only two bishops, one from Illyricum and one from Palestine, had given special declarations. This error of his was caused by the incorrect printing in the editions. The votes of Euphratas and Marcianus, the former of whom finally voted among those of Illyricum, the latter among those of Palestine, should evidently be separated from the collective declarations which followed by a point and an interval.

But that on the one side the whole of the Illyricans, on the other the whole of those of Palestine, gave the statement in question is clear from the use of the plural at the beginning and from the whole context. ftb232 Mansi, t. 7. p. 31 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 402. ftb233 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 34-47; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 403-414. ftb234 Mansi, t. 7. p. 47; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 414. ftb235 Mansi, t. 7. p. 50; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 415. ftb236 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 51-62; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 415-422. ftb237 Mansi, t. 7. p. 66; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 423. ftb238 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 67-71; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 423 sqq. ftb239 See vol. 2. p. 68. On the collection of canons which the Synod of Chalcedon had before it, and which they received into their own first canon, cf. Drey, Die Constit. u. Canones der Apostel, S. 427 ff. ftb240 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 71-75; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 426-430. ftb241 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 75-79; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 430 sq. ftb242 On this ecclesiastical office see vol. 2. p. 321. ftb243 See the table given above, p. 287. ftb244 Cf. vol. 2. p. 68. ftb245 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 79-83; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 431-435. The two series of transactions, that now related concerning Carosus, and the following in regard to Photius of Tyre, are not in the old Latin translation of the synodal Acts (the Latin translation printed in Hardouin, Mansi, etc., is from the editors of the Roman Collection of Councils. Cf. above, p. 290, and Baluz. in Mansi, t. 7. p. 663, n. 27.), and therefore their genuineness has been contested by some scholars. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires, t. 15. note 47, Sur St. Leon, p. 917 sq. There are no valid grounds for this objection, and the Ballerini are quite right when they (l.c. t. 2. p. 510, nota 23) maintain that the two series of transactions on the 20th of October should properly be reckoned as the fifth (properly the fifth and sixth) session. Cf. above the table, p. 287. ftb246 Leonis Ep. 136, n. 4, Ep. 141, n. 1, and Ep. 142, n. 2. In Mansi, t. 6. pp. 293, 304, 305. ftb247 There is no question that the Emperor had the power to raise Berytus, which had previously belonged to the civil and ecclesiastical province of Tyre, to be a special civil metropolis, which might easily have had as its result the founding of an ecclesiastical province of Berytus (cf. vol. 1. p. 381 ff., and vol. 2. p. 69, canon 9; and below, the remarks on canon 12). But it appears that, in the case before us, the Emperor had by his own authority declared the city of Berytus an ecclesiastical metropolis, without at the same time raising its civil rank. That he had intruded improperly into the ecclesiastical sphere is clear from the expression above: “Not an imperial decree, but the canons of the Church were the standard in such a case,” and from the resolution that all imperial decrees which were opposed to the canons should be invalid (p. 342). Moreover, it is also clear from the above that a Synod of Constantinople in true Byzantine fashion had lent a helping hand to give practical effect to the assumption of the Emperor. ftb248 The same Nicene canon was read also in the thirteenth session, but from another codex. Cf. Ballerini, l.c. t. 3. p. 36. sq. ftb249 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 86-98; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 435-446. ftb250 The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 97-118; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 446-456. Abridged in German in Fuchs, 1.c. S. 452 ff.; Walch, l.c.

S. 370 ff. That the senators were not present at this session is clear and evident from the fact that in the Acts there is mention always made only of the megaloprepe>statoi kai< ejndoxw>tatoi a]rcontev , that is, the commissioners. ftb251 Tillemont, l.c. t. 15. p. 677. ftb252 Mansi, t. 7. p. 99 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 447. ftb253 As this letter of Leo’s had already been approved by the Synod (see pp. 317 and 331), this new demand must be understood to mean, “If they were not satisfied with this letter, and put forth another formula,” or “If, in the formula of faith to be put forth, they did not adhere closely enough to the contents and meaning of this letter.” According to what follows, the latter is the true meaning. (See below, p. 344.) ftb254 Perhaps the imperial commissioners, who here and in what followed united to much practical skill also theological insight, may have been advised by the papal legates. ftb255 “In the synodal decree dispatched to Dioscurus (p. 328 f.) there is certainly no express reference to his heresy, nor yet in the sentence which the papal legates pronounced against him. (See p. 328.) ftb256 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 102, 103; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 47 sqq. ftb257 Mansi, t. 7. p. 103 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 450. ftb258 In Leo’s letter this expression does not occur verbally, but the legates had previously (see p. 331) explained this as the chief point of the letter, which at that time had been very readily accepted by those bishops who had still some objections to the letter. ftb259 Mansi, t. 7. p. 106; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 450. ftb260 Mansi, t. 7. p. 107; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 451. ftb261 From here to the end, on account of the great importance of this formula, will be added the Greek text (see p. 349). ftb262 The present Greek text has ejk du>o fu>sewn , while the old Latin translation has, IN duabus naturis (see p. 290). After what had been repeatedly said in this session on the difference between “in two natures” and “of two natures,” and in opposition to the latter formula (see p. 343), there can be no doubt whatever that the old Latin translator had the more accurate text before him, and that it was originally ejn du>o fu>sesin . This, however, is not mere supposition, but is expressly testified by antiquity: (1) by the famous Abbot Euthymius of Palestine, a contemporary of the Council of Chalcedon, of whose disciples several were present as bishops at our Council (cf.

Baron. ad ann. 451, n. 152 sq.). We still have a judgment of his which he gave respecting the decree of Chalcedon concerning the faith, and in which he repeats the leading doctrine in the words of the Synod itself.

At our passage he remarks: ejn du>o fu>sesi gnwri>zesqai oJmologei~ toVita S. Euthymii Abbatis, written by his pupil Cyril in the Analecta Graeca of the monks of S. Maur, t. i. p. 57, printed in Mansi, t. 7. p. 774 sq. (2) The second ancient witness is Severus, from A.D. 513 Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, who represents it as a great reproach and an unpardonable offense in the father’s of Chalcedon that they had declared: ejn du>o fujsesin ajdiaire>toiv gnwri>zesqai toSententiae Severi in Mansi, t. 7. p. 839). (3) Somewhat more than a hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, Evagrius copied its decree concerning the faith in extenso into his Church History (lib. 2:4), and, in fact, with the words: ejn du>o fu>sesin ajsugcu>twv k.t.l. (ed. Mog. p. 294). (4) In the conference on religion held between the Severians and the orthodox at Constantinople, A.D. 553, the former reproached the Synod of Chalcedon with having put IN duabus naturis, instead of EX duabus naturis, as Cyril and the old fathers had taught (Mansi, t. 8. p. 892; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 1162). (5) Leontius of Byzantium maintains quite distinctly, in the year 610, in his work De Sectis, that the Synod taught e[na Cristoo fu>sesin ajsugcu>twv k.t.l . It is clear that, if any doubt had then existed as to the correct reading, Leontius could not have opposed the Monophysites with such certainty. The passage adduced by him is Actio 4. 100:7, in Galland. Bibliotheca PP. t. 12. p. 633. Gieseler (Kirchengesch. 1. S. 465), and after him Hahn (Biblioth. der Symbole, S. 118, note 6), cites incorrectly the fourth instead of the fifth Actio. Perhaps neither of them had consulted the passage itself. (6) No less weight is to be attached to the fact that all the Latin translations, that of Rusticus and those before him, have in duabus naturis; and (7) that the Lateran Synod, A.D. 649, had the same reading in their Acts (Hardouin, t. 3. p. 835). (8) Pope Agatho, also, in his letter to the Emperor Constans II, which was read in the sixth OEcumenical Synod, adduced the creed of Chalcedon with the words in duabus naturis (in the Acts of the sixth OEcumenical Council, Actio 4; in Mansi, t. 11. p. 256; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1091). ¾ In consequence of this, most scholars of recent times, e.g. Tillemont, Walch (Biblioth. symbol. veter. p. 106), Hahn (l.c. ), Gieseler (l.c. ), Neander (Abthl. 2:2 of Bd. 4. S. 988), have declared ejn du>o fu>sesin to be the original and correct reading. Neander adds: “The whole process of the transactions of the Council shows this (that ejn du>o is the correct reading). Evidently the earlier creed, which was more favorable to the Egyptian doctrine, contained the ejk du>o fu>sewn , and the favor shown to the other party came out chiefly in the change of the ejk into ejn . The expression ejk du>o fu>sewn , besides, does not fit the place, the verb gnwrizo>menon points rather to the original ejn . The ejn du>o fu>sesin or ejk du>o fu>sewn was the turning-point of the whole controversy between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism.” Cf., on the other side, Baur, Trinitatslehre, Bd. 1. S. 820, and Dorner (Lehre 5. der Person Christi, Thessalonians 2. S. 129), where it is maintained that ejk is the correct and original reading, but that it was from the beginning purposely altered by the Westerns into in; moreover, that ejk fits better than ejn with gnwrizo>menon , and therefore that it had been allowed as a concession to the ears of the Monophysites. The meaning, moreover, they say, of ejk and ejn is essentially the same, and the one and the other alike excluded Monophysitism. ftb263 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 111-118; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 454 sqq. ftb264 Mansi, t. 7. p. 118; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 455. ftb265 T. 7. p. 455. ftb266 T. 2. p. 643. ftb267 Defensio trium capitulorum, lib. 2. 100:2, in Galland. l.c. t. 11. p. 679. ftb268 T. 15. p. 714 sq. ftb269 Cf. vol. 1. p. 293. ftb270 Cf. vol. 1. p. 238, and vol. 2. p. 278. ftb271 They cited here the Decretum de .fide, which had been projected, but not approved, at Sardica. Cf. vol. 2. p. 106 ff. ftb272 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 455-474; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 643-654; Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. 4. S. 516 ff. ftc1 Tillemont, l.c. t. 15. p. 713; Remi Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacres, t. 14. p. 690; Schrockh, Kirchengesch. Bd. 18. S. 491 ff. ftc2 The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 118-178; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 458-491. German abridgment in Fuchs, l.c. Thl. 4. S. 459 ff.; Waleh, l.c. S. 375 ff. ftc3 Qnesnel has thrown doubt upon the presence of the Empress, because only the Latin Acts refer to her; but the letter of Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, No. 101 among the letters of Leo, confirms the intimation of the Latin Acts. See the edition of the Ballerini, l.c., and Mansi, t. 6. p. 175. ftc4 Mansi, t. 7. p. 129 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 463 sqq. ftc5 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 135-169; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 466-486. ftc6 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 170-175; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 486 sqq. ftc7 Mansi, t. 7. p. 178; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 490 sq. ftc8 Cf. the letter of Pope Pelagius 2. to the Istrian bishops in Mansi, t. 9. p. 448; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 434 sq. ftc9 Its Acts are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 178-184; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 491-495; defective extract in Fuchs, 1.c. S. 463. ftc10 Mansi, t. 7. p. 179 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 491 sqq. A very ancient Latin translation of the minutes of the agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem was edited by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 2. p. 1223. They maintain that the text which lies at the foundation of this ancient version (see below, p. 370, note 2) is the best. Ibid. p. 1231, n. 10, and p. 1233. ftc11 Cf. vol. 1. p. 407 f., and vol. 3. p. 77. ftc12 Cf. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, t. 3. p. 113 sqq.; Wiltsch, Handb. der Kirchl. Geographie und Statistik, 1846, Bd. 1. S. 207. ftc13 Its Acts are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 185-194; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 495-502; Fuchs, l.c. S. 464 f. ftc14 Mansi, t. 7. p. 187 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 498 sqq. ftc15 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 379, and after him Fuchs, l.c. S. 466, have here interchanged the Greek and Latin Acts in reference to the date.

The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. 6. pp. 194-203; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 502 sqq. ftc16 The Acts referring to this matter are in the minutes of the ninth session of Chalcedon, in Mansi, t. 7. p. 198 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 503 sqq. ftc17 Its Acts are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 203-271; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 507-546; cf. Fuchs, l.c. S. 470 ff.; Walch, l.c. S. 380. ftc18 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 203-210; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 507-510. ftc19 Mansi, t. 7. p. 210 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 510 sqq. ftc20 Mansi, t. 7. p. 215 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 514 sq. ftc21 Mansi, t. 7. p. 222 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 518 sqq. ftc22 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 227-242; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 522-527. On the history of Ibas, cf. Jos. Simon. Assemani, Biblioth. Clement. Vatic. t. i. 100:15, pp. 199-204. ftc23 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 242-247; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 527; Fuchs, l.c. S. 480 ff. ftc24 Mansi, t. 7. p. 250, and Hardouin, t. 2. p. 531, have not remarked that this again belongs to the Synod of Chalcedon. ftc25 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 250-255; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 531-538. ftc26 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 255-270; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 538-543. ftc27 Mansi, t. 7. p. 270 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 543. The genuineness of the document which refers to Domnus, which is now extant only in Latin, is contested by Quesnel and Natalis Alexander. It is, however, maintained by Tillemont, Baluze (in Mansi, t. 7. p. 665 sqq., n. 32-56.), and especially by the brothers Ballerini (S. Leonis Opp. t. 2. p. 1215 sq. and p. 1234 sq.), who discovered in a Vatican codex a still more ancient Latin translation of this document (older even than that of Rusticus), and had it printed (l.c. p. 1226 and p. 1234, n. 11). In this newly discovered copy, the proceedings with respect to Domnus are rightly placed after those respecting the agreement with Juvenal (Sessio 7.); whilst in the Greek codex, from which Rusticus made his translation, the proceedings respecting Domnus were erroneously placed before those others (Rusticus himself says this, in Mansi, t. 7. p. 734: Post haec sequitur etc.). The latter took place 7. Kal. Nov. (= October 26), those on Domnus on the following day, 6. Kal. November (= October 27), and it is clear, finally, from the chronological indication, 6. Kal. November, that if the Greek copies give the date of the tenth session correctly (October 28, see above, p. 359), the transactions respecting Domnus must be referred to the ninth session. ftc28 The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 271-294; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 546-558. German abridgment in Fuchs, l.c. S. 486 ff. ftc29 Mansi, t. 7. p. 274 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 547. ftc30 Mansi, t. 7. p. 282 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 551. ftc31 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 283-287; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 551-554. ftc32 They evidently misunderstood the 2d and 3d canons of Constantinople.

Cf. vol. 2. p. 355 ff. But the Council of Chalcedon agreed with them in the main point, as we see from its 28th canon. ftc33 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 287-294; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 554-558. ftc34 Its Acts are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 294-300; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 559-563. ftc35 Mansi and Hardouin, ll. cc. ftc36 The Acts are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 302-314; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 563-571.

Abridgment in Fuchs, 1.c. S. 493. ftc37 See vol. 1. p. 381. ftc38 Mansi and Hardouin, ll. cc. ftc39 The Acts are in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 314-358; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 571-598.

German abridgment in Fuchs, l.c. S. 496 ff. In the list of those present, Stephen of Ephesus is still mentioned (Mansi, l.c. p. 315; Hardouin, l.c. p. 571), although he had in the 12th session been declared to have lost his claim on the see of Ephesus. As, however, he retained the episcopal dignity, he might still continue to be a member of the Synod. ftc40 On the history of this deposition and its grounds, particularly the stealing of the property of the Church, see above, p. 174. ftc41 See, s.v. “OEconomus,” in Dicty. of Chr. Antiquities. ftc42 Panoblius was succeeded by John, and the latter by Stephen, in the metropolitan see of Hierapolis. Under Panoblius, Athanasius was driven away by his clergy; under John, he was deposed at the Antiochene Synod; and under Stephen, and by him, Sabinian had been appointed bishop of Perrha. ftc43 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 326-354; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 579-595; cf. above, p. 174. ftc44 Mansi, t. 7. p. 358; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 598; Walch (Ketzerhist. Bd. 6. S. 384) has given wrongly the decree of this session. ftc45 In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, t. 1. p. 1490 sq. ftc46 Mansi, t. 7. p. 454; Hardouin was not acquainted with this document. ftc47 Printed in the Ballerini’s ed. of the works of Leo the Great, t. 2. pp. 1227, 1235, and in Mansi, t. 7. p. 722 C. ftc48 Cf. Le Quien, Oriens Christ. t. 3. p. 113 sqq.; Wiltsch, Kirchl.

Geographie und Statistik, 1846, Bd. 1. S. 207. ftc49 We see this from the discourse which the papal legate Paschasinus delivered at the beginning of the sixteenth session, Mansi, t. 7. p. 426; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 626. ftc50 Liberati Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutych. in Galland. Biblioth. PP. t. 12. p. 144 (see above, p. 285, note), and Rustici Emendatio Antiqua versionis Actorum Concilii Chalcedon, in Mansi, t. 7. p. 654 sqq., especially p.738; cf. above, p. 291 f. ftc51 Commentarius in canones et decreta juris veteris etc. Colon. Agripp. 1755, p. 231 sq. ftc52 Baluzii Praefatio, in Mansi, t. 7. p. 658 sq. ftc53 In their ed. of the works of Leo the Great, t. 2. p. 503, note, and p. 514, note 30. They have on their side the letter of Pope Pelagius II in Mansi, t. 9, p. 448 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 434 sq. ftc54 They are found in Mansi, t. 7. p. 358; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 602 sqq.; Bruns, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastes 1:50, p. 25 sqq. ftc55 On the collection of canons which lay before the Synod of Chalcedon, and was approved in its 1st canon, cf. Drey, Die a postol.

Constitutionen und Canones der Apostel, S. 427 ff. ftc56 Commentaries on this, as on the rest of the canons of Chalcedon, are given by the Greek scholiasts Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus (printed in Bevereg. Synodicon t. i. p. 111 sq.). Further, Beveridge himself, in his Annotationes, (ibid. t. 2. p. 108 sqq.), and Van Espen, Commentarius etc., l.c. p. 233 sqq. ftc57 On the expression tina< tou~ kano>nov , cf. vol. 1. p. 423. ftc58 Van Espen, l.c. p. 234; cf. Beveridge, l.c. t. i. p. 112; t. 2. Annotat. p. 108. ftc59 In Bevereg. Synodicon , t. 1. p. 113 sqq.; cf. t. 2. Annotat. p. 109 sqq. ftc60 Commentarius etc., l.c. p. 236. ftc61 Van Espen, Commentarius etc., p. 236 sqq.; Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. sqq., and t. 2. Annotat. p. 111 sqq. ftc62 Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius etc., p. 238; Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 118. ftc63 Cf. the following canon, and Dollinger, Hippolyt etc., S. 138. ftc64 In Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 119 sq., t. 2. Annotat. p. 114; Van Espen, l.c. p. 240. ftc65 Cf. Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 120 sq.; Van Espen, l.c. p. 241. ftc66 In Bevereg. t. 2. Annotat. p. 115. ftc67 Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 122 sqq., t. 2. Annotat. p. 115 sq. ftc68 Van Espen, Commentarius etc., l.c. p. 241 sq. ftc69 Nicolai 1. Epist. 8, ad Michaelem Imperatorem, in Hardouin, t. v. p. 159. Cf., on the other side, Bevereg. l.c. t. 2. Annotat. p. 116. ftc70 On its contents, cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 243, and Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. sq. ftc71 In Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 125 sq., and t. 2. Annotat. p. 117 and p. 22. ftc72 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 243 sq. ftc73 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 244 sq.; Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 126, t. 2. Annotat. p. 177. ftc74 In Bevereg. t. i. p. 129. ftc75 Van Espen, l.c. p. 246; Bevereg. t. i. p. 129 sq. ftc76 Cf. Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 131, and t. 2. Annotat. p. 118. ftc77 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 246 sq. ftc78 Van Espen, l.c. p. 247. ftc79 Cf. my essay on the celibate in my Beitrage zur Kirchengeschichte etc., Tiibingen, 1864, S. 133 f. ftc80 Cf. the Greek commentators in Bevereg. l. c. t. i. p. 133 sqq., t. 2. Annotat. p. 120; Van Espen, l.c. p. 248. ftc81 Cf. vol. 1. p. 386 f., and Van Espen, l.c. p. 249. ftc82 An excommunicatio of the kind which allows the bishop to remain in union with his diocese (and with the whole Church), but which excludes him for a time from intercourse with the other bishops, is mentioned also in the ordinances of the sixth Carthaginian Synod of A.D. 401, 100:11. See vol. 2. p. 424 f. ftc83 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 250; Kober, Suspension, Tubingen, 1862, S. f. ftc84 Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 138, t. 2. Annotat. p. 122; Van Espen, l.c. p. 250.

Ftc85 Cf. Van Espen, l.c . p 251 sq.; Bevereg. l.c . t. i. P. 141, and t. ii. Annotat . P 123. ftc86 Bevereg. l.c. t. 2. Annot . p. 123 sq.; Van Espen, l.c. p. 153; Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, Bd. 1. Thl. 2. S. 9-47; Thomassin, De nova et veteri eccl. disclpl. P. 3. lib. 2. 100:1, ed. Mog. t. 8. p. 1 sqq.; Hergenrother, Photius, Bd. 1. S. 96 f. [Cf. also art. “Oeconomus” in Dicty. of Chr. Antiquities .] ftc87 According to the Greek text which goes on with kai< w[ste it remains doubtful whether that which follows is a decree of the second OEcumenical Synod or was first drawn up by our Council, i.e. whether kai< w[ste is to be connected with hJmei~v oJri>zomen , or with ajpe>neiman . . . kri>nantev . But as (a ) the canon in question, the third of the second OEcumenical Council, says nothing of the dioceses of Pontus, etc., and also (b ) as in that copy of it which our Council used and had read in its next (sixteenth) session nothing of this kind is contained, it is clear that the second half of our canon from kai< w[ste onwards contains a new decision of our Council. Cf. Bevereg. l.c. t. 2. Annotat. p. 125. ftc88 It is hardly necessary to point out that this statement would not be conceded by any but Roman Catholics. See Bishop Lightfoot’s note in his edition of the works of S. Clement of Rome, p. 252 ff.] ftc89 Ep. ad Julium Episc. Romans in Mansi, t. 3. p. 40; Hardouin, t. i. p. 653; cf. vol. 2. p. 168 f. ftc90 Mansi, t. 9. p. 716. ftc91 Contra litteras Petiliani , 2. 100:51, ed. Migne, t. 9. p. 300. ftc92 Non dedignetur (Anatolius) regiam civitatem, quam apostolicam non potest facere sedem. Epist. 104, n. 3, in the ed. of the Ballerini, t. i. p. 1143 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 191. ftc93 In his Dissert. de vita etc. S. Leonis M . ad ann. 452, n. 4, in Baller. t. 2. p. 521. ftc94 Cf. above, p. 303, and Mansi, t. 6. p. 607; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 83. ftc95 Mansi, t. 7. p. 442; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 635 sq. ftc96 Tillemont, Memoires etc., t. 15. p. 700 sqq.; Quesnel, Dissert. de Vita etc. S. Leonis M., ad ann. 452, n. 5. sqq.; in Baller. t. 2. p. 521 sqq.

Van Espen maintains, therefore (l.c. p. 257), that the Synod of Chalcedon accordingly had quite right and good grounds for drawing up its 28th canon. ftc97 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. p. 703. ftc98 Theodoret, Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 5, 100:28. ftc99 Cf. what Pope Leo the Great said on this point, below, p. 433 ff. ftc100 Cf. Mansi, t. 7. p. 451; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 642; Baller. t. 2. p. 523, nota. ftc101 Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius, l.c. p. 233. ftc102 Cf. Bevcreg. Synodicon, t. 2. Annotat. p. 127; Mansi, t. 6. p. 1169, t. 7. pp. 380, 390, 400; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 611, 612, and 624; Ballerini ed. Opp. S. Leonis, t. 3. pp. 238 and 548. ftc103 See above, p. 342, and Mansi, t. 7. p. 95; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 443. ftc104 Cf. Van Espen, Commentar. etc., p. 233; Bevereg. l.c. t. 2. Annotat. p. 125; Bailerin. l.c. t. 3. p. 771. ftc105 See above, p. 334, and Mansi, t. 7. p. 59; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 419. ftc106 Cf. the above, and Bevereg. l.c. t. i. p. 148, and t. 2. Annotat. p. 125. ftc107 The Acts are found in Mansi, t. 7. pp. 423-454; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 628-644. German abridgment in Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. 4. S. 510 ff. ftc108 Cf. the marginal note in Mansi, t. 7. p. 423, and also under note 6. ftc109 Mansi, t. 7. p. 429 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 627 sqq. ftc110 The words in parentheses are only in the Latin translation, which, as we have observed, in several places is derived from a better Greek text than the present. ftc111 Mansi, t. 7. p. 442 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 635 sqq. ftc112 Mansi, t. 7. p. 443; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 638. ftc113 In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, t. 3. p. 37 sqq. ftc114 We have already seen (vol. 2. p. 372) that at the Robber-Synod the Nicene was designated as the first, and the Ephesine as deute>ra su>nodov , passing over that of Constantinople. ftc115 Cf. Tillemont, t. 15. p. 284. ftc116 Hitherto the Archbishop of Constantinople had also consecrated ordinary bishops, who were under other metropolitans, as the example of Basilinopolis etc. (see above, p. 379) shows, and as is expressly asserted by Anatolius of Constantinople (see below, p. 432). The see of Constantinople had therefore to give up the smaller, in order the more securely to preserve the greater (the consecration of metropolitans to so great an extent). ftc117 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 446-454; Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 639-643. ftc118 Gregor. M. Lib. 4. Epist. 32 and 36, and Lib. 7. Epist. 30; Hardouin, t. 6. p. 932. ftc119 Hardouin, t. i. p. 465 sq.; Mansi, t. 7. p. 136. ftc120 Hardouin, t. 2. pp. 321,325, 332, 336; Mansi, t. 6. pp. 1005, 1012, 1021, 1029. ftc121 Hardouin, t. 2. p. 1203; Mansi, t. 8. p. 895. ftc122 Mansi, t. 6. p. 147 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 655 sqq. Baller. ed. Operum S. Leonis, t. i. p. 1087 (No. 98 in the collection of Leo’s letters). A still older Latin translation of this letter, almost contemporaneous with the Synod of Chalcedon, with the subscription of about seventy bishops, is in Ballerini, l.c. p. 1099; Mansi, t. 6. p. 155. ftc123 Cf. Ballerini, l.c. t. i. p. 1123, nota 4. ftc124 Among the letters of Leo, No. 101, in Baller. t. i.p. 1122 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 171 sqq. ftc125 No. 100 among the letters of Leo, in Baller. l.c. pp. 1112 and sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 166 sqq. Cf. note 1 in Baller. l.c. p. 1111, and note 1 in Mansi, l.c. p. 166. ftc126 That Leo rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon not from the fear that the Patriarch of Constantinople might encroach upon his own importance, but from a sense of duty to preserve the regulation of Nicaea, and the old ecclesiastical rights, is shown by the Ballerini, in opposition to Quesnel, in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 2. p. 1529. Arendt (in his monograph on Leo the Great) shows that, on the one hand, the Synod of Chalcedon had reason for elevating the importance of the see of Constantinople; but, on the other side, that the Pope, from his point of view, had a right and even a duty to oppose this attempt. He says (S. 316-318): “The bitter experiences of recent times had sufficiently taught how dangerous to the peace of the Church had become the predominating power which the Patriarch of Alexandria possessed in the East. The newly arisen monasticism had attained to great influence in Egypt, was almost entirely dependent upon him, and might easily, as Theophilus and Dioscurus proved, be employed by him for ambitious objects and to the detriment of the general liberty of the Church. The Synod seems now to have proceeded from the idea that this incongruity would best be remedied by conceding prerogatives to the see of Constantinople, such as would put it in a position to form a counterpoise to Alexandria. Besides, Anatolius, as was later shown, was not free from ambitious designs, and it might be ascribed as much to his efforts with the Emperor as to the circumstances just explained, that these prerogatives were allowed to him. From this point of view the proceedings of the Council appear not only justified, but in more than one respect perhaps necessary. But this could not be the point of view from which the Pope was obliged to judge of what had been done.

In the consciousness, which was deeply and distinctly founded in Leo, that he was bound by virtue of his office to care for the welfare of the Church in general, he was obliged to find a cause and a duty for considering those decrees not in their local necessity and utility, but in their relation to the whole of the Church, and in how far they might advantage or injure these interests and their development for the future.

Thus viewed, they must appear in quite a different light. It was clear that by such a prerogative being conferred upon the see of Constantinople it must obtain predominance in the East, as had previously been the case with that of Alexandria; and from the greater political importance of the Bishop of New Rome an abuse of such prerogative might inflict greater injury on the Church at large. It could not be doubted that the prerogative once obtained, from the position of circumstances, would soon extend over the whole of the East, and great danger might easily grow out of this, not only to the liberty and independence of the other greater and small ecclesiastical organisms, but to the Church in its greater divisions of East and West. The possibility of a separation had come much nearer when the leading of the East was placed in the hand of one bishop. It was therefore no selfish or jealous interest, but the care for the whole from a higher point of view, which laid upon him the duty of opposing this canon.

Whatever could be said in its favor from a momentary and local utility could not be compared with that. The relation of the Pope to the Christian world imposed upon him the duty to look further, and to include the future of the Church in his cares, and especially then, when even a Council had acted only in accordance with the subordinate necessities of the moment, and had regarded the circumstances of a part more than the interest of the whole. How correct the Pope’s view was, is shown, alas! incontestably by history in the division of the Oriental Church from that of the West, which was in great measure the result of a desire for power founded upon a predominance, the origin of which is perhaps to be sought in these prerogatives now assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople. Besides, by the promulgation of this canon there were evident violations of rights brought about, particularly in reference to the jurisdiction of the metropolitans of Ephesus and Caesarea, whose independence rested upon very valid ecclesiastical decrees of earlier times.” ftc127 Leonis Ep. 104, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1143 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. sqq. ftc128 Byzantium was formerly only a suffragan see. ftc129 Leonis Ep. 105, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1154 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. sqq. ftc130 That is, the exarchates of Pontus etc., must not be placed under Constantinople. ftc131 By the regulation that they must in future receive their consecration in Constantinople. ftc132 Leo speaks accordingly of a double wrong, contained in the 28th canon: (1) that it withdraws from the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch the rank which belongs to them; and (2) that it destroys the independence of the exarchates of Pontus etc. Compare the remarks of Quesnel on this letter, in Baller. l.c. t. 2. p. 1491. ftc133 Leonis Ep. 106, in Baller. t. i. p. 1158 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 198 sqq. ftc134 Leonis Ep. 107, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1171; Mansi, t. 6. p. 207. ftc135 Mansi, t. 7. p. 475 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 659; Fuchs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. 4. S. 526. ftc136 Mansi, t. 7. p. 478 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 662. ftc137 Mansi, t. 7. p. 498 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 675. ftc138 Mansi, t. 7. p. 502 sq.; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 675 sqq. ftc139 The Ballerini make on this (t. 2. p. 1182) the remark: Litterae ergo apostoIicae sedis, quibus confirmabantur Synodi generales, legendae erant in ecclesiis Orientis, haecque confirmatio in omnium notitiam deducenda erat, ne quis de ea ambigens decretis Synodi reluctari posset. Ecce ergo necessariae confirmationis Pontificiae manifestissimum testimonium. ftc140 Leo himself (see below, p. 444), Pope Gelasius I in his Epist. ad Dardanos, and also the Ballerini (t. i. p. 1188, note 3), have attributed too much value to this passage. To me it seems to be a kind of captatio benevolentiae, but not an actual commendation on account of his nonrecognition of the 28th canon. ftc141 Among the letters of Leo, No. 110, in Ballerini, l.c. t. i. p. 1182; Mansi, t. 6. p. 215. ftc142 Leonis Ep. 109, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1178; Mansi, t. 6. p. 212. ftc143 Cf. Leonis Ep. 9, 100:1 in Mansi, t. 5. p. 1241. ftc144 Leonis Epp. 111 and 112, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1185 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 218 sqq. ftc145 The Ballerini understand the words: Et cum piisimi principes secundum obsecrationem meam dignati fuerint, fratrem Anatolium increpare, as if it were said that the Emperor had already found fault with Anatolius, probably in consequence of the 104th letter of Leo. But I believe that Leo did not expect this blame to be imputed until after the reception of his 111th letter. ftc146 Leonis Ep. 113, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1189 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 220. ftc147 In the superscription the letter is addressed to the Synod of Chalcedon itself, which had long been dissolved; but the context of the letter shows the real state of the case. This has been overlooked by Schrockh in his Kirchengesch. Bd. 17. S. 36 and 37. ftc148 Cf. Leonis Epp. 73 and 76, in Baller. l.c. t. i. pp. 1019 and 1025, and above, see pp. 270, 277 ff. ftc149 Leonis Ep. 114, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1193 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 226. ftc150 Cf, Ballerini, l.c. t. 2. p. 1485, note 1. ftc151 Baluze therefore says that with the sixth session the Synod ceases to be oecumenical. Mansi, t. 7. p. 668, n. 40. ftc152 In Baller. l.c. t. i. pp. 1300 and 1301; Mansi, t. 6. pp. 307 and 308. ftc153 Hardouin, t. 2. p. 855; Mansi, t. 7. p. 1140. ftc154 Leonis Ep. 115, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1199 sqq.; Mansi, t. 6. p. 230. ftc155 Leonis Ep. 117, in Baller. l.c. t. i. p. 1208; Mansi, t. 6. p. 234 sq. ftc156 The letter, with the exception of the subscription, was originally sent to Leo in Latin, and is No. 132 among those of Leo, in Ballet. l.c. t. i. p. 1261; Mansi, t. 6. p. 277; see ibid. n. 1. ftc157 Cf. Hergenrother, Photius, Bd. 1. S. 87 f., and Moy, Archiv etc., 1864, Heft 6, S. 471 f. ftc158 Mansi, t. 8. p. 58; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 912. ftc159 T. 2. p. 515, note, and p. 1485, note. Apart from and before them Baronius (ad ann. 451, n. 135, and ad ann. 381, n. 35) had endeavored to prove the invalidity of the 28th canon. The Gallican Edmund Richer endeavored (Hist. Concil. General. t. 1. lib. 1. 100:8) to confute him; but even the learned Le Quien decided against the validity of this canon (Oriens Christian. t. i. p. 29 sq.). ftc160 Cf. vol. 2. p. 359. ftc161 Cf. Ep. 117 of Pope Leo, and p. 445. ftc162 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 483, 487, 506, 510, 514, 520. ftc163 Mansi, t. 7. pp. 482, 517; Hardouin, t. 2. p. 663; cf. Tillemont, t. 15. p. 774. ftc164 Many such letters in reply from all the provinces we still possess in the Codex encyclicus, see above, p. 294 f. ftc165 Cf. the dissertation of Valesius, De Acacio, etc., in the appendix to his edition of the Church History of Evagrius. ftc165 Cf. the dissertation of Valesius, De Acacio, etc., in the appendix to his edition of the Church History of Evagrius. ftc166 The statement that Pope Felix declared strongly against this proposition rests upon a false document, as Valesius, Diss. de Petro, Antioch. Episc., qui Fullo cognominatus est, in the beginning of his edition of the Church History of Evagrius, and Le Quien in Opp. S.

Joh. Damasc. t. i. p. 478, have shown. ftc167 Cf. Natalis Alexander, Hist. Ecclesiastes t. 5. p. 434 sq., ed. Venet. 1778. ftc168 Collat. 8. can. 10; cf. Henric. Noris, Dissert. de uno ex trinitate passo, and Natal. Alex. l.c. p. 435. ftc169 Cf. Assemani, Biblioth. juris orient . t. 3. p. 294. ftc170 Nat. Alex. t. 5. p. 483. ftc171 A full discussion of the Tritheists is given by Schonfelder, Die Kirchengeschichte des Joh. 5. Ephesus, Munchen, 1862, S. 267-310. ftc172 Bibl. orient, t. 2. p. 327. ftc173 An extract from his work is given by Photius, Biblioth. cod. 232; cf.