CHAPTER - Of the copious literature on the controversy of the three chapters and the fifth Oecumenical Synod, the following treatises deserve special mention: (1) The comprehensive Dissertatio Historica de Synodo quinta of the Augustinian and Cardinal Henry Noris, published first at Padua, A.D. 1673, in connection with his celebrated Historia Pelagiana , and afterwards printed repeatedly, best in the first volume of the edition by the Ballerini of the collected works of Cardinal Noris, Verona 1729, pages 550-820. There is a certain connection between the Dissertatio and the Historia Pelagiana . The Augustinian Noris wanted to show his antipelagian zeal, not only in the Historia Pelagiana , but it concerned him greatly to prove that the real originator of Pelagianism, Origen, had been anathematized by the fifth Oecumenical Synod. The Jesuit Peter Halloix had denied this in his work, Origines defensus , sive Origenis Adamantii Presb ., amatoris Jesu , vita , virtutes , documenta , item veritatis super ejus vita , doctrina , statu , exacta disquisitio , ad sanctissimum D . N . Papam Innocentium X . (Liege in fol. 1648); and in his defense had severely attacked the fifth Oecumenical Synod. To him Noris opposed his great and most learned treatise, in order to defend the credit of the Synod, to prove its confirmation by several Popes, to rut in a clear light many particulars, especially chronological points in regard to the controversy of the three chapters; chiefly, however, to prove that Origen was twice anathematized by the fifth Oecumenical Synod, the first time alone , before those eight sessions in which the matter of the three chapters was treated, the Acts of which alone are still extant; the second time, after those eight sessions, and this time in connection with two of his principal adherents, Didymus the Blind and the deacon Evagrius, a friend of Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen. (2) In opposition to Noris, the Jesuit John Garnier wrote his Dissertatio de V . Synodo , and appended it to his edition of the Chronicon Liberati , Paris 1675, 8vo (reprinted in the twelfth volume of Gallandi, Bibl . Patrum , page sqq.). He afterwards revised this treatise once more, and inserted it with many other dissertations in his edition of the works of Theodoret, in the Actuarium Operum Theodoreti , published after his death by Hardouin, reprinted in the fifth volume of Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret. Much in this treatise of Garnier’s is very acute, something also correct, but many statements are rash, arbitrary, and inaccurate, and on the whole it is seen to be written in a spirit of opposition to Noris. (3) In defense of Noris against Garnier came forth the learned priests of Verona, the two brothers Ballerini, countrymen of Noris, in a Defensio dissertationis Norisianae de Synodo V . adversus dissertationem Patris Garnerii , in the fourth volume of their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris, page 985-1050. They also elucidated the history of the controversy of the three chapters in the third book of their Observationes to the works of Noris (in the fourth volume of the works of Cardinal Noris, page 945 sqq.), and in their treatise, De Patriarchatus Aquileiensis origine (ibid . page 1051 sqq.). With great expansion, but also with tasteless discursiveness, and breaking up the matter, Walch treated the controversy of the three chapters in the eighth volume of his History of Heresies , S. 4-468. (5) Noel Alexander gave an extract from Noris in the dissertations on the sixth century in his Historia Ecclesiastica , t. 5, pages 436-454, ed. Venet. 1778, fol. (6) To this belongs also the later monograph of Dr. Punkes (afterwards professor at the archiepiscopal seminary at Freising), Papst Vigilius und der Dreicapitelstreit , Munchen 1865. This is related by the contemporary Liberatus, archdeacon of Carthage, in his Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum , c. 24; in Galland. Biblioth . Patrum , t. 12, page 160; also in Mansi, t. 9, page 699. Mansi, t. 8, page 829; Hardouin, t. 2, page 1170. Mansi, t. 9, page 376; Hardouin, t. 3, page 194. Mansi, l .c . page 181; Hardouin, l .c . page 56 sq. Mansi, l .c . page 417; Hardouin, l .c . page 216. Galland. Biblioth . Patrum , t. 11, page 665 sqq. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 8, S. 438. Cf. Noris, De Synodo , 5, t. 1, Opp . ed. Baller. page 690. Cf. Ernesti, Neue theolog . Bibliothek , Bd. 7, S. 737. Not in the year 427. Cf. Ballerini, Defensio dissertationis Norisianae , c. 6, in Noris, Opp . ed. Baller. 4. 1025. See above, vol. 3, sec. 160. In the original text of the imperial decree only the books of Nestorius are condemned to the fire, but in the text which is given among the Acts of the fifth Oecumenical Synod the writings of Theodore have the same punishment inflicted upon them. Mansi, t. 8, page 829; Hardouin, t. 2, page 1170. Such artificial proofs will meet us later. See secs. 263, 271, 276. Facundus, Pro defensione trium capit , in Galland. Bibl . Patrum , t. 11, page 665. fta1 Noris remarks (Diss. Hist. de Synodo quinta, chap. 3, p. 581, in t. 1, of Ballerini’s edition of the works of Cardinal Noris) properly, that the Africans had reckoned that opponent of the three chapters among the Acephali. fta2 Mansi, t. 9, p. 63; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 11. fta3 Garnerii Diss. de V. Synodo generali, chap. 3, in Schulze’s ed. of the works of Theodoret, t. 5, p. 528. fta4 Norisii Opp. ed. Baller. t. 4, p. 1002; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 153 f. fta5 This is stated by the contemporary, Victor of Tununum, in his Chronicon, in Galland. l.c. t. 12 , p. 230. Cf. Noris, Diss. de Synodo V . chap. 3; and Walch, l.c. S. 134 and 165 f., and under S. 816, note 1. fta6 Noris, De Synodo V . chap. 3, t. 1, p. 581; and the Observationes of the Ballerini in t. 4, p. 948 of their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris; Walch, l.c. S. 151. fta7 In Galland. l.c. t. 11, p. 682. fta8 Mansi, t. 9, p. 45; Hardouin, t. 7, p. 1. fta9 Facundus, Defensio trium capit, lib. 2, chap. 3, in Galland. l. c. t. 11, p. 682b. fta10 l.c. lib. 4, chap. 4, p. 708. fta11 l.c. lib. 2, chap. 3, p. 682b ; and Contra Mocianum, ib. p. 813b . fta12 Justinian himself certainly says only that “he had put the question to the bishops how they thought about the three chapters” (in his letter to the first session of the fifth OEcumenical Council); but we must remember that the application of the rack was called “putting the question.” fta13 Liberatus, l.c. chap. 24, p. 160. fta14 In Facundus, l.c. lib. 4, chap. 4, p. 708. fta15 Cf. Garnier, Diss. de V. Synodo, in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret, t. 5, p. 534, and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 69 and 156 f.

Garnier thinks that there are still extant fragments of the Acts of this Synod, namely (a ) the Greek letter of the Emperor to the Synod, reprinted in Mansi, t. 9, p. 582, and Hardouin, t. 3, p. 322, and according to the general opinion identical with the imperial letter addressed to the fifth Synod (see below, sec. 267); (b ) also, that the fragment of an answer to the imperial letter, appended to the latter, belongs to this earlier Synod. Cave and Basnage agreed with Garnier, whilst he was opposed by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris, t. 4, p. 1007 sq. ftaa15 Facundus, l.c. lib. 4, chaps. 3 and 4, pp. 707a and 708a . fta16 Facundus, l.c. lib. 4 chap. 3, p. 707. fta17 In Galland. l.c. t. 11, p. 665. fta18 Facundus, Contra Mocianum, in Galland. l.c. p. 813. fta19 As Vigilius published his Judicatum immediately afterwards, on Easter Eve, 548, Garnier supposed that those seven days, with two holy days, should be placed immediately before 548. fta20 Facundus, l.c. lib. 4, chap. 3. The lengthy and learned answer of Ferrandus is still extant in his Epistola ad Pelagium et Anatolium, diaconos urbis Romae, in Galland. t. 11, p. 361. fta21 Mansi, t. 9, p. 152; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 47. fta22 Procopius, De Bello Gothico, lib. 3, chap. 15, says: “Vigilius remained a long time in Sicily.” Noris and others suppose that he had intended to hold a Synod in Sicily, which, however, is very doubtful. The reason for his long sojourn in Sicily is not known. Cf. Punkes, l.c. S. 67. As Vigilius arrived in Constantinople, January 25, 547, as we shall see presently, and tarried a year in Sicily, he must have left Rome in the year 545. fta23 Facundus, Defensio, etc., lib. 4, chaps. 3 and 4. The letter of Vigilius to Mennas is, in part, reproduced verbally in the second treatise of Facundus, Contra Mocianum, in Galland. t. 11, p. 814. fta24 This date is found in the appendices to the Chronicle of Marcellinus in Scaliger, Thesaur. Tempor. p. 54; Noris, De Synodo V . chap. 3, l.c. t. 1, p. 593; Pagi, Critlea in Annales Baronii, t. 1, p. 586, ad ann. 547, n. 4. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 165. fta25 Theophanes, Chronographia, in Pagi, ad ann. 547, n. 5. fta26 Facundus, Contra Mocianum, in Galland. t. 11, p. 814b. fta27 Theophanes, l.c. fta28 Gregory the Great, Epist. lib. 2, ep. 51, Bendict. ed. t. 2, p. 615; according to the earlier arrangement of Gregory’s letters received by Mansi, lib. 2, ep. 36, in vol. 9 of Mansi’s Councils, p. 1105. fta29 We see this from the text of an imperial edict given by Baluze, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 182; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 57. fta30 Mansi, t. 9, p. 153; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 47. fta31 Facundus, Contra Mocianum , p. 813b . fta32 Mansi, t. 9, p. 347; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 172. fta33 Mansi, t. 9, p. 351; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 175. fta34 Cf. the observations of the Ballerini, in Noris, t. 4, p. 949; and Walch, l.c. S. 171. fta35 Cf. Noris, l.c. chap. 4, t. 1, p. 595. fta36 Facundus, Contra Mocianum, in Galland. t. 11, p. 814. fta37 Facundus, Contra Mocianum, l.c. p. 813. fta38 Facundus, l.c. p. 813. fta39 Facundus, l.c. p. 814. fta40 This date is indicated by Vigilius himself in his letter to Rusticus and Sebastianus, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 353; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 177. Cf. Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 596, and Pagi, ad ann. 547, n. 10. fta41 In Mansi, t. 9, p. 181; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 57. fta42 In their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris (t. 4, p. 1036) the Ballerini endeavor to remove some doubts as to the genuineness of this fragment, because (a ) from no other papal decrees has the Emperor taken anything verbally into his edicts, and (b ) because Justinian, at the time when he wrote this, was no longer in possession of a copy of the Judicatum (sec. 261). Both grounds are untenable. The first is so weak that it needs no answer; and as regards the second, it is incredible that the Emperor should have retained no copy of a document so important as the Judicatum. And even if he had not possessed one himself, others would have made copies of it. See below, in this section. fta43 Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 595; Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. Saeculi 6, t. 5, ed.

Venet. 1778. fta44 Thus in his letter to Bishop Valentinian of Tomi: “Legant ergo quae de causa, quae hic mota est, ad fratrem nostrum Mennam... scribentes legimus definisse, et tunc cognoscent, nihil a nobis, Deo nos custodiente, commissum vel certe dispositum, quod contra fidem praedicationemque venerandarum quatuor synodorum... reperiatur aversum, aut unius ex his, qui definitioni suprascriptae Chalcedonensis fidei subscripserunt, tangat injuriam; vel quod decessorum praedecessorum nostrorum, inveniatur, quod absit, constitutis forte contrarium.” Mansi, t. 9, p. 360; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 182. Vigilius expresses himself in a similar manner in his letter to Bishop Aurelian of Arles, Mansi, l.c. p. 362; Hardouin, l.c. p. 183. fta45 That they were mistaken in stating that such a request was made to the Pope, will appear later on. fta46 Mansi, t. 9, p. 104 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 45. fta47 As we do not know the connection in which this fragment stands, we cannot easily ascertain its meaning. Vigilius probably said: “If they had succeeded in showing that the anathema on the three chapters was implicite contained in that which happened at Chalcedon, no one would longer admit this presumption, and regard as undecided (doubtful) what the Synod of Chalcedon has settled, since the members of the Council of Chalcedon were able to examine and decide much which was not put into writing (i.e. without its standing in the Acts) which is now unknown to us and seems unsettled; and since, moreover, we owe reverence towards the Synods, even those of their conclusions which are not fully known are to be respected. fta48 The sense is: “All shall remain in force which the four Synods have decreed, and the Popes have confirmed. All who were condemned by these Synods remain condemned, and those who were acquitted remain acquitted.” fta49 Sense: “We anathematize everyone who regards anything as of force, which, either in the present edict or at any time, seems written by us or by others in any way against the Council of Chalcedon. This Synod, whose solidity remains unshaken and permanent, must have the same force as the Nicene,” etc. fta50 “We anathematize him also who does not faithfully adhere to the holy Synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, which agree with the apostolic doctrine, and have been confirmed by the Popes, or who does not hold them all in equally high honor, or thinks to improve or complete any part of them.” fta51 The Pope said that whoever wanted a copy of the Judicatum, should ask for it of Mennas, to whom it was addressed. Mansi, l.c. p. 353; Hardouin, l.c. p. 177. fta52 In Mansi, t. 9, p. 351 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 175 sqq. fta53 Mansi, t. 9, p. 59; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 8: “Pro scandalo refrenando condescendentes quorundam animis, quos aliqua dispensatione credimus temperandos,...quaedam pro tempore medicinaliter existimavimus ordinanda.” Dispensatio=provida juris relaxatio. Cf. Du Cange, Thesaurus, t. 2, p. 1545. fta54 Mansi, t. 9, p. 153; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 47. fta55 Cf. observations of Ballerini in works of Noris, 4, 951. fta56 Victor. Tunun., Chron. ad ann. 548, in Galland. t. 12, p. 230. fta57 In Galland. t. 2, p. 230. The text, “Eo tempore vii. Facundi-refulsere,” is therefore to be corrected into, “Eo tempore xii. libri Facundirefulsere.” fta58 Galland. t. 11, p. 816. fta59 Ibid. p. 811. fta60 On this Abbot Felix, cf. Garnier, Diss. de V. Synodo , in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret of Cyrus, t. 5, p. 562. fta61 This brief of excommunication is in Mansi, t. 9, p. 351 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 175 sqq. fta62 On the date of this letter, cf. note 1, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 362, where, however, instead of 749, we must read 549, and instead of 530, 550.

Garnier, l.c. p. 563 would alter the date, but cf. Ballerini, l.c. t. 4, p. 1026 sq. fta63 Pagi, ad ann. 550, n. 5, properly infers from this that the Pope had pronounced the excommunication of Rusticus and the others a considerable time before March 18, 550 (the date of the present letter), but the deposition later. Garnier, on the contrary (l.c. p. 562), places the latter in the year 549. fta64 Mansi, t. 9, p. 359; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 181. fta65 Pridie Idus Julias the Pope received Aurelian’s letter, and despatched his answer, April 29, 550. Accordingly we must understand that the Idus Julias belonged to 549. Garnier (l.c. p. 563) would alter the date. fta66 Two earlier letters of Vigilius, in which he appoints Aurelian, after the death of Auxanius, the previous bishop of Arles, to be his vicar in Gaul, are found in Mansi, t. 9, p. 46 sq. fta67 Mansi, t. 9, p. 361 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 183 sqq. From a letter of the Italian clergy to the Frankish envoys (Mansi, l.c. p. 155; Hardouin, l.c. p. 50, cf. below, sec. 264), we learn that this Anastasius was not allowed to return to his home for more than two years, until after he had promised to persuade the Gallican bishops to pronounce anathema on the three chapters. These Italian clergy maintain that the Pope (probably later, A.D. 551, when he would no longer condemn the three chapters) wanted to forward another letter by Anastasius to Bishop Aurelian of Arles, but the Emperor would not allow it, and he was permitted to send only the letter from which we have made extracts (which the Italian clergy characterised in general). fta68 Mansi, t. 9, p. 153; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 47. fta69 Victor. Tunun., ad ann. 549, in Galland. t. 12, p. 230. The Emperor Justinian founded on the site of a village at Tauresium in Dardania Europaea a splendid city, which he named Justiniana I., and which became in 541 also an ecclesiastical metropolis; cf. Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 599. fta70 Victor. Tunun., ad ann. 550, l.c. fta71 Isidor. Hispal., De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, in Fabricii Bibliotheca Eccles. pt. 2, p. 54. fta72 Mansi, t. 9, p. 59; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 8. fta73 Mansi, l.c. p. 153; Hardouin, l.c. p. 47. fta74 This oath is printed in Mansi, l.c. p. 363; Hardouin, l.c. p. 184. The Ballerini oppose the genuineness of the document in question (Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. 1037 sqq.). Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 192 sq. fta75 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 274-289; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 123-134. Cf. Noris. t. 1, p. 605 sqq. fta76 “The ancient Anazarbus, destroyed by an earthquake, but rebuilt by the Emperor Justinian, had recently received the name of Justinianopolis. fta77 Mansi, l.c. p. 274; Hardouin, l.c. p. 123. fta78 Accordingly the name of Theodore could no longer have stood in the diptychs in the youth of the martyr, i.e. about A.D. 480. fta79 Mansi, l.c. pp. 275-289; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 124-134. The Libellus Synodicus (Mansi, l.c. p. 150, and Hardouin, t. 5, p. 1534) relates that the bishops had assembled at Mopsuestia, and had asked the clergy there and the aged laity whether the name of Theodore had ever stood in the diptychs; that this was affirmed, and the bishops now informed Vigilius of it. From hence Gautier infers (l.c. p. 551), certainly without justification, that there were at that time two Synods held at Mopsuestia: the one called by the Emperor, in order to prove that Theodore’s name had been struck from the diptychs; the other ordered by the Pope, in order to show that the name had once stood in the diptychs. Cf. on the other side the Defensio of the Ballerini, in their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris, t. 4, p. 1024. fta80 Mansi, l.c. p. 153; Hardouin, l.c. p. 47. fta81 Reparatus was innocent. Gontharis, Lieutenant-General of Areobindus, and commander in Numidia, had rebelled and set up as Regent of Africa. Areobindus fled with his family into a monastery. The usurper, however, sent Bishop Reparatus to Areobindus, to convey to him a sworn promise of safety, and to invite him to return to Carthage.

Reparatus accomplished the commission bona fide ; Areobindus left his asylum, and was received at his table by Gontharis, but was afterwards murdered. Procop., De Bello Vandalico, lib. 2, chaps. 25 and 26 in the Bonn edition of the Byzantines, Pars 2, vol. 1, pp. 515-522; Baronius, ad ann. 545, n. 21; Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 614. fta82 We obtain this information from Victor. Tunun. l.c. (Galland. t. 12, p. 230), and from the letter of the Italian clergy in Mansi, t. 9, p. 153 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 47. fta83 Mansi, l.c. p. 59 sq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 8 sq. fta84 Mansi, l.c. pp. 537-582; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 287-322. fta85 We have already seen (sec. 196) that Ibas was declared innocent at Tyre. But he was deposed at the Robber-Synod. On Nonnus, see sec. 196. fta86 The Emperor concludes from this that Ibas did not acknowledge the letter as his; but he certainly meant only to declare the other accusations as false. The passage is in Mansi, t. 7, p. 250; Hardouin, t. 2, p. 531. fta87 It is found complete in the Acts we now possess. See sec. 196. fta88 An allusion to some utterances let fall at Chalcedon in favor of the letter. See secs. 196 and 258. fta89 Not Dioscurus of Alexandria, but the antipope of that name, A.D. 530. fta90 So relates Vigilius in his Damnatio Theodori (Ascidas), in Mansi, t. 9, p. 60; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 9. fta91 So relates Vigilius in his Encyclica, Mansi, t. 9, p. 50 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 3. fta92 This speech of Dacius is preserved in the letter which the Italian clergy addressed to the Frankish envoys who were going to Constantinople.

In Mansi, t. 9, p. 154; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 49. fta93 In the Encyclica, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 51; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 3. fta94 Victor. Tunun. ad ann. 551, in Galland. t. 12, p. 230. fta95 This date is clear, since Vigilius in his Damnatio Theodori says, on the 17th of August, that he had “excommunicated Theodori forty days before.” Mansi, t. 9, p. 60 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 9 sq. fta96 Mansi, t. 9, p. 51; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 3. fta97 Mansi, t. 9, p. 60; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 9; Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 622 sqq.

Punkes shows (Papst Vigilius, etc. S. 91) that in Text B, Verecundus is wrongly designated as Nicensis. fta98 Vigilii Encyclica, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 51; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 4. fta99 This is told by Vigilius and the Italian clergy. Mansi, l.c. pp. 52, 154; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 4, 49. fta100 Mansi, ll.cc.; Hardouin, ll.cc. fta101 Mansi, l.c. p. 52; Hardouin, l.c. p. 5. fta102 Mansi, l.c. p. 154 sq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 49 sq. fta103 In the autumn of 551, Procopius, De Bello Gothico , 4, 24, relates that the Emperor Justinian, after the death of the Austrasian King Theodobert (A.D. 548), sent to his son and successor Theodobald his Minister of State, to move him to an alliance against the Goths, etc.

Upon this Theodobald sent the distinguished Frank, Leudard, with three other men of distinction, to Constantinople. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 210. fta104 From the special interest on behalf of Dacius, it is concluded that the Italian clergy who wrote this letter may have been from Milan; cf.

Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 210, Anm. 2. fta105 Mansi, l.c. pp. 151-156; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 47-50. fta106 This is related in a document first edited by Baluze (Mansi, t. 9, p. sqq.; wanting in Hardouin), which is nothing but a letter of the Roman clergy to good friends (supposed to be the Gallican envoys) on the events connected with Vigilius. At the same time a confession of faith of the Pope is appended, very similar to that which he embodied in his Encyclica of February 5, 552 (see next sec.). This confession of faith is, however, dated August 25, 551 (Justinian entered upon the government, at first co-government, April 1, 527). If this date is correct, this confession of faith cannot have been issued from the Church of St. Euphemia, but earlier, from the Basilica of St. Peter.

Moreover, the date, August 25, 551, refers only to the confession of faith, and not to the whole document; for this contains references to later events, particularly to the ill-treatment of the Pope in St.

Euphemia’s Church, noted above. fta107 He mentions this at the beginning of his Encyclica . Mansi, l.c. p. 50; Hardouin, l.c. p. 3. fta108 In the Encyclica of the Pope, in Mansi, erroneously under the date Kalendis Februarii. That this is false appears from the fact that even there that day is indicated as Sunday, whilst February 1, 552, fell upon a Thursday (cf. Weidenbach, Calendarium historico-christianum, pp. 32 and 86); and moreover, it is said below, in the same document, of a somewhat later incident, that the imperial officer of State, Peter, came again to the Pope pridie Kalendas Febr. We read therefore, in Hardouin, instead of Kalendas Febr., correctly v. Kal. Febr., for January 28 was certainly a Sunday. We see this not only from the Tables of Weidenbach, but also from a passage of the Encyclica of the Pope (Mansi, l.c. p. 55; Hardouin, l.c . p. 7), where also February 4, 552, is mentioned as Sunday. fta109 Mansi, t. 9, p. 50 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 3 sqq. fta110 Mansi, t. 9, p. 62 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 10 sq. fta111 Dacius died not on January 14, 553, as Noris (t. 1, p. 633) thought, but between February and June of 552, as the Ballerini showed (Norisii Opp. t. 4, p. 857). Cf. Pagi, ad ann. 552, n. 18 and 25; Walch, l.c. S. 214. Victor of Tununum is quite mistaken in stating that Dacius, in the year 554, subscribed the anathema on the three chapters, and died on the same day (Galland. t. 12, p. 231). fta112 This letter of Eutychius, from Constantinople, to Vigilius is found in Latin in the Constitutum of the latter (Mansi, t. 9, p. 63; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 11); and in Greek in a Parisian MS. among the Acts of the first session of the fifth OEcumenical Synod (Mansi, l.c. p. 186; Hardouin, l.c. p. 59), and partially among the Acts of the fifth session at Florence (Mansi, t. 9, p. 402). Remarks on this letter are made by Garnier, Diss. de V. Synodo, in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret of Cyrus, t. 5, p. 545. fta113 This letter of Vigilius is found in Greek and Latin in a Parisian Codex, printed in Mansi, t. 9, p. 187; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 62. In the expression, servata aequitate, some would discover that Vigilius had already required that an equal number of Latins and Greeks should be present at the Synod. But the expression may also have a general sense, such as is contained in the Greek official version of the papal letter in the corresponding expression, kai< tou~ dikai>ou fulattome>nou . Cf.

Garnier, l.c. p. 546. fta114 Ideo vos vocavimus ad regiam urbem,” in Mansi, t. 9, p. 181; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 56. fta115 Mansi, t. 9, p. 61 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 10 sqq. fta116 Mansi, t. 9, p. 64; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 12. fta117 Mansi, l.c. pp. 64 and 182; Hardouin, l.c . pp. 12 and 57. fta118 Mansi and Hardouin, ll.cc. fta119 Mansi, l.c. pp. 65 and 182; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 13 and 57. fta120 Cf. the sentence of the Synod, in Mansi, l.c. p. 370; Hardouin, l.c. p.

CHAPTER - fta121 The two codices of Paris and Beauvais agree in giving iii nonas Maias as the day of the opening of this Synod; that of Surius, on the contrary, had iv nonas Maias= May 4. That the latter is incorrect, is clear from the statement of the synodal deputies who were sent to the Pope at the first session. They came to him for the first time on the 5th of May. He appointed them for the next day, and they relate in the second session that they received an answer from him on the 6th of May (Mansi, t. 9, p. 194; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 65). The 5th of May is also supported by the circumstance that it fell upon a Monday in the year 553, and Synods were generally opened on a Monday. Cf. Ballerini in their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris, t. 4, p. 960. fta122 On the presidency at the fifth Synod, cf. vol. 1, p. 31, and Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. sec. 6, t. 5, p. 436, ed. Venet. 1778. fta123 The order in which the bishops are entered in the minutes of the first session is different to some extent from that of their own signatures at the last session. Cf. Garnerii Diss. de V. Synodo, in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret, t. 5, pp. 543 sq. and 569 sq. fta124 Cf. the Praefatio Baluzii, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 164. fta125 Mansi, t. 11, p. 226; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 1067. At the twelfth session of the sixth OEcumenical Council also, the spuriousness of this Epistola Mennae was recognized. Cf. Mansi, l.c. p. 527; Hardouin, l.c. p. 1311. fta126 Mansi, t. 11, p. 226 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 1070. In the twelfth session this protest was also discussed. Mansi, l.c. p. 527 sq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 1311. fta127 Mansi, t. 9, p. 587 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 1359 sqq. fta128 Mansi, t. 11, p. 594 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 1363 sq. fta129 This is the view of the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris, t. 4, p. 1038. fta130 Mansi, t. 9, p. 163 sqq. Walch agreed with him, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 80. fta131 Only a few documents in Greek are now extant. We shall indicate them particularly further on. fta132 In his Supplementum Conciliorum, p. 1475 sqq. fta133 Cf. Hardouin, t. 3, p. 51, and t. 1, Praef. p. 8. fta134 Noris, Diss. de Synodo V . chap. 6, in the edition of his works by the Ballerini, t. 1, p. 688 sqq. fta135 Cf. the edition by the Ballerini of the works of Cardinal Noris, t. 4, p. 1014 sq. fta136 Ballerini, l.c. p. 1019. fta137 Cyrilli Vita Sabae, c. 90, in Coteler. Eccles. Graecae Monumenta, t. 3, p. 374. fta138 Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 924 and 707; Mansi, t. 10, pp. 887 and 1158. fta139 Mansi, t. 11, pp. 631 and 710; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 1395 and 1455. fta140 Reprinted in Galland. t. 12, pp. 169 and 175 sqq. fta141 Reprinted in Bd. 5, of Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret, p. 527. fta142 Gregor. M. lib. 2, Epist. 51, Opp . t. 2, p. 615 (alias lib. 2, Epist. 36, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 1105): “In Synodo, in qua de tribus capitulis actum est, aperte liqueat, nihil de fide convulsum esse vel aliquatenus immutatum, sed sicut scitis, de quibus dam illic sollummodo personis est actitatum, quarum una, cujus scripta evidenter a rectitudine catholicae fidei deviabant, non injuste damnata sunt.” fta143 That the copy of the Acts of our Synod extant in the Roman archives had the name of Origen in the eleventh anathematism, we learn from the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649, where this anathematism was read from the Roman copy, as follows: “Si quis non anathematisat Arium, Eunomium, Macedonium, Apollinarem, Nestorium, Eutychen, Origenem, cum impiis eorum scriptis,” etc. fta144 An eager denial has recently been given to the statement that Origen was, in a general way, anathematized at the fifth Synod, by Alois Vincenzi, Prof. in Archigymnasio litterarum hebraicarum in Rome, in his work, In sancti Gregorii Nysseni et Origenis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio, 4 vols., Rome 1865; 5th vol. ibid. 1869 (t. 4, chaps. and 10, and t. 5, App. 2, aa, c. 5). He endeavors, in a very thorough manner, to transform the whole history of the fifth OEcumenical Council, and has declared everything false and untrue which speaks against Origen and against Pope Vigilius. Cf. Tubingen Theol.

Quartalschr. 1867, S. 345 ff. fta145 Garnier (l.c. p. 544) remarks on this that many had been compelled.

Cf. above, sec. 258, and notes there. fta146 Up to this point the Paris codex does not vary from the text of Surius.

But from this point there is a considerable difference for a large space.

The Paris codex is here more complete, and the text of Surius (and the codex of Beauvais) certainly only an abridgment. We follow the Paris codex, but allow ourselves, in the translation of the broad imperial letter, several abridgments and contractions. fta147 he meant by this, as we subsequently learn, the letters of Eutychius, etc., to the Pope (see sec. 266). fta148 From this point onwards the codices again agree. fta149 Cf. above, sec. 140 in vol. 3. As at Chalcedon the Acts of the third Synod were read again, and (Sess. 1) among them the censure of that creed, the Emperor could say that the Council of Chalcedon had also condemned it. We think it necessary to remark this, in opposition to Garnier (l.c. p. 544). On the creed of Theodore, cf. Walch, Ketzerhist.

Bd. 5, S. 354 and 887. It is reprinted in Mansi, t. 4, p. 1347, and t. 9, p. 227; Hardouin, t. 1, p. 1515, and t. 3, p. 89. fta150 Mansi, t. 9, p. 178 sqq. Hardouin, t. 3, p. 54 sqq. A criticism of this imperial letter is given by Garnier (l.c. p. 544), who imputes to it several errors. In the Acts of our Synod this letter is extant only in an old Latin translation. There still exists, however, the Greek text of a similar edict, printed in Mansi, l.c. p. 582; Hardouin, l.c. p. 322. At the beginning, both texts, the Greek and the Latin, are of the same purport.

Further on the Greek has a long passage from Cyril, which certainly was not originally there (of. Garnier, l.c. p. 537); further on, the Greek text leaves out much which is found in the Latin. At the end the Greek text gives an extract from the decree of the fifth Synod on the three chapters (Sess. 8); particularly is the close of the synodal decree given almost verbally, even with reference to the passage of Scripture, Isaiah 1. (cf. Mansi, l.c. p. 587 with p. 376; and Hardouin, l.c. p. 326 sq. with p. 193). Garnier (l.c. p. 587) thought that this Greek letter of the Emperor and the decree of a Synod appended to it belonged, not to the Acts of the fifth Council, but to an earlier Synod held by Mennas, A.D. 546 — an invention of Mennas. Cf. sec. 258. fta151 These two letters are extant both in Greek and in Latin. fta152 Judices, a title of high office. Du Cange (Glossar. t. 3, p. 1570) says: “Judices interdum iidem, qui Comites, Magnates, Proceres vel Senatores .” Cf. above, sec. 188, note 1. fta153 The codex of Beauvais again mentions all the bishops by name. The same seems to have been the case with the codex of Surius. But Surius himself shortened it with et caeteris. The Paris codex, finally, mentions by name only the first ten bishops. fta154 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 194-196; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 65. In regard to this document also the Paris codex edited by Baluze differs considerably from the text of Surius and the codex of Beauvais. It is more complete.

But there is no contradiction between the texts. We have followed the Paris codex. fta155 Here, too, the Paris codex, which we follow, is again somewhat more complete than the other text. fta156 Mansi, t. 9, p. 198 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 68. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 226, has misunderstood the text of the Acts, and has taken the parting words of imperial officers for a part of the relation of the bishops. These, he says, had added that the Ministers had given to Vigilius assurances as to the orthodoxy of the Emperor. fta157 Mansi, l.c. p. 196 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 67 sqq. fta158 Mansi, l.c. p. 200 sqq.; Hardouin, l.c. p. 70 sq. fta159 It is not known who prepared this anthology. Some have supposed Bishop Benignus of Heraclea in Pelagonia, on account of that which is related of him below, sec. 272. Others have thought the Armenian monks (see sec. 160 in vol. 3,). Garnier (l.c. p. 547) thought that one or more of the bishops at the Synod had undertaken the work. fta160 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 202-230; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 71-91. fta161 Cf. his note 9 in Mansi, t. 9, p. 230. The Ballerini also, Norisii Opera, t. 4, p. 960, declared for this date. fta162 The expression anteriore die does not mean necessarily the day immediately preceding, as the Roman editors assumed in their correction of date mentioned above. fta163 The Acts of this session are found in Mansi, t. 9, pp. 230-297; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 91-139. fta164 On this writing of Cyril’s: Three Books against Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsns, cf. Fessler, Patrologia, t. 2, p. 564, and Garnier, l.c . p. 547 sq. fta165 The whole answer of Proclus is preserved among the Acts belonging to the Council of Ephesus, in Mansi, t. 5, p. 421; Hardouin, t. 1, p. 1722. See vol. 3, sec. 160. fta166 These we have met already (vol. 3, secs. 159 and 181), and find also in Mansi, t. 5, p. 413, t. 7, p. 495; and Hardouin, t. 1, p. 1715, t. 2, p. 673. The latter of these two edicts had an evil reputation in the Church from having been directed against Flavian, and had already been recalled by the Emperor Marcian. In the text of the first edict, as it appears in Mansi, t. 5, p. 413, and Hardouin, t. 1, p. 1715, the adherents of Nestorius are generally anathematized, and described as Simonians. In the text, however, as it appears in the Acts of the fifth Synod, the names of Diodorus and Theodore are inserted (Mansi, t. 9, p. 249 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 104). So, in the text of the second edict, the name of Theodore is introduced. Cf. Garnier, l.c. p. 548. fta167 Garnier (l.c. p. 548 sq.) regards them as spurious. fta168 Mausi, t. 9, pp. 231-254; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 92-108. All that was brought forward in the fifth session against the Mopsuestian was intended to send as answer to the Defensio of Facundus. Cf. Garnier, l.c. p. 550. fta169 Mansi, l.c. pp. 255-259; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 108-111. fta170 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 259-263; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 112-114. Cf. sec. 263. fta171 From this passage Noris thought (t. 1, p. 639) that he could prove, luce clarius , that Origen had at that time already been anathematized by the fifth Synod. But Theodore Ascidas (who is here the speaker) only says, in this passage, “the same bishops who are here present had lately anathematized Origen, i.e. had received the imperial edict against Origen of the year 548.” If, however, an anathema had already been pronounced on Origen by the fifth Synod itself, there could have been no controversy on the subject of the lawfulness of anathematizing a man after his death. Quite naturally Vincenzi explains the mention of Origen as an interpolation. fta172 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 263-274; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 114-123. fta173 Mansi, l.c. pp. 274-289; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 123-134. fta174 The last of these letters, with the superscription to John of Antioch, is ambiguous. One who is dead is there violently blamed (the superscription of the letter says Cyril of Alexandria); but John of Antioch died before Cyril, and it was therefore impossible that Theodoret should write on the death of Cyril to John of Antioch.

Either, then, the letter is spurious, or we must think of another than the Alexandrian (as Basnage did); or we must assume, with Peter de Marca and Noris, that in the superscription of the letter instead of John of Antioch we should read Domnus of Antioch. Cf. Garnier, De libris Theodoreti, in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret, t. 5, p. 376; Ballerini (in Noris, Opera, t. 4, p. 961), and Walch, Ketzerhist.

Bd. 8, S. 273 f. fta175 Mansi, l.c. pp. 289-297; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 134-139. fta176 Mansi, l.c. p. 297; Hardouin, l.c . p. 139. fta177 [Voices rather — testimonies in favor of the accused during the discussion.] fta178 This Votum is found here, and in the Acts of Chalcedon, only in the Latin translation. fta179 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 297-307; Hardonin, t. 3, pp. 139-147. fta180 Hardouin, t. 2, p. 539; Mansi, t. 7, p. 262. fta181 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 308-341; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 147-166. fta182 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 341-345; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 167-170. fta183 Mansi, t. 9, p. 345 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 170. fta184 It has been disputed whether and when the Synod received a sight of this Constitutum from the Emperor. But this dispute is quite without foundation, since the Emperor did not receive the Constitutum (and therefore could not communicate it to the Synod), as we see from the statement of the imperial Quaestor Constantine in the seventh session.

Cf. below, sec. 273. fta185 Reprinted in Mansi, t. 9, pp. 61-106; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 10-47. fta186 On these friends of the Pope, cf. Garnier, l.c . p. 555; Noris, l.c. t. l, p. 622 sq. fta187 Instead of ante multos Paschae, we should read non ante multos, etc., as is clear from what goes before. Cf. Garnier, l.c. p. 555. fta188 Pelagonia is a part of Macedonia. The text has here, by mistake Paphlagonia. Cf. Noris, l.c . p. 603. fta189 These sixty numbers contain in No. 13 a fragment of Theodore which was not contained among those fragments read at the fourth session.

Moreover, Nos. 42 and 43 among the seventy-one are here combined into No. 42, so that of the seventy-one there appear here properly sixty, and, in addition, one new passage. fta190 Mansi, t. 5, p. 993. C. 206. fta191 In their allocution to the Emperor Marcian, see vol. 3, sec. 193, and Hardouin, t. 2, p. 650; Mansi, t. 7, p. 466. fta192 Garnier (l.c. p. 555) says of this Constitutum, it is “mirabili quadam ratione compositum, ut nihil seculo sexto melius, et forte par editum reperiatur.” fta193 The Ballerini (in Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. 1037) raise objections which do not seem sufficient against the additional matter of the Paris codex. fta194 In regard to his speech the three codices differ widely. fta195 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 346-351; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 171-175. fta196 Mansi, l.c. p. 366; Hardouin, l.c. p. 186. fta197 Remi Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacres, etc., t. 16, p. 763; Du Pin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques, t. 5, p. 203. fta198 Walch passes over this difficulty entirely, and maintains (Bd. 8, S. 239) wrongly: “In all these documents I find no difference between the manuscripts, whilst, however, in fact, only the Paris codex has this imperial letter and the document No. 6 mentioned above. The Ballerini (in Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. 1036) hold the imperial letter to be spurious on insufficient grounds (the date). fta199 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 367-375; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 187-194. fta200 They have several improvements over the earlier statements, however, as is shown by Garnier, who highly commends them, in his Diss. de V.

Synodo, in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret, Bd. 5, S. 567. fta201 In Mansi, t. 9, p. 337, by a typographical error, lo>gon is wanting. fta202 Here and some words lower down the text is corrupt. The old Latin translator read kai< gennhqe>ntov ejx aujth~v , for he gives: “Et nato ex ipsa.” Instead of the following kat j ejkei>vou , he has: “Sicut illi (sc.

Theodore and Nestorius) dicunt.” fta203 The text in Mansi, t. 9, p. 381, is in this passage corrupt. I follow Hardouin and the text, as it is repeated in the Acts of the sixth OEcumenical Council. In Mansi, t. 9, p. 402; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. and 1091. fta204 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 284 ff.; Al. Vincenzi, in St. Gregorii Nysseni et Origenis Scripta, etc. (See sec. 267.) fta205 Noris, l.c. t. 1, pp. 643, 642, 638 sqq. fta206 Cyrill. Scythopol., Vita Sabae, chap. 90. (See secs. 267 and 275.)

CHAPTER - fta207 Zonarae Annales, lib. 14, chap. 8, ed. Du Cange, Paris 1686; t. 2, p. 68, ed. Paris; p. 53, ed. Venet. fta208 Leontius Byzant. De sectis Act . 6 in the Biblioth. Patrum, Lugdun. t. 9, p. 669; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 315. fta209 Victor. Tunun. Chron. ad ann. 553, in Galland. Biblioth. Patrum, t. 12, p. 231. fta210 On the chronology of Victor of Tununum, see sec. 146 in vol. 3. fta211 In Galland. l.c. t. 11, pp. 811-816. fta212 Cardinal Noris (t. 1, p. 669) contests this without adequate reason. So the Ballerini, l.c. t. 4, p, 962. fta213 This is contested by Noris, l.c. p. 677. fta214 Anastasii Vitae Pontif. Roman. sec. 107 sq. t. 3, p. 290 sq.; ed.

Bianchini and Marcellini, Chronic. in Scaliger, Thesaur. temp . p. 57. fta215 Evagrius, Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 4, chap. 38; Photius, De Synodis, in his first letter to the Bulgarian Prince Michael, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 655; Hardouin, t. 5, p. 1471. fta216 They are reprinted in Mansi, t. 9, pp. 414-420, and pp. 457-488; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 213 sqq. and p. 217 sqq. On these documents, their history and genuineness, cf. Marca’s dissertation on the first of them, in his De concordia sacerdotii et imperii, in the appendix, p. 207 sqq., ed.

Francof. 1708; and in Mansi, t. 9, p. 419 sqq. Further, Noris, De Synodo V., in the Ballerini edition of his works, t. 1, p. 667 sq.; and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 310. Garnier (De quinta Synodo, in Schulze’s edition of the works of Theodoret, t. 5, p. 587) endeavors to throw suspicion upon the first of these two papal documents (he could not do so with the second); but the Ballerini (in Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. 1042 sq.) opposed him, and recognized the genuineness of both these newly discovered documents. So also Pagi, ad ann. 554, n. 4. fta217 Like other letters of Vigilius, this was originally composed in Latin, and the Greek, which alone we now possess, is probably the official translation made at the very first for the Greeks. The Latin, which now stands beside the Greek, is Marca’s own version. fta218 Cf. on this document, Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 103, 302, 321. fta219 In particular, Vigilius brings out — (a ) Ibas declared that the Eutychians foisted spurious writings upon him; (b ) he declared the Nestorianising doctrines with which his accusers reproached him, foreign to him, and yet these were similar (?) statements to those in the letter to Maris; (c ) if Ibas had been able to invalidate all the other accusations of heretical teachings, yet the accusation would of necessity have remained correct, on account of the letter alone, if he was its author; (d ) the anathema on Nestorius and his teaching, which Ibas accepted, contradicts the contents of the letter to Marts (?); (e ) the earlier Judices at Berytus and Tyre said that Ibas was not convicted; but he would have been so if he had acknowledged the letter, for his accusers reproached him there exactly (?) with that which the letter contains; (f ) Ibas himself says that, after the union, he no longer declared Cyril to be a heretic; but the letter was written after the union, and Cyril is, in it, called a heretic; so that the letter cannot be from Ibas (this argument is invalid, for it is not said in the letter that Cyril is a heretic, but that formerly he taught Apollinarianism); (g ) Ibas, after the reading of the letter to Maris, demanded that now the letter of the clergy of Edessa should be read, in order to show that that letter was not from him (Vigilius brings this into the Acts); (h ) Ibas, immediately after the reading of the letter to Maris at Chalcedon, said: “Alienus sum ab his, quae mihi illata sunt”; by which he meant the letter (not the accusations in general). fta220 Mansi, t. 9, pp. 457-488; Hardouin, t. 3, pp. 217-254. fta221 Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 306 and 324. On the year of the death of Vigilius, cf. Noris, De synodo V. in the Ballerini edition of his works, t. 1, pp. 668 and 673; and Pagi, ad ann. 555, n. 7. Victor of Tununum gives the year of the return of Vigilius incorrectly as 557. fta222 Noris (l.c. p. 677) attempts to show that it was later, only after the death of Vigilius, that Pelagius was recalled from exile, and anathematized the three chapters. But Noris has Anastasius against him. fta223 Anastasii Vitae Pontificum, l.c. sec. 109, p. 292, t. 3, Noris (l.c. p. 677 sq.) thinks Pelagius defended himself, not against the suspicion of faithlessness to Vigilius, but against the reproach that he had violated orthodoxy by condemning the three chapters. fta224 Reprinted by Mansi, t. 9, pp. 589-646; wanting in Hardouin. fta225 Victor. Tunun. Chron. ad ann 554, in Galland. Biblioth. t. 12, p. 231. fta226 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 76 f., thought that the memorial proceeded from the Roman clergy, and that by the impious teacher Vigilius was meant. fta227 Victor. Tunum. l.c. ad ann. 554, 555, 556, 564. fta228 That Rhaetia II. belonged to the diocese of Aquileia, we see from a letter of the bishops there to Emperor Maurice, in Mansi, t. 10, p. 463. fta229 Pelagii I. Epist. 2, 3, 4, 5, in Mansi, t. 9, p. 712 sq., and the fragments of several letters of this Pope first edited by Lucas Holstein (ibid. p. 730 sqq.). That those four letters and four of these fragments compose, in fact, only three letters, was shown by Rubeis in his Monimenta Ecclesiae Aquileiensis , p. 204 sqq., and after him by Walch, Ketzerhist.

Bd. 8, S. 337 f. These letters and fragments are wanting in Hardouin. fta230 The latter is not earlier than about the year 700, under P. Sergius (sec. 283). Cf. Ballerini (in Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. 963); Rubeis, l.c. p. 216; and Walch, l.c. S. 381 and 335. fta231 Pelagii I. Epist. 6, 7, 10, 16, in Mansi, t. 9, pp. 716, 717, 722, 728.

Hardouin gives only the last of these letters, t. 3, p. 331. fta232 Cf. Noris, l.c. t. 1, pp. 693, 703. fta233 Gregor. M. Epist . lib. 4, Epp. 2 and 39 (earlier ed. lib. 3, Epp. 2 and 37) in the Benedict. ed. of the works of Gregory, t. 2, pp. 682 and 719; also in Mansi, t. 9, pp. 1157 and 1181 (here in accordance with the old numbering of the letters). fta234 Gregor. M. Epist . lib. 4, Ep. 2. Cf. Ballerini in Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. sq. fta235 Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 694. fta236 Cf. the later synodal epistle of the Istrian bishops, in Mansi, t. 10, p. 464. fta237 Cf. the three letters of Pelagius II. (really drawn up by his deacon Gregory the Great) in Mansi, t. 9, pp. 891-899, and p. 433 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 414. Cf. Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 710 sqq. fta238 They are found in Mansi, t. 9, p. 923 sqq., and are there, p. 927, declared to be spurious; so by Rubeis, Monim. Eccles. Aquil. p. sqq.; and Walch, l.c. S. 364. Noris, l.c. p. 704, defended this Synod; but even the Ballerini (in Noris, Opp. t. 4, p. 1055 sqq.) showed its spuriousness. fta239 Paul. Diac. De gestis Longobard. lib. 3, c. 26 (in Migne, Patrol. t. 45, p. 527), and the later letter of the Istrian bishops in Mansi, t. 10, p. 464. Cf. Noris, l.c. t. 1, pp. 713-716. Ballerini, ibid. t. 4, p. 973 sqq.; and Walch, l.c. Bd. 8, S. 391 and 365. fta240 His predecessor, Pelagius II., died February 8, 590; but, on account of the plague, the papal chair remained for seven months unoccupied. fta241 Gregor. M. Epist. ad Severum, lib. 1, Ep. 16; in the Benedictine ed. t. 2, p. 501; in Mansi, t. 9, p. 1038. fta242 The bishopric of Seben was afterwards removed to Brixen, and the Church of Brixen still celebrates a festival of St. Ingenuinus. Noris (l.c. p. 470) supposes that Ingenuinus afterwards united with Rome. fta243 Mansi, t. 10, p. 463 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 524. fta244 Cf. the Vienna Akad. d. Wissensch. Hist. Klasse , 1855, Bd. 17, S. 138. fta245 Letter of the Emperor to the Pope in Mansi, t. 10, p. 467; Hardouin, t. 3, p. 527. Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 2, Ep. 46 (earlier, 2:32), Benedict. ed. t. 2, p. 607. fta247 Noris, l.c. t. 1, pp. 725, 727. fta248 Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 2, Ep. 51 (earlier, 2:36). fta249 Biblioth. Patrum, Lugdun. t. 12, p. 28 sq.; Walch, l.c. S. 362. fta250 Norisii Opp. ed. Bailer. t. 4, p. 976 sq.; Walch, l.c. S. 348 sqq. fta251 Noris, l.c. t. 1, p. 728 sq. fta252 Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 5, Ep. 51, lib. 12, Ep. 33, and 13:33 (earlier, 4:49, 10:37, and 11:40); in the Benedictine edition, t. 2, pp. 778, 1203, 1240; in Mansi, t. 9, p. 1231, t. 10, pp. 331 and 364; Noris, l.c . t. 1, p. 732. fta253 Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 3, Epp. 29 and 30 (earlier, lib. 2:2, Epp. 29 and 30), in the Benedict. ed. t. 2, p. 644 sq.; in Mansi, t. 9, p. 1129 sq. fta254 Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 4, Epp. 2, 3, 4 (earlier, lib. 3, Epp. 2, 3, 4), in the Benedict. ed. t. 2, p. 622 sq.; in Mansi, t. 9, p. 1157 sqq. fta255 Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 4, Ep. 38 (earlier, lib. 3, Ep. 33), in the Benedict. ed. t. 2, p. 718; in Mansi, t. 9, p. 1178. fta256 Gregor. M. Epist. lib. 4, Ep. 39 (earlier, lib. 3, Ep. 37). fta257 Noris, Diss. de Synodo V . in the Ballerini, ed. t. 1, p. 727. fta258 Cf. Noris, t. 1, pp. 748, 752, and the Dissertation of the Ballerini, De Patriarchatus Aquil. origine, in the fourth volume of their edition of the works of Cardinal Noris, p. 1051 sqq., particularly p. 1068 sq.; also Rubeis, Monim. Eccles. Aquil. p. 287 sqq. fta259 The bishops of Aquileia, Maximus and Agatho, who were present at the Roman Synods in the years 649 and 679, were patriarchs of Aquileia-Grado, not of the schismatical Aquileia, as the Ballerini showed (t. 4, p. 964), correcting Noris. fta260 Mansi, t. 12, p. 115. Beda Veneral. De temporum ratione, chap. 66, with the special title: “Chronicon sire de sex hujus saeculi aetatibus,” writes (ad ann. Chr. 708): Synodus Aquileiae facta, ob imperitiam fidei quintum universale concilium suscipere diffidit donec salutaribus beati Papae Sergii monitis instructa, et ipsa huic cum ceteris Christi ecclesiis adnuere consentil. Bedae Opera, ed. Migne, t. 1, p. 569. With the like words Bede’s narration was repeated by Paulus Diaconus, De gestis Longobard. lib. 6, chap. 14. Even after the union the two bishops of Aquileia and Grado retained the title of patriarch, however without other privileges than those of metropolitans, and often had disputes with one another which Leo IX. settled, A.D. 1053, by exact definition of the boundaries of their dioceses (cf. Wiltsch, Kirchl.

Geogr. u. Statistik, Bd. 1, S. 277 and 279). The patriarchate of Grado was (A.D. 1451) removed to Venice, and still continues with this altered title. The patriarchs of Aquileia, however, after the destruction of this city, removed their see to Udine, until Benedict XIV. (A.D. 1751) completely abolished the patriarchate of Aquileia at the wish of Austria.

Gorz and Udine were therefore raised to be metropolitan sees, but the latter city was subsequently made suffragan to the patriarchate of Venice. fta261 Cf. Noris, Diss. de Synodo V. cap. 9, sec. 2, t. 1, p. 690; and Natal.