PL 5 · cols. 135–144

De S. Felice Romano pontifice notitia historica

Editors' preface

DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE,

ON ST FELIX, ROMAN PONTIFF,

NOTITIA HISTORICA.

HISTORICAL NOTICE.

Felix fit Pontifex, Romanus anno 269, die 28 vel 31 decembris. — Felix patria Romanus Constantii filius die 28 vel postremo anni 269, in Dionysii locum substitutus est. Hic insistens praedecessoris sui vestigiis nihil antiquius habuit, quam haereses insurgentes in Ecclesiam profligare. Quamobrem cum recens esset vulnus a Paulo Samosateno inflictum catholicae veritati, necdum obducta cicatrix de errore Sabellii, ipse de Filii Dei divinitate, ac pariter humanitate, naturisque duabus in una Persona distinctis ad Maximum episcopum alexandrinum Dionysii successorem scripsit epistolam, qua veluti ancipiti gladio utramque haeresim uno ictu confoderet; ut dum in Christo naturam monstraret divinam indivise humanitati conjunctam, Pauli haeresim condemnaret: dum vero humanam in eodem praedicaret a divina esse naturae proprietate distinctam, et divinae substantiae in tribus personis subsistentiam demonstraret,

Felix becomes Pontiff, a Roman, in the year 269, on 28 or 31 December. — Felix, a Roman by birth, the son of Constantius, was put in the place of Dionysius on the 28th or the last day of 269. Treading in the footsteps of his predecessor, he held nothing of greater account than to rout the heresies rising up against the Church. Therefore, since the wound inflicted on catholic truth by Paul of Samosata was fresh, and the scar from the error of Sabellius not yet closed over, he wrote a letter to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, the successor of Dionysius, on the divinity and likewise the humanity of the Son of God, and on the two natures distinct in one Person, by which, as with a two-edged sword, he might pierce both heresies at a single stroke; so that, while he showed the divine nature in Christ joined undividedly to the humanity, he condemned the heresy of Paul; but while he preached that the human nature in the same [Christ] is distinct from the divine by the property of nature, and demonstrated the subsistence of the divine substance in three persons,

Editors' notes and page, col. 135

Footnotes

(printed under page 70)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible (preceding piece)› · call in col 135

An. 269.

In the year 269.

(printed under page 70)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible (preceding piece)› · call in col 135

Idem Dionysius papa teste sancto Athanasio lib. de decretis synodi Nicænæ adversus Sabellianos [col. 136:] insignem scripsit epistolam in qua unitatem Dei in Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate egregie conformavit. Utinam ea nunc adesset ad refellendos novos veteresque Arianos et Sabellianos.

The same Pope Dionysius, as Saint Athanasius attests in his book On the Decrees of the Synod of Nicaea, wrote against the Sabellians a notable letter, in which he excellently set forth the unity of God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. Would that it were with us now, to refute the Arians and Sabellians, new and old alike!

LECTIONES VARIANTES (preceding piece) a ‹anchor: not visible› · col 135 Consulendo Labb.

"Consulendo" (by consulting), Labbe.

b ‹anchor: not visible› · col 135 Tumidos, Labb.

"Tumidos" (swollen), Labbe.

c ‹anchor: not visible› · col 135 Hortatur, Labb.

"Hortatur" (he exhorts), Labbe.

d ‹anchor: not visible› · col 136 Dectores Lab.

"Dectores" [as printed; probably "Doctores", teachers], Labbe.

e ‹anchor: not visible› · col 136 Per devia, Lab.

"Per devia" (by byways), Labbe.

f ‹anchor: not visible› · col 136 Facere nihil assurgimus, Lab.

"Facere nihil assurgimus" (we rise to do nothing), Labbe.

DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE NOTITIA HISTORICA (printed under page 70)

(1) ‹anchor: substitutus est› · call in col 135

Euseb. Hist. eccles., lib. VII, cap. 30 et 32; Pagius, ad annum 274, n. 2; l'Art. de vérifier les dates, pag. 243; Saccarelli, Hist. eccl., tom. IV, pag. 128.

Eusebius, Church History, book 7, chapters 30 and 32; Pagi, at the year 274, no. 2; L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 243; Saccarelli, Church History, vol. 4, p. 128.

(printed under page 70)

Page

running head: 135 DE S. FELICE ROMANO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A confessio (professio, ita in ms.); B mandamus, quibus et pietas; C Felix fit Pontifex; D Dionysii successorem scripsit epistolam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: a full-width band (the title DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE, NOTITIA HISTORICA., between rules) stands across cols 135/136 in mid-page; the text above it in both columns ends the previous work (another unit) and is not set here; per the unit boundary the band itself is not set (Q1: corrected from the receipt line, which said the paragraphs above the band were set here)
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at Felix fit Pontifex, Romanus anno 269
other: "confoderet" (Q2: the page prints o, not the œ ligature; the file had "confoederet")
running head: 135 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE. 136
marginal letters: A ‹confessio (professio› (preceding unit); B ‹est, dirigat› (between columns, preceding unit); C ‹Felix fit Pontifex›; D ‹Dionysii successorem scripsit›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:136

Sabellium confutaret. Eidem ritum faciendi sacrificia supra sepulchra aut memorias martyrum

he refuted Sabellius. To the same man the rite of performing sacrifices over the tombs or memorials of the martyrs

Editors' notes and page, col. 136

Footnotes

(2) ‹anchor: memorias martyrum› · call in col 136

Bona, lib. I, Rer. liturg., cap. 19, § 5. De Felice primo Summo Pontifice scribit Anastasius: Hic constituit supra sepulchra aut memorias martyrum missas celebrari, quia fortassis de hoc legem edidit, ne aliter fieri posset. Hinc existimaverim ortum morem consecrandi altaria cum reliquiis martyrum. Baronius, ad annum 275, § 2, scribit: « Ejusmodi institutionem longe ante Felicis papæ tempora Ecclesia sibi vindicat... Felicis ergo decretum stabilivisse videtur, quod absque scripto canone, traditione tantum simpliciter servaretur. » In hac sententia est etiam Tillemontius. Cæterum in hunc ipsum ritum verba Apocalypseos cap. VI: « Quare vidi subtus Altare Dei animas interfectorum propter Verbum Dei, » notante Bertio in Hist. eccles., tom. II, p. 3[?]3, § XIX, Dissert. de Rom. Episcop., sæc. III, colligitur ex Ambrosio, Ep. 22, alias 54, ut ait: « Succedant victimæ triumphales, ubi Christus hostia est; sed ille super altare, qui pro hominibus passus est, isti sub altari, qui illius redempti sunt passione. » Vide et Sermonem inter augustianos de SS., num. XI, nunc in appendicem rejectum. Confirmat ipsius ritus vetustatem prisca romanorum pontificum consuetudo sacrum peragendi supra beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli sepulchrum; unde Hieronymus adv. Vigilantium [col. 137:] sanctorum reliquiarum contemptorem ait: « Male facit ergo romanus episcopus, qui super mortuorum hominum Petri et Pauli secundum nos ossa veneranda, secundum te vilem pulvisculum, offert Domino sacrificia, et tumulos eorum Christi arbitratur altaria? » Faciunt quoque eam in rem accurata illa martyrum monumenta ad instar sacelli altarisve exposita, quæ in Roma subterranea describit Paulus Aringhius, ac Boldetus, de Cœmeteriis, lib. I, cap. 8. — Vetustum autem illum morem, nedum fidelium pietati, sed etiam nascentis Ecclesiæ angustiis, atque persecutionum temporibus congruum, et opportunum proximis sæculis obtinuisse, demonstrant PP. sermones habiti ad martyrum mensas: quos inter 113 Augustini de Diversis, inscriptus ad Mensam Cypriani, in quo hæc habentur: « Sicut nostis, quicumque Carthaginem nostis, in eodem loco, ubi propter nomen Christi sanguis fusus est Cypriani, mensa Deo constructa est. Tamen mensa dicitur Cypriani, non quia ibidem est unquam Cyprianus epulatus, sed quia ibi est immolatus; et quia ipse immolatione sua paravit hanc mensam, non in qua pascat, sive pascatur, sed in qua sacrificium Deo, cui et ipse oblatus est, offeratur. » Hinc spectant S. Paulini versus Natal. IX: Spectant de superis altaria tota fenestris, / Sub quibus intus habent sanctorum corpora sedem: / Namque et apostolici cineres sub cœlite mensa / Depositi, placitum Christo spirantis odorem / Pulveris inter sancta sacri libamina reddunt. Prudentius item, hymno XI, περὶ Στεφ.: Talibus Hippolyti corpus mandatur opertis, / Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo. / Illa sacramenti donatrix mensa, eademque / Custos fida sui martyris apposita, / Servat ad æterni spem vindicis ossa sepulcro, / Pascit item sanctis Tybricolas dapibus. Ex vetusta hac consuetudine altaria supra memorias martyrum construendi condi sacras reliquias sub iisdem altaribus ab episcopo consecrante animadvertunt præcitato cap. 19. eruditissimus cardinalis Bona, et ad Felicem I, Emmanuel a Schelstrate, Franciscus Pagius, et Antonius Sandinus.

Bona, Rerum liturgicarum book 1, chapter 19, § 5. Of Felix I, Supreme Pontiff, Anastasius writes: "He ordained that masses be celebrated over the tombs or memorials of the martyrs"; perhaps because he issued a law on the matter, that it might not be done otherwise. From this, I would judge, arose the custom of consecrating altars with relics of martyrs. Baronius, at the year 275, § 2, writes: "The Church claims such an institution as hers long before the time of Pope Felix... Felix's decree, then, seems to have established what was being kept simply by tradition alone, without a written canon." Tillemont is also of this opinion. Moreover, that the words of the Apocalypse, chapter 6, "Wherefore I saw under the altar of God the souls of those slain for the Word of God," refer to this very rite, as Berti notes in his Church History, vol. 2, p. 3[?]3, § 19, Dissertation on the Roman Bishops, third century, is gathered from Ambrose, Letter 22 (otherwise 54), where he says: "Let the triumphant victims come in, where Christ is the victim; but He upon the altar, who suffered for men; they beneath the altar, who were redeemed by His passion." See also the Sermon on the Saints, no. 11, among the Augustinian sermons, now relegated to the appendix. The antiquity of this rite is confirmed by the ancient custom of the Roman pontiffs of performing the sacrifice over the tomb of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul; whence Jerome, against Vigilantius, the despiser of the relics of the saints, says: "Does the Roman bishop do wrong, then, who over the bones of dead men, Peter and Paul — venerable in our judgement, in yours worthless dust — offers sacrifices to the Lord, and holds their tombs to be altars of Christ?" Those careful monuments of the martyrs, laid out after the fashion of a chapel or an altar, which Paolo Aringhi describes in his Roma subterranea, and Boldetti, On the Cemeteries, book 1, chapter 8, also bear on this matter. — That this ancient custom, suited not only to the piety of the faithful but also to the straits of the infant Church and to the times of persecution, and fitting, prevailed in the centuries that followed, is shown by the sermons of the Fathers delivered at the tables of the martyrs: among them sermon 113 of Augustine's De diversis, entitled At the Table of Cyprian, in which we read: "As you know, all of you who know Carthage, in the very place where Cyprian's blood was shed for the name of Christ a table has been built to God. Yet it is called Cyprian's table, not because Cyprian ever feasted there, but because he was sacrificed there; and because by his own sacrifice he prepared this table, not one at which he might feed or be fed, but one at which sacrifice may be offered to God, to whom he himself was offered." To this point St Paulinus's verses, Natalicium 9: "The altars, all of them, look out from windows above, beneath which the bodies of the saints have their resting place within; for the ashes of the apostles too, laid beneath the heavenly table, give back amid the holy offerings an odour pleasing to Christ, breathing from the sacred dust." Prudentius likewise, hymn 11, Peristephanon: "In such a hidden place the body of Hippolytus is laid, close by which is set an altar dedicated to God. That table, giver of the sacrament, set there also as the faithful guardian of its martyr, keeps his bones in the tomb in hope of the eternal Avenger, and feeds the dwellers by the Tiber with holy food." That from this ancient custom of building altars over the memorials of the martyrs sacred relics came to be laid up beneath those same altars by the consecrating bishop is observed by the most learned Cardinal Bona, in the chapter 19 cited above, and, at Felix I, by Emmanuel Schelstrate, Francis Pagi and Antonio Sandini.

(printed under pages 70–71)

Page

running head: [DE S. FE]LICE ROMANO PONTIFICE. 136 (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A ‹mitiget, pigros exacuat›; B ‹est, dirigat, ut sine quo›; C ‹straret, Sabellium confutaret›; D ‹etiam Tillemontius› (in the footnotes)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the paragraph of this column above the full-width band ends the previous work (another unit) and is not set here (Q2: corrected; the receipt line said it was set under col 135)
running head: 135 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE. 136
marginal letters: A ‹mitiget, pigros› (preceding unit); B ‹est, dirigat› (preceding unit); C ‹straret, Sabellium confutaret›; D ‹etiam Tillemontius› (in footnote)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:137

acceptum refert liber Pontificalis. Cum annos quinque catholicae Ecclesiae praefuisset, martyr decessit saeviente nona adversus christianos persecutione, quam Aurelius anno 272 exorsus fuerat.

is credited by the Liber Pontificalis. When he had presided over the catholic Church for five years, he died a martyr while the ninth persecution against the Christians was raging, which Aurelius had begun in the year 272.

Felix quando et quamdiu sederit? — Felicem quinque annis Ecclesiam gubernasse Eusebius tradit, eique Bucherianus Catalogus, alter reginae Suecorum, nec non Fossatensis, ac liber Pontificalis concinunt, quatenus eum temporibus «Claudii et Aureliani a consulatu Claudii et Paterni usque in consulatum Aureliani II et Capitolini,» hoc est ab anno 269 ad 274, pontificem fuisse docent. Ex hoc consensu minime ambigendum videtur, quin ipso anno quo vivere desiit Dionysius, adeoque post 26 decembris diem anni 269, Felix eidem successerit. At quo die vel mense idem papa obierit, non ita facile est eorumdem codicum auctoritate definire. Si enim Bucherianum consulamus catalogum, annis quinque mensibus undecim diebus viginti quinque Pontificatum gessit: adeoque non ad consulatum Aureliani II et Capitolini tantum, sed ad consulatum Aureliani III et Marcellini, hoc est ad annum 275 Pontifex fuisse dicendus esset. In codice reginae Suecorum, Fossatensi ac libro Pontificali annis quatuor mensibus tribus diebus viginti quinque sedisse, ac III kalendas junii in coemeterio suo via Aurelia sepultus esse scribitur. Etiamnum in Ecclesia, secundum Martyrologia Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi ac Romanum, S. Felicis Papae et Martyris festum III kalendas junii celebratur. In Bucheriano autem Depositionis episcoporum romanorum indiculo, notatur ipsius depositio tertio kalendas januarii in Callisti.

When and for how long did Felix sit? — Eusebius records that Felix governed the Church for five years, and with him agree the Bucherian Catalogue, the other [catalogue], that of the Queen of the Swedes, and also the Fossatensis, and the Liber Pontificalis, in so far as they teach that he was pontiff in the times "of Claudius and Aurelian, from the consulship of Claudius and Paternus up to the consulship of Aurelian II and Capitolinus", that is, from the year 269 to 274. From this agreement it seems that there should be no doubt at all that in the very year in which Dionysius ceased to live, and so after the 26th day of December of the year 269, Felix succeeded him. But on what day or in what month the same pope died is not so easy to determine on the authority of those same codices. For if we consult the Bucherian catalogue, he held the pontificate five years, eleven months, twenty-five days; and so he would have to be said to have been Pontiff not only to the consulship of Aurelian II and Capitolinus, but to the consulship of Aurelian III and Marcellinus, that is, to the year 275. In the codex of the Queen of the Swedes, the Fossatensis and the Liber Pontificalis it is written that he sat four years, three months, twenty-five days, and was buried on the third day before the Kalends of June in his own cemetery on the Aurelian Way. To this day in the Church, according to the martyrologies of Bede, Ado and Usuard and the Roman, the feast of St Felix, Pope and Martyr, is celebrated on the third day before the Kalends of June. But in the Bucherian list of the Deposition of the Roman bishops his deposition is noted on the third day before the Kalends of January, in [the cemetery] of Callistus.

Editors' notes and page, col. 137

Footnotes

(printed under page 71)

(1) ‹anchor: exorsus fuerat› · call in col 137

Nonam dicunt Eusebius et Hieronymus persecutionem in Chronico, item Orosius, lib. VII, cap. 23. Quidam, ut est apud Baronium, ad ann. 273, § 4, eam esse credunt, quam S. Leo, Serm. 74, cap. 6, facit octavam et celebrem propter innumera martyrum millia. Lactantius, de Mortibus persecutorum, cap. VI: « Aurelianus, » ait, « qui esset natura vesanus et præceps, quamvis captivitatem Valeriani meminisset, tamen oblitus sceleris ejus et pœnæ, iram Dei crudelibus factis lacessivit. » Non intentata igitur duntaxat persecutio ab Aureliano, ut visum Dodwello, sed et executioni mandata, uti loquitur, et probat Pagius ad ann. 27[?], § 9. Ideo autem Eusebius, lib. VIII Hist. eccl., cap. [?], scribit diabolum veluti somno sopitum Ecclesiæ pacem non perturbasse ab Decii et Valeriani temporibus usque ad Diocletianum, « quia, » ut ait idem Pagius, § II, « persecutio ab Aureliano excitata brevissima fuit, cum econtra tam Decii, quam Valeriani persecutiones diuturnæ fuerant: ob quam etiam rationem Numeriani et Maximiani Herculei mentionem non facit, qui tamen ante persecutionem Diocletianam Ecclesiam vexarunt, uti ex annalibus liquet. »

Eusebius and Jerome, in the Chronicle, call it the ninth persecution, and so does Orosius, book 7, chapter 23. Some, as is found in Baronius, at the year 273, § 4, believe it to be the one that St Leo, Sermon 74, chapter 6, makes the eighth, renowned for its countless thousands of martyrs. Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, chapter 6: "Aurelian," he says, "being by nature mad and headlong, though he remembered the captivity of Valerian, yet, forgetting his crime and its punishment, provoked the wrath of God by cruel deeds." So the persecution was not merely attempted by Aurelian, as Dodwell thought, but also "carried into execution", as he puts it, and as Pagi proves at the year 27[?], § 9. And the reason why Eusebius, Church History book 8, chapter [?], writes that the devil, as if lulled to sleep, did not disturb the peace of the Church from the times of Decius and Valerian until Diocletian, is, as the same Pagi says, § 2, "that the persecution stirred up by Aurelian was very short, whereas the persecutions both of Decius and of Valerian had been long-lasting; for which reason too he makes no mention of Numerian and of Maximian Herculius, who nevertheless harassed the Church before the Diocletianic persecution, as is clear from the annals."

(printed under page 71)

(2) ‹anchor: Eusebius tradit› · call in col 137

Euseb., Hist. eccl. lib. VII, cap. 32: « Qua tempestate cum Felix quinque annis romanam gubernasset Ecclesiam, Eutychianus in ejus locum successit. » Pag. 230 edit. Taurinensis.

Eusebius, Church History, book 7, chapter 32: "At that time, when Felix had governed the Roman Church for five years, Eutychianus succeeded in his place." Page 230 of the Turin edition.

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: 137 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A acceptum refert liber Pontificalis; B persecutionum temporibus congruum (footnote line); C Talibus Hippolyti corpus mandatur (footnote verse); D tamen oblitus sceleris ejus (footnote line)
old-edition numerals: (none)
running head: 137 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE. 138
marginal letters: A ‹acceptum refert› / ‹eique Bucherianus›; B ‹Pontifex fuisse dicendus›; C ‹stat, ad 29 diem›; D ‹mensem decembrem vixisse› (B, C, D stand at the right column)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: misprint kept as printed: "Aurelius" (for Aurelianus) in "quam Aurelius anno 272 exorsus fuerat" (Q2)
other: Q2 FLAG: on the page col. 137's text ends at "Eusebius tradit (2)," — the rest of the column is foot apparatus. The text of parts/c137_a.md from "eique Bucherianus Catalogus" to "in Callisti." is printed at the top of col. 138 (marginal A of col. 138 stands at "eique"); it is set under col. 137's rail and should move to the head of parts/c138_a.md (not moved here: Q2 writes only its listed columns). Those col. 138 words were checked only where the col. 137 images show the start of each col. 138 line and the p71 foot image shows "celebratur … in Callisti."

PL 5:138

Quae lectio ad superiorem revocari commode posset, cum hoc librariis facile accidat, ut III kalendas januarii, pro III kalendas junii scribant. Sed non item superior componi cum praemissis potest; cum ab exeunte mense decembri, quo Felicem ordinatum esse constat, ad 29 diem maii, menses duntaxat quinque solidi interjiciantur. Antonius Pagius in Bucherianum catalogum irrepsisse putat annis V, pro annis IV, atque hoc errato ex aliis libris correcto, retinendum esse annis IV, mensibus XI, diebus XXV. Et ex hoc catalogo sic emendato corrigere vicissim licet caeteros libros, cum antiquariis inusitatum non sit II, pro X, adeoque III mensibus pro XI mensibus pingere. Quapropter laudatus Pagius Felicem die 28 decembris anni 269 ordinatum, et die 22 mensis decembris anni 274 vita functum censet. Et ei quidem suffragatur Bucherianus depositionis romanorum episcoporum Indiculus, si III kalendas januarii pro XI kalendas januarii, lapsu, ut diximus, librariis familiari, in eum irrepsisse largiamur. Praeterea Felicem ad anni 274 mensem decembrem vixisse, successori ejus tempus assignatum persuadet.

This reading could conveniently be brought back to the former, since it easily happens to copyists that they write III Kalends of January for III Kalends of June. But the former cannot likewise be reconciled with what has been set out above; since from the end of the month of December, in which it is established that Felix was ordained, to the 29th day of May, only five whole months intervene. Antonius Pagi thinks that "five years" crept into the Bucherian catalogue in place of "four years", and that, this error being corrected from the other books, "four years, eleven months, twenty-five days" must be kept. And from this catalogue thus emended one may in turn correct the other books, since it is not unusual for copyists to write II for X, and so III months for XI months. Wherefore the Pagi already praised holds that Felix was ordained on 28 December of the year 269, and died on the 22nd day of the month of December of the year 274. And indeed the Bucherian list of the deposition of the Roman bishops supports him, if we grant that III Kalends of January crept into it in place of XI Kalends of January, by a slip familiar, as we have said, to copyists. Moreover, the time assigned to his successor persuades us that Felix lived until the month of December of the year 274.

Num S. Felix martyr. — Idem papa martyris titulo ab ephesina synodo, Cyrillo aliisque decoratur. Nec obstat quod apud Bucherium in Indiculo citato sub titulo Depositionis Episcoporum recensetur; cum sub eodem titulo legamus et Lucium, quem martyrio coronatum fuisse Cypriani testimonio indubitatum est. Profecto S. Felicis martyrium, praeterea catalogi praestantissimi, liber Pontificalis, Romanum, aliaque martyrologia testantur. Recte idcirco sapienterque

Whether St Felix was a martyr. — The same pope is honoured with the title of martyr by the synod of Ephesus, by Cyril and by others. Nor is it an obstacle that in Bucher, in the list cited, he is recorded under the title Deposition of the Bishops; since under the same title we read Lucius too, who, it is beyond doubt by the testimony of Cyprian, was crowned with martyrdom. Indeed the martyrdom of St Felix is attested, besides, by the most excellent catalogues, the Liber Pontificalis, the Roman and other martyrologies. Rightly therefore and wisely

Editors' notes and page, col. 138

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: romanorum indiculo› · call in col 138

Apud Schelestrat. et Brucher. in Doctrina temporum, pag. 269.

In Schelstrate, and in Brucher [as printed; Bucher], Doctrina temporum, p. 269.

(printed under page 71)

(2) ‹anchor: laudatus Pagius› · call in col 138

Pag., Crit. ad ann. 274, n. 2.

Pagi, Critica, at the year 274, no. 2.

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: [...]CE ROMANO PONTIFICE. (cut off at left edge of image; column number 138)
marginal letters: A ‹eique Bucherianus Catalogus›; B ‹Pontifex fuisse dicendus esset›; C ‹stat, ad 29 diem maii›; D ‹mensem decembrem vixisse›
old-edition numerals: (none)
running head: 137 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PONTIFICE. 138
marginal letters: A ‹eique Bucherianus›; B ‹Pontifex fuisse dicendus›; C ‹stat, ad 29 diem›; D ‹mensem decembrem vixisse›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:139

Papirius ita Felicem alloquitur: « Vir fuisti fide, vita, scientia clarus, et martyrio subeundo idoneus, ut eventus docuit. Id enim sub Aureliano, quod negari non potest, severo, truculento, utque Flavii Vopisci verbo utar, sanguinario principe, et christiani nominis acerbissimo hoste pro Christo constantissime subiisti, ut decebat Constantii filium, hoc enim patri tuo nomen erat. Itaque non inmerito Cyrillus Alexandrinus, et Vincentius Lirinensis, qui sub Coelestino primo vixere, te sanctum martyrem appellant. Et alius ille episcopus te producebat testem, Romanaeque Ecclesiae doctorem appellabat dicens: Sententia Felicis sanctissimi episcopi et martyris romani de Incarnatione Verbi et Fide. » Innuit his verbis Papyrius S. Felicis epistolam ad Maximum episcopum Alexandrinum contra haeresim Sabellii et Pauli Samosateni.

Papirius addresses Felix thus: « You were a man illustrious in faith, life and learning, and fit for undergoing martyrdom, as the outcome showed. For this you underwent most steadfastly for Christ under Aurelian, which cannot be denied, a severe, ferocious and, to use the word of Flavius Vopiscus, bloodthirsty prince, and a most bitter enemy of the Christian name, as befitted the son of Constantius, for that was your father's name. Therefore not undeservedly do Cyril of Alexandria and Vincent of Lérins, who lived under Celestine I, call you a holy martyr. And that other bishop brought you forward as a witness, and called you a doctor of the Roman Church, saying: The opinion of Felix, most holy bishop and martyr of Rome, on the Incarnation of the Word and on the Faith. » By these words Papyrius alludes to St Felix's letter to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, against the heresy of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata.

Felici reddita Epistola encyclica ejus decessori Dionysio ab antiochena synodo inscripta. — Compertum est ex Eusebio, nominatim Dionysio romanae urbis episcopo inscriptam esse encyclicam antiocheni concilii epistolam, qua de Paulo Samosatensi ob perversam doctrinam ac pravos mores a sede antiochena dejecto, et Domino in ejus locum suffecto admoneretur. « Quod quidem, » inquit Synodus, idcirco vobis significamus, ut ad eum (Domnum) scribatis, et ab eo communicatorias litteras accipiatis. Hic vero (Paulus) ad Artemam scribat, et ii, qui Artemam sectantur, cum illo communicent. Haec autem epistola cum Dionysio, morte interveniente, tradi non potuisset, saltem successori ejus, quemadmodum subinde, quoties idipsum contigit, semper factum esse constat, reddita est.

The encyclical letter written by the synod of Antioch to his predecessor Dionysius delivered to Felix. — It is established from Eusebius that the encyclical letter of the council of Antioch was addressed by name to Dionysius, bishop of the city of Rome, by which he was to be informed about Paul of Samosata, cast down from the see of Antioch on account of his perverse doctrine and depraved morals, and about Domnus, put in his place. « This indeed, » says the Synod, we therefore make known to you, so that you may write to him (Domnus) and receive letters of communion from him. But let this man (Paul) write to Artemas, and let those who follow Artemas communicate with him. Since this letter could not be delivered to Dionysius, death intervening, it was delivered at least to his successor, as it is established was always done thereafter whenever that same thing happened.

Aureliani Imperatoris judicium Romanae sedi gloriosum. — Interim Paulus, tametsi celebri adeo synodo, quam octoginta episcopis constitisse Hilarius tradit, condemnatus, e domo antiochensis ecclesiae recedere, eamque Domno concedere diu d⟨e⟩trectavit. Quocirca, « interpellatus imperator Aurelianus, Eusebii sententia hoc negotium rectissime dijudicavit, iis domum tradi praecipiens quibus italici christianae religionis antistites et romanus episcopus scriberent. Hac autem in causa interpellari nequit Aurelianus, nisi postquam is, Zenobia Orientis domina et Pauli patrona devicta, Antiochiam recepit: quod quidem sub exitum anni 272 contigisse eruditi notant.

The judgement of the Emperor Aurelian, glorious for the Roman see. — Meanwhile Paul, although condemned by so celebrated a synod, which Hilary records was made up of eighty bishops, for a long time refused to withdraw from the house of the church of Antioch and to yield it to Domnus. Therefore, « the emperor Aurelian, being appealed to, in the judgement of Eusebius decided this matter most rightly, ordering the house to be handed over to those to whom the Italian prelates of the Christian religion and the Roman bishop should write. But Aurelian could not be appealed to in this case except after he, having defeated Zenobia, mistress of the East and patroness of Paul, had recovered Antioch: which the learned note happened towards the end of the year 272.

Tam celebre judicium postulabat, ut Felix quam primum cum caeteris Italiae episcopis conveniret; indeque cum iis ad Domnum scriberet, sese ratam habere illius ordinationem, et Pauli condemnationem confirmare. Nec ullus videtur dubitandi locus, quin Felix id, quod muneris sui erat, eo in negotio praestiterit. Cum enim decessoribus ejus id moris semper

So celebrated a judgement required that Felix should meet as soon as possible with the other bishops of Italy, and then write with them to Domnus that he held his ordination valid and confirmed the condemnation of Paul. Nor does there seem to be any room for doubting that Felix performed in that matter what belonged to his office. For since with his predecessors this always

Editors' notes and page, col. 139

Footnotes

(printed under page 72)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 139

Euseb., Hist. eccles. lib. VII, cap. 3[0].

Eusebius, Church History, book 7, chapter 3[0] [the numeral is unclear on the scan; it reads like "5" or "30"].

(printed under page 72)

(2) ‹anchor: inquit Synodus› · call in col 139

Apud Euseb, loco citat., et apud Mansi, Collect. Concil., tom. I, pag. 1100.

In Eusebius, at the place cited, and in Mansi, Collection of the Councils, vol. 1, p. 1100.

(printed under page 72)

(3) ‹anchor: Hilarius tradit› · call in col 139

Hilarius, libr. de Synodis, n. 86.

Hilary, book On the Synods, no. 86.

(printed under page 72)

(4) ‹anchor: Eusebii sententia› · call in col 139

Euseb., loco citato.

Eusebius, at the place cited.

(printed under page 72)

Page

running head: 139 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹Papirius ita Felicem alloquitur›; B ‹Alexandrinum contra haeresim Sabellii›; C ‹potuisset, saltem successori ejus›; D ‹quidem sub exitum anni 272›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:140

fuerit, ut quaelibet res, quae de diversis ecclesiis ad ipsos referebantur, cum synodis communicarent, et exinde responsa illis darent, cumque morem eumdem decessores illius per plura saecula imitari non destiterint; quis ipsum rem neglexisse crediderit, quam imperatoris ethnici judicium toti Ecclesiae tam utile, nominatimque romanae tam gloriosum desiderabat? Tunc opportuna Felici data est occasio, qua Christi propugnaret Deitatem ac refutaret Paulum, qui Artemae revocans impietatem Deo, ut antiocheni patres loquuntur, bellum indicebat, ἀντιτασσόμενον αὐτὸν τῷ Θεῷ; quia divinam Christo naturam negabat. Quidquid ea occasione aliisve scripsit Felix, ita interiit, ut vix modicum fragmentum nomine ipsius inscriptum ad nos pervenerit. Hunc tamen scriptis celebrem exstitisse, hoc non levi argumento est, quod cum Apollinaristae, ut commenta sua auctoritate idonea tueri viderentur, varia opera non obscuris quibusdam, sed insignioribus Ecclesiae scriptoribus supponere studerent; hujus etiam Papae nomine nonnulla sibi confingenda duxerunt. Neque etiam neglexerunt ephesini patres ejusdem auctoritate fidem tueri. Sane inter Patrum testimonia fragmentum laudant Felicis sanctissimi Episcopi Romae, et Martyris ad Maximum Episcopum et Clerum Alexandrinum, quod et Cyrillus Apologetico adversus Orientales ad Anath. VI. inseruit, et Marius Mercator latinitate donavit.

was the custom, that they communicated to synods any matters whatever that were referred to them from the various churches, and thereupon gave them replies, and since his predecessors did not cease to imitate that same custom through many centuries, who would believe that he neglected a matter which the judgement of a pagan emperor, so useful to the whole Church and so glorious to the Roman [Church] in particular, required? Then a fitting occasion was given to Felix to fight for the Godhead of Christ and to refute Paul, who, reviving the impiety of Artemas, declared war on God, as the fathers of Antioch say, "setting himself against God"; because he denied the divine nature to Christ. Whatever Felix wrote on that occasion or on others has so perished that scarcely a small fragment inscribed with his name has come down to us. That he was nevertheless renowned for his writings is shown by no slight argument, namely that when the Apollinarists, so as to appear to defend their inventions with fitting authority, strove to pass off various works under the names not of certain obscure writers but of the more distinguished writers of the Church, they thought fit to forge some things for themselves under the name of this Pope as well. Nor did the fathers of Ephesus neglect to defend the faith by his authority. Indeed, among the testimonies of the Fathers they cite a fragment of Felix, most holy Bishop of Rome and Martyr, to Maximus, Bishop, and the Clergy of Alexandria, which Cyril also inserted in his Apologeticus against the Orientals on Anathema VI, and which Marius Mercator rendered into Latin.

Ejusdem fragmenti sinceritas adstruitur. Non desunt tamen qui fragmentum hoc Felici nostro abjudicantes, illud Felici, qui a Constantio imperatore in Liberii locum subrogatus est, tribuendum putent. Verum levis est omnino ratio, quae eos in hujusmodi opinionem adduxit. Hoc quippe uno nituntur argumento, quod fragmentum istud in ephesino concilio, ut et apud Cyrillum Julii papae testimonio postponatur. Si autem valeret ista ratio, Julio ac Felice dicendus esset posterior Cyprianus; siquidem is post illos in praedicto concilio citatur; et rursum Felice ac Julio antiquior censendus foret Atticus Episcopus C. P. quippe qui eisdem in laudato Cyrilli praeponitur. Sed Vincentius Lirinensis, et Hypatius Ephesiorum episcopus in collatione cum acephalis, ubi eadem testimonia commemorant, Felicem Julio, prout exigit temporum ordo, praeponunt. Praeterea nemo non videt indignum prorsus fuisse tanta Synodo, ut ad stabiliendam fidem, hominis ab Arianorum factione in catholici antistitis locum intrusi auctoritate uteretur. Neque vero sanctissimi episcopi Romae et Martyris titulus, quo Felicem Cyrillus et ephesini patres exornant, in hominem hujusmodi convenit. Ipsa denique inscriptio, quae Maximi Alexandrini nomen prae se fert, dubitare nos non sinit, quin subnexum fragmentum Cyrillus et ephesina synodus velut Felicis I testimonium laudarint. Quippe encyclica synodi antiochenae epistola, Dionysio Romano simul et Maximo

The genuineness of the same fragment is established. There are nevertheless some who, denying this fragment to our Felix, think it should be attributed to the Felix who was put by the emperor Constantius in the place of Liberius. But the reason which led them to an opinion of this kind is altogether slight. For they rely on this one argument, that this fragment, in the council of Ephesus as also in Cyril, is placed after the testimony of Pope Julius. But if that reasoning held good, Cyprian would have to be called later than Julius and Felix, since he is cited after them in the aforesaid council; and again Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, would have to be reckoned older than Felix and Julius, since he is placed before them in the cited [work] of Cyril. But Vincent of Lérins, and Hypatius, bishop of the Ephesians, in the conference with the Acephali, where they recall the same testimonies, place Felix before Julius, as the order of the times requires. Moreover, everyone sees that it would have been wholly unworthy of so great a Synod to use, for establishing the faith, the authority of a man intruded by the Arian faction into the place of a catholic prelate. Nor indeed does the title of most holy bishop of Rome and Martyr, with which Cyril and the fathers of Ephesus adorn Felix, befit a man of this kind. Finally, the inscription itself, which bears the name of Maximus of Alexandria, does not allow us to doubt that Cyril and the synod of Ephesus cited the appended fragment as a testimony of Felix I. For the encyclical letter of the synod of Antioch, to Dionysius of Rome and at the same time to Maximus

Editors' notes and page, col. 140

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: testimonia fragmentum laudant› · call in col 140

Concil. Ephes., act. I, pag. 512.

Council of Ephesus, Act 1, p. 512.

(printed under page 72)

(2) ‹anchor: Marius Mercator› · call in col 140

Mar. Mercat., pag. 178 et 240, edit. Baluz.

Marius Mercator, pp. 178 and 240, Baluze's edition.

(printed under page 72)

(3) ‹anchor: Vincentius Lirinensis› · call in col 140

Vincent. Lirin., Commonit., cap. 42.

Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, chapter 42.

(printed under page 72)

Page

running head: ...CE ROMANO PONTIFICE. 140 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A fuerit, ut quaelibet res; B brem exstitisse, hoc non levi; C cantes, illud Felici; D videt indignum prorsus
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:141

Alexandrino inscripta, hunc Maximum Dionysii Alexandrini successorem Felici nostro aequalem fuisse, certo nos docet.

of Alexandria addressed, teaches us for certain that this Maximus, the successor of Dionysius of Alexandria, was a contemporary of our Felix.

Adversa Lequienii opinio diluitur. — Verum alia ratione Michael Lequien doctis in Damascenum dissertationibus nihil jam superesse censet, cur idem fragmentum non tantum Felici nostro abrogare, sed et haereticis adscribere dubitemus. Ubi enim plures epistolas Julii Papae nomine ab apollinaristis confictas esse probavit, tandem subdit, epistola, quae sub Felicis Romani nomine ferebatur, unam naturam assertam fuisse testantur Hypatius et Liberatus; nec proinde dubitandi locus superest, quin ex eodem, ac caeterae, quas memoravi, fonte prodierit. Si tamen vir eruditus laudatis a se Hypatii ac Liberati verbis stare voluerit, ipsi testimonium, ab ephesino concilio ac Cyrillo prolatum, pro genuino Felicis foetu admittendum erit. Et ad Hypatium quidem quod attinet, duplex distinguit Felicis testimonium, unum prolatum a Cyrillo in ephesina synodo et alibi, alterum vero ab acephalis in scriptis haereticis, aut haereticorum opera corruptis laudatum: tum hoc postremum rejicere contentus ut spurium, primum ultro ac libenter ut genuinum agnoscit. Verba illius expendamus.

The contrary opinion of Le Quien is refuted. — But Michel Le Quien, in his learned dissertations on Damascene, holds on another ground that nothing now remains why we should hesitate not only to take the same fragment away from our Felix, but also to ascribe it to heretics. For when he had proved that several letters were forged by the Apollinarists in the name of Pope Julius, he finally adds: that in the letter which circulated under the name of Felix of Rome one nature was asserted, Hypatius and Liberatus testify; nor therefore does any room for doubt remain that it issued from the same source as the others which I have mentioned. If, however, the learned man is willing to abide by the words of Hypatius and Liberatus cited by himself, he will have to admit the testimony brought forward by the Council of Ephesus and by Cyril as a genuine offspring of Felix. And as regards Hypatius indeed, he distinguishes a twofold testimony of Felix, one brought forward by Cyril in the synod of Ephesus and elsewhere, the other cited by the Acephali in heretical writings, or in writings corrupted by the work of heretics: then, content to reject this latter as spurious, he readily and willingly acknowledges the first as genuine. Let us weigh his words.

Hypatii Ephesiorum Episcopi et Liberati Diaconi Verba de eodem fragmento expensa. — Acephali seu Severiani in collatione, quae Justiniani imperatoris ju⟨s⟩su in regia urbe anno 533 habita est, sanctos chalcedonensis concilii patres transgressionis postulant, « quia beato Cyrillo et beato Athanasio Alexandrinae civitatis Episcopis, Felice etiam et Julio Romanae Ecclesiae, Gregorio quin etiam mirabilium factore; et Dionysio Areopagita unam naturam Dei Verbi decernentibus post unitionem, hos omnes transgressi illi, post unitionem praesumpserunt duas naturas praedicare. » Quibus respondet Hypatius: « In tantum falsae sunt Epistolae sive testificationes illae, quas dicitis, ut neque unam ex illis beatus Cyrillus voluerit recordari, nec in Epistolis, quas ad Nestorium scripsit, aut in his quas contra blasphemias ejus protulit testificationes in sancta synodo ephesina, quando maxime debuit proferre eas, sed nec in expositione duodecim capitulorum adversus Theodoretum et Andream... sed nec adversus orientale concilium. » Tum testimoniorum a Cyrillo ephesina in synodo prolatorum, nominatimque Felicis sinceritatem tuetur, atque his opponit in hunc modum: « Sed et hoc dicimus, quia duodecim gloriosorum patrum testimonia adversus Nesto⟨r⟩ii blasphemias in Epheso B. Cyrillus proferens, id est sancti Petri episcopi alexandrini et martyris, sancti Felicis episcopi romani et martyris, Cypriani episcopi carthaginensis et martyris, B. Athanasii et B. Theophili episcoporum

The words of Hypatius, Bishop of the Ephesians, and of Liberatus the Deacon concerning the same fragment examined. — The Acephali or Severians, in the conference which was held by order of the Emperor Justinian in the royal city in the year 533, accuse the holy fathers of the Council of Chalcedon of transgression, "because, whereas blessed Cyril and blessed Athanasius, bishops of the city of Alexandria, Felix also and Julius of the Roman Church, Gregory too the wonder-worker, and Dionysius the Areopagite decreed one nature of God the Word after the union, those men, transgressing all these, presumed after the union to preach two natures." To which Hypatius replies: "So false are those letters or testimonies which you speak of, that blessed Cyril was willing to mention not even one of them, neither in the letters which he wrote to Nestorius, nor in those testimonies which he brought forward against his blasphemies in the holy synod of Ephesus, when he most of all ought to have brought them forward, nor even in the exposition of the twelve chapters against Theodoret and Andrew... nor even against the Eastern council." Then he defends the genuineness of the testimonies brought forward by Cyril in the synod of Ephesus, and by name that of Felix, and sets them against these in this manner: "But we say this too, that blessed Cyril, bringing forward at Ephesus the testimonies of twelve glorious fathers against the blasphemies of Nestorius, that is, of Saint Peter, bishop of Alexandria and martyr, of Saint Felix, bishop of Rome and martyr, of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, of blessed Athanasius and blessed Theophilus, bishops

Editors' notes and page, col. 141

Footnotes

(printed under page 73)

(1) ‹anchor: tandem subdit› · call in col 141

Le Quien, Dissertat. Damascen., II, § VII.

Le Quien, Dissertationes Damascenicae, 2, § 7.

(printed under page 73)

(2) ‹anchor: quia› · call in col 141

Labb., Concil., tom. IV, pag. 1766, et apud Mansi, Collect. Concil., tom. VIII, pag. 820.

Labbe, Councils, vol. 4, p. 1766, and in Mansi, Collection of the Councils, vol. 8, p. 820.

(printed under page 73)

(3) ‹anchor: aut in his› · call in col 141

Ita intellige, quasi mox legeretur testificationibus.

Understand it thus, as if "testificationibus" were read just after.

(printed under page 73)

(4) ‹anchor: adversus orientale› · call in col 141

Hoc est in Apologetico adversus Orientales.

That is, in the Apology against the Orientals.

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: 141 DE S. FELICE ROMANO PO[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A Alexandrino inscripta, hunc Maximum Dionysii; B stare voluerit, ipsi testimonium, ab ephesino conci-; C lant, « quia beato Cyrillo et beato Athanasio; D concilium. » Tum testimoniorum a Cyrillo ephesina
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Q2: call (1) is visible at "tandem subdit (1)" (Q1's comment that it fell outside the image removed)

PL 5:142

Alexandriae, Julii episcopi Romae, Ambrosii et Basilii, Gregorii, et alterius Gregorii Amphilochii Iconii, et Attici Constantinopolitani, nullum testimonium eorum de una natura protulit. » Subjiciun⟨t⟩ acephali: « Quid ego suspicamini, quia nos eas falsavimus? » Epistolas scilicet, quas Felicis aliorumque nomine proferebant. Quibus Hypatius satisfacit his verbis: « Vos non suspicamur, sed antiquos haereticos apollinaristas. » Tum iisdem haereticis instantibus ac dicentibus, « Possumus ostendere, quia B. Cyrillus usus est istis testimoniis in libris adversus Diodorum et Theodorum; » respondet idem Hypatius: « Modo maxime et illos adversus Diodorum et Theodorum libros ambiguos facitis, tamquam fictos adversus mortuos prolatos dicentes, qui non poterant refellere falsitatem. Si enim adversus mortuos prolati sunt, multo magis adversus Nestorium et eos qui contra capitula ejus scripserunt, proferre habuit eadem testimonia. Sed nunc videtur quia haeretici falsantes addiderunt ea. »

of Alexandria, of Julius bishop of Rome, of Ambrose and Basil, of Gregory, and of the other Gregory, of Amphilochius of Iconium, and of Atticus of Constantinople, he brought forward no testimony of theirs concerning one nature." The acephali add: "Why then do you suspect that we have falsified them?" That is, the letters which they were producing under the name of Felix and of others. To which Hypatius answers in these words: "We do not suspect you, but the ancient heretics, the Apollinarists." Then, when the same heretics pressed him and said, "We can show that blessed Cyril used these testimonies in his books against Diodorus and Theodore," the same Hypatius replies: "Now above all you make those books against Diodorus and Theodore doubtful too, saying that they were feigned and published against dead men, who could not refute the falsehood. For if they were published against the dead, much more ought he to have brought forward the same testimonies against Nestorius and those who wrote against his chapters. But now it appears that heretics, falsifying, added them."

Liberatus vero primum hanc cum acephalis collationem cap. 9. memorat, ac deinde cap. 10 perstringens, quae proxime ex illa descripsimus, subdit: « Cyrillus quatuor libros scripsit, tres adversus Diodorum et Theodorum, quasi essent Nestoriani dogmatis auctores, et alium de Incarnatione librum, in quibus continentur antiquorum patrum corrupta » (ita vetus codex corbeiensis, ubi in vulgatis mendose incorrupta) « testimonia, id est Felicis Papae, Dionysii Areopagitae Corinthiorum episcopi, et Gregorii mirabilis θαυματούργου cognominati. Contra quos catholici veritatis defensores sic acephalis responderunt, illos libros non esse Cyrilli, quoniam testimoniis, quae in eis contra mortuos posuisse dicitur, contra viventem Nestorium non est usus, neque in aliquibus Epistolis. Unde dicunt illos libros nec dictasse Cy⟨r⟩illum, nec edidisse. » Cum igitur Liberatum ex Hypatii sententia loqui manifestum sit, unum censeri debet utriusque testimonium. Ex quo conficitur, unius ejusdemque Felicis nomine cum geminas ac sinceras, tum falsas aut adulteratas divulgatas litteras: et genuinas quidem in ephesino concilio, falsas autem seu corruptas ab acephalis fuisse laudatas.

Liberatus, moreover, first mentions this conference with the acephali in ch. 9, and then in ch. 10, touching briefly on what we have just copied from it, he adds: "Cyril wrote four books, three against Diodorus and Theodore, as if they were the authors of the Nestorian doctrine, and another book on the Incarnation, in which are contained corrupted" (so the old Corbie manuscript, where the printed editions faultily have "uncorrupted") "testimonies of the ancient fathers, that is, of Pope Felix, of Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of the Corinthians, and of Gregory the wonderful, surnamed Thaumaturgus. Against these the catholic defenders of the truth answered the acephali thus: that those books were not Cyril's, since the testimonies which he is said to have placed in them against the dead he did not use against the living Nestorius, nor in any of his letters. Hence they say that Cyril neither dictated nor published those books." Since, therefore, it is plain that Liberatus speaks according to the view of Hypatius, the testimony of both must be reckoned as one. From this it follows that under the name of one and the same Felix there were circulated both genuine and sincere letters and also false or adulterated ones; and that the genuine ones were cited in the council of Ephesus, but the false or corrupted ones by the acephali.

Utut in dubium revocari possit ejus integritas. Catholica tamen est sententia. Omnis vero dubitatio ex veterum auctoritate sublata. — Inde tamen moveri me fateor, ne Felicis epistolam etiam in ephesino concilio, et a Cyrillo laudatam pro indubitata habeam, quod Cyrillus in epistola ad Successum et alibi unam verbi naturam incarnatam profiteatur. Neque enim aliunde ad hujusmodi professionem adductus videtur, nisi quod scripta, quae apollinaristae clarorum virorum nominibus confinxerant, eorum existimavit esse quorum nomina prae se ferrent. Hinc et Flavianus in confessione, quam ad Theodosium imperatorem misit: « Unum quidem, inquit, verbi Dei naturam, incarnatam tamen et inhumanatam, dicere non negamus, eo quod ex ambabus unus atque idem sit Dominus

Although its integrity may be called into question, the opinion is nevertheless catholic. But all doubt is removed by the authority of the ancients. — Yet I confess that I am deterred from holding as undoubted the letter of Felix, cited even in the council of Ephesus and by Cyril, by this: that Cyril, in the letter to Successus and elsewhere, professes one incarnate nature of the Word. For he does not seem to have been led to a profession of this kind from any other source than that he thought the writings which the Apollinarists had fabricated under the names of famous men belonged to those whose names they bore. Hence Flavian too, in the confession which he sent to the emperor Theodosius: "One nature indeed," he says, "of God the Word, yet incarnate and made man, we do not refuse to affirm, because out of both He is one and the same Lord

Editors' notes and page, col. 142

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Unum quidem, inquit› · call in col 142

Calced. Concil., part. cap. V, et liberat. cap 11,

Council of Chalcedon, part [as printed; the part number is omitted], chapter 5, and Liberatus, chapter 11.

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: ICE ROMANO PONTIFICE. (start of head cut off at image edge; column number 142)
marginal letters: A rum Alexandriae, Julii episcopi; B fellere falsitatem. Si enim; C mirabilis θαυματούργου cognominati; D terum auctoritate sublata
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:143

noster Jesus Christus. » Utut est, si haeretici est fragmentum illud F⟨e⟩licis nomine inscriptum, ejus est, qui cum catholicus videri affectet, suas ab orthodoxa fide voces mutuatur. Illud certe cum Cyrillus et ephesina synodus sanctissimo papa et martyre Felice non indignum judicarint, atque ut ejusdem deinde Marius Mercator, Vincentius Lirinensis, Hipatius Ephesiorum episcopus, aliique catholici admiserint, quamdiu aliud non constabit, religioni nobis est hinc illud submovere. Sane ut orthodoxum quisque proferre tuto valeat, quod tanta auctoritate fulcitur.

our Jesus Christ." However that may be, if that fragment inscribed with the name of Felix is a heretic's, it belongs to one who, while he affects to seem catholic, borrows his expressions from the orthodox faith. Certainly, since Cyril and the Ephesine synod judged it not unworthy of the most holy pope and martyr Felix, and since thereafter Marius Mercator, Vincent of Lérins, Hypatius bishop of the Ephesians and other catholics admitted it as his, so long as nothing else is established, we scruple to remove it from here. Indeed each may safely bring forward as orthodox what is supported by such great authority.

Quin et ex eodem fragmento Apollinaris haeresis profligatur. — Apollinaris haeresis, quae corpus hominis anima vel mente destitutum adeoque hominem imperfectum a Christo assumptum volebat, postremis hujus verbis profligatur. Quocirca vel hinc suspicio, ne forte illud apollinaristae alicujus opificium sit, omnino removeretur, si haereticorum illorum artes ac fraudes laterent. Sed ut prudens observavit laudatus Michael Lequienius, et Epiphanius memoriae prodidit, praedicare non dubitavit Vitalis Apollinarii discipulus, omnino perfectus homo Christus extitit, ac nihilominus mentem a Christo susceptam esse haud cunctanter negavit. Quod quo pacto componeret rogatus, respondit: « Eatenus perfectum hominem fuisse dicimus, si divinitatem illi loco mentis adscribamus et carnem atque animam adjungamus sic, ut perfectus homo ex carne, anima et divinitate, quae sit mentis instar, existat. » Verum mentitur iniquitas sibi. Quem enim potiori hominis parte caruisse censet, hominem perfectum non nisi per ludificationem appellat. Hactenus Coutantius.

Moreover, the heresy of Apollinaris is overthrown by the same fragment. — The heresy of Apollinaris, which held that a human body destitute of soul or mind, and so an imperfect man, was assumed by Christ, is overthrown by the last words of this [fragment]. Therefore even from this alone the suspicion that it might perhaps be the handiwork of some Apollinarist would be entirely removed, if the arts and frauds of those heretics were hidden. But, as the aforementioned Michel Le Quien has wisely observed, and as Epiphanius has recorded, Vitalis, a disciple of Apollinarius, did not hesitate to preach that Christ was an entirely perfect man, and nonetheless without hesitation denied that a mind was taken up by Christ. Asked how he reconciled this, he answered: “We say that He was a perfect man to this extent, if we ascribe the divinity to Him in place of a mind and join flesh and soul to it in such a way that a perfect man exists from flesh, soul and divinity, which is as it were a mind.” But iniquity lies to itself. For one whom he holds to have lacked the better part of a man, he calls a perfect man only by way of mockery. Thus far Coustant.

Uti in caeteris veterum romanorum pontificum epistolis edendis Coutantium secutus est Gallandius; ita hujus pariter fragmenti Feliciani editionem adornavit ad exemplar Coutantianum; ejusdem Coutantii judicium de hoc fragmento, atque vindicias prolegomenis suis cap. 14, tom. III. Bibliothecae veterum Patrum inseruit.

As in editing the other letters of the ancient Roman pontiffs Gallandi followed Coustant, so likewise he prepared his edition of this Felician fragment on the Coustant model; and he inserted the judgement of the same Coustant on this fragment, and the defence of it, into his prolegomena, chap. 14, in vol. III of the Bibliotheca veterum Patrum.

Tres adhuc Felici I assignantur epistolae a pseudo-Isidoro. Prima ad Paternum episcopum sex capita continet: 1° Quod fautores inimicorum ab accusatione episcopali submoveantur. 2° Ne majores a minorum accusationibus impetantur. 3° Ne in re dubia non judicetur certa sententia. 4° Ut clerici suas actiones exerceant. 5° Quomodo primates in accusatum episcopum se gerere debeant. 6° Judices Ecclesiae ne absente eo, cujus causa ventilatur, sententiam proferant. Data est nonis junii Claudio et Aureliano viris clariss. coss. — Secunda epistola, de auctoritate sedis apostolicae, et de episcopis accusatis, universis per Gallias episcopis constitutis missa est. Data est V idus Augusti Claudio et Paterno viris clariss. coss. Tertia denique epistola ad Benignum episcopum duo complectitur. Damnat et eos, qui filium non videre Patrem contendunt, et illos qui affirmant Filium esse Patre minorem: Data nonis Februarii Claudio et Paterno viris clariss. coss. At frustra subdolum rete suum larvatus ille Felix tendit eruditis. Primae Epistolae falsissima est subscriptio. Sedente Felice nullus Claudii et Aureliani consulatus. Initium hoc epistolae, gaudere me plurimum et exultare in Domino, verbaque sequentia bene multa extant Leonis in epistola XXXI. Secunda subscriptio veteratorem prodit. Vita in Dionysio morabatur idibus augusti Claudio et Paterno coss. Qui Felix ergo eo tempore, Galliarum episcopis, decretalem mittere suam potuit? Initium quoque decretali foeneravit Leo epistola XXXII. Bonorum operum et spiritualium, etc. Nec uno hoc furto contentus subditus ille Felix, ex Petri episcopi Ravennatis ad Eutychem presbyterum Epistola verba desumpsit. Inspiciatur Bibliotheca magna Patrum, tom VII, p. 979, et Mansi, Ampl. collect. concilior., tom. I, pag. 1103—1114. Has Felicis I epistolas falsitatis convictas exhibet etiam Blondellus in Pseudo-Isidoro, pag. 355 et seq.

Three further letters are assigned to Felix I by pseudo-Isidore. The first, to Bishop Paternus, contains six chapters: 1. That those who favour enemies be kept away from accusing a bishop. 2. That superiors be not assailed by the accusations of inferiors. 3. That in a doubtful matter a definite sentence be not pronounced. 4. That clerics carry on their own actions. 5. How primates ought to conduct themselves towards an accused bishop. 6. That the judges of the Church not pronounce sentence in the absence of him whose case is being discussed. It is dated on the nones of June, Claudius and Aurelianus, most illustrious men, being consuls. — The second letter, on the authority of the apostolic see and on accused bishops, was sent to all the bishops established throughout the Gauls. It is dated on the fifth day before the ides of August, Claudius and Paternus, most illustrious men, being consuls. Finally, the third letter, to Bishop Benignus, comprises two things. It condemns both those who contend that the Son does not see the Father, and those who affirm that the Son is less than the Father: dated on the nones of February, Claudius and Paternus, most illustrious men, being consuls. But in vain does that masked Felix spread his crafty net for the learned. The subscription of the first letter is utterly false. While Felix sat [as pope] there was no consulship of Claudius and Aurelianus. This beginning of the letter, "that I greatly rejoice and exult in the Lord," and a great many of the words that follow, are extant in Leo's thirty-first letter. The second subscription betrays the old impostor. Life still dwelt in Dionysius on the ides of August, Claudius and Paternus being consuls. What Felix, then, could have sent his decretal at that time to the bishops of the Gauls? Leo also lent the decretal its beginning, in his thirty-second letter: "Of good and spiritual works," etc. Nor content with this one theft, that supposititious Felix took words from the letter of Peter, bishop of Ravenna, to the presbyter Eutyches. Let the Bibliotheca magna Patrum, vol. VII, p. 979, be consulted, and Mansi, Ampl. collect. concilior., vol. I, pp. 1103–1114. Blondel too, in his Pseudo-Isidorus, p. 355 ff., presents these letters of Felix I as convicted of falsity.

Editors' notes and page, col. 143

Footnotes

(printed under page 74)

(1) ‹anchor: Epiphanius› · call in col 143

Epiphan., Hæres. LXXVII, § 23.

Epiphanius, Heresies (Panarion), 77, § 23.

(printed under page 74)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] FELICIS PAPÆ 144
marginal letters: A ‹menis suis cap. 14›; B ‹per Gallias episcopis constitutis›; C ‹episcopis, decretalem mittere›; D ‹πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸν Κύριον›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-word "menis" (rest of a word from col. 143); editors' matter set: the notice on the letters of Felix I (‹menis suis cap. 14›, continued from col. 143), ending ‹Pseudo-Isidoro, pag. 355 et seq.›; "pseudo-Isidoro" and "Pseudo-Isidoro" are broken at line end, hyphen kept as part of the compound; full-width rule and heading "[FRA]GMENTUM" printed across both columns above the Greek, cut off at the image's left edge, not set; in the Greek, faint marks after Μάξιμον, Χριστὸν and ἀναληφθείς look like stray points or damaged commas — set as no point / comma / comma, UNSURE; "Inspiciatur" read through damaged type; Blondel page number read as 355 (last digit small and worn), UNSURE
other: the 2 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 143 (reading order, moved on receipt)
other: the text of this column below the full-width band belongs to the next unit; not set here (rail-only part)