Ballerini, De epistolis deperditis tum S. Leonis ad alios, tum aliorum ad S. Leonem, Dissertatio; Decreta Leoni papae tributa

ON THE LOST EPISTLES

Both of Saint Leo to others and of others to Saint Leo, and on other records pertaining to the epistles, arranged in chronological order.

A DISSERTATION.

In which the three fragments that survive from Leo are also inserted.

Quesnel, at the end of the second volume, presented a catalogue of these epistles and documents, but one so defective and disordered, with no order of chronology kept and with some documents even repeated twice, that it is of little use. We have therefore thought that a clearer and more exact account should be brought forward here. Yet an account will be given only of those documents of which particular indications have come down to us, although there is no doubt that many others existed, of which no mention survives.

IN THE YEAR 431.

1. Before the pontificate of Saint Leo, one epistle of Saint Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to the same man, then archdeacon of the Roman Church, is mentioned in epistle 119, chapter 4, and its occasion is set forth thus: In the synod of Ephesus, which struck down the impious Nestorius together with his doctrine, Bishop Juvenal (of Jerusalem) believed himself able to suffice for obtaining the primacy of the province of Palestine, and his insolent ventures, by means of fabricated writings,

to confirm. Which Cyril of holy memory, bishop of Alexandria, rightly shuddering at, made known to me in his writings what the cupidity of the aforesaid man had dared; and with anxious entreaty he earnestly demanded that no assent be given to unlawful attempts. See annotation 24 (col. 1013, n. h) on the aforesaid epistle.

ABOUT THE YEAR 442.

2. Septimus, bishop of Altinum, sent to Leo a report, which the latter had appended to the first epistle. In it, moreover, the former indicated (as the same pontiff attests in that same first epistle) that certain presbyters and deacons, and clerics of various rank, whom the Pelagian or Celestian heresy held entangled, had in your province (that of Aquileia) come to Catholic communion in such a way that no condemnation of their own error was required of them. This report of Septimus is the same as that epistle of his to Leo which the holy pontiff relates in epistle 42 that he had read. Photius mentions this letter of Septimus in codex 54, in these words: When afterwards, in the course of time, the men of this sect had been restored to the Church, the evil was renewed by them again. But Bishop Septimus checked the course of the reviving plague by sending a letter to Leo, who then held the apostolic see; who

Leo fought with fervent zeal against the impious, namely in epistles 1 and 2.

ABOUT THE YEAR 443.

3. About the same time, or later in the year 443, Leo sent a letter to Cyril; and when the latter had replied to it, the holy pontiff dispatched another epistle to Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, to which he appended the reply received from Cyril. See the admonition on epistle 3. All these epistles were concerned with the doubtful day of Easter in the year 444. There survive only the reply of Paschasinus and a fragment of the epistle of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, which we have published in their place.

4. Towards the end of the year 443 the holy Pontiff, in order to uncover the Manichaeans at Rome and publicly convict them, drew up acts with most careful inquiries in a very crowded assembly, at which, besides the priests, a certain part of the senate and other illustrious men, and many of the people, were present. See sermon 16, chapter 4, epistle 7, chapter 1, and epistle 15, chapter 16. Now these acts, by which the perverse doctrine and corrupt morals of the Manichaeans were laid open from their own confession, were sent on 30 January of the year 443 with epistle 7 to the bishops of Italy, and afterwards in the year 447 to Turribius of Astorga with epistle 15, according to chapter 16.

5. Before epistle 6, written at the beginning of the year 444, Leo had sent another to Anastasius of Thessalonica, in which he had admonished him to inform us from time to time by his own report about the state of your Churches (those of Illyricum), as he writes in epistle 5, chapter 5. For this admonition, as we observed in annotation 8 (col. 615 (g) on the same epistle 4, is by no means read in the sixth epistle to Anastasius himself. Perhaps Saint Leo, writing to the bishop of Thessalonica after his own elevation, had commended this care to him with an anxious admonition.

6. Now the same Anastasius, meaning to obey an admonition of this kind, sent the presbyter Nicolaus to Leo with a letter, in which he informed Leo about the state of the Churches; and on this occasion he asked of him that the authority of the apostolic vicariate throughout Illyricum, formerly handed down by his predecessors the Roman pontiffs and conferred on himself by Xystus, be confirmed. See epistle 6, chapters 1 and 2; and since that was given to him by Leo on the day before the Ides of January of the year 444, this epistle of Anastasius belongs to the year 443.

IN THE YEAR 445.

7. On account of Celidonius, deposed by Hilary, bishop of Arles, a Roman council was held with both present, the acts of which are mentioned in epistle 10, chapter 3: what acts, therefore, were drawn up before us in the cause of Bishop Celidonius, what Hilary said while he was being heard together with him, the aforesaid bishop being present, the order of events entered in the records shows.

8. An epistle of Bishop Projectus, and another of his fellow citizens, to Leo against Hilary, who had ordained another over him while he was sick, are mentioned in the same epistle 10, chapter 4.

9. The epistle of Leo by which, as he affirms in epistle 66, chapter 2, he transferred to the bishop of Vienne the metropolitan right taken away from Hilary of Arles, has not come down to us. For since that was not done by the epistle which we have relegated to the appendix as spurious, it must be attributed to another epistle, which is wanting.

10. An epistle to the bishops of Mauretania, by which the holy Pontiff made known to them that he had delegated his own office to Bishop Potentius, who was setting out for Africa, so that he might inquire what the truth was concerning the bishops whose election was reported to be blameworthy, and faithfully report everything to us, is gathered from epistle 12, chapter 1.

11. The report of Potentius, by which, fulfilling the aforesaid delegation, he disclosed everything to the fullest knowledge (of Leo), and laid open to us in a sincere report under which and what kind of rulers certain of Christ's people in the parts of the province of Caesariensis are held, is indicated in the same epistle 12, chapter 1.

12. An epistle of the Illyrian metropolitans, returned in answer to the letter of Leo by which the Churches of Illyricum to the bishop of Thessalonica

endowed with apostolic delegation, he had made subject, is openly mentioned in epistle 13, chapter 1. But it is doubtful whether the letter of Leo to which the Illyrians reply is the fifth epistle, or rather another which has perished; on which see annotation 3 (col. 664, n. i) on epistle 13. Now since this epistle 13 was written on 6 January of the year 446, the letter of the Illyrians, to which Leo replied by that same epistle, seems to belong to the year 445.

13. In the same epistle 13, chapter 3, mention is made of a report of Anastasius of Thessalonica, from which Leo learned that the metropolitan of the province of Achaia had often celebrated ordinations that were unlawful and forbidden by the ordinances of the Fathers and, he says, by our own authority, and had added this to his ventures, that he consecrated for the people of Thespiae, unwilling and resisting, a bishop unknown and not seen before. This report seems to have been sent to Rome together with the epistle of the Illyrians, and accordingly this too is recognized as written in the year 445.

IN THE YEAR 446.

14. There is no doubt that Leo replied to these two epistles of the Illyrians and of Anastasius. The reply to the letter of the Illyrians is contained in epistle 13; but the epistle to Anastasius on the deed of the metropolitan of Achaia is wanting. Indeed several epistles of Leo sent to the same Anastasius before epistle 14 have been lost. For in the latter, chapter 1, it is said: For the writings of our admonitions abound with you, by which we have ... frequently instructed you. The words abound and frequently cannot signify only epistle 6 to him, which survives. Moreover, in one of the epistles that are missing Leo had provided that the necessity of assembling should not be imposed frequently nor for slight causes, and that it should suffice for two or three bishops from each province to be present, as is related in epistle 13, chapter 2. This cannot be referred, with Quesnel, to epistle 14, which in annotation 1 (col. 666, n. m) we have shown to have been written after epistle 13 itself; and besides, in epistle 14 he orders only two from each province to be present, and not two or three, which must be referred to another, lost letter. Now this was probably contained in the epistle in which Leo had given his ruling about the metropolitan of Achaia; and in the same he seems to have set forth those decrees of which it is said in epistle 13, chapter 4: But they ought to observe more fully the things which we have written to our brother and fellow bishop Anastasius himself are to be guarded against, and we wish these to come to your knowledge by his letter.

15. Two epistles of Anastasius to Leo in the cause of Atticus, metropolitan of Old Epirus, are mentioned in epistle 14, chapter 1. One in these words: About whom (Atticus) you had indicated nothing more than that, when summoned, he put off attending and pleaded the excuse of infirmity. The other in these: It was also read in your letter, which the same deacons of yours delivered, that brother Atticus had come to Thessalonica, and that he had also sealed his consent by a written profession. The former notice was perhaps inserted in the report which Anastasius had given about the metropolitan of Achaia, and to which we have intimated that Leo replied on 6 January of the year 446. But since the pontiff complains in epistle 14, chapter 1, that Anastasius, without awaiting the reply to the earlier letter, in which he had advised that Atticus be dealt with moderately, had taken care to have Atticus brought to Thessalonica by force in the winter season, it is confirmed that this deed occurred in the very winter of the closing year 446 or of the opening year 446, as we have already determined in annotation 1 (col. 666, n. m) on epistle 14, and therefore the second epistle of Anastasius about Atticus is to be referred to this year 446.

16. Three writings of Turribius, bishop of Astorga, sent to Leo concerning the heresy of the Priscillianists, which was spreading in the Spains, are cited in epistle 15, in the preface: The discourse of your epistle, and the memorandum, and the text of your little book declare it. The first writing Leo calls a familiar epistle in chapter 17. The memorandum, divided into sixteen chapters, contained as many opinions of the Priscillianists condemned long before. Lastly the little book, worked out by the labour of Turribius, likewise in sixteen chapters the refutation of the same opinions

embraced, as he himself attests in the epistle to Idatius and Ceponius, chapter 6, about which more in the admonition on that same epistle, to be inserted in the appendix, number 5. Now we have assigned sixteen chapters both to the memorandum and to the little book, because Saint Leo in the preface of epistle 15 attests that the errors of the Priscillianists were refuted by Turribius in sixteen chapters; and in chapter 16, attributing the same form both to the memorandum and to the little book, he indicates that both were divided into as many chapters. This little book and memorandum Montanus, bishop of Toledo, comprises under the name of books in the epistle to the people of Palencia appended to the Second Council of Toledo, when, writing about the heresy of the Priscillianists, he cites the books of Bishop Theoribius issued to the holy pope of the city of Rome, Leo, in which he expounded this filthy heresy, laid it open, and brought into the open what was hidden in its own darkness and veiled by a cloud of perfidy; for from those very books the devout reader will find how he can be on his guard, what he can answer against the sacrilegious. That he affirms these books of Bishop Theoribius to have been issued to Saint Leo is not to be understood as though the little book, equally with the memorandum, had been written by Turribius when already a bishop: for we shall show in the same appendix that the little book was more probably written by him before his episcopate; but it is to be taken in this sense, that the little book and the memorandum were sent to Leo with the epistle of Turribius, and Montanus found them together. Now that all these were sent to Leo by the deacon Pervincus, Idatius relates under the year 446.

IN THE YEAR 447.

17. When Saint Leo wrote back to Turribius in epistle 15, on 21 July of the year 447, he also directed another epistle to the bishops of Tarraconensis, of Carthaginensis, of Lusitania and of Gallaecia, and summoned for them the assembly of a general synod, so that, according to what he answered to the questions of Turribius, it might be investigated by the fullest examination whether there were any among the bishops who were polluted by the contagion of this heresy, who were without doubt to be separated from communion if they should refuse to condemn the most abominable sect through all the depravities of its opinions. See epistle 15, chapter 17.

18. In epistle 15 to Turribius, chapter 17, Leo provided that if perchance this general council could not be assembled because of some hindrance, at least the bishops of Gallaecia, among whom the error was creeping, should by all means come together. When, moreover, he had learned that the bishops of the other provinces, those of Tarraconensis, of Carthaginensis, of Lusitania and of Baetica, but not the bishops of Gallaecia, were to be gathered in the synod of Toledo, he is believed to have sent another epistle to them, in which he commanded that they issue a decree of faith and send it to Balconius of Braga, metropolitan of Gallaecia. Now this was deduced by some from the reading made common after Merlin in several editions of the Councils, in which the heading of the rule of faith appended to the First Council of Toledo is presented thus: Here begins the rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies, especially against the Priscillianists, which the bishops of Tarraconensis, of Carthaginensis, of Lusitania and of Baetica made by command of Leo, pope of the City, and sent to Balconius, bishop of Gallaecia. But this reading and punctuation are offered only by the codices of the Spanish collection of Gallican origin, which Isidore copied out; in which we have rather often observed some things changed by another's arbitrary choice. The codices of the purer Spanish collection, however, have it thus: Here begin the rules of faith which the bishops of Tarraconensis, etc., made, and sent with the command of Leo, pope of the City, to Bulconius, bishop of Gallaecia. In the epistle to the Spaniards, which we mentioned in the preceding number, Leo had commanded that all the Spaniards assemble a general synod against the Priscillian heresy, and, if anything should have stood in the way of this general synod, he had enjoined in epistle 15 to Turribius that at least the bishops of Gallaecia should come together into one. When therefore, by that command of Leo, the bishops of Tarraconensis, of Carthaginensis, of Lusitania and of Baetica had held a synod, in which they composed the rule of faith, this rule, with the aforesaid command and epistle of Leo, addressed also to the Gallaecians, and perhaps also with the epistle to Turribius, by which of Gallaecia

a council was chiefly being sought, they sent to Balconius, metropolitan of this province, so that he might thereby be roused to assemble a synod. And thus, further, is conveniently understood what Lucretius, bishop of the same city, said in the Second Synod of Braga, volume 6 of the Councils, Venice edition, page 517: By whose command also (Leo's) the bishops of Tarraconensis and Carthaginensis, and those of Lusitania and Baetica too, having held a council among themselves, writing out a rule of faith against the Priscillian heresy with certain chapters, directed it to Balconius, then prelate of this Church of Braga.

19. Now this same Lucretius attests besides that Saint Leo directed his writings against the impious sect of Priscillian to the synod of Gallaecia through Turribius, notary of his see. And this is the epistle to the bishops of Gallaecia which has been lost. In the very ancient codex 59 of the chapter of Verona, which contains a Breviary of the canons and decretals of the Roman pontiffs, both in the table prefixed and in the work at number 30 there stands: From the epistle of Pope Leo to Balconius, with no fragment or chapter of the epistle itself subjoined. Whether this was a particular epistle to Balconius, or a general one sent to him and the other bishops of Gallaecia through the notary Turribius, is not known. The epistle to the synod of Gallaecia seems to have been written by Leo after he understood that the bishops of that province had not attended the general synod, and, in order to urge them more vehemently to assemble a synod of their own province, he dispatched Turribius, notary of the Roman see, with that same letter. Hence this letter may belong to the year 448.

20. From chapter 7 of epistle 17 to the Sicilians, written on 21 October of the year 447, it is clear that a council was held at Rome every year, to which three from among the Sicilians always had to come. No acts survive from so many synods. Only from epistle 17 to the same men is there indicated a decree passed in a Roman synod on behalf of the Churches of Taormina and Palermo, on account of a complaint lodged by the clerics of those Churches against the bishops who had alienated ecclesiastical goods. In this Leo had prescribed how the interests of both Churches are to be provided for. Compare annotation 6 (col. 705, n. a) on the same epistle 17.

21. Januarius, bishop of Aquileia, wrote an epistle to Leo, in which, treating of the Pelagians of his province who had been recalled to sound counsel and to the Church, he set forth that some clerics from among them had been received into their own rank with due guarantee, while others had been promoted to a higher rank; on which matter Leo returned to him epistle 18 on 30 December of the year 447. Johannes Trithemius, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, among the minor works of Leo that were copied in his codex, lists in the fourth place: To the inquiries of Bishop Januarius, one book, and gives its opening: No reason allows that, etc. And in the tenth place: To Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, one book, with this opening: With the answers subjoined; which words, however, belong not to the opening of the epistle but to its heading or title. Now from the distinguishing of the epistle to Rusticus from the inquiries of Januarius a suspicion may arise in some that another epistle of Januarius of Aquileia is missing, in which he put several questions to Saint Leo, and that another epistle of Saint Leo is likewise wanting, in which he answered the inquiries of Januarius. But the opening No reason allows that agrees with the answers of the holy pontiff to the inquiries of Rusticus. And since these are copied in several collections under a separate number after the epistle itself, perhaps in Trithemius's exemplar, cut off by a copyist's error from the epistle to Rusticus, they had been subjoined to the shorter epistle to Januarius; and this was the occasion for him of attributing to Januarius what must be assigned to Rusticus.

IN THE YEAR 448.

22. Two senior presbyters of Benevento had yielded the first place to Epicharpius, more recently ordained, to the prejudice of the others. Paulus, taking this ill,

the presbyter went on to Rome, and on that matter presented to Leo a written complaint, which was appended to epistle 19 to Bishop Dorus, according to chapter 1, but has not come down to us.

23. Since in this cause Leo vindicated for each his own rank according to the time of his ordination, the first, who had yielded, being relegated to the lowest place, he committed the execution of this command to Bishop Julius in a letter which is wanting. See chapter 2 of the cited epistle 19.

24. In the disturbances of the Church of Ephesus against Bishop Bassianus, Leo sent an epistle mentioned in the synod of Chalcedon, volume IV of the Councils, pages 1610 a and 1614 c, in which he wrote that he, ordained contrary to the rules, ought not to be bishop. Compare our annotations on Quesnel's first dissertation, under the year 447, number 4.

25. Eutyches, before he was condemned by Saint Flavian in the synod of Constantinople, sent an epistle to Saint Leo, in which he reported that the Nestorian heresy was sprouting again through the efforts of certain men. See the pontiff's reply, epistle 20.

26. But after his condemnation the same heretic appended four documents to a second epistle written to Leo, which, preserved from the Monte Cassino manuscript, is read as epistle 21; of these the bill of accusation of Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, produced in the synod of Constantinople, although it is omitted in that manuscript, is nevertheless copied among the acts of this synod inserted in that of Chalcedon. But the second, a bill of appeal to Leo, is missing, which the same heretic falsely claimed was presented in that synod but not received. Of the third document, moreover, the first part survives, which presents Eutyches's profession of faith; but the second part, which contained the protest to the people of Constantinople, is wanting. And of the fourth document, which offered spurious testimonies of Julius, Felix, Athanasius and Gregory Thaumaturgus, the testimonies of the three latter Fathers, as they were produced by Eutyches, are omitted in the same manuscript.

27. At this same time the same Eutyches sent another letter of complaint to Saint Peter Chrysologus, according to epistle 25.

28. The emperor Theodosius, favouring Eutyches in a letter to Leo, complained of the disturbances stirred up against him at Constantinople, and showed himself anxious lest either schisms or heresies or any scandals should gain strength among the people of God, as is gathered from epistles 23 and 24. This imperial letter was more probably sent together with the preceding epistle of Eutyches towards the end of the year 448.

IN THE YEAR 449.

29. Another letter of Theodosius, by which Leo was invited to the synod of Ephesus, was received by him on the third day before the Ides of May of the year 449, according to epistle 31, chapter 4. Julius, Leo's legate, in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus declared the letter to have been written in a similar tenor to the epistle of that emperor to Dioscorus read in the same pseudo-synod, session 1. But we have observed in annotation 29 (col. 793, n. j) on epistle 31 that there was some difference, whence the legate Julius used the expression τῷ ὁμοίῳ, in a similar, and not τῷ αὐτῷ, in the same, tenor.

30. An epistle of Julian, bishop of Cos, was written at Constantinople and sent to Leo by the deacon Basil, in which he declared the Catholic doctrine against the Eutychian heresy. To this the holy pontiff replied with two epistles, 34 and 35, of which one was dispatched by the legates, the other by the same Basil.

31. A third epistle of Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, after the two others which are extant, sent to Leo by the deacon Basil, a different man from the one who had carried Julian's letter, has left us to regret its loss. It was short, because fuller instruction had been entrusted to Basil. To this the pontiff replies in epistle 38. Compare annotation 2 (col. 812, n. o).

32. An epistle of the Gallic bishops who after the death of Hilary had ordained Ravennius bishop of Arles, and another of the same Ravennius, by which, according to the ancient discipline, the ordainers and the one ordained wrote to the Roman pontiff about the ordination itself. To these Leo replies in epistles 40 and 41, dated 22 August of the year 449.

33. A bill of appeal to Leo, given by Saint Flavian of Constantinople to the legates in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, is mentioned in epistle 44, chapter 3; on which see our observations on Quesnel's dissertation 8.

34. In the cause of the Robber Synod of Ephesus, the acts of the Roman synod in whose name Leo wrote to the East epistles 44, 45, 50 and 51, dated 13 October of the year 449.

35. Copies of the acclamations of the people of Constantinople for Bishop Flavian and against the Robber Synod of Ephesus, which were sent to Leo with a letter of the clergy and people of Constantinople, to which the pontiff replies in epistle 59. See chapter 1. This letter was sent, before the death of Flavian had been heard of, about the same time at which Leo wrote epistles 50 and 51, that is, about the Ides of October of this year 449. Compare annotation 4 (col. 866, n. l) on epistle 59.

36. At the same time as the clergy and people of Constantinople, the archimandrites Martinus and Faustus also wrote to the same effect, to whom Leo wrote back in epistle 61.

37. On the same occasion, more probably, were sent the writings of Pulcheria Augusta to the same pontiff, by which she plainly showed how much she loved the Catholic faith and how much she detested heretical error. See the reply, epistle 60.

38. Towards the end of the year 449, just as Anatolius was ordained bishop of Constantinople and sent Leo an epistle about his own ordination, as we have shown in the admonition on epistle 53, so also the emperor Theodosius, Pulcheria Augusta, and his ordainers wrote letters to the same pontiff about the same ordination. A single fragment of the epistle of Anatolius is extant. The other epistles are wanting. To Theodosius Leo replies in epistle 69, to Pulcheria in epistle 70. The letter of the ordainers, moreover, is mentioned in epistle 71. Here, however, we point out that Theodosius, in epistles 62, 63 and 64, which he returned to Valentinian and the Augustae, affirms that concerning the things which Leo had mentioned, namely Flavian and the acts of the Robber Synod of Ephesus, he had already written to the same pontiff more at length, more fully, more openly, most fully, and rather often. The adverb rather often, which is read in epistle 63, indicates not one only but several epistles written on this matter by the same emperor to Leo: with which agrees the similar adverb often, likewise used by Leo of the letters of Theodosius in epistle 69, chapter 1; and from both these epistles, 63 and 69, it also becomes manifest that the emperor in those same letters to Leo always professed himself anxious for the safeguarding of the synod of Nicaea. Something of that kind could indeed have been touched on in the letter which the same Theodosius wrote to our pontiff on the occasion of the ordination of Anatolius. But since not one epistle only was penned by him for this reason, another, earlier one at least must be said to have been sent to Leo not long after the Robber Synod of Ephesus, in which that fuller instruction about the acts at Ephesus was contained, since it was expedient for the patron of Eutyches to forestall the pontiff the sooner. Now this, delivered to Leo in the month of December, gave occasion for writing to the same Augustus epistle 54, in which, while he discourses on the safeguarding of the Nicene faith, yet, so as not to sting the emperor's mind too sharply, he refers himself for the rest to the letter previously written to him on the third day before the Ides of October.

IN THE YEAR 450.

39. The acts of a second Roman synod, in the month of February of the year 450, assembled for the same cause of the Robber Synod of Ephesus

from countless bishops of all Italy, at whose request the emperor Valentinian, and his mother and wife, sent to Theodosius and Pulcheria epistles 55, 56, 57 and 58. The acts of this synod are related to have been sent, in epistle 55. As to the time which we have indicated, see the admonition prefixed to epistle 55.

40. The bishop of Vienne sent a letter to Leo with envoys, complaining that the bishop of Arles had usurped for himself the ordination of the bishop of Vaison, according to epistle 66, chapter 1. The pleadings of both parties were also brought, according to chapter 2.

41. A letter of Faustus, archimandrite of Constantinople, sent to Leo by Parthenius, in which he made plain his constancy in the faith. To this he replies in epistle 72. See the admonition prefixed to it, number 2.

42. The presbyter Martinus also seems to have sent a letter of like constancy, to whom Leo wrote back in epistle 74.

43. That the epistle of Leo to the emperor Marcian, sent by the count Maximinus, in which, congratulating him on his elevation to the empire, he replied to the imperial epistle 73, is missing, we have shown in annotation 2 (col. 908, n. i) on epistle 78.

44. Since the earlier epistle of Anatolius of Constantinople, written to Leo after his ordination (a fragment of which we have given as epistle 53), had, apart from what pertained to the ordination of the new bishop, indicated nothing about errors suppressed or renounced, as Leo says in epistle 71, the pontiff, in order to confirm that ordination, waited for an express profession of faith. For this purpose, after 16 June of the year 450, four legates were sent to Constantinople, the bishops Abundius and Asterius and the presbyters Basil and Senator, who seem to have been sent from a Roman synod. See the Acta Sanctorum, 2 April, page 92. The acts of this synod are wanting.

45. When the legates had come to the royal city, a synod met; and there, Leo's dogmatic epistle 28 to Flavian having been read, as well as the testimonies of the Fathers which were sent by Leo through the legates and are appended to the same epistle in the edition of the Council of Chalcedon, session 2, Anatolius and all the bishops, archimandrites, presbyters and deacons subscribed to the cited epistle, and pronounced anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches and their doctrine. These acts, which are cited in epistle 80, chapters 1 and 2, were sent to Leo by the clerics Casterius, Patricius and Asclepiades, together with the report of the legates, according to epistle 79, and with two epistles to the same pontiff, one of Anatolius, the other of Julian of Cos. See epistles 77, 80 and 81. A memorandum of the said Anatolius is also said in epistle 85, chapter 3, to have been handed to the same clerics and presented to the pontiff. Of these, however, nothing survives except a single fragment of the acts, which will be published in the appendix. Perhaps in the letter of Anatolius was contained that profession which is mentioned in epistle 112, chapter 1, in these words: Whom (Andrew, as a Eutychian) he himself professed to have been rejected by him; otherwise a new and later epistle of Anatolius would be wanting. And just as the acts of Constantinople, in which Anatolius subscribed Leo's epistle, are more probably to be assigned to the close of the year 450, as may be gathered from annotation 13 (col. 907, n. f) on epistle 77, so also there is no doubting that the memorandum of Anatolius, the report of the legates and the aforesaid epistles were sent about the same time.

There are those who think that on this same occasion, by the same clerics of Constantinople, together with epistle 77 of Pulcheria Augusta, another, lost epistle of Marcian was sent to Leo, in which he gave testimony about the faith of Anatolius, proved by the said acts. For Leo, in epistle 104, chapter 2, and 111, chapter 1, signifies that he approved that man's ordination on account of the emperor's testimony, which is by no means read in epistle 76 of the same Augustus, delivered, as we think, about this time. But since Leo's epistle 78, which was returned in answer to the letter of Marcian written at this time, by the aforesaid clerics on their way back to Constantinople, indicates nothing about Anatolius, that the emperor also nothing about him in

his own letter wrote, is an indication; otherwise, just as to Pulcheria, who testified about Anatolius in epistle 77, which was certainly sent to Leo on this occasion, this pontiff wrote back about the same Anatolius in epistle 79, so too he would have acted in the said reply to Marcian, which he returned to his letter on the same day by the same clerics, if he had found in it mention of Anatolius and the imperial testimony. Therefore this reply of the pontiff, or epistle 78, seems to have been returned to Marcian's epistle 76, with which it certainly agrees. But the testimony of the same emperor about the faith of Anatolius, which is mentioned in epistles 104 and 111, Leo could have gathered from epistle 77 of Pulcheria itself, or more plainly from the report of the legates, so that there is no need to posit another epistle of Marcian testifying about Anatolius on this occasion, with which the pontiff's reply does not agree.

IN THE YEAR 451.

46. An epistle of Marcian dispatched by Tatian, prefect of the city of Constantinople, which reached Leo after the return of Anatolius's envoys to the royal city, that is, after 13 April of the year 451 and before the 23rd of the same month, as is plain from annotation 5 (col. 917, n. f) on epistle 82. And since Tatian, adorned with so great a dignity, made a swift journey, that epistle seems to have been written in the year 451 itself. In it the emperor, most zealous for the peace of the Church, again pressed the pontiff more anxiously for the assembling of a general synod, in which, as is gathered from Leo's reply, epistle 82, chapter 2, he asked that everything be examined in a new discussion, so that unity might be more easily established.

47. Another epistle of the same emperor was carried to Leo by the pontifical legates who had returned from Constantinople to the City before 9 June of the year 451, in which the same plan of summoning an ecumenical synod was urged, according to epistle 83.

48. Bishop Lucentius and the presbyter Basil were sent by Leo to Constantinople on 9 June of the year 451 for the purpose of receiving back the lapsed. The fullest instruction was handed to them, at a time when the convoking of a synod was only being discussed. See epistles 83, 84, 85 and 86.

49. Meanwhile the emperor's letter, dated the 17th, according to others the 23rd, of May, by which a synod had been summoned at Nicaea for the Kalends of September, reached Leo. That a particular letter, which is wanting, was sent to him himself, we have shown in annotation 2 (col. 934, n. m) on epistle 91, in which that same letter is indicated.

Perhaps on this occasion there was sent to the same pontiff an epistle of Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, in which he had indicated that all the Eastern bishops had subscribed in accepting the Catholic faith and in the condemnation of Eutyches and Nestorius, as may be gathered from Leo's reply, epistle 91. Hence also in epistle 88 to Paschasinus, chapter 3, the same pontiff affirms that he very recently received an epistle of the bishop of Constantinople, which reports that, the bishop of Antioch having sent circular letters through his provinces, all the bishops both gave their consent to my epistle and condemned Nestorius and Eutyches by a like subscription. The adverb very recently is especially to be noted.

50. Leo received the said summons of the synod after the ninth day of June, when the aforesaid legates had already set out. In these straits he chose Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, as legate to the council; and that the epistle of this delegation is wanting we have proved in annotation 4 (col. 930, n. p) on epistle 89.

51. He sent the presbyter Boniface from Rome as another legate, and joined him to the said Paschasinus and to the two legates already sent over, Lucentius and Basil, that they might preside over the council in his stead. To this Boniface he gave a letter to the same Lucentius and Basil, which declared this delegation, as is clear from epistle 94.

52. To the same Boniface he also handed a Memorandum, a fragment of which, produced by that presbyter himself in session 16 of the Council of Chalcedon, we append here, emended from the manuscripts of Baluze, and especially from the very ancient Vatican manuscript 1322.

Fragment of the Commonitorium.

"Boniface the presbyter, vicar of the apostolic see, said: The most blessed and apostolic man, the pope, among other things gave us this charge. And he read out from the paper:

"Also do not suffer the constitution put forth by the holy Fathers to be violated or diminished by any rashness, preserving in every way the dignity of our person in you, whom we have sent in our stead; and if any, perchance relying on the splendour of their cities, should attempt to usurp anything for themselves, beat this back with the constancy that is fitting."

In this Commonitorium, perhaps, was also contained that injunction which Paschasinus set forth at the synod of Chalcedon, act. 1, in these words, vol. IV of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 863: We have in our hands the injunctions of the most blessed and apostolic man, the pope of the city of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, in which his apostleship has deigned to enjoin that Dioscorus is not to sit in the council, but is to be brought in to be heard. This, therefore, we must needs observe. If, then, your magnificence so orders, either let him go out, or we depart.

53. A letter of Leo to the same legates concerning Theodoret is mentioned thus in act. 8 of the same council, vol. IV of the Councils, p. 1525, d: Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, and Boniface, the most reverend presbyter, and moreover Julian, the most reverend bishop of Cos (this last was added to the other legates), holding the place of the apostolic see, said: The most holy and venerable bishop Theodoret was long since received into communion by the most holy and most blessed bishop of the universal Church of the city of Rome, just as the letters sent by him to our humility attest. Since the same holy pontiff also received Maximus of Antioch into communion, and for this reason he was received in the synod of Chalcedon, as appears from the tenth action, it is not known whether the communion granted to him was established from Leo's letters to the legates, or from a letter to Maximus himself.

54. A letter of Leo to Eusebius, bishop of Milan, was sent before the month of August of the year 451 by Abundius and Senator, in which, after recounting the happy outcome of the legation to Constantinople, he directed him to assemble a council of the province, and that his letter 28 to Flavian should be read there, and those following the Eutychian heresy be struck with anathema, as we learn from epist. 97.

55. Certain special acts, perhaps on behalf of the privilege of the see of Constantinople, sent by Anatolius to Leo at the time of the synod of Chalcedon, are indicated in epist. 101, c. 2. See annot. 6 (Col. 977, n. a).

56. A letter of Julian of Cos to Leo, in which he interceded on behalf of the striving after a new transgression, from epist. 107, namely on behalf of the prerogative granted to the see of Constantinople at Chalcedon. This letter was brought by Bishop Lucian together with letters 100 and 101, written on the same matter in the month of December of the year 451.

YEAR 452.

57. A letter of Theodore, bishop of Fréjus in Gaul, with certain questions concerning the reconciliation of penitents, to which Leo replied on the 11th day of June of the year 452, epist. 108.

58. A letter of Julian concerning the tumults and acts of violence of the Palestinian monks, with which they were harassing the Catholics and favouring the Eutychians. Leo replied in epist. 109.

YEAR 453.

59. The words of Leo's letter 113, c. 1, the lamentable complaint of the aforesaid Aetius, hint at a letter of his to Leo, in which he complained of the injury done to him by Anatolius, in that, under the appearance of honour, having been promoted to the presbyterate, he had been deprived of the archdeaconry, and, set over a cemetery, had in a manner been condemned to exile. He also indicated that Anatolius would send a letter to the pontiff, which, however, Leo attests in epist. 113, c. 1, that he did not receive. He signified besides that papers had been sent to Rome before, which are likewise reported there, c. 3, not to have arrived. That this letter of Aetius was given about the beginning of the year 463 is gathered

from epist. 111 and 112, written on this matter to Marcian and Pulcheria on the 10th day of March of the same year.

60. For this same cause and at the same time Julian wrote to Leo. There he also expressed his sorrow over the evils brought upon Italy by the war of Attila. He signified that a Breviary of the faith had been sent before. To this letter Leo replied in epist. 113, given on 11 March of the year 453.

61. Three letters to Leo concerning the ordination of Proterius, bishop of Alexandria, one of Proterius himself, a second of his ordainers, and a third of his clergy, are gathered from the three letters written back to each, copies of which the same pontiff sent to Julian with epist. 113, c. 3. In the letter to Proterius he seems to have asked of him a fuller and plainer exposition of the faith, from epist. 127, c. 1. All these six letters have perished.

62. About this same time other letters, of Euxitheus of Thessalonica concerning his own ordination, and of his ordainers, and, as custom required, of the clergy also and the people, were sent to St. Leo by the bishop who is reported as the messenger of his ordination from the same Euxitheus in epist. 117, c. 5, given on 21 March of the year 453. There is no doubt that the pontiff wrote back to these in as many letters; but nothing of these survives.

63. Together with Marcian's letter 110, written on the 15th day of February of the year 453, Leo received a letter of Julian, in which, commending the illustrious deeds of the same emperor and of Pulcheria, he sent to the same pontiff copies of the enactments of both for restraining and instructing the Palestinian monks. These enactments survive in vol. IV of the Councils, pp. 1798 and 1819, and there also survives an ancient translation of them, which we not improbably believe Julian to have transmitted. See annot. 4 (Col. 1036, n. j) on epist. 116. But Julian's letter has left us to feel its loss.

64. Two letters to Eudocia, in which she was exhorted not to favour the Palestinian monks, are wanting. One was written by Leo at the suggestion of the emperor Marcian, who secretly signified this wish of his to him through Paul, from epist. 117, c. 3. The other was sent by Valentinian Augustus, at Leo's urging, from the same letter.

65. Another letter of Julian concerning the disturbances of the Palestinian monks, sent by Esichius, is indicated in epist. 118, c. 7.

66. Since at the synod of Chalcedon the three Palestines had been ceded to Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, against the Nicene canons and to the prejudice of the see of Antioch, Maximus, bishop of Antioch, sent a letter to Leo in which he complained of this cession. See Leo's reply, epist. 119, and our observations on Quesnel's diss. 9.

67. Two letters of Marcian to St. Leo, to which the latter replied on the 9th day of January of the year 454, epist. 126, were given in the year 453. In the one he had written of the suppression of the Palestinian tumults and of Juvenal's restoration to his see. In the other he had interceded for Bishop Anatolius, as is clear from epist. 127, chap. 3. In one or other of these he had also indicated that he had entrusted to the Alexandrians the care of a most diligent inquiry about the paschal day of the year 455. See chapter 2 of the same letter.

68. Together with these letters of Marcian there was delivered to Leo a letter of Julian of Cos, in which, besides notice of the same acts of Marcian, he reported that the holy pontiff's letter 114 to the synod of Chalcedon had been read at Constantinople, in the presence of bishops and clerics, by halves, that is, with the suppression of that last chapter in which St. Leo complained of Anatolius's ambition and of the canon issued in favour of the see of Constantinople. He had also added that the presbyter Aetius, examined in a hearing held, had been cleared on all points. See epist. 127, c. 3.

69. The letter of Proterius of Alexandria to Leo, in which he sent a fuller exposition of his faith, since it is reported in epist. 127, written on the 9th day of January of the year 454, as received through Bishop Nestorius, is known to have been drawn up in the year 453, and the holy pontiff replied to it on the 10th day of March of the year 454.

YEAR 454.

70. A lost letter of Leo to Marcian is mentioned in epist. 137, chap. 2, in these words: In my earlier letter I asked that you not allow the stewards of the Church of Constantinople, by a new precedent and especially in the times of your piety, to be heard by public judges, and that you remove this injury also from the sacred orders; but that you order the accounts of the Church to be examined, according to the custom handed down, by priestly inquiry. That this was written shortly after letter 127, given on the 9th day of January of the year 454, and that it regards the affair of Aetius, we have conjectured with probability in annot. 3 (Col. 1101, n. [a]) on epist. 137.

71. Julian wrote to Leo in this year that Eutyches in exile was pouring forth many poisons of blasphemies against Catholic integrity, and that what the whole world shuddered at and condemned in him he was vomiting out with greater shamelessness, that he might be able to deceive the innocent. See epist. 134, given on 15 April, chap. 2.

72. A letter of Marcian, in which he had signified to Leo that, to comply with his wish, he had sent an agent in rebus to Alexandria concerning the question of the Pasch of the year 455, and that whatever reply should be brought from there he would at once transmit to the pontiff's knowledge. See epist. 134, c. 3.

73. Two other letters of the emperor Marcian to St. Leo, given in the month of April of the year 454. The one, after the reply of the Alexandrians concerning the Pasch of the year 455 had been received, signified that among the Easterners the Pasch had been fixed on the VIII of the kalends of May, and at the same time transmitted Proterius's letter 133 to Leo on the same question. See epist. 137, c. 1, and 138. The other set forth whatever he had done with Anatolius to reconcile him to Leo, and, transmitting attached the letter 132 of Anatolius himself, in which the latter strove to make satisfaction to the pontiff, exhorted him to write to the same. See epist. 136, chap. 1.

74. Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, sent a letter to Leo by Andrew the presbyter and Peter the deacon, in which he announced that he had been restored to his see. To this Leo replied in epist. 130, on the fourth day of September of the year 454.

75. Julian had announced the death of Dioscorus to Leo in a letter to which reply is made in epist. 140, 6 December of the year 454.

YEAR 455.

76. Another letter of Julian to Leo, to which the latter replied in epist. 141, on the 11th day of March of the year 455, seems to have been written at the beginning of this same year. In it he had signified that the monk Carosus had been corrected in his confession of faith, but was so persisting in I know not what enmity against his brother Anatolius that on account of his discord he was still withdrawing from communion; that John the decurion had been sent to Egypt for the cause of the faith, to provide for peace and amendment. He had also added that certain things had been brought forward by accusers against Maximus of Antioch, who on that account was in danger of losing his episcopate. Moreover, from epist. 142, c. 2, it is clear that St. Leo had likewise learned from Julian that the emperor had ordered that the other Carosus and Dorotheus, who were defending the condemned errors, should be removed from their monasteries and live among those whom they could not harm.

77. Another letter of Marcian, in which he anxiously admonished Leo concerning the day of the Pasch, and to which Leo replied in epist. 142 on the 13th day of March of the year 455, is gathered to have been written in this same year.

78. A letter of Anatolius to Leo concerning the remnants of the heretics lurking at Constantinople seems to be indicated in epist. 143, dated the same day and year.

YEAR 456.

79. A letter of the emperor Marcian, in which he signified to Leo the ordination of Basil of Antioch, is mentioned in epist. 149, chap. 1. Maximus, his predecessor, had been accused in the year 445. Nicephorus reports that he was deposed; but others will have it that he died. Whatever it was, however, just as the consecration of Basil, which took place while Marcian was still living, is to be placed about the year 456, so also is the emperor's letter concerning his ordination.

IN THE YEAR 457.

80. Julian of Cos indicated the commotions stirred up by the Eutychians at Constantinople after the death of Marcian, and what he himself and other Catholics had done with the new emperor Leo to repress them, in a letter to which Leo replied in epist. 144, written on the 1st day of June of the year 457.

81. From letter 145 to Leo Augustus, given on the 11th day of July, it is plain that St. Leo had sent another letter to the same, in which he had congratulated him on his promotion to the empire.

82. That somewhat earlier Anatolius had reported to the pontiff on the death of Proterius and on the Alexandrian disturbances is manifest from the cited epist. 145 and from epist. 146, written on the same day.

83. Another, later letter of the same Anatolius, in which he reported the Alexandrian commotions, seems able to be gathered from epist. 151, in which Leo wrote back to him on the 1st day of September of this year 457. But that we may not affirm this for certain, the reason is that it could have happened that, just as the holy pontiff, two occasions having offered themselves, wrote twice to Leo Augustus about the same Alexandrian commotions, first on the 11th day of July in epist. 145, and then on 1 September in epist. 148, so also he sent two letters to Anatolius on the same days on the strength of his earlier report, so that he did not receive a new letter from him on that business.

84. There is wanting a letter of Aetius, presbyter of Constantinople, to Leo concerning the same Alexandrian commotions, which bore witness to his diligence in the cause of the Church, and to which the pontiff replied in epist. 153, given on 1 September. Perhaps in this letter he also advised Leo about Atticus, presbyter of Constantinople, so that on this information he wrote to Anatolius in epist. 151, drawn up on the same day: Atticus is reported to be fostering the error of the Eutychians by open disputations within the Church.

85. When in the Alexandrian disturbances the Eutychians were demanding a new examination of the matters defined at Chalcedon, St. Leo steadfastly resisted in several letters written in the years 457 and 458. Within this time there was given to the presbyter Aetius a letter of the same holy pontiff, of which two notable fragments displaying the same steadfastness survive. Further, we have conjectured with probability, in annot. 2 (Col. 1116, n. h) on epist. 147, that it is to be assigned to the year 457, yet in such a way that it cannot be affirmed for certain [not] to have been written later. The fragments mentioned we insert here from epist. 7 of Pelagius II, to Elias of Aquileia and the other bishops of Istria, c. 6. That this letter was written by Pope St. Gregory I, while he was still a deacon, in the name of Pope Pelagius, is attested by Paul, son of Warnefrid, book III of the Deeds of the Lombards, chap. 10, otherwise 20. These things, moreover, are read there in vol. VI of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 264.

Two fragments of the letter to Aetius.

"You also set down last the testimony of the oft-mentioned Leo to the presbyter Aetius, in which he says:

"Let him not suffer a contest to be brought on over matters laid to rest, of which he who reopens them is found to be nothing but sacrilegious.

"And of what matters he asserts this, he himself makes manifest, writing to the same Aetius and saying:

"I shall never be able to think anything different from what is apostolic, nor myself to deviate from my own judgement, so as to alter by any variation what I confessed at the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and what I made plain while the profession of the whole synod proclaimed it with me; since it would be easier for me to be taken from this world by any torments whatever than to be changed from that profession which I believed [Perhaps, issued] generally."

86. A letter of Leo to the Patrician Aspar, sent together with epist. 148 to the emperor Leo by Gerontius on the 1st day of September of the year 457, is cited in epist. 151 and 153. In it he commended to him, who had great power with the emperor not only in favour but also in authority, the same things that were asked of the emperor in epist. 148, namely concerning the restraining of the heretics'

obstinacy, who were calling what had been defined to a new examination.

87. Anatolius sent another letter to Leo by Olympius, to which the latter replied in epist. 155, 11 October of the year 457. In it he set forth how much he had helped the Catholic Egyptian bishops who had fled to Constantinople, to the emperor, for the cause of the faith.

88. St. Leo, in another letter to Leo Augustus written on the same day and sent by the same Olympius together with letters 154 and 155, gave him thanks because he had received the Egyptian bishops with the charity that was fitting, from epist. 154. Them also he commended to the same again and again, from epist. 157, c. 3. Further, he exhorted the same Augustus to cause the attempts of the most impious robbers (that is, of the Eutychians, the supporters of Timothy Aelurus) to be met with a stricter constancy, who ought not, without impiety, to presume so much on his favour as to dare to rave even at Constantinople, from epist. 155.

89. When the petitions of the Catholics and of the Eutychians who had fled to him from Egypt had been presented to the emperor, the same Augustus sent both petitions with his own letter to all the metropolitans, and especially to Pope Leo, and signified that his presence was necessary for quelling these disturbances. See the admonition on epist. 156, in which the holy pontiff replied to the imperial letter on the kalends of December of this year 457. Only the two petitions mentioned have been published, in the encyclical codex, vol. IV of the Councils, pp. 1837 and 1848.

90. Another letter of Anatolius, at the request of the Egyptian Catholics, was likewise sent to Leo with another petition of theirs, to which he gave reply in epist. 157. See annot. 1 (Col. 1131, n. j) on this letter.

YEAR 458.

91. When the emperor, by the letter mentioned under no. 86, had not obtained from the pontiff that he should himself come to Constantinople, he wrote to him again, asking that he send some of his brethren in his stead. This letter of the emperor is indicated in epist. 160, c. 1, and Leo replied to it in epist. 162, given on 21 March of the year 458, whence this letter of the Augustus is known to have been drawn up about the beginning of this year. From this letter the holy pontiff quotes these words in the cited letter 162, c. 2: Perfection does not admit of increase, nor fullness of addition.

92. About the same time Anatolius likewise wrote to Leo, replying to letter 157, and showed that what Leo had written about Atticus displeased him. See Leo's reply, epist. 163, written on 28 March of the year 458.

93. In this there is a passing indication of a letter of Atticus himself, with which writings of doubtful faith and uncertain profession were sent to Leo.

94. The acts of the Roman synod of the year 458, in which a new and previously unheard-of kind of consultation arose, namely concerning those who, captured in childhood by the barbarians and afterwards returning to their own people, did not know whether they had been baptized. See epist. 166, written on the 24th day of October of the year 458.

95. A letter of Rusticus of Narbonne, sent to Leo a little before that time by the archdeacon Hermes, concerning the case of the presbyters Sabinianus and Leo, with the acts that had been drawn up in the examination by the bishops and men of rank. In it he also wrote this, that he preferred release from the labours of the episcopate, and would rather pass his life in silence and leisure than remain in those things which had been committed to him. Separately he added consultations with XIX inquiries, which are inserted in letter 167 in Rusticus's very words.

YEARS 459 AND 460.

96. When the aforesaid Hermes, given as bishop to the people of Béziers, had not been received by them, the same Hermes and Rusticus seem to have sent a letter on this matter to Leo, from Pope Hilary's epist. 8, where, having mentioned the cities of Narbonne and Béziers, which had been disturbed on that account, he adds: Of old, therefore, the heads of the aforesaid cities, to my predecessor of holy memory, no

less than to us, even then brought grief, by daring to pursue with unlawful petitions that which could scarcely be softened before our patience by the mere bewailing of necessities. Perhaps Rusticus pressed in this for leave to resign the episcopate to Hermes. These things happened a little before Leo's death, about the year 460.

97. From the letter of the same Pope Hilary we gather two other documents: the first, a report to our Leo from Veranus, bishop, as is believed, of Vence, and from the other bishops of the same province of the Maritime Alps, concerning the two episcopates of the city of Cimiez and of the fortress of Nice; the second, the reply of the same Leo, in which he ordered that both those places be ruled by one bishop only; which decree the said pontiff Hilary confirmed, annulling the contrary privilege extorted from himself by surreptition. Further, since he adds here in the letter mentioned that Ingenuus of Embrun, metropolitan of the Maritime Alps, had been blamed long since by the same Leo for the unlawful cession of his province, it is uncertain whether this reproof was contained on this occasion in the aforesaid reply, or rather in another letter written to Ingenuus himself, or whether indeed the particle long since points to an earlier reproof, that namely in which St. Leo, epist. 10, c. 6, rebukes several metropolitans for having transferred the right due to themselves to another, that is, to the bishop of Arles. The first seems the more probable: for since the same Ingenuus, even after letter 10 had been issued, put himself forward before Leo himself as a suffragan of the see of Arles in the petition for the privileges of that see, epist. 65, yet at the beginning of Hilary's pontificate shows himself a metropolitan, we do not understand whence so great a change came about in him, unless because St. Leo afterwards reproved him, not generally and without distinction along with others, as had been done in epist. 10, but by name and expressly, so that this particular correction drove him to claim for himself the right over the province of the Maritime Alps. And this perhaps came about on the occasion of the aforesaid report. For since not Ingenuus, but Veranus with the other bishops of the province wrote to Leo, hence perhaps the holy pontiff, learning that he was not exercising his metropolitan right, besides the reply to Veranus and the bishops of the province, sent a letter to Ingenuus himself as well, in which, blaming the unlawful cession of his right, he was the cause that the latter thereafter asserted his right for himself. These things will be more fully understood from what we shall discuss at greater length in volume II, in the observations on Quesnel's dissert. 5, part II, c. 6. But since the same Ingenuus, towards the end of the year 451 or at the beginning of the year 452, carried letter 99 of the Gallican bishops to Leo at Rome, as is clear from epist. 102, c. 1, if anyone prefers to believe that it was rather on this occasion that he was reproved by the pontiff and roused to seize his right, we shall make no difficulty.

98. A letter of Gennadius, bishop of Constantinople, in which he signified to Leo that Timothy Aelurus, after he had been expelled from the Church of the city of Alexandria, had been permitted to come to Constantinople, certain adversaries of the faith bringing this about. The pontiff replied in epist. 170, c. 1, given on 17 June of the year 460.

99. Three letters, one of Timothy Solofaciolus, Catholic bishop of Alexandria, a second of his ordainers, a third of the Alexandrian clergy, to Leo concerning the ordination of the same Timothy, to which Leo replied in epist. 171, 172 and 173, given on 18 August of the year 460.

100. Among the fragments of Leo's lost letters Quesnel first transcribed two from epist. 7 of Pope Pelagius to Elias of Aquileia and the other bishops of Istria, where these words are read in c. 6:

"Furthermore (says Pelagius) you insert in your writings a testimony from a letter of the same blessed Leo, which says to Basil:

"We must act piously and steadfastly; lest, while the disputation of such men is admitted, from the authority of those things which have been divinely defined

something be taken away. And below: For neither are things fully defined to be called back [into] any discussion, lest at the will of the condemned we ourselves should seem to be in doubt about those things which it is manifest agree in all points with the prophetic and evangelical and apostolic authorities."

Then he subjoined this admonition: "The former fragment, indeed, we have, not in the letter to Basil, but in chap. 3 of the letter to Leo Augustus, which is now for the first time brought to light by us from the manuscript codex of Cardinal Grimani, and is in order the 133rd (now 164). The latter, however, I have found neither in this, nor in that, nor in any other letter to Basil, although nearly the same things are found in epist. 132 (now 162) to the same Leo Augustus, chap. 2. Hence one of these three things must be said: namely, either that these words which are read in the letter to Leo Augustus were repeated by our Leo in another letter to Basil, which has not yet emerged from darkness; or that the letter to Leo is mutilated, and that part of it has perished in which the fragment reported by Pelagius used to be read; or finally that Pelagius's memory slipped when he signified that the latter fragment was taken from the same letter as the former. That this last happened I for my part should believe only with great difficulty. For Pelagius would not have fallen into this error alone, but the bishops of Istria would likewise have slipped into it, by whom both fragments had been transcribed in that manner in their letter. But if it had been cited otherwise by them, Pelagius would not have failed to object it, he who did not neglect to censure even the very order of the letters cited by those bishops. That the new letter to Leo is mutilated there is nothing at all from which it might be even most slightly conjectured, for all its parts cohere excellently. Recourse must therefore be had to the first answer, namely that another letter was written by Leo to Basil than that which has been published by us as the 118th in order (now 149), unless as a fourth conjecture you should say that all the printed copies of this letter of Pope Pelagius are faulty."

We have given these things from Quesnel at length, because we have proposed to ourselves to insert everything of his. But there was no need of so long an admonition and so many conjectures. For this difficulty is easily resolved if we say that the bishops of Istria, from whose letter both fragments were transcribed by Pelagius, erred here in the inscription of the letter, to Basil for to Leo Augustus, just as Vigilius erred in the Constitutum, vol. V of the Councils, p. 1356, when adducing another text from a letter which he gave out as sent to Anatolius of Constantinople, although it was delivered to Basil, as we have observed in annot. 7 (Col. 1120, n. j) on epist. 149. Those fragments are indeed found word for word in letters 162 and 164 to the emperor Leo, and Vigilius, quoting the same fragments in the Constitutum, cited a letter to this emperor, and not to Basil. Hence, therefore, these fragments ought not to have been inserted among Leo's lost letters to Basil.

DECREES ATTRIBUTED TO POPE LEO

Three decrees are attributed to our Leo in the common text of the Liber Pontificalis.

I. He decreed that within the action of the sacrifice there should be said: A holy sacrifice, an immaculate victim. This indeed

first decree is not read in the Paris edition of Fabrot, the Roman edition of Francesco Bianchini, and the Milan edition of Muratori; just as it is not found either in those ancient copies which the same men used. But besides the fact that it is produced in other codices, it was also written out in the copy from which Walafrid Strabo, an author of the ninth century, excerpted the same words in his book De Rebus Ecclesiasticis, c. 22. A more ancient testimony to this decree, moreover, is at hand from the shorter and older Pontifical contained in the Verona manuscript, whose first author, ending with Conon, flourished in the seventh century. See this pontifical as edited by Father Giuseppe Bianchini, tome IV of Anastasius, page 6. The ancient writer of the books De Sacramentis, which are presented among the Works of Ambrose, reciting at the end of the sixth book that prayer of the canon which begins Supra quae propitio, concludes with those words, Sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, and lacks those others, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam, which therefore appear to have been wanting before Leo.

II. He also decreed that a nun should not receive the blessing of the veil for the head, unless she had been proved in virginity for LX years; where other codices and the aforesaid Verona Pontifical have, better, XL years. There is extant a law of the Augustus Majorian of the year 458, which requires a probation of XL years. Perhaps Saint Leo was the prompter to Majorian of the issuing of this law, and to that extent this decree is attributed to Leo.

III. He also decreed, and added over the tomb of the apostles guardians from the Roman clergy, who are called cubicularii. The decree on the apocryphal books will be given in the appendix.

The decrees in Gratian inscribed with the name of Leo which were excerpted from the letters of our pontiff, Quesnel has indicated in the margin at their places: we have noted those which were taken from the same pontiff's sermons. But the rest, which are not our Author's, since from the simple inscription Leo papa it cannot be gathered that they were attributed to our Leo rather than to another pontiff of the same name, were not to be reckoned among the decrees certainly ascribed to Leo I. Six of the decrees of this kind, with no sermon cited in Gratian and no letter, have in fact other authors. For canon 1, dist. 72, is canon 18 of the Roman council held under Eugenius II and confirmed by Leo IV; can. 16, causa 3, quaest. 9, should, it seems, be ascribed to Leo III or IV; can. 4, causa 16, best fits Leo IV; can. 4, causa 30, quaest. 5, is canon 8 of the council of Trosly of the year 909; can. 1, causa 31, quaest. 1, belongs to the council of Tribur of the year 895, can. 51: lastly canon 101 de Consecr., dist. 4, is perhaps to be referred to the council of Soissons of the year 853. Of these Carlo Sebastiano Berardi will treat more fully in the excellent work entitled: Gratiani Canones genuini ab apocryphis discreti, part II, tome I. Two other decrees likewise, taken from two letters, are read in the same Gratian, which are not our Leo's: the first, dist. 68, can. 4, from the letter to the bishops of Germany and Gaul, which we shall review in the appendix as letter 2; the second, causa 33, quaest. 2, can. 13, from the letter to Gallerius, bishop of Tripoli, which Pithou found in his codex ascribed to Leo IV, and which one may gather even from the style does not suit our Leo. But let it suffice to have indicated these things.