Pasquier Quesnel, Variae lectiones, notae et observationes in Epistolas S. Leonis Magni, cum Balleriniorum annotationibus

(a) ‹anchor: de hujus epistolae› · call in col 1298

Vide nostram admonitionem huic epistolae praefixam, ubi et probabilius ipsius epistolae tempus statuimus, et varias difficultates hic a Quesnello productas solventes, sive conciliantes, hanc epistolam duobus exemplis editam ostendimus, quorum alterum est decurtatum, alterum integrum; eamque partem, quam ille hoc loco supposititiam probare nititur, luculenter vindicavimus.

See our notice prefixed to this letter, where we have both fixed the more probable date of the letter itself and, resolving or reconciling the various difficulties here brought forward by Quesnel, have shown that this letter was issued in two copies, of which one is shortened, the other complete; and that part which he here strives to prove spurious we have clearly vindicated.

(printed under page 654)

(Two tiers of notes are printed at the foot: a first tier (a)–(c) on the text of the letter quoted in full, then, below a space, a second tier (a) on Quesnel's note.) (printed under page 655)

(a) [first tier] ‹anchor: Cap. II. — Cum itaque› · call in col 1299

Haec usque ad verba In eos specialius genuinam claudunt epistolam.

These words, down to "In eos specialius," close the genuine letter.

(printed under page 655)

(b) [first tier] ‹anchor: Unde si qui episcopi› · call in col 1299

1 qu. 1, et 15 qu. 2, Si qui.

[Gratian, Causa] 1, question 1, and [Causa] 15, question 2, [chapter] "Si qui."

(printed under page 655)

(c) [first tier] ‹anchor: immerito praestiterunt.› · call in col 1299

Dist. 80, Illud sane.

[Gratian,] Distinction 80, [chapter] "Illud sane."

(printed under page 655)

(a) [second tier] ‹anchor: cum enim tum› · call in col 1300

Distinguendi sunt excusi codices a manuscriptis. Tres quidem formae hujus epistolae tum in manuscriptis, tum in excusis libris prostant. At forma tertia Leoninis editionibus olim inserta, licet ad tertiam codicum formam accedat, reipsa tamen diversa est, nulloque ms. exemplo fulcitur. De his exactius in Laudata admonitione nostra n. 2, 3 et 4. Nobis porro contigit quartam formam invenire, quae duas formas in antiquioribus mss. descriptas concilians, integram epistolam aptissime praefert.

The printed codices must be distinguished from the manuscripts. Three forms of this letter are indeed found both in manuscripts and in printed books. But the third form, formerly inserted in the editions of Leo, although it approaches the third form of the codices, is nevertheless in fact different, and is supported by no manuscript copy. On these matters, more exactly, in our aforesaid notice, nos. 2, 3 and 4. It has further fallen to us to find a fourth form, which, reconciling the two forms written in the older manuscripts, presents the complete letter most fittingly.

(printed under page 655)

(a) ‹anchor: partem ab aliis› · call in col 1301

Verius, omissam.

More truly, "omitted."

(printed under page 656)

(b) ‹anchor: 1. Quia› · call in col 1301

Hi codices id tantum probant, ea quae in hac epistolae decurtatae forma continentur, Leonis esse, et primam hujus epistolae formam exhibere; non autem supposititiam probant eam partem quam alii optimae notae codices vindicant, quamque ad aliam integram ejusdem epistolae editionem pertinere in memorata admonitione ostendimus.

These codices prove only this, that what is contained in this shortened form of the letter is Leo's, and that they present the first form of this letter; they do not prove spurious that part which other codices of the best quality vindicate, and which we have shown in the aforementioned notice to belong to another, complete edition of the same letter.

(printed under page 656)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 1301 or 1302 (not visible)

Haec, quibus probare studet, alienum fuisse a statu in quo Africana tunc Ecclesia versabatur, interdicere ne in quibuslibet castellis, ubi antea non fuerint, episcopi consecrentur, falsa hypothesi nituntur. Neque enim tota Africa barbaris tum suberat. Mauritania, ad quam haec epistola pertinet, usque ad an. 455 Romanis paruit; idemque Quesnellus inferius agens de ejusdem epistolae tempore, hanc scriptam statuit, antequam in barbarorum ditionem haec provincia veniret. Argumentum ex Victore Vitensi illud tempus respicit quo Mauritania a barbaris erat occupata, ac propterea ad rem praesentem nihil confert.

These arguments, by which he strives to prove that it was foreign to the condition in which the African Church then found itself to forbid that bishops be consecrated "in any forts whatever, where there were none before," rest on a false hypothesis. For not the whole of Africa was then subject to the barbarians. Mauretania, to which this letter pertains, obeyed the Romans down to the year 455; and the same Quesnel, treating below of the date of this same letter, determines that it was written before this province came under the dominion of the barbarians. The argument from Victor of Vita regards that time when Mauretania had been occupied by the barbarians, and therefore contributes nothing to the present matter.

(printed under page 656)

(c) ‹anchor: et consuetudine. Quam enim› · call in col 1302

Haec, quibus probare studet, alienum fuisse a statu in quo Africana tunc Ecclesia versabatur, interdicere ne in quibuslibet castellis, ubi antea non fuerint, episcopi consecrentur, falsa hypothesi nituntur. Neque enim tota Africa barbaris tum suberat. Mauritania, ad quam haec epistola pertinet, usque ad an. 455 Romanis paruit; idemque Quesnellus inferius agens de ejusdem epistolae tempore, hanc scriptam statuit, antequam in barbarorum ditionem haec provincia veniret. Argumentum ex Victore Vitensi illud tempus respicit quo Mauritania a barbaris erat occupata, ac propterea ad rem praesentem nihil confert.

These arguments, by which he strives to prove that it was foreign to the condition in which the African Church then found itself to forbid that bishops be consecrated "in any forts whatever, where there were none before," rest on a false hypothesis. For not the whole of Africa was then subject to the barbarians. Mauretania, to which this letter pertains, obeyed the Romans down to the year 455; and the same Quesnel, treating below of the date of this same letter, determines that it was written before this province came under the dominion of the barbarians. The argument from Victor of Vita regards that time when Mauretania had been occupied by the barbarians, and therefore contributes nothing to the present matter.

(printed under page 656; the note begins under col. 1301 and runs on under col. 1302. Its call '(c)' stands in col. 1302 before 'Quam enim'. The same note is also set in n1301 with 'call not visible': that copy is to be removed there; noted by Q9a, n1301 not written.)

(d) ‹anchor: Quod nunc in sua› · call in col 1302

Dioecesis nomen pro parochia provinciali non solum ab Afris, ad quos Leo scribebat, verum etiam ab Italis et Romanis usurpatum videre est apud Hilarum Leonis successorem, uti pariter apud Gelasium Vigilium et alios. Innocentum quoque non pro administratione, sed pro parochia provinciali eamdem vocem sumere contra Quesnellum probat Coustantius in ipsam Innocentii epistolam not. L, pag. 914.

That the name "diocese" was used for a "provincial parish" not only by the Africans, to whom Leo was writing, but also by Italians and Romans, may be seen in Hilarus, Leo's successor, as likewise in Gelasius, Vigilius and others. That Innocent too takes the same word not for "administration" but for "provincial parish," Coustant proves against Quesnel on that very letter of Innocent, note L, p. 914.

(printed under page 656)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1303

Tribus hanc Lupicini appellationem eludere Quesnellus studet; at imbecilla omnia et inania. Quoad primum, persecutionem ac tumultus barbarorum, qui Africam divexabant, a Mauritania exclusimus annotatione praecedenti. Alterum de consuetudine et legibus Africanis appellationes transmarinas adversantibus, clericos inferioris ordinis, non vero episcopos respicit, uti fuse probavimus in observat. ad dissert. 5 Quesnelli c. 5, n. 12, et c. 6, n. 20 et seqq. Tertium sanctisssimo pontifici injuriosum est, cum eum sagacissimum et sollicitum in captandis occasionibus exercendi sui juris traducit. Poterat ad se hanc causam evocare, poterat aliquem in Africam mittere, vel certos judices delegare, ut ipsa Sardicensis synodus statuerat; at ad id, quod poterat, non cogebatur, satiusque esse duxit hanc causam provincialibus episcopis committere, in quo ejus potius moderatio a summo jure exigendo aliena cognoscitur.

Quesnel strives to evade this appeal of Lupicinus by three arguments; but they are all weak and empty. As to the first, we excluded from Mauretania, in the preceding annotation, the persecution and the tumults of the barbarians who were harassing Africa. The second, about the African custom and laws opposed to appeals across the sea, concerns clerics of the lower order, not bishops, as we have proved at length in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, ch. 5, n. 12, and ch. 6, n. 20 and following. The third is insulting to the most holy pontiff, since it traduces him as most shrewd and anxious in seizing occasions for exercising his right. He could have called this case to himself, he could have sent someone into Africa, or delegated certain judges, as the synod of Sardica itself had laid down; but he was not compelled to do what he could do, and he judged it better to commit this case to the bishops of the province, in which what is recognized is rather his moderation, a stranger to exacting the utmost of his right.

(printed under page 657)

(b) ‹anchor: inde conjicio› · call in col 1303

Huic objectioni satisfecimus in admonitione num. 14, ubi ex duobus hujus epistolae exemplis omnia conciliantur. Quesnellus licet solam editionem seu formam decurtatam genuinam propugnet, saepius tamen exclusis lectionibus hujus primae editionis ac formae, alias substituit ex editione seu forma secunda et Hadrianea, quam interpolatam existimat. Nos utrasque distincte edidimus cum propriis cujusque formae lectionibus: et ex harum collatione patebit, quae primis curis Leo scripsit: quae item curis secundis mutavit vel adjecit: et quae Quesnellus potius confundit atque pervertit.

We have answered this objection in the admonition, n. 14, where everything is reconciled from the two copies of this letter. Although Quesnel defends only the shortened edition or form as genuine, yet quite often, shutting out the readings of this first edition and form, he substitutes others from the second and Hadrianic edition or form, which he thinks interpolated. We have published both separately, with the readings proper to each form; and from a comparison of them it will be plain what Leo wrote in his first draft, what likewise he changed or added in his second, and what Quesnel rather confuses and perverts.

(printed under page 657)

(c) ‹anchor: fuisse usurpanda› · call in col 1304

Cum totus hujus capitis contextus optimis et antiquissimis codicibus probatus syntaxim Leoninam exhibeat, morosioris et cavillantis est hominis paucas quasdam voces excerpere, quae cum lectores nullo praejudicio impeditos nihil offendent, tum vero aliis certis Leonis testimoniis, si opus esset, vindicari possent.

Since the whole context of this chapter, approved by the best and most ancient codices, displays Leo's syntax, it is the part of an over-fastidious and cavilling man to pick out a few words which will give no offence to readers hindered by no prejudice, and which moreover could, if need were, be vindicated by other certain testimonies of Leo.

(printed under page 657)

(d) ‹anchor: fulciret ampliaretque› · call in col 1304

Isidorianae collectionis auctor, qui non consilio Romanae auctoritatis fulciendae vel ampliandae, sed potius ea mente tot decretales finxit, ut episcopos a (continues)

The author of the Isidorian collection, who forged so many decretals not with the design of propping up or enlarging the Roman authority, but rather with this intention, that bishops from (continues)

(printed under page 657)

(a) ‹anchor: praetermissa facit, suspicandi locum› · call in col 1305

Titulus et lectiones in his codicibus similes, at diversae ab editione decurtata, id quidem evincunt, hanc secundam Hadrianeam editionem diversam esse ab editione decurtata, non vero depravatam aut interpolatam probant. Ipsas autem variantes non ab exscriptore aut interpolatore prodire, sed ipsum Leonem praeferre auctorem, qui primis curis decurtatam formam lucubravit, deinde vero ob quasdam novas circumstantias quaedam adjiciens, nonnulla loca mutavit, ex nostra admonitione n. 15 ac ex annotationibus palam fiet. Mirificum porro est Quesnellum quasdam lectiones adoptasse ex ea editione, quam vitiosam et corruptam traducit. Ea vero duo loca quae uti vitiata exempli causa proponit, in annotat. 27 ac 39 luculenter vindicavimus, et secundo loco prioris formae lectionem a Leone ipso in melius mutatam ac emendatam ostendimus.

The title and the readings, alike in these codices but different from the shortened edition, do indeed establish that this second, Hadrianic edition is different from the shortened edition, but they do not prove it corrupted or interpolated. That the variants themselves do not come from a copyist or interpolator, but show Leo himself as their author, who in his first draft worked out the shortened form, and then, adding certain things on account of some new circumstances, changed a number of passages, will be made plain from our admonition, n. 15, and from the annotations. It is remarkable, moreover, that Quesnel adopted certain readings from the very edition which he traduces as faulty and corrupt. And the two passages which he puts forward as corrupted, by way of example, we have clearly vindicated in annotations 27 and 39, and in the second place we have shown that the reading of the earlier form was changed for the better and corrected by Leo himself.

(printed under page 658)

(b) ‹anchor: Pseudo-Dionysianam dico› · call in col 1305

Jure hanc epistolam abjudicat a collectione Dionysii, quia Dionysius Exiguus ipsam nec decurtatam nec integram suae collectioni inseruit. Praeter rationes a Quesnello allatas, duas hic abjicere possumus. Prima ex collectione Hispanica, cujus auctor cum accurate descripserit quascumque pontificias epistolas in Dionysiana invenit, adeo ut etiam ipsius titulos usurpaverit, hanc quoque epistolam ex ea sumpsisset, si nactus fuisset apud ipsum Dionysium. Quam vero decurtatam cum aliis titulis dedit, ex aliis collectionibus, ut alia multa, derivavit. Secunda ex codice Vat. 5845, qui cum purum Dionysium exhibet, hanc epistolam non habet in Dionysiana collectione, sed in additamentis, quae postea accessere. Vide admonitionem num. 11.

He rightly denies this letter to the collection of Dionysius, because Dionysius Exiguus inserted it in his collection neither shortened nor entire. Besides the reasons brought by Quesnel, we can here add two. The first is from the Spanish collection, whose author, since he accurately copied whatever papal letters he found in the Dionysian, so much so that he even took over its titles, would have taken this letter from it too, had he come upon it in Dionysius himself. But the letter which he gave shortened, with other titles, he drew, like many other things, from other collections. The second is from the codex Vat. 5845, which, though it presents the pure Dionysius, does not have this letter in the Dionysian collection, but in the additions which were joined to it afterwards. See the admonition, n. 11.

(printed under page 658)

(a) ‹anchor: Africani opuscula duo› · call in col 1307

Non duo, sed unum et idem opus sunt Cresconii Breviarium et Collectio Canonum. Breviarium enim nihil aliud est nisi index seu tabula canonum collectioni praemissa; quod cum apud Justellum editum sit seorsim a Collectione canonum, duorum opusculorum opinionem peperit. Sed hac de re plura tom. III in tractatu de antiquis collectionibus et collectoribus canonum.

The Breviarium of Cresconius and his Collectio Canonum are not two works but one and the same. For the Breviarium is nothing other than an index or table of the canons set before the collection; and because in Justel it was published apart from the Collection of canons, it gave rise to the opinion that there were two little works. But more on this matter in vol. III, in the treatise on the ancient collections and collectors of canons.

(printed under page 659)

(b) ‹anchor: additionis legantur› · call in col 1307

Si in manuscripto Dionysiano, quo Cresconius usus est, haec epistola non legebatur, et idcirco a Dionysio suae collectionis inserta non fuit; non tamen hinc sequitur, hanc Dionysio fuisse additam post aetatem Cresconii: primum enim additamentum alicui Dionysiano exemplari olim accessisse videtur paulo post Symmachi mortem. Lege admonitionem n. 11.

If in the Dionysian manuscript which Cresconius used this letter was not read, and so was not inserted by Dionysius in his collection, it still does not follow from this that it was added to Dionysius after the time of Cresconius: for the first addition seems to have been joined to some Dionysian copy long ago, a little after the death of Symmachus. Read the admonition, n. 11.

(printed under page 659)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1308

Leo quidem aliquando corruptam credidit suae epistolae Graecam versionem, quod tamen falsum ipse postea detexit, et nos fusius ostendimus annot. 3, ad an. 454. Depravationem vero hujus epistolae ad episcopos Mauritaniae nondum Quesnellus probavit, adeo ut ea quae mox subdit, explicaturus rationem qua haec depravatio inducta fuerit, inanissimae divinationi tribuenda sint, ac ex nostris argumentis, quibus hanc partem genuinam constituimus, satis superque disjiciantur.

Leo did indeed at one time believe the Greek version of his letter to be corrupted, which however he himself afterwards found to be false, and we have shown it more fully in annotation 3, on the year 454. But the corruption of this letter to the bishops of Mauretania Quesnel has not yet proved, so that what he presently subjoins, meaning to explain the way in which this corruption was brought in, must be put down to the emptiest guesswork, and is more than sufficiently overthrown by our arguments, by which we have established this part as genuine.

(printed under page 659)

(d) ‹anchor: fere persuadet› · call in col 1308

Gratianus in allegandis antiquis canonibus et epistolis Romanorum pontificum usus est duabus collectionibus Hadrianea et Isidoriana, vel certe iis paulo ante suam aetatem scriptis collectionibus quae ex iisdem duobus fontibus ebiberunt. Quod si hanc epistolam laudans, omittit titulum ad Mauros, nihil mirum, cum idipsum in allegandis aliis certissimis quoque epistolis eidem acciderit.

Gratian, in citing the ancient canons and the letters of the Roman pontiffs, used two collections, the Hadrianic and the Isidorian, or at any rate those collections written a little before his own time which drank from the same two sources. And if in quoting this letter he omits the title "to the Moors," it is no wonder, since the very same thing happened to him in citing other letters too that are most certain.

(printed under page 659)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1309

Haec quae assuta sunt in Capitularibus, aliena esse additamenta evincitur, quippe quae in nullis omnino hujus epistolae codicibus leguntur. Hinc autem non sequitur additamento pariter esse deputandam eam partem quae pluribus et antiquissimis manuscriptis fulcitur.

That these things which have been stitched on in the Capitularies are foreign additions is proved, since they are read in no codices of this letter whatever. But it does not follow from this that the part which is supported by many and most ancient manuscripts must likewise be reckoned an addition.

(printed under page 660)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1309

Cum hi omnes corruptionis gradus hypothesi nitantur quae probata non fuit, immo ex nostris rationibus falsa est, mera commenta et somnia esse apertissime liquet. Enimvero gradus secundus, quo inter assumenta atque interpolationes referuntur voces concordi obedientia pro concorditer, adeo commentitius est, ut omnes Hadrianei codices, quibus interpolatio imponitur, habeant concorditer, et codices editionis decurtatae, quae ab ipso Quesnello sincera habetur, praeferant concordi obedientia. Vide Annot. 48 (Col. 654, n. k) in epistolam integram, et 42 in decurtatam. Molesta Quesnello est Romanae sedis auctoritas praesertim in appellationibus, quae hoc capite confirmatur; et idcirco plerique gradus ad hanc auctoritatem elevandam interpolationis nomine diriguntur.

Since all these stages of corruption rest on a hypothesis which has not been proved, nay, which by our reasons is false, it is most plainly clear that they are mere fictions and dreams. Indeed the second stage, in which the words concordi obedientia in place of concorditer are counted among the patches and interpolations, is so much a fiction that all the Hadrianic codices, on which the interpolation is laid, have concorditer, and the codices of the shortened edition, which Quesnel himself holds to be sound, present concordi obedientia. See annotation 48 (col. 654, n. k) on the entire letter, and 42 on the shortened one. The authority of the Roman see, especially in appeals, which is confirmed in this chapter, is irksome to Quesnel; and for that reason most of the stages are aimed, under the name of interpolation, at lessening this authority.

(printed under page 660)

(c) ‹anchor: editionum notitia› · call in col 1310

Immo vero ex vindicatione hujus capitis, quod solis inanibus conjecturis Quesnellus impetere et interpolationis accusare studuit, satis firma noscuntur quae Joannes David eidem superstruxit.

Nay rather, from the vindication of this chapter, which Quesnel strove to attack and to accuse of interpolation by empty conjectures alone, the things which Joannes David built upon it are known to be firm enough.

(printed under page 660)

(a) ‹anchor: Quod attinet autem› · call in col 1311

Vide nostram admonitionem num. 16.

See our admonition, n. 16.

(printed under page 661)

(b) ‹anchor: erat episcopis.› · call in col 1312

Huic male animati hominis ac pontificiae auctoritati infensi ingenium proditur, ac si appellationes episcoporum Africae, et relationes ad apostolicam Petri sedem nova res sint, ac praeter jus ejus Primatis, qui divina institutione toti Ecclesiae praesidet. Audacem hujus scriptoris nisum satis quoad appellationes repressimus atque retudimus in observationibus ad dissert. 5, in qua non dissimilia effutiit. Quod autem de appellationum jure ibidem probatum est, aeque, immo multo magis probari potest de jure relationum, quarum multo plura documenta ac exempla suppetunt. Ita porro quod ad exscindendas corruptelas commeantium sermone instructus S. pontifex gessit, illius ut ipse Quesnellus postea fatetur, sollicitudinis instinctu, quam universae Ecclesiae ex divina institutione impendere debebat, in dilatandae jurisdictionis studium traducit. Id Leonem sponte nullo episcopo Africano invitante egisse notat. Num si negligentes fuissent Afri, dissimulandae erant tot corruptelae ab eo cui totius Ecclesiae curam Christus commisit? At Potentius, qui haec mala sua relatione patefecit, Afer episcopus fuit. Afri etiam episcopi fuere Restitutus, et David, quorum alter de quibusdam suae provinciae abusibus conquestus est, alter vero post Potentium Romam transmiserat, ac exinde cum Leonis instructione atque litteris in Mauritaniam redierat. Post tam audacem censuram Casauboni verbis S. pontificem excusat. Sed haec ipsa heterodoxi hominis confessio ipsum docere debuerat, ne de pontifice tam sancto ambitus aut alieni juris imminuti suspicionem spargeret.

Here the temper of a man ill disposed and hostile to the papal authority betrays itself, as though the appeals of the bishops of Africa and referrals to the apostolic see of Peter were a new thing, and beyond the right of that Primate who by divine institution presides over the whole Church. The bold attempt of this writer we have sufficiently checked and blunted, as regards appeals, in the observations on dissertation 5, in which he babbled things not unlike these. And what was proved there about the right of appeals can equally, nay much more, be proved about the right of referrals, of which far more documents and examples are at hand. So too, what the holy pontiff did for rooting out corruptions, informed by the talk of those coming and going, and, as Quesnel himself afterwards admits, at the prompting of that solicitude which by divine institution he was bound to bestow on the universal Church, he traduces as zeal for widening his jurisdiction. He remarks that Leo did this of his own accord, with no African bishop inviting him. If the Africans had been negligent, were so many corruptions then to be overlooked by him to whom Christ committed the care of the whole Church? But Potentius, who laid these evils open by his report, was an African bishop. African bishops also were Restitutus and David, of whom the one complained of certain abuses in his province, while the other had crossed to Rome after Potentius, and had returned from there into Mauretania with Leo's instruction and letter. After so bold a censure he excuses the holy pontiff in the words of Casaubon. But this very admission of a heterodox man ought to have taught him not to scatter, about a pontiff so holy, the suspicion of ambition or of diminishing another's right.

(printed under page 661, begun under col. 1311 and finished under col. 1312)

(a) ‹anchor: totum enim› · call in col 1314

Aliquot litteras, quae interciderint hoc biennio utrimque scriptas conjecimus annot. 3 (Col. 664, n. i) in hanc epistolam.

We have conjectured, in annotation 3 (col. 664, n. i) on this letter, that several letters which have been lost were written on both sides in this two-year period.

(printed under page 662)

(b) ‹anchor: legendum esse› · call in col 1314

Non assentimur. Vide nostram annot. 2 in eamdem epist. (Col. 663, n. h).

We do not agree. See our annotation 2 on the same letter (col. 663, n. h).

(printed under page 662)

(c) ‹anchor: Ejusmodi causas› · call in col 1314

In epistola 6 ad Anastasium, cap. 5, duplex causarum genus Leo sibi reservat: 1° illas quae ab ipso Anastasio componi nequiverint; 2° illas in quibus ad sedem apostolicam appellatum fuerit. Cum vero de neutro hoc causarum genere in praesenti epistola agatur, nihil mirum si nihil hic S. pontifex sibi reservet. Si quae vero causae in provinciis terminari nequirent, a Thessalonicensi autem possent, hunc non modo ut arbitrum, sed etiam ut judicem fuisse constitutum liquet ex epist. 14, c. 7, ubi causam graviorem solummodo sibi reservat, quae nec tuo fuerit sopita judicio.

In letter 6, to Anastasius, ch. 5, Leo reserves to himself two kinds of cases: first, those which could not be settled by Anastasius himself; second, those in which appeal has been made to the apostolic see. But since neither of these kinds of case is treated in the present letter, it is no wonder if the holy pontiff reserves nothing to himself here. And if there were cases which could not be ended in the provinces, but could be by the bishop of Thessalonica, it is clear that he was appointed not only as arbiter but also as judge, from letter 14, ch. 7, where he reserves to himself only the graver case "which has not been laid to rest even by your judgement."

(printed under page 662)

(a) ‹anchor: Immo et› · call in col 1315

Cum Leo canones allegat, semper intelligit Nicaenos et Sardicenses Nicaenorum nomine signatos, quos solos Romana Ecclesia, ut in tractatu de antiquis canonum collectionibus tomo III videbimus, ad hujus pontificis usque tempus receperat. Quod si qua ratio affertur quae in aliis canonibus invenitur, hoc per accidens est: plures enim eamdem rationem in se eadem excogitare queunt.

When Leo cites canons, he always means the Nicene ones and the Sardican ones marked with the name of Nicene, which alone the Roman Church, as we shall see in the treatise on the ancient collections of canons in vol. III, had received down to the time of this pontiff. And if some reason is brought forward which is found in other canons, this is by accident: for several persons can think out the same reason on the same matter.

(printed under page 663)

(b) ‹anchor: Africa comprobandum› · call in col 1316

Haec canonum Sardicensium commemoratio a Grato facta in concilio Carthaginensi non ita infirmum est auctoritatis eorumdem argumentum, uti hic a Quesnello traducitur. Infirma potius est hujus ratio, quod Gratus non profert ipsa canonis verba, sed utitur verbo memini; nam in conciliis verba aliorum canonum recitari non solent. Verbo autem memini usus est etiam Osius Cordubensis in synodo Sardicensi can. 14, loquens de Eliberitana synodo, quae sane apud Hispanos maximae auctoritatis fuit. Quis porro credat Africanos non magni fecisse concilii Sardicensis canones, nec eorum aliquod exemplar secum detulisse in Africam, cum ab Africanis episcopis praesentibus fuerint firmati, et unus eorum canonum pro ipsis potissimum Afris, Grato, ut videtur, instante, editus fuerit? Quod si sub Coelestino hos canones Afri ignorarunt, id ex eo profectum videtur, quod iidem Afri satis instructi recentioribus canonibus, quibus veteres repetebantur, non multum versarentur in evolvendis antiquis, qui in archivis custodiebantur. Certe concilium Carthaginense sub Grato, quo Sardicense concilium laudatur, erat in archivis Ecclesiae Africanae, unde ejus canones inventi fuere non solum sub Bonifacio Carthaginensi in Libro Canonum, ex quo unus ex iisdem synodo anni 525 insertus fuit, verum etiam sub Aurelio et Augustino tempore synodi Carthaginensis anni 419, in qua duo ex iisdem canonibus repetiti inveniuntur; et nihilominus eos ignoravit Augustinus, cum anno 406 adversus Donatistas scripsit. Cum enim ab illis objecta fuisset epistola Sardicensis ad Donatum Carthaginensem, si eos Grati canones cognovisset, faciliorem et efficaciorem responsionem dedisset, qua Donatistarum fraus fuisset evidentius evicta, nimirum Sardicense catholicum concilium, cui non Donatus, sed Gratus Carthaginensis interfuit, ut ex laudato canone discitur, ad Donatum speudo-episcopum Carthaginis non potuisse objectas litteras scribere; indeque multo evidentius confirmasset, illud concilium quod Sardicensis inducto nomine ad Donatum scripsit, Arianorum fuisse conventum; verum autem Sardicense cum solo Grato et aliis Africanis catholicis, non autem cum Donato et schismaticis Donatistis communicasse. Fatendum quidem est Africanos in epistola ad Coelestinum indicare se in quaestione de duobus canonibus Sardicensibus, qui tanquam Nicaeni allegati fuerant, non solum evolvisse Nicaenos canones qui in suis archivis exstabant, sed aliarum etiam synodorum exemplaria; et in nulla Patrum synodo eos reperisse. Nullum ergo Sardicensis concilii exemplum in eorum archivis exstitisse videtur. At si negari nequit qui aliquod actorum Sardicensium exemplum ab Africanis allatum fuerit in Africam, cum aliqui canones Afrorum causa conditi fuerint, et cum iisdem actis alii plures Africani teste Athanasio subscripserint, dicendum erit Africanos Coelestini tempore in evolvendis archivis non omnem diligentiam adhibuisse, quam cum sequenti saeculo Ferrandus Carthaginensis commodius posuit, eosdem canones ex aliquo exemplo peculiari divisione transcriptos nactus, breviationi canonum inseruit.

This mention of the Sardican canons made by Gratus in the council of Carthage is not so weak an argument for their authority as Quesnel here makes it out. Weak rather is his reason, that Gratus does not produce the very words of the canon but uses the word "I remember"; for in councils the words of other canons are not usually recited. And the word "I remember" was used also by Hosius of Cordova in the synod of Sardica, can. 14, speaking of the synod of Elvira, which was certainly of the greatest authority among the Spaniards. Who, moreover, would believe that the Africans did not set great store by the canons of the council of Sardica, or did not carry some copy of them back with them into Africa, when they were confirmed by African bishops who were present, and one of those canons was issued chiefly for the Africans themselves, at the urging, as it seems, of Gratus? And if under Celestine the Africans did not know these canons, that seems to have come from this, that the same Africans, sufficiently furnished with more recent canons in which the old ones were repeated, were not much occupied in turning over the ancient ones that were kept in the archives. Certainly the council of Carthage under Gratus, in which the council of Sardica is cited, was in the archives of the African Church, from which its canons were found not only under Boniface of Carthage in the Book of Canons, out of which one of them was inserted in the synod of the year 525, but also under Aurelius and Augustine at the time of the synod of Carthage of the year 419, in which two of the same canons are found repeated; and nevertheless Augustine did not know them when he wrote against the Donatists in the year 406. For when the Sardican letter to Donatus of Carthage had been thrown up by them, if he had known those canons of Gratus he would have given an easier and more effective answer, by which the fraud of the Donatists would have been more plainly refuted, namely that the catholic council of Sardica, at which not Donatus but Gratus of Carthage was present, as is learned from the canon cited, could not have written the letter objected to Donatus, pseudo-bishop of Carthage; and from this he would have confirmed much more plainly that the council which wrote to Donatus under the assumed name of Sardica was an assembly of Arians, while the true council of Sardica was in communion only with Gratus and the other African Catholics, and not with Donatus and the schismatic Donatists. It must indeed be admitted that the Africans, in the letter to Celestine, indicate that in the question of the two Sardican canons which had been cited as Nicene they turned over not only the Nicene canons that were extant in their archives but also the copies of other synods, and found them "in no synod of the Fathers." So it seems that no copy of the council of Sardica was extant in their archives. But if it cannot be denied that some copy of the Sardican acts was brought into Africa by the Africans, since some canons were framed for the sake of the Africans, and since many other Africans, on the witness of Athanasius, subscribed the same acts, it will have to be said that the Africans in Celestine's time did not apply all diligence in turning over their archives, a diligence which Ferrandus of Carthage applied to better purpose in the following century, when, having come upon the same canons transcribed from some copy with a peculiar division, he inserted them in his abridgment of the canons.

(printed under page 663)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1317

Hanc epistolam post praecedentem scriptam ostendimus annot 1 (Col. 666, n. m).

We have shown in annotation 1 (col. 666, n. m) that this letter was written after the preceding one.

(printed under page 664)

(b) ‹anchor: calce subsequentis› · call in col 1317

His verbis aliam, quae intercidit, indicari epistolam probavimus annot. 16 in epist. 13.

We have proved in annotation 16 on letter 13 that by these words another letter, which has been lost, is indicated.

(printed under page 664)

(c) ‹anchor: not legible in the foot image (top line cropped)› · call in col 1318

De nonnullis certum est, de plurimis non item.

Of some it is certain; of most, not so.

(printed under page 664)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1321

Hoc testimonium Photii ex S. Eulogio scriptore Graeco exeuntis saeculi sexti nihili habendum est. Licet enim scripserit adversus Novatianos, sicut erravit, cum Novatianum, quem Novatum vocat, ex archidiacono a S. Cornelio presbyterum creatum narrat quippe qui jam ante electionem Cornelii presbyteratu fungebatur, ita etiam fallitur dum archidiaconum succedere summo pontifici statutum prodit.

This testimony of Photius, taken from St. Eulogius, a Greek writer of the close of the sixth century, is to be held of no account. For although he wrote against the Novatians, just as he erred when he relates that Novatian, whom he calls Novatus, was made a presbyter from archdeacon by St. Cornelius, seeing that he was already exercising the presbyterate before the election of Cornelius, so too he is mistaken when he reports it as established that the archdeacon should succeed the supreme pontiff.

(printed under page 666)

(b) ‹anchor: ordo generalis› · call in col 1322

Haec lectio emendatior a nobis profertur annot. 52 (Col. 675. n. e) ubi etiam aequam ejus sententiam, episcopis quidem haud injuriosam, at simul gradui praecellenti et auctoritati summorum pontificum consonam exhibuimus: ita ut exinde nonnulla quae hic a Quesnello subjiciuntur corrigenda sint.

This reading is given by us in more correct form in annotation 52 (col. 675, n. e), where we have also set out its fair meaning, one in no way insulting to the bishops, yet at the same time in keeping with the pre-eminent rank and authority of the supreme pontiffs: so that from this some of the things which Quesnel subjoins here need correcting.

(printed under page 666)

(a) ‹anchor: Ad unitatem conspirant› · call in col 1323

Cum omnes episcoporum gradus ad unitatem conspirent, tum vero ipsius unitatis centrum idcirco collocatum fuit in Romana sede et in successoribus S. Petri, ut per omnes gradus episcoporum ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, et nihil usquam a suo capite dissideret. Sic ipse S. Leo hac in epistola c. 11.

While all the ranks of bishops work together towards unity, the centre of that unity itself was placed in the Roman see and in the successors of St. Peter for this reason, that through all the ranks of bishops "the care of the universal Church might flow together to the one see of Peter, and nothing anywhere be at variance with its head." So St. Leo himself in this letter, ch. 11.

(printed under page 667)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1325

Tres hasce Leonis epistolas optime distinguit Quesnellus, sed earum occasionem ac tempus nos exactius constituimus in dissert. de epistolis deperditis, n. 17, 18 et 19.

Quesnel distinguishes these three letters of Leo very well, but we have fixed their occasion and date more exactly in the dissertation on the lost letters, nn. 17, 18 and 19.

(printed under page 668)

(b) ‹anchor: nisi quia› · call in col 1326

Cum S. Leo in fine hujus epistolae inter Galliciae episcopos Idatium et Ceponium nominet. Quesnellus hos duos Galliciae metropolitas, et Idatium quidem Lucensem, Ceponium autem Bracarensem episcopum fusius conjectando traduxit. At praeterquam quod perperam interpretatur concilium Lucense anni 569, in quo, Gallicia provincia divisa in duas. Lucensi sedi tum primum attributum traditur jus metropoliticum, quod per hocce tempus uni Bracarensi competebat, falsum omnino est Idatium Lucensi Ecclesiae praefuisse. Idem enim Idatius, qui in prooemio ad Chronicon se episcopum creatum indicat circa annum 427 aut 428, et ad annum 431 se episcopum nominat, Agrestium Lucensem episcopum diserte appellat ad annum 433, non vero circa annum 430, ut Quesnellus in hac eadem notatione signavit. Ceponium vero Bracarensem episcopum non fuisse liquet ex prima Bracarensi synodo, et ea fidei regula quae ab Hispanica synodo cum Leonis praecepto ad Balconium missa, hunc Balconium, non vero Ceponium Bracarensem episcopum nominat. Quod si Balconius Bracarensis, ad quem Avitus anno 416 scripsit epistolam de reliquiis S. Stephani, non credatur diversus a Balconio, qui sub Leone vitam agebat, multo magis rejicienda cognoscetur Quesnelli opinio, qua Balconium Ceponio suffectum existimat. S. Leo autem idcirco Idatium et Ceponium congregandis Galliciae episcopis adversus Priscillianistas praecipue nominavit in epistola ad Turribium c. 17, non quod ejus provinciae episcopis metropolitica dignitate praeeminerent, sed quod ex Turribii epistola ad eosdem, quam S. pontifex cum libello Turribii acceperat, eorum antiquitatem ac meritum cognoscens, ipsos maxime idoneos credidit, qui Turribium juniorem episcopum contra Priscillianistas in cogenda Galliciae synodo maxime juvarent. Vide admonitionem in epistolam Turribii ad Idatium et Ceponium, quam appendici epistolarum supra inseruimus. Hinc Idatius (continues)

Since St. Leo at the end of this letter names Idatius and Ceponius among the bishops of Gallaecia, Quesnel, conjecturing at some length, has made these two out to be metropolitans of Gallaecia, Idatius bishop of Lugo and Ceponius bishop of Braga. But besides the fact that he wrongly interprets the council of Lugo of the year 569, in which, the province of Gallaecia being divided in two, the metropolitan right is reported to have been then for the first time assigned to the see of Lugo, a right which at this present time belonged to Braga alone, it is altogether false that Idatius presided over the Church of Lugo. For the same Idatius, who in the preface to his Chronicle indicates that he was made bishop about the year 427 or 428, and under the year 431 calls himself a bishop, expressly names Agrestius as bishop of Lugo under the year 433, and not "about the year 430," as Quesnel has marked in this same note. And that Ceponius was not bishop of Braga is clear from the first synod of Braga, and from that rule of faith which, sent by the Spanish synod with Leo's instruction to Balconius, names this Balconius, and not Ceponius, as bishop of Braga. And if Balconius of Braga, to whom Avitus in the year 416 wrote the letter on the relics of St. Stephen, is not thought to be different from the Balconius who was living under Leo, Quesnel's opinion, by which he supposes Balconius to have been put in the place of Ceponius, will be seen to deserve rejection all the more. St. Leo, however, named Idatius and Ceponius in particular for gathering the bishops of Gallaecia against the Priscillianists, in the letter to Turribius, ch. 17, not because they stood above the bishops of that province in metropolitan dignity, but because, learning their seniority and merit from Turribius's letter to them, which the holy pontiff had received together with Turribius's memorandum, he believed them the most fit to give the greatest help to Turribius, a younger bishop, against the Priscillianists in assembling a synod of Gallaecia. See the admonition on the letter of Turribius to Idatius and Ceponius, which we inserted above in the appendix of the letters. Hence Idatius (continues)

(printed under page 668)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1329

Confer nostram dissertationem de epistolis deperditis num. 16, quam post S. Leonis epistolas dedimus.

Compare our dissertation on the lost letters, n. 16, which we have given after the letters of St. Leo.

(printed under page 670)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1330

De corruptione hujus loci in Catalogo, cui nulli codices suffragantur, non est suspicandum. Vera causa cur Hieronymus in eo libro alia ratione de Priscilliano scripsit, quam in posterioribus libris, haec est, quia tunc de ejus erroribus et gestis non ita erat instructus ut postea fuit.

No corruption of this passage in the Catalogue is to be suspected, since no codices support it. The true reason why Jerome wrote of Priscillian in that book in a different way than in his later books is this, that at that time he was not so well informed about his errors and his doings as he afterwards was.

(printed under page 670)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1331

Quidquid in hac annotatione Quesnellus disserit de ejectione Dictinii, innititur Idacii testimonio, quod in prima Leonis editione allatum, in secunda fatetur apud Idacium non reperiri. Excitatus nimirum fuerat Tillemontii litteris ut eum locum ubinam apud Idacium esset indicaret. Hinc se deceptum detexit, et solum excusationis causa eum locum non abs se confictum, sed aliquo ex libro, cujus oblitus est, bona fide descriptum testatur. Licet vero agnoscat et indicet non obscure hoc testimonio deficiente ea omnia corruere, quae in tota annotatione illi substructa sunt; cum tamen multas conjectationes adhuc congesserit, more suo, quibus suspecta reddantur exemplaria professionum Symposii et Dictinii Toletano I concilio subjecta, nec non sententia ejusdem synodi, quae Ambrosius Morales ediderat; cumque de his documentis, ac de aliis nonnullis rebus ad idem Toletanum concilium pertinentibus aliquot non leves controversiae inter eruditos agitentur; nos, qui ex codicibus quos vidimus hac in re aliquid lucis afferre et ea documenta genuina demonstrare posse credimus, rem gratam lectoribus facturos arbitramur, si de iisdem non pauca disseramus. In recentibus conciliorum editionibus Toletani I, nomine proferuntur viginti canones, tum subjicitur regula fidei contra Priscillanistas, postea exemplaria professionum Symposii ac Dictinii, ac tandem ejusdem concilii sententia. Canones dicuntur editi in Toletano concilio Stilicone consule, aera 438, qui characteres anno 400 congruunt. Regula fidei, quam adversus Priscillianistas ex praecepto Leonis fecisse traduntur episcopi Tarraconenses, Carthaginienses, Lusitani et Boetici, convenit ei concilio, quod idem pontifex convocandum praecepit in epistola ad Turribium, c. 17. Exemplaria professionum Symposii et Dictinii praeferunt aeram 438, et sententia concilii vivum supponit S. Simplicianum Mediolanensem, aliasque notas exhibet, quae omnia cohaerent cum an. 400 cui sane Idatius Symposii et Dictinii retractationem, id est memoratas fidei professiones, assignat. At in iisdem professionum exemplaribus hi episcopi Symposius et Dictinius sanctae memoriae appellantur, quae formula scriptum prodit hoc documentum post eorum mortem, ac propterea post an. 400. Hae variae notae varias inter criticos sententias peperere. Plerique eos canones, professiones fidei, et sententiam in Toletana synodo editos consuerunt anno 400, vel 405, in quibus Stilico consulatum gessit; regulam vero fidei in alia synodo Leone pontifice anno 447, aut paulo post. Tillemontius tom. VIII, not. 15, in Priscillianistarum historiam pag. 796, etsi cognosceret professiones Symposii ac Dictinii, nec non sententiam synodi conditas fuisse in concilio Toletano an. 400, haec tamen documenta, uti nunc habentur, excerpta contendit ex ejusdem synodi gestis, et recitata ac inserta in alia synodo sub Leone, huicque praeterea non solum regulam fidei, sed etiam canones tribuit hac potissimum ratione, quia de Patribus, qui sub Leone condiderunt regulam fidei, eodem contextu in praemisso titulo, affirmatur: Ipsi etiam et suprascripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt. Ita haec omnia ad synodum Toletanam sub Leone habitam referri posse indicat eodem tomo, pag. 524. P. Coustantius vero in monito ad epist. 3 Innocentii n. 4, cum incredibile videret canones abjudicari a concilio Toletano coacto an. 400, ad difficultates conciliandas aliam viam ingressus est. Regulam fidei asseruit synodo sub Leone, caetera vero, quae Toletani I esse non dubitat, ad synodum sub Leone eatenus referri posse autumat, quatenus in ea ante fidei regulam relecti et confirmati fuerint canones 20 in anteriori synodo conditi, quo satis explicatur illud statuerunt; post regulam autem professiones et sententia excerptae fuerint e plenioribus Toletanae I synodi gestis. Soli codices ex quibus haec documenta prodiere aliquid subsidii afferre queunt in hac controversia. Canones et regula fidei qui a Merlino primum editi ex manuscripto collectionis Isidorianae, a collectione, Hispanica, quam Pseudo-Isidorus transcripsit, originem ducunt. Porro omnia exemplaria hujus collectionis in prima parte, quae concilia exhibet, Toletanam I synodum cum viginti canonibus praeferunt, solamque fidei regulam subjiciunt. Canonibus autem praefigitur universim haec chronicae notatio: Arcadii et Honorii temporibus sub die XII id. Sept., Stilicone consule, qua canonum et concilii tempus designatur. Plures ex iisdem mss. libris addunt aeram Hispanicam cum quodam exiguo discrimine. Quatuor codices purioris collectionis Hispanicae vidit Joannes Baptista Perezius, quos recenset in ms. Va. 4887: Alvendensem Vigilae, Lucensem, Hispalensem, et S. Aemiliani Nos hac in re totidem codices contulimus, duos pu- (continues)

Whatever Quesnel argues in this annotation about the expulsion of Dictinius rests on a testimony of Idatius which, adduced in the first edition of Leo, he admits in the second is not to be found in Idatius. He had in fact been pressed by a letter of Tillemont to point out where in Idatius that passage was. Hence he discovered that he had been deceived, and merely by way of excuse he declares that the passage was not invented by himself but copied in good faith from some book which he has forgotten. But although he acknowledges and indicates not obscurely that, with this testimony failing, everything collapses that "was built upon it" throughout the annotation, yet since he has still heaped up, in his usual way, many conjectures by which the copies of the professions of Symposius and Dictinius appended to the first council of Toledo are rendered suspect, as also the sentence of the same synod, which Ambrosio Morales had published; and since about these documents, and about some other matters pertaining to the same council of Toledo, several controversies of no small weight are debated among the learned; we, who believe that from the codices we have seen we can bring some light to this matter and show those documents to be genuine, think we shall do readers a welcome service if we discuss them at some length. In the recent editions of the councils twenty canons are given under the name of Toledo I, then the rule of faith against the Priscillianists is subjoined, afterwards the copies of the professions of Symposius and Dictinius, and at last the sentence of the same council. The canons are said to have been issued in the council of Toledo in the consulship of Stilicho, era 438, marks which agree with the year 400. The rule of faith, which the bishops of Tarraconensis, Carthaginiensis, Lusitania and Baetica are reported to have made against the Priscillianists by Leo's instruction, fits that council which the same pontiff ordered to be convoked in the letter to Turribius, ch. 17. The copies of the professions of Symposius and Dictinius bear the era 438, and the sentence of the council supposes St. Simplicianus of Milan to be alive and shows other marks, all of which agree with the year 400, to which Idatius indeed assigns the retractation of Symposius and Dictinius, that is, the professions of faith mentioned. But in the same copies of the professions these bishops Symposius and Dictinius are called "of holy memory," a formula which betrays that this document was written after their death, and therefore after the year 400. These differing marks have produced differing opinions among the critics. Most have judged that those canons, the professions of faith and the sentence were issued in a synod of Toledo in the year 400, or 405, in which years Stilicho held the consulship, but the rule of faith in another synod under Pope Leo in the year 447 or a little after. Tillemont, vol. VIII, note 15 on the history of the Priscillianists, p. 796, although he recognized that the professions of Symposius and Dictinius, as also the sentence of the synod, were drawn up in the council of Toledo of the year 400, yet maintains that these documents, as they are now had, were excerpted from the acts of that synod and recited and inserted in another synod under Leo, and to this he further assigned not only the rule of faith but also the canons, chiefly for this reason, that of the Fathers who under Leo drew up the rule of faith it is affirmed, in the same context in the title set before it: "They also laid down the twenty chapters of canons written above." Thus he indicates in the same volume, p. 524, that all these things can be referred to a synod of Toledo held under Leo. But Father Coustant, in the notice on letter 3 of Innocent, n. 4, since he saw that it was incredible that the canons should be denied to the council of Toledo assembled in the year 400, entered on another way of reconciling the difficulties. He claimed the rule of faith for the synod under Leo, but thinks that the rest, which he does not doubt belong to Toledo I, can be referred to the synod under Leo in so far as in it, before the rule of faith, the 20 canons framed in the earlier synod were read again and confirmed, by which that phrase "they laid down" is sufficiently explained, while after the rule the professions and the sentence were excerpted from the fuller acts of the synod of Toledo I. Only the codices from which these documents came forth can bring any help in this controversy. The canons and the rule of faith, which were first published by Merlin from a manuscript of the Isidorian collection, take their origin from the Spanish collection, which Pseudo-Isidore transcribed. Now all the copies of this collection, in the first part, which presents the councils, give the synod of Toledo I with twenty canons and subjoin the rule of faith alone. And before the canons there is prefixed in all of them this chronological note: "In the times of Arcadius and Honorius, on the 12th day before the Ides of September, Stilicho being consul," by which the date of the canons and of the council is marked. Several of the same manuscript books add the Spanish era, with some slight difference. Joannes Baptista Perez saw four codices of the purer Spanish collection, which he lists in the manuscript Vat. 4887: that of Albelda, by Vigila, that of Lugo, that of Seville, and that of San Millán. We have collated the same number of codices in this matter, two (continues)

(printed under page 671)

(a) ‹anchor: atque officia› · call in col 1341

Metropoliticae dignitatis praerogativas et officia in regiones suburbicarias ad se traxisse Romani pontifices dici nequeunt, nisi praesumatur singulas provincias earumdem regionum ecclesiasticos metropolitas habuisse: quod tamen falsum est. Cum in Occidente post Constantini aevum ecclesiasticae metropoles institui coeperint, ut colligere licet ex iis quae de origine metropoleon ecclesiasticarum in Galliis pluribus disseruimus in observat. ad dissert. 5 Quesnelli part. II c. 5, tum vero in Italia Mediolanensis et Aquileiensis sub finem quarti saeculi, Ravennas sub Leonis pontificatum metropoliticam dignitatem obtinuere. Nullus nisi multo post metropolita institutus in caeteris provinciis, seu in regionibus suburbicariis; sed in his solus Romanus pontifex metropoliticum jus exercebat, quod antea semper solus exercuit: unde hanc dignitatem cum ejusdem praerogativis ac officiis S. Leo ad se non attraxit, sed in iis quae ab initio suae soli sedi competebant, pro suo jure perseveravit ac perstitit, sicuti etiam successores ejus, quoad institutione metropolitarum in iisdem regionibus aliis episcopis hunc gradum communicare expediens duxere. Hinc porro cadunt quaecumque in fusiori hac notatione Quesnellus disputat.

The Roman pontiffs cannot be said to have drawn to themselves the prerogatives and offices of the metropolitan dignity over the suburbicarian regions, unless it is presumed that the several provinces of those regions had ecclesiastical metropolitans: which, however, is false. Since ecclesiastical metropolitan sees began to be instituted in the West after the age of Constantine, as may be gathered from what we have discussed at length on the origin of the ecclesiastical metropolitan sees in Gaul in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part II, ch. 5, in Italy the bishop of Milan and the bishop of Aquileia obtained the metropolitan dignity towards the end of the fourth century, and the bishop of Ravenna about the pontificate of Leo. No metropolitan was instituted until much later in the other provinces, that is, in the suburbicarian regions; but in these the Roman pontiff alone exercised the metropolitan right, which he alone had always exercised before: whence St. Leo did not draw this dignity, with its prerogatives and offices, to himself, but in those things which from the beginning belonged to his see alone he persevered and stood firm by his own right, as did his successors also, until they judged it expedient, by the institution of metropolitans in those same regions, to share this rank with other bishops. Hence, moreover, whatever Quesnel argues in this rather lengthy note falls to the ground.

(printed under page 676)

(b) ‹anchor: at the head of § 2, before "In electionibus"› · call in col 1342

Vide Greg. I, lib. V, epist. 13, ad rectorem Siciliae, de Lilybaetano clero petente licentiam a R. P., ut sibi episc. eligeret.

See Gregory I, book V, letter 13, to the rector of Sicily, about the clergy of Lilybaeum asking leave from the Roman pontiff to elect a bishop for themselves.

(printed under page 676)

(a) ‹anchor: ad Siciliae episcopos› · call in col 1346

His, quae hic Quesnellus opponit, ut hanc epistolam in dubium vocet, plenissime respondimus in admonitione eidem praemissa, ac praeserim in annotationibus quas eidem subjecimus,

To the objections Quesnel here raises in order to call this letter into doubt, we have replied most fully in the notice prefixed to it, and especially in the annotations we have appended to it.

(printed under page 678)

(a) ‹anchor: notis de ejus› · call in col 1348

Hujus epistolae vindicias luculenter exhibuimus in admonit. ad epistolam primam.

We have set out the vindication of this letter clearly in the notice to the first letter.

(printed under page 679)

(b) ‹anchor: non fuerint maculati.› · call in col 1348

Confer nostram annotat. 6 (Col. 707 n. e) in epist. 18.)

Compare our annotation 6 (col. 707, note e) on Letter 18.

(printed under page 679)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1349 or 1350 (above the foot image; not seen)

Qui canones a Leone allegentur, et quo sensu huc referendi sint, licet nec de Donatistis, nec de Novatianis, sed de Pelagianis agatur, diximus in laudata admonitione n. 18 et 26. Confer etiam annot. 5 (Col. 707, n. c).

Which canons Leo is citing, and in what sense they are to be applied here, although the matter concerns neither Donatists nor Novatians but Pelagians, we have said in the notice already mentioned, nos. 18 and 26. Compare also annotation 5 (col. 707, note c).

(printed under page 680)

(b) ‹anchor: ignorabas dixisse, etc.› · call in col 1350

De hoc textu et Simonii animadversione satis disseruimus annot. 10 (Col. 710, n. k) in hanc epistolam.

On this text and on Simon's criticism we have said enough in annotation 10 (col. 710, note k) on this letter.

(printed under page 680)

(a) ‹anchor: kalendas Martii.› · call in col 1353

Vide nostram emendationem annot. 12 (Col. 736, n. n) in hanc epist.

See our emendation in annotation 12 (col. 736, note n) on this letter.

(printed under page 682)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1353 or 1354 (above the foot image; not seen)

Duae tamen editiones distinguendae, de quibus diximus in admonitione ad hanc epist., altera epistolae decurtatae, altera integrae. Triplicem vero Quesnellus dixit, eo quod editio Vossii et editio Conciliorum, licet integram epistolam exhibeant, e diversis tamen codicibus originem ducentes, pro editionibus diversis haberi queant. In admonitione autem allegata cum integram editionem vindicavimus, tum vero decurtatae editionis originem ex mss. collectionum Hispanicae et Isidorianae sine ulla editorum fraude deteximus.

Two editions, however, are to be distinguished, of which we have spoken in the notice to this letter: one of the letter abridged, the other of the letter entire. Quesnel spoke of three because the edition of Vossius and the edition of the Councils, though both give the whole letter, derive from different manuscripts and so may be counted as different editions. In the notice cited we have both vindicated the complete edition and traced the origin of the abridged edition to the manuscripts of the Spanish and Isidorian collections, without any fraud on the editors' part.

(printed under page 682)

(c) ‹anchor: asserit Petrus Raven.› · call in col 1354

Vide nostram annot. 19 (Col. 743, n. h) in hanc Petri Chrysologi epistolam.

See our annotation 19 (col. 743, note h) on this letter of Peter Chrysologus.

(printed under page 682)

(d) ‹anchor: ejusque primatem› · call in col 1354

Apellationis proprie dictae libellum ad Romanum pontificem, non vero ad Occidentalem synodum ab Eutyche missum ostendimus in observ. ad dissert. 7 Quesnelli. Cur autem etiam ad S. Petrum Chrysologum scripserit, ibidem explicavimus n. 9 et 10.

That a petition of appeal properly so called was sent by Eutyches to the Roman pontiff, and not to the Western synod, we have shown in the observations on Quesnel's Dissertation 7. Why he also wrote to St. Peter Chrysologus we have explained in the same place, nos. 9 and 10.

(printed under page 682)

(a) ‹anchor: epistolae capite› · call in col 1355

Hanc epistolam sub idem tempus a Petro Chrysologo scriptam quo S. Leo dedit epist. 23 et 24, probavimus in admonitione ad hanc epistolam num. 6.

That this letter was written by Peter Chrysologus at about the same time as St. Leo issued Letters 23 and 24, we have proved in the notice to this letter, no. 6.

(printed under page 683)

(b) ‹anchor: docemur, non› · call in col 1355

Confer praemissam annot. 3 (Col. 6[?]0. n. a).

Compare the foregoing annotation 3 (col. 6[?]0, note a). [The middle digit of the column number is illegible in the scan.]

(printed under page 683)

(c) ‹anchor: scripsisti› · call in col 1356 (printed under col. 1355; the note belongs to n1356, which does not set it, so its text is kept here)

Hunc locum mendosum et corrigendum conjecimus annot. 15 (Col. 1354, n. d).

We have conjectured that this passage is faulty and needs correcting, in annotation 15 (col. 1354, note d).

(printed under page 683)

(d) ‹anchor: cum porro› · call in col 1356

Haec et sequentia, quibus Romani pontificis potestatem in appellationibus Quesnellus restringere nititur, confutantur in observat. ad dissert. 7 num. 9.

This and what follows, by which Quesnel strives to restrict the Roman pontiff's power in appeals, are refuted in the observations on Dissertation 7, no. 9.

(printed under page 683)

(e) ‹anchor: sanctissimi pontificis› · call in col 1356

Videsis de hujus epistolae celebritate ejusque tum Latinis tum Graecis mss. plura in admonitione eidem praemissa.

On the fame of this letter and on its manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, see more in the notice prefixed to it.

(printed under page 683)

(a) ‹anchor: ad Flavianum› · call in col 1359

Duo nostri codices Veneti Graecae versionis habent Ἰουλιόν Julium, non Ἰουλιανὸν Julianum. Exemplaria etiam mss. synodi V, collatione sexta, annotante Baluzio, habent Julium.

Our two Venetian manuscripts of the Greek version have Ἰουλιόν, Julius, not Ἰουλιανὸν, Julian. The manuscript copies of the Fifth Synod, in the sixth session, also have Julius, as Baluze notes.

(printed under page 685)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1359 or 1360 (above the foot image; not seen)

Confer admonitionem huic epistolae 28 praefixam num. 4 et seqq.

Compare the notice prefixed to this Letter 28, no. 4 and following.

(printed under page 685)

(c) ‹anchor: Quod vero non› · call in col 1360

Optime sane Quesnellus hoc loco statuit episcopum a Leone legatum ad Ephesinam synodum Julium esse Puteolanum, non vero Julianum Coensem, ut quidam perperam opinati fuerant. Quod vero fusius probare nititur, Julianum Coensem Julii loco interfuisse Ephesinae synodo, falso fundamento fulcitur. Renatum scilicet, qui in Breviculo historiae Eutychianistarum in Delo insula mortuus traditur, vivum constituit ex Theodoreto, qui post eamdem synodum ad ipsum litteras dedit. Hinc Breviculi auctorem aut memoria lapsum, aut incertis documentis deceptum affirmans, conjicit Julium Puteolanum apud Delos mortuum, ejusque loco Julianum Coensem in legatione Romanae sedis assumptum in Ephesino concilio sedisse; unde Julianus in vulgatis gestis appellatur, qui vice Leonis ibidem interfuit. Huc paucis tota vis ratiocinationis Quesnelli revocatur: caetera enim ejus argumenta sunt merae conjecturae, quae Theodoreti auctoritati, et vulgatis gestis incumbunt, ita ut si haec fundamenta nutent, caetera omnia pariter corruant necesse sit. Itaque Renatum presbyterum, non autem Julium episcopum ante synodum vita functum primum satis indicat Prosper, coaevus auctor, dum in Chronico ad an. 449 de pseudosynodo Ephesina loquens, solius Hilari diaconi et Julii episcopi Puteolani meminit; de Renato autem ne verbum quidem. Reclamante Hilaro diacono Ecclesiae Romanae, qui vice S. Leonis papae cum Julio episcopo Puteolano a sede apostolica fuerat destinatus. Quod si destinatus fuit etiam Renatus, hujus tamen non meminit, quia de iis loquitur qui Ephesi gestis sese opponentes, eodem pervenerant; nec pro Renato Julium memoraret, si Renatus, non autem Julius, in synodo consedisset. Id autem multo evidentius demonstrant ipsa acta Ephesina, quae actioni primae synodi Chalcedonensis inserta leguntur. Licet enim ibi non solum legati nominentur, sed etiam Dulcitius notarius Romanae Ecclesiae, (continues)

Quesnel is quite right to hold here that the bishop sent by Leo as legate to the synod of Ephesus was Julius of Puteoli, and not Julian of Cos, as some had wrongly supposed. But what he tries to prove at greater length, that Julian of Cos sat at the synod of Ephesus in Julius's place, rests on a false foundation. For he makes Renatus, who in the Breviculus of the history of the Eutychians is reported to have died on the island of Delos, to be still alive, on the strength of Theodoret, who addressed a letter to him after that synod. Asserting on this ground that the author of the Breviculus either suffered a lapse of memory or was misled by unreliable documents, he conjectures that it was Julius of Puteoli who died at Delos, and that Julian of Cos, taken into the legation of the Roman see in his place, sat at the council of Ephesus; whence the one who was present there in Leo's stead is called Julian in the published acts. To this, in brief, the whole force of Quesnel's reasoning comes down: for his other arguments are mere conjectures resting on the authority of Theodoret and on the published acts, so that if these foundations give way, all the rest must fall with them. That it was the presbyter Renatus, then, and not the bishop Julius, who died before the synod, is first shown clearly enough by Prosper, a contemporary author, who in his Chronicle at the year 449 [the year is partly illegible in the scan], speaking of the false synod of Ephesus, mentions only the deacon Hilary and Julius, bishop of Puteoli, and says not a word of Renatus: "While Hilary, deacon of the Roman Church, protested, who had been sent by the apostolic see in the stead of the holy pope Leo together with Julius, bishop of Puteoli." And if Renatus too was sent, Prosper nevertheless does not mention him, because he is speaking of those who, opposing what was done at Ephesus, had actually arrived there; nor would he name Julius in place of Renatus if Renatus, and not Julius, had sat in the synod. But this is shown far more plainly by the acts of Ephesus themselves, which are read inserted in the first session of the synod of Chalcedon. For although not only the legates are named there, but also Dulcitius, notary of the Roman Church, (continues)

(printed under page 685)

<!-- The Ballerini note (c) begun on page 685 appears to fill this whole page, down both columns. The upper part of the left column (col. 1361) was supplied from the column images in QA pass Q4a; the two foot images show only the lower part of each column, so the upper part of the right column (col. 1362) was not seen and is marked […]. --> (printed under page 686)

(c) ‹anchor: (call on page 685, col 1360)› · note text in cols 1361-1362

(continued) Renatus tamen nullibi appellatur, quod incredibile est si cum caeteris adfuisset. Neque gesta ipsa Ephesina deesse Quesnellus affirmet, nec quod in Chalcedonensi legitur, eorumdem gestorum exceptum esse pronuntiet. Chalcedonensibus enim gestis palam revincitur: ex quibus ipsa Ephesina acta integra et sine ullo saltu lecta fuisse noscuntur usque ad actionem quae Eutychis absolutionem et Flaviani ac Eusebii condemnationem continebat, cuique soli Romanae sedis legati interfuerunt. Cur ergo Julio episcopo, Hilaro diacono, et Dulcitio notario memoratis, Renatus in his gestis omittitur, nisi quia apud Delos mortuus, ut in Breviculo traditur, ei concilio non adfuit? Qui autem omitti poterat, si ea quae Ephesi audacter gesta sunt arguisset et repressisset, ut Theodoretus in epistola pronuntiat? Hic praesertim nominandus in gestis fuerat, et haec ejus contradictio iisdem gestis procul dubio fuisset inserta. Cum vero ex gestis pateat Julium interlocutum, Hilari autem contradictio non tam probetur ex gestis quam ex Chronico Prosperi, Theodoretus incerta fama ac aequivocatione aliqua deceptus noscitur, dum id tribuit Renato quod Hilaro erat tribuendum: nisi quis forte Renati nomen pro Hilari nomine in inscriptionem epistolae Theodoreti per errorem irrepsisse malit, quod tamen ne suspicari quidem audemus. Potius enim credimus Theodoretum, qui tres legatos a Leone missos ex epistola 28 ad Flavianum didicerat, ex fama autem acceperat legatos Ephesinis gestis restitisse, nec de Renati morte quidquam audierat, ad singulos scripsisse eodem exemplo, ut suam illis causam commendaret; solam autem ad Renatum epistolam superfuisse. Quae enim exstat Theodoreti epistola ad archidiaconum Ecclesiae Romanae, ei qui in hac Ecclesia primus erat, directurus, licet nomen ignoraret, datam credimus, cum archidiaconorum nota esset potestas; non autem Hilaro, quem cum sciret legationis officio functum, aliquid de hoc peculiare litteris inseruisset. Quid quod Julium, non autem Julianum Ephesinae synodo interfuisset certissimum est? Id satis efficax argumentum esse possent interlocutiones per interpretem in Ephesinis gestis contentae, quae Julio quidem conveniunt, a Juliano autem Coensi alienae sunt, quippe qui Graecae urbis episcopus uno per interpretem, sed per sese Graece locutus est non tam in Chalcedonensi quam in Constantinopolitana synodo sub Flaviano ante Ephesinam habita: unde irritus cognoscitur audax Quesnelli nisus, quo, ut hanc rationem elideret, Julianum Ephesinae synodi tempore Graecae linguae minus peritum traduxit. Sed luculentiora ex ipsis gestis suppetunt. Julium enim, non Julianum habent mss. codices antiquae vensionis concilii Chalcedonensis. Sex codices hujus versionis expendimus quatuor Vaticanos 1321, 1323, 4166 et 5405, Ghigianum 483, et antiquissimum Veronensem 57. Ex sex autem vicibus quibus hic legatus nominatur, quinquies dicitur Julius in quatuor codicibus, nempe tribus Vaticanis 1323, 4166 et 5405, atque in Ghigiano et semel tantum per errorem Julianus in Ghigiano Eusebius autem item semel in iisdem mss. Vaticanis tribus. In antiquissimo autem Veronensi, et in emendatiori Vat. 1321, ubique semper Julius scribitur. Idipsum pariter in quatuor suis mss. observavit Baluzius. Nam Corbeiensis et Colbertinus Julianum semel tantum exhibent; Parisiensis ac Divionensis Julium semper ingerunt. Confer apud ipsum Baluzium singula concilii loca, nec unum tantummodo priorem textum, ubi Julianum in duobus codicibus praeferri notavit, cum Quesnello consideres, quod nonnullis fucum facere posset. Hinc autem erronea cognoscitur editorum lectio Julianum ubique exhibens, cui Quesnellus innixus est. Ex hac autem antiqua interpre- […] haec historia Acacianae causae documentis praefixa brevius describitur; incipit enim a damnatione Dioscori, et in iis gestis desinit quae Acacii damnationem praecesserunt. Duo autem additamenta huic historiae accessere, alterum initio, quo historia ab origine, a Nestorio scilicet et Eutyche, inchoatur; alterum in fine, quo eadem historia ad Acacii damnationem usque perducitur. Haec vero historia cum his additamentis in Virdunensi codice, qui sola monumenta Acaciana complectitur, inventa fuit a Sirmondo cum titulo: Gesta de nomine Acacii, a nobis autem cum eodem titulo in ms. Vat. Reginae 1997. Nova tandem aliquot linearum additio in fine facta fuit, cum qua excusa jampridem habebatur in Romana editione Epistolarum Romanorum pontificum an. 1591, tom. I, part. II, pag. 142. Hoc autem integrum documentum reperimus in aliquot mss. libris praestantissimae collectionis Avellanae, in quibus hoc initium est ab editoribus Romanis omissum: Incipit. In causa fidei christianae, cui ab exordio sui numquam defuisse probantur inimici. Nostro quidem saeculo, etc.; unde Quesnellus notavit hanc historiam duabus primis lineis in editione Romana breviorem esse quam quae a Sirmondo publicata fuit. Integra hujusmodi historia Liberatus usus est, non autem contra, ut Pagius perperam existimavit ad an. 496, num 4. Nunc observamus hanc historiam in collectionibus Quesnelliana, et Vaticanis 1342, 1344 [third digit unclear in the scan] in Barb. 2888, in Veronensi 46, et in ms. Virdunensi praemitti monumentis Acacianis, quae in Gelasio desinunt; in Vat. Reg. 1997 subjici epistolae Gelasii; in Avellano autem caeterisque similibus referri inter Gelasii epistolas: adeo ut ejusdem historiae Gelasium auctorem esse non male conjecerit Henricus Valesius. Tempus quidem initio opusculi indicatum, quod respondet an. 493, aut 494, et historiae finis cum Gelasii temporibus conveniunt. Gelasii porro morem fuisse nonnulla suis opusculis addere, liquet ex epistola ad Dardanos, quae in Quesnelliana alisque collectionibus brevior est, aliquot vero additamentis auctior invenitur in codice Avellano, unde illam Romani editores typis tradidere. Idipsum ergo credimus evenisse historiae Eutychianistarum; adeo ut additamenta quae subdinde accessere, eidem Gelasio tribuenda sint. Hinc autem quanta sit auctoritas ejus testimonii quo Renatus apud Delum mortuus ibidem traditur, nemo non videt. Quamquam etiamsi alius a Gelasio habeatur ejus additamenti auctor, cum tamen Romanus fuerit atque aetate (continues)

(printed under page 686)

(c, continued) ‹anchor: Quod vero non (col. 1360)› · call in col 1360; continuation printed under col. 1362, to be joined to note (c) in n1360 after its part under col. 1361 a Rustico recognita Julium item fuisse in Graecis exemplaribus quibus vetus interpres et Rusticus usi sunt, discimus; et jure Evagrium ac Nicephorum Graecos scriptores Julium, non Julianum praetulisse; ac per errorem in editis Conciliorum Graecis Julianum alicubi appellari, qui Julius fuit. Enimvero in ambobus Graecis codd. concilii Chalcedonensis bibliothecae Venetae S. Marci 164 et 555, Ἰούλιος, Julius, ubique legitur, excepto secundo actorum, ubi Ἰουλιανὸς, Julianus habetur, qui unicus locus ex quinque aliis Ἰούλιος, Julius, praeferentibus emendandus est.

revised by Rusticus we learn that Julius likewise stood in the Greek copies which the old translator and Rusticus used; and that Evagrius and Nicephorus, Greek writers, rightly gave Julius, not Julian; and that by error in the printed Greek texts of the Councils he is somewhere called Julian, who was Julius. For indeed in both the Greek codices of the council of Chalcedon in the Venetian library of St Mark, 164 and 555, Ἰούλιος, Julius, is read everywhere, except in the second [session] of the acts, where Ἰουλιανός, Julian, is found, which single place is to be emended from the five others that give Ἰούλιος, Julius.

Quod si ex his Julius in Ephesina synodo legationem Romanae sedis gessit, duo sequuntur, quae Quesnelli systema evertunt: primo commentitia esse quae de Juliano Coensi legato inanibus conjecturis comminiscitur; deinde eum qui apud Delos obiit non fuisse Julium episcopum, sed Renatum presbyterum, ut in Breviculo historiae Eutychianistarum traditur.

But if from these things it was Julius who bore the legation of the Roman see in the Ephesine synod, two things follow which overturn Quesnel's system: first, that what he devises by empty conjectures about Julian of Cos as legate is fictitious; next, that he who died at Delos was not Julius the bishop, but Renatus the presbyter, as is related in the Breviculus of the history of the Eutychianists.

Quoniam vero hoc Breviculi testimonium Quesnellus panno tribuit, quia abest in Quesnellianae collectionis capite 43, ubi eadem historia inserta est, quid hac in re sentiendum sit, ope vetustissimorum codicum detegere plurimum refert. In Quesnelliana quidem et in nonnullis aliis antiquis collectionibus haec historia Acacianae causae documentis praefixa brevius describitur; incipit enim a damnatione Dioscori, et in iis gestis desinit quae Acacii damnationem praecesserunt. Duo autem additamenta huic historiae accessere, alterum initio, quo historia ab origine, a Nestorio scilicet et Eutyche, inchoatur; alterum in fine, quo eadem historia ad Acacii damnationem usque perducitur. Haec vero historia cum his additamentis in Virdunensi codice, qui sola monumenta Acaciana complectitur, inventa fuit a Sirmondo cum titulo: Gesta de nomine Acacii, a nobis autem cum eodem titulo in ms. Vat. Reginae 1997. Nova tandem aliquot linearum additio in fine facta fuit, cum qua excusa jampridem habebatur in Romana editione Epistolarum Romanorum pontificum an. 1591, tom. I, part. II, pag. 142. Hoc autem integrum documentum reperimus in aliquot mss. libris praestantissimae collectionis Avellanae, in quibus hoc initium est ab editoribus Romanis omissum: Incipit. In causa fidei christianae, cui ab exordio sui numquam defuisse probantur inimici. Nostro quidem saeculo, etc.; unde Quesnellus notavit hanc historiam duabus primis lineis in editione Romana breviorem esse quam quae a Sirmondo publicata fuit. Integra hujusmodi historia Liberatus usus est, non autem contra, ut Pagius perperam existimavit ad an. 496, num 4. Nunc observamus hanc historiam in collectionibus Quesnelliana, et Vaticanis 1342, 1344† in Barb. 2888, in Veronensi 46, et in ms. Virdunensi praemitti monumentis Acacianis, quae in Gelasio desinunt; in Vat. Reg. 1997 subjici epistolae Gelasii; in Avellano autem caeterisque similibus referri inter Gelasii epistolas: adeo ut ejusdem historiae Gelasium auctorem esse non male conjecerit Henricus Valesius. Tempus quidem initio opusculi indicatum, quod respondet an. 493, aut 494, et historiae finis cum Gelasii temporibus conveniunt. Gelasii porro morem fuisse nonnulla suis opusculis addere, liquet ex epistola ad Dardanos, quae in Quesnelliana alisque collectionibus brevior est, aliquot vero additamentis auctior invenitur in codice Avellano, unde illam Romani editores typis tradidere. Idipsum ergo credimus evenisse historiae Eutychianistarum; adeo ut additamenta quae subdinde accessere, eidem Gelasio tribuenda sint. Hinc autem quanta sit auctoritas ejus testimonii quo Renatus apud Delum mortuus ibidem traditur, nemo non videt. Quamquam etiamsi alius a Gelasio habeatur ejus additamenti auctor, cum tamen Romanus fuerit atque aetate

But since Quesnel ascribes this testimony of the Breviculus to a patch, because it is absent in chapter 43 of the Quesnel collection, where the same history is inserted, it is of the greatest importance to uncover, by the help of the most ancient codices, what is to be thought in this matter. In the Quesnel collection indeed, and in some other ancient collections, this history, prefixed to the documents of the Acacian cause, is set down more briefly; for it begins from the condemnation of Dioscorus, and ends with those proceedings which preceded the condemnation of Acacius. But two additions have accrued to this history, one at the beginning, by which the history is begun from its origin, namely from Nestorius and Eutyches; the other at the end, by which the same history is carried down as far as the condemnation of Acacius. Now this history with these additions was found by Sirmond in the Verdun codex, which comprises only the Acacian records, with the title: Acts concerning the name of Acacius, and by us with the same title in the manuscript Vat. Reginae 1997. Finally a new addition of some lines was made at the end, with which it had long since been printed in the Roman edition of the Letters of the Roman pontiffs of the year 1591, tome I, part II, page 142. Moreover we have found this document entire in some manuscript books of the most excellent Avellana collection, in which there is this beginning, omitted by the Roman editors: Here begins. In the cause of the Christian faith, to which from its very beginning enemies are proved never to have been wanting. In our own age indeed, etc.; whence Quesnel noted that this history is shorter by its first two lines in the Roman edition than that which was published by Sirmond. Liberatus used the entire history of this kind, and not the reverse, as Pagi wrongly judged at the year 496, number 4. Now we observe that this history, in the Quesnel collection, and in the Vatican 1342, 1344, in Barb. 2888, in the Veronese 46, and in the Verdun manuscript, is placed before the Acacian records, which end in Gelasius; that in Vat. Reg. 1997 it is subjoined to a letter of Gelasius; but that in the Avellana and the others like it, it is set among the letters of Gelasius: so that Henri Valois not badly conjectured Gelasius to be the author of the same history. The time indeed indicated at the beginning of the little work, which answers to the year 493 or 494, and the end of the history agree with the times of Gelasius. Further, that it was the custom of Gelasius to add some things to his little works is clear from the letter to the Dardanians, which is shorter in the Quesnel and other collections, but is found enlarged by some additions in the Avellana codex, whence the Roman editors committed it to type. We therefore believe that the very same happened to the history of the Eutychianists; so that the additions which afterwards accrued are to be attributed to the same Gelasius. Hence, moreover, everyone sees how great is the authority of that testimony by which Renatus is there related to have died at Delos. Although, even if someone other than Gelasius be held the author of that addition, yet since he was a Roman and in age

(printed under page 686, under col. 1362; runs on past the foot of the column)

(c) ‹anchor: (call on page 685, col 1360)› · note text at the foot of cols 1363-1364

(continued) Gelasii de Romano presbytero testimonium dederit, fidem in hoc praecipue maximam obtinere debet qui praesertim et Prospero, et Ephesinae pseudosynodi gestis congruat.

(printed under page 687)

(a) ‹anchor: sed ab ipsis› · call in col 1366

Vide annot. 5 (Col. 825, n. a) in epist. 43.

See annotation 5 (col. 825, note a) on Letter 43.

(printed under page 688)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1367 or 1368 (above the foot image; not seen)

Id falsum ostendemus in observationibus ad notam 3 Quesnelli in epist. 113.

We shall show this to be false in the observations on Quesnel's note 3 on Letter 113.

(printed under page 689)

(b) ‹anchor: Tituli S. Clementis.› · call in col 1368

Confer nostram annot. 82 (Col. 779, n. e) in hanc epist.

Compare our annotation 82 (col. 779, note e) on this letter.

(printed under page 689)

<!-- Note (b): the last line visible at the foot of col 1370 ends without a full stop in the scan, but page 691 carries no continuation, so the note ends here. --> (printed under page 690)

(a) ‹anchor: Hanc enim vocem,› · call in col 1369

Vide annot. 85 (Col. 781, n. c).

See annotation 85 (col. 781, note c).

(printed under page 690)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1369 or 1370 (above the foot image; not seen)

In admonitione ad hanc epistolam n. 8 ostendimus haec testimonia actioni secundae concilii Chalcedonensis perperam fuisse in vulgatis inserta post Leonis epistolam ad Flavianum, cum in Graecis codicibus eidem epistolae ante gesta descriptae subjiciantur. Leoni vero hanc testimoniorum collectionem tribuendam ibidem probavimus n. 9, ex quo satis eliditur Garnerii opinio, qua ea testimonia a Theodoreto collecta et Leonis epistolae addita contendit. Illud autem probabilius credimus, Theodoretum potius quasdam Latinorum Patrum auctoritates ex Leone accepisse. Neque refert ejus dialogos scriptos fuisse an. 448, antequam Leo ea testimonia Constantinopolim mitteret. Potuit enim Theodoretus testimoniis antea congestis quaedam adjicere, cum Leonis collectionem Graece redditam accepit. Id autem non levis ratio nobis suadet. Leo nimirum, si de Graecis Patribus sermo sit, horum testimonia ex Latinis versionibus, quae ante ipsum erant apud Latinos celebres, facile sumpsit, ut ne ex Graeco Theodoreti ea derivarit, uti observavimus in admonit. ad epist. 165, n. 3. Theodoretus vero etsi quaedam testimonia Patrum Latinorum, Damasi scilicet et Ambrosii, Graecis nota, suis dialogis prima manu inseruerit, quae apud Leonem non inveniuntur, alia tamen Hilarii et Augustini ex Leone sumpta et dialogo 2 adjecta dicenda sunt; neque enim horum Patrum opera seu opuscula, praesertim Augustini epistola ad Volusianum, et expositio fidei, inter Graecos ante Leonem vulgata aut cognita dici queunt. Haec autem ex Leonina collectione Theodoretum accepisse id multo magis confirmat, quia eas omnes auctoritates Patrum Latinorum, quae post epistolam Leonis ante gesta descriptae sunt, iisdem verbis ex eadem Graeca versione, eodemque ordine Theodoreti dialogo secundo insertae leguntur. In quibus evidentius hujus additamenti indicium est testimonium S. Ambrosii ex lib. II de Fide ad Gratianum, quod apud Leonem incipit: Sileant igitur inanes de sermonibus quaestiones. Partem enim hujus testimonii, quae inchoat a verbo servemus, jam Theodoretus attulerat ex Graeca versione diversa a versione Leonis; postea autem iterum eumdem integrum textum inter Leoninos subjicit ex Graeca versione diversa, qualis in Leoninis Graece redditis deprehenditur. Si Theodoretus non sumpsisset hos textus ex testimoniis Leonis Graeco sermone donatis, nonne cum primum textum attulit, integrum eademque versione redditum protulisset? Haec repetitio diversae versionis posteriorem additionem ex Leone sumptam declarat, qua Theodoretus omnes auctoritates a Leone propositas voluit suis anterioribus testimoniis addere, ut ne animadverterit (diversa fortassis interpretatione fucum faciente) idem Ambrosii testimonium sese jam paulo ante protulisse, ut illud repetere opus non fuerit. Quod si tria testimonia S. Cyrilli apud Theodoretum iisdem verbis Graecis exhibentur ac in testimoniis Leonis, nihil refert, cum aeque Graecus Leonis interpres ac Theodoretus ea ex Cyrilli libris Graece scriptis excerpserit

In the notice to this letter, no. 8, we have shown that these testimonies were wrongly inserted in the printed editions into the second session of the council of Chalcedon after Leo's letter to Flavian, whereas in the Greek manuscripts they are appended to that letter where it is copied before the acts. That this collection of testimonies is to be ascribed to Leo we have proved in the same place, no. 9; and by this the opinion of Garnier is sufficiently overthrown, who contends that these testimonies were gathered by Theodoret and added to Leo's letter. We think it more probable, rather, that Theodoret took certain authorities of the Latin Fathers from Leo. Nor does it matter that his dialogues were written in the year 448, before Leo sent those testimonies to Constantinople; for Theodoret could have added some things to the testimonies he had earlier heaped together when he received Leo's collection turned into Greek. A reason of no small weight persuades us of this. For Leo, where the Greek Fathers are concerned, readily took their testimonies from the Latin versions which before his time were well known among the Latins, so that he did not derive them from Theodoret's Greek, as we observed in the notice to Letter 165, no. 3. Theodoret, on the other hand, though with his first hand he put into his dialogues certain testimonies of Latin Fathers known to the Greeks, namely of Damasus and Ambrose, which are not found in Leo, must nevertheless be said to have taken others, of Hilary and Augustine, from Leo and added them to Dialogue 2; for the works or shorter writings of these Fathers, especially Augustine's letter to Volusianus and the exposition of the faith, cannot be said to have been published or known among the Greeks before Leo. And that Theodoret received these from Leo's collection is much more strongly confirmed by this: that all those authorities of Latin Fathers which are copied after Leo's letter before the acts are read inserted in Theodoret's second dialogue in the same words, from the same Greek version, and in the same order. Among them the plainest sign of this addition is the testimony of St. Ambrose from Book II On the Faith to Gratian, which in Leo begins: "Let empty questions about words, then, be silent." For Theodoret had already brought forward the part of this testimony that begins with the word "let us keep", from a Greek version different from Leo's; yet afterwards he sets down the same text again, entire, among Leo's testimonies, from a different Greek version, such as is found in Leo's testimonies turned into Greek. If Theodoret had not taken these texts from Leo's testimonies rendered into Greek, would he not, when he first cited the text, have given it entire and in the same version? This repetition in a different version declares a later addition taken from Leo, by which Theodoret wished to add to his own earlier testimonies all the authorities set forth by Leo, so that he did not notice (the different translation perhaps deceiving him) that he had brought forward the same testimony of Ambrose a little before, so that there was no need to repeat it. And if three testimonies of St. Cyril are given in Theodoret in the same Greek words as in Leo's testimonies, that is of no consequence, since Leo's Greek translator, equally with Theodoret, excerpted them from Cyril's books written in Greek.

(printed under page 690)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1371 or 1372 (above the foot image; not seen)

Hac de re vide plura annot. 3 in dissert. 1 Quesnelli ad an. 454.

On this matter see more in annotation 3 on Quesnel's Dissertation 1, at the year 454.

(printed under page 691)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1375 or 1376 (not seen in the foot images)

Etsi quilibet episcopus catholicae communionis sit et appellari possit episcopus Ecclesiae catholicae, Romanus tamen pontifex specialiter eo nomine vocatur, sicut specialiter Romana Ecclesia appellatur catholica ratione primatus, quia scilicet hujus primatus causa in Romana sede, ac in ipso summo pontifice centrum est et radix communionis et unitatis catholicae; adeo ut, Irenaeo testante, ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse sit omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles; quod Irenaei testimonium idem Quesnellus in Memoriali septimo, pag. 137 maximi faciendum monuit, propterea quod licet ille Occidentalis episcopus fuerit, Orientalis tamen cum esset, omnium matricum et originalium Orientis Ecclesiarum traditionem ad nos attulit. Plura in hanc rem ex Leone, aliisque Patribus, ac ex ipso Galliacano Clero, qui unitatis catholicae centrum in Romana sede situm agnoscit, afferri possent; sed hujus loci non est lectorem pluribus distinere.

Although any bishop of the Catholic communion is, and can be called, a bishop of the Catholic Church, the Roman pontiff is nevertheless called by that name in a special way, just as the Roman Church is in a special way called Catholic by reason of the primacy; because, that is, on account of this primacy the centre and root of Catholic communion and unity is in the Roman see and in the supreme pontiff himself; so much so that, as Irenaeus testifies, "to this Church, on account of its more powerful principality, every Church must resort, that is, the faithful who are from everywhere." This testimony of Irenaeus the same Quesnel, in his seventh Memorial, p. 137, warned should be valued most highly, because, although Irenaeus was a Western bishop, yet being an Easterner he "brought to us the tradition of all the mother and original Churches of the East." More to this purpose could be brought from Leo and other Fathers, and from the Gallican clergy itself, which acknowledges that "the centre of Catholic unity" is placed in the Roman see; but this is not the place to detain the reader with more.

(printed under page 693)

(a) ‹anchor: conjici potest.› · call in col 1377

Vide admonitionem in epistolas 30 et 31.

See the notice on Letters 30 and 31.

(printed under page 694)

(b) ‹anchor: verba scripta est.› · call in col 1378

Confer nostram annotat. 40 (Col. 795, n. b), et admonitionem epistolae 30 praemissam, ubi quid de hac et antecedenti epistola censendum sit accuratius exquisivimus,

Compare our annotation 40 (col. 795, note b), and the notice prefixed to Letter 30, where we have inquired more carefully what is to be thought of this letter and the preceding one.

(printed under page 694)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1379 or 1380 (above the foot image; not seen)

Haec opinio refellitur annot. 3 in hanc epistolam (Col. 995, n. f).

This opinion is refuted in annotation 3 on this letter (col. 995, note f).

(printed under page 695)

(b) ‹anchor: De annotatis autem› · call in col 1380

De tempore hujus epistolae, et de ejusdem versione Graeca plura disseruimus in admonitione eidem praefixa.

On the date of this letter, and on its Greek version, we have said more in the notice prefixed to it.

(printed under page 695)

(a) ‹anchor: qualis in› · call in col 1381

Hanc notitiam civiles, non ecclesiasticas provincias designare, ostendimus in observat. ad dissert. 5 Quesnel. part. II, cap. 4 Ecclesiasticas autem provincias Gallicanas ad civilem formam haudquaquam exactas ibidem probavimus cap. 5.

That this Notitia marks out civil and not ecclesiastical provinces we have shown in the observations on Quesnel's Dissertation 5, part II, ch. 4. And that the ecclesiastical provinces of Gaul were by no means shaped exactly to the civil pattern we have proved in the same place, ch. 5.

(printed under page 696)

(b) ‹anchor: provinciam Viennensem, tametsi› · call in col 1381

Quatenus episcopi Arelatensi sedi addicti in ordinatione Ravennii nulli Leonis decreto contraierint, probatum invenies in observ. ad dissert. 5 Quesn. part. II, cap, 2, num. 4.

How far the bishops attached to the see of Arles, in the ordination of Ravennius, went against no decree of Leo, you will find proved in the observations on Quesnel's Dissertation 5, part II, ch. 2, no. 4.

(printed under page 696)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1383 (call itself not seen)

Ut difficultates hic propositae disjicerentur, qui in hac epistola edenda praestiterimus, vide nostram admonitionem huic epist. praefixam.

For what we have done in editing this letter so that the difficulties here raised might be dispelled, see our notice prefixed to this letter.

(printed under page 697)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1383 (call itself not seen)

Confer annot. nostram 8 (Col. 834, n. f) in hanc epistolam.

Compare our annotation 8 (col. 834, note f) on this letter.

(printed under page 697)

(c) ‹anchor: docemur, 1° circa› · call in col 1384

De tempore mortis S. Flaviani, ordinationis Anatolii, et epistolarum quae in ejus ordinatione ad S. Leonem scriptae fuerunt, vide admonitionem huic fragmento praefixam.

On the time of the death of St. Flavian, of the ordination of Anatolius, and of the letters that were written to St. Leo at his ordination, see the notice prefixed to this fragment.

(printed under page 697)

(a) ‹anchor: 6. Nota› · call in col 1385

Confer annnot. 3 (Col. 866, n. l) et 48 (Col. 871, n. m) in hanc epistolam.

Compare annotations 3 (col. 866, note l) and 48 (col. 871, note m) on this letter. [The note letters are printed as small superiors and are read with some doubt; "annnot." is so printed.]

(printed under page 698)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1385 or 1386 (call itself not seen)

Circa Aprilem an. 450 S. Leonem accepisse nuntium non solum de Flaviani morte, verum etiam de ordinatione Anatelii conjecimus annot. 2 in dissert. 1 Quesnelli ad eumdem an. 450, ubi etiam rationem attulimus cur S. pontifex responsum hac de re ad Theodosium distulerit.

That about April of the year 450 St. Leo received word not only of Flavian's death but also of the ordination of Anatolius, we conjectured in annotation 2 on Quesnel's first dissertation, at that same year 450, where we also gave the reason why the holy pontiff put off his reply to Theodosius on this matter. ["Anatelii" is so printed.]

(printed under page 698)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1386 (call itself not seen)

Ante duas epistolas hic memoratas alia exstat epistola 54, ad Theodosium scripta mense Decembri anni 449, ut vidimus annot. 8 (Col. 856, n. t) in epist. 54.

Before the two letters mentioned here there exists another, letter 54, written to Theodosius in the month of December of the year 449, as we saw in annotation 8 (col. 856, note t) on letter 54. [The note letter is a small superior, read with doubt.]

(printed under page 698)

(d) ‹anchor: reddi debent:› · call in col 1386

Hunc locum aliter explicavimus annot. 5 (Col. 879, n. ) in hanc epist. 61.

We have explained this passage otherwise in annotation 5 (col. 879, note [letter not printed or not legible]) on this letter 61.

(printed under page 698)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1389 (call itself not seen)

Vide annot. 10 (Col. 881 a) in hanc epist. 65, ac praesertim observat. ad dissert. 5 Quesn. part. II, cap. 2.

See annotation 10 (col. 881, a) on this letter 65, and especially the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part II, chapter 2.

(printed under page 700)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1389 or 1390 (call itself not seen)

Confer idem cap. 2 observat. in part. II, dissert. 5.

Compare the same chapter 2 of the observations on part II of dissertation 5.

(printed under page 700)

(c) ‹anchor: multa hic Innocentium› · call in col 1390

Rem ipso facto manifestam Innocentius refert. Cur ergo hic pontifex paulo commotior factus more oratorio multa conglobare dicatur, nihil est.

Innocent reports a thing made plain by the fact itself. There is therefore no reason why this pontiff should be said to have "grown somewhat heated and heaped many things together in the manner of an orator."

(printed under page 700)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1395 or 1396 (call itself not seen; the note is set across the full page width)

Hanc explicationem refellimus annot. 8 (Col. 893, n. i) in hanc epist.

We have refuted this explanation in annotation 8 (col. 893, note i) on this letter.

(printed under page 703)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1397 (call itself not seen)

Haec, quae de simultate inter Anatolium et Eustathium Quesnellus conjicit, nullo documento nituntur. Quin cum Anatolius dubitasse videatur, num Eustathii nomen in legatorum sententiam ex diptychis recitandum non esset, ut observavimus annot. 19 (Col. 914, n. r) in hanc epistolam, ea simultas potius excluditur. Confer annot. 15 (Col. 944, n. j) in epist. 95.

These things that Quesnel conjectures about a quarrel between Anatolius and Eustathius rest on no document. Indeed, since Anatolius seems to have been in doubt whether, in accordance with the legates' judgement, the name of Eustathius ought not to be recited from the diptychs, as we observed in annotation 19 (col. 914, note r) on this letter, that quarrel is rather excluded. Compare annotation 15 (col. 944, note j) on letter 95.

(printed under page 704)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1397 or 1398 (call itself not seen)

Hujus commonitorii fragmentum nos inseruimus in dissertatione de epistolis deperditis, num. 52, quam post Leoninas epistolas dedimus (Vid. sup. Col. 1227).

We have inserted a fragment of this memorandum in the dissertation on the lost letters, no. 52, which we gave after Leo's letters (see above, col. 1227).

(printed under page 704)

(c) ‹anchor: Ex quibus liquet› · call in col 1398

Negari nequit Julianum in Chalcedonensi concilio S. Leonis ac apostolicae sedis legatione aliqua functum; at hanc ejus legationem ejusdem generis fuisse ac illa Paschasini et Lucentii, ac presbyteri Bonifacii affirmari non potest. Aliquod sane discrimen satis praeferunt duae praecipuae actiones, in quarum altera Dioscorus damnatus, in altera vero fidei definitio edita st subscripta fuit. Sententiam autem in Dioscorum, et definitionem fidei tres memorati legati simul praestituere, vel ante omnes signarunt. Julianus autem licet se legatum nominet, non tamen cum iisdem, sed post aliquot praecipuarum sedium episcopos easdem approbavit. Quod si alibi una cum legatis caeteris loquitur, et nonnumquam etiam Bonifacio presbytero ejus nomen praemittitur, haud tamen credimus eum in praecipuis actionibus, in quibus praesertim apostolicae delegationis vis enituit, a caeteris legatis fuisse separandum, si aequalis et pari cum iisdem auctoritate functus fuisset. Forte cum Julianus a Leone pontifice non fuisset recensitus cum caeteris legatis in epistola 93 ad concilium, hinc par eidem locus in praecipuis ipsius concilii actionibus attributus non fuit; ejus tamen delegatio aliis Leonis litteris declarata majorem locum ipsi prae aliis episcopis et metropolitis, quam ejus episcopatus ferret, vindicavit. Vide annotationes Rustici Diaconi tom. IV Concil. col. 1306, not. f, et 2031, not. a.

It cannot be denied that Julian discharged some legation of St. Leo and the apostolic see at the Council of Chalcedon; but that this legation of his was of the same kind as that of Paschasinus and Lucentius and of the presbyter Boniface cannot be affirmed. The two principal sessions, in one of which Dioscorus was condemned and in the other the definition of faith was issued and subscribed, show plainly enough some difference. For the sentence against Dioscorus and the definition of faith the three legates named set forth together, or signed before all the rest. Julian, however, though he calls himself a legate, approved them not with these but after the bishops of several of the principal sees. And if elsewhere he speaks together with the other legates, and his name is sometimes even placed before the presbyter Boniface, we still do not believe that in the principal sessions, in which above all the force of the apostolic delegation shone out, he would have had to be set apart from the other legates, had he been their equal and exercised the same authority as they. Perhaps, since Julian had not been listed by Pope Leo with the other legates in letter 93 to the council, an equal place was for that reason not assigned him in the principal sessions of the council itself; yet his delegation, declared in other letters of Leo, secured for him a higher place before other bishops and metropolitans than his own see would have carried. See the annotations of Rusticus the Deacon, Councils vol. IV, col. 1306, note f, and 2031, note a. ["edita st subscripta" is so printed, for "et"; "praestituere" is read as printed.]

(printed under page 704)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1399 (call itself not seen)

Quod hic legati sedis apostolicae pro legatis synodi Occidentalis traducuntur, fuse refellimus in observat. ad dissert. 8, § 3. Paschasinus quidem, Lucentius et Bonifacius numquam Occidentalis, immo nec Romanae synodi, sed S. Leonis locum tenentes semper dicuntur. Quod porro Julianus, etsi Orientalis episcopus, veram legationem sedis apostolicae potuerit gerere, ex S. Cyrillo agnoscitur, qui in Ephesina synodo S. Coelestini vicem et legationem sustinuit. Vide not. 2 (Infra n. c) ad notas Quesnelli in epistolam sequentem. Ratio etiam manifesta est. Ille enim, quicumque a Romano pontifice delegationis mandatum accepit, verus est legatus, sive Occidentalis sit, sive Orientalis.

That the legates of the apostolic see are here passed off as legates of the Western synod, we have refuted at length in the observations on dissertation 8, § 3. Paschasinus, Lucentius and Boniface are in fact never said to hold the place of the Western synod, nor indeed of the Roman one, but always that of St. Leo. That Julian, moreover, though an Eastern bishop, could bear a true legation of the apostolic see is recognized from St. Cyril, who at the synod of Ephesus sustained the place and legation of St. Celestine. See note 2 (below, note c) on Quesnel's notes to the following letter. The reason too is plain: whoever has received a mandate of delegation from the Roman pontiff is a true legate, whether he be Western or Eastern.

(printed under page 705)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1399 (call itself not seen)

Vide nostram annot. 3 (Col. 936, n. k) in hanc epistolam, ubi primigeniam epistolae inscriptionem Nicaeam praeferentem ex ms. Ratisponensi exhibuimus, quae vox deinceps, mutato synodi loco, mutata fuit in Chalcedonem.

See our annotation 3 (col. 936, note k) on this letter, where we set out from the Regensburg manuscript the letter's original heading, which bears "Nicaea"; that word was afterwards, when the place of the synod was changed, changed to "Chalcedon."

(printed under page 705)

(c) ‹anchor: quibus constet› · call in col 1399

S. Cyrillus ante legatorum Romanorum adventum Ephesinae synodo praefuit eo nomine, quia Coelestini legatione eidem ab ipso pontifice anterioribus litteris credita fungebatur; ac proinde in ipso gestorum exordio act. 1, de Cyrillo primum nominato dicitur, qui et Coelestini quoque sanctissimi sacratissimique Romanae Ecclesiae archiepiscopi locum obtinebat. Caeterum tanta pontificiae auctoritatis ratio habita est ab eadem generali synodo, ut se ad condemnationem Nestorii necessario venisse coactos per sacros canones, et epistolam sanctissimi patris nostri et comministri Coelestini Romanae Ecclesiae episcopi in ipsa contra illum sententia ejusdem synodi Patres professi sint. Vide tom. III Conc. Venetae edit. col. 1078.

St. Cyril presided over the synod of Ephesus before the arrival of the Roman legates on this ground, that he was discharging the legation of Celestine, entrusted to him by the pontiff himself in earlier letters; and accordingly at the very opening of the acts, session 1, it is said of Cyril, named first, "who also held the place of Celestine, the most holy and most sacred archbishop of the Roman Church." Moreover, so great regard was had for the pontifical authority by that same general synod that the Fathers of the synod, in their very sentence against Nestorius, declared that they had come to his condemnation "of necessity, compelled by the sacred canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow minister Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church." See vol. III of the Councils, Venice edition, col. 1078.

(printed under page 705)

(d) ‹anchor: scripta proponerentur› · call in col 1400

Hac notatione Quesnellus insinuare videtur, quod apertius ingessit dissert. 1 ad an. 451, num 4, dogmaticam Leonis epistolam non solum a Patribus concilii Mediolanensis examini fuisse subjectam, verum etiam idcirco eam ab ipsis fuisse receptam, quia (continues)

By this note Quesnel seems to insinuate what he pressed more openly in dissertation 1, at the year 451, no. 4: that Leo's dogmatic letter was not only submitted to examination by the Fathers of the council of Milan, but was also received by them for this reason, that (continues)

(printed under page 705)

(a) ‹anchor: suis› · call in col 1402 (seen at the head of col 1402, at the edge of the column image: the note belongs to col 1402; no call falls in col 1401)

Memoriae lapsu definitionem synodi Chalcedonensis, quae nondum erat edita, ab episcopis Mediolanensibus approbatam Quesnellus scripsit. De sola enim Leonis definitione iidem episcopi loquuntur. Multo autem magis errat cum hanc idcirco approbatam indicat, quia omnium majorem fidei nobis antiquitus traditae tota puritate conveniunt. Contextus hanc rationem alio refert. Quia nimirum cum dagmatica Leonis epistola Mediolanensis quoque traditio conveniebat, ideo auctoritatis, inquiunt, vestrae praecedente sententia Eutychianos condemnandos agnoscentes, litterarum vestrarum formam seculi, modum praescriptae ordinationis nos servasse... ostendimus: quibus auctoritatem ac debitum apostolicis litteris obsequium testantur.

By a slip of memory Quesnel wrote that "the definition of the synod of Chalcedon," which had not yet been issued, was approved by the bishops of Milan. For those bishops speak only of Leo's definition. But he errs much more when he indicates that it was approved for this reason, "because they agree in entire purity with the faith of all our forebears handed down to us of old." The context refers this reason elsewhere. Namely, because the tradition of Milan too agreed with Leo's dogmatic letter, therefore, they say, "recognizing, your authority's sentence going before, that the Eutychians were to be condemned, following the form of your letter, we have shown … that we kept the manner of the prescribed ordinance": by which words they attest the authority of the apostolic letter and the obedience owed to it. ["majorem", "dagmatica" and "seculi" are so printed, for "majorum", "dogmatica" and "secuti"; the English follows the evident sense.]

(printed under page 706)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the images› · call in col 1402 (no call falls in col 1401; the call itself not seen: the note belongs to col 1402)

Id generatim de cujusque provinciae metropolitis falsum est. Antiocheno enim jus et consuetudinem fuisse ut metropolitas provinciarum suae dioeceseos ordinaret, liquet ex epist 24 Innocentii I, ad Alexandrum Antiochenum, num. 1. Idem quoque jus erat Thessalonicensibus in Illyrici provinciis ex Leonis epistola 5, ad metropolitanos Illyrici, c. 5, et ex epist. 6, ad Anastasium, cap. 4. Idipsum constitu- (continues)

Said generally "of the metropolitans of each province," this is false. For that the bishop of Antioch had the right and custom of ordaining the metropolitans of the provinces of his diocese is clear from letter 24 of Innocent I, to Alexander of Antioch, no. 1. The same right belonged also to the bishops of Thessalonica in the provinces of Illyricum, from Leo's letter 5, to the metropolitans of Illyricum, chapter 5, and from letter 6, to Anastasius, chapter 4. The very same was estab- (continues)

(printed under page 706)

(b) (continued) ‹anchor: on page 706› · call on the previous page

tum fuit pro Constantinopolitana sede in concilio Chalcedonensi actione ultima. Ut autem de provinciis Italicis aliquid dicamus, certum est Ravennatem metropolitam post electionem Romam ex more debuisse accedere, ut a summo pontifice consecraretur. Mediolanenses vero et Aquileinses metropolitae initio a Romano episcopo ordinati videntur: nam cum pro longinquitate vel difficultate itineris ab apostolico onerosum illis fuerit ordinari, inductum fuit ut ipsi se invicem ordinarent, ut Pelagius tradit. Consensum vero Romani pontificis in hac posteriori disciplina requisitum P. Bernardus de Rubeis probat in dissert. de Schismate Aquileiensi, cap. 4. Quod porro Quesnellus subjicit, an. 1059, contendisse Mediolanenses nullam judicandi vel disponendi vim Romano pontifici in illa sede competere, ad ea infelicissima tempora pertinet cum concubinatus aliorumque vitiorum causa Mediolanenses Romanam sedem audire renuentes, schismatis speciem confecerant.

-lished for the see of Constantinople at the Council of Chalcedon, in the last session. And, to say something of the Italian provinces, it is certain that the metropolitan of Ravenna was bound by custom to go to Rome after his election, to be consecrated by the supreme pontiff. The metropolitans of Milan and Aquileia, however, seem at first to have been ordained by the Roman bishop: for since "by reason of the length or difficulty of the journey it was burdensome for them to be ordained by the apostolic bishop," the practice was introduced that they should ordain one another, as Pelagius records. That the consent of the Roman pontiff was required under this later discipline Father Bernardus de Rubeis proves in his dissertation On the Schism of Aquileia, chapter 4. As for what Quesnel adds, that in the year 1059 the Milanese maintained that no power of judging or disposing belonged to the Roman pontiff in that see, this belongs to those most unhappy times when the Milanese, refusing to hear the Roman see on account of concubinage and other vices, had produced the appearance of a schism. ["Aquileinses" is so printed.]

(printed under page 707)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1403 or 1404 (call itself not seen)

Vide hoc in re annot. 21 (Col. 948, n. j) in epist. 97.

On this matter see annotation 21 (col. 948, note j) on letter 97. ["hoc in re" is so printed.]

(printed under page 707)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1405 or 1406 (call itself not seen)

Cum provincia Narbonensis I proprium haberet metropolitam, uti ostendimus in observat. ad dissert. 5 Quesn. part. II, c. 2, haud credimus Constantium, qui cum Nectario Romam pro Hilario Arelatensi missus fuit, episcopum fuisse primae Narbunensis, sed alium aliquem ex provinciis cis Rhodanum constitutis, cum praesertim de placando Leone ageretur ob aliorum metropolitarum jurisdictionem turbatam ab Hilario, cui fini alienae provinciae episcopus, si se Hilario adhaerentem exhibuisset, minus aptus futurus fuisse videtur.

Since the province of Narbonensis I had its own metropolitan, as we showed in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part II, chapter 2, we do not believe that the Constantius who was sent to Rome with Nectarius on behalf of Hilary of Arles was a bishop of Narbonensis Prima, but rather some other from the provinces lying on this side of the Rhône; especially since the business was to appease Leo over the jurisdiction of other metropolitans disturbed by Hilary, for which purpose a bishop of another province, had he shown himself an adherent of Hilary, seems likely to have been less suitable. ["Narbunensis" is so printed.]

(printed under page 708)

(a) ‹anchor: notitia antiqua Sirmonii,› · call in col 1407

Hanc notitiam antiquiorem demonstravimus in observ. ad dissert. 5 Quesn., part. II, cap. 4.

We have shown this Notitia to be older in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part II, chapter 4.

(printed under page 709)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1409 (call itself not seen)

Id non ita certum videtur ut Quesnellus existimat. Cum enim S. Leo ad permovendum Theodosium hanc plenissimam Galliarum synodum percupisset, in qua epistolam 28 ad Flavianum a cunctis Galliarum Ecclesiis episcoporum subscriptionibus receptam ostenderet; e cunctis Galliarum provinciis episcopos ad synodum accitos, et ex Lugdunensibus vicinioribus provinciis aliisque concurrisse satis credibile est.

This does not seem so certain as Quesnel supposes. For since St. Leo, in order to move Theodosius, had greatly desired this very full synod of the Gauls, in which he might show that letter 28 to Flavian had been received by all the Churches of the Gauls through the subscriptions of their bishops, it is credible enough that bishops were summoned to the synod from all the provinces of the Gauls, and came together from the nearer Lyonnese provinces and from others.

(printed under page 710)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1409 (call itself not seen)

Licet apostolatus et papae nomina aliis quoque episcopis olim tributa legantur, cavendum tamen est ne hinc aliorum episcoporum aequalitatem cum Romano pontifice quispiam colligat. Nam praeterquam quod alii plerique episcopi sedes non tenent ab apostolis ipsis fundatas, nullus alius etiam apostolicarum Ecclesiarum episcopus proprius est S. Petri successor, nisi solus Romanus, in quem solum propterea S. Petri primatus ac primatus jura transierunt.

Although the names "apostolate" and "pope" are read as having once been given to other bishops as well, care must be taken that no one infers from this an equality of other bishops with the Roman pontiff. For besides the fact that most other bishops do not hold sees founded by the apostles themselves, no other bishop even of the apostolic Churches is properly the successor of St. Peter save the Roman alone, to whom alone, therefore, St. Peter's primacy and the rights of the primacy have passed.

(printed under page 710)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1409 or 1410 (call itself not seen)

Alii Theophili scientiam, egregia gesta ac virtutes considerantes, eum nimio zelo abreptum, moderationis limites excessisse, praecipitique judicio in S. Leonem Chrysostomum egisse non inficiantur, sed ita ut etiam S. Cyrillus initio sui pontificatus in eadem Theophili sententia, quam aequissimam putabat, aliquandiu perstiterit. Haec humana praejudicia sicut S. Innocentio I non tanta visa sunt ut cum Theophilo communionem abrumperet, ita Leonem nostrum non impedierunt quominus eumdem Theophilum probatissimum et sanctae memoriae virum vocaret.

Others, weighing the learning, the outstanding deeds and the virtues of Theophilus, do not deny that, carried away by excessive zeal, he overstepped the bounds of moderation and acted with headlong judgement against St. [John] Chrysostom, yet in such a way that St. Cyril too, at the beginning of his episcopate, persisted for some time in that same judgement of Theophilus, which he thought most just. As these human prejudices did not seem to St. Innocent I so grave that he should break off communion with Theophilus, so they did not hinder our Leo from calling the same Theophilus "a man most approved and of holy memory." ["in S. Leonem Chrysostomum" is so printed, plainly for "Joannem".]

(printed under page 710)

(d) ‹anchor: legatorum sancti Leonis› · call in col 1410

Legatorum S. Leonis contra Dioscorum sententiam pontificis auctoritate latam, in Chalcedonensi concilio non sententiam proprie dictam, sed merum suffragium, quo licet post quaesitam synodi mentem pronuntato, res tamen adhuc integra Patribus relicta fuerit, hac notatione Quesnellus contendit. At eam veram sententiam fuisse probavimus annot. 6 (Col. 989, n. b) in epist. 103. Cum vero post- (continues)

In this note Quesnel contends that the sentence of St. Leo's legates against Dioscorus, passed by the pontiff's authority, was at the Council of Chalcedon not a sentence properly so called but a mere vote, by which, though pronounced after the mind of the synod had been asked, the matter was nonetheless left still open to the Fathers. But that it was a true sentence we have proved in annotation 6 (col. 989, note b) on letter 103. Since, however, after- (continues) ["pronuntato" is so printed.]

(printed under page 710)

(a) ‹anchor: cassum pronuntiare; et› · call in col 1412

Duae actorum species cassari solent. Quaedam enim legitima auctoritate ordineque legitimo gesta, rata et valida sunt: quae si a superiori potestate cassanda credantur, cassare hoc casu idem est ac irritum facere. Quaedam vero vel illegitima auctoritate, vel sine legitimo ordine, seu cum enormi iniquitate ac injustitia gesta sunt; ac propterea cum nullam per se vim habeant, quandocumque haec quispiam competenti auctoritate cassat, irrita decla- (continues)

Two kinds of acts are commonly quashed. Some, done by lawful authority and in lawful order, are ratified and valid: if these are judged by a higher power to be such as should be quashed, to quash is in this case the same as to make void. Others, however, have been done either by unlawful authority, or without lawful order, or with enormous iniquity and injustice; and therefore, since they have no force of themselves, whenever anyone with competent authority quashes these, he declares them void (continues)

(printed under page 711)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1415 (call itself not seen)

Addendum vel judicio aut dispensatione pontificis; judicium enim Leonis in restitutione Theodoreti, qui in Nestorianismi suspicionem incurrerat, quantum valuerit, ostendimus in observat. ad diss. 10 Quesnelli. Dispensatio autem ejusdem pontificis in Maximi Antiocheni causa, ut ne eguerit retractatione ac judicio concilii, ex ipsis Chalcedonensibus gestis liquet.

There should be added "or by the judgement or dispensation of the pontiff"; for how much Leo's judgement availed in the restoration of Theodoret, who had fallen under suspicion of Nestorianism, we have shown in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 10. And that the same pontiff's dispensation in the case of Maximus of Antioch needed no reconsideration and judgement by the council is clear from the acts of Chalcedon themselves.

(printed under page 713)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1415 or 1416 (call itself not seen)

Concilium Constantinopolitanum I non semper a pontificibus Romanis pro oecumenico habitum, immo et diutius illis fuisse ignotum, ac proinde non fuisse vere oecumenicum, quamdiu a Romana Ecclesia agnitum et receptum non fuit, ostendemus fusius tomo III, ubi hanc Quesnelli notationem ad calculos revocabimus.

That the First Council of Constantinople was not always held by the Roman pontiffs to be ecumenical, indeed that it was for a long time unknown to them, and accordingly was not truly ecumenical so long as it was not acknowledged and received by the Roman Church, we shall show more fully in volume III, where we shall bring this note of Quesnel's to a reckoning.

(printed under page 713)

(a) ‹anchor: in Orientalibus partibus,› · call in col 1418

Mirum hoc loco accidit, Constantinopolitani episcopi nisum in subigendis suae ordinationi metropolitanis trium dioeceseon Thraciae, Asiae, et Ponti ita conferri cum jure Romani pontificis in reservanda sibi institutione episcoporum Occidentis, ac si aequalis fuerit hac in re utriusque ratio, et solum Constantinopolitanus non ita se extenderit in totum Orientem, ut in omnem Occidentem Romana sedes eam reservationem extendit. Quis hic latum discrimen non perspiciat? Romanus episcopus non solum sedem obtinet originis apostolicae, eamque ejusmodi, quae primatu praecipuae jurisdictionis in totam Ecclesiam jure divino potitur; verum etiam eam sedem tenet matricem omnium Ecclesiarum ac episcopatuum Occidentis, qui ab ipsa una cum religione christiana episcopos accepere, ut apertissime testatur Innocentius primus in prooemio epistolae ad Decentium, num. 2. Quid ergo mirum, si hanc sedem omnium matrem omnes Occidentales Ecclesiae et episcopatus omnes maxime observarunt semper, ac Romanis episcopis episcoporum institutio potuit rerservari? Num vero par causa sit sedis Constantinopolitanae in Ecclesias Orientis, cum haec nec apostolica fuerit, nec aliarum radix et mater, sed simplex episcopatus, ut alii multi, qui solo imperialis sedis praesidio ipsis apostolicis Orientis Ecclesiis praeferri, et metropolitarum trium diaeceseon ordinationem sibi subdere studuit, quisque aequus lector dijudicet. Ut autem Romanum jus magis magisque elucescat, duo addenda sunt. Laudatus pontifex S. Innocentis epist. 24. ad Alexandrum Antiochenum, cap. 1, non solum ordinationes metropolitarum sui patriarchatus eidem jam ex more vindicatas testatur; verum etiam jus ipsius agnoscit in ordinandis ipsis episcopis, vel saltem, quoad remotiores, ejus assensum requirit. Inquit enim: Itaque arbitramur, frater charissime, ut sicut metropolitanos auctoritate ordinas singulari, sic et caeteros non sine permissu conscientiaque tua sinas episcopos procreari; in quibus hunc modum recte servabis, ut longe positos litteris datis ordinari censeas ab his, qui nunc eos suo tantum ordinant arbitratu; vicinos autem, si aestimatis, ad manus impositionem tuae gratiae statuas pervenire: quorum enim te maxima exspectat cura, praecipue tuum debent mereri judicium. Si per haec antiqua tempora Innocentius I episcopo Antiocheno tantum juris tribuit in ordinationibus episcoporum sui patriarchatus, quis traducere queat ut incompetens et usurpatum jus Romani pontificis in reservandis ordinationibus aut institutionibus episcoporum totius Occidentis? Jus simile in ordinationibus episcoporum totius Illyrici, quae dioecesis Occidentalis pars erat, S. Leo vindicavit episcopi Thessalonicensi uti apostolicae sedis vicario, ut liquet ex epist. 5 et 6. Si hoc ejus in remotissimas Occidentis Ecclesias adeo pontifici fuit ut Thessalonicensi potuerit delegari, nonne in alias quoque viciniores Occidentis Ecclesias idem ei jus fuisse agnoscere cogimur?

It is a strange thing that happens at this place: the effort of the bishop of Constantinople to subject to his own ordination the metropolitans of the three dioceses of Thrace, Asia and Pontus is compared with the right of the Roman pontiff in reserving to himself the institution of the bishops of the West, as though the case of the two were equal in this matter, and the only difference were that the bishop of Constantinople did not extend himself over the whole East as the Roman see extends that reservation over the whole West. Who would not see the wide difference here? The Roman bishop not only holds a see of apostolic origin, and one of such a kind that by divine right it possesses a primacy of pre-eminent jurisdiction over the whole Church; he also holds the see that is the mother of all the Churches and bishoprics of the West, which received their bishops from her together with the Christian religion, as Innocent I most plainly testifies in the preface of his letter to Decentius, no. 2. What wonder, then, if all the Western Churches and all the bishoprics have always most especially deferred to this see, the mother of all, and if the institution of bishops could be reserved to the Roman bishops? But whether the case of the see of Constantinople with regard to the Churches of the East is equal, since it was neither apostolic nor the root and mother of others, but a simple bishopric like many others, which by the sole support of being the imperial seat strove to be set before the very apostolic Churches of the East and to subject to itself the ordination of the metropolitans of three dioceses, let any fair reader judge. And that the Roman right may shine out more and more, two things must be added. The pontiff just cited, St. Innocent, in letter 24, to Alexander of Antioch, chapter 1, not only attests that the ordinations of the metropolitans of his patriarchate were already by custom claimed for him, but also acknowledges his right in ordaining the bishops themselves, or at least, as to the more distant ones, requires his assent. For he says: "And so we judge, dearest brother, that as you ordain the metropolitans by a singular authority, so you should not allow the other bishops either to be created without your permission and knowledge; in which matter you will rightly keep this measure, that those placed far off you should, by letters sent, direct to be ordained by those who now ordain them at their own discretion alone; but those nearby, if you so judge, you should appoint to come to the laying on of hands of Your Grace: for those for whom your greatest care is waiting ought above all to merit your judgement." If in those ancient times Innocent I assigned to the bishop of Antioch so much right in the ordinations of the bishops of his patriarchate, who could traduce as incompetent and usurped the right of the Roman pontiff in reserving the ordinations or institutions of the bishops of the whole West? A like right in the ordinations of the bishops of the whole of Illyricum, a diocese that was part of the West, St. Leo claimed for the bishop of Thessalonica as vicar of the apostolic see, as is clear from letters 5 and 6. If this right over the most remote Churches of the West belonged to the pontiff to such a degree that it could be delegated to the bishop of Thessalonica, are we not compelled to acknowledge that he had the same right over the other, nearer Churches of the West as well? [So printed: "rerservari", "diaeceseon", "Innocentis", "episcopi Thessalonicensi" (for "episcopo"), and "Si hoc ejus" (for "jus"); the English follows the evident sense.]

(printed under page 714)

(a) ‹anchor: imperatorio rescripto munitum,› · call in col 1420

Gallos non recepisse decretum Leonis, seu epistolam 10 in causa Hilarii editam, falsum ostendimus in observationibus ad dissert. 5 Quesnelli, part. II, cap 2, num 3 et seqq. Quae porro ille in antecedentibus et sequentibus congerit soluturus quaestionem, cur a metropolitano consulendo abstinuerit Theodorus, omnino arbitraria sunt. Certe quod ait eum non consuluisse metropolitam Arelatensem, ne Leonem offenderet, cujus decreto ab illius ordinatione exemptus fuerat, inanissimum est. Si enim Theodorus Leonis offensam non timuit, cum ad eum scripsit pro Arelatensis sedis jure, cui se adhaerentem praetulit in epist. 65 ad eumdem pontificem (vide not. 16 [Col. 881, n. g] in eamdem) multo minus verendum ipsi fuerat, si consuluisset metropolitanum, a quo Leo exemit, non Forojuliensem, sed quatuor alias Ecclesias, quas Viennensi sedi subjecit epist. 66.

That the Gauls did not receive Leo's decree, that is, letter 10, issued in the case of Hilary, we have shown to be false in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part II, chapter 2, no. 3 and following. And what he heaps together in what precedes and follows in order to resolve the question "why Theodore refrained from consulting his metropolitan" is altogether arbitrary. Certainly his statement that Theodore did not consult the metropolitan of Arles lest he offend Leo, by whose decree he had been exempted from that bishop's ordination, is utterly empty. For if Theodore did not fear to offend Leo when he wrote to him on behalf of the right of the see of Arles, of which he openly showed himself an adherent in letter 65 to the same pontiff (see note 16 [col. 881, note g] on that letter), much less had he anything to fear if he had consulted the metropolitan, from whom Leo exempted not the Church of Fréjus but four other Churches, which he made subject to the see of Vienne in letter 66.

(printed under page 715)

(a) ‹anchor: recipit et concredit;› · call in col 1424

Simili loquela Hincmarus, opusc. 12 Capitum contra Hincmarum Laudunensem, cap. 24, ait: Cum de ipsis sententiis plena sit ista terra.

In a similar way of speaking Hincmar, in the work of 12 Chapters against Hincmar of Laon, ch. 24, says: Since this land is full of those very sentences.

(printed under page 717)

(b) ‹anchor: invenimus praefinitum› · call in col 1424

Videtur esse can. 16 concil. Aurelianens. v, an. 549.

It seems to be can. 16 of the fifth council of Orléans, of the year 549.

(printed under page 717)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Etsi hinc apostolicorum nuntiorum species et origo repeti queat, non tamen ad apocrysiariorum normam Juliani delegationem institutam, satis constituimus in observat. ad dissert. 1 Quesn., annot. 3, ad an. 453. Cum Julianus in Romana Ecclesia fuisset nutritus, Leoni etiam esset notissimus ac pernecessarius, huic maxime S. pontifex fidit, delegationemque eidem apostolicam ob solam fidei causam idcirco commisit, quia in episcopo Constantinopolitano eum fidei vigorem non deprehendit, quem difficiles ejus temporis, circumstantiae efflagitabant. Alia consilia Leonis etiam anterioris temporis, et secreta cum Quesnello conjicere, divinare est, seu potius somniari : nullo enim documento probari queunt. Quod si is ante hoc tempus Constantinopoli aliquando fuisse invenitur, nihil mirum, cum Graecae Ecclesiae episcopus, et a Constantinopoli non multum distans, variis de causis, facile et identidem eo posset accedere, ut ne in comitatu quasi nuntius pontificis exstitisse dicendus sit. Hac quidem tantummodo epistola ne a comitatu abesset Leo exigit : quod hoc tantum tempore nuntii officium eidem imposuerit. De caeteris, quae hoc loco Quesnellus urget, vide admonitionem praemissam epistolae Juliani ad Leonem Augustum, quam appendici epistolarum supra (Col. 1241) insertam invenies.

Although the form and origin of the apostolic nuncios can be traced from here, we have nevertheless sufficiently established, in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 1, annotation 3, at the year 453, that Julian's delegation was not set up on the pattern of the apocrisiaries. Since Julian had been brought up in the Roman Church, and was moreover very well known and closely attached to Leo, the holy pontiff trusted him above all, and committed the apostolic delegation to him for the sake of the faith alone, because he did not find in the bishop of Constantinople that vigour of faith which the difficult circumstances of that time demanded. To conjecture with Quesnel other designs of Leo, even of an earlier time, and secret ones, is to divine, or rather to dream: for they cannot be proved by any document. And if he is found to have been at Constantinople at some time before this, it is no wonder, since as a bishop of the Greek Church, and not far distant from Constantinople, he could for various reasons easily and repeatedly go there, so that he need not be said to have been at the court as a kind of nuncio of the pontiff. Indeed it is only in this letter that Leo requires him not to be absent from the court: because only at this time did he lay the office of nuncio upon him. On the other points which Quesnel presses in this place, see the notice prefixed to the letter of Julian to the emperor Leo, which you will find inserted in the appendix of the letters above (Col. 1241).

(printed under page 720)

(a) ‹anchor: fere persuasum est› · call in col 1434

Cum definitionem fidei jam antea Leo approbasset, ut indicatur epist. 114, c. 1, eam forte allatam per legatos, qui jam redierant, et ab aliquo Latine redditam accepisse indubium videtur, ac propterea hanc intelligere non potuit Breviarii nomine, quod a se nondum acceptum tradit. Quid quod Breviarii vox integro documento non congruit? Esto igitur Tractatus fidei dicta sit definitio Chalcedonensis, non tamen Breviarium fidei appellata dicenda est. Probabilius autem credimus hoc nomine significari Latinum compendium duarum actionum Chalcedonensium tertiae et sextae, quod conservatum nobis fuit in vetustissimo codice olim Veronensi, nunc autem Vaticano 1322, et a Baluzio editum est, ac insertum tom IV Concil. Ven. edit. col. 2065. Cum vero ex harum duarum actionum Breviario pateat quidquid gestum fuit circa fidem, Breviarium fidei recte potuit appellari. De Breviario autem adversus Arianos, quod edidimus in (continues)

Since Leo had already approved the definition of faith before this, as is indicated in letter 114, ch. 1, it seems beyond doubt that he had received it, brought perhaps by the legates, who had already returned, and rendered into Latin by someone; and therefore he could not have meant it by the name of the Breviarium, which he reports he had not yet received. What of the fact that the word Breviarium does not suit a complete document? Granted, then, that the Chalcedonian definition was called a Tractatus fidei, it is still not to be said that it was named Breviarium fidei. We think it more probable that by this name is meant the Latin summary of the two Chalcedonian sessions, the third and the sixth, which has been preserved for us in a very old codex, formerly of Verona but now Vatican 1322, and was published by Baluze and inserted in vol. IV of the Councils, Venice edition, col. 2065. And since from the Breviarium of these two sessions everything that was done concerning the faith is plain, it could rightly be called a Breviarium fidei. As for the Breviarium against the Arians, which we have published in (continues)

(printed under page 722)

(continued) ‹note (a) of page 722›

appendice hujus tomi II, vide admonitionem eidem praemissam col. 283 (Vide nostrum tomum II.)

(continued) the appendix of this volume II, see the notice prefixed to it, col. 283 (See our volume II.)

(printed under page 723)

(a) ‹anchor: ni fallor› · call in col 1436

Ut de hac tertia Quesnelli nota judicium feratur, statuendum est quid ex concilio Chalcedonensi ante Rusticum Latine redditum fuerit, et quid ipse Rusticus praestiterit. Aliquot tantum particulae gestorum Chalcedonensium ante integram eorumdem versionem Latine redditae sunt. Num Latinum exemplar sententiae quod Leo ad Gallos direxit cum epist. 103 orginale sit, an interpretatio ex Graeco, certum non est, ut ibidem monuimus annot. 6. Prima autem certa interpretatio est illa totius fere actionis 6 exhibita in codice Vaticano 1322, de qua plura diximus in observat. ad dissert. 9 Quesnelli in causa Domini. In hac inserta est definitio concilii Chalcedonensis; quae iterum ex alia versione in eodem manuscripto subjicitur, ut in memoratis observationibus animadvertimus. Hujus autem definitionis quinque interpretationes a Baluzio recusae inveniuntur tom. IV Conciliorum Ven. editionis, una ex Hispanica et Isidoriana collectionibus sumpta col. 2055, d., aliae quatuor ex aliis collectionibus antiquis, col. 2057, b, quarum una eadem est ac secunda laudata codicis Vaticani Omnes vero sunt anteriores illis duabus quas antiquus omnium actionum Chalcedonensium interpres lucubravit, et alteram inseruit actioni quintae, alteram sextae. Hinc autem a sex interpretibus hanc definitionem ex Graeco, ante omnium Actorum versionem, Latine redditam credimus. Duae quoque versiones canonum integra omnium Actorum interpretatione vetustiores supersunt. quarum altera in Quesnellianam, aliasque antiquissimas diversae originis collectiones, Vaticanam Reginae, Barberinam, Lucensem, et Colbertinam, atque Justellianam, altera in Hispanicam, et exinde in Isidorianam traducta fuit. Tres praeterea actiones ad Maximum Antiochenum pertinentes vivente Leone Latine redditas in citatis observationibus ad diss. 9 Quesnelli exhibuimus. Tandem praeter nonnullas Marciani litteras ante et post synodum promulgatas, quae cum in diversae originis collectionibus Latinis similes inveniantur, editae videntur Latine, et ex Latino originali derivatae, quaeque statim Romanis et Occidentalibus patuerunt, duarum praecipuarum actionum tertiae ac sextae compendium Latinum ante integram Actorum interpretationem lucubratum fuit, de quo satis diximus in observ. ad notam praecedentem. Pleniorem porro eorumdem versionem, quam Leo a Juliano epist. 113 integram et absolutam postulavit, certum est factam fuisse ante Rusticum, ita tamen ut primo interpreti ii Graeci codices usui fuerint, in quibus deerant actiones duae de Photio Tyri, ac de Caroso et Dorotheo. duae ad Maximum et Domnum Antiochenos spectantes; nec non illa, in qua lecta fuit Leonis epistola 93 ad synodum : de quibus vide quae diximus annot. 18 in dissert. 1 Quesn. ad an 451. Hujus versionis antiquae duo tantum, quod sciamus, codices supersunt, Parisiensis, quo Baluzius usus est, et codex Suecorum reginae, cujus notitiam ille a cardinali Casanata habuit. Hanc vero interpretationem anteriorem Rustico, Juliano Coensi tribui non posse, ilud in primis suadet, quod si ab eo statim post synodum Latine reddita fuissent gesta Chalcedonensia, cum ille integros concilii codices habuerit, tot defectus aliquot actionum in ejus versione non invenirentur. quot indicavimus. Illud porro hanc versionem Juliani non esse evidentius demonstrat, quod haec canones Chalcedonenses praefert et versione Dionysii Exigui, qui sane hos canones non sumpsit ex interpretatione vetustiore, sed e Graeco transtulit. Hinc etiam eadem versio titulos canonum recepit, quos suo more Dionysius composuit. Similiter act. 11 ex eadem Dionysii interpretatione in codice Parisiensi refertur Antiochenus canon 16. Quare haec Actorum Chalcedonensium interpretatio vel ab ipso Dionysio Exiguo lucubrata, vel sub Dionysii aevum post editam ejusdem canonum collectionem condita fuit. Ita hanc versionem circa pontificatum Hormisdae saeculo VI ineunte factam putamus. Primi certe, qui hac interpretatione usi sunt, sub Vigilio exstitere, uti praeclare ostendit Baluzius in (continues)

For a judgement to be passed on this third note of Quesnel, it must be settled what of the council of Chalcedon was rendered into Latin before Rusticus, and what Rusticus himself contributed. Only some small parts of the Chalcedonian acts were rendered into Latin before the complete version of them. Whether the Latin copy of the sentence which Leo sent to the Gauls with letter 103 is an original or a translation from the Greek is not certain, as we noted there in annotation 6. The first certain translation is that of nearly the whole of session 6 presented in the Vatican codex 1322, of which we have said more in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 9, in the case of Domnus. In this is inserted the definition of the council of Chalcedon; which is added again from another version in the same manuscript, as we remarked in the observations mentioned. Now five translations of this definition are found reprinted by Baluze in vol. IV of the Councils, Venice edition, one taken from the Spanish and Isidorian collections, col. 2055, d, the other four from other ancient collections, col. 2057, b, one of which is the same as the second one cited from the Vatican codex. All of them are earlier than those two which the ancient translator of all the Chalcedonian sessions worked out, inserting the one in the fifth session and the other in the sixth. Hence we believe that this definition was rendered into Latin from the Greek by six translators, before the version of all the Acts. Two versions of the canons also survive that are older than the complete translation of all the Acts, of which one was carried over into the Quesnel collection and other very ancient collections of different origin, the Vatican one of the Queen, the Barberini, the Lucca, and the Colbert, and the Justel collection, the other into the Spanish and from there into the Isidorian. Besides, in the observations cited on Quesnel's dissertation 9 we have presented three sessions concerning Maximus of Antioch that were rendered into Latin while Leo was alive. Finally, besides some letters of Marcian promulgated before and after the synod, which, since they are found alike in Latin collections of different origin, seem to have been issued in Latin and derived from a Latin original, and which were at once available to the Romans and Westerners, a Latin summary of the two chief sessions, the third and the sixth, was worked out before the complete translation of the Acts, of which we have said enough in the observation on the preceding note. Further, the fuller version of them, which Leo asked of Julian in letter 113, whole and finished, was certainly made before Rusticus, yet in such a way that the first translator used those Greek codices in which were wanting the two sessions on Photius of Tyre and on Carosus and Dorotheus, the two regarding Maximus and Domnus of Antioch, and also the one in which Leo's letter 93 to the synod was read: on which see what we have said in annotation 18 on Quesnel's dissertation 1, at the year 451. Of this ancient version only two codices, so far as we know, survive: the Paris one, which Baluze used, and the codex of the queen of the Swedes, of which he had knowledge from cardinal Casanata. But that this translation, earlier than Rusticus, cannot be attributed to Julian of Cos is urged first of all by this: if the Chalcedonian acts had been rendered into Latin by him immediately after the synod, since he had complete codices of the council, so many gaps of several sessions as we have pointed out would not be found in his version. And this shows more plainly still that the version is not Julian's: it gives the Chalcedonian canons in the version of Dionysius Exiguus, who certainly did not take these canons from an older translation but translated them from the Greek. Hence also the same version has taken over the titles of the canons, which Dionysius composed after his own manner. Likewise in session 11, in the Paris codex, canon 16 of Antioch is given from the same translation of Dionysius. Therefore this translation of the Chalcedonian Acts was either worked out by Dionysius Exiguus himself, or composed about the age of Dionysius after the publication of his collection of canons. So we think this version was made about the pontificate of Hormisdas, at the beginning of the sixth century. Certainly the first who used this translation lived under Vigilius, as Baluze excellently shows in (continues)

(printed under page 723)

<!-- The whole page is the run-over of the Ballerini note (a) of page 723. The upper part of col 1437 was supplied from the column images in QA pass Q4a. The foot images show only the lower part of each column; the upper part of col 1438 was not seen and is marked [… not in the foot image …]. -->

(continued) ‹note (a) of page 723› · col 1437

praefatione ad antiquam versionem concilii Chalcedonensis, ubi hanc sententiam pluribus confirmat. Quae porro idem Baluzius edidit et annotavit ex tribus codicibus Rustici, palam faciunt, hunc non primam tantum actionem interpretationis antiquae, sed totam hanc versionem cum mss. et Graecis et Latinis Constantinopoli contulisse et emendasse, ac nonnullas identidem annotationes addidisse. Neque vero Rusticus purus fuit emendator et illustrator versionis antiquae. Novam enim interpretationem fecit actionis 7 de Maximo et Juvenali, ac duarum relationum synodi ad S. Leonem, et ad Pulcheriam Augustam. Adjecit porro versionem actionis de Domno, quae in antiqua versione desiderabatur, eamque sumpsit ex illa vetustiore quam Leone vivente factam ostendimus in observ. ad diss. 9 Quesn. Inseruit quoque allocutionem originalem Latinam Marciani ad synodum (quam nobis jam conservaverant antiquae collectiones Latinae, ex. gr., Quesnelliana, et cod. Vat. 1322), et aliquot imperiales leges Latine promulgatas. Baluzius, tom. IV Concil. col. 2025, proposita Rustici annotatione : Relationes sanctae synodi ex codice Acumitensi Graeco in Latinum transtuli ego ipse haec subjicit : Hanc annotationem inveni in antiquis exemplaribus et in editione Crabbi. Quae ergo Rusticus transtulit, haec sunt ; ac praeter relationes commemorat quatuor Marciani leges, ut unam Theodosii, quae in codicibus puris Rustici actioni tertiae subjiciunt. At solas relationes Rusticus abs se Latine redditas tradit. Leges autem cum Latine editae essent, non vertit in Latinum, sed uti editas invenit, inseruit. Duae quidem ex iisdem legibus totidem verbis leguntur in collectione Quesnelliana, cap. 26 et 27, quae tamen Rustico anterior est : quaedam etiam exhibentur in collectione Hispanica, quae a Rustici codicibus non proficiscitur. Id ex eo ortum est, quod leges Latino sermone publicarentur : unde tum ab his collectoribus, tum a Rustico iisdem verbis inventae et insertae fuere. Hinc nihil mirum, si Facundus lib. XII, c. 2, ex edicto Marciani pro confirmatione synodi Chalcedonensis eadem verba recitavit, quae apud Rusticum inveniuntur ; neque enim Rustico tribuimus quod eas leges Latinitate donaverit, sed quod Latine scriptas et editas antiquae interpretationi addiderit. Ordinem actionum Rusticus alicubi mutavit. Nam quae in antiqua versione est actio 3, ex Graecis mss. secundam fecit; quae autem erat secunda, in tertium locum transtulit. Canones vero qui erant subjecti sextae actioni, inde exclusit, et decimam quintam actionem ex iisdem constituit. Hanc Rustici lucubrationem inter diem X kal. Martias an. 549 et diem III kal. Aprilis an. 550 recte Baluzius constituit in laudata praefatione num. 21, cujus editio, ut probe perspiciatur quo ordine Rusticus hanc suam Chalcedonensis concilii editionem digesserit, omnino observanda est. Vide tom. IV Conc. Ven. edit. col. 1980 et seqq. Hac vero occasione, qua de Rusticus editione locuti sumus, notitiam a nemine explicatam hic proferimus de quibusdam codicibus, qui licet Rustici editionem contineant, a puris tamen ejusdem exemplaribus discrepant. Baluzius solos codices puros Rustici invenit Divionensem, Corbeiensem, ac Thuaneum Colbertinum, qui tamen postremus mutilus in prima actione

preface to the ancient version of the council of Chalcedon, where he confirms this opinion at greater length. Further, what the same Baluze edited and annotated from three codices of Rusticus makes it plain that Rusticus collated and emended at Constantinople, with both Greek and Latin manuscripts, not only the first session of the ancient translation but this whole version, and added some annotations here and there. Nor indeed was Rusticus merely an emender and illustrator of the ancient version. For he made a new translation of session 7, concerning Maximus and Juvenal, and of the two reports of the synod, to St Leo and to Pulcheria Augusta. He further added a version of the session concerning Domnus, which was wanting in the ancient version, and took it from that older one which we have shown, in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 9, to have been made while Leo was living. He inserted also the original Latin address of Marcian to the synod (which ancient Latin collections had already preserved for us, for example the Quesnel collection and cod. Vat. 1322), and some imperial laws promulgated in Latin. Baluze, vol. IV of the Councils, col. 2025, after setting out Rusticus's annotation, "The reports of the holy synod I myself translated from the Greek codex of the Acoemetae into Latin", adds this: "I found this annotation in ancient copies and in Crabbe's edition. The things, then, which Rusticus translated are these"; and besides the reports he mentions four laws of Marcian, as also one of Theodosius, which in the pure codices of Rusticus are placed after the third session. But Rusticus reports that only the reports were rendered into Latin by himself. The laws, since they had been issued in Latin, he did not turn into Latin, but inserted them as he found them issued. Two of these same laws are indeed read word for word in the Quesnel collection, ch. 26 and 27, which is nevertheless earlier than Rusticus; some are also presented in the Spanish collection, which does not derive from Rusticus's codices. This arose from the fact that the laws were published in the Latin tongue: hence they were found and inserted in the same words both by these collectors and by Rusticus. So it is no wonder if Facundus, book XII, ch. 2, quoted from Marcian's edict for the confirmation of the synod of Chalcedon the same words that are found in Rusticus; for we do not credit Rusticus with having put those laws into Latin, but with having added them, written and issued in Latin, to the ancient translation. Rusticus changed the order of the sessions in some places. For what is session 3 in the ancient version he made the second, following the Greek manuscripts; and what was the second he moved to the third place. The canons, which had been placed after the sixth session, he removed from there, and made the fifteenth session out of them. This work of Rusticus Baluze rightly places between the 10th day before the kalends of March of the year 549 and the 3rd day before the kalends of April of the year 550, in the preface cited, no. 21; his edition must by all means be consulted, so that the order in which Rusticus arranged this edition of his of the council of Chalcedon may be well seen. See vol. IV of the Councils, Venice edition, col. 1980 and following. On this occasion of our having spoken of Rusticus's edition, we here bring forward information set out by no one about certain codices which, although they contain Rusticus's edition, nevertheless differ from the pure copies of it. Baluze found as pure codices of Rusticus only the Dijon, the Corbie, and the de Thou–Colbert codex, which last, however, is mutilated in the first session

(continued) ‹note (a) of page 723› · col 1438, lower part

[… upper part of col 1438 not in the foot image …] a Crabbo appositae fuissent, ignorarunt. In fine codicum Veronensis 57 et Vat. 1321, 1323 et 5405, qui imperfectam Rustici editionem exhibent, addita legitur epistola fidei catholicae in defensione trium capitulorum. Incipit : Monet quosdam. Hanc Facundi nomine ex apographo edidit. P. Dacherius in Spicilegio; et hac de causa in editione Operum P. Sirmondi inter Facundi libros recusa fuit. At praeterquam quod auctoris nomen in laudatis manuscriptis non legitur, et in praestantissimo Facundi aetati fere coaevo ms. Veron. 61, qui ejus opera complectitur, haec epistola non recensetur, in alio aeque antiquo cod. Veron. 57 haec nota eidem epistolae in margine superiori secunda manu praefigitur : Tota epistola, si vere inspiciatur, est omnino suspecta, et pestiferae haeresis Nestorii et Theodori Mopsuesteni claret fetore respersa. Cujus auctor hic non ponitur, sed hodie totaliter ignoratur. In ms Vat. 1321, haec epistola gestis Chalcedonensibus, ut in aliis codicibus, subjecta, a Facundi operibus separatur. Post hanc enim epistolam sine auctoris nomine descriptam alia leguntur opuscula, quae ad tria capitula nequaquam pertinent. Tum vero Facundi nomine proferuntur libri duodecim pro tribus capitulis, et epistola ejusdem adversus Mutianum Scholasticum. Nonne haec separatio prioris epistolae absque auctoris nomine a certis Facundi operibus ejus nomine praenotatis, diversi ignoti auctoris indicium est? Cum Dacherius non memoret codicem, unde apographum sumpsit, nec in eo Facundi nomen epistolae praefixum expresse tradat; dubium non leve nobis exoritur, num haec epistola exscripta fuerit ex codice aliquo laudatis Chalcedonensibus simili, in quibus tantum hanc epistolam nullo auctoris nomine inscriptam reperire nobis contigit ; idcirco autem Facundo tributa fuerit, quod et in defendendis tribus capitulis, aeque ac caetera Facundi Opera, versetur, et fortassis etiam una cum hujus Operibus inventa fuerit, ut in eo codice Vaticano, quem ultimo loco memoravimus. Facundi Opera ante concilium V sub Vigilio scripta fuere : haec autem epistola post concilium Pelagio pontifice. Num Facundas in apertum schisma, quod in epistola proditur, eruperit, nisi ejus auctor certius probetur, affirmare non audemus. Qui ex Afris concilium non recepere, exsilio mulctati sunt. De exsulibus queritur epistolae auctor nec se exsulem indicat. Hinc suspicio est fuisse aliquem ex Italis, qui ob tria capitula schisma conflarunt. Num stylus a Facundo discordet, alii conferant.

[…] had been added by Crabbe, they did not know. At the end of the codices Verona 57 and Vat. 1321, 1323 and 5405, which present an incomplete edition of Rusticus, there is read, added on, a "letter of the catholic faith in defence of the three chapters". It begins: Monet quosdam. Father d'Achery published it under the name of Facundus from a transcript in the Spicilegium; and for this reason it was reprinted among the books of Facundus in the edition of the Works of Father Sirmond. But besides the fact that the author's name is not read in the manuscripts cited, and that in the most excellent Verona ms. 61, nearly contemporary with the age of Facundus, which comprises his works, this letter is not listed, in another equally ancient codex, Verona 57, this note is prefixed to the same letter in the upper margin by a second hand: "The whole letter, if it is truly examined, is altogether suspect, and is plainly spattered with the stench of the pestilent heresy of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Its author is not set down here, but is today wholly unknown." In ms. Vat. 1321 this letter, placed after the Chalcedonian acts as in the other codices, is separated from the works of Facundus. For after this letter, copied without an author's name, other small works are read which in no way concern the three chapters. Then indeed, under the name of Facundus, are given the twelve books for the three chapters, and his letter against Mutianus Scholasticus. Is not this separation of the former letter, without an author's name, from the certain works of Facundus marked with his name, a sign of a different, unknown author? Since d'Achery does not mention the codex from which he took the transcript, nor expressly report that the name of Facundus was prefixed to the letter in it, no slight doubt arises for us whether this letter was copied from some codex like the Chalcedonian ones cited, in which alone it has befallen us to find this letter, inscribed with no author's name; and whether it was attributed to Facundus for this reason, that it too is occupied with defending the three chapters, just like the other Works of Facundus, and perhaps was also found together with his Works, as in that Vatican codex which we mentioned last. The Works of Facundus were written before the fifth council, under Vigilius; but this letter after the council, in the pontificate of Pelagius. Whether Facundus broke out into the open schism which is disclosed in the letter, we do not dare affirm unless its author is more surely proved. Those of the Africans who did not receive the council were punished with exile. The author of the letter complains about the exiles and does not indicate that he himself is an exile. Hence there is a suspicion that he was one of the Italians who stirred up schism on account of the three chapters. Whether the style differs from Facundus, let others compare.

(printed under page 724)

<!-- Q7a: this run-over of the Ballerini note (a) of page 723 was found set inside parts/c1438_a.md and has been moved here. The note's call is not in this column; its continuation is in notes/n1437.md, whose "col 1438, lower part" entry lacks the upper part of this column's foot (marked there as not seen). The paragraph below fills that gap; it overlaps n1437's lower part only in the words "a Crabbo appositae fuissent, ignorarunt." To merge into n1437 when that file is next written. The second paragraph of the run-over ("In fine codicum Veronensis 57 ...") is already set in n1437 and is not repeated here. -->

(continued) ‹note (a) of page 723› · col 1438, upper part (belongs with n1437)

desinit. Nos unum Ghigianum 483 plane similem invenimus. P. Crabbus alio ejusdem generis codice usus est, cum integra Acta secundum Rustici editionem vulgavit. Alios vero codices frequentiores nacti sumus, qui eamdem Rustici editionem ita exhibent, ut annotationes ejus omnes aut fere omnes omittant, et ordinem etiam nonnumquam deserant. Hujusmodi sunt omnes codices Vaticani 1321, 1323, 4166, 5405, et noster antiquissimus capituli Veronensis 57. In Vat. 1322, qui incipit ab actione secunda, relatio synodi ad Leonem ex antiqua versione sumpta est, licet reliqua Rusticum exhibeant. Cum porro hi soli codices, qui carent annotationibus Rustici, Romanis conciliorum editoribus noti fuerint, culpandi non sunt, si annotationes a Crabbo editas expunxerunt. Cum enim in suis codicibus deessent, qua illae auctoritate a Crabbo appositae fuissent, ignorarunt.

breaks off. We have found one, the Chigi 483, plainly similar. Father Crabbe used another codex of the same kind when he published the entire Acts according to the edition of Rusticus. But we have come upon other, more numerous codices which exhibit the same edition of Rusticus in such a way that they omit all or nearly all his annotations, and sometimes also abandon his order. Of this kind are all the Vatican codices 1321, 1323, 4166, 5405, and our own very ancient one of the chapter of Verona, 57. In Vat. 1322, which begins from the second session, the report of the synod to Leo is taken from the ancient version, although the rest exhibits Rusticus. Further, since these codices alone, which lack the annotations of Rusticus, were known to the Roman editors of the councils, they are not to be blamed if they struck out the annotations published by Crabbe. For since these were wanting in their own codices, they did not know by what authority they had been set there by Crabbe.

(printed under page 724)

(a) ‹anchor: epistolam scripsit, ne› · call in col 1440

Robur quidem sacrosanctis decretis non deerat, non quia per se absque pontificis approbatione vim generalis concilii haberent decreta Synodi, sed quia haec decreta quoad fidem jam antea a Leone aliis Litteris satis fuerant approbata, ac praesertim in epistola 106, Anatolium, ut idem pontifex hac ipsa epistola 114, et in sequenti 115, palam testatur : unde etiam in epist. 115, ad Marcianum, scribit : Per fratrem meum Lucianum episcopum talia et ad gloriam vestram et ad Constantinopolitanum episcopum (continues)

Strength was indeed not wanting to the sacred decrees, not because the decrees of the Synod had of themselves, without the pontiff's approval, the force of a general council, but because these decrees, as regards the faith, had already before this been sufficiently approved by Leo in other letters, and especially in letter 106, to Anatolius, as the same pontiff openly attests in this very letter 114 and in the following one, 115: hence also in letter 115, to Marcian, he writes: "Through my brother bishop Lucian such things both to your glory and to the bishop of Constantinople (continues)

(printed under page 725)

(continued) ‹note (a) of page 725›

scripta direxi, quae evidenter ostenderent me ea, quae de fide catholica in praedicta synodo definita fuerant, approbare. Iidem ipsi Orientales, qui Chalcedonensi definitione dubitationem ingesserant eo nomine, quod Leo illam non approbasset (suppressa enim fuerat Leonis epistola ad Anatolium, quo synodum probaverat) satis ostendunt hanc pontificiam approbationem ab Orientalibus habitam omnino necessariam, ut de ipsa definitione concilii dubitari non posset. Hinc sane Marcianus non tam confirmationem, quam ejus publicationem in Ecclesiis uti necessariam petiit epist. 110, in quam confer nostram annot. 2 (Col. 1018, n . h ). Hanc pariter confirmationis necessitatem ad robur decretorum concilii alia testimonia Leonis et aliorum Orientalium comprobant. Hinc etiam Leo dum concilii definitionem irretractabilem pronuntiavit, eam cum confirmatione pontificis conjunxit. epist. 160, c. 2 : Nam definitarum rerum, quas tantae synodi . . . sanxit auctoritas, et apostolicae sedis confirmavit assensus, nihil oportet discuti. Idem repetit epist. 163, ad Anatolium.

(continued) I sent writings which should plainly show that I approve the things that had been defined concerning the catholic faith in the aforesaid synod." Those very Easterners who had cast doubt on the Chalcedonian definition on the ground that Leo had not approved it (for Leo's letter to Anatolius, by which he had approved the synod, had been suppressed) show well enough that this pontifical approval was held by the Easterners to be altogether necessary, so that the council's definition itself could not be doubted. Hence indeed Marcian asked, in letter 110, not so much for a confirmation as for its publication in the Churches as necessary; on which compare our annotation 2 (Col. 1018, n. h). Other testimonies of Leo and of other Easterners likewise prove this necessity of confirmation for the strength of the council's decrees. Hence also Leo, when he pronounced the council's definition irreformable, joined it with the pontiff's confirmation, letter 160, ch. 2: "For of the things defined, which the authority of so great a synod . . . sanctioned, and the assent of the apostolic see confirmed, nothing ought to be discussed." He repeats the same in letter 163, to Anatolius.

(printed under page 726)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Tria in sacerdotibus seu episcopis distinguenda, ordo, potestas clavium, et sollicitudo pro Ecclesia. Si hanc postremam, quae vigilantiam, labores, industriam, et curas pro fide, unitate, et disciplina Ecclesiae affert, quispiam vel laicus, quantum per ipsum fieri possit, in se suscipiat : is utpote sacerdotalis sollicitudinis particeps, sacerdotis et episcopi titulum obtinere potest. Hoc sensu S. Leo sacerdotalem industriam, mentem, animum, affectum, sanctitatem sollicitudinemque commendat in Marciano et Leone imperatoribus, qui pro fide ac unitate Ecclesiae contra Eutychis haeresim plurimum laborarunt. Cumque Marcianus et Pulcheria adversus eosdem haereticos doctissimas sanctiones ediderint juxta Ecclesiae et episcoporum doctrinam sacerdotalem ipsis inesse doctrinam professus est. Simili sensu alia testimonia de aliis Augustis intelligenda sunt. Nemo tamen ob participationem sacerdotalis sollicitudinis quemquam laicum aeque participem censere potest vel sacerdotalis ordinis, vel potestatis clavium, qua spiritualis jurisdictio significatur. Hanc enim competere solis sacerdotibus seu episcopis, quos Spiritus sanctus posuit regere Ecclesiam Dei, quibusque Ecclesiae claves in Petro traditae fuerunt a Christo, omnes catholici fatentur : unde primus imperator Constantinus, qui magnam sollicitudinem pro Ecclesia suscepit, suam et episcoporum potestatem probe distinguens, sic ad episcopos locutus est, teste Eusebio in ejus Vita lib. IV : Vos quidem in iis quae intra Ecclesiam, ego vero in iis quae extra geruntur episcopus a Deo sum constitutus.

Three things are to be distinguished in priests or bishops: order, the power of the keys, and solicitude for the Church. If anyone, even a layman, takes upon himself, so far as lies in him, this last, which brings vigilance, labours, industry and cares for the faith, unity and discipline of the Church, he, as a sharer in priestly solicitude, can obtain the title of priest and bishop. In this sense St. Leo commends priestly industry, mind, spirit, affection, holiness and solicitude in the emperors Marcian and Leo, who laboured very greatly for the faith and unity of the Church against the heresy of Eutyches. And since Marcian and Pulcheria issued most learned ordinances against the same heretics in accordance with the teaching of the Church and of the bishops, he declared that priestly teaching was in them. Other testimonies about other emperors are to be understood in a like sense. Yet no one can, on account of a share in priestly solicitude, judge any layman to be equally a sharer either in the priestly order or in the power of the keys, by which spiritual jurisdiction is signified. For all catholics confess that this belongs only to priests or bishops, whom the Holy Spirit has set to rule the Church of God, and to whom the keys of the Church were handed over by Christ in Peter: hence the first emperor Constantine, who took up great solicitude for the Church, rightly distinguishing his own power and that of the bishops, spoke thus to the bishops, as Eusebius witnesses in his Life, book IV: "You indeed in the things that are done within the Church, but I in the things that are done outside it, have been appointed bishop by God."

(printed under page 726)

(a) ‹anchor: sacerdotalis industria› · call in col 1442 (after the lemma "1. Et regia potentia, et sacerdotalis industria")

Tria in sacerdotibus seu episcopis distinguenda, ordo, potestas clavium, et sollicitudo pro Ecclesia. Si hanc postremam, quae vigilantiam, labores, industriam, et curas pro fide, unitate, et disciplina Ecclesiae affert, quispiam vel laicus, quantum per ipsum fieri possit, in se suscipiat : is utpote sacerdotalis sollicitudinis particeps, sacerdotis et episcopi titulum obtinere potest. Hoc sensu S. Leo sacerdotalem industriam, mentem, animum, affectum, sanctitatem sollicitudinemque commendat in Marciano et Leone imperatoribus, qui pro fide ac unitate Ecclesiae contra Eutychis haeresim plurimum laborarunt. Cumque Marcianus et Pulcheria adversus eosdem haereticos doctissimas sanctiones ediderint juxta Ecclesiae et episcoporum doctrinam sacerdotalem ipsis inesse doctrinam professus est. Simili sensu alia testimonia de aliis Augustis intelligenda sunt. Nemo tamen ob participationem sacerdotalis sollicitudinis quemquam laicum aeque participem censere potest vel sacerdotalis ordinis, vel potestatis clavium, qua spiritualis jurisdictio significatur. Hanc enim competere solis sacerdotibus seu episcopis, quos Spiritus sanctus posuit regere Ecclesiam Dei, quibusque Ecclesiae claves in Petro traditae fuerunt a Christo, omnes catholici fatentur : unde primus imperator Constantinus, qui magnam sollicitudinem pro Ecclesia suscepit, suam et episcoporum potestatem probe distinguens, sic ad episcopos locutus est, teste Eusebio in ejus Vita lib. IV : Vos quidem in iis quae intra Ecclesiam, ego vero in iis quae extra geruntur episcopus a Deo sum constitutus.

Three things are to be distinguished in priests or bishops: order, the power of the keys, and solicitude for the Church. If anyone, even a layman, takes upon himself, so far as lies in him, this last, which brings vigilance, labours, industry and cares for the faith, unity and discipline of the Church, he, as a sharer in priestly solicitude, can obtain the title of priest and bishop. In this sense St. Leo commends priestly industry, mind, spirit, affection, holiness and solicitude in the emperors Marcian and Leo, who laboured very greatly for the faith and unity of the Church against the heresy of Eutyches. And since Marcian and Pulcheria issued most learned ordinances against the same heretics in accordance with the teaching of the Church and of the bishops, he declared that priestly teaching was in them. Other testimonies about other emperors are to be understood in a like sense. Yet no one can, on account of a share in priestly solicitude, judge any layman to be equally a sharer either in the priestly order or in the power of the keys, by which spiritual jurisdiction is signified. For all catholics confess that this belongs only to priests or bishops, whom the Holy Spirit has set to rule the Church of God, and to whom the keys of the Church were handed over by Christ in Peter: hence the first emperor Constantine, who took up great solicitude for the Church, rightly distinguishing his own power and that of the bishops, spoke thus to the bishops, as Eusebius witnesses in his Life, book IV: "You indeed in the things that are done within the Church, but I in the things that are done outside it, have been appointed bishop by God."

(printed under page 726: begins at the foot of col 1441, "Tria in sacerdotibus ... quantum per ipsum", and continues at the foot of col 1442, "fieri possit ... sum constitutus.")

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Anatolii quidem et imperatoris nomine Lucianus episcopus ad Leonem directus cognoscitur ex epistolis 100 et 101, at synodi quoque nomine non item. Cum enim is memoratus in epistolis imperatoris 100, et Anatolii 101, non nominatur in relatione synodi nobis epist. 98 ; tum vero Anatolius epist. 101 synodi relationem ad pontificem non Luciano, sed Romanis legatis traditam prodit.

That bishop Lucian was sent to Leo in the name of Anatolius and of the emperor is known from letters 100 and 101, but not likewise that he was sent in the name of the synod as well. For while he is mentioned in the emperor's letter, 100, and in Anatolius's, 101, he is not named in the report of the synod, our letter 98; and moreover Anatolius in letter 101 discloses that the synod's report to the pontiff was handed not to Lucian but to the Roman legates.

(printed under page 727)

(b) ‹anchor: ditioni suberant› · call in col 1444

Cum S. Leo Maximi vigilantiae commendet, ne ullo modo sinat in Orientalibus Ecclesiis, maximeque in iis quas Antiochenae sedi sacratissimorum Patrum Nicaeni canones deputavere, ab improbis haereticis Evangelio insultari, et vel Nestorii, vel Eutychetis a quoquam dogma defendi ; hoc loco non questionem de Antiochenae sedis juribus a Juvenali Jerosolymitano laesis, de quibus postea sermonem facit, neque illam de juribus metropolitarum Thraciae, Ponti, et Asiae ab Anatolio violatis, quae ad Antiochenum non pertinebant, sed meram fidei causam, et perversa haereticorum dogmata, eorumque nisus in Oriente apertissime respicit. Ut autem intelligatur quid Orientalium provinciarum nomine significet, haud confugiendum est ad questionem de sedium juribus, sed aliunde colligendum est. Hac autem in re satis indicii exhibet sequens epistola 120, ad Theodoretum, quae eodem die signata, hujus ad Maximum epistolae mentionem facit. In ea epistola 120. S. Pontifex non absimiliter pro fidei causa sollicitus, capite sexto Theodoreto eamdem causam commendat his verbis : Quod superest exhortamur, ut quia ILLIC nonnullas Eutychiani ac Nestoriani erroris reliquias cognoscimus remansisse nunc etiam sedi apostolicae collabores, etc. Et post pauca : Quid apud ILLAS regiones doctrina Dominica proficiat, apostolicam sedem festines instruere, quatenus ILLIUS regionis sacerdotes..... adjuvemus. Quo porro referantur voces ILLIC, ILLAS REGIONES, etc., si tota epistola legatur, non invenientur referri posse nisi ad Orientem late sumptum, uti ab Occidente distinguitur. Sic enim ait cap. 2 : Solis justitiae jubar densis per Orientem Nestorii et Eutychis nebulis impeditum pure ab Occidente resplenduit. In toto sane Oriente haeresis venenum suum sparserat ; et hoc praesertim tempore et in Palaestina, et in Aegypto tumultuantibus haereticis, erroris reliquiae non deerant. Hinc ergo Orientem late sumptum S. Leo commendavit Theodoreto, ut secum collaborans invigilaret, referret ad sedem apostolicam, etc. Quidni idem commendarit Maximo, qui majori quam Theodoretus auctoritate pollebat? Imbecilla cognoscentur et levia, quae hic Quesnellus subjicit, ut Aegyptum excludat. Neque enim jus Antiocheno tradebatur supra Aegypti Ecclesias, sed in gravissimis haereticorum turbis, quae S. Proterio Alexandrino episcopo recens ordinato, nec sedem satis tutam, nec idoneam auctoritatem praestabant, S. Leo Maximi tertiae sedis episcopi auctoritatem utilem futuram putavit.

Since St. Leo commends to the vigilance of Maximus that he in no way allow the Gospel to be insulted by wicked heretics in the Eastern Churches, and above all in those which the canons of the most holy Fathers at Nicaea assigned to the see of Antioch, or the doctrine of either Nestorius or Eutyches to be defended by anyone, in this place he most plainly has in view not the question of the rights of the see of Antioch injured by Juvenal of Jerusalem, of which he speaks afterwards, nor that of the rights of the metropolitans of Thrace, Pontus and Asia violated by Anatolius, which did not concern the bishop of Antioch, but the pure cause of the faith, and the perverse doctrines of the heretics and their efforts in the East. And to understand what he means by the name of the Eastern provinces, one should not have recourse to the question of the rights of the sees; it must be gathered from elsewhere. In this matter the following letter, 120, to Theodoret, gives indication enough: dated on the same day, it makes mention of this letter to Maximus. In that letter 120 the holy Pontiff, concerned in much the same way for the cause of the faith, commends the same cause to Theodoret in the sixth chapter in these words: "For the rest we exhort you that, since we know that THERE some remnants of the Eutychian and Nestorian error have remained, you now also work together with the apostolic see," etc. And a little after: "Hasten to inform the apostolic see what progress the Lord's teaching is making in THOSE regions, so that we may help the priests of THAT region....." Now if the whole letter is read, the words THERE, THOSE REGIONS, etc., will be found capable of referring to nothing but the East taken broadly, as it is distinguished from the West. For so he says in ch. 2: "The radiance of the Sun of justice, hindered throughout the East by the thick clouds of Nestorius and Eutyches, has shone out purely from the West." Throughout the whole East, indeed, heresy had spread its poison; and at this time especially, with the heretics rioting both in Palestine and in Egypt, remnants of the error were not wanting. Hence, then, St. Leo commended the East taken broadly to Theodoret, that working together with him he should keep watch, report to the apostolic see, etc. Why should he not have commended the same to Maximus, who had greater authority than Theodoret? What Quesnel adds here in order to exclude Egypt will be recognized as weak and slight. For no right was being given to the bishop of Antioch over the Churches of Egypt; but amid the very grave disturbances of the heretics, which afforded St. Proterius, the newly ordained bishop of Alexandria, neither a sufficiently safe see nor adequate authority, St. Leo thought that the authority of Maximus, bishop of the third see, would be useful.

(printed under page 727)

(a) ‹anchor: amisisset. Igitur› · call in col 1445

Id falsum colligetur ex annot. 30 (Col. 1045, n. g) in hanc epist.

That this is false will be gathered from annotation 30 (Col. 1045, n. g) on this letter.

(printed under page 728)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Duae sequentes conjectationes, quas Quesnellus aliorum suspicionibus tribuit, a Leonis mente alienissimae sunt ; neque enim eo concilio Constantinopolitanae sedis privilegio restitit, quod sibi exinde metueret ; sed quod Nicaenos canones custodiri zelo disciplinae summopere peroptabat, eosque nisus detestabatur, quibus iidem canones in irritum mitterentur. Juvenalis autem conatus, etsi Nicaenis canonibus pariter contrairent, idcirco praeteriisse, quod Ecclesiae utile putaret, si patriarcharum Orientalium potestas minueretur, falsa hypothesi nititur. Neque enim eos Leo praeterivit hac in epistola, sed reprehendit ; et solum opportunum tempus, quo fortius agendum esset contra Juvenalem, qui hoc tempore pulsus sua sede, obtento privilegio non potiebatur, exspectandum duxit, uti explicavimus in observat. ad dissert. 9 Quesnelli num. 9. Quod si in epistola 139, quam ad Juvenalem suae sedi jam restitutum dedit, nihil contradictionis hac in parte invenitur : vel Maximus nondum quidquam certi rescripserat, vel hoc tempore studio fidei reparandae, in hac una re, seu in reparanda fide, utilius insistendum putavit.

The two following conjectures, which Quesnel attributes to the suspicions of others, are utterly foreign to Leo's mind; for he did not resist the privilege of the see of Constantinople in that council because he feared for himself from it, but because, out of zeal for discipline, he most earnestly desired the Nicene canons to be kept, and detested those efforts by which the same canons would be made void. And that he passed over Juvenal's attempts, although they equally went against the Nicene canons, because he thought it useful to the Church if the power of the Eastern patriarchs were lessened, rests on a false hypothesis. For Leo did not pass them over in this letter, but rebuked them; and he judged only that a suitable time should be awaited for acting more strongly against Juvenal, who at this time, driven from his see, was not in possession of the privilege he had obtained, as we have explained in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 9, no. 9. And if in letter 139, which he sent to Juvenal when already restored to his see, no opposition on this point is found: either Maximus had not yet written back anything certain, or at this time, out of zeal for restoring the faith, he thought it more useful to press on this one thing, namely the restoring of the faith.

(printed under page 728)

(c) ‹anchor: ipsum omnino› · call in col 1446 (the call is printed twice: after "omnino" and again after "actione")

Actionem septimam de Maximo et Juvenali non ignoravit S. Leo, siquidem cum duabus aliis actionibus ad ipsum ab eodem Maximo missa fuit, uti exposuimus in observationibus ad diss. 9, num. 9, ad quas sequentes Quesnelli conjectationes exigendae erunt.

St. Leo was not ignorant of the seventh session, on Maximus and Juvenal, since it was sent to him with two other sessions by the same Maximus, as we have set out in the observations on dissertation 9, no. 9, against which Quesnel's following conjectures will have to be tested.

(printed under page 728)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Malo ejus ex codicibus et contextu praetulimus : verba autem auctore totius bonitatis dispensante cum Augustino concinunt, qui Deum bene uti nosse etiam malis pluribus in locis docuit, nimirum in lib, de Praedest. SS. c. 16, tract. 27 in Joannem num. 10, de Continentia num. 15, serm. 10 num. 5, Enarr. in psal. CIV num. 17, unde celebris et praeclara est illa ejusdem doctoris sententia in Enchir. c. 27 : Melius enim (Deus) judicavit de malis bene facere, quam mala nulla esse permittere. Confer etiam c. 96.

We have preferred "Malo ejus" on the strength of the codices and the context: and the words "auctore totius bonitatis dispensante" (the author of all goodness so disposing) agree with Augustine, who taught in many places that God knows how to make good use even of evils, namely in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, ch. 16, tractate 27 on John, no. 10, On Continence, no. 15, sermon 10, no. 5, the Enarration on psalm CIV, no. 17; whence comes that celebrated and excellent saying of the same doctor in the Enchiridion, ch. 27: "For he (God) judged it better to bring good out of evils than to permit no evils to exist." Compare also ch. 96.

(printed under page 730)

(b) ‹anchor: illud solutum,› · call in col 1450

Graecus textus Theodori diaconi Alexandrini, qui act. 3 Chalcedonensi legitur, tom. IV Concil. col. 1271 (ut notarunt Romani editores), id gestum praefert in Nicaea metropoli. Vetus autem interpres in suo Graeco exemplo aliter legisse videtur. Id enim non in Nicaea metropoli, sed contra gestum in Nicaea concilium reddidit : quae verba significant, Dioscorum damnando S. Flavianum et excommunicando S. Leonem ejus doctrinae catholicae defensores, quae cum Nicaena concordat, adversus ipsum Nicaenum concilium pugnasse. Errores quidem aliquot deprehenduntur in Graeco vulgato, qui ex antiqua versione corrigendi sunt. Si autem Graecus textus vulgatus hoc loco non credatur vitiatus, cum incredibile sit Dioscorum tantum ausisse in urbe Nicaea Marciano imperante, dum res omnes incitatae erant contra Dioscorum ; dicendum erit illum vivo adhuc Theodosio, cujus favore et patrocinio fretus omnia audebat, excommunicationem tulisse in S. Leonem, dum in variis ipsius excursibus Nicaeae esset, quod hic fortassis nuntium accepisset, Leonem Ephesini latrocinii gesta irrita declarasse, et se quoque ab eodem pontifice in epist. 44 ad Theodosium acriter fuisse perstrictum.

The Greek text of Theodore, deacon of Alexandria, which is read in the third session of Chalcedon, vol. IV of the Councils, col. 1271 (as the Roman editors have noted), gives this as done "in the metropolis Nicaea". But the old translator seems to have read otherwise in his Greek copy. For he rendered it not "in the metropolis Nicaea" but "against the council held at Nicaea": which words mean that Dioscorus, by condemning St. Flavian and excommunicating St. Leo, the defenders of that catholic doctrine which agrees with the Nicene, fought against the Nicene council itself. Some errors are indeed detected in the common Greek text, which are to be corrected from the ancient version. But if the common Greek text is not believed to be corrupt in this place, since it is incredible that Dioscorus dared so much in the city of Nicaea while Marcian was reigning, when everything had been roused against Dioscorus, it will have to be said that he passed the excommunication on St. Leo while Theodosius was still alive, relying on whose favour and patronage he dared everything, when in his various journeys he was at Nicaea, because perhaps he had there received the news that Leo had declared the acts of the Robber Synod of Ephesus void, and that he himself too had been sharply censured by the same pontiff in letter 44 to Theodosius.

(printed under page 730)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images; the note is set across the full page width)

Confer annot. 8 (Col. 1056, n. j) in hanc epistolam, ex qua errores hujus Quesnellianae notationis detegentur.

Compare annotation 8 (Col. 1056, n. j) on this letter, from which the errors of this note of Quesnel's will be exposed.

(printed under page 731)

(a) ‹anchor: Hi scilicet,› · call in col 1453

Non Caroso et Dorotheo, sed Theodosio duce scribendum fuerat; illi enim Constantinopoli, non autem in Palaestina, turbas excitarunt. Palaestinorum autem tumultuantium dux fuit Theodosius, uti observavimus annot. 26 (Col. 1067, n. f) in hanc epistolam.

He ought to have written not "with Carosus and Dorotheus" but "with Theodosius as leader"; for those men stirred up disturbances at Constantinople, not in Palestine. The leader of the rioting Palestinians was Theodosius, as we observed in annotation 26 (Col. 1067, n. f) on this letter.

(printed under page 732)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Proterii litteras, quas satisfactionis plenas Leo testatur, non sunt primae statim post ejus ordinationem scriptae, sed secundae, quas cum pleniore et apertiore fidei expositione ab eodem pontifex petiit ex epist. 127, c. 1. Has secundas litteras Nestorius episcopus ad Leonem attulit. Vide supra dissert. de Epist. deperditis, n. 61 et 69.

The letter of Proterius which Leo attests to be "full of satisfaction" is not the first, written immediately after his ordination, but the second, which the pontiff asked of him with a fuller and plainer exposition of the faith, as appears from letter 127, ch. 1. This second letter bishop Nestorius brought to Leo. See above, the dissertation on the Lost Letters, nos. 61 and 69.

(printed under page 733)

(a) ‹anchor: fidei suae indices› · call in col 1456 (after "indices," before "quas satisfactionis plenas")

Proterii litteras, quas satisfactionis plenas Leo testatur, non sunt primae statim post ejus ordinationem scriptae, sed secundae, quas cum pleniore et apertiore fidei expositione ab eodem pontifex petiit ex epist. 127, c. 1. Has secundas litteras Nestorius episcopus ad Leonem attulit. Vide supra dissert. de Epist. deperditis, n. 61 et 69.

The letter of Proterius which Leo attests to be full of satisfaction is not the first, written immediately after his ordination, but the second, which the pontiff asked of him, with a fuller and more open exposition of the faith, in letter 127, chapter 1. This second letter Bishop Nestorius brought to Leo. See above, the dissertation on the lost letters, nos. 61 and 69. ["litteras ... sunt" is so printed, the accusative with "sunt"; the English follows the evident sense.]

(printed under page 733, in two halves across the page foot under the full-width heading BALLERINIORUM ANNOTATIONES)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Cum Anatolius in epist. 132, quae hic indicatur, capite 4, affirmet: Gestorum vis omnis et confirmatio auctoritati vestrae beatitudinis fuit reservata, jus omne his gestis quaesitum, ut ratum esset ac certum ab apostolica confirmatione et auctoritate pendere confessus est. Quod si hac confessione non obstante, et contradicente pontifice, ipse et Orientales a decreto semel lato Chalcedone non recesssere, sicut cum Marciano epist. 110 constantiae Leoni tribuendum est quod sese huic ambitioni Nicaenis canonibus contrariae fortiter opposuerit, ita laudi verti nequit Orientalibus, si contra eosdem canones justis Leonis reprehensionibus nequaquam cessere.

Since Anatolius in letter 132, which is indicated here, affirms in chapter 4: "The whole force and confirmation of the acts was reserved to the authority of your beatitude", he confessed that every right sought by these acts depended, for its being ratified and certain, on the apostolic confirmation and authority. And if, this confession notwithstanding, and with the pontiff objecting, he and the Easterners did not withdraw from the decree once passed at Chalcedon, then, just as with Marcian in letter 110 it is to be credited to Leo's constancy that he strongly opposed this ambition contrary to the Nicene canons, so it cannot be turned to the praise of the Easterners if, against the same canons, they in no way yielded to Leo's just rebukes.

(printed under page 734)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col ? (not visible in the foot images)

Cave potius ne immortalitatem Adami in primo statu ex ipsius corporis conditione connaturalem putes. Immortalitas enim, ut palam docuit S. Augustinus in lib. VI de Genesi ad litt. c. 25, ei praestabatur de ligno vitae, non de constitutione naturae; a quo ligno separatus est, cum peccasset, ut posset mori ; qui nisi peccasset, posset non mori. Mortalis ergo erat conditione corporis animalis, immortalis autem beneficio conditoris. Hinc etiam damnata fuit haec propositio inter Baianas 78, cui num Quesnellus hoc loco alludat, alii judicent: Immortalitas primi hominis non erat gratiae beneficium, sed naturalis conditio.

Beware rather of thinking that Adam's immortality in the first state was connatural, from the condition of his body itself. For immortality, as St. Augustine plainly taught in book VI of On Genesis according to the letter, ch. 25, "was afforded him from the tree of life, not from the constitution of nature; from which tree he was separated when he had sinned, so that he could die; who, if he had not sinned, could have not died. He was therefore mortal by the condition of an animal body, but immortal by the benefit of the creator." Hence also this proposition was condemned among those of Baius, no. 78 (whether Quesnel alludes to it in this place, let others judge): "The immortality of the first man was not a benefit of grace, but a natural condition."

(printed under page 735)

(b) ‹anchor: veneranter accepi.› · call in col 1460

De his verbis lege nostram annot. 29 (Col. 1108, n. j) in hanc epistolam.

On these words read our annotation 29 (Col. 1108, n. j) on this letter.

(printed under page 735)

(a) ‹anchor: de correctione› · call in col 1461 (after "de correctione", before "Carosi", first line of the column)

Hic Carosus correctus diversus est ab alio quem Marcianus e monasterio ejecit, uti colligere licebit ex nostra annot. 7 (Col. 1111, n. g) in epist. 142, ubi etiam erroneam notam ejusdem epistolae ex optimo ms. Ratisponensi emendavimus.

This Carosus, who was corrected, is different from the other whom Marcian cast out of the monastery, as may be gathered from our annotation 7 (Col. 1111, n. g) on letter 142, where we have also emended the erroneous date-note of the same letter from the excellent Regensburg manuscript.

(printed under page 736)

(b) ‹anchor: Cum ergo› · call in col 1461

Chronica nota epistolae 163, XV kal. Aprilis. Emendavimus V kalendas. Confer nostram annot. 12 (Col. 1148, n. j) in hanc epist.

The date-note of letter 163 is the 15th day before the kalends of April. We have emended it to the 5th before the kalends. Compare our annotation 12 (Col. 1148, n. j) on this letter.

(printed under page 736)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1465 (call not visible; note printed under the left column)

Cum haec epistola sit inter supposititias Isidori Mercatoris, haec impostura multo posterior est.

Since this letter is among the spurious ones of Isidore Mercator, this imposture is much later.

(printed under page 738)

(b) ‹anchor: Parenthesim illa,› · call in col 1465

Haec verba auctoritate omnium mss. et antiquae Graecae versionis loco suo restituimus, sententiamque satis aequam explicavimus annot. 71 (Col. 1169, n. f) in hanc epistolam 105.

We have restored these words to their own place on the authority of all the manuscripts and of the ancient Greek version, and we have explained the sense, which is reasonable enough, in annotation 71 (col. 1169, note f) on this letter 105.

(printed under page 738)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1466 (call not visible; note printed under the right column)

Haec testimonia a Leone collecta et missa in Orientem post latrocinium Ephesinum, non pertinent ad concilium Chalcedonense. Licet enim in vulgatis Conciliorum subjecta sint Leonis epistolae insertae actioni secundae Chalcedonensis, non tamen in mss. Vide admonitionem in epist. 28, I, 8 et 9.

These testimonies, collected by Leo and sent to the East after the Robber Synod of Ephesus, do not belong to the Council of Chalcedon. For although in the printed editions of the Councils they are appended to Leo's letter inserted in the second session of Chalcedon, they are not so in the manuscripts. See the admonition on letter 28, I, 8 and 9.

(printed under page 738)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1467 (call not visible; note printed under the left column)

Sic appellat collectionem canonum, quam tom. III emendatam recudemus, et Romanam non esse probabimus.

So he calls the collection of canons which we shall reprint, corrected, in volume III, and shall prove not to be Roman.

(printed under page 739)

(b) ‹anchor: gemino fretus suffragio,› · call in col 1467

Hoc Augustini testimonium non spectat ad Acta synodi Chalcedonensis, uti monuimus annot. 3. Graecus textus est vetus interpretatio testimoniorum quae Leo misit in Orientem ; haecque Graeca antiquissima interpretatio praeter ms. Grimanicum Latinum eidem testimonio, licet in aliis codicibus Latinis omisso, fidem facit,

This testimony of Augustine does not belong to the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, as we pointed out in annotation 3. The Greek text is an old translation of the testimonies which Leo sent to the East; and this very ancient Greek translation, besides the Latin Grimani manuscript, vouches for the same testimony, although it is omitted in the other Latin codices.

(printed under page 739)

(c) ‹anchor: Domini 440 fere› · call in col 1467

Sixtum III obiise die 11 Augusti ex nostro vetustissimo Sacramentario probabilius conjecimus annot. 23 in § 33 mensis Octobris, hoc tomo col. 135 (nostro II).

That Sixtus III died on 11 August we have conjectured, as the more probable view, from our very ancient Sacramentary, in annotation 23 on § 33 of the month of October, in this volume col. 135 (our II).

(printed under page 739)

(d) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1468 (call not visible; note printed under the right column)

Patrum testimonia Leo non misit ad synodum Chalcedonensem, sed anno ante ea per legatos miserat in Orientem. Confer admonitionem in epist. 23, in fine.

Leo did not send the testimonies of the Fathers to the Council of Chalcedon, but had sent them to the East by his legates the year before. Compare the admonition on letter 23, at the end.

(printed under page 739)

(a) ‹anchor: privilegia. Vide› · call in col 1469

Hic Quesnellus in sua editione citat canonum collectionem a se editam initio tomi secundi, quam nos tomo III recudemus, indicatque finem capitis 16.

Here Quesnel in his edition cites the collection of canons published by him at the beginning of the second volume, which we shall reprint in volume III, and he points to the end of chapter 16.

(printed under page 740)

(b) ‹anchor: consularem notam,› · call in col 1470

Confer nostram annot. 21 (Col. 1195, n. a) in hanc epistolam

Compare our annotation 21 (col. 1195, note a) on this letter

(printed under page 740)

(c) ‹anchor: fuisse scriptam› · call in col 1470

Haec epistola ad consultationem episcoporum provinciae Ravennatis scripta non apparet. Encyclica videtur ad plures, ut in admonitione observavimus.

This letter does not appear to have been written in answer to a consultation of the bishops of the province of Ravenna. It seems to be an encyclical to several, as we observed in the admonition.

(printed under page 740)

(a) ‹anchor: Patrum instituta.› · call in col 1471

Vulgatam lectionem revocavimus. Vide nostram annot. 116 (Col. 194, n. j) in praesentem epist.

We have restored the reading of the printed editions. See our annotation 116 (col. 194, note j) on the present letter.

<!-- UNSURE: the column number in (a) is faint in the image; read as "194" (last digit could be 1); the reference is presumably to col. 1194. --> (printed under page 741)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1471 (call not visible; note printed under the left column)

Confer nostram annot. 25 (Col. 1138, n. q) in epist. 159.

Compare our annotation 25 (col. 1138, note q) on letter 159.

(printed under page 741)

(c) ‹anchor: aliter de harum› · call in col 1472

Has litteras scriptas saltem non ante 458 probavimus in admonitione eisdem praemissa, ubi singulis Quesnelli rationibus satisfecisse nobis videmur.

That this letter was written at any rate not before 458 we have proved in the admonition prefixed to it, where we think we have answered each of Quesnel's arguments.

(printed under page 741)

(d) ‹anchor: sed potius› · call in col 1472

Id refellimus in admonitione, num. 3 et 4.

We refute this in the admonition, nos. 3 and 4.

(printed under page 741)

(a) ‹anchor: Ex quibus› · call in col 1473

Has duas Quesnelli conjecturas inanes ostendimus in eadem admonitione, n. 7.

We have shown these two conjectures of Quesnel to be empty in the same admonition, no. 7.

(printed under page 742)

(b) ‹anchor: ventilarentur et enodarentur;› · call in col 1473

Cum Rusticus etiam in Quesnelli sententia certe scripserit post concilia Arausicanum I, et Vasense I, nec supervacaneum sane, nec praeter consuetudinem Gallicanam esse credidit post soluta in comprovincialibus aut majoribus synodis dubia auctoritatem apostolicam quaerere, ne quid dubitationis superesset. Vide admonit. n. 7. Similiter quidem Theodorus Forojuliensis, licet Gallicanus, et licet probabilius sit ille Theodorus qui subscripsit Arausicano I, non dubitavit tamen a Leone de aliquot capitibus in ea synodo definitis inquirere, ut ex iis quae post pauca Quesnellus proferet manifestum fiet.

Since Rusticus, even on Quesnel's view, certainly wrote after the councils of Orange I and Vaison I, he plainly believed it neither superfluous nor contrary to Gallican custom, after doubts had been resolved in provincial or greater synods, to seek the apostolic authority, so that no doubt might remain. See the admonition, no. 7. In the same way Theodore of Fréjus, though a Gallican, and though he is more probably the Theodore who subscribed at Orange I, nevertheless did not hesitate to inquire of Leo about several points defined in that synod, as will become plain from what Quesnel will bring forward a little further on.

(printed under page 742)

(c) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1473 or 1474 (call not visible; note begins under the left column and ends under the right)

Haec non solum gratis, sed etiam falso scribuntur de Rustico, qui cum absque difficultate interfuerit duabus synodis Ravennii Arelatensis, perperam eam ob causam neglexisse, aut non consensisse creditur aliis synodis S. Hilarii, ne metropolitico juri suo ullatenus derogatum esset, etc. Hac enim de causa a Ravennii synodis aeque abstinuisset.

These things are written of Rusticus not only without ground but also falsely; since he attended two synods of Ravennius of Arles without difficulty, it is wrongly believed that he neglected, or did not consent to, the other synods of St. Hilary for this reason, "lest his metropolitan right should be in any way impaired," etc. For on that ground he would equally have stayed away from the synods of Ravennius.

(printed under page 742)

(d) ‹anchor: in suo nutu;› · call in col 1474

Cum idem canon aeque de baptismo ac de poenitentia loquens decernat obmutescentem, prout ejus status est, baptizari, aut poenitentiam accipere posse, si voluntatis. etc., nomine poenitentiae etiam communionem, seu reconciliationem, videtur comprehendere; sicut enim non repugnat ei baptismatis sacramentum conferri, ita nec poenitentiae sacramentum: cum praesertim de eo sermo sit, cui sola poenitentia, quam in eo statu perficere nequit, sine reconciliatione inaniter subveniretur,

Since the same canon, speaking equally of baptism and of penance, decrees that "one who is struck dumb can, according to his condition, be baptized or receive penance, if of his will," etc., it seems to include under the name of penance communion also, or reconciliation; for just as it is not inconsistent that the sacrament of baptism be conferred on him, so neither is the sacrament of penance: especially since the matter concerns one to whom penance alone, which in that condition he cannot complete, would be of no avail without reconciliation.

(printed under page 742)

(a) ‹anchor: firmare potest.› · call in col 1475

Utramque conjecturam refellimus in admonit. n. 8.

We refute both conjectures in the admonition, no. 8.

(printed under page 743)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1475 or 1476 (call not visible; note begins under the left column and ends under the right)

In materna domo, inquit Quesnellus ex sua sententia, qua Rusticum nondum monachum fuisse putat, cum ad eum S. Hieronymus scripsit; monachatum enim ejus non in monasterio Massiliensi, sed in Tolosano astruere deinceps pluribus nititur. Non assentimur. Inscriptio, quam idem Quesnellus postea exhibet, cum Rusticum episcopi Venerii socium in monasterio, id est, monachum et ejusdem compresbyterum Massiliensem fuisse testetur, Massiliense monasterium satis obvie indicat. Hieronymus quidem in epistola olim 4, nunc in editione Veronensi 126, ad eumdem Rusticum, eum et in inscriptione monachum, et in contextu apud Massiliam degentem significat. Id Quesnellus ex eo solum impugnat, quod hasce ad Rusticum litteras datas existimet ante aliam Hieronymi epist. 11, nunc 123, ad Ageruchiam, quam scriptam censet an. 407, quo nondum Joannes Cassianus Massiliense monasterium condiderat. At praeterquamquod haud certum est quod Quesnellus praesumit, nimirum nullum aliud monasterium apud Massiliam extitisse anterius illo quod Joannes Cassianus post an. 407 Massiliam sese recipiens exstruxit, Hieronymi epistola ad Rusticum certo certius scripta est post Rufini mortem. Grunius enim, qui in ea mortuus memoratur, n. 18, non alius est nisi Rufinus Aquileiensis. Is autem obiit an. 410 ac propterea ea epistola commode affigenda est ann. 411, cum jam monasterium Massiliense a Joanne Cassiano conditum fuerat. Apud Massiliam ergo monachi vitam una cum Venerio Rusticus agebat, cum ad illum S. Hieronymus scripsit; nec quidquam cogit Tolosano monasterio illum addicere. Ita sane congrue intelliguntur illa ejusdem epistolae S. Hieronymi de S. Exuperio Tolosano episcopo: Hujus tu e vicino sectare vestigia: et illa de Proculo Massiliensi: Habes isthinc sanctum doctissimumque pontificem Proculum, qui viva et praesenti voce nostras schedulas superet, quotidianisque tractatibus iter tuum dirigat. Videsne discrimen formularum ? De episcopo Massiliae Hieronymus loquitur uti praesenti, eo quod Rusticus in Massiliensi monasterio vitam ageret: S. Exuperium vero vicinum indicat, propterea quod Tolosa licet distaret a Massilia, prae Palaestina tamen, ubi erat Hieronymus, illi erat vicina. Quod si epistola Hieronymi ad Rusticum scripta est an. 411, nulli fundamento incumbunt quae Quesnellus conjicit de Sisinnio monacho Tolosate, ac si is sub an. 406 in Orientem missus a S. Exuperio Rustici litteras ad Hieronymum primum attulerit, et Hieronymi epistolam eodem anno reddiderit Rustico. Hoc enim anno Rufinus nondum obierat.

"In his mother's house," says Quesnel, following his own opinion, by which he thinks Rusticus was not yet a monk when St. Jerome wrote to him; for he then labours at length to establish that his monastic life was passed not in the monastery of Marseilles but in that of Toulouse. We do not agree. The inscription which the same Quesnel afterwards produces, since it attests that Rusticus was "the companion of bishop Venerius in the monastery," that is, a monk, and "fellow presbyter" of the same "at Marseilles," points plainly enough to the monastery of Marseilles. Jerome indeed, in the letter formerly numbered 4, now 126 in the Verona edition, to the same Rusticus, indicates both in the heading that he was a monk and in the body that he was living at Marseilles. Quesnel attacks this only on the ground that he thinks this letter to Rusticus was sent before another letter of Jerome, 11, now 123, to Ageruchia, which he judges to have been written in the year 407, when John Cassian had not yet founded the monastery of Marseilles. But, apart from the fact that what Quesnel presumes is by no means certain, namely that no other monastery existed at Marseilles earlier than the one which John Cassian built on withdrawing to Marseilles after the year 407, Jerome's letter to Rusticus was most certainly written after the death of Rufinus. For "Grunnius," who is mentioned in it as dead, no. 18, is none other than Rufinus of Aquileia. Now he died in the year 410, and therefore that letter is fittingly assigned to the year 411, when the monastery of Marseilles had already been founded by John Cassian. At Marseilles, therefore, Rusticus was leading the monastic life together with Venerius when St. Jerome wrote to him; and nothing compels us to assign him to the monastery of Toulouse. In this way indeed those words of the same letter of St. Jerome about St. Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, are fittingly understood: "Follow his footsteps from near at hand"; and those about Proculus of Marseilles: "You have there the holy and most learned bishop Proculus, who with his living and present voice may surpass our pages, and direct your journey by his daily discourses." Do you see the difference in the expressions? Jerome speaks of the bishop of Marseilles as present, because Rusticus was living in the monastery of Marseilles; but he describes St. Exuperius as "near," because Toulouse, though distant from Marseilles, was yet near to him in comparison with Palestine, where Jerome was. But if Jerome's letter to Rusticus was written in the year 411, what Quesnel conjectures about Sisinnius, the monk of Toulouse, rests on no foundation, as though he, sent to the East by St. Exuperius about the year 406, first carried Rusticus's letter to Jerome and delivered Jerome's letter to Rusticus in the same year. For in that year Rufinus had not yet died.

(printed under page 743)

(a) ‹anchor: mihi persuadere› · call in col 1480

Per hanc Leonis aetatem exempla quidem aliquot inveniuntur computandi primum annum post consulatum hac formula : Anno, ex. gr., 449. Post consulatum Zenonis et Posthumiani, qui fuerunt consules ann. 448, idque etiamsi noti essent consules ordinarii anni currentis. Hinc in pseudosynodo Ephesina an. 449, VI idus Augusti, laudata formula legitur tum in Graeco originali, tom. IV Concil. Venetae editionis col. 889, tum in antiqua versione a Baluzio recognita, not. a. cum tamen Protogenes Orientalis consul ordinarius ejusdem anni 449, signatus in Actis Constantinopolitanis eidem pseudosynodo insertis col. 1027 et 1030. Patribus ignotus esse non posset. At per haec quoque tempora signatum quoque fuisse annum secundum, tertium et (ut in nostro documento) quartum post consulatum, nullo exemplo probabitur. Multo autem minus afferetur exemplum quo probetur adhibitam fuisse formulam ANNO VIII. CS. VALENTINIANO AUGUSTO VI, id est, anno quarto, consule Valentiniano Augusto VI. Si enim hoc aevo usu recepta fuisset laudata formula in notandis annis 2, 3, et 4, etc., scriptum legeremus anno quarto P. C., id est. post consulatum Valentiniani Augusti VI. Hinc ergo optime interpretatus est Quesnellus, limen Ecclesiae positum fuisse anno quarto post initium fabricae, consule Valentiniano Augusto VI. Interpretatio autem Baluzii, quam dein Quesnellus profert, duplici ex capite corruit, tum quod ad alienum est a more ejus temporis designare quartum annum post consulatum, tum quod ea formula, anno quarto consule, etc., numquam fuit adhibita, ut quartus annus post consulatum designaretur. Haec pro vindicanda Quesnelli interpretatione sufficiant, ut nihil movere debeant nonnulla quae hic in rem suam fusius, sed non admodum accurate prosecutus est; neque enim singula vacat expendere.

In this age of Leo some examples are indeed found of reckoning the first year after a consulship by this formula: in the year, for example, 449, "After the consulship of Zeno and Posthumianus," who were consuls in the year 448, and this even though the ordinary consuls of the current year were known. Hence in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus in the year 449, on the sixth day before the Ides of August, the formula mentioned is read both in the Greek original, vol. IV of the Councils in the Venice edition, col. 889, and in the ancient version revised by Baluze, note a, although Protogenes, the Eastern ordinary consul of that same year 449, who is named in the Acts of Constantinople inserted in the same pseudo-synod, cols. 1027 and 1030, could not have been unknown to the Fathers. But that in these times a second, a third and (as in our document) a fourth year after a consulship was also marked will be proved by no example. Much less will an example be brought to prove that the formula ANNO VIII. CS. VALENTINIANO AUGUSTO VI was used, that is, "in the fourth year, Valentinian Augustus being consul for the sixth time." For if in this age the formula mentioned had been received in use for marking years 2, 3 and 4, etc., we should read written "in the fourth year P. C.," that is, "after the consulship of Valentinian Augustus VI." Hence Quesnel has interpreted very well that the threshold of the church was laid "in the fourth year" after the beginning of the building, "Valentinian Augustus being consul for the sixth time." But the interpretation of Baluze, which Quesnel then brings forward, collapses on two counts: both because it is foreign to the custom of that time to designate a fourth year after a consulship, and because that formula, "in the fourth year, … being consul," etc., was never used to designate a fourth year after a consulship. Let this suffice to vindicate Quesnel's interpretation, so that certain things which he has here pursued at greater length for his own purpose, but not very accurately, need trouble no one; for there is no leisure to weigh each point.

<!-- UNSURE: "ANNO VIII." is set as read from the image (small capitals, last characters of the left column); the sense requires "anno IIII". "ad alienum est" and "id est. post" are as printed. --> (printed under page 745)

(a) ‹anchor: legitur actionis suae› · call in col 1486

Cur et quo sensu prae suae legendum sit tuae, exposuimus annot. 18 (Col. 1199, n. n) in hanc epistolam.

Why and in what sense tuae is to be read in preference to suae, we have explained in annotation 18 (col. 1199, note n) on this letter.

(printed under page 748)

(a) ‹anchor: call stands before the lemma "qui ad proprios, etc." (line partly cut off at the top of the foot image)› · call in col 1487

Nisi omnium fere ac certe praestantiorum mss. diversae originis exemplarium consensus qui praetulisset, in nostra editione recepissemus libenter emendationem quae usitatae Leonis syntaxi magis congruentem, cum praesertim vox eis hanc lectionem exigere videatur. At alii codices omittunt eis, alii habeat eorum, ut suo loco notavimus. Hinc nihil mutare ausi sumus. Ad sententiam vero hujus loci quod pertinet, inter multas multorum opinationes, quas ipsa hujus loci difficultas peperit, haec nobis videtur expeditior et probabilior. Cum Rusticus interrogavit de presbytero vel diacono qui se episcopos mentiti sunt, non intellexit de presbytero vel diacono qui episcopali charactere carent, nec de illis tantum intellexit qui ab uno vel duobus, non autem (ut disciplina vel tum exigebat) a tribus saltem episcopis a diaconatu vel presbyteratu ad episcopatum promoti fuissent, sed de iis quorum consecratio aliquo defectu canonico laboraret, quod nimirum a clericis non essent electi, vel a plebibus non expetiti, vel a provincialibus episcopis cum metropolitani judicio non consecrati. Hos enim omnes defectus Leonis responsio indicat. Hos autem cum Rusticus pro veris episcopis non haberet, diaconos vel presbyteros tantum vocavit, qui sese episcopos mentirentur. Leo vero memoratorum defectuum causa eosdem inter episcopos non habendos rescribens, et pseudo-episcopos appellans, non ordine, sed jurisdictione tantum episcopali carere indicare voluit : quippe qui ab episcopis sine legitimis solemnitatibus consecrati, legitimum jus non percepissent. Ordine autem episcopali eos valide insignitos non dubitavit, ac propterea respondens ad alterum inquisitionis caput, de his quos ipsi clericos ordinarunt, affirmavit ratam haberi posse istorum ordinationem, si duo concurrant : 1° si consensu ac judicio praesidentium facta fuerit; 2° si in Ecclesiis in quibus fuerunt ordinati perseverent ; secus vero ratam non fore, cum ex defectu consensus praesidentium, auctore seu legitima auctoritate careret ; ex dimissione autem Ecclesiae in qua fuerunt ordinati, non esset loco fundata, quippe quod ex veteri disciplina nemo ordinaretur, nisi alicui Ecclesiae esset addictus. Quaecumque porro lectio qui vel quae magis arrideat, nostra haec explicatio satis aptatur. Si enim praeferatur quae, sermo est de ordinatione clerici in Ecclesia dioecesis alienae, cui episcopi proprii consensus accesserit. Si vero praeeligatur qui sermo esse potest de aliqua Ecclesia dioecesis, cui quis illegitime episcopus praefectus fuerit : qui cum jurisdictione in eam careat, ut ordinatio clerici rata esse possit, eorum saltem consensus ac judicium a Leone requiritur, qui eidem Ecclesiae praesidentes, jus aliquod habebant praesentandi clericos, qui in eadem Ecclesia ad aliquem ordinem erant ab episcopo promovendi.

Had not the agreement of nearly all, and certainly of the better, manuscript copies of diverse origin preferred qui, we should gladly have received into our edition the emendation quae, as agreeing better with Leo's usual syntax, especially since the word eis seems to require this reading. But some codices omit eis, others have eorum, as we noted in its place. Hence we have not ventured to change anything. As for the sense of this passage, among the many opinions of many men to which the very difficulty of the passage has given rise, this seems to us the readier and more probable. When Rusticus asked "about a presbyter or deacon who have falsely claimed to be bishops," he did not mean a presbyter or deacon who lack the episcopal character, nor did he mean only those who had been promoted from the diaconate or presbyterate to the episcopate by one or two bishops and not (as the discipline even then required) by at least three, but those whose consecration laboured under some canonical defect, namely that they had not been elected by the clergy, or not asked for by the people, or not consecrated by the bishops of the province with the judgement of the metropolitan. For Leo's answer indicates all these defects. Now since Rusticus did not hold these men to be true bishops, he called them merely deacons or presbyters who falsely claimed to be bishops. But Leo, writing back that on account of the defects mentioned they were not to be counted among bishops, and calling them pseudo-bishops, meant to indicate that they lacked not the order but only the episcopal jurisdiction: inasmuch as, having been consecrated by bishops without the lawful solemnities, they had not received lawful right. But he did not doubt that they were validly marked with the episcopal order, and therefore, answering the second head of the inquiry, "about those whom they themselves ordained clerics," he affirmed that the ordination of these could be held valid if two things concur: first, if it was done with the consent and judgement of those presiding; second, if they persevere in the Churches in which they were ordained; but otherwise it would not be valid, since from the lack of the consent of those presiding it would lack an "author," or lawful authority; and from the abandonment of the Church in which they were ordained it would not be "grounded in a place," since by the old discipline no one was ordained unless he was assigned to some Church. Moreover, whichever reading, qui or quae, is more pleasing, this explanation of ours fits well enough. For if quae is preferred, the discourse is about the ordination of a cleric in a Church of another's diocese, to which the consent of his own bishop has been added. But if qui is chosen, the discourse can be about some Church of a diocese over which someone has been unlawfully set as bishop: and since he lacks jurisdiction over it, in order that the ordination of a cleric may be valid, Leo requires at least the consent and judgement of those who, presiding over the same Church, had some right of presenting the clerics who were to be promoted by the bishop to some order in the same Church.

<!-- NOTE: "alii habeat eorum" is as printed (for habent). --> (printed under page 749)

<!-- Note (a) and the opening of note (b) were supplied from the column images in QA pass Q4a. STILL INCOMPLETE: the top of the right-hand footnote column (col. 1492) lies above the crop of the foot image; that gap is marked [… not in the foot image …]. -->

(a) ‹anchor: erui,› · call in col 1491

Cum S. Leo de solis presbyteris et diaconis interrogatus responderit, non idcirco elicitur minores clericos (quos idcirco solum praeterit, quia de his Rusticus non quaesivit) publicae poenitentiae fuisse saltem aliquando subjectos. Nec canones deinceps a Quesnello allegati, qui clericos quibusdam criminibus irretitos peregrina seu laica communione donant, poenitentiae publicae addictos significant. Adde quod canon Epaonensis 22 non de minoribus clericis, sed de presbyteris ac diaconis loquitur.

Because St Leo, asked about presbyters and deacons only, gave his answer about them, it does not follow that the lesser clerics (whom he passes over solely because Rusticus did not ask about them) were, at least at some time, subject to public penance. Nor do the canons next alleged by Quesnel, which grant to clerics entangled in certain crimes the communion of strangers or of laymen, signify that they were bound over to public penance. Add that canon 22 of Epaon speaks not of the lesser clerics, but of presbyters and deacons.

(printed under page 751)

(b) ‹anchor: not visible in these images› · call in col 1492 (per the page apparatus; the call itself not seen) · note text begins under col 1491

Duo a S. Leone traduntur in responsione ad inquisitionem secundam. 1° Alienum esse a consuetudine ecclesiastica ut presbyteris aut diaconis pro aliquo crimine manus imponantur in poenitentiam; 2° hanc consuetudinem descendere a traditione apostolica. Ut primum sit verum, haud necesse est eam consuetudinem semper et ubique viguisse, cum satis sit ad veram consuetudinem astruendam, si aliquandiu ante Leonem inducta obtinuerit. Hujus autem disciplinae consuetudinem jam vigentem testatur Siricius; qui tamen ne hujus disciplinae auctor credatur, idipsum etiam antea obtinuisse discimus ex Optato, qui ante Siricium floruit. Hic enim sub finem libri secundi Donatistas reprehendens, eo quod diaconis, presbyteris et episcopis lapsis manus imponerent, Multis, inquit, notum est et probatum, persecutionis tempore episcopos aliquos inertia a confessione Dei delapsos thurificasse; et tamen nullus eorum, qui evaserunt, aut manus lapsis imposuit, aut ut genua figerent imperavit. Haec de ipso persecutionis tempore plane evincunt, hanc disciplinam non inductam fuisse a Siricio, qui in epistola ad Himerium, n. 18, de re jam recepta loquitur. Sicut poenitentiam (subintelligitur publicam, quae cum manuum impositione jungebatur) agere cuique non conceditur clericorum, ita et post poenitudinem ac reconciliationem nulli umquam laico liceat honorem clericatus adipisci. Haec quidem veterem consuetudinem astruunt, quae ad vindicandam Leonis sententiam sufficit: ut ne movere debeat, si quando fortassis alicubi clericis manus imponerentur. Aliud tamen non leve in Leone animadvertendum est, quod sententiam ejus multo magis explicat, atque generatim veram confirmat. Rusticus in inquisitione de iis diaconis et presbyteris loquitur, qui sponte sua poenitentiam publicam postulabant, non autem eam subire ulla lege vel consuetudine cogebantur. De presbytero, inquit, vel diacono, qui si cognito crimine suo poenitentiam publicam petat, utrum ei per manus impositionem danda sit. De crimine igitur sermo est quod publicae poenitentiae canonibus non subjiciebatur, quodque per se clericum ab ordine non removebat; ac propterea eum in suo gradu et ordine relinquendum Leonis responsum praesumit. Quoad hos autem clericos semper alienum fuit a consuetudine Ecclesiae ut manuum impositione subjicerentur poenitentiae publicae, quae ex constanti omnium temporum disciplina poenitentes publicos a clero arcebat. Hinc quicumque clerici ab ipsa haeresi vel schismate redeuntes ad unitatem Ecclesiae, si in suum gradum (dummodo non essent iterato baptismate tincti) bono pacis admittendi viderentur, sola idonea satisfactione atque cautione sine ulla manuum impositione recipiebantur. Vide annot. 25 (Col. 1138, n. q), in epist. 159. Hinc S. Hieronymus in dialogo contra Luciferianos, n. 13 : Laicus inquit, extra Ecclesiam fide baptizatus, poenitens recipitur, Episcopus vero aut poenitentiam non agit, et sacerdos est; aut si poenitentiam egerit, esse episcopus desinit. Nullum sane exemplum invenire licebit quo clerici in suo gradu recepti, aut [… top of the right-hand footnote column not in the foot image …] Loquens enim de redeuntibus ad Ecclesiam, Redeuntes, ait, qui priusquam recederent, ordinati sunt, non utique rursus ordinantur ; sed aut administrant quod administrabant, si hoc Ecclesiae utilitas postulat (cum scilicet recipiebantur in suo gradu, quibus sane non imponebantur manus in poenitentiam), aut si non administrant (cum scilicet in suo gradu, non reciperentur), sacramentum ordinationis suae tamen gerunt, et ideo eis manus inter laicos non imponitur, quia scilicet sicut laici non suberant poenitentiae publicae. Hinc ea Augustini verba in epist. 185, ad Bonifacium, n. 44, quibus haereticis conversis post erroris sui poenitentiam honorem clericatus vel episcopatus non ablatum tradit, non de publica poenitentia, quae cum manuum impositione jungebatur, intelligenda sunt, sed de secreta, qua interioris compunctionis et necessariae conversionis signa produntur. Quod si aliquando clerici lapsi et ad unitatem redeuntes, non solum a suo gradu fuerunt exclusi, verum etiam subjecti fuerunt, aeque ac laici, poenitentiae publicae, ut S. Cypriani aliaque nonnulla testimonia innuunt; praeterquam, quod id peculiare quorumdam locorum ac temporum fuit, numquam tamen invenietur, clericos ob crimen aliquod a suo gradu non dejectos nec dejiciendos publicam poenitentiam subiisse : ac propterea cum de his Rustico inquirenti Leo responderit, jure alienum dixit ab ecclesiastica consuetudine ut hi per manuum impositionem remedium accipiant poenitentiae. Hanc porro disciplinam, qua clerici suum gradum custodientes poenitentia publica non plectebantur, originem ducere a traditione apostolica, qui clericos irreprehensibiles esse oportere, et ab omni nota ac infamia alienos, S. Paulus aperte tradidit, ipse Quesnellus fatetur. His, quibus ab Ecclesiae disciplina alienum semper fuisse affirmavimus clericos alicujus criminis reos manuum impositione seu per publicam poenitentiam recipi, duo opponi videntur ex concilio Nicaeno. Primum est canon ejusdem synodi octavus, quo statutum fuit ut Cathari impositionem manuum accipientes in clero manerent. Alterum est synodica Nicaena apud Theodoretum, qua concessum fuit ut qui a Meletio fuerant ordinati, impositione manuum firmati in suo gradu reciperentur. Sed cum in his Graecae locutionis formulae aequivocationi locum dedere, tum vero, si recte explicentur, haec testimonia nihil officient. Utrobique sane manuum impositio exprimitur. Sed (continues)

Two things are stated by St Leo in the reply to the second inquiry: first, that it is foreign to ecclesiastical custom for hands to be laid on presbyters or deacons unto penance for any crime; second, that this custom comes down from apostolic tradition. For the first to be true, it is not necessary that this custom should have been in force always and everywhere, since it is enough to establish a true custom if it had been introduced and prevailed for some time before Leo. Now Siricius attests the custom of this discipline as already in force; and lest he should be thought the author of this discipline, we learn that the very same had prevailed even earlier from Optatus, who flourished before Siricius. For he, towards the end of the second book, reproaching the Donatists because they laid hands on lapsed deacons, presbyters and bishops, says: "It is known to many and proven that in the time of persecution some bishops, having fallen away through sloth from the confession of God, offered incense; and yet none of those who escaped either laid hands on the lapsed or commanded them to bend their knees." These words about the very time of persecution plainly prove that this discipline was not introduced by Siricius, who in the letter to Himerius, no. 18, speaks of the matter as already received: "Just as it is not granted to any of the clergy to do penance" (understand public penance, which was joined with the laying on of hands), "so also after penance and reconciliation let it never be lawful for any layman to obtain the honour of the clerical state." These words indeed establish an old custom, which suffices to vindicate Leo's statement, so that it need not trouble us if hands were perhaps sometimes somewhere laid on clerics. Yet another point of no small weight is to be noticed in Leo, which explains his statement much more fully and confirms it as true in general. Rusticus in his inquiry speaks of those deacons and presbyters who of their own accord asked for public penance, but were not compelled by any law or custom to undergo it. "Concerning a presbyter or deacon," he says, "who, if his crime is known, asks for public penance, whether it is to be given him by the laying on of hands." The discourse, then, is about a crime which was not subject by the canons to public penance, and which did not of itself remove a cleric from his order; and therefore Leo's answer presumes that he is to be left in his rank and order. Now as regards these clerics it was "always" foreign to the custom of the Church that they should be subjected by the laying on of hands to public penance, which by the constant discipline of all ages barred public penitents from the clergy. Hence whatever clerics, returning from heresy itself or schism to the unity of the Church, seemed fit to be admitted to their own rank for the good of peace (provided they had not been dipped in a repeated baptism), were received with suitable satisfaction and guarantee alone, without any laying on of hands. See annotation 25 (col. 1138, note q) on letter 159. Hence St Jerome in the dialogue against the Luciferians, no. 13: "A layman," he says, "baptized in faith outside the Church, is received as a penitent. But a bishop either does not do penance, and is a priest; or if he has done penance, he ceases to be a bishop." Certainly no example will be found in which clerics received in their own rank, or [… top of the right-hand footnote column not in the foot image …] For speaking of those returning to the Church, he says: "Those returning who were ordained before they withdrew are certainly not ordained again; but either they administer what they used to administer, if the advantage of the Church requires this" (namely when they were received in their own rank, on whom certainly hands were not laid for penance), "or if they do not administer" (namely when they were not received in their own rank), "they nevertheless bear the sacrament of their ordination, and therefore hands are not laid on them among the laity," namely because they were not subject to public penance as laymen were. Hence those words of Augustine in letter 185, to Boniface, no. 44, in which he reports that from converted heretics "after penance for their error the honour of the clerical state or of the episcopate was not taken away," are to be understood not of public penance, which was joined with the laying on of hands, but of the secret kind, by which the signs of inward compunction and of the necessary conversion are shown. But if at times lapsed clerics returning to unity were not only excluded from their rank but also subjected, equally with laymen, to public penance, as the testimonies of St Cyprian and some others suggest; besides the fact that this was peculiar to certain places and times, it will nevertheless never be found that clerics not cast down, nor to be cast down, from their rank on account of some crime underwent public penance: and therefore, since it was about these that Leo answered Rusticus's inquiry, he rightly said it was "foreign" to ecclesiastical custom that these "should receive the remedy of penance by the laying on of hands." Moreover, that this discipline, by which clerics keeping their rank were not punished with public penance, takes its origin from the apostolic tradition, according to which St Paul openly handed down that clerics must be irreproachable and free from every mark and ill repute, Quesnel himself admits. Against these statements, in which we have affirmed that it was "always foreign" to the Church's discipline for clerics guilty of some crime to be received by the laying on of hands or through public penance, two things seem to be objected from the Council of Nicaea. The first is the eighth canon of that synod, by which it was decreed that the Cathari, receiving the laying on of hands, should remain in the clergy. The other is the Nicene synodal letter in Theodoret, by which it was granted that those who had been ordained by Meletius should, confirmed by the laying on of hands, be received in their own rank. But while in these the forms of the Greek expression have given room for ambiguity, yet, if they are rightly explained, these testimonies will be no hindrance. In both, certainly, the laying on of hands is expressed. But (continues)

(printed under page 751)

<!-- Q3a 2026-10-12: the two gaps left by the foot images (the heads of both footnote columns) are now filled from the column images c1493_1–3 and c1494_1–3, so the page-752 stretch of this annotation is whole. The same stretch also stands in the parts files c1493_a.md (left column) and c1494_a.md (right column): a duplicate for the main session to settle. Greek set from the image; accents not all certain. -->

(continued) ‹anchor: note runs over from page 751; call not on this page›

Graeca formula χειροτονία triplici sensu usurpatur, eo quod triplici occasione manus imponerentur, nimirum in chrismate, in ordinatione et in poenitentia. Ubi autem sensus est multiplex, ille procul dubio in casu nostro eligendus est, qui communi ejus aetatis disciplinae aliis testimoniis firmatae haud contradicat. Porro cum alienum esset, ut vidimus, eos quibus manus impositae fuerant in poenitentiam, in clerum recipere, illud profecto sequitur manuum impositionem laudatis Nicaenae synodi locis indicatam, in poenitentiae significationem accipi nequaquam posse. Non desunt qui explicent de sacramento confirmationis, quod Catharos repudiasse Theodoretus tradit. At praeterquam quod nemo alius Theodoreto anterior id prodidit, cum idem error Meletianis, qui erant integrae fidei, et solo schismate dissidebant, tribui nequeat, haec interpretatio ipsis non congruit. Restat ordinationis significatio. Sed duplici ratione idipsum intelligi potest, nimirum vel de ordinatione jam suscepta, vel de nova ordinatione suscipienda; Graeca enim formula utrumque sensum recipere potest. Vetus interpres auctor ejus versionis quae, ab Isidoro suscepta, Isidoriana vocari solet, secundum sensum expressit can. 8, de Catharis seu Novatianis, his verbis: Si qui voluerint venire ad Ecclesiam catholicam ex Novatianis, placuit sancto concilio ut ordinentur, et sic maneant in clero. Hanc eamdem signicationem ex eadem Isidoriana versione suscepit auctor collectionis Quesnellianae, canone apud ipsum 14. In vulgata quoque versione synodicae Nicaenae tomo secundo Conciliorum inserta, de Meletianis eadem sententia exprimitur : Illi vero, qui ab eo (Meletio) in sacrum ordinem lecti sunt, simul atque sanctiore ordinatione confirmati fuerint, ad communionem posthaec admittantur, et permittatur illis quidem honoribus frui, et sacris muneribus fungi, etc. Id autem abhorret omnino a Nicaenorum Patrum sensu, qui non minus sacros ordines quam baptisma extra Ecclesiam valide collatos, nec iterandos, cum catholica Ecclesia crediderunt. Igitur de ordinatone jam suscepta utrumque testimonium intelligendum est : ita ut eos qui ante sive ex Catharis, sive ex Meletianis sacra manuum impositione fuerant ordinati, in suo quemque gradu recipi placuerit. Sic nimirum ad litteram reddendus canon 8, de Catharis: Placuit sanctae et magnae synodo, ut qui manuum impositionem acceperunt, sic maneant in clero. In alia quacumque interpretatione, sententia est prorsus absurda. Cum enim inter Catharos non soli essent clerici antea ordinati, sed etiam laici ; nisi haec nostra significatio canoni aptetur, dicendum esset Nicaenos Patres generatim statuisse ut quicumque ex Catharis ad Ecclesiam venirent, sive clerici, sive laici, ii manuum impositione accepta, sive in poenitentiam, sive per confirmationem, sive per ordinationem, sic manerent in clero : quod sane tam et absurdum quam quod absurdissimum. Ut igitur generale Catharorum nomen initio canonis usurpatum Nicaeni Patres restringerent ad solos clericos quorum receptioni dispensatione quadam erat providendum (de laicis enim nulla erat difficultas), adhibuerunt verba χειρρθετουμένους αὐτούς, id est, qui manuum impositionem, seu ordines receperunt; et de his praecepere, sic in clero maneant, nulla alia ab iisdem conditione expetita, nisi ut antequam sic reciperentur, idoneam cautionem et professionem rectae fidei praeberent, ut in haereticis recipiendis semper usitatum fuit. In hanc quidem significationem hunc canonem intellexisse videtur Rufinus, cum sic illum compendio exposuit can. 9, ut in novissima Veronensi editione emendatum invenies : Et ut Catharos, qui apud nos Novatiani sunt, si forte poenitentes ad Ecclesiam convertuntur, confessos ecclesiastica dogmata, clericos in ordine quidem suo recipi debere, sed in ordinatione data. Viden' data, inquit, non danda? Similiter in versione Philonis et Evaristi ab Attico Constantinopolitano episcopo ad Afros missa Augustini tempore, can. 8 : Si aliquando venerint ad catholicam Ecclesiam Cathari, placuit sanctae et magnae synodo eos ordinatos sic manere in clero. Expressius vero in nostram explicationem Ferrandus diaconus Carthaginensis in Breviatione canonum n. 172, sic canonem refert : Ut hi qui nominantur Cathari, accedentes ad Ecclesiam, si ordinati sunt, sic maneant in clero. De hac quidem interpretatione, quae novam ordinationem excludit, et antea receptam tantummodo respicit, ne dubitare quisquam queat, sequens contextus ejusdem canonis, quo ipsorum Catharorum recipiendorum modus praescribitur, plane evincet : Ubi ergo omnes sive in vicis, sive in urbibus ipsi soli inveniuntur ordinati, qui inveniuntur in clero, erunt in eodem ordine. Si autem catholicae Ecclesiae episcopo vel presbytero existente accedunt aliqui, clarum est quod Ecclesiae quidem episcopus episcopi dignitatem habebit; qui autem apud eos qui Cathari dicuntur, nominatur episcopus presbyteri honorem habebit, nisi utrique episcopo placeat ipsum nominis honorem impertire. Si autem hoc illi non placeat, vel chorepiscopi vel presbyter locum excogitabit, ut esse omnino in clero videatur. Ita versio Gentiani Herveti ex Graeco, cui concinunt etiam interpretationes Philonis et Evaristi, Dionysii Exigui, nec non illa Quesnellianae collectionis, ac ipsa Graeca lectio. Non dicitur ut ordinentur, sed ut qui inveniuntur ordinati in eodem gradu maneant, si soli in eo loco sint. Alias diversimode iis providendum traditur pro diversitate circumstantiarum, ut nullum tamen indicium sit sacri ordinis iterandi. Haec autem cum scripsissemus, observare contigit annotationes Guilielmi Beveregii in can 8 Nicaen. tom. II, pag. 67, ubi miratus Christophorum Justellum aliosque hunc canonem interpretatos de ea manuum impositione, qua haeretici in Ecclesiam catholicam antiquitus recipiebantur, nostram sententiam mirifice confirmat. Patres, enim inquit, non de quibusvis, sed de solis clericis Novatianis, qui canonicam nimirum ordinationem ante acceperant, per totum hunc canonem agunt, statuuntque ad Ecclesiam conversos in eodem clericatus gradu manere, quo inter Novatianos constituti fuerant; ut ex ipsis etiam canonis verbis rite perpensis elucescit. Hic enim de Novatianis decernitur : Ωστε χειροθετουμένους αὐτοὺς μένειν οὕτως ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ. Quo autem referatur illud οὕτως nisi ad χειροθετουμένους? Et quomodo illuc referatur nisi χειροθεσία ista praecessisset? Neque enim ita in clero manere possunt, nisi prius in clero fuissent ; neque prius in clero esse poterant, nisi χειροθετούμενοι essent ; ac proinde haec Novatianorum χειροθεσία ipsorum ad catholicam Ecclesiam conversionem praecedat necesse est, non sequatur. Addit Balsamonem et Zonaram (adjice et Aristenum) hunc canonem eodem sensu fuisse interpretatos, et post recitata antecedentia Rufini verba observat Graecam canonis vocem χειροθετουμένους apte ab ipso redditam clericos. Haec de Nicaeno canone. Synodicae porro Nicaenae Graeca verba de Meletianis, τοὺς δὲ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κατασταθέντας μυστικωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ βεβαιωθέντας, κοινωνηθῆναι ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐφ' ᾧ τε ἔχειν μὲν αὐτοὺς τὴν τιμὴν καὶ λειτουργεῖν, sic reddimus : Illos vero qui ab ipso (Meletio) constituti sunt (in Ecclesiis) sacra manuum impositione firmati, in communionem (statuit) recipiendos hac conditione ut honorem ipsi quidem habeant, et operentur sacra. Voces nimirum μυστικωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ βεβαιωθέντας ad antecedentia τοὺς δὲ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κατασθέντας, non autem ad sequentia verba referendae sunt; ordinationemque jam antea acceptam indicant, qua a Meletio clericis in Ecclesiis constituti fuerunt. Caeterae igitur interpretationes, quae impositionem manuum aequivoco vel (continues)

The Greek term χειροτονία is used in three senses, because hands were laid on on three occasions, namely in chrismation, in ordination and in penance. But where the sense is manifold, that one is without doubt to be chosen in our case which does not contradict the common discipline of that age, confirmed by other testimonies. Now since it was foreign to practice, as we have seen, to receive into the clergy those on whom hands had been laid for penance, it certainly follows that the laying on of hands indicated in the cited passages of the Nicene synod can by no means be taken in the sense of penance. There are some who explain it of the sacrament of confirmation, which Theodoret reports that the Cathari rejected. But besides the fact that no one else earlier than Theodoret has reported this, since the same error cannot be attributed to the Meletians, who were of sound faith and dissented by schism alone, this interpretation does not suit them. There remains the sense of ordination. But this too can be understood in two ways, namely either of an ordination already received or of a new ordination to be received; for the Greek term can admit either sense. The ancient translator, the author of that version which, having been adopted by Isidore, is usually called the Isidorian, expressed the second sense in canon 8, on the Cathari or Novatians, in these words: "If any should wish to come to the Catholic Church from the Novatians, it pleased the holy council that they be ordained, and so remain in the clergy." This same meaning the author of Quesnel's collection took over from the same Isidorian version, in the canon numbered 14 with him. In the common version of the Nicene synodal letter also, inserted in the second volume of the Councils, the same sense is expressed concerning the Meletians: "But those who were chosen by him" (Meletius) "into sacred order, as soon as they have been confirmed by a holier ordination, are thereafter to be admitted to communion, and it is to be permitted them indeed to enjoy their honours and to perform the sacred functions," etc. But this is altogether at odds with the mind of the Nicene Fathers, who believed with the Catholic Church that sacred orders, no less than baptism, conferred outside the Church were valid and not to be repeated. Therefore both testimonies are to be understood of an ordination already received: so that it was decided that those who had previously been ordained by the sacred laying on of hands, whether among the Cathari or among the Meletians, should each be received in his own rank. Thus, namely, canon 8, on the Cathari, is to be rendered literally: "It pleased the holy and great synod that those who have received the laying on of hands should so remain in the clergy." On any other interpretation the sense is utterly absurd. For since among the Cathari there were not only clerics previously ordained but also laymen, unless this meaning of ours is fitted to the canon, one would have to say that the Nicene Fathers decreed in general that whoever came from the Cathari to the Church, whether clerics or laymen, having "received the laying on of hands," whether for penance, or through confirmation, or through ordination, "should so remain in the clergy": which is surely as absurd as anything can be. In order, then, that the Nicene Fathers might restrict the general name of Cathari used at the beginning of the canon to the clerics alone, for whose reception provision had to be made by a certain dispensation (for about laymen there was no difficulty), they used the words χειροθετουμένους αὐτούς, that is, "who have received the laying on of hands," or orders; and of these they prescribed, "let them so remain in the clergy," no other condition being required of them than that, before they were so received, they should furnish a suitable guarantee and profession of right faith, as was always the usage in receiving heretics. In this sense indeed Rufinus seems to have understood this canon, when he set it out in summary as canon 9 thus, as you will find it corrected in the latest Verona edition: "And that the Cathari, who among us are the Novatians, if perchance they turn to the Church as penitents, having confessed the Church's doctrines, the clerics ought indeed to be received in their own order, but in the ordination given." "Do you see," he says, "'given,' not 'to be given'?" Similarly in the version of Philo and Evaristus, sent by Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, to the Africans in Augustine's time, canon 8: "If at any time the Cathari come to the Catholic Church, it pleased the holy and great synod that they, being ordained, should so remain in the clergy." Still more expressly in favour of our explanation Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, in the Breviatio canonum, no. 172, reports the canon thus: "That those who are called Cathari, on coming to the Church, if they have been ordained, should so remain in the clergy." And lest anyone be able to doubt this interpretation, which excludes a new ordination and regards only one previously received, the following context of the same canon, in which the manner of receiving the Cathari themselves is prescribed, will plainly prove it: "Where therefore all who are found ordained, whether in villages or in cities, are they alone, those who are found in the clergy shall be in the same order. But if some come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is clear that the bishop of the Church shall have the dignity of bishop; but he who is named bishop among those who are called Cathari shall have the honour of a presbyter, unless indeed it should please the bishop to share with him the honour of the name. But if this should not please him, he shall devise for him the place either of a chorepiscopus or of a presbyter, so that he may be seen to be altogether in the clergy." Thus the version of Gentian Hervet from the Greek, with which agree also the translations of Philo and Evaristus, of Dionysius Exiguus, and also that of Quesnel's collection, and the Greek reading itself. It is not said that they are to be ordained, but that those who "are found ordained" should remain in the same rank, if they are alone in that place. Otherwise it is laid down that provision is to be made for them in different ways according to the difference of circumstances, yet so that there is no hint of repeating the sacred order. Now after we had written this, we happened to notice the annotations of William Beveridge on canon 8 of Nicaea, vol. II, p. 67, where, expressing surprise that Christophe Justel and others had interpreted this canon of that laying on of hands by which heretics were of old received into the Catholic Church, he wonderfully confirms our opinion. "For the Fathers," he says, "are treating throughout this whole canon not of any persons whatever, but of Novatian clerics alone, who, that is, had previously received canonical ordination, and they decree that, when converted to the Church, they remain in the same clerical rank in which they had been placed among the Novatians; as also appears from the very words of the canon duly weighed. For here it is decreed of the Novatians: 'So that, having had hands laid on them, they remain thus in the clergy.' But to what should that 'thus' refer if not to 'having had hands laid on them'? And how should it refer to that unless that laying on of hands had gone before? For they cannot so remain in the clergy unless they had been in the clergy before; nor could they have been in the clergy before unless they had had hands laid on them; and accordingly this laying on of hands of the Novatians must necessarily precede their conversion to the Catholic Church, not follow it." He adds that Balsamon and Zonaras (add Aristenus too) interpreted this canon in the same sense, and after quoting the foregoing words of Rufinus he observes that the canon's Greek word χειροθετουμένους is aptly rendered by him "clerics." So much on the Nicene canon. Further, the Greek words of the Nicene synodal letter about the Meletians, "and that those appointed by him, confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, be admitted to communion on these terms, that they have their honour and minister," we render thus: "But those who were appointed by him" (Meletius) "(in the Churches), confirmed by the sacred laying on of hands, (it decreed) are to be received into communion on this condition, that they themselves indeed have their honour and perform the sacred rites." The words μυστικωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ βεβαιωθέντας, that is, are to be referred to the preceding τοὺς δὲ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κατασταθέντας, and not to the words that follow; and they indicate an ordination already received beforehand, by which they were appointed by Meletius as clerics in the Churches. The other interpretations, therefore, which have rendered the laying on of hands in an ambiguous or (continues)

<!-- NOTE: as printed: "signicationem" (for significationem), "ordinatone", "tam et absurdum", "χειρρθετουμένους" (for χειροθετουμένους, at "adhibuerunt verba"; the English gives the intended form), "nisi utrique episcopo" (utique probably intended; the English follows utique), "vel presbyter locum" (presbyteri seems intended; UNSURE at this resolution), "in can 8", "Patres, enim inquit", "Ωστε" (no breathing visible on the capital; UNSURE at this resolution), the second "κατασθέντας" (for κατασταθέντας), "clericis in Ecclesiis". --> (printed under page 752)

(continued) ‹anchor: note runs over from page 752; call not on this page›

alio sensu reddidere, ad hanc sententiam revocandae sunt. Hinc sane Innocentius I, in epist. 17 ad Rufum, post allatum canonem 8 Nicaenum de Catharis, his verbis : Placuit sanctae et magnae synodo ut accepta manus impositione, sic maneant in clero, ita aliis verbis eamdem sententiam effert: A Novatianis aliisque haereticis revertentes debere in suo ordine recipi, quibus acceptum ordinem ratum innuens, novam ordinationem satis excludit. Nihil igitur ex laudatis Nicaenorum Patrum decretis nostrae sententiae opponitur. Immo multum cohaerent haec loca cum constanti disciplina Ecclesiae, qua publicis poenitentibus a clero exclusis, clerici ad Ecclesiam redeuntes cum idonea professione fidei recepti fuerunt sine poenitentia publica, immo et sine illa manuum impositione, quam absque exactione rigidioris poenitentiae impositam memorat Vigilius papa epist. 2 ad Profuturum n. 4, quamque dum imaginem poenitentiae appellat Innocentius I epist. 24 ad Alexand. n. 4, non in clericis, sed in laicis tantum excipiendis adhibitam prodit. Praeclare S. Gregorius lib. XI, epist. 67 ad Quiricum tres recipiendorum haereticorum ritus describens, Et quidem, inquit, ab antiqua Patrum institutione didicimus ut quilibet apud haeresim in Trinitatis nomine baptizantur, cum ad sanctam Ecclesiam redeunt, aut unctione chrismatis, aut impositione manus, aut sola professione fidei ad sinum matris Ecclesiae revocentur. Tertium ritum, quod sola professio fidei exigebatur, proponit S. doctor pro Nestorianis clericis, de quibus recipiendis cum Quirico agens, eosdem si rectam professionem exhibeant, servatis eis propriis ordinibus, inquit, in suo caetu recipiat. Vides solam professionem fidei, eamque a manuum impositione ita distingui, ut qui sola professione fidei recipiebantur, iis manus nequaquam imponerentur ?

other sense, are to be brought back to this meaning. Hence indeed Innocent I, in letter 17 to Rufus, after citing the eighth Nicene canon on the Cathari in these words: "It pleased the holy and great synod that, having received the laying on of the hand, they should so remain in the clergy," expresses the same sense in other words thus: "Those returning from the Novatians and other heretics ought to be received in their own order"; by which, implying that the order received is valid, he sufficiently excludes a new ordination. Nothing, therefore, from the cited decrees of the Nicene Fathers stands against our opinion. On the contrary, these passages agree closely with the constant discipline of the Church, by which, public penitents being excluded from the clergy, clerics returning to the Church were received with a suitable profession of faith without public penance, indeed even without that laying on of hands which Pope Vigilius, letter 2 to Profuturus, no. 4, records as imposed without the exaction of a stricter penance, and which Innocent I, letter 24 to Alexander, no. 4, in calling it "the image of penance," shows to have been used not in the case of clerics but only in receiving laymen. Admirably does St. Gregory, book XI, letter 67 to Quiricus, describing the three rites for receiving heretics, say: "And indeed we have learned from the ancient institution of the Fathers that whoever are baptized among heresy in the name of the Trinity, when they return to holy Church, are to be called back to the bosom of mother Church either by the anointing of chrism, or by the laying on of the hand, or by the profession of faith alone." The third rite, in that "the profession of faith alone" was required, the holy doctor sets forth for Nestorian clerics; treating with Quiricus about receiving them, he says that, if they show a right profession, "he should receive them into his assembly, their own orders being preserved to them." Do you see "the profession of faith alone," and that it is so distinguished from the laying on of hands that on those who were received "by the profession of faith alone" hands were by no means laid?

<!-- NOTE: "caetu" is as read from the image (for coetu); the ligature is italic and not certain at this resolution, and parts/c1496_a.md sets "coetu" at the same place (UNSURE, left for a closer read; Q3a 2026-10-12). "quilibet … baptizantur" and "Tertium ritum, quod sola professio fidei exigebatur" as printed. --> (printed under page 753)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1499 or 1500 (call not visible; note begins under the left column and ends under the right)

Gallicani canonum codicis nomine Quesnellus ex suo sensu intelligit codicem, ut alibi appellat, auctoratum, qui a Gallicana Ecclesia receptus, apud Gallos auctoritatem haberet. Nullus autem ejusmodi codex canonum nobis innotuit. Solum codex Vat. Palat, 574 similis Morbacensi, quem P. Coustantius aliique laudant, collectio est in Halliis compacta ante medium saeculum sextum, quippe quae praeter Nicaenos et Sardicenses, solos canones conciliorum Galliae complectitur. Ancyranos canones cum caeteris Graecis ignorat. In concilio etiam inscripto in vulgatis Arelatense secundum, quod est canonum collectio facta sub S. Caesario Arelatensi eodem saeculo VI ineunte, nulli canones ex Graecis allegantur nisi Nicaeni. Quod si qui codices apud Gallos continebant Latinam versionem aliorum canonum synodorum Orientis, privati erant studii, non publicae auctoritatis. Codicem porro Romanae Ecclesiae, quem Quesnellus laudat, non esse Romanum, et Romanam quidem Ecclesiam non alios olim recepisse canones nisi Nicaenos et Sardicenses, tom. III demonstrabimus. Idem Quesnellus haec aliquando pervidit, et non obscure confessus est, cum dissert. 11, n. 6 scripsit : Numquam a Romanis pontificibus Leoni vel aequalibus vel anterioribus alios canones citatos legimus praeter Nicaenos, vel Sardicenses pro Nicaenis habitos... nec particularium synodorum decreta (Graecorum canones ex contextu intelligit)..... ante Chalcedonensem synodum apud plerasque Occidentalium partium Ecclesias in auctoritate recepta sunt. Inanis est igitur Quesnelli conjectura, qua hoc loco laxiorem corruptelam in Galliis circa diaconorum continentiam ex Ancyranis canonibus Gallicano codici insertis derivasse existimat.

By the name of the Gallican codex of canons Quesnel understands, in his own sense, a codex "authorized," as he calls it elsewhere, which, having been received by the Gallican Church, had authority among the Gauls. But no codex of canons of that kind has become known to us. Only the codex Vat. Palat. 574, similar to the Murbach one which Father Coustant and others cite, is a collection put together in Gaul before the middle of the sixth century, since besides the Nicene and Sardican canons it comprises only the canons of the councils of Gaul. It knows nothing of the Ancyran canons, nor of the other Greek ones. Also in the council entitled in the printed editions the Second of Arles, which is a collection of canons made under St. Caesarius of Arles at the beginning of the same sixth century, no canons from the Greeks are cited except the Nicene. But if some codices among the Gauls contained a Latin version of other canons of the synods of the East, they were of private study, not of public authority. Moreover, that the codex of the Roman Church which Quesnel cites is not Roman, and that the Roman Church indeed formerly received no other canons than the Nicene and Sardican, we shall demonstrate in volume III. The same Quesnel once saw this clearly, and confessed it not obscurely, when in dissertation 11, no. 6, he wrote: "We never read of other canons being cited by the Roman pontiffs contemporary with or earlier than Leo besides the Nicene, or the Sardican taken for Nicene... nor were the decrees of particular synods" (he means the canons of the Greeks, from the context) "..... received in authority among most Churches of the Western parts before the Council of Chalcedon." Empty, therefore, is Quesnel's conjecture, by which in this place he supposes that the laxer corruption in Gaul regarding the continence of deacons derived from the Ancyran canons inserted in the Gallican codex.

<!-- NOTE: "Palat, 574" and "in Halliis" (for in Galliis) are as printed. --> (printed under page 755)

<!-- Q3a 2026-10-12: foot note (a) entered here under the unit rule that the Ballerini's foot notes go to the notes. The same note also stands in parts/c1500_a.md after the caption, without its letter: a duplicate for the main session to settle. -->

(a) ‹anchor: sed ex synodorum Orientalium canonibus, quibus›

Gallicani canonum codicis nomine Quesnellus ex suo sensu intelligit codicem, ut alibi appellat, auctoratum, qui a Gallicana Ecclesia receptus, apud Gallos auctoritatem haberet. Nullus autem ejusmodi codex canonum nobis innotuit. Solum codex Vat. Palat, 574 similis Morbacensi, quem P. Coustantius aliique laudant, collectio est in Halliis compacta ante medium saeculum sextum, quippe quae praeter Nicaenos et Sardicenses, solos canones conciliorum Galliae complectitur. Ancyranos canones cum caeteris Graecis ignorat. In concilio etiam inscripto in vulgatis Arelatense secundum, quod est canonum collectio facta sub S. Caesario Arelatensi eodem saeculo VI ineunte, nulli canones ex Graecis allegantur nisi Nicaeni. Quod si qui codices apud Gallos continebant Latinam versionem aliorum canonum synodorum Orientis, privati erant studii, non publicae auctoritatis. Codicem porro Romanae Ecclesiae, quem Quesnellus laudat, non esse Romanum, et Romanam quidem Ecclesiam non alios olim recepisse canones nisi Nicaenos et Sardicenses, tom. III demonstrabimus. Idem Quesnellus haec aliquando pervidit, et non obscure confessus est, cum dissert. 11, n. 6 scripsit: Numquam a Romanis pontificibus Leoni vel aequalibus vel anterioribus alios canones citatos legimus praeter Nicaenos, vel Sardicenses pro Nicaenis habitos... nec particularium synodorum decreta (Graecorum canones ex contextu intelligit)..... ante Chalcedonensem synodum apud plerasque Occidentalium partium Ecclesias in auctoritate recepta sunt. Inanis est igitur Quesnelli conjectura, qua hoc loco laxiorem corruptelam in Galliis circa diaconorum continentiam ex Ancyranis canonibus Gallicano codici insertis derivasse existimat.

By the name of the Gallican codex of canons Quesnel understands, in his own sense, a codex authorized, as he calls it elsewhere, which, received by the Gallican Church, had authority among the Gauls. But no codex of canons of that kind has become known to us. Only the codex Vat. Palat. 574, similar to that of Murbach, which Father Coustant and others cite, is a collection put together in the Gauls before the middle of the sixth century, seeing that, besides the Nicene and Sardican canons, it embraces only the canons of the councils of Gaul. It knows nothing of the canons of Ancyra along with the other Greek ones. In the council too which is entitled in the common editions the second of Arles, which is a collection of canons made under Saint Caesarius of Arles at the beginning of the same sixth century, no canons from the Greeks are alleged except the Nicene. But if any codices among the Gauls contained a Latin version of other canons of the synods of the East, they were of private study, not of public authority. Moreover, that the codex of the Roman Church which Quesnel cites is not Roman, and that the Roman Church indeed formerly received no other canons than the Nicene and the Sardican, we shall demonstrate in vol. III. The same Quesnel at one time saw these things clearly, and confessed it not obscurely, when in dissertation 11, no. 6, he wrote: We never read of other canons cited by the Roman pontiffs, whether contemporary with Leo or earlier, besides the Nicene, or the Sardican taken for Nicene... nor were the decrees of particular synods (he means the canons of the Greeks, from the context)..... received as authoritative among most of the Churches of the Western parts before the synod of Chalcedon. Vain therefore is Quesnel's conjecture, by which in this place he judges that the laxer corruption in the Gauls concerning the continence of deacons derived from the canons of Ancyra inserted in the Gallican codex.

<!-- NOTE: as printed: "Palat, 574" (comma for the point), "in Halliis" (for Galliis; the English gives the intended word). "codicem" in the first line has a worn e. --> (printed under page 755)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1501 or 1502 (call not visible; note begins under the left column and ends under the right)

Innocentius III, in epistola ad Petrum Compostellanum, ex hujus verbis non Toletanam, sed Emeritensem synodum authenticam eo sensu appellat, ut eam sinceram, seu non spuriam ostenderet: idque probavit ex collectione Hispanica, sive ex libro canonum apud Hispanicos recepto, quem inquit, Alexander papa per interlocutionem authenticum approbavit. In re autem non praecepta omnibus, in qua diversa erat Ecclesiarum disciplina, nihil mirum si Toletanis Patribus Carthaginensium et Gallorum disciplina magis placuit. Vide autem ne hinc suspiceris Hispanos horum uti plurium auctoritatem praetulisse auctoritati Romanorum pontificum, quam semper maximi fecisse pluribus documentis liquet. Neque enim hic auctoritatis cum auctoritate compatio fuit, sed prae rigidiori disciplina mitioris electio, in qua idcirco multorum exempla Toletani Patres allegarunt, ne relaxationem antiqui rigoris ipsi primi inducere viderentur.

Innocent III, in the letter to Peter of Compostela, from the latter's words calls not the synod of Toledo but that of Mérida "authentic," in the sense of showing it to be genuine, or not spurious: and he proved this from the Spanish collection, or from the book of canons received among the Spaniards, "which," he says, "Pope Alexander approved as authentic by an interlocutory pronouncement." But in a matter not prescribed for all, in which the discipline of the Churches differed, it is no wonder if the discipline of the Carthaginians and the Gauls pleased the Fathers of Toledo more. But take care not to suspect from this that the Spaniards preferred the authority of these, as being the greater number, to the authority of the Roman pontiffs, which it is clear from many documents they always esteemed most highly. For here there was no comparison of authority with authority, but a choice of the milder discipline in preference to the stricter, in which the Fathers of Toledo cited the examples of many for this reason, that they might not themselves seem the first to introduce a relaxation of the ancient rigour.

<!-- NOTE: "compatio" is as printed (for comparatio). --> (printed under page 756)

(a) call after ‹synodus 16› (before ‹authentica›) in this column; the note is printed across the page foot (first half under col. 1501, ending "Carthaginensium et Gallorum"; second half under col. 1502, from "disciplina magis placuit") and is set whole, once, in n1501 (filed under the page's left column)

(a) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1503 (call above the imaged area; column inferred)

Hoc additamentum vetustius multo quam Gratianus, ostendimus annot. 76 (Col. 1207, n. k) in praesentem epistolam.

That this addition is much older than Gratian we have shown in annotation 76 (col. 1207, note k) on the present letter.

(printed under page 757)

(b) ‹anchor: Vides hic› · call in col 1503

Videsis nostram annot. 25 (Coll. 1138, n. q) in epist. 159, ubi germanus Leonis sensus exponitur, et quid in sequentibus Quesnelli conjecturis approbandum sit, satis exinde cognoscetur.

See, if you will, our annotation 25 (col. 1138, note q) on letter 159, where Leo's genuine meaning is set out; and from it will be sufficiently learned what is to be approved in Quesnel's conjectures that follow.

(printed under page 757)