De Jejun. c. 13. C. 36, alias 37 or 38. L. v. c. 20. Acts 15:1. Ep . 54. Hard. 1:447 Lib. 1:Ep. 25. Of these, more hereafter. oijkoume>nh . Not merely of the Roman Empire, as Spittler supposed (Complete Works , 8, p. 175), although in the ancient Church the boundaries of the Church very nearly coincided with those of the Roman Empire. Cf. an article by the author in the Tubinger Theolog. Quartalschrift , 1852, pt.3 p. 406. Cf. the treatise of Quesnel, De Vita , etc., S. Leonis M ., Op. S. Leonis , t. 2, p. 521 ff. (ed. Ballerini). Hard. 6:169. Cf. Salmon, Traite de l’Etude des Conciles , p. 851 fl., Paris 1726. Hard, 2, 1443. Hard. 4, 882. Hard. 11, 1078. Euseb. Eccl. Hist . 10, 5, p. 392, ed. Mog.; De Vita Const . 4, 6-9. Disputationes , t. 1, 1. 1, c. 12. Hard. Coll. Conc . t. 2, p. 68; Mansi, t. 6, p. 581. See, for an account of this Synod, Milman, Lat. Christianity , vol. 1, p. 190. —ED. S. Leonis, Opp . t. 2, p. 460, not. 15. Monographie ub . P. Leo d . Gr . S. 270. Hard. 4, 327. Hist. Eccl . 2, 17. Euseb. Vita Const . 3, 6. This was more than 300 years after, and we know not on what authority the statement was made. —ED. Hard. 3, 1417. Cf. an article by Dr. Hefele in the Tubinger Quartalschrift , 1845, S. ff. Lib. 1, c. 1. Even by Hefele himself, in Aschbach’s Kirchenlexicon , Bd. 2, S. 161. Theodoret; Hist. Eccl . 5, 9. Cf. the notes of Valesius to Theodoret; Hist. Eccl . 5, 9. Hard. 3, p. 1419. Mansi, t. 4, p. 1111; Hard. t. 1, p. 1343. Mansi, 4, 1291; Hard. 1, 1473. Mansi, l. c. p. 1283; Hard. p. 1467. Mansi, l. c. p. 1226; Hard. l.c. p. 1431. Hard. l.c. p. 1472. Leo. Ep. 44 (ed. Ballerini, t. 1, p. 910). Ep . 54. Epp . 55-58. Ep . 69. Epp . 73 and 76, among those of S. Leo. Epp . 89-95. Ep . 114. Ep . 73. Hard. 2, p. 710. Cf. Frag. damnationis Theodori (Aseidae) in Hardouin, t. 3, p. 8. Cf.

Schrockh, Kircheng . Bd. 18, S. 590. Hard. 3, p. 3. Hard. 3, p. 12 E, and p. 13 B. l.c . p. 65 B. Hard. l.c. 63, 65 ss. Hard. l.c. pp. 10-48. [This must be distinguished from the Constitutum of 554.] See at the end of this Constitutum in Hard. 3, pp. 218-244; and in the decree, ib . pp. 213-218. Hard. 3, p. 1055. l.c. p. 1459. Hard. 3, 1438. Hard. 4, 21 ss. Hard. 4, 818 E. Hard. 5, 765, 766. Hard. 11, 1078 sq. Hard. 9, 1828 s. i.e. vicars.general for districts outside the bishop’s see. —ED. It is more difficult to settle the question with reference to the regular clergy. Among these must be distinguished the exempt and the nonexempt.

The latter, abbots and monks, must appear. The exempt regulars are divided into two classes: (1) those who, in conjunction with other houses of their own orders, are under a general chapter; and (2) those who, being free, are subject to no such higher authority. The latter must appear; the former generally not. They, however, are also bound to appear if they have parish churches or any other cure of souls.

So it was ordered by the Council of Trent, session 24, c. 2, De reform . Hist. Eccl. 5, 16. See, further on, Book 1, c. 1, section 1. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 5, 24. Loc. cit. Hard. 1, 1419. Hard. 1, 1343, 2, 45. Hard. 1, 1346, 988 B, 1622; 2, 774, 1048, 1174; 3, 1029; 7, 1812; 8, 960. Hard. 1, 286, 314-320, 1486. Hard. 4, 1364. Hard. 5, 5. Hard. 6, 180, 396; 5, 1316 B, 1318. Hard. 3, 466. Walter, Kirchenr. (Canon Law), S. 157 (S. 294, 11th ed.). Cypriani Ep . 11, p. 22; Ep . 13, p. 23; Ep . 66, p. 114; Ep . 71, p. (ed. Baluz.). Cypriani Opp. p. 329 (ed. Bal.). Cypriani Epp . 31, r. 43. Pp. 23, 329. Ep . 71, p. 127; Ep . 73, pp. 129, 130. Ep . 11, p. 22; Ep . 13, p. 23; Ep . 31, p. 43. Cyp. Opp . pp. 880-388 (ed. Baluz.). Hist. Eccl. 7, 28. Hard, 1, 250. Hard. 1, 266. Hard. 1, 961. Hard. 1, 989. Hard. 1, 989, 961, 250. Hard. 1, 266 ss. Hard. 1, 250. Hard l, 971, 986, 988. l.c. p. 992. l.c. p. 1423 ss., 2, 466 ss. Hard. 4, 1365 s. Hard. 2, 167. Hard. 2, 272. Hard. 1, 815 ss., 2, 272. Hard. 10, 1264, 1379. Hard. 1, 1355; 2, 67, 70, 71 ss. Hard. 2, 93. Fuchs, Biblioth. d. Kirchenvers . (Library of Councils), Bd. 1, S. 149. Thomas Aquinas was in this way summoned by Pope Gregory X. to the fourteenth Oecumenical Council Hard. 2, 1043. Hard. 11, 132. Hard. 10, 1264, 1379. Hard. 6, 1556. Hard. 6, 138, 169, 174, 180. Hard. 2, 1052, 1054, 1067, 1070, 1071, 1082, 1102, 1141, 1175. Hard. 6, 161, 164, 190, 456. Hard. 6, 1557; cf. ib . 138. Hard. 9, 1196. Hard. 10, 1264, 1379. Hard. 11, 132. Hard. 2, 1043. Hard. 2, 1046. Hard. 3, 580. Hard. 3, 955. Hard. 2, 1102. Hard. 3, 993, 1826 E. Cf. Schrodl, First Century of the English Church (Das erste Jahrhundert der engl. Kirche ), pp. 220, 271. See also Salmon, Study on the Councils (Traite de l’Etude des Conciles ), Paris 1726, p. 844. Benedict 14, De synodo diaec , lib. 3, c. 9, n. 7. Bened. 14, l.c. Bened. 14 l.c. n. 5. Euseb. Vita Const . 3, 10. Hard. 1, 1346; 2, 53, 463. Hard. 3, 1055. Hard. 4, 34, 531, 745; 5, 764, 823, 896. Hard. 5, 158; and in the Corp. jur. can . c. 4, dias. 96. Hard. 5, 907, 1103. Athanas. Apolog. contra Arian . n. 8. Hard. 3, 578, 597. Hard. 4, 882. Hard. 3, 968, 978. Benedict 14, De Synodo diaec . lib. 3, c. 9, n. 6. Benedict 14, l.c . n. 1. It is unnecessary to remark that all this is simply a part of the Roman system, even as understood by Liberals more advanced than Dr. Hefele.

In a mere translation it would be useless frequently even to point out, much more to discuss, such questions. —ED. Hard. 5, 1119. Hard. 5, 768, 1030. Hard. 5, 781, 782, 783, 785, 786 ss. Hard. 5, 823, 838, 896, 1098. Hard. 5, 898, 912. Hard. 5, 921-923, 1106. Hard. 5, 939 A. Hard. 5, 764, 782, 788 ss. Hard. 5, 898 D, 912 C. Hard. 5, 923. Hard, 4, 28 .ss. Hard. 4, 455 ss., 748, Hard. 4, 483, 486. Hard. 4, 748 sq. Hard. 4, 457 sq. Compare the author’s essay on the second Council of Nicaea, in the Freiburg Kirchenlexicon , Bd. 7, S. 563. Hard. 3, 1055, 1061, 1065, 1072. Hard. 3, 1402, 1414, 1435. Hard. 3, 1059, 1063, 1066, 1070, 1303 A, 1307, 1326, 1327. Pp. 13 and 25. Hard. 3, 202. Leonis Ep . 89, t. 1, p. 1062, ed. Baller. That Leo here asserted a right, and did not merely prefer a petition for the presidency to the Emperor, has been shown by Peter de Marca, De concord. sacerdotii et imp . lib. 5, 6. Hard. 2, 310. Leonis Ep . 103, t. 1, p. 1141, ed. Baller. Hard. 3, 5. Leonis Ep . 98, t. 1, p. 1089, ed. Baller. Hard. 2, 66. Hard. 2, 54, 274 ss, Hard. 2, 67, 70, 90, 94, 114, 271, 307. Hard. 2, 486 s. Baller. t. I. p. 1089. Hard. 2, 634. Hard. 2, 53. Hard. 2, 467, 366. Euseb. Vita Const. lib. 4, c. 24. Hard, 2, 310 ss. Hard. 1, 1346 sq. Hard. 1, 1347, 1473. Hard. 1, 1323. Hard. 1, 1353. Hard. 1, 1422. Hard. 1, 1355, 1419. Hard. 1, 1423. Hard. 1, 1466. Hard. 1, 1486, 1510. Hard. 1, 1527. Hist. Eccl. 1, 4. Hard. 3, 10. Hard. 3, 1052. Hard. 1, 402, 451. Hard. 2, 671. Hard. 2, 742. Euseb. Vita Const . 1. 3, c. 13. Hard. 1, 311; Mansi, Collect. Council . 2, 692 sqq. We shall give further details upon this subject in the history of the Council of Nicaea. Hard. 5, 921-923, 1106. See above. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 1, 71. Euseb. Vita Const . 3, 11. Hist. Eccl. 1, 19. Hist. Eccl. 1, 7. Tillemont, Memoires pour servir d l’hist, eccl . 6, 272 b, Brux. 1732. Cf. Socrat. 1, 9. Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte , Thl. 5, S. 335. The Bishops of Jerusalem and Constantinople cannot be referred to here; for it was only subsequently that they were raised to the dignity of patriarchs. Gelasius, Volumen actorum Concil. Nic . 2, 5; Mansi, 2, 806; Hard. 1, 375. B. 5, Athanasii Opera , ed. Patav. 1777, 1, 256. Hist. Eccl. 2, 15. 1, 13. It may be objected that Socrates also mentions, after Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, Arpocration Bishop of Cynopolis (in Egypt), although this episcopal see had no such high rank. But, as has been remarked by the Ballerini, Socrates simply intended to give a list of the patriarchs, or their representatives, according to rank. As for the other bishops, he contented himself with mentioning one only as antesignanus reliqui , and he took the first name in his list after the Bishop of Alexandria. Cf.

Baller. de Antiq. Collect ., etc., in Gallandi, de vetustis Canonum Collectionibus , 1, 256. l.c. p. 355. 2, 692, 697. See also Mansi, 2, 882, 927. What has been said above also shows that Socrates consulted a similar list, in which Hosius and the Roman priests were the first to sign. These lists, especially the larger ones, which are generally translated into Latin (Mansi, 2, sq.), contain, it is true, several inaccuracies in detail, but they are most certainly authentic on the whole. Cf. Baller. l.c .p. 254 sq. Schrockh, Kirchengesch . Thl. 5, S. 336. Thus Charles the Great at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794, and King Genulf at that of Becanceld in England in 799. Cf. Hard. 4, 882 E, C. Hard. 2, 80. Rufin. Hist. Eccl. 1, 5; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1, 9. Euseb. Vita Const . 3, 17-19; Socrat. 1, 9; Gelasii Volumen actorum Concilii Nic . lib. 2, c. 36; in Hard. 1, 445 sqq.; Mansi, 2, 919. Hard. 1, 807. Cod. Theodos . 1, 3; de Fide Cath . 6, 9. See also Valesius’ notes to Socrates, 5, 8. Mansi, 5, 255, 659; Hard. 1, 1667. Mansi, 4, 1465. Mansi, 5, 255, 413, 920. Hard. 2, 659, 662, 675 s. Hard. 3, 1435. Hard. 3, 1446, 1633. Hard. 2, 483-486. Hard. 5, 935. Hard. 2, 856. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 2, 17. Coustant. Epistoloe Pontif. Praef . pp. 82, 84; Hard. 1, 311. Hard. 1, 845. ft230De Synodis , in Mansi, 3, 595. Gregor. Opp. tom. 2, lib. 1; Epist . 25, p. 515; Leonis 1. Epist . (80), ad Anatol . c. 2. See afterwards, in the history of the second Oecumenical Council. Hard. 1, 1527. Mansi, 5, 374 sq.; and Constant. Epist. Pontif . 1231 sq. Ep . 89 of the collection of S. Leo’s letters in the Ballerini edition, 1, 1099. Ep . 110 in the collection of S. Leo’s letters, l.c. 1182 sq. Ep . 132 in letters of S. Leo, 1, 263 sq. Ep . 114 in Ballerini, 1, 1193 sq. Ep . 115, 116. Ep . 117. Hard. 3, 213 sq., 218 sqq. Hard. 3, 1632 E. Hard. 3, 1469 sqq., 1729 sqq. Ad ann. 683, n. 13 sqq, Pagi, Crit. in Annal. Baron ad ann. 683, n. 7; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth ., etc., t. vi, p. 67, ed. Mons 1692; Remi Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacres ; Bower, Hist. of the Popes , vol. 4 sect. 108. N. Alex. Hist. Eccl. saec. 7, t. 5, p. 515, ed. 1778. Hard. 4, 819. Hard, 4, 819. Hard. 4, 773-820. Hard. 5, 933 sqq., especially 935 A. Hard. 5, 938. Hard, 5, 749. Hard. 6, P. 2, 1110, 1213, 1673. Sess. 25 in fin.; cf. Hard. 10, 192, 198. Hard. 9, 1229, 1273, 1274. Hard. 8, 252, 258, 1318, 1343. Cf. upon this point the dissertation by El. Dupin, “de Concilii generalis supra Romanum pontificem auctoritate ,” in his book de Antique Ecclesiae Discipline ; and the long dissertation (Diss. 4, ad section 15) by Natalis Alexander in his Historia Eccl . 9, 286-339, 446-452, ed.

Venet. 1778. It has also been printed in the ninth vol. of N. Alexander, pp. 339-363.

Cf. also p. 470 sq. Sess. 11. Hard. 1. c. 9, 1828. See El. Dupin, l.c.; and Natalis Alexander,9, 439. Nat. Alexander,9, 289, 425 sq. Hard. 8, 1172. Hard. 8, 899 E, 902 A. Cf. Animadversiones , in Nat. Alex. 9, 861 sq., 464 sq. Cf. Animad . in Nat. Alex. 9, Hard. 9, 1004; and Raynald, ad an. 1439, n. 29. Cf. Nat. Alex. 9, b , 466 sq; Bellarmin. de Conciliis , lib. 2, c. 13-19, in the ed. of his Disput . published at Ingolstadt, 1, 1204 sqq. Curialists is the word used by Hefele, but that in the text is more common and familiar. —ED. See Roskovanny, De Primatu, etc., p. 143 sqq.; Walter, Kirchenrecht, sec. 158, 11th ed. S. 296 ff. i.e. for immorality or heresy. Cf. Bellarmain. de Rom. Pontif . lib. 2, c. 30 E; de Conciliis , lib. 2, c. 19, in the Ingolstadt ed. 1, 820, 1219 sq. Cf. Walter, Kirchenrecht ; Bellarmin. De disput , vol. 2; de Conciliis , lib. 2, c. 19. De Disput. vol. 2, lib. 2, c. 19. Mansi, Nota in Natal. Alex. l.c . scholion 2, 286. John 16:13, John 14:26. Matthew 28:20. Matthew 16:18. Acts 15:28. Euseb. Vita Const . 3, 20. Ep . 21. Ep . 65, ad Theodoret . Ep . 78, ad Leon. August . Hard. 2, 702. Disp . vol 2; de Conc . lib. 2, c. 3. Lib. i.c. 24. Bellar. Disput . vol. 2; de Concil . lib. 3, c. 6-9. Demonstratio religionis Cath . 3, 542 sq. Bellarmin. l.c . lib. 2, c.v.-x, C. 16 and 17; Causa 9, q. 3. De Marca, de Concord. sacerd, et imperii , lib. 4, c. 17. Cf. the bull of Pius II. dated Jan. 18, 1459. De Marca, de Concord. sacerd, et imperii , lib. 4, c. 17; and Schrockh, Kirchengesch . Bd. 82, S. 223 and 227. Mosheim, de Gallorum appellationibus ad concillum univesoe Ecclesiae, unitatem Ecclesiae spectabilis tollentibus , in the first vol. of his Dissert. ad Hist. Eccl. p. 577 sq. Cf. Walter, Kirchenr . l.c . sect. 158; and Ferraris, Bibliotheca prompta , etc., s.v. Appellatio . De Concil . lib. 1, c. 5. De Concil . lib. 2, c. 15. Tubinger Quartalschrift , 1852, s. 399-415. Cf. Natal Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. 7, vol. 5, p. 528. BeHarmin. l.c. 7. ft298De Concil . lib. i.e. 5. Synchronistische Geschichte des Mittelalters , Bd. 13, S. 177 f. Hard. 9, 1719. Raynald. Contin. Annal. Baron . ad an. 1409, n. 74. Cf. Bellarmin, de Concil . lib. 1 c. 8; Mansi, Collect. Concil . 26, 1160; and Lenfant, Hist. du Concile de Pise , p. 303 sq. We may name Edmund Richer, Historia Concil . gen . lib. 2, c. 2, section 6; Bossuet, Defensio cleri gallia . P. 2, lib. 9, c. 11; N,. Alex. Hist. Eccl . section 15 et 16:diss. 2, vol. 9, p. 267 sq. Cf. Animadversiones , by Roncaglia, in Natal. Alex. l.c .p. 276 sq. This is the opinion of Raynald in his Contin. Annalium Baron . ad ann. 1409, n. 79-81, and of Peter Ballerini, de Potestate ecclesiastica summorum Pontificum et Concil. gen . c. 6. Bellarmin, on the contrary, considers Alexander V. as the legitimate Pope, and calls the Council of Pisa a “concilium generale nec approbatum nee reprobatum.” Hist. Eccl. sec. 15, diss. 4, pp. 289, 317. Roncagl. Animadv. ad .Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. l.c . pp. 361, 359. Roncagl. l.c . p. 465; Raynald. Cont. Annal. Baron ad an. 1446, n. 3. Nat. Alex. l. c . 9, 433 sq. Hist. Concil. gener . lib. 3, c. 7. Bell. De Concil . lib. 1. c. 7; Roncaglia, in his Animadversiones in Nat.

Alex. l.c . p. 461; and Lucas Holstenius, in a special diss. inserted in Mansi, 29, 1222 sq. Kirchengeseh . Bd. 2, 4, S. 52. De Eccl. Milit. lib. 3, c. 16. Cf. Roncagl. Animadver. l.c . p. 463 A. Cf. Turrecremata, in Roncaglia, l.c . p. 463 A. Hard, 8, 157 B, C. Cf. Turrecremata in Roncaglia, l.c . p. 464, b . Cf. Roncaglia, l.c . p. 465, a ; Raynald ad. an. 1446, n. 3. Hard. 9, 1828. Walch, Neuste Religions-geschichte , Bd. 5, S. 245. Cf. Dupin, de Antiqua Ecclesias Disciplina , p. 344. Cf. Roncaglia in N. Alex. l.c . p. 470. Hard. 1, 266. Regarding what was said with regard to the president at the Oecumenical councils. Salmon, Traite de l’Etude des Conciles, 1726, p. 860. Salmon, l.c . p. 861. Hard. 1, 6 sqq., 3, 580. Hard. 8, 1439. 2, 29. 6, 4, n. 9. See Brischar, Beurtheilung der Controversen Sarpis und Pallav . Bd. 1, S. 151 f. Hard. 6, P. 2, 1674; 7, 18, 24; 9, 1613, 1618, 1677, etc. The longest details on Merlin’s edition are found in the work of Salmon, doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, Traite de l’Etude des Conciles et de leurs collections , etc., nouvelle edition, Paris 1726, pp. 288 sq. and 724. In this last passage Salmon points out the faults of Merlin’s collections. Pierre Grable in Fr. transl. —ED. On its character and defects, see Salmon, l.c. p. 291, etc., and 728-740. He was born at Lubeck. Salmon, l.c. pp. 296 sq. and 743-752. On the character and the defects of the edition of Binius, see Salmon, l.c. pp. 300, 756-769. Salmon, l.c. pp. 301, 752 sqq. It is not found in that of Hardouin. Salmon, l.c. p. 302. Salmon, l.c. PP. 305, 769 sqq. Seventeen vols. in folio; Salmon, l.c. pp. 306, 772, 784. Paris 1683 (another edition in 1707, under the title, Nova Collectio Conciliorum: Supplementum Conciliorum Labbei ). Cf. Salmon, l.c. pp. 312, 784. Paris 1715, in twelve vols. folio, containing eleven parts, the sixth part being in two volumes. In folio, written in Latin and French. On the history of Hardouin’s edition, see Bower’s Hist. of the Popes [Rambach’s translation, Bd. 4, S. 68] — the preliminary dissertation or the collections of the councils. See Salmon, l.c. p. 817 seq. Salmon, l.c. pp. 315-331, 786-831. Twenty-three vols. folio, and 2 vols. Apparatus , 1728-1734. Six vols. folio, 1748-1752. Pragmatic History of the National, Provincial, and principal Diocesan Synods of Germany . Sketch of the General, Provincal, and Particular Councils held in Germany since the commencement of Christianity . “Spicilege” of the Archives of the German Empire. History of the Councils of the Church . See, on the French collections, Salmon, l.c. p. 335 sqq., and Bower’s History of the Popes , l.c. S. 76 ff. He speaks also of collections which include only synods of certain ecclesiastical divisions of France, e.g. that of Tours, Narbonne, etc. Cf. Salmon, l.c. p. 365 sq.; and Bower, l.c. , who, instead of 1693, gives a false date, 1639. Aguirre was not born until 1630. See Salmon, l.c. p. 376 sq.; and Bower, l.c. S. 94 ff., who did not know the more recent collection of Wilkins. The first vol. of a new edition of Wilkins, admirably edited by Haddan and Stubbs, has lately appeared. —ED. Essay on a complete History of the Councils . Acts 15:1 Lib. 5, C. 16. Sec. ii. In his notes to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. l.c. ), Valesius (Du Valois ) presumes, indeed, that the author of the work from which this fragment is taken is not Apollinaris, but Asterius Urbanus. Baluze disagrees with this statement (Mansi’s Collect. Concil . 1, 693). It is, however, indifferent for our purpose whether the fragment in question be Apollinaris’ or Asterius’. Mansi, 1, 723; Hard, 5, 1493. This Libellus Synodicus , called also Synodicon , contains brief notices of 158 councils of the first nine centuries, and comes down to the eighth oecumenical Council. It was brought from the Morea in the sixteenth century by Andreas Darmasius, and bought by Pappus, a theologian of Strassburg, and edited by him for the first time with a Latin translation. It was afterwards transferred to the Collection of Councils. Hardouin had it printed in the fifth volume of his Collect. Concil . p. 1491 sqq.; and Mansi separated its various parts, and added them to the various synods to which they belonged. l.c. c. 19. Hist. Eccl. 5, 16. Hoeres . 51.33 and 48. 1. Hoeres . 48. 2. Der Montanismus , 1841, S. 255. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 1, S. 615 f. Compare the author’s treatise, uber Montanus und die Montanisten , in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon , Bd. 7, S. 255, and the Prolegomena to Hefele’s third edition of the Partes Apostolici , 133. Hist. Eccl. 5, 16. Cf. the author’s treatise on the Easter controversy in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon , Bd. 7, S. 874, where the question is considered more carefully. The fullest examination will be given, however, under the history of the Nicene Council. Hist. Eccl. 5, 24. 5. 23. Translated into German by Oischinger, Regensburg 1846. In Hard. l.c. 5, 1494 sq.; Mansi, l.c. 725 sq. 5. 23. Mansi, 7, 1140; Hard. 3, 856. Cf. the observations of Ballerini, Opera S. Leonis M. 3, 933, note 30. 5. 23. Mansi, l.c. 1, 647. Cf. Mansi’s note on the small confidence we must here place in Praedestinatus . Mansi, l.c. p. 670. Mansi, l.c. p. 682. Hard. l.c. v. 1491 sq.; Mansi, l.c. 1, 662, 686, 725 sq. Cf. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus , S. 198 ff. Hist. Ecclesiastes 5, 3. Cf. the dissertation of the author, der Montanismus , in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon , Bd. 7, S. 253. T. 3; and Mansi, Collect. Conc . 1, 706.

Fta1 Cypriani Opp. ed. Ben. Par. 1726, pp. 127, 130; Mansi, 1:734. Cf. on this Synod, Aug. de bap. contra Donatist. lib. 2. c. 7, where their conclusions are found fault with.

Fta2 De Jejun. c. 12. Cf. Mesh. Commentar. de rebus Christ. ante Const. M. p. 264.

Fta3 Fundamenta Chronologia Tertullianae, 1852, p. 65 sq.

Fta4 Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853, S. 189 f.

Fta5 Aug. l.c.; V incent. Lirin. c. 9, p. 114, ed. Klupfel.

Fta6 Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii, t. 1 ad ann. 219, n. 2:222, n. 4 and 224, n. 2 p. 206 sq.

Fta7 Dollinger, l. c. S. 191.

Fta8 Cypriani Opp. l. c. p. 114; Mansi, l.c. p. 735.

Fta9 Euseb. Hist, Eccl. 6:23.

Fta10 Euseb. l.c. 6:8.

Fta11 Euseb. l.c. 6:24.

Fta12 6:26.

Fta13 Haeres. 64:2.

Fta14 Photii Biblioth. cod. 118; and Hieron. lib. 2 in Rufin. c. 5. Cf Hefele’s discussion on Origen in the Freiburger Kirchenlex. of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. 7. S. 829. [A French translation is edited by Goschler.] Fta15 Hieron. Ep. ad Pammochium et Oceanum, n. 84 (al. 65 seu 41), sect. 10, p. 751, t. 1 ed. Migne. Further: Rufinus, lib. 2 in Hieron. n. 20; in Migne, p. 600, t. 21 of his Cursus Patrol.; in the Bened. ed. of S.

Jerome, t. 4 pt. 2 p. 430.

Fta16 Dollinger, l. c . S. 260.

Fta17 Cyp. Epp. n. 75.

Fta18 Cyp. Opp. ed. Benedict., Paris 1726, p. 145; Mansi, l.c. p. 914.

Fta19 Frag. of a letter of Dionysius to the Roman priest Philemon, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:7.

Fta20 Hist. Eccl. 6:26.

Fta21 Valesius in his remarks on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 7:7; Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii, ad ann. 255, n. 16; cf. Dollinger, Hippolyt, S. 191 f.

Fta22 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:7.

Fta23 Dollinger thinks (Hippohyt, S. 191) this Synod was almost contemporaneous with that of Carthage under Agrippinus (between 218 and 222).

Fta24 Cyp. Opp. l.c. p. 84.

Fta25 N. 30, Cyp. Opp. l. c. p. 41, and Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Walch, Keizerh. (Hist. of Heretics), Bd. 2 S. 181 ff.

Fta26 Cf. on this subject, Ullmann, De Beryllo Bostreno ejusque dectrina Commentatio, 1835; Kober, Beryll you Bostra, eine dogmenh.

Untersuckung, in the Tubing. theol. Quartalschrift, 1848, Heft 1; and Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, 2 Aufl. Bd. 1 S. 545 ff. [Eng. transl. published by Clark of Edinburgh].

Fta27 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6:33.

Fta28 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6:33; Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Eccl. c. 60. The Libellus Synodicus refers also to this Synod, but very barely and inaccurately.

Fta29 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6:37.

Fta30 In Mansi, l.c. i. 790; Hard. 5:1495.

Fta31 Epiphan. Haeres. 57, c. 1. Cf. Mansi, l.c. p. 790.

Fta32 Lib. 1. c. 37.

Fta33 Mansi, l. c. p. 790.

Fta34 Mansi and the other collectors of the acts of councils have overlooked this Synod.

Fta35 Cypriani Ep. 66, p. 114, ed. Bened.

Fta36 In their Life of S. Cyprian, n. 4 p. 46 ed. Bened.

Fta37 Cf. Cypriani Epist. 14.

Fta38 Cf. Cyp. Epp. 49, 37, 35; and Walch, Ketzerh. Bd. 2 S. 296.

Fta39 Ep . 38.

Fta40 Walch, l.c. S. 305.

Fta41 Walch, l.c. S. 299.

Fta42 Cypr. Ep . 40, p. 55, ed. Bened.

Fta43 Cypr. Ep. 40, p. 55; Ep. 52, p. 67. Cf. the Vita Cypriani by Prudentius Maran, N. 18; same ed. p. 80.

Fta44 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67.

Fta45 Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 87.

Fta46 Cypr. Ep. 42, p. 57; Ep. 55, pp. 79, 83.

Fta47 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67.

Fta48 Cyprian speaks of this in his Ep. 52, p. 67.

Fta49 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67.

Fta50 Cypr. Ep . 52, pp. 69, 70, 71.

Fta51 Cypr. Ep . 68, pp. 119, 120.

Fta52 Cypr. Ep . 55, p. 84. Cf. Walch, l. c. Bd. 2 S. 308.

Fta53 Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 67, 68.

Fta54 Cf. Hefele’s art. on this subject in the Kirchenlex. Bd. 7 S. 358 ff.

Fta55 Cf. the Vita Cypriani in the Benedict. ed. p. 92.

Fta56 Ep. 52.

Fta57 Hist. Eccl. 6:43, pp. 242, 245, ed. Mog.

Fta58 Cf. Tillemont, Memoires pour servir d l’histoire eccls. t. 3. art. 8., sur S. Corneille, etc., not. 5 pp. 197, 348, ed. Brux. 1782. Cf. also Walch, Hist. Kirchenvers. S. 102, An. 1.

Fta59 Mansi, 1:867, 871; Hard. 5:1498; Walch, l.c. S. 103.

Fta60 Cypr. Ep. 59, p. 97, and Ep. 55, p. 84.

Fta61 Tillemont, l.c . t. 4 p. 46, art. 30, sur S. Cyprien; Remi Ceillier, Hist. generale des anteurs sacres, t. 3. pp. 585, 588, — have shown that these were not two councils; whilst Prudentius Maran, in the Vita S.

Cypriani, p. 98, holds for two councils.

Fta62 Cypriani Ep . 59, ad Fidum, p. 97 ss.

Fta63 Cypriani Ep . 54, p. 78. Routh has reprinted and commented upon this letter of S. Cyprian’s, Reliquice sacrae, 3:69 sqq., 108 sqq. This work also contains the acts of all the other synods held by S. Cyprian, accompanied with a commentary.

Fta64 Cypr. Ep . 54, p. 79 sqq. Cf. on this Council, Vita S. Cypriani, in the Bened. ed. p. 94.

Fta65 The reading is here uncertain. Cf. the notes in the Bened. edition of S.

Cyprian, p. 457.

Fta66 Cypr. Ep . 55, p. 84. Cf. Vita Cypriani, p. 96.

Fta67 Cypr. Ep. 68, p. 117 sq.

Fta68 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:5.

Fta69 Eusebius has preserved a fragment of this letter, Hist. Ecclesiastes 7:5.

This fragment implies that the letter contained more than Eusebius has preserved of it, especially a prayer in favor of the bishops of Asia Minor. Cf. the words of another letter of Dionysius: de his omnibus ego ad illum (Stephanum) epistolam misi rogans atque obtestans (Euseb. l.c .). Cf. on this point, Vita S. Cypriani, by Prudentius Maran, in the Bened. edition of S. Cyprian’s works, p. 110.

Fta70 Hist. Ecclesiastes 7:3.

Fta71 Vita Cypriani, l. c. p. 111.

Fta72 Cypr. Ep. 71, p. 126.

Fta73 This date is at least probable. Cf. Vita Cypriani, l.c. p. 111.

Fta74 Cypr. Ep. 70, p. 124.

Fta75 Their names, and those of the eighteen bishops of Numidia, axe to be found at the commencement of the seventieth epistle of Cyprian.

Fta76 Cypr. Ep. 71, p. 126 sq.

Fta77 “Nescio qua praesumptione dueuntur quidam de collegis nostris, ut putent eos, qui apud haereticos tincti sunt, quando ad nos venerint, baptizare non oportere,” says S. Cyprian in his seventy first epistle to Quintus, consequently after the Council of 255.

Fta78 Ep . 72.

Fta79 Cypriani Ep. 72, p. 128 sq.

Fta80 Mattes, Abhandlung uber die Ketzertaufer, in the Tubinger Quartalschrifi, 1849, S. 586.

Fta81 In Cyprian, Ep. 75, pp. 150, 151. Cf. Vita Cypriani, l.c. p. 112. sq.

Fta82 Seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth letters of S. Cyprian.

Fta83 Cf. Mattes, S. 587.

Fta84 These acts are printed. Of. Cypriani Opera, p. 329 sqq. ed. Bened.; Mansi, 1:957 sqq.; and Hard. 1:159 sq.

Fta85 Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, l. c. p. 116.

Fta86 Ep . 73.

Fta87 Molkenbuhr, Bince dissertationes de Firmiliano, in Migne, Cursus Patrologiae, 3. 1357 sq. On Molkenbuhr, cf. in Freiburger Kirchenlex.

Bd. 7. S. 218.

Fta88 Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, l. c. p. 116.

Fta89 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:5, 7, and 9. Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, l. c. p. 110.

Fta90 Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, l.c. p. 120.

Fta92 l. c. p. 133.

Fta94 Ep. 74, p. 139.

Fta95 In Cyprian, Ep. 75, p. 144.

Fta99 Cf. Cypr. Ep . 71. See above, p. 99.

Fta100 Reprinted at the end of the works of S. Cyprian in the Benedict. edition, p. 353 sq. As to the author, see Vita Cypriani, l.c. p. 126, and Mattes, l.c. p. 591.

Fta101 Cf. the beginning of this book, l.c . p. 353.

Fta102 Commonitorium, c. 9.

Fta103 De Baptism. c. Donat, 2:7 (12).

Fta105 C. 15.

Fta106 C. 15.

Fta107 Cf. Dollinger, Hippolytus, S. 191.

Fta108 Mattes, l.c. S. 594.

Fta109 Hist. Eccl. 7:7.

Fta110 Stromat. lib. 1 c. 19 ad finem, vol. 1 p. 375, ed. Port. Venet.

Fta111 Cf. Mattes, l.c. S. 593.

Fta112 Hard. 1:22; Mansi, 1:39.

Fta113 Drey considers them as more ancient, in his Researches on the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles, p. 260. Cf. the contrary opinion of Dollinger, Hippol. S. 192 ff.

Fta114 C. 8.

Fta115 Sess. 7, c. 4, de Bapt.

Fta116 See Cypr. Ep. 74, p. 138.

Fta117 Epist. 74, pp. 138, 139.

Fta118 We must admit that the latter were not agreed among themselves, as S. Cyprian was with his adherents. Cf. Mattes, l.c. S. 605.

Fta120 Ep. 75 of the Collection of S. Cyprian’s letters, p. 146.

Fta121 l.c. p. 148.

Fta122 Cf. Mattes, l.c. S. 603.

Fta123 In the Bened. edition of the works of S. Cyprian, p. 353.

Fta124 Ep. 73, p. 134 sq.

Fta125 2:38, 8:16, 19:5.

Fta126 6:3. Cf. Binterim, Memorabilia, 1:132; Klee, Dogmeng. 2:149 f.

Fta127 Ep . 75. Among those of Cyprian, p. 144.

Fta128 Ep . 74, p. 138.

Fta129 Adv. haeres, 1:21. 3.

Fta130 De Baptism. c. Donat. 6:25 (47).

Fta131 Seventh canon, attributed to the second General Council, but which does not belong to it.

Fta132 Cf. Hefele’s article “Montanus” in Freiburger Kitchenlexicon, Bd. 7.

S. 264, 265.

Fta133 Mattes, l.c. S. 628. The first interpretation of this passage is, besides, the one which was admitted by Christian antiquity; and the words of Pope Stephen became a dictum classicum for tradition, as is proved by the use which Vincent of Lerins makes of them, Commonitorium, c. 9.

Fta134 Vigilii Ep . 2, ad Profut. n. 4, in Migne, Cursus Patrol. 3:1263; and Mattes, l.c. S. 632.

Fta135 Thus, above, for this text, Haeretici proprie non baptizent. Cf.

Mattes, l.c. pp. 629, 611.

Fta136 Mattes, l. c. p. 630 sq., shows the reasons which prove that heretics can legally administer baptism, but not confirmation.

Fta137 Cypr. Opp. p. 333.

Fta138 Cypr. Opp . p. 330.

Fta139 See more details in Mattes, l.c. pp. 615-636.

Fta140 Cf. Mattes, l.c. p. 603.

Fta141 Cypr. Ep. 71, 73, 74.

Fta142 Cypr. 70, 73.

Fta143 Ep . 74. Mattes has perfectly recapitulated S. Cyprian’s argument in the second art. of his Abhandlung uber Ketzertaufe, in Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1850, S. 24 sq.

Fta144 In his work, de Baptismo contra Donatistes.

Fta145 S. Augustine’s arguments are given in detail in Mattes, l.c. pp. 30-45.

Fta146 Acts 8:14-17, 19:6.

Fta147 Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 131.

Fta148 Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1850, S. 51-66. See also in the Freiburger Kitchen-lexicon, Bd. 6 S. 71 ff., Gruscha’s article on the subject of baptism administered by heretics. Gruscha also mentions the works to be consulted on this question.

Fta149 Cf. Franc. de Bosquet, Eccl. Hist. Gall. lib. 5 p. 106; and Mansi, 1:1002.

Fta150 Remi Ceillier, Histoire generale des auteurs sacres, 3:593; Walch, Hist. der Kirchenvers. S. 110; Gallia Christiana, 5:5.; Histoire du Languedoc, t. 1 p. 129 sqq.

Fta151 Arsinoe was an episcopal town in Egypt, in the province of Heptarismos, belonging to the patriarchate of Alexandria.

Fta152 Lib. 7:24.

Fta153 Upon Nepos, see Freiburger Kitchenlexicon on this word.

Fta154 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:24.

Fta155 Nicht-unterscheidung.

Fta156 Cf. Athanas. Contra Apollin. 2:3.

Fta157 See, upon the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, Dorner Lehre 5 d.

Person Christi, Thl. 1 S. 510 ff.; Schwab, de Pauli Samos. vita atque doctrina, Diss. inaug. 1839; Feuerlin, Disp. de haeresi Pauli Samos.; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 2. S. 64-126.

Fta158 Theodoret, Haeret. fabul. lib. 2. c. 8.

Fta159 We know this date from that of the death of Dionysius of Alexandria, who, as Eusebius says, died soon after this Synod (7:28).

Fta160 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:27, 28; Theodoret, l.c.

Fta161 l.c.

Fta162 The letter by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, containing ten questions of Paul’s, and answers from Dionysius, which was first published by Turrianus, a Jesuit, and which is found also in Mansi, 1:1039 sq., is not authentic. Opinions are there attributed to Paul which he did not profess; as, for example, that of two Christs, of two Sons: the name of mother of God is often given to Mary, and the whole betrays a period later than Nestorius. None of the ancients knew of this letter. Cf. Remi Ceillier, 3:277; Mohler, Patrol. 1 S. 632; Walch, Ketzergesch. 2 S. ff., 83 ff.

Fta163 Theodoret, l. c.; Euseb. 7:28.

Fta164 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:30.

Fta165 l. c.

Fta166 Theodoret, l.c. The Jesuit Turrianus discovered a pretended letter from six bishops of the Synod of Antioch, addressed to Paul of Samosata, containing a complete creed, and ending with the demand that Paul should declare whether he agreed with it or not. This letter was first quoted in Latin by Baronius, ad ann. 266, n. 4, and taken for genuine. It is given in Greek and Latin by Mansi, 1:1033; and the creed which it contains is most accurately reproduced by Hahn, Biblioth. d.

Symb. 1842, S, 91 ff. The letter in question was regarded as genuine by Mansi in his notes on Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. 4:145, Venet. 1778; but its genuineness was called in question by Dupin (Nouvelle Bibliotheque, etc., 1:214), by Remi Ceillier (Histoire des auteurs sacres, 3:607), and still more by Gottfried Lumper (Historia theol, crit. 13:711), for these reasons: 1. The letter was unknown by the ancients; 2. Paul of Samosata is spoken of in a friendly manner in the letter, although, as a matter of fact, several years before Dionysius the Great of Alexandria would not even name him, and Paul had by this time become much worse; 3. The letter is signed by only six bishops, whilst ten times that number were present at the Synod; 4. In this letter Hynenaeus of Jerusalem is named as president, while we know that it was Helenus of Tarsus who presided at the third Synod of Antioch.

Nevertheless, more recently, Hahn (l.c.) has adduced the creed contained in this letter as genuine; but Dorner Lehre 5 der Person Christi, Bd. 1 S. 767, note 38; Eng. ed. of Clark, A, 2:10 ff.) shows that the proposition of this creed, “There are not two Christs,” could have no reference to Paul of Samosata (cf also Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 2 S. 117). Some learned men have ascribed the letter to the first Antiochene Synod, which is even less possible. It might rather have been published before or during the third Synod by six of its members.

Even if it is genuine, it is impossible to prove that it is identical with the letter quoted above from Theodoret, and intended to bring back Paul to the truth.

Fta167 We can determine this date, because we know that of the death of Firmilian, and of Dionysius of Rome: the latter died 26th December 267. Cf. Lumper, Hist. Theol. 13:714 sq.; and Pagi, Critica, in Annal.

Baron. ad ann. 271, No. 2.

Fta168 Athan. de Synodis, n. 43, vol. 1. P. 2 p. 605, ed. Patav.; Hilar. Pictav. de Synodis, n. 86, p. 1200.

Fta169 In the acts of the Synod of Ephesus. Hard. l.c. 1:1335.

Fta170 In Hard. l.c. 5:1498; and Mansi, l.c. 1:1099.

Fta171 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:30.

Fta172 In the Bibl. maxima PP., Lugdun., 9:196, 703; and in Mansi, l.c. 1:1102.

Fta173 Baronius says, ad ann. 265, n. 10; that Paul of Samosata had been condemned before by a synod at Rome under Pope Dionysius. He was deceived by the ancient and false Latin translation of Athan. de Synodis, c. 43.

Fta174 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:30; in Mansi, l.c. t. 1. p. 1095, and Hard. l. c. t. 1 p. 195. According to S. Jerome, Catal. Script. eccles, c. 71, the priest Malchion edited this synodical letter. In Euseb. l. c. we also read at the head of this letter the name of one Malchion, but side by side with other names of the bishops, so that it is doubtful whether this Malchion is the priest of whom we are speaking, or a bishop of that name.

Fta175 The functionaries were thus named who annually claimed a revenue of ducenta sestertia.

Fta176 Euseb. 7:30.

Fta177 Mansi, 1:1102.

Fta178 Athan. de Synodis, c. 43; Opp. t. 1 P. 2 p. 604, ed. Patav.

Fta179 De Synodis, c. 45.

Fta180 Cf. the dissertation by Dr. Frohschammer, “uber die Verwerfung des oJmoou>siov ,” in the Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1850, Heft 1.

Fta181 One is found in a document against Nestorius among the acts of the Council of Ephesus, Hard. 1:1271; Mansi, 4:1010. It contains a comparison between Paul of Samosata and Nestorins. The second creed — said to be of Antioch, and directed against Paul of Samosata — is also found among the acts of the Synod of Ephesus, in Mansi, 5:175; Hard, 1:1639; in Hahn:. Biblioth. der Symbole, S. 129 ff. Cf. on this point, Lumper, Hist. Theol. Crit. 13:723, 726, Not. n; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 2 S. 119.

Fta182 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:30 in fin.

Fta183 Mansi, 1:1114.

Fta184 Hist. Eccl. 7:30.

Fta185 e.g. Lumper, l.c. p. 708, Not. 10.

Fta186 Cf. Remi Ceillier, l.c. p. 599; and Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversamml.

S. 113.

Fta187 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 7:30.

Fta188 Haeret. fabulae, lib. 2 c. 8.

Fta189 Lib. 7:28.

Fta190 In Hard. 5:1498; Mansi, 1:1128.

Fta191 The acts of this discussion have been given by Zacagni. in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veteris Ecclesiae; they are found in Mansi, 1:1129-1226. A fragment of this discussion is also found in the Sixth Catechesis of S. Cyril of Jersualem; Mansi, l.c. p. 1226. On the authenticity of these acts, cf. Mosheim, Commentar. de rebus Christianorum ante Constant. M. p. 729.

Fta192 Mansi, 1:1245.

Fta193 Inserted in Mansi, Collect. Concil. 1:1250 sq.; Hard. Coll. 1:217 sqq.

Fta194 Nocturn 2 26th April.

Fta195 Augustine, De unico Baptismo contra Petilianum, c. 16; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 2. Details respecting the spuriousness of this document, and upon this whole question, are to be found in Pagi, Crit. in Annales Baronii, ad ann. 302, n. 18; Papebroch, in the Acta sanct, in Propyl. Mag. vol. 8; Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. saec. in. diss. 20 vol. 4 p. 135, ed. Venet. 1778; Remi Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacres, t. 3. p. 681. See, for Protestant authors, Bower, Gesch. d. Papste, Bd. 1 S. ff.; Walch, Hint. d. Papste, S. 68 ff.; Hist. der Kitchenvers. S. 126.

Fta196 Now Constantine.

Fta197 Contra Cresc. c. 27.

Fta198 Hist. Donatist. lib. 1.

Fta199 Augustine, Breviculus collationis c. Donatistas, collat, dici Illtiae, c. 17, n. 32, 8:643, ed. Migne.

Fta200 Hist. Eccles. saec. 4 diss. 2:340, ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta201 Contra Cres. lib. 3. c. 29. Baronins, ad ann. 303, n. 6, concludes from this fragment that the Synod of Cirta first elected Paul as bishop of that place. Baronins had, in fact, remarked that Paul had yielded up the Holy Scriptures in 303, being then Bishop of Cirta But he is mistaken in supposing that this Synod had taken place in the spring of 303. The passage from the document preserved by Augustine, contra Crescon. 3:29, ought to have proved to him that Paul was already Bishop of Cirta when the persecution began, consequently before the assembling of the Synod.

Fta202 Athanas. Apolog. cont. Arian. c. 59, vol. 1. P. 1. p. 140, ed. Patav.

Fta203 Upon this question of chronology, and upon the Meletian schism, cf. a dissertation by Dr. Hefele in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. 7. S. 38. Dom Ceillier adopts the year 301, Hist., etc., 3:678.

Fta204 Mansi, Collect. Conc. 2:57-397.

Fta205 Vol. 1. P. 2. p. 1 sq.

Fta206 Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. 3. c. 1, 4.

Fta207 Mendoza in Mansi.

Fta208 Mendoza in Mansi.

Fta209 Doubts have been raised, especially by Berardi (Gradiani Canones genuini ab apocryphis discreti, etc., 1:24, ed. Taurin. 1752) and by Marcellin Molkenbuhr (Diss. critica de concil. Trullano Eliberitano, c.

Monast. 1791). Cf. Katholik, 1819, Bd. 2 S. 419.

Fta210 Or Osius.

Fta211 Bibliotheca Ecclesiastes ed. Brims, vol. 1. P. 2 pp. 1, 2; Mansi, Collect. conc. 2:1.

Fta212 Cf. the article Era, by Dr. Hefele, Kirchenlex. of Wetzer u. Welte, Bd. 1. S. 115.

Fta213 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, l.c. 66, 73; and Natal. Alex. Hist. Ecclesiastes saec. 3. diss. 21, art. 1. p. 136, vol. 4 ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta214 Sozom. Hist. Eccles, 1:16, and Euseb. Vita Const. 2:63.

Fta215 Cf. Tubing. Quartalschrift, 1851, S. 221 sq.

Fta216 Cf. in the Kirchenlex. Dr. Hefele’s article on the Donatists, Bd. 3. S. 257.

Fta217 Aug. contra Parmenian. lib. 1. c. 8, 9:43, ed. Migne.

Fta218 In Niceph. Hist. Ecclesiastes 7:42, quoted by Mendoza, l. c. p. 68.

Fta219 Lib. 9 c. 19.

Fta220 Nat. Alex. l. c. Propos. 2:137, 145, nota; and Migne, Dictionnaire, 1:813.

Fta221 Cf. the note by Baluze in Mansi, l.c. p. 1, not 2.

Fta222 Mansi, l.c. p. 3, note.

Fta223 Cf. Mansi, note upon Alex. Nat. Hist. Eccles. l.c. p. 139, and his Coll.

Concil. 2:22.

Fta224 Mendoza in Mansi, Coll. Concil. 2:69, 73; Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccles. sec. 3. diss. 21, p. 138, ed. Venet. 1778; Tillemont, Memoires, etc., vol. 7 in the article Osius, pp. 137, 333, ed. Brux. 1732; Aguirr. Concil.

Hispan. 1:240 sq., 2:1; Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs sacres, 3:657. See above, p. 132.

Fta225 See the Acta S. Vincentii, in Ruinart, ed. Galura, 2:343. We might be surprised that there should be executions of Christians in Spain at this time, since this province formed part of the empire of Caesar Constantius. But although Constantius was personally favorable to the Christians, he was obliged to conform to the Emperor’s commands, as he was only the second personage in the empire. Besides, he did not reside in Spain, but in Gaul; and it was only in Gaul, says Eusebius, that the Christians were spared, whilst in Spain and in Britain the subaltern governors ordered the persecutions. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires, etc., vol. 5, Persecution of Diocletian, art. 21 and not. 22 pp. 25, 26, ed. Brux. 1732.

Fta226 l.c. p. 657, not. f .

Fta227 Prudent. Clemens, Peristeph. 4 passio 18. Martyrum Caersaraugust., says, v. 77, p. 220, ed. Obbarii: “Inde, Vincenti, tua palma nata est, Clerus hic tantum reperit triumphum; Hic saeerdotum domus infulata Valeriorum;” i.e. “The clergy of Saragossa, the house of the Valerians (i.e. the followers of the Bishop Valerius), were so steadfast, that they carried off this victory.” But this does not prove that Valerius himself was executed. He participated in the triumph by his exile. What Mendoza brings forward elsewhere in proof of the martyrdom of Bishop Valerius, is taken from much later references and traditions, and therefore cannot be adduced as proof.

Fta228 Ad ann. 305, 39 sq.

Fta230 Ad ann. 305, n. 5.

Fta231 See Mendoza, and the Bishop of Orleans, Gabriel de l’Aubespine.

This fragment is found in Mansi, 2:35-55, 110-396. Herbst’s explanations have been analyzed and criticized in the dissertation by Binterim upon the Synod of Elvira, in the Katholik of 1821, 2:417-444.

Fta232 Cf. Aubespine’s notes in Mansi, l.c. p. 36.

Fta233 The 30th, 31st, and 72d canons prove, that with the Fathers of Elvira moechia signified immorality in general, rather than adultery properly so called. Also adulterare in the title of the 13th canon is not adultery in specie, but debauchery in general, with this difference, that the sin of a virgin consecrated to God might be called adultery towards God, to whom she had been consecrated, and to whom she had been wanting in fidelity.

Fta234 Cf. canon 55.

Fta235 C. 43, dist. 1.

Fta236 Binterim thinks (l.c. p. 425) that sine causa means, “without the previous judgment of the bishop.”

Fta237 C. 8, causa 32, q. 7.

Fta238 1 Corinthians 7:12.

Fta239 C. 25, causa 27, q. 1. Cf. c. 19 of the Synod of Ancyra.

Fta240 Cf can. 2.

Fta241 Ed. Bened.

Fta242 Cf. the art. by the author in the Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1841, S. ff.

Fta243 C. 5, dist. 47.

Fta245 Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, Bd. 5 Th. 2 S. 98; Bohmer, Christliche Alterthumswissenschaft, Bd. 2 S. 98.

Fta246 C. 4, dist. 98.

Fta247 In Mansi, 2:42.

Fta248 Quartalsch. 1821, S. 30.

Fta249 Cf. Remi Ceillier, l. c. p. 665; Migne, Dic. des Conciles, 1:820; and Dr. Munchen, “Abhandlung uber das erste Concil von Arles” (dissertation upon the first Council of Aries), in the Bonner Zeitsehrift fur Philosophie u. Theologie, Heft 27, S. 51 ff.

Fta250 Mansi, 2:31.

Fta251 Ibid. p. 227.

Fta252 Cf. the nineteenth canon of Ancyra.

Fta253 Cf. below, the thirty-seventh canon.

Fta254 Binterim (Katholik, 1821, Bd. 2 S. 432 f ) thus understands this canon: “Even in a case of urgent necessity, the priest only ought to give the communion; but if he asks it, the deacon may help him.”

Fta255 That this is the true meaning, is seen from the ]parallel passage of the Council of Cartthage of 390, c. 2, where it is said that bishops, priests, and Levites, vel qui sacramentis divinis inserviunt, are pledged to celibacy. Hard. 1:951.

Fta256 Katholik, 1821, Bd. 2. S. 435.

Fta257 Cf. Nat. Alex. Ecclesiastes Hist. saec. 3. l.c. 4:143.

Fta258 Cf. the art. Christusbilder, by Dr. Hefele, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer et Welte, Bd. 2 S. 519 f.

Fta259 Katholik, 1821, Bd. 2 S. 436.

Fta260 Cf. Nat. Alex. Ecclesiastes Hist. saec. 3. l.c. 4:141 sq., 145, nota.

Fta261 Cf. what is said above on the baptism of heretics.

Fta262 In Mansi, 2.

Fta263 Kirchengeschichte, 2 S. 21.

Fta264 We shall prove, when the time comes, that this canon does not belong to the second Ecumenical Council, but is a little more recent.

Fta265 Cf. below, sec. 52.

Fta266 Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philos. u. Kathol. Theologie, Heft 26, S. 80 f.

Fta267 Mansi, l.c. p. 13; Bruns, l.c. p. 7, not. 16; Mendoza in Mansi, l.c. p. 295.

Fta268 l. c. p. 21 sq.

Fta269 Cassian, Collat. 21 c. 20; Mendoza in Mansi, l.c. p. 297.

Fta270 Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 39 f.

Fta271 In Mansi, 2:50.

Fta272 l.c. p. 824.

Fta273 Something like surplice-fees. — ED.

Fta274 Cf. Ambros. lib. 3. de Sacramentis, c. 1 p. 362, vol. 2 ed. Bened.

Fta275 Mabillon in Missalibus Gothico et Gallicano veteri. Cf Ceillier, l. c. in. 670, and Herbst in Tubinger Quartalsch. 1821, S. 40.

Fta276 C. 104, causa 1 q. 1.

Fta277 Jot, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabuer bis auf unsere Tage, Berlin 1825, Thl. 5 S. 13.

Fta278 Jost, l.c. S. 17.

Fta279 l.c. S. 32-34. See Hefele on Cardinal Ximenes, 2d ed. S. 256 ff.

Fta280 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Octavii Aug. c. 55.

Fta281 C. 3, causa 5 q. 1.

Fta282 C. 1, causa 31 q. 3.

Fta283 Cf. De Marca, de Primatibus, p. 10, in the Appendix to the book de Concordia sacerdotii et imperii, and Van Espen. Commentar. in canones et decreta, p. 315.

Fta284 Prudentius Clemens, Peristeph. 3. in hon. Eulaliae, p. 211, ed. Obba.

Cf. Ruinart, Acta Martyr. ed. Galura, 3:69 sqq.

Fta285 S. Basilli Epist. 160, Opp. 3:249, ed. Bened.

Fta286 C. 1 and 8, 10, de Consanguinitate et affinitate (4:14). Cf. Concil.

Trid. sessio 24, cap. 4, de ref. matrium.

Fta287 Lib. 8 c. 32.

Fta288 Lib. 2 mandat, 4 lib. 8 c. 32.

Fta289 See Hefele’s ed. Opp. Patrum apostolicorum, p. 353, ed. 3.

Fta290 Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 43.

Fta291 Tertull. Ad Uxor. lib. 2, c. 8.

Fta292 Hieron. Adv. Jovinian lib. 1 Section 47, p. 277, vol. 2 ed. Migne.

Fta293 Sat. 6, 5:366 sq.

Fta294 Epigram. lib. 6 n. 67.

Fta295 Cf. Index Latinitatis Tertull. in the ed. of Tertull. by Migne, 2:1271.

Fta296 Cf. can. 47, 78.

Fta297 C. 7, cause 31 q. 1.

Fta298 C. 6, cause 5 q. 6.

Fta299 He died in 1025.

Fta300 Lib. 16 c. 18. Cf. Mendoza in Mausi, 2:381.

Fta301 In Mansi, 2:53.

Fta302 Cf. canons 9, 10, and c. 2 of the Nicene Council.

Fta303 This is the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi, 2:388.

Fta304 Cf. 72d canon.

Fta305 In Augusto,. c. 71.

Fta306 Cf. the document de Aleatoribus, wrongly attributed to S. Cyprian, ed. of the works of this Father by the Ben. of S. Maur, Supplement, p. 18, sq.

Fta307 C. 24, dist. 54.

Fta308 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, 2:391; Aubespine, ibid. p. 55.

Fta309 l.c. p. 85.

Fta310 These additional canons are found in Mansi, 2:19, 20. Cf. also the two notes.

Fta312 Mendoza in Mansi, l.c. 2:76 sq., and in many places where he is explaining particular canons. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. saec. 3, vol. dissert, 21 art. 2, p. 139 sqq.

Fta313 August. Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, diei 3. cap. 13, n. 25. Opp. vol. 9 p. 638, ed. Migne. Dupin in his ed. of Optat. of Milevius, de Schismate Donatist., Antwerp 1702, p. 174.

Fta314 August. l.c.

Fta315 Cf. the article de Lapsis, by Hefele, in the Freiburger Kitchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. 1 S. 39.

Fta316 August. l.c. c. 12 and 13.

Fta317 Optat. de Schism. Don. 1:17.

Fta318 Cf. below, can. I and 4 of the Council of Hippo in 393, and c. 7 of the Council of Carthage of August 28, 397, with our observations; besides, Wiltsch, Kirchl. Geographie und Statistik, Bd. 1 S. 130.

Fta319 Cf. the observations upon the fifty-eighth canon of the Council of Elvira, p. 162.

Fta320 August. l.c. c. 16, n. 29.

Fta321 Optatus, l.c. p. 17 sq.

Fta322 Optatus, l. c. pp. 16-18.

Fta323 August. Ep. 44, c. 4, n. 8, 2:177, ed. Migne.

Fta324 Augustin. Sermo 46, c. 15, n. 39, 5:293, ed. Migne.

Fta325 Optatus, l. c. p. 18.

Fta326 August. Brevic, collat, diei 3. c. 14, n. 26. Optat. l.c. p. 176, in Dupin’s edition.

Fta327 l.c. p. 2.

Fta328 Optat. l. c. p. 156, Dupin’s ed.

Fta329 Optat. l.c. p. 18. August. Brevic. collat, diei 3. c. 16, n. 29.

Fta330 Gesta purgationis Felicis, ep. Apt, in Dupin’s ed. of the works of Optat. l.c. p. 162 sqq.

Fta332 Optat. ed. Dupin, l.c. 3:14, 15, 175.

Fta333 Optat. l.c. p. 19, n. 39, and p. 173.

Fta334 Optat. l.c. p. 20 and p. 4.

Fta335 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:6.

Fta336 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:7; Optat. p. 177 sq.

Fta337 The letter that Anulinus sent to the Emperor on this occasion is to be found in Mansi, l. c. 2:438, and more fully in August. Ep . 88.

Fta338 Epist. 88.

Fta339 Upon this demand, see Munchen, prov. of the Cathed. of Coln, Das erste Concil von Arles, in the Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philos. u. Kath.

Theol. Heft 9, S. 88f.

Fta340 l.c. p. 22.

Fta341 This letter is found in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:5. Dr. Munchen (l.c. pp. 90, 39) proves by this letter, and by all Constantine’s conduct, that this prince had no intention of mixing in the inner affairs of the Church.

Fta342 See Constantine’s letter quoted above.

Fta343 Optat. l.c. pp. 22-24; August. Ep. 43; and Breviculus collat. Carthag. diei 3. c. 12 sq.; and Libell. Synod. in Mansi, 2:436, in Hard. 5:1499.

Fta344 Optat. l.c. p. 25 and p. 6.

Fta345 See Optat. p. 181, ed. Dupin.

Fta346 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:5; Mansi, l.c. 2:463-468. The best modern work on the Council of Aries is the dissertation of Dr. Munchen, in the Bonner Zeitschr. already mentioned, Heft 9, S. 78 ff.; Heft 26, S. ff.; Heft 27, S. 42ff.

Fta347 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:5, p. 391, ed. Mogunt.; Mansi, 2:463 sq.; Hard. 1:259 sq.; and Optat. l. c. 181 sq. ed. Dupin.

Fta348 Mansi, 2:469, not. a , et p. 473, not. z sq.

Fta349 In Mansi, 2:469; Hard. 1:261.

Fta350 In Mansi, 2:476; Hard. 1:266. It must not be forgotten that this list does not quite agree with the inscription of the letter to the Pope, and that among the thirty-three names of the synodical letter some are mentioned in the list of persons only as those of priests who were representatives of the bishops. Cf. on this list, which Quesnel has wrongly considered as a copy of the superscription of the synodical letter, the Ballerini, in their edition of the works of Leo the Great, 2:1018 sq., et ibid. 851.

Fta351 Cf. the list of persons.

Fta352 In Mansi, l.c. 469; Hard, 1:261.

Fta353 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:5.

Fta354 Cf. Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 21.

Fta355 Contra Crescon. lib. 4 c. 25; Pagi, Grit. ad ann. 814, n. 17.

Fta356 Cap. 9, n. 14.

Fta357 Opera, 8:185, ed. Migne.

Fta358 Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 18.

Fta359 Opera, 2:169, ed. Migne.

Fta360 Cf. Pagi, l.c. n. 19; and Hefele, “Das Concil you Sardika,” in the Tubinger Quartalsch. 1852, S. 406. Cf. also previously, pp. 3, 4.

Fta361 Mansi, 2:469; Hard. 1:262.

Fta362 It is the 128th epistle among those of S. Augustine, 2:489, ed. Migne.

Cf. Brev. collat, diei 1. c. 5, p. 615, t. 9 ed. Migne; et Optat. 250, ed.

Dupin.

Fta363 Memoires, t. 6 in the Diss. sur les Donatistes, art. 21 p. 21, ,ed. Brux. 1732.

Fta365 In Mansi, 2:469; Hard. 1:261 sq.

Fta366 In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, 2:1019.

Fta367 Reprinted in Bruns’ Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, vol. 1. P. 2 p. 107. The passage, as given less accurately in the ancient collections of councils, is found in Mansi, 2:471 sq., Hard. 1:263 sq.

Fta368 Cf. the diss. of Hefele, Osterfeierstreit (Controversy on the subject of the Easter Feast), in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. 7 S. 871 ff.

Fta369 In his diss. already quoted, in the Bonner Zeitschrift, Heft 26, S. 61 ff.

Fta370 Cf. above, p. 170.

Fta371 Mansi, 2:481 sq.

Fta372 Munchen, in the diss. quoted above.

Fta373 See the notes of Aubespine, in Mansi, 2:492.

Fta374 Histoire des auteurs sacres, 3:705.

Fta375 Tub. Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 666.

Fta376 T. 1 p. 199. Paris 1847.

Fta377 T. 1 p. 64. Paris 1847.

Fta378 On this hatred of the first Christians for the stage and gaming, cf. Tub . Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 396 ff.

Fta381 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 8:1.

Fta382 Cf. Dr. Munchen, l.c. Heft 27, S. 42; Migne, Dict. des Concil. 1:193.

Fta383 Baron. ad an. 314, n. 57. The opinion of Baronius (ibid. No. 53), that Constantine was present at the Council of Aries, is not. defensible, lie thinks this conclusion can be drawn from a text of Eusebius (Vita Const. 1:44); but this passage speaks only in general terms of the presence of the Emperor at the Council, and evidently refers to the Council of Nicaea.

Fta386 Cf. also the pretended seventh canon of the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381.

Fta387 Mansi, 2:472.

Fta389 Fr. q. D. de Divort. (24:2); Munchen, l. c . S. 58.

Fta390 Const. c. 1 ag leg. Tul. (9:9); Munchen, l.c. S. 58. It was not until the year 449 that the position of man and wife was put on the same footing in this respect.

Fta391 In his ed. of Epiphanius, Haeres. 59, c. 8, t. 2 app. p. 255.

Fta392 Cf. Munchen, l.c. S. 63.

Fta393 Cf. Munchen, l. c. S. 65.

Fta394 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 8:2; Lactant. de Mortibus persec, c. 3.

Fta395 l.c. S. 70.

Fta396 Memorabilia, t. 1. P. 1 p. 360.

Fta397 Cf. our observations on the eighteenth canon of Nicaea, and the explanation of Dr. Munchen, l.c. p. 76.

Fta398 The deacons of the city of Rome were the particular invaders, as Jerome testifies (Epist. 85, ad Evagrium ). Cf. Van Espen, Commetarius in canones et decreta, etc. (Colon. 1755), p. 101, in the scholia on the eighteenth canon of Nicaea.

Fta399 l.c. fta400 See, further on, our remarks on the fourth canon of Nicaea.

Fta401 This Ms. of Lucca divides the twenty-two genuine canons of Aries into twenty-three, and consequently counts the first of the spurious canons as the twenty-fourth.

Fta402 In Hard. 1:268; Mansi, 2:477; et Optatus Milev. 184, ed. Dupin.

Fta403 Cf, August. Epist. 88, n. 3.

Fta404 “Coactus,” says S. Augustine, l.c. Cf. Epist. 43, n. 20.

Fta406 Epist. 43, n. 20.

Fta407 Opt. Mil. pp. 185, 187, ed. Dup.

Fta408 Dupin, l.c. p. 187.

Fta409 August. Contr. Parmen. lib. 1 c. 5.

Fta410 Explained in Hefele’s article, “Donatisten,” in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. 3.

Fta411 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:3.

Fta412 Cf. the list of the members of the Council in Mansi, 2:534; in Hard. 1:279.

Fta413 Cf. Tillemont, Mem. etc. 6:85.

Fta414 In Mansi, Collect. Concil. 2:536.

Fta415 Tillemont, Memoires, etc. 5:219, 220.

Fta416 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10:3.

Fta417 Ad an. 314, n. 77.

Fta418 Mem . 6:85.

Fta419 Hist. des auteurs sacres, 3:713.

Fta420 Printed in Mansi, 2:534.

Fta421 Cf. Opp. Leonis M. t. 3. p. 22 ed. Ballerini.

Fta422 Ballerini, l.c. et p. 105, not. 1; Hard. 1:279; Mansi, 2:527, not. 1; Remi Ceillier, l.c. 714.

Fta423 In Mansi, l. c. p. 539; Hard. 5:1499.

Fta424 We find the Greek text of the canons of Ancyra, together with the old Latin translations by Dionysius the Less and Isidore, in Hardouin, 1:271, and Mansi, 2:514 sqq. In Mansi there is also a more accurate translation by Gentianus Hervetus. The Greek text is also found in the mediaeval Greek commentaries of Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus, quoted by Beveridge, Synodicon, sen Pandectos canon. (Oxon. 1672), 1:375 sq. The Greek text of the canons of Ancyra is also to be found in Bruns, Biblioth. Eccl. 1:66 sqq. Routh has published it in his Reliquice sacroe, 3:405 sqq., with notes of his own, and of others, particularly those of Beveridge and Justell. We give here the ordinary text, and place the most important readings of Routh in brackets. The canons of Ancyra have also been commented upon by Van Espen, Commentar, in canones et decreta (Colon. 1755), p. 107 sq., and by Herbst in the Tubinger Quartalschrift of 1821, S. 413 sq.

Fta425 See chapter 5.

Fta426 C. 32, dist. 50.

Fta427 Apolog. 1 n. 65 and 67.

Fta428 Commentar. l.c. p. 108.

Fta429 Lib. 8 c. 13.

Fta430 See above, the remarks on the fifteenth canon of Aries, and further on, the commentary on the eighteenth canon of Nicaea.

Fta431 Const. Apost. 8:5.

Fta432 Van Espen, l.c.

Fta433 Nos. 26, 158, and 625.

Fta434 Routh, Reliquice sacroe, 3:423.

Fta435 Cf. Suicer, ad h. 5. Cf. also, on the penitential system of the primitive Church, Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, Bd. 5 Thl. 2 S. 362 ff.

Fta436 Thesaurus, s.v. prosfora> .

Fta437 Cf. further on, can. 16.

Fta438 In Bevereg. Synodicon, 1:380. This condition was also imposed by the Council of Orange in 441, can. 3; in Hard. 1:1784.

Fta439 This sentence is added from the French translation.

Fta440 1 Corinthians 8.

Fta441 Cf. the observations on the fourth canon.

Fta442 C. 8, dist. 28. Cf. Van Espen, Comment. l. c. p. 112; Herbst, Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 423, and our observations on the history of Paphnutius at the Council of Nicaea.

Fta443 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 113.

Fta444 Cf. Van Espen, l.c. p. 113.

Fta445 Cf. Bevereg. Synodicum, 2, Append. p. 177; Van Espen, l.c. p. 113.

Fta446 In the edition of the Ballerini of the works of S. Leo, 3:110 sq.

Fta447 Fulgentius Ferrandus, saec. 6.

Fta448 Reliquiae sacrae, 3:432 sq.

Fta449 In Bevereg. l. c. 1:390.

Fta450 Syntagm. lit. B, c. 9, p. 55.

Fta451 Reliquice sacrae, 3:440.

Fta452 KuriakoChurch, or the property of the Church. Cf.

Suicer, Thesaurus, s. h. v.

Fta453 Herbst Tubinger Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 430.

Fta454 Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, 3:441 f.

Fta455 The intransitive verb leora>w would make its participle leprj>santav .

Fta456 Comment. l.c. p. 116.

Fta457 Bevereg. t. 2 Append. p. 72, in the notes to can. 11 of the Council of Nicaea, printed also by Routh, Reliq. sacr. 3:490, cf. ibid. 444.

Fta458 Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. ceimazo>menoi .

Fta459 Van Espen, Comment. l.c. p. 117, and Jus Ecclesiastes pars 1 tit. 13, c. 1.

Fta460 Commentarius, l.c. p. 117.

Fta461 Cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. ajfori>zw.

Fta462 In Bever. l.c. t. 1. p. 395. Cf. Van Essen, Comm. l.c . p. 117.

Fta463 Basilius, ad Amphiloch., 3d vol. of the Bened. ed. of his works, p. 272. Cf our remarks on the third and seventh canons of Neocaesarea.

Fta464 Routh, Reliq. sacr. 3:447; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. 2 liv. 10 Sec. 16.

Fta465 Commentar. l. c. p. 118.

Fta466 Van Espen, l. c. p. 119.

Fta467 l.c. p. 447 sq.

Fta468 Cf. Mansi, 2:519; Van Espen, Com. p. 119.

Fta469 Van Espen, l.c. p. 120.

Fta470 In Bev. 1:399.

Fta471 Routh, Reliq. sacr. 3:449.

Fta472 Cf. on this point the Essay of the Ballerini in their ed. of the works of S. Leo, t. 33 p. 22. c. 4.

Fta473 Memoires, etc. 6:86, ed. Brux. 1732, under the art. S. Vitale. Cf. Van Espen, Com. l.c. p. 121 sqq.

Fta474 In Hard. 5:1499; Mansi, 2:551.

Fta475 See above, Sec. 1.

Fta476 Remi Ceillief, l.c. p. 722 sq.; Migne, Dict. des Conciles, 2:54.

Fta477 C. 9, dist. 28.

Fta478 In Bevereg. l. c. 1:404.

Fta479 Basil. ad Amphil. can. 4, Opp. ed. Bened. 3:271 sq. Cf. below, canon 7 of this Synod, and the nineteenth of Ancyra.

Fta480 Bev. Synod. 1:404; Routh, Rel. Sac. 3:465.

Fta481 Cf. Van Espen, Comment. l.c. p. 124; and Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. 2. 54:10:sec. 17.

Fta482 Reliq. sacr. 3:460.

Fta483 Wahl. Clavis N. T. s.v. sth>kw .

Fta484 Hard. 1:283, n.

Fta485 Cf. Routh, l. c. p. 469, and Van Espen, l. c. p. 124.

Fta486 C. 11, dist. 34.

Fta487 Lib. 2 mand. 4. See Hefele’s Apost. Fathers, 3d ed. p. 353.

Fta488 Cf. also the sixty-fifth canon of Elvira, which treats of the adulterous wife of an ecclesiastic.

Fta489 Reliq. sacr. 3:472.

Fta490 Cf. can. 2 of Aries, above, p. 185; and Suicer, Thes. s.v. uJphre>thv .

Fta491 C. 1, causa 15, q. 8.

Fta492 C. 4, dist. 78.

Fta493 In Routh, Reliq. sacr. 3:473; and Van Espen, Comm. l. c . p. 126.

Fta494 C. 1, dist. 57.

Fta495 Cf. Van Espen, Comm. l. c. p. 126; Herbst, Tubing. Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 445 f; Routh, l.c. p. 473 sq.

Fta496 C. 12, dist. 95.

Fta497 C. 12, dist. 93.

Ftc1 Compare Hefele’s treatise on the origin and character of Arianism, in the Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1851, Heft 2.

Ftc2 On the indecision in the expressions of Gregory, cf. H. Ritter, Geschichte d. christl. Philosophie, Bd. 2. S. 14.

Ftc3 Cf. Ritter, l. c. S. 4 ff.

Ftc4 Petavius, de theolog, dogmat. de Trinitat praef c. 1, Section 12, 13, c. 3, Section 3 sqq., and lib. 1:3. 1; 1:5. 7; 1:8. 2; Kuhn in the Tubing.

Quart. 1850, S. 256 ff.

Ftc5 Kuhn, l.c. S. 274.

Ftc6 The stability and permanence of the doctrine of the Church on the one side, and the uncertainty of several of the Fathers in expressing the doctrine of the Logos on the other, were pointed out long ago by S.

Augustine (on Psalm 54 (55), n. 22) and S. Jerome (adv. libr. Rufin. 2. 440, ed. Migne): S. Augustine says: Numquid perecto de Trinitate disputatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani? S. Jerome writes: Certe antequam in Alexandria quasi daemonium meridianum Arius nasceretur, innocenter et minus caute locuti sunt. This uncertainty of the Fathers has been pointed out with still greater force by our great historian of dogma, Petavius. The Anglican Bull, however, regarded the free and scientific historical treatment of the subject by the Jesuit as an injury done to high church orthodoxy, and endeavored, with great expenditure of learning, to demonstrate the indemonstrable, — namely, that all the ante-Nicene Fathers held the Nicene faith exactly and precisely. In more recent times, Dr. Baur of Tubingen (Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, 1:110) has objected to Petavius, to the extent of accusing him of going beyond the Catholic point of view, — an accusation which has been refuted in the treatise of Kuhn, already quoted, “the Vindication of Dionysius Petavius, and the Catholic Conception of the History of Dogma.”

In direct opposition to Bull, writers with a Unitarian bias, like Sandius and others, endeavor to show that all or most of the ante-Nicene Fathers were also and-Nicene; in other words, that before the Nicene Synod there prevailed an entirely different doctrine of the Trinity, whether related on the one hand to Sabellianism, or on the other to Arianism.

Petavius, as we see, forms the mean between those two extremes, and with him agree those later Catholic theologians who have examined the ancient doctrine of the Logos, particularly Prudentius Maran (Divinitas Domini nostri J. Christi manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione, Paris 1746, fol.; and la Divinite de notre Seigneur, etc., Paris 1751) and Mohler (Athanasius, 1:116, 56). These writers, while they admit the uncertainty and indefiniteness, or even the inaccuracy, of many of the ancient Fathers with reference to the doctrine of the Logos, at the same time maintain the firm hold which the Church always had on the substance of the faith on those two fundamental parts of the doctrine of the Logos (the proper Godhead of the Son, and the personal distinction between Him and the Father). In doing so, they at the same time separate themselves entirely from that idea of the history of dogma in general, and of the development of the dogma of the Logos in particular, which has been put forth by Hegel and Baur. For while this new Protestant school asserts that dogma has always been produced by the antagonism of opposite views, and thereby destroys the whole of the solid substance of dogma, the Catholic historian distinguishes a permanent element and a changeable: the former being the substance of the faith itself; the latter the perception, comprehension, and representation of this firm substance of faith.

Ftc7 On the doctrine of Dionysius of Alex., cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. t, diss. 17 p. 131 sqq., and Ritter, l.c . S. 14 ff.

Ftc8 In Athanas. de sententia Dionysii, c. 4.

Ftc9 De decretis Synodi Nic. c. 26. Cf. de sent. Dionys. c. 13.

Ftc10 Baur, Christ. Lehre 5 d. Dreieinigkeit, Bd. 1 S. 313.

Ftc11 Dorner, Lehre 5 d. Person Christi, 2d ed. Thl. 1:S. 750 [Clark’s translation, A. 2. 176 ff.].

Ftc12 Proverbs 8:22; Deuteronomy 32:6.

Ftc13 Colossians 1:15; <19A901> Psalm 109 (110) 3; Proverbs 8:25.

Ftc14 In Athanas. de decretis Nicaenae Synodi, c. 25, and de sententia Dionys. c. 18.

Ftc15 In Athanas. de sentent, c. 15.

Ftc16 l.c. c. 21.

Ftc17 De decretis Syn. Nic. c. 25.

Ftc18 Cod. 106.

Ftc19 Cf. Dorner, l. c . S. 737 f.

Ftc20 Cod. 119.

Ftc21 Cf. Dorner, 1. c. S. 733 f.

Ftc22 In Angelo Mai, Nova collectio, etc., 7:306, 307; and Galland. Biblieth. vet. Patrum, 1:108. Cf. Dorner, l.c. S. 810.

Ftc23 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1:4, p. 15, ed. Mogunt.

Ftc24 Euseb. H.E. 8:13, 9:6.

Ftc25 In Theodoret, H. E. 1:4, p. 15.

Ftc26 In opposition to the testimonies here adduced, Baronius endeavors (ad ann. 311, n. 12; and 318, n. 75) to clear Lucian of the imputation of heresy; but even he is forced to concede that Lucian made use of inaccurate expressions in the controversy with the Sabellians, particularly with his fellow-priest Pancratius of Antioch, and that therefore he was excommunicated by three successive bishops of Antioch. Yet Baronius believes that Lucian, whom he defends on account of his martyrdom, was always orthodox in heart, and that the Arians had no right to appeal to him; and that even Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, was mistaken when, in the letter quoted above, he brought Arianism into connection with Lucian. Cf. Dorner, l.c. S. 802. note.

Ftc27 Ancoratus, c. 33.

Ftc28 It is given by Athanasius, De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae, c. 23, and Socrates, H. E. 2:10, but without mention of Lucian. We learn from Sozomen, H. E. 3:5, that the Arians attributed it to him.

Ftc29 l. c. S. 823.

Ftc30 Cf. Wolf on the relation of Oigenism to Arianism, in the Zeitschrift fur luther. Theologie, 1842, Heft 3 S. 23 ff.; and Ramers, Die Auferstehangs. lehre des Origenes, 1851, S. 6, 10.

Ftc31 So Epiphanius asserts, Haeres. 69. 1; whilst Cave and others, supported by Photius, pronounce him to have been an Alexandrian.

Ftc32 Staudenmaier has remarked most powerfully and clearly on this connection, in his Philos. des Christ. 1:506 ff.

Ftc33 Oratio 2. Contra Arianos, c. 24.

Ftc34 Ritter, l.c. S. 25.

Ftc35 Ritter, l.c. S. 28 f.

Ftc36 Mohler, 1:191.

Ftc37 The history of the life of Arius is found most completely in the Storia critica della vita di Arrio, scritta da Gaetano Maria Travasa, Cler.

Reg. Teatino (Venezia 1746), and in Tillemont, Memoires pour servir d l’histoire ecclesiastique, t. 6. The other works of most importance on the subject of Arianism are: Maimburg, S. J., Histoire de l’Arianisme (Paris 1675); the biographies and monographs on Athanasius; Christian Walch, Ketzergeschichle (1764), Bd. 2. S. ff.; J. A. Stark, Versuch einer Geschichte des Arianismus (Berlin 1783), 2 Theile (of no great value); Wundemann, Geschichte der christlichen Glaubenslehren von Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Greg. d. Gr. (Leipzig 1798), 2 Thle. 8 vo; Wetzer, Restitutio verae chronologiae rerum ex controversiis Arianorum exortarum (Francof. 1827); Lange, Der Arianismus in seiner ursprunglichen Bedeutung, in Ilgen’s Zeitsch. f. hist. Theol. 4:2, 5:1; Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc. (1841), Bd. 1 S. 320 ff.; Dorner, Die Lehre von der Person Christi (1845), Thl. 1. S. 806 ff.

Ftc38 On the Meletians, cf. the author’s essay in the Kirchenlex. Bd. 7. S. 37ff.

Ftc39 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. 1:15. The false Acta S. Petri relate that both Bp.

Peter and Achillas were expressly warned by Christ in a vision respecting Arius. Cf. Baronius, ad ann. 310, n. 4; and Renaudot, Hist.

Pat. Alex. p. 67.

Ftc40 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1:5, 2:35; Epiphanius, Haeres. 69:3. The Emperor Constantine depicts him in the darkest colors, in a letter to Arius himself and to his adherents, in Gelasius Cyzicenus, Hist. Concil.

Nicaeni, lib. 3.; in Mansi, 2:930 sqq., particularly p. 938; and Hardouin, 1:452 sqq.

Ftc41 l.c.

Ftc42 Hist. Eccl. 1:4. Cf. Walch, Ketzerh. Thl. 2. S. 404 f.

Ftc43 See Gelasius, l.c. lib. 2. c. 1; Mansi, l. c. p. 791; Hard. 1:366.

Ftc44 Lib. 1. c. 3 of the fragments of Philostorgius at the end of Valesius’ ed. of the Ch. Hist. of Theodoret.

Ftc45 1:15.

Ftc46 Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 423. The supposition that the Arian question came up at the Synod of Arles in 314, rests simply upon an error in canon 8, where Arianis is written by mistake for Afris. See above, p. 189. Cf.

Mansi, 2. 472; and Ittig, Hist. Concil. Nicaeni (Lips. 1712), Section 22.

Ftc47 Hist. Eccl. 1:5.

Ftc49 Cf. Athanas. contra Arian. c. 35; and Ritter, l.c. S. 23 ff.

Ftc50 Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 417 ff.

Ftc51 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 1:15; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1:2; Epiphan. Haeres. 69. 3.

Ftc52 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. 1:15.

Ftc53 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1:16.

Ftc54 Athanas. De Synodis Arimin. et Seleuciae, c. 17.

Ftc55 In a letter of Eusebius to S. Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1:6). It is, however, not certain whether this letter was written at the beginning of the Arian movement or at a later period.

Ftc56 Theod. Hist. Eccl. 1:5.

Ftc57 Theod. Hist. Eccl. 1:4; Soc. Hist. Eccl. 1:6; and Athan. Dep. Arii, 1:311, ed. Patav.

Ftc58 Epiph. Haeres. 69:3.

Ftc59 Hist. Eccl. 1:4. Cf. Walch, l. c. 2. 428, n. 2.

Ftc60 See the two letters of Alexander in Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1:6; and Athanas. Depositio Arii, l.c.

Ftc61 So reckons Walch, l.c. Thl. 2. S. 421, from the expression of S.

Athanasius, that the Arians had been declared heretics thirty-six years ago. Athanasius wrote this letter (Ep. ad Episc. AEgypti, c. 22) in the year 356, and therefore indicates the year 320. But it is not a settled point that Athanasius wrote the letter in question in 356, for he says in it that the Meletians had fallen into schism fifty-live years before. As, however, we know that this took place in 306, it would seem that Athanasius wrote this letter in 361; and then, in saying that the Arians had been declared heretics thirty-six years before, he must have had in his eye, not the Alexandrian Synod of 320, but the Nicene Council of 325. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 4 S. 381, Anm. 2.

Ftc62 Socrat. H. E . 1:6.

Ftc63 Socrat. l.c.; and Theodor. l.c 1:4.

Ftc64 In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Theod. 1:5.

Ftc65 Cf. Walch, l. c. 2. 431.

Ftc66 In Theodoret, H. M . 1. 4. These outrages consisted in. this, that they degraded the Logos to a creature, and, as usual, accused the bishop of Sabellianism. Front this time Arius altered, for the use of his followers in divine service, the ordinary doxology into “Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost” (Theod. lib. 4. de haeret, fab. c. 1). It is true that orthodox Fathers have made use of this doxology (e.g.

Leo the Great, Sermo 1 de nailvii. Dom.), as being equally susceptible of an orthodox interpretation. Cf. Ittig, Hist. Con. Nic. Section 51.

Ftc67 According to Epiphanius (Haer. 69:8), the Arians had already selected a bishop of their own for Alexandria, of the name of Pistus; but this could not have happened so early; for (a ) the Arians still hoped at that time for a reconciliation with Bishop Alexander (Theod. l. c. 1:6; Sozom. 1:15. Cf. the remark of Petavius on Epiph. Haer. 69:8).

Besides, (b ) Athanasius says expressly (Apol. contr. Arian. c. 24) that Pistus was not ordained bishop until after the Nicene Council.

Ftc68 This remarkable document is found in Athanas. Epistola synodalis, etc. T. 1:1, p. 313, ed. Patav. 1777; t. 1 p. 397, ed. Paris 1698: in Socrat. H. E. 1:6; and in Gelasius Cyzic. in Hard. 1:366 sq.; Mansi, 2:793; most perfectly in Athanasius. Epiphanius relates (Hastes. 69. 4) that Alexander sent seventy letters of this kind into the different provinces; and we learn from Pope Liberius, that even Silvester, who was then Pope, received such a letter from Alexander (Constant. Epist.

Pontif. p. 426).

Ftc69 This is quite consistent, for the knowledge of the creature in its essence can be derived only from the knowledge of its foundation or Creator. Ritter, Geschichte der Christ. Philippians Bd. 2 S. 27.

Ftc70 Arius had endeavored to prove his doctrine by separate passages of Scripture, particularly by those which set forward the human side of Christ, and which speak of His ignorance of anything, of His pain, of His subordination to the Father, of His tapei>nwsiv , etc. Arius was forced to apply all these passages falsely to the divine in Christ, the lo>gov ; for, according to his opinion, the lo>gov was not united to a complete humanity, but only to a human body. Cf. above, p. 238; and Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 2 Aufl., Bd. 4:S. 690. [An English translation of Neander’s Church History is published by Clark of Edinburgh.] Arius in this resembles his opponent Apollinaris. It is clear that Arius, in adducing these Scripture proofs, clung to the mere letter: he always regarded only separate detached passages, and not the whole doctrinal idea of a biblical author. Cf. Neander, Kircheng. 2 Aufl., Bd. 4 S. 685.

Ftc71 Hist. Eccl. 1:4.

Ftc72 See more particularly, with reference to him, in Epiphanius, Haeres. 69:2, and the note of Petavius upon that passage; also in Philastrius, de haeresibus, c. 78. Cf. also Ittig, Hist. Concil. Nic. 1712, Sec. 18.

Ftc73 Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. vol 4.

Ftc74 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1:4. This letter is also printed in Mansi, 2:642 sqq. Binius has added sonic notes; see Mansi, l.c. 659.

Ftc75 Epiphan. Haeres. 69:3; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1:5.

Ftc76 Arian inferences. Cf. Dorner, l.c. 813, note 22.

Ftc79 Psalm 45:E. V.

Ftc80 We see from this, as Neauder points out, l.c. S. 701, the violent intolerance of the Arians, and the persecuting spirit which they afterwards displayed so greatly.

Ftc82 See this letter in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1:5.

Ftc83 It is remarked with perfect accuracy by Neander, l.c. S. 691: “Although this idea of Christ (held by Arius) is in contradiction to the true faith of His Godhead, Arius did not liesirate to assign to Him the name of God, which he found given to Him in the New Testament and in the ancient creeds.… He probably based his practice upon those passages of the Bible in which the name of God appears to be assigned in an improper sense to created beings.” Also S. 696, Anm. 1: “Arius could not logically apply such an expression as plh>rhv Qeo>v to Christ; but in an indefinite sense, as he employed the name of God, he was able to do so. What was most difficult from his point of view was to attribute moral immutability to Him; but this, too, depended upon the meaning attached to it. He was obliged to explain it in this way, that He was unchangeable, not by nature, but by virtue of the direction of His will, foreseen by God.”

Ftc84 We have explained above (p. 253) in what sense Arius understood the expressions unchangeable, etc. Mohler (Athanasius, 1:205) reproaches Arius further with equivocation in applying the words “by His own will” (tw~| ijdi>w| boulh>mati ) not merely to the Father, but also to the Son, so that he says, “The Son is unchangeable by His own will.” But I can hardly believe that this reproach of Mohler’s is well-founded; for in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, 1:5) Arius expresses himself in much the same way, but still so as to show that it was undoubtedly the will of the Father, and not that of the Son, which he intended (ajll j o[ti qelh>mati kai< boulh~| uJpe>sth pro< cro>nwn kai< pro< aijw>niwn plh>rhv Qeo>v ). Cf. the translation of this passage, above, p. 253. Even Mohler has in his translation referred the words in question to the Father.

Ftc85 The Jesus patibilis of the Manichaeans is a substantial part of the Jesus apatibilis.

Ftc86 i.e. that there is no personal distinction.

Ftc87 i.e. everything else was made through the Son.

Ftc88 <19B003> Psalm 110:3; S. John 16:28; Romans 11:36.

Ftc89 This letter of Arius is found in Athanasius, de synodis Arimin., etc., c. 16; Epiph. Haeres. 69:7; in German, in Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversamml. Thl. 2. S. 450 ff. In Epiphanius this letter is signed not only by Arius, but also by fourteen of his friends. Their names are given above, p. 246. Against the genuineness of these signatures, we have (1) the fact that Ethales (i.e. Aithalos), Achillas, the second Arius, and others, who, as we have seen, are called deacons by Bishop Alexander, appear here as priests. (2) Pistus signs as Bishop of Alexandria, which, as we showed before, is contrary to all probability. (3) Besides Pistus, several others sign as bishops, and yet the title of the letter says it is signed only by priests and deacons. (4) Finally, it is doubtful whether all these friends could have been at Nicomedia at the same time with Arius.

Ftc90 Athanas. Oratio 1 contra Arianos, c. 5, 6, 10; de synodis Arimin., etc., n. 15. This writing is mentioned also by Athanas. de decretis synodi Nicaenae, c. 16; Hist. ad Episc. Egypti et Libyae, c. 7, 20; de sententia Dionysii, c. 6; Oratio 1 c. Arian, c. 2, 4, 7, 9, 10; Socrat. H. E. 1:9; Sozomen, H. E. 1:21.

Ftc91 Orat. 1 c. Arian, c. 11.

Ftc92 Philostorgii Fragmenta, lib. 2 c. 2.

Ftc93 l. c.

Ftc94 In Athanas. Orat. 1. c. Arian. c. 5.

Ftc95 l.c. c. 6.

Ftc96 Athanas. de synod. Arimin. c. 15.

Ftc97 The Greek text has, tottona ejk me>rouv uJmnei~ , i.e. “He praises Him who is in part better than Himself.” But Arius said before, The Father is infinitely more glorious, and consequently He cannot here be designated as ejk me>rouv kre>ttwn . Perhaps it should be translated: “On His side He praises and glorifies Him who is more glorious;” so that ejk me>rouv = kata< me>rov . Cf. Viger, de idiotismis, etc., p. 109.

Ftc98 1:15.

Ftc99 There is in the acts of the second Synod of Nicaea (Hard. 4:407) a letter of the Church historian Eusebius to Bishop Alexander in favor of Arius, which belongs to the same time. Eusebius endeavors in this letter, in referring to Arius’ own letter to Alexander, to show that Alexander had given too dark a picture of the Arian doctrine.

Ftc100 Theodoret, l.c. 1:6; Socrat. 1:6; Soz 1:15.

Ftc101 Athanas. Orat. i.c. Arian. c. 22.

Ftc102 1:15.

Ftc103 Sozomen expressly places this fact in the time after the Synod of Bithynia. It seems to adapt itself better to the beginning of the Arian conflict.

Ftc104 This shows that Arius was again in Alexandria.

Ftc105 Euseb. Vita Constantini, lib. 2. c. 64-72; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1:7; in Gelasius, l.c.; in Mansi, l.c. 802 and 946, where see Binins’ note.

Ftc106 Vita-Constant. 2:63.

Ftc107 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1:7.

Ftc108 Ibid. 3:7.

Ftc109 Athanas. Apolog. c. Arianos, c. 74.

Ftc110 Socrat. l. c . 1:8.

Ftc111 Philostorgii Fragmenia, 1:7. Cf. Walch, l. c. S. 463.

Ftc112 Athanas. Ep. ad Afros, c. 2.

Ftc113 Sulpit. Sever. (Hist. 2:55) refers to this: Nicaena synodus, auctore ilio (Hosio) confecta habebatar.

Ftc114 Cf. the author’s Abhandlung ub. die Nican. Akten, in the Tub. Quart. 1851, S. 41 ff.

Ftc115 In Mansi, 2:1062; Hard. 1:326.

Ftc116 Mansi, 1:8; Hard. 1:6; Baron. ad ann. 325, n. 62.

Ftc117 Hard. 9:235; Fabric. l.c. p. 579. It would seem that the Latin speaker had here in his eye the spurious Epistola Athanasii ad Marcurn, and the answer to it (Opp. S. Athanas. 2:598), and had confounded the names of Julius and Marcus.

Ftc118 See section 27.

Ftc119 Cf Fabricii Biblioth. Groaeca, ed. Harless, 12:580.

Ftc120 Lib. 3. c. 14.

Ftc121 De decretis Syn. Nic. c. 2.

Ftc122 Annales, ad ann. 325, No. 62.

Ftc123 Euseb. Vita Constant. 3:14.

Ftc124 Crit. in Baron. ad ann. 325, No. 23.

Ftc125 Euseb. Vita Const.

Ftc126 Fabricius, l. c. 581.

Ftc127 Ittig, Histor. Conc. Nicaen. ed. Ludovici, Lips. 1712, Section 4 p. 4; Cave, Historia literaria, s.v. Gelasius Cyzic.

Ftc128 Hard. 1:311.

Ftc129 Mansi, 2:665.

Ftc130 Combefis, Novum Auchuarium, Paris 1648, 2:574 sqq.

Ftc131 Biblioth. cod. 256.

Ftc132 Combefis, l.c. p. 583.

Ftc133 l.c. p. 547 sq.

Ftc134 l.c. p. 567 sq.

Ftc135 l.c. p. 567.

Ftc136 The letter of imperial convocation given by the Pseudo-Maruthas in the 10th vol. p. 31 of Angelo Mai’s Scriptorum velerum nova Collectia, Rome 1838, is spurious. Cf. p. 9 of the Praefatio by Angelo Mai.

Ftc137 Euseb. Vita Const. 3:6.

Ftc138 Rufin. Histor. Eccles. 1:1. It is the continuation of his translation of the History of the Church by Eusebius. If, as is often done, we reckon the nine books of the translation, the quotation would be from 10:1.

Ftc139 Euseb, l.c.

Ftc140 Euseb. Vita Const. 3:7.

Ftc141 Gelas. Cyzic. Commentarius actorum Concilii Nicaeni, lib. 1. c. 1; in Mansi, 2:759; Hard. 1:345.

Ftc142 Mansi, 2:694, 696, 699, 702.

Ftc143 Socrates, Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:41.

Ftc144 Actio 18, in Hard. 3:1418.

Ftc145 Cf. above, the Introduction, p. 9.

Ftc146 e.g. Ittig, l. c. Sect. 11.

Ftc147 Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. 1:1.

Ftc148 It is to repeat the false allegations of the Pseudo-Isidore, to say that there was a sort of preparatory Synod at Rome before the assembly of Nicaea in 324, and that Arius was there anathematized. Cf. Mansi, 3:615; and Walch, Gesch. der Kirchenvers. S. 142 f.

Ftc149 Euseb. Vita Const. 3:6 and 9.

Ftc150 Euseb. Vita Const. 3:8.

Ftc151 The collections of the Melchitic and Coptic canons. Cf. Selden, Commentar, ad Eutychii origines Alexand. p. 71; Mansi, 2:1073; Bevereg. Synodicon, vol. 2; Annotat. in canones concilii Niccaeni, pp. 43, 44.

Ftc152 Historia Arianor. ad Monachos, c. 66; Apologia contra Arianos, c. 23 and 25; de Synodis Arimin. c. 43.

Ftc153 C. 2.

Ftc154 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1:8.

Ftc155 Theod. Hist. Eccl. 1:7.

Ftc156 Epiph. Haeres. 69:11.

Ftc157 Ambros. de Fide ad Gratian. 1:1.

Ftc158 In Mansi, 2:818.

Ftc159 Rufin. Hist. Eccl. 1:1 (or 10:1).

Ftc160 Concil. Chalced. Actio 2 in Hard. 2:206; Mansi, 6:955.

Ftc161 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 1:17.

Ftc162 Genesis 14:14.

Ftc163 l.c.

Ftc164 Euseb. Vita Const. 3:7; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1:14; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 1:17. This latter puts by mistake Pope Julius in the place of Pope Silvester. Many of the names mentioned are found only in the signatures of the, Council of Nicaea, of which we shall speak hereafter.

Cf. Ballerini, de Antiquis Collectionibus et Collectoribus Canonun. In the collection of Galland, de Vetustis Canonum Collectionibus dissertationurn Sylloge, 1:254 sq.

Ftc165 All these men are especially named either in the s