FOOTNOTES

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

BOOK Ft1 Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century , third edition, p. 405.

Ft2 Of these, Sections 51, 71, and 81 come into the present volume.

Ft3 These are comprised in the present volume as far as Section inclusive.

Ft4 Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 297.

Ft5 Upon the theological views of Eusebius of Nicomedia, cf. Jahn (Repet in Gottingen), Marcellus von Ancyra , 1867, p. 37 sq.

Ft6 Socrates, Hist . Eccl . 1. 14.

Ft7 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 20, and Gelasius, Vol . Actorum Concil . Nic . lib. 3. c. 2, in Mansi, Coll . Concil . t. 2, p. 939; and Harduin, Coll . Conc . t. 1, p. 459.

Ft8 Philostorg. Supplem . ex . Niceta , p. 540, ed. Vales. Morgunt.

Ft9 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 20.

Ft10 Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 2. 21.

Ft11 Philostorg. 1. 10, p. 469, ed. Vales.

Ft12 Gelas. 3. 3.

Ft13 Renaudot, Hist . Patriarch , (Alex .), 1713, p. 83. Wetzer, Restitutio Veroe Chronologioe Rerum ex Controversiis Arianis … Exortarum , Francof. 1827, p. 2.

Ft14 This document, lately discovered in Egypt, is the introduction in Syriac to the Paschal Letters of S. Athanasius, also discovered in Syriac.

These were first edited by the Anglican scholar, Cureton, in London, under the title, “The Festal Letters of Athanasius , discovered in an Ancient Syriac Version , edited by William Cureton, M.A., F.R.S., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen, Assistant-keeper of Manuscripts in the British Museum.” A German translation of this newly discovered and important document was edited by Larsow, Professor at the Grey Friars Convent at Berlin, in 1852. An account of it is given by me in the Tubingen Theologischen Quartalschrift , 1853, No. 1.

Ft15 Rufin. Hist . Eccl . 1. (10) 14.

Ft16 Epiph. Hoeres . 68. 6.

Ft17 Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 2. 17.

Ft18 This testimony of the Synod, contained in an Encyclical Letter, Athanasius brings forward in his Apologia contra Arianos , c. 6, p. 101, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.

Ft19 Sozom. 3. 19.

Ft20 Memoires pour servir a l ’Hist . Eccles . t. 6. p. 357, ed. Brux. note 8, Sur le Concile de Nicee .

Ft21 Philostorg. 2. 7; Socrat. 1. 14.

Ft22 Rufinus also, 1. (10) 11, fixes the recall of Arius later, and with Sozomen (2. 27, fin.) connects it with the Synod of Jerusalem in 325, mention of which will be made below. Cf. Tillemont, t. 6. note 9, Sur les Ariens .

Ft23 Socrat. 1. 23.

Ft24 That he was related to Julian the Apostate, the cousin of Constantine, has been stated by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 22nd book of his history. Cf. Tillemont, t. 6. pp. 108, 321, note 3, Sur les Ariens .

Ft25 Socrat. 1. 23.

Ft26 In this light entirely was it represented to the Emperor, e .g . by Constantia’s Arian court chaplain, an ally of Eusebius. Socrat. 1. 25.

Ft27 Socrat. 1. 23.

Ft28 Athanas. Apolog . c. 6; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 19, 20.

Ft29 Athanas. Apolog . c. 6.

Ft30 Eusebius was held to be orthodox by Socrates, Theodoret, Gelasius of Cyzicus, Bull, Cave (in the Appendix to the Hist . Lit .), and Valesius (in the biography of Eusebius, which he prefixed to the History of the Church by the latter). He was declared, on the contrary, to be an Arian by Petavius, Baronius, Montfaucon, Clericus, the Ballerini, and others.

Even Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome had not a good opinion of him. The true view is given by Mohler, Athanas . 2. 36-47; Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ , second edition, p. 792 sqq.; Haenell, De Eusebio Coes . religionis Christi Defensore , 1843; Ritter, Eusebii Coes . de Divinitate Christi Placita , Bonnae 1823-4.

Ft31 Mohler, l.c. . pp. 37, 40 sq.

Ft32 Socrat. 1. 23; Sozom. 2. 18; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 21.

Ft33 Theodoret, 1. 21.

Ft34 Wetzer, Restitutio Veroe Chronologioe , etc . pp. 6, 7; Tillemont, t. 7, pp. 11,298, note, Sur St . Eustathe .

Ft35 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 22.

Ft36 Athanas. Historia Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 4, p. 274, T. 1. P. i. ed.

Patav.

Ft37 Vita S . Athanasii , p. 19, in the first volume of the edit. Patav. Opp . S . Athanasii .

Ft38 Theodoret, Soc., Sozom.; Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 4.

Ft39 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 22; Socrat. 1. 24.

Ft40 Cf. my article on the Meletian schism in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. 7, p. 42 sqq.

Ft41 Hilary, Fragm . 2, p. 1287, No. 6; Fragm . 3, p. 1314, No. 11, ed.

Bened.

Ft42 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 29; Socrat. 2. 5; Sozom. 3. 8; Tillemont, t. 7, p. 117, ed. Brux., and note 11, Sur les Ariens .

Ft43 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 5, and the Vita S . Athanasii , in the first volume of the Benedictine edition, p. 20.

Ft44 See vol. 1, p. 414.

Ft45 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 59; Sozom. 2. 21.

Ft46 Cf. p. 5 sq. Montfaucon in the Vita Athanasii , already so frequently quoted, pp. 18, 21, is of opinion that Arius had been allowed to return from exile in 328, but that not until 331 had he been permitted to go to Alexandria. He tries thus to reconcile the statement in the letter of Eusebius and Theognis (Socrat. 1. 14) with the relation concerning Constantia’s chaplain (Socrat. 1. 25), and the statement of Athanasius (Apolog . c . Arian . c. 59).

Ft47 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 59; Socrat. 1. 23; Sozom. 2. 18. The succession of events to be related here has been better given by S.

Athanasius than by Socrates and Sozomen; we shall therefore follow the former.

Ft48 Sozom. 2. 18.

Ft49 Socrat. 1. 25.

Ft50 All this has been most circumstantially related by Socrates (1. 25, 26), in part also by Sozom. 2. 27, also by Rufinus, Hist . Eccl . 1, but more briefly and at an earlier date. Valesius, in his notes on Socrat. 1. 25, doubts the truth of the whole account; but Tillemont (t. 6, note 10, Sur les Ariens ) and Walch, Ketzerhist . 2. 489, are probably right in contradicting him.

Ft51 Apologia contra Arianos , c. 59, t. 1. P. 1. p. 141, ed. Patav.; Soz. 2. 22. Ft52 Athanas. Apolog . c. 60; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 2. 22.

Ft53 Rufin. 1. 11; Sozom. 2. 27.

Ft54 Apologia contra Arian . c. 60.

Ft55 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 60.

Ft56 Larsow, Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, p. 70.

Ft57 Larsow, l.c. . pp. 77, 80. In the old preface to these Festal Letters (Larsow, p. 27, No. 3) there is a false statement; and what is said of the Festal Letter of 331 (namely, that it was written on his return from the court) belongs to the Festal Letter of the year 332, as is shown by S.

Athanasius’ own words (ibid . pp. 77 and 80).

Ft58 Athanas. Apologia contra Arianos , c. 60, 61; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 2. 22; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 26, 27 (inexact).

Ft59 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 63; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 7. 23.

Ft60 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 60.

Ft61 This writing of Ischyras is to be found in Athanas. 1. c. 64. That Ischyras had thus early written this letter, and certainly before the new accusation against Athanasius, presently to be related, is clear from Athanas. l.c. . c. 65.

Ft62 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 65-67; Socrat. 1. 27; Sozom. 2. 28.

Ft63 This Synod must be placed in the year 334, as clearly appears from the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius (p. 28.

No. 7), and from Sozomen (2. 25). In the latter passage the Synod of Tyre in 335 declares that that of Caesarea had taken place a year before. That of Sardica says the same in the Epistola Synodica , published by the Eusebian party (Hilar. Oper . Fragm . 3, p. 1311, ed.

Benedict. 1693). If, however, Sozomen in the commencement of the chapter already cited, says that from the summons of Athanasius to Caesarea to his arrival in Tyre thirty months had elapsed, this is not contradictory to the foregoing statement: for (a) the Synod of Caesarea would certainly have been notified to Athanasius considerably earlier than the time of its commencement; (b) neither did he come at once to Tyre, but some time only after the opening of the Council; and lastly (c), the thirty months of Sozomen may he partly numerus rotundus , and not quite an accurate measure of time.

Ft64 Sozom. 2. 25, and preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, p. 28.

Ft65 Athanas Apolog . c . Arian . c. 65.

Ft66 This letter is found in Athanas. l.c. . c. 68.

Ft67 Athanas. l.c. . 67.

Ft68 For the Emperor’s letter to John Archaph, see Athanas. l.c. . c. 70.

Ft69 The preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, published by Larsow, p. 28, fixes the Synod of Tyre in the year 336, not, as is generally supposed, in 335.

Ft70 Euseb. Vita Constantine , lib. 4. c. 40-42. Printed in the Collections of Councils by Mansi, t. 2, p. 1139 sqq., and Hard. t. 1, p. 539, where also the other documents referring to the Council of Tyre, which we shall quote singly from their sources, especially from the Apologia Athanasii , are conveniently collected.

Ft71 Socrat. 1. 28.

Ft72 Cf. Athanas. Apolog. c . Arian . c. 73, 74, 77.

Ft73 Athanas. l.c. . c. 80; Sozom. 2. 33; Rufin. 1. (10) 16.

Ft74 Athanas. l.c. . c. 71.

Ft75 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72. According to the preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius (published by Larsow, 1852, p. 28), Athanasius set out on the 17th Epihi (July 11, 336) to travel from Alexandria to Tyre. There is here a mistake of a year. Compare Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1853, No. 1, p. 163 sq.

Ft76 Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft77 Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft78 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 54.

Ft79 Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft80 Baron. Annal . ad. ann. 334, n. 4.

Ft81 Their names are in Athanas. Apolog . contra Arianos , c. 78. Later they made this a ground of complaint against him. See below.

Ft82 Athanas. l.c. . c. 71.

Ft83 Athanas. l.c. . c. 74.

Ft84 Athanas. c. 85.

Ft85 Compare the conclusion of the Egyptian bishops’ letter in Athanas. l.c. . c. 78. Eusebius also plainly shows ( Vita Const . 4. 41) his own injustice towards the orthodox of Egypt.

Ft86 Epiph. Hoer. 68. 7.

Ft87 Sozomen (2. 28) calls him Ischyrion.

Ft88 Sozomen (2. 25) speaks of a bishop’s seat instead of an altar; but, in the first place, Ischyras had only assumed the part of priest, and therefore had no bishop’s seat in his sacrarium; besides which, Athanasius, in his Apologia , which is here the best authority, always speaks of an altar-table (pra>peza ), for instance, c. 74.

Ft89 Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft90 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72.

Ft91 Socrat. 1. 29.

Ft92 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian c. 69. That Arsenius was now first discovered, and that he only now wrote to Athanasius, appears from Socrates 1. 29, Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . c. 1. 30, and from Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 72; while in c. 69 Arsenius’ letter to Athanasius is only given by anticipation. Accordingly, the Benedictines (Vita S . Athan . p. 24. ed.

Patav.) have ascribed the discovery and repentance of Arsenius to a too early date, in the year 333; and it is far more likely that the discovery of the lost one was only made shortly before the Synod, so that the opponents of Athanasius knew nothing of it. In Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 27, Pope Julius says that afterwards Arsenius was amongst the friends of Athanasius.

Ft93 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 30; Socrat. 1. 29 sq.; Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft94 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 30.

Ft95 Sozom. 2. 26.

Ft96 Rufin. 1. 27.

Ft97 Theodoret, 1. 30.

Ft98 Rufin. l.c. .; Theodoret, l.c. .

Ft99 Philostorg. 2. 11.

Ft100 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72.

Ft101 Cf. the letter of Bishop Alexander of Thessalonica in Athanas. l.c. . c. 80, and the letter of the Egyptian bishops, ib . c. 77.

Ft102 See above, p. 17.

Ft103 Athanas. l.c. . c. 72, 83.

Ft104 Athanas. l.c. . c. 73-75.

Ft105 Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 250.

Ft106 The two letters of the clergy of Mareotis, Athanas. 50.c . c. 74, 75.

Ft107 Athanas. l.c. . c. 77.

Ft108 Athanas. l.c. . c. 78.

Ft109 Athanas. l.c. . c. 79.

Ft110 Athanas. l.c. . c. 80.

Ft111 Letter of Dionysius, Athanas. l.c. . c. 81.

Ft112 Apologia c . Arian . c. 82.

Ft113 For good reasons the Eusebians did not at all desire their protocols to come before the public, and especially before the eyes of Athanasius, and were very angry when Pope Julius later on imparted to him these acts. Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 83.

Ft114 Sozom. 2. 25; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c 85. According to Socrates (1. 32), the Synod of Tyre had twice pronounced sentence upon Athanasius; namely, the anathema, immediately after his flight, and the deposition pronounced after the return of the synodal deputation.

Ft115 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 43 sqq.; Socrat. 1. 33; Sozom. 2. 26; Theodoret, 1. 31.

Ft116 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 84; de Synodis Arimin . et Seleuc . c. 21, 22 (t. 1. P. 2. p. 586, ed. Patav.); Rufin. 1. (10) 11; Sozom. 2. 27.

Ft117 Socrat. 1. 36.

Ft118 According to the preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius (p. 28), he arrived at Constantinople on the 2d of Athyr (October 29) 336, which is another mistake of a year. Cf. above, p. 15, note 2.

Ft119 Natalis Alexander, in a special dissertation (21 to Section. 4 of his Hist . Eccl .), endeavored to show that Athanasius had rightfully appealed to the Emperor, and that generally, in like cases of unjust sentences pronounced by church authorities (thus in legal, not in purely ecclesiastical matters), an appeal to the Emperor could be made (ab abusu ). Against this the Roman censors raised objections; and Roncaglia wrote a special treatise against the recursus ab abusu , which in the later edition of Natalis Alexander was appended to the above dissertation. Roncaglia represents the matter as if with Athanasius there was no question of appeal from the sentence of a competent judge, and thus no appeal at all, but only a petition for imperial protection against a party which, through misuse of the imperial favor, had treated him with injustice. Neither was it an appeal, because Athanasius had not even waited for the sentence of the Synod, but had beforehand addressed himself to the Emperor. We add that, in any case, Athanasius did not address himself to the Emperor in order that the latter (namely, the secular judge) should decide, but that the affair might be examined by a fresh Synod, namely, of ecclesiastical judges. It must not either be overlooked, that at Jerusalem not only had the law of the Church with respect to Athanasius been violated, but also the natural law, according to which no man may be judged by his enemies.

Ft120 Athanas. l.c. . c. 66; Sozom. 2. 28. That Constantine was, nevertheless, not displeased with the Synod of Tyre, is seen from the praise which he soon after bestowed upon it, when the Alexandrians desired the return of Athanasius. Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft121 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 87.

Ft122 Cf. the conclusion of Sozom. 2. 25.

Ft123 Socrat. 1. 35; Sozom. 2. 28.

Ft124 Socrat. 1. 35; Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 87; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 31.

Ft125 Larsow, p. 28.

Ft126 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 9.

Ft127 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 87.

Ft128 Athanas. Historia Arian . ad Monachos , c. 50.

Ft129 Athanas. Historia Arian . l.c. ., and Apologia c . Arian . c. 29, 87.

Ft130 Concerning Asterius, and the treatise of Marcellus against him, cf.

Jahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , pp. 38-46 and p. 49 sqq.

Ft131 Socrat. 1. 36; Sozom. 2. 33; Tillemont, l.c. . t . 7. tit. Marcel . d ’Ancyre .

Ft132 Epiph. Hoeres . 72, h.

Ft133 Hilarii Fragm . 2. n. 21, p. 1299, ed. Bened.

Ft134 Petav. Dogm . Theol . t. 2. lib. 1. c. 13.

Ft135 Baron. Annal . ad ann. 347, n. 55, 61.

Ft136 Natalis Alexander, Section. 4. Diss . 30.

Ft137 Collectio nova Patrum , t. 2. p. 51, printed in Vogt. Bibl . Hist . Hoeresiol . t. 1. p. 293.

Ft138 Athanas. 2. 22 sqq.

Ft139 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ , second edition, p. 864 sqq.

Ft140 Hippolytus, etc., p. 217.

Ft141 Adv . Marcell . lib. 2., and De Eccles . Theologia , lib. 3.

Ft142 Somewhat older and less detailed are the Monographies on Marcellus of Ancyra , by Klose (Hamburg 1837, and Wittenberg 1859).

Ft143 Zahn, ut supr . p. 318.

Ft144 See a comparison between Marcellus and Sabellius in Zahn, l.c. . p. 215.

Ft145 Socrat. 1. 36; Sozom. 2. 32.

Ft146 Socrat. 1. 37; Sozom. 2. 29.

Ft147 Socrat. 1. 37.

Ft148 Athanas. Opp . t. 1. p. 269 sqq. ed. Patav. Athanasius was indeed in Treves when these things took place, and Arius died; but his priest Macarius was just then in Constantinople, and he relies on his statements. Athanasius gives a shorter account of the death of Arius in his Ep . ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyoe , c. 19.

Ft149 Athanas. de Morte Arii , c . 2 .

Ft150 So says Athanasius in his Epist . ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyoe, c. 19, t. 1. P. 1. p. 229, ed. Patav. So also Sozom. 2. 29. According to Rufinus, 1. (10) 12 and 13, on the contrary, Arius died on Sunday morning.

Ft151 Athanas. de Morte Arii , c. 2, 3; Socrat. 1. 37, 38; Sozom. 2. 29, 30; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 14; Rufin. 1. (10) 13; cf. Tillemont, t. 6. p. 126, ed. Brux.; Walch, Ketzerhist . 2. 500 sqq.

Ft152 Athanas. l.c. . c. 4.

Ft153 Athanas. Ep . ad Episc . Aegypti , etc., c. 19; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 51.

Ft154 Socrat. 1. 38.

Ft155 Yet, even by all this the Emperor’s eyes were not fully opened, and he neither recognized the innocence of Athanasius nor the real plans of the Eusebians, whose orthodoxy and zeal for the peace of the Church he no longer doubted (Tillemont, t. 6. p. 127, ed. Brux.).

Ft156 Athanas. de Morte Arii , c. 4; Sozom. 2. 29.

Ft157 Sozom. 2. 30; Socrat. 1. 38. [See on this whole subject Newman’s essay on the death of Arius, in Essays on Scripture and Ecclesiastical Miracles , Pickering 1870.] Ft158 Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft159 Sozom. 2. 31.

Ft160 Sozom. 2. 32.

Ft161 Socrat. 2. 6, 7; Sozom. 3. 3, 4.

Ft162 Valesius remarks on this passage that only the Bishop of Heraclea, and in no wise the Bishop of Nicomedia, had had metropolitan rights over Constantinople so long as it was not raised into a patriarchate.

Ft163 Historia Arianor . ad Monachos , c. 7.

Ft164 Compare our remark upon the thirty-ninth canon of Elvira, vol. 1, p. 152 sq.

Ft165 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 62.

Ft166 Walch, Ketzerhist . 2. 513.

Ft167 Tillemont, Hist . des Empereurs , t. 4. p. 267, ed. Venise 1732. The great difference made by Athanasius between Constantine the Great and his son Constantius appears from his Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 50.

Ft168 Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft169 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 32.

Ft170 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian c. 87.

Ft171 See Tillemont, Hist . des Empereurs , l.c. . p. 268; Socrat. 1. 39; Sozom. 2. 34; Rufin. 1. (10) 11.

Ft172 Sozom. 2. 34; Socrat. 1. 39.

Ft173 According to the preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S.

Athanasius (p. 29), Constantine died on the 27th Pachon (May 22) 338.

Compare above, p. 17, note 7.

Ft174 Euseb. Vita Const . 4. 64, 66.

Ft175 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 312 sq.

Ft176 Philostorg. Hist . Eccl . epitome 2. 16.

Ft177 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 337.

Ft178 Tillemont, l.c. . pp. 317, 667.

Ft179 Athanas. Historia Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 8.

Ft180 Philostorg. 2. 18.

Ft181 Epiph. Hoer . 68-9.

Ft182 Theodoret, 2. 1.

Ft183 Pagi fixes it only in the year 336. Critica in Annales Baron . ad. ann. 336, n. 4.

Ft184 Compare Larsow, Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, p. 28; No. 8, p. 29; No. 10, pp. 104, 105, 106, 108, 112, 114 sqq.

Ft185 Found in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 87; Theodoret, 2. 2; Socrat. 2. 3; Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft186 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 312.

Ft187 Especially by Valesius in his Observat . in Socratem et Sozom . lib. 1. c. 1, in the appendix to his edition of the Hist . Eccl . of Socrates and Sozomen.

Ft188 Theodoret, 2. 1.

Ft189 Pagi, ad ann. 338. 3.

Ft190 Vita Athanasii , p. 35 in the first volume of the Opp . S . Athanas . ed.

Patav.

Ft191 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 1. 17.

Ft192 Euseb. Hist . Eccl . 9. 10.

Ft193 Memoires pour servir a l ’Hist . Eccl . t. 8. p. 30, in the title concerning S. Athanasius, art. 31.

Ft194 Athanasius says this himself in his Apolog . ad Constantium , c. 5.

Ft195 Cf. Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . t. 4. p. 667; Pagi, ad ann. 338, n. 3.

Ft196 Athanas. Hist . Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 7.

Ft197 Tillemont, Hist . des Emp . l.c. . p. 318.

Ft198 Apolog . ad Constantium , c. 5.

Ft199 Athanas. Apolog , ad Constantium , c. 5.

Ft200 Socrat. 2. 2; Sozom. 3. 1.

Ft201 Gregor. Nazianz. Orat . 12, p. 390.

Ft202 Cf. the testimony of the Egyptian Synod concerning this, Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 7.

Ft203 Rufin. 1. (10) 11; Socrates, 1. 39, 2. 2; Sozom. 3. l; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 3.

Ft204 Cf. above, page 11. Philostorgius (2. 1), however, differs from the above authorities, when he says that the Emperor entrusted his will to Eusebius of Nicomedia; and Valesius agrees with him (in his Notes to Socrat. 1. 39), as he is of opinion that Constantine would rather have entrusted his will to a bishop, or to some other great person, than to a simple priest. But still, in the first place, a court chaplain was a very important person; and, secondly, Constantine wished to have the will kept secret until Constantius’ arrival, and a court chaplain was certainly better fitted for such a commission than a personage of high rank.

Ft205 Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 2. p. 1275.

Ft206 Baron. ad ann. 337. 9.

Ft207 Rufin. 1. (10) 11.

Ft208 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 2.

Ft209 Theodoret, 2. 2; Socrat. 2. 2; Sozom. 3. 1.

Ft210 Tillemont, Memoires , t. 3. p. 324.

Ft211 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 7; Socrat. 2. 7; Sozom. 3. 4. Liber Synod in Mansi, l.c. . p. 1275.

Ft212 Cf. Mohler, Athanas . 2. 50.

Ft213 Socrat. 2. 4; Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft214 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 9.

Ft215 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 3-19; Mansi, l.c. . t. 2. p. 1279 sqq.

Ft216 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 19, 24; Encycl . ad Episc . Epist . c. 6.

Ft217 So say the Egyptian bishops in their letter (at the end of 339 or the beginning of 340) quoted in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 19, from which it appears that Pistus was only appointed for the Arian community in Alexandria, and that Remi Ceillier (Histoire generale des auteurs sacres , t. 5. p. 161) and Mohler (Athanas . 2. 52) were not right in assuming that the Eusebians had already deposed S. Athanasius and raised Pistus to his place. The two latter scholars maintain that the promotion of Pistus took place at an Eusebian Synod at Antioch; but Tillemont had before remarked that this was not mentioned in the original documents of this Synod. Tillemont, Memoires , t. 6. p. 129, ed. Brux. Epiphanius (Hoer . 69. 8) also says that Pistus was appointed by the Arians bishop of Alexandria.

Ft218 We find these three chief points in the apology for Athanasius, drawn up by the Egyptian Synod, as cited in Mansi, l.c. . p. 1279 sqq; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 3 sqq.

Ft219 Sozom. 3. 2.

Ft220 Mansi, l.c. . pp. 1279, 1302. Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 3, 17, 18; Hist . Arian . ad Mon . c. 9. In the latter place Athanasius gives an imaginary address of the Eusebians to the Emperor, in which they represent to him how very necessary his help was to them.

Ft221 Julius, cited in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 24.

Ft222 Cf. the letter of Pope Julius in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 22, 23; 23, 27; ibid . c. 83.

Ft223 See above, p. 23 sqq.

Ft224 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 83.

Ft225 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 9; Apolog . c . Arian . c. 22, 24.

Ft226 Athanas Apol . c . Arian . c. 1.

Ft227 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 5, 7, 18; Mansi, l.c. . 1279 sqq.

Ft228 Historia Arian . ad Monachos , c. 9.

Ft229 Letter of Pope Julius in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 22, 24; ibid . c. 20; and Historia Arian . ad Monach . c. 9.

Ft230 Cf. the letter of Pope Julius in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 29.

Ft231 Athanas. Encyclica Epist . ad Episc . c. 2, p. 89, ed. Patav., and Historia Arian . c. 9, p. 276.

Ft232 Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 75, p. 307.

Ft233 Athanas. Epist . Encycl . ad Episcopos , n. 3, pp. 89, 90.

Ft234 Preface to the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, published by Larsow, p. 30, No. 11.

Ft235 Athanas. Epist . Encycl . ad Episcopos , c. 5, p. 91.

Ft236 Epist . Encycl . c. 5; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 11, p. 277.

Ft237 Epist . Encycl . ad Episc . n. 4, p. 91; Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 10, p. 276.

Ft238 Larsow gives a plan of the town of Alexandria, with its churches, in the third plate of his German edition of the Festal Letters of S.

Athanasius.

Ft239 Epist . Encycl . ad Episcop . c. 4 et 5, p. 91.

Ft240 Historia Arian . ad Monachos , c. 11, p. 277.

Ft241 Apologia contra Arianos , c. 29, 30.

Ft242 Socrat. 2. 9-11; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft243 In the treatise “Controversies concerning the Synod of Sardica,” in the Tubinger Theolog . Quartalschrift , 1852, vol. 3. p. 368 sq.

Ft244 Larsow, l.c. . p. 129.

Ft245 Larsow, l.c. . pp. 115, 124.

Ft246 Cf. Tubinger Quartalschrift , 1853, vol. 1, p. 150.

Ft247 Ibid . p. 163 sqq.; cf. above, p. 14, note 1; p. 17, note 7; p. 38, note 3.

Ft248 Printed in the third volume of the Osservazioni Letterarie of the year 1738, and in the Patavian edition of the works of S. Athanasius, t. 3. p. 89 sqq.; cf. Tub . Quartalschrift , 1852, book 3. p. 361, and 1853, book 1, p. 150.

Ft249 Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 29, 30, t. 1. P. 1. p. 117, ed. Patav.

Ft250 Hist . Arian . ad Morachos , c. 14, c. 74, 75, pp. 278, 307; Epistola Encycl . ad Episcopos , c. 2, p. 89.

Ft251 Socrat. 2. 9-11; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft252 Athanas. Epist . Encycl . c. 5.

Ft253 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 33.

Ft254 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 13, 14; Vita S . Antonii , c. 86.

Ft255 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 25, p. 114.

Ft256 Julii, Epist . in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 22, 25.

Ft257 Ibid . c. 25; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 11, p. 277.

Ft258 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 25.

Ft259 Ibid . c. 26.

Ft260 Ibid . c. 34.

Ft261 Athanas. Apolog . c : Arian . c. 21, p. 111, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Bened. Patav.

Ft262 Ibid . c. 29.

Ft263 This is generally said to have been in 342; but as we must alter the date of Athanasius’ arrival in Rome to the year 340 (see above, page 50), we must decide in this case for 34l.

Ft264 Ibid. c. 20.

Ft265 Ibid . c. 33.

Ft266 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 20, 27.

Ft267 Ibid . c. 21-35.

Ft268 Cf. above, p. 48.

Ft269 Cf. p. 59, note 2.

Ft270 Hilarius, de Synodis , c. 28, p. 1168, ed. Bened.; Sozom. Hist . Eccl . 3. 5; Socrat. Hist . Eccl . 2. 8; Athanas. de Synodis , c. 25, t. 1. P. 2. ed.

Patav. p. 589. According to the two latter, only ninety bishops were present.

Ft271 Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft272 Constantine the Great died on May 22, 337.

Ft273 See above, p. 52.

Ft274 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian , c. 22, 23, 25.

Ft275 Athanas. de Synodis , c. 22, 25, 26, p. 587 sqq.

Ft276 The idea, that in the whole thirty-six bishops were present at this Synod, arose from a false reading of the words of Pope Julius cited by Athanasius, Apol . c . Arian . c. 29. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 6, p. 328, note 27, sur les Ariens .

Ft277 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. . p. 328, note 26, sur les Ariens .

Ft278 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. .

Ft279 Socrat. 2. 8; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft280 Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft281 This much controverted statement may have originated in the words of Pope Julius I. cited above (p. 56), that the matter ought, in the first instance, to have been referred to Rome (Athan. Apolog . c . Arian . 35), and a decision obtained from thence. Mohler (Athan . 2. 66) has missed the point of e]nqen when he translates it “then” instead of “thence.”

Ft282 Harduin, Coll . Concil t. 2, p. 434.

Ft283 Ibid . p. 1156.

Ft284 Harduin, l.c. . t. 3, p. 1890.

Ft285 Harduin, l.c. . t. 4, p. 78.

Ft286 Hilar. de Synodis , seu de Fide Orientalium , c. 32, p. 1170, ed. Bened.

Ft287 Ad ann. 341. 34.

Ft288 In his remarks on our Synod in Mansi, l.c. . p. 1347.

Ft289 See above, p. 59.

Ft290 Cf. Harduin’s notes on the acts of this Synod in his Collect . Concil . t . 1. p. 590, and in Mansi, l.c. . t. 2. p. 1306.

Ft291 Cf. Pallad. Vita Chrysostom , c. 8, p. 78, 79; Socrat. 7. 18; Sozom. 8. 20; Innocent I. Epist . 7, ad Clerum et Popul . Const. p. 799, ed.

Constant. Of course the sentence or canon to which the adversaries of Chrysostom referred must be distinguished from the fourth and twelfth true Antiochian canons.

Ft292 Critica in Annales Baronii , ad ann. 341. 7 sqq.

Ft293 Histoire gener . des auteurs , etc., t. 5. p. 660, 7.

Ft294 Historie der Kirchenversammlungen , p. 170.

Ft295 Kirchengesch ., Part 6, p. 60.

Ft296 Socrat. 2. 8.

Ft297 Memoires pour servir , etc., l.c. . p. 329, note 28, sur les Ariens .

Ft298 Socrat. 2. 8.

Ft299 Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft300 That which is cited by Remi Ceillier (l.c. . p. 659) in order to show that the canon rejected by Chrysostom and his friends is not identical with the fourth and twelfth Antiochian canon, is altogether untenable.

Compare Tillemont, l.c. . p. 329, note 28, sur les Ariens , and Fuchs’ Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen , Part 2, p. 59.

Ft301 Socrat. 2. 10; Sozom. 3. 6.

Ft302 Critica in Annales Baron . ad. ann. 341. 12.

Ft303 Cf. Tillemont, l.c. . p. 329, note 28, sur les Ariens .

Ft304 Athanas. Apolog c . Arian . c. 30.

Ft305 Tillemont, l.c. . p. 329, note 27, sur les Ariens .

Ft306 In the appendix to their edition of the work of Leo the Great, t. 3, p. 25.

Ft307 Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. Diss. 26, p. 453, t. 4. ed. Venet. 1778. Ft308 See below, Section. 70.

Ft309 Tillemont, t. 7, p. 328, note 26, sur les Ariens , and t. 7, p. 11 in the treatise concerning S. Eustathius.

Ft310 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 30-34.

Ft311 See above, pp. 62, 64.

Ft312 Socrat. 1. 24.

Ft313 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian , cc. 21, 25, 26, 30, 35.

Ft314 Printed in Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 2. 1307 sqq.; Harduin, Coll . Concil . t. 1. pp. 590 sqq.; Bevereg. Synodicon sive Pandectoe Canonum , t. 1. pp. 430 sqq.; lately in Bruns, Canones Apostolorum , etc., P. 1. pp. 80 sqq. (also under the name of Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica ). Commentaries on these canons were published by Bevereg. l .c . t. 2. Annotat . pp. 188 sqq.; Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 6, pp. 135 sqq. ed. Brux. 1732; Van Espen, Commentarius in Canones , etc.; Opus Posth . p. 139 sqq. ed. Colon. 1755; Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1824, pp. 42 sqq. (by Dr. Herbst).

Ft315 Kanw= ordo clericorum , cf. Suicer, Thesaurus , s. h. v. and the sixteenth canon of the Synod of Nicaea; cf. vol. 1, p. 422.

Ft316 Cf. the eighth Apostolical canon, and Kober, Kirchenbann , pp. 57 sqq.

Ft317 Cf. Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 382. Almost the same rules are found in the Apostolical canons, Nos. 9-12 incl.

Ft318 This agrees with the Apostolical canons Nos. 3-16, and the sixteenth Nicene canon. Cf. Kober, Deposition , p. 44.

Ft319 This canon, which was employed for the confirmation of the deposition of Athanasius, and later for the overthrow of S.

Chrysostom, is really only a repetition of the twenty-ninth Apostolical canon, and the Fourth General Council (in whose collection this canon was the eighty-third) had no hesitation in appealing to it, and having it read out word for word. Cf. Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. ii. p. 434.

Ft320 This canon is in all essentials identical with the thirty-first and thirtysecond Apostolical canons, and was also cited by the Fourth General Council. Cf. Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 440.

Ft321 The same is found in the thirty-third Apostolical, and in the fifth Nicene canon. Cf. Kober, ut supr . p. 221.

Ft322 Cf. the thirty-fourth Apostolical canon.

Ft323 Concerning the kanonikai< ejpistolai< cf. Suicer, Thesaur . under the word kanoniko>v Ft324 Cf. Dr. Friedrich Maassen, Primat . des Bischof von Rom und die alten Patriarchalkirchen , Bonn 1853, p. 3. In ancient times the ecclesiastical and civil provinces had generally the same boundaries.

Ft325 Cf. Canon Apostol . No. 35.

Ft326 Kellner, Das Buss . und Strafverfahren , p. 61.

Ft327 Cf. Kober, Depos . p. 388. The like is decreed by the twenty-ninth Apostolic canon. This rule, however, like Canon 4, would seem to have been purposely drawn up, or at least renewed and emphasized, by the Synod at Antioch with a view to Athanasius.

Ft328 Cf. Canon Apost . 36.

Ft329 Cf. Kober, Depos . p. 387. The right of appealing to a superior court, namely to Rome (cf. Synod of Sardica, c. 3-5), is here not generally forbidden, but only in cases where the sentence of the first court has been unanimous. Cf. Ballerin. Ed . Opp . S . Leonis M., t. 2, p. 943.

Ft330 The General Council of Chalcedon in its eleventh sitting referred to our canon, which in its collection was the ninety-fifth. But a part of the sixth Nicene canon had already decreed the same.

Ft331 The first part of the thirty-seventh Apostolic canon gives a like rule.

Our canon, however, with certain differences, was repeated at Chalcedon (Sess . 11) as the ninety-sixth of the general collection.

Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. 2, p. 551.

Ft332 Cf. the second part of the thirty-seventh Apostolic canon.

Ft333 Cf. Canons 4 and 6 of the Council of Nicaea.

Ft334 penthkosth< comprehends the whole time between Easter and Pentecost, so that the 4th week of Pentecost is the 4th week after Easter. Cf. Bevereg. Annot . ad Can . 37 Apostol .

Ft335 Cf. Canon Apost . 38, and Canon Nicoen . 5; Kober, Kirchenbann , p. 222.

Ft336 Canon Apost . 14, Nicoen . 15.

Ft337 Canon Apost . 36.

Ft338 Cf. Canon Apost . 76.

Ft339 Cf. Canon Apost . 40b.

Ft340 Cf. Canon Apost . 41.

Ft341 Cf. supr . pp. 58-64.

Ft342 Mansi, t. 6, p. 1159.

Ft343 Socrat. 2. 8; Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft344 Cf. his letter in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 23, 34, 35.

Ft345 For instance, the acts of the Mareotic investigation.

Ft346 Socrat. 2. 10; Sozom. 3. 5.

Ft347 Athanas. de Synodis , c. 22. This and the three following Antiochian Creeds are also printed in Mansi, Coll . Concil . t. 2, pp. 1339 sqq.; and Harduin, Coll . Concil . t. 1, pp. 606 sqq.

Ft348 Cf. Sozom. 3. 5. Concerning Lucian, the teacher of Arius, see above, vol. 1, pp. 238, 9. Also an Arianizing Synod of Caria, under Emperor Valens, repeated this creed; see Mansi, 3. 398, and Sozom. 6. 12.

Ft349 Hilary, de Synodis , c. 28.

Ft350 Cf. against this, Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , p. 73.

Ft351 Socrates and Hilary (de Synodis c. 30) did not read e[kaston ajf eJka>stou but only e[kasta Ft352 Hilary, l .c . c. 31. If the synod understood uJpo>stasiv to mean substance, as did many Arians, then this expression was certainly heretical. Cf. Mohler, Athanas . 2. 57, 58.

Ft353 Cf. Mohler, Athanas . 2. 57.

Ft354 Hilar. l .c . c. 32.

Ft355 That is, “as personal Being, is with God,” Mohler, Athanas . 2. 58; or, “is with God in His own Person,” Baur, Lehre der Dreieinigkeit , 1. 477.

Ft356 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 25.

Ft357 Socrat. 2. 18.

Ft358 uJpo>stasiv used in the sense of substance. Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 298, note 1.

Ft359 Pagi, l .c . ad ann. 341, n. 14 sqq. and 34; Ceillier, l .c . p. 661 and 647.

Ft360 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 22 sqq.

Ft361 See above, pp. 58, 66.

Ft362 Hilary, De Synodis , c. 32.

Ft363 Socrat. 2. 12, 13; Sozom. 3. 7.

Ft364 Socrat. 2. 16.

Ft365 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 25; Socrat. 2. 18; Sozom. 3. 10.

Ft366 See supr . p. 80.

Ft367 Hilarii, Opp . Fragm . 3. c. 27, p. 1322, ed. Bened.

Ft368 Athanas. Apol . ad Constant . c. 4.

Ft369 Sozom. 3. 11. According to Socrat. 2. 20, the tumults in Alexandria had made the return of Athanasius impossible.

Ft370 Ammian. lib. 15. Cf. the notes of Valesius with Socrat. 2. 8.

Ft371 Athanas. Apolog . ad Constant . c. 4; Remi Ceillier, l .c . t . 5, p. 280.

Ft372 Athanas. Apolog . ad Constant . c. 4, p. 236, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.; Hilar. Pictav . Fragm . 3, p. 1315, ed. Bened.

Ft373 Socrat. 2. 20; Sozom. 3. 11; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 4.

Ft374 Athanas. Apolog . ad Constant . c. 4, p. 236.

Ft375 Socrat. 2. 19, 20; Sozom. 3. 11.

Ft376 De Synodis , c. 26, p. 589, t. 1. P. 2. ed. Patav.

BOOK Ft377 Socrat. 2. 20; Sozom. 3. 12.

Ft378 Constantine the Great died on the 22d of May 337, as we said before at p. 38.

Ft379 Also printed in the Patavian edition of Opp . S . Athanasii , t. 3. p. sqq.

Ft380 This he did in his dissertation De Epochis Sardicensium et Sirmiensium Conciliorum , which has become famous; first printed in vol. 1 of his Supplem .

Fta1 Cf. the Migne edition of the works of S. Jerome, t. 8, p. 682.

Fta2 Mamachi, ad Joh. D. Mansium de ratione temporum Athanasianorum , etc., Epistoloe 4. Romae 1748.

Fta3 Wetzer, Restitutio Veroe Chronologioe Rerum ex Controversiis Arianis … Exortarum , Francof. 1827.

Fta4 Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , No. 3, pp. 360 sqq.

Fta5 Cf. my review of Larsow’s book in the Tubing . Quartalschrift , 1853, Heft 1, p. 146 sqq., and above, page 3, note 3.

Fta6 Larsow, the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, etc., p. 141.

Fta7 Larsow, l .c . p. 31, No. 15. This preface belonged originally to another collection of the Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, now extant, and was added to those newly discovered by a later copyist. See Gluck, in the Vienna Acad . Der Wissenschaft . Philos . Histor ., Klasse 1855, Bd. 17, S. 65.

Fta8 Both dates are combined in a peculiar manner in the heading of an ancient codex of the decisions of Sardica, in Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. 1, p. 635. Here it is said that the Synod had been held under the Consuls Leontius and Sallustius (in the year 344) in the 381st year of the (Spanish) Aera (343, according to Dionysius’ reckoning). Cf. concerning the Spanish Aera, my treatise “Aera” in vol. 1 of the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte Fta9 There is more on this subject in my review of Larsow’s book, Quartalschrift , 1853, p. 163 sqq. Cf. also above, p. 14, note 1; p. 38, note 3.

Fta10 See above, p. 50 sq.

Fta11 See above, p. 84.

Fta12 If we went upon the supposition that Athanasius had already fled from Alexandria to Rome about Easter 339, then of course we could still less place the Synod of Sardica later than 343, but rather in the beginning or middle of that year, and we might suppose the stay of S.

Athanasius in Milan and Gaul, perhaps also in Rome, to have been somewhat longer (perhaps one or two months longer).

Fta13 Athanas. Historia Arianor . ad Monachos , c. 20, p. 281, t. 1. P. 1. Ed.

Patav.

Fta14 Athanasius, De Synodis , c. 26, p. 589, t. 1. P. 2. ed. Patav. Cf. above, p. 65.

Fta15 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 21, p. 281 sq.

Fta16 Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1852, p. 376.

Fta17 See above, p. 85.

Fta18 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 47, p. 130, ed. Patav. See above, p. 9.

Fta19 In its Epist . Encycl . in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 44; also in Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 3, p. 58.

Fta20 Cf. above, p. 84. Supported by a statement of Socrates, 2. 20, Binius (in his Notes on the Council of Sardica in Mansi, l .c . p. 75), and after him others, have maintained that Pope Julius had assembled this Synod.

Socrates, l .c ., says: “Many who did not appear at Sardica had tried to excuse their absence on the plea of the short space of time, and to throw the blame on Pope Julius.” It cannot, however, be denied that Socrates here confuses the Synod of Sardica with that of Rome (see above, p. 53), and that he ascribes to the former what was said of the latter Synod in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. 25. The question as to who assembled the Synod of Sardica is treated of particularly by Natal.

Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. Diss . 27, artic, 1, p. 454, ed. Venet.

Fta21 In the letter from the Synod to Pope Julius in Mansi, t. 3, p. 40; and Harduin, t. 1, p. 653.

Fta22 Sardica (Ulpia Sardica), formerly belonging to Thrace, afterwards the capital of Dacia Ripensis, was situated in the so-called Illyricum Orientale, and therefore belonged to the empire of Constantius, but still to the Roman patriarchate (see vol. 1, p. 400; and cf. Wiltsch, Kirchl . Statistik , Bd. 1. secs. 44, 80, 88). Attila destroyed this city; but it was rebuilt, and still exists under the name of Sophia (Triaditza) in Turkey in Europe, lying 59 miles west of Constantinople. It has now about 50,000 inhabitants, of whom 6000 are Christians, and is the seat of a Greek metropolitan and an Apostolic (Catholic) vicariate. But the Vicar-Apostolic of Sophia has lived for some time in the neighboring Philippopolis, which played so great a part in the history of the Synod of Sardica.

Fta23 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36, and Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Cf. the Introduction to the Epist . Concil . Sardic . ad omnes Episcopos in Mansi, 3. 58; Harduin, l .c . p. 662.

Fta24 In Mansi, 3, p. 132; Harduin, 1. 676; Hilar. Pictav . Fragm . 3. n. 16, p. 1315, ed. Bened.

Fta25 In their synodal letter itself (Mansi, t. 3, p. 133) the Eusebians say, that of the six bishops who had been sent as commissaries from Tyre to Mareotis (cf. above, p. 23), five had been present at Sardica (the sixth, Theognis of Nicaea, had died before. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 7, p. 141, ed. Brux., in the treatise concerning the Arians, art. 38).

Thus it is clear that Maris, Macedonius, Ursacius, Valens, and Theodore were present at Sardica; and as the names of the three first are not among the signatures, they must be added to the number seventy-three.

Fta26 Socrat. 2. 20; Sozom. 3. 12.

Fta27 Cf. vol. 1, p. 272.

Fta28 See above, p. 66.

Fta29 Mansi, 3. 138 sqq.

Fta30 Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . p. 97, 132, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.; also in Mansi, 3, p. 66; Harduin, t. 1, p. 667 sqq.

Fta31 Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta32 Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen , Thl. 2. sqq.

Fta33 Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . 2. 7.

Fta34 Hilar. Pictav . p. 1292 sq.; Mansi, 3. 42; Harduin, 1, p. 655.

Fta35 Cf. the Dissertation of the Ballerini in the third volume of their edition of the works of Leo I. p. 42 sqq.; also printed in Galland. De Vetustis Canonum Collect . t. 1, p. 290.

Fta36 c. 11, Dist . 16.

Fta37 Ballerini, l .c . p. 43; and in Galland. l .c . p. 291.

Fta38 Cf. concerning this, sect. 66 infr .

Fta39 Cf. Ballerini, l .c . p. 43; Galland. l .c . p. 291.

Fta40 Works of Leo I. t. 3.

Fta41 Viz. that Euphrates of Cologne and Gratus of Carthage had also been present at Sardica. The Synod sent the former, as we shall see later, as its ambassador to the Emperor Constantius; but that Gratus was present appears from the Greek text of the seventh Canon of Sardica, and from the fifth Canon of the Synod of Carthage in 348 (Mansi, 3, p. 147; Harduin, 1. 686).

Fta42 Also printed in Mansi, 3. 43 sqq.; and Ballerini, ll . cc .

Fta43 Apolog . c. 50.

Fta44 Ballerini, l .c . p. 43. n. 4, p. 292; and in Galland.

Fta45 See Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36; Mansi, 3. 51; Harduin, t. 1, p. 655.

Fta46 Cf. Wiener Akad . der Wissenschaft . Phil . Hist ., Klasse 1855, Bd. 17, S. 65.

Fta47 Theodoret, 2. 8.

Fta48 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 17.

Fta49 Ballerini, ed. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 42. n. 2. et p. 598 sq. note 2. Also in Mansi, 6, p. 1210, note sq.

Fta50 Mansi, 3. 66; Harduin, 1. 690; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 50.

Fta51 Hilar. Fragm . 2, p. 1290; Mansi, 3. 40; Harduin, 1. 653. The last sentence of the quotation is considered by Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers . Bd. 2. S. 128, as interpolated.

Fta52 Mansi, 3, p. 5 sqq.; Hard. 1. 637 sqq.

Fta53 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 49, 50; Mansi, 3, p. 42, 66; Hard. 1. 651, Fta54 Histor . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 16.

Fta55 Ibid . c. 15.

Fta56 Theodoret, 2. 15.

Fta57 Sozom. 2. 12.

Fta58 Mansi, 3, p. 131 sqq.

Fta59 Remi Ceillier, Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres , t. 4, p. 668, 669.

Fta60 Cf. supr . vol. 1, pp. 39, 281.

Fta61 This is also the view of Petrus de Marca (De Concordia Sacerdotii el Imperii , lib. 5. c. 4). Cf. Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 27, art. 2, p. 455, ed. Venet., where the question of the Presidency at Sardica is more particularly treated of.

Fta62 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 50. In the signature of the letter to Pope Julius, in Hilary, p. 1292, they do not, however, appear.

Fta63 Cf. the Ballerini Catalogue, mentioned above, p. 94.

Fta64 Socrat. 2. 20.

Fta65 Mansi, 3, p. 134; Hard. 1. 678.

Fta66 Sozom. lib. 3. c. 11.

Fta67 Mansi, t. 3, pp. 63, 131, 133.

Fta68 Mansi, t. 3. 131; Hilar. Fragm . 3. p. 1314.

Fta69 Walch, Historie der Kirchenvers . p. 176.

Fta70 See the Synodal Letter of the Orthodox in Hilar. p. 1291, 11; Mansi, t. 3. 40.

Fta71 In Mansi, p. 133; Hilar. Fragm . 3, p. 1316, n. 18.

Fta72 Mansi, t. 3. 63.

Fta73 Cf. the Synodal Letter of the Orthodox, in Athan. Apol . c . Arian . c. 48. Further, Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta74 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta75 Athanas. l .c . c. 18.

Fta76 Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36, 45; Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta77 In this case the Synod of Sardica would only have had to approve the former decisions, instead of making a new and impartial investigation of the whole affair.

Fta78 We have already shown that there were abundant materials at hand for a final decision; therefore the Synod rightly rejected a proposition which only aimed at putting aside the affair, and postponing the final decision ad Graecas Calendas .

Fta79 Mansi, 3, pp. 131-134; Hilar. Fragm . 3, p. 1315, n. 14 sqq.; Harduin, 1, p. 675 sqq.

Fta80 Athanas. Apol. c . Arian . c. 36.

Fta81 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 76; Apol . c . Arian . c. 45.

Fta82 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 44.

Fta83 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 15.

Fta84 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 16; Hilar. Fragm . 2, p. 1294, n. 16.

Fta85 Mansi, l .c . t, 3. 62; Harduin, t. 1, p. 666.

Fta86 Mansi, t. 3, p. 62.

Fta87 Ibid . t. 3, p. 59.

Fta88 Remi Ceillier (Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, pp. 670, 680) is of opinion that Arsenius himself was present at the Synod of Sardica, and he appeals for this to Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 28; but that which is there thus related, “Arsenius, said to be dead, suddenly appeared alive before the Synod,” had already taken place at Tyre in 335.

Fta89 Mansi, t. 3, p. 62, and the Synodal Letter to the Alexandrians; ibid . p. 51; Harduin, t. 1, pp. 666, 658.

Fta90 Mansi, t. 3, p. 62. Cf. above, page 24.

Fta91 Hilar. Pictav. Fragm . p. 1287, n. 5. Cf. above, page 24.

Fta92 Mansi, t.3. 62; Hard. t. 1. 666.

Fta93 The principal treatise of Marcellus against Asterius, not the su>ntagma or confession of faith, which Marcellus had already given to Pope Julius, and which, as Athanasius says, was confirmed by the Synod of Sardica, Cf. Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos . This su>ntagma had not either been the ground of the accusations of the Eusebians. Cf.

Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra , Gotha 1867, p. 77.

Fta94 Mansi, t. 3. 63; Hard. t. 1, p. 666.

Fta95 P. 31.

Fta96 P. 89.

Fta97 Mansi, t. 3, p. 63; Hard. t. 1, p. 666; cf. above, page 9.

Fta98 Mansi, t. 3, p. 63; Hard. t. 1, pp. 666, 667.

Fta99 Mansi, t. 3, pp. 55, 66; Hard. t. 1, pp. 659, 667.

Fta100 Mansi, t. 3, p. 66; Hard. t. 1, p. 667.

Fta101 Athanas. ad Episc . Aegypti et Libyoe , c. 7.

Fta102 Cf. note 2 of the Benedictine editors on Athanas. Apol . c . Arian .

Fta103 Theodoret, 2. 16.

Fta104 Athanasii, Tomus ad Antiochenses , c. 5. Opp . t. 1. Pars 2, p. 616, ed.

Patav. p. 772, edit. Paris.

Fta105 Athanas. l .c . c. 10, p. 619, ed. Patav. p. 776, ed. Paris.

Fta106 Theodoret, 2. 8.

Fta107 Lib. 4. c. 24.

Fta108 Cf. on this the notes by Binius in Mansi, 3. 83 sqq., and those by Fuchs (Bibliothek der Kirchenvers . vol. 2, p. 143 sqq.). Natalis Alexander treats particularly of this in the twenty-ninth Dissertation to his Kirchengesch . of the fourth century. Edit. Venet. 1778, t. 4, p. sqq.

Fta109 Sozomen, 3. 12.

Fta110 Ballerini, edit. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 589 sqq.; Mansi, Collect . Concil . t. 4, p. 1202.

Fta111 Sozomen, 3. 12.

Fta112 Ballerini, l .c . p. 597; Mansi, l .c . p. 1209.

Fta113 Mansi, t. 6. 1213 sqq.; Ballerini, l .c . p. 605 sqq.

Fta114 Athanasius only says, “Some wished this.” See above, p. 106.

Fta115 Quoted in Mansi, t. 7, p. 463; Hard. t. 2, p. 647.

Fta116 Ballerin. edit. Opp . S . Leonis M ., t. 3, p.30 sqq. Spittler’s Critical Examination of the decisions of Sardica in Meusel’s Geschichtsforscher , part 1, Halle 1777; reprinted in Spittler’s Sammtl . Werken , published by Karl Wachter, vol. 8, p. 126 sqq. Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers . vol. 2, p. 104. In earlier times some learned men, like the Gallican Richer (Hist . Conc . Generale , t. 1, p. 98, ed. Colon.), have considered the Latin text alone to be the original; others, for instance Walch (Gesch . der Kitchenvers . p. 179), the Greek.

Fta117 Printed in Justelli, Bibliotheca Juris Canon . Veteris , Paris 1661, fol. t. 2, p. 603.

Fta118 On Tilius, cf. vol. 1, p. 355.

Fta119 Cf. vol. 1, p. 375, note 5.

Fta120 T. 1, p. 482 sqq.

Fta121 Section 5. Printed in Mansi, t. 6, p. 1141 sqq., and in the Ballerini edition of the works of Leo the Great, t. 3, p. 513 sqq.

Fta122 In Mansi, t. 3, p. 22 sqq.; Hard, 1, p. 635 sqq.

Fta123 In Mansi, t. 3, p. 30 sqq.; Hard. l .c .

Fta124 Cf. Ballerin. edit. Opp . S . Leonis M., t. 3, p. 33, n. v.

Fta125 In the Greek text three canons are wanting which the Latin has, and vice versa in the latter two canons are wanting which the Greek text has; and that from their having exclusive reference to the Thessalonian Church.

Fta126 Cf. Kober, Deposition , 1867, p. 68 sq.

Fta127 Commentarius in Canones et Decreta juris veteris ac novi , etc., Colon. 1755, fol. p. 265 sqq.

Fta128 Cf . supr , p. 54.

Fta129 Cf . Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 19.

Fta130 Cf. above, page 72, and Quartalschrift , p. 20; Van Espen, l .c .

Fta131 Van Espen, l .c . p. 266.

Fta132 Fuchs, l .c . p. 106.

Fta133 Van Espen, l .c . p. 266.

Fta134 Instead of pri>siv judicium , as Isidore and the Prisca rightly have it, Dionysius reads concilium , which gives this meaning: “so that a fresh Council should take place.” Still this does not affect the chief point.

Fta135 According to the Greek text, and that of Dionysius, those who had pronounced the first judgment were to write to Rome; and Fuchs (l .c . p. 107) rightly adds, that they were to do this at the desire of the condemned. But, according to Isidore and the Prisca , the right or the duty of bringing the affair before Rome, also belonged to the neighboring bishops. I believe that the last interpretation has only arisen through a mistake, from a comment belonging to the next sentence being inserted in the wrong place, of which we shall again speak in the following note. It only remains to be remarked here, that Isidore and the Prisca have not the name Julio , and that its insertion has given occasion to the Gallicans for an hypothesis, of which we shall speak later. But Hardouin’s conjecture, that instead of Julio , perhaps illi may be read, is entirely gratuitous, contrary to the Greek text, and plainly only a stratagem against the Gallicans.

Fta136 The Greek text does not say expressly who had to decide as to the necessity of a fresh investigation; but the Latin of Dionysius does so, and assigns the decision to the Pope. This difference is, however, of no importance; for clearly he, to whom they had written on the subject, i .e . the Pope, must decide on this point. Cf. the treatise (by Herbst) concerning the Council of Sardica, in the Tubinger Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 23. The rule that the Pope was to constitute the court of second appeal of those bishops who were near the Church province in question, is expressly contained in the Greek text, but is wanting in the Latin, in Dionysius, as well as in Isidore and the Prisca , who only generally remark that the Pope had to name the judges of the court of second appeal. Now, if we assume that already in early times a reader of the Latin text observed this omission, and by use of the Greek text put in the margin of his copy, after the words judicium renovetur , the words ab allis (or illis ) episcopis qui in provincia proxima morantur , then this gloss might easily, by a later copyist, have been inserted too soon by one line in the text. Thus it came to pass that the Prisca and Isidore, who in general harmonize far more with each other than with Dionysius, accepted this addition, and placed it in a context, where it would mean that “the bishops of the neighbouring provinces might also write to Rome” (see preceding note); while Dionysius never accepted this gloss.

Fta137 Again, the Greek text does not say who had to decide on this point, as does the Latin: si autem probaverit (scil . Papa ). This, however, is explained by what has been said above. No difference exists as to the fact, for, according to the context of the whole canon, this decision could belong to no other than the Pope. Cf . Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 24.

Fta138 The difference existing in this passage between the Greek and Latin text does not alter the sense, for the Latin text also says clearly: “If the Pope decides to abide by the judgment of the court of first appeal, then the decision shall hold good.” Under such circumstances we cannot see how it could have been supposed that the Latin text had here been falsified in the interest of Rome, in Isidore and the Prisca , because it there stands: quoe decreverit Romanus episcopus , confirmata erunt .

Cf. Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 24 sq.; Van Espen, l .c. p. 267; also Fuchs, l .c . p. 107. In truth, the Latin text plainly does not here attribute more right to the Pope than does the Greek; for the decreverit Romanus episcopus here simply refers to the decision that no new inquiry should take place. Cf. Palma, Proelect . Hist . Eccl . in Collegio Urbano , 1838, t. 1. P. 2, pp. 92, 93. Neither must we understand before the verb decreverit , which in Dionysius stands without any subject, Synodus Provincialis , as Van Espen thinks (p. 267), but Pontifex Romanus ; for the decision, according to the Greek text, as well as the Latin of Isidore and the Prisca , belongs to no other than the Pope.

Fta139 In Bevereg. Synodicon sive Pandectoe , t. 1, p. 487-489.

Fta140 S . Leonis M. Opp . ed. Baller., t. 2, p. 950.

Fta141 Van Espen, l .c . p. 268.

Fta142 Palma, l .c . pp. 89, 92.

Fta143 Walter, Kirchenrecht , 11th edition, p. 34, note 27.

Fta144 Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 28, propos, 2, p. 464, ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta145 De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imp . lib. 7. cap. 3. n. 10.

Fta146 Memoires , etc., t. 8 in the treatise of S. Athanasius, art. 50, p. 48, ed.

Brux. 1732.

Fta147 De Antiqua Ecclesioe Disciplina , diss. 2 § 3, p. 86, ed. Magunt 1788.

Fta148 Fleury, Hist . Eccl . Livre 12, § 39.

Fta149 Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, p. 684.

Fta150 Neander, Kirchengeschichte , vol. 3, 2d ed. p. 348.

Fta151 Stolberg, Gesch . des Relig . Jesu , vol. 10, p. 489. 9. His words, “In such a case,” show plainly that he, like us, referred the canon to the appeal after the first sentence.

Fta152 Eichhorn, Kirchenrecht , vol. 1, p. 71.

Fta153 Kober, Deposition , etc., p. 390.

Fta154 Fuchs, l .c . p. 108.

Fta155 Rohrbacher, Histoire universelle de l ’eglise , t. 6, p. 310.

Fta156 Ruttenstock, Instit . Hist . Eccl . t. 2, etc., 128.

Fta157 Can. 7 in Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca .

Fta158 The Greek text has poi~v ajgcisteu>ousi th~| ejparci>a| the Latin, “qui in finitima et propinqua provincia sunt,” — which is no important difference.

Fta159 According to Mansi’s proposed correction of the text, which we have already inserted.

Fta160 De Concord . Sacerd . et Imp . lib. 7. c. 3, § 11, p. 1001.

Fta161 Instead of tou~ ejpisko>pou we should probably read toupouv, ejzarkei~n Cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 26, note 10.

Fta162 Also received into the Corp . Jur . Can . c. 36, causa 2. 9. 6.

Fta163 De Concord ., etc., lib. 8. c. 3, § 6.

Fta164 Cf. Ballerin. Observ . in Part 1. diss. 5; Quesnelli, in their edition of the works of Leo, t. 2, p. 951. 14.

Fta165 Du-Pin, De Antiqua Eccles . Discipl . diss. 2. c. 1, Section. 3, p. 86 sq. ed. Magunt.

Fta166 Richer, Hist . Concil . General , lib. 1.c. 3, Section. 4, p. 93, ed. Colon.

Fta167 Febron. De Statu Eccles . cap. 5, secs. 5, 6.

Fta168 Nat. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 28, propos, 1, p. 461 sqq.

Fta169 Ballerin. ed. Opp . d . Leonis , t. 2, p. 947 sqq., and especially p. sqq.

Fta170 Palma, l .c . pp. 86-89.

Fta171 Roskovany, De Primatu Rom . Pont . Augustae Vindel 1834, pp. 191, 195.

Fta172 Cf. Nat. Alex. l .c . p . 463 a : “Mos enim solemnis est veteribus conciliis, cum antiquas Ecclesiae consuetudines legesque non scriptas renovant, illas proponere, quasi de novo instituerint,” etc.

Fta173 Cf. the Pope’s letter in Athanas. Apolog . contra Arian . c. 22, 23, 25.

Cf. above, page 54.

Fta174 Cf. below, Section. 67.

Fta175 Richer, Hist . Conc . General , lib. 1.c. 8, Section. 4, p. 90.

Fta176 In Concordatis nationis German integris , etc., t. 2, p. 25, t. 3, pp. 129-132.

Fta177 Spittler, in the treatise, “Critical Examination of the Sardican Decisions,” first printed in Meusel’s Geschichtsforscher , Part 4. Halle 1777; again, in Spittler’s Sammtlichen Werken , published by Karl Wachter, Part 8, p. 129 sq.

Fta178 Cf. Du-Pin, De Antiqua Eccl . Discipl . diss. 2. c. 1. Section. 3, pp. 86, 88, ed. Magunt.

Fta179 Cf. Van Espen, l .c . p . 269; Marca, l .c . Section. 14; Du-Pin, l .c. p. 90, ed. Magunt.

Fta180 Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 28, propos, 2, p. 463 sqq.

Fta181 l .c . p. 951 sqq.

Fta182 Palma, l .c . p. 92.

Fta183 That is, in the letter written by him in the name of Charles the Bald to Pope John VIII. Cf. Nat. Alex. l .c . p. 465 a ; Marca, l .c . lib. 7. c. 3, Section. 14.

Fta184 Palma, l .c . p. 86. Palma repeats the same in somewhat different words in p. 91: de quibuslibet ecclesiasticis judiciis , in quibus ad eum (the Pope) fuerit appellatum .

Fta185 Ballerini, l .c . pp. 950, 951; Palma, l .c . p. 93.

Fta186 Opp . S . Leonis , t. 2, pp. 947-950; Palma, l .c . pp. 88, 89, 92.

Fta187 Walter takes the same view in his Kirchenrecht , 11th edition, p. 34, note 27, which accepts without alteration, and exhibits very clearly, the results of the Ballerini’s examination.

Fta188 Cf. supr . pp. 122, 123.

Fta189 Palma, l .c . p. 90, expressly says this.

Fta190 Palma, l .c . p. 88.

Fta191 Cf. supr . p. 117.

Fta192 Cf. Palma, l .c . p. 93; Ballerini, l .c . p. 950, n. 10.

Fta193 Canon 3.

Fta194 Canon 3.

Fta195 Canons 3 and 5.

Fta196 Canon 5.

Fta197 Canon 4.

Fta198 I could not obtain an ancient treatise concerning the Synod of Sardica in general, and the three canons just mentioned in particular, by Marchetti, Del Concilio di Sardica e de ’ suoi Canoni su la forma de Giudizi Ecclesiastici , Rom. 1783; but to judge from Marchetti’s other writings, the loss may not be great.

Fta199 Cf. supr . vol. 1, p. 356.

Fta200 Cf. my treatise on pseudo-Isidore in the Tubing . Theol . Quartalschrift , 1847, pp. 641, 647, 653 sqq., 658 sqq., and the article:

Hincmar of Rheims, Hincmar of Laon, and pseudo-Isidore, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte.

Fta201 In Dionysius and the Prisca 5 and 6, in Isidore 6.

Fta202 The two old Greek scholiasts, Balsamon (in Bevereg. 1. 490) and Aristenus (ibid . p. 492), have thus interpreted the text; and of later writers, especially Van Espen, l .c . p. 269 sq.; Tillemont (t. 8, p. 48), and Herbst (Tub . Quartalschrift , 1825, p. 32).

Fta203 Instead of plurimi , one codex reads non plurimi . But although Hardouin (Collect . Concil . t. 1, p. 642 ad marg.) declares the last reading to be by far the best, it is neither critically supported, nor calculated to remove the difficulties of interpretation.

Fta204 The ordinare , which is wanting in Dionysius, stands in Isidore and the Prisca . Moreover, as according to the fourth Nicene canon this single bishop might not consecrate any other, — for this, three bishops were needed, — the words must necessarily have this meaning: “If he from carelessness neglects himself to take the initiative, and to summon bishops from the neighbouring provinces for the consecration of new colleagues,” etc.

Fta205 In the Prisca it stands very similarly: Et populi confugerint ad vicinos provincioe episcopos .

Fta206 Convenire , sc. per literas .

Fta207 Flodoard, Geschichte der Rheimser Kirche (lib. 3. c. 20).

Fta208 Van Espen, l .c . pp. 269, 270.

Fta209 C. 9, dist. 65.

Fta210 In Bevereg. t. 1, p. 491.

Fta211 Also in Bevereg. t. 2. Annotat , p. 200.

Fta212 Printed in Mansi, t. 6, p. 1204; and in Leonis Opp . ed. Ballerini, t. 3, p. 591.

Fta213 S . Leonis Opp . t. 3, p. 32. 4.

Fta214 Hardouin, Coll . Concil . t. 1, p. 823 ad marg.

Fta215 Mansi, t. 3, p. 585, note 4.

Fta216 Ballerini, ed. Opp . S . Leonis . M . t. 3, p. 41.

Fta217 In his treatise concerning the Sardican decrees, Sammtl . Werke , vol. 8, pp. 147 sq.

Fta218 Hardouin et Mansi (ll . cc .).

Fta219 If they confused the canon of Sardica with one of the Nicene canons, the reason was the same, doubtless, as in the case of Zosimus. Cf. vol. 1, pp. 356 sq.

Fta220 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 8.

Fta221 C. 28, causa 23, quaest. 8.

Fta222 Gratus of Carthage was, as we know, a member of the Synod of Sardica, and does not here bear favorable testimony to his countrymen.

Fta223 Here the Latin text in Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca has pupillis instead of laicis , which seems better. But the old Latin translation from the Greek probably read lai`koi~v as the corrupt version liutius instead of laicis shows. Mansi, t. 6, p. 1205. In other respects the Greek and Latin in this canon agree tolerably accurately.

Fta224 The Emperor Justinian, in his Novella 6 c. 2, for instance, demanded that every bishop should at least appear once at the Court; but in the seventh and thirteenth Council of Toledo, the bishops are ordered to appear at the Court, where the rescue of a fellow-creature depends upon it. Cf. Van Espen, l .c . pp. 271 sq.

Fta225 Concerning these petitions to be presented by the bishops, cf. also Van Espen, l .c . p. 272.

Fta226 According to Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , the first half of the ninth canon.

F227 The text of Dionysius: ne episcoporum improbitas nitatur , gives no good meaning; but instead of nitatur should probably be read notetur , as Isidore has it. The Prisca gives: ne episcoporum importunitas depravetur .

Fta228 So Zonaras explains this passage in Bevereg. t. 1, p. 494; also Fuchs, l .c . p. 118; Van Espen, l .c . p. 273.

Fta229 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , the second part of the ninth canon.

Fta230 According to the Latin text, it was expressly ordered that every bishop should send in his petition through the metropolitan. But the Greek text does not express clearly any such order. Yet the Greek scholiasts found such in it, because the eleventh Antiochian canon had already ordered the like, namely, that everything should pass through the hands of the metropolitan.

Fta231 Kat ajkolouqi>an ajkolou>qwv (see Zonaras in Bevereg. t. 1, pp. 495, 496)= in consequence = at once, at the same time.

Fta232 The old Latin translation of the Greek text so often mentioned is here useless, because it is so corrupt.

Fta233 See Mansi, t. 3, pp. 39, 42.

Fta234 This passage is, of course, also wanting in the Greek scholiasts and in the old Latin translation. And in the Corpus Jur . Can . the whole ninth canon is wanting.

Fta235 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 13.

Fta236 1 Timothy 3:6. St. Paul here understands by neophyte one who shortly before was still a heathen. Such a neophyte, says the canon, does he resemble who is suddenly taken from worldly business to be a bishop.

Fta237 Van Espen, l .c . p. 275 sq.

Fta238 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 14.

Fta239 Thus do Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus interpret it in Bevereg. l .c . t. 1, p. 488 sq.

Fta240 Concerning such doings of the episcopi invasores , cf. Kellner Das Buss und Stafverfahren gegen , Kleriker , Treves 1863, p. 30; Kober, Deposition , etc., 1867, p. 122 sq.

Fta241 Elvira, canon 16.

Fta242 Van Espen, l .c . p. 276, also his Jus . Eccl . t. 1. P. 1. tit. 3, c. 10 et 11.

Fta243 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 15.

Fta244 According to the Latin text of Dionysius, it is: — “Some bishops do not reside in their cathedral town, either because they have more possessions in other places, or from affection to their relatives; … but from henceforth they shall only be absent for the space of three weeks.”

Isidore and the Prisca , however, are nearer the Greek text, as instead of resident (as says Dionysius) they more rightly read possident .

Fta245 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 16.

Fta246 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 17.

Fta247 Instead of ajqro>n perhaps ajqw~on “innocent,” should be read, for the Latin text has innocens , and so also has the old Latin translation.

Fta248 Here the Latin text, instead of metropolitan , has episcopos finitimos , because at that time the metropolitan constitution was not so developed and so universal in the East as in the West. Cf. Ballerini, ed. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 32.

Fta249 Zonaras understands by this the nearest metropolitan, and remarks that this never came into practice. Bevereg. t. 1, p. 503.

Fta250 On this, cf. Kober, Kirchenbann , 1863, pp. 88, 222.

Fta251 Zonaras (l .c .) takes this to mean: “If any clerics of the diocese to which the complainant belongs know him to be arrogant, they shall reprimand him per correptionem fraternam .”

Fta252 See vol. 1, pp. 386 sq. and supr . p. 72; but this canon is in Corpus Juris Can . c. 4, causa 11. quaest. 3.

Fta253 See p. 97.

Fta254 Mansi, 6, p. 1207. Cf. also Ballerin. edit. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 31. n. 3.

Fta255 C. 1, dist. 61.

Fta256 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 19.

Fta257 Kober, Suspension , etc., 1862, p. 46 sqq. and p. 143 sq. and p. 292, here understands not the absolute invalidity of such an ordination, but only suspension.

Fta258 Part 2, p. 123, note 125.

Fta259 Van Espen, Commentarius in Canones et Decreta , etc., p. 278, ed.

Colon. 1755, fol.

Fta260 Harduin, Collect . Concil . t. 1, p. 686; Mansi, t. 3, p. 147.

Fta261 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 20.

Fta262 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 21.

Fta263 Cf. Canon 16.

Fta264 Cf. Kober, Deposition , p. 500 sqq., p. 60.

Fta265 In the Synodal Letter of the Eusebians from Philippopolis (quoted in Hilar. Fragm . 3, p. 1317, n. 20), mention is made of a quarrel between Protogenes of Sardica, and a bishop of Thessalonica. The name of the latter is not clearly given, but it should probably be read “Aetio.”

Besides, the text is so corrupt that it is uncertain which of the two attacked the other. On this passage, cf. the notes of the Benedictine editors on this passage in Hilary.

Fta266 This explanation was adopted by Dr. Herbst in the Tubinger Theol . Quartalschr . 1825, p. 34; also by Hergenrother, Photius , vol. 2, p. 338.

Fta267 Bevereg. t. 1, p. 505; t. 2. Annot . p. 201.

Fta268 Tillemont, Memoires , etc., t. 8, p. 49 in the treatise of S. Athanas. art. 52.

Fta269 Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, p. 691.

Fta270 Cf. Tubing . Theol . Quartalschr . 1825, p. 34.

Fta271 In Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca , canon 11.

Fta272 In Bevereg. t. 1, p. 507, canon 20 ends here, and No. 21 begins.

Fta273 The Greek scholiasts explain these words a little differently, but the meaning is not substantially altered.

Fta274 Concerning ,kana>kiov = via publica , cf. Suicer, Thesaur . in loc .

Fta275 Van Espen, l .c . p. 275.

Fta276 Concerning this, cf. above, pp. 3, 87.

Fta277 Larsow, Festal Letters of S . Athan . p. 31.

Fta278 See vol. 1, p. 327.

Fta279 See vol. 1, p. 328.

Fta280 Larsow, pp. 141, 50, No. 18.

Fta281 Larsow, l .c . pp. 33, 50, No. 21.

Fta282 In the year 350 the Alexandrians kept their Easter on the 8th April, the Romans on the 15th April; in 360, the former on the 23d April, the latter on the 19th March; in 368, the Alexandrians on the 20th April, the Romans on the 23d March. Cf. Ideler, vol. 2, p. 251, and the tables of Professor Galle in Larsow, p. 47. The further history of the Easter question we have given above, vol. 1, pp. 329 sqq.

Fta283 Athanas. Apologia c . Arian . c. 44 sqq.; Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. sqq. Also in Mansi, t. 3, p. 57 sqq. and p. 69 sqq.; Hard. t. 1, p. 662; Theodoret, Hist . Eccl . t. 2, p. 8.

Fta284 Cf. the marginal note in Mansi, t. 3, p. 58, and Ballerin. in their edit. Opp . S . Leonis , t. 3, p. 31-32. But the old Latin translation from the Greek text, which was discovered by Maffei at Verona, and edited by the Ballerini and Mansi, differs from the Latin original. Cf. above, pp. 94, 132.

Fta285 See above, pp. 24, 46.

Fta286 See above, pp. 29 sqq., 104.

Fta287 See above, p. 105.

Fta288 Cf. above, p. 93.

Fta289 On the pretended Sardican Creed, which in Theodoret and elsewhere appears added to this Synodal Letter, cf. above, pp. 106 sq.

Fta290 Mansi, t. 3, p. 55; Hard. t. 1, p. 655.

Fta291 This Synodal Letter is twice given in Athanas. Apolog . c . Arian . c. sqq.; c. 41 sqq. The first time it is addressed to the Church of Alexandria, the second time to the bishops of Egypt and Libya; but it is in fact one and the same document. That the second form given by Athanasius was also originally intended for the Alexandrians in specie , and not for the bishops of Libya and Egypt, appears from c. 43, where Alexandria is spoken of as “your town,” and Athanasius as “your bishop.” Accordingly, the second form was probably nothing more than a copy of the letter to the Alexandrians made for the Libyan and Egyptian bishops. This second form is, moreover, word for word the same as the first in the greater part of its contents; only the passage concerning the Alexandrian priests Aphthon, etc. is wanting, but it has two additions, one at the end of c. 42, and another in c. 43. See next page, notes 1, 4. On the connection of these two forms, cf. the Admonitio of the Benedictine editors to their edition of the Apologia Athanasii , n. 8, p. 95, edit. Patav.

Fta292 The second form in Athanasius, l .c . c. 42, has here the addition: “Not only you, but also others of our fellow-servants have been injured, and have complained of it with tears.”

Fta293 This letter from the Synod to the Emperors no longer exists; the Synod, however, mentions it in its letter to Pope Julius, in Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. 1291, n. 12.

Fta294 Secular officers had indeed practiced all kinds of violences in Egypt in order to introduce Arianism. Cf. above, pp. 48 sq., 52.

Fta295 In the second form of this Synodal Letter the names of the most distinguished Eusebians are here inserted, Athanas. l .c . c. 43.

Fta296 Mansi, t. 3, p. 66; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 36, c. 49.

Fta297 It is now only extant in Latin, with considerably injured text, in Hilar. Fragm . t. 2, p. 1297, and in the Collectio Cresconiana (cf. Baron. ad ann. 347. 24), and was perhaps from the first only written in Latin. It is also printed in Mansi, t. 3, p. 40 sq.; Hard. t. 1, p. 653 sq.

Fta298 Cf. above, p. 96. Blondell held this passage — Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur , si ad caput , i.e. ad Petri Apostoli sedem de singulis quibusque proviciis domini referant sacerdotes — to be an interpolation, on account of its barbarous Latin, i .e . valde congruentissimum (Blondell, De Primatu Ecclesioe , p. 106).

Remi Ceillier (Histoire Generale , etc., t. 4, p. 696), on the other hand, remarked that the barbarous Latin might be explained by the supposition that the letter had been first written in Greek, and that we have only a translation. But Remi Ceillier could not deny that this sentence interrupted the train of thought of the letter, and looked like something inserted in parenthesis. Bower (History of the Popes , vol. 1, p. 192) and Fuchs (Biblioth . der Kirchenvers . vol. 2, p. 128) have urged this still more strongly; the latter especially has confidently urged the conjecture that this sentence was originally a gloss added ad marginem by a reader of the letter, and taken into the text by a later copyist. But Remi Ceillier, in order to save the sentence, says that the Synod had only intended by these words to point en passant to its decision with regard to the appeal to Rome.

Fta299 This deacon, however, did not sign the Synodal acts; this was done by the two priests only. See Mansi, t. 3, p. 66; Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 50.

Fta300 That is, in the provinces immediately under the Papal jurisdiction.

Fta301 Apolog . S . Athanas . c. 53.

Fta302 The name of this Ingenius appears twice in signatures, in Athanasius, Apolog . c. Arian, c. 74, p. 151; and Epist . Encyl . ad Episc . n. 7, p. 317, t. 1. P. 1. ed. Patav.

Fta303 Mansi, t. 6, p. 1217; Baller. l .c . p. 607 sqq.

Fta304 Mansi, t. 6, p. 1219: Baller. l .c . p. 609.

Fta305 Mansi, l .c . p. 1221 sqq.; Baller. l .c . p. 611 sqq.

Fta306 Socrat. 2. 20.

Fta307 Hilar. Pictav. Fragm . 3, p. 1307-1326; Mansi, 3, p. 126-140; Hard. 1, p. 671 sqq.

Fta308 The rightful bishop of Carthage was named Gratus. See above, pp. 97, 137.

Fta309 See above, pp. 31 sq.

Fta310 Our text, corrupt in so many places, has presbyterum Narchen , probably instead of Ischyram .

Fta311 See above, pp. 18-20. Cf. pp. 48 sq.

Fta312 We see that the Eusebians attribute the outrages which occurred at the intrusion of Gregory (cf. supr . pp. 18 sq.) to Athanasius. With equal right, one who attacks another might throw the blame of the blood shed upon the one attacked, because, if he had not defended himself, all would have ended quietly.

Fta313 Here is especially meant the letter of defense of Athanasius sent by the Egyptian and Libyan bishops. See above, pp. 53 sq.

Fta314 Nothing is anywhere said of this. Possibly Athanasius, who was not himself present at the Synod of Antioch in 330, only did not afterwards expressly protest against it.

Fta315 See above, p. 98.

Fta316 Hilary gives this twice: once in our passage (Fragm . 3, p. 1322), again in de Synodis , c. 34, p. 1172. Cf. Mansi, t. 3, p. 137. 125.

Fta317 Cf. Athanas. de Synodis , c. 26, 1. 2., and above, p. 79.

Fta318 Soc. 2. 20.

Fta319 De Synodis , c. 35 sq.

Fta320 In Mansi, t. 3, p. 134; Hilar. Fragm , 3, p. 1319, n. 23.

Fta321 Tillemont, Memoires , t. 6, in the treatise on the Arians, art. 39, p. 142, ed. Brux.

Fta322 Histoire Generale , t. 4, p. 699.

Fta323 In Hilar. l .c . p. 1317, n. 19; Mansi, t. 3, p. 133.

Fta324 It is this passage to which Tillemont and Remi Ceillier appeal in Mansi, t. 3, p. 133, and Hilar. l .c .

Fta325 Mansi, t. 3, p. 130.

Fta326 Cf. Walch, Historie der Kirchenvers . p. 180; Fuchs, l .c . 150, note; Remi Ceillier and Tillemont, ll . cc .; Neander, Kirchengesch . 2. 2 (vol. 4), p. 739, second edition.

Fta327 Fuchs, l .c .

Fta328 See the remarks in Mansi, t. 3, p. 195. Also Tillemont and Remi Ceillier, ll . cc .

Fta329 Augustine, Contra Crescon . lib. 3, c. 34, lib. 4, c. 44; Epist . (former y 163), ad Eleusium , c. 3.

Fta330 Baron. ad ann. 347, n. 62, c. 72-74, 96-98; Remi Ceillier, l .c . pp. 698, 699; Tillemont, l .c .

Fta331 See above, pp. 84, 90.

Fta332 Cf. vol. 1, p. 3. [The Latrocinium of Ephesus in 449 is a classical instance.] Fta333 See above, p. 93.

Fta334 We find the result of this circulation of the decrees of Sardica in c. of the Apology of S. Athanasius contra Arianos of the year 350. See above, p. 93.

Fta335 Natalis Alexander, Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 27, art. 3.

Fta336 Cf. vol. 1, p. 356, supr . p. 133. Also the successors of Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, even Leo the Great and the twelfth Synod of Toledo in 681, made this confusion, cf. Hard. t. 2, pp. 26, 38; t. 3, p. 1720, n. 4; Ballerin. Opp . S . Leonis M . t. 2, p. 1171, and Tub . Quartalschr . 1852, p. 402 sqq.

Fta337 Apolog . contra Arian . c. 1.

Fta338 Sulp. Sev. Hist . lib. 2.

Fta339 Socrat. Hist . Eccl . lib. 25. c. 20.

Fta340 In Hard. t. 3, p. 317 A.

Fta341 Vol. 1, p. 4.

Fta342 Harduin, t. 3, p. 1659 C.

Fta343 Harduin, t. 3, pp. 135 B, 1814 A.

Fta344 Cf. above, pp. 171 sq.

Fta345 Cf. Quartalschrift , 1852, p. 407.

Fta346 Gregor. M. liber 2. Epist. 10. Isidor. Hispal. Etymolog . liber 6. c. 16; see above, p. 2.

Fta347 In their edition of the works of S. Leo, t. 3, p. 1., and in Galland, De Vetustis Canonum Collect . t. 1, p. 301.

Fta348 De Controversiis Christ . Fidel , t. 2, pp. 5 and 3, ed. Colon. 1615.

Fta349 De Concord . Sacerdotii et Imp . lib. 7, c. 3, n. 5.

Fta350 Historia Concil . Gen . t. 1, p. 89.

Fta351 Histoire Generale des Auteurs Sacres , t. 4, p. 697; Remi Ceillier here says rightly: “l’eglise qui est l’arbitre de ces sortes de questions, n’a point juge a propos de lui donner rang parmi ceux qu’elle respecte sous ce titre.”

Fta352 Gesch . der Relig . Jesu Chr . vol. 10, p. 490 sq.

Fta353 Kirchengesch . second edition, vol. 3, p. 349.

Fta354 Annales , ad ann. 347, n. 7-9; cf. Tubing . Quartalschr . l .c . p. 412.

Fta355 Hist . Eccl . Section. 4. diss. 27, art. 3.

Fta356 In their edition of the works of S. Leo, t. 3, p. 49, also in Galland, l .c . pp. 300 sqq.

Fta357 In his additions to Natal. Alex. Hist . Eccl . l .c .

Fta358 Proelectiones Hist . Eccl . quas in Collegio Urbano habuit , Jo. Bapt.

Palma, Romae 1838, t. 1. P. 2, p. 85.

Fta359 Cf. Natal. Alex. l .c .; Scholion, 3. t. 4, p. 460, ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta360 Historia Arianorum ad Monachos , c. 18, 19.

BOOK Fta361 For instance, he relates here (l .c . c. 19) the persecution of Bishop Theodulus of Trajanople in connection with events which only took place after the Synod of Sardica. And yet the bishop died even before the Synod of Sardica dispersed, as appears from its Encyclical in Athanas. Apol . c . Arian . c. 45. Cf. the notes of Benedictine editors on Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 19.

Fta362 See p. 161.

Fta363 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 18, 19.

Fta364 Ibid . c. 18.

Fta365 Ibid . c. 19.

Fta366 Cf. Athanas. Apolog . ad Imperat . Constantium , c. 4. Athanasius celebrated Easter 344 at Naissus; at Easter 345, he was at Aquileia, as appears from the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S . Athanasius . See in Larsow, the Festal Letters of S . Athanasius , pp. 31, 32.

Fta367 Ibid . c. 3, c. 15. Athanasius was falsely accused of having at that time excited the Emperor Constans against his brother Constantius, and defends himself against this (c. 3). In the other passage (c. 15) he speaks of service having been held in a church not yet consecrated at Aquileia, in presence of the Emperor Constans. He says this in his own defence, because he had done the same.

Fta368 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 20; Theod. Hist . Eccl . 2. 8.

Fta369 Philostorg. Fragm . lib. 3. n. 12, p. 485, ed. Mogunt.; Hist . Eccl .

Theodoreti, etc.; Socrat. 2. 22; Sozom. 3. 20.

Fta370 Tillemont, etc., t. 8. note 62, sur S . Athanas . p. 295, ed. Brux.

Fta371 Thus relate Athanasius, Hist . Arian . ad Monachos , c. 20, and still more circumstantially, Theodoret, 2. 9, 10.

Fta372 See above, pp. 85, 89.

Fta373 Athanas. De Synodis , c. 26; Socrat. 2. 19, 20; Sozom. 3. 11; Mansi, t. 2. 1362; Hard, t. 1. 627.

Fta374 Photinus (fwteino>v ) means “man of light;” they, however, ironically named him “man of darkness.”

Fta375 That which comes of the will is accidental; the Son, however, is absolute, therefore begotten, not of the will, but of the nature of the Father. Cf. Athanas. Orat . III. cont . Arian . c. 62; Neander, Kirchengesch . second edition, 2, p. 737, note 2. Cf. below, p. 194, note 2.

Fta376 See above, p. 85.

Fta377 See below, p. 189.

Fta378 See c. 25 of the Hist . Arian .

Fta379 Vol. 1, p. 357 sqq.

Fta380 Part 1, p. 123.

Fta381 Friedrich, Kirchengesch . Deutschlands , vol. 1. 1867, pp. 277-300.

Fta382 Reuch. Theol . Literaturblatt , 1866, No. 11, p. 347.

Fta383 Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 21. The chronological statement given in this passage is probably to be understood thus: About Easter 344, the affair of Euphrates of Antioch, took place, on account of which, a few weeks later, a synod was held, Bishop Stephen deposed, and Leontius raised to his place. In consequence of this, Constantius recalled many adherents of S. Athanasius (in the summer of 344). Ten months later, Gregory of Alexandria died, on the 26th of June 345, as says the preface to the Festal Letters of S . Athanasius , No. 18. This preface, indeed, gives the death of Gregory in the same year in which it reports the return of S. Athanasius, viz. 346; but he places these two events together, not on account of their chronological proximity, but because of their intrinsic connection. If Athanasius returned to Alexandria in 346, Gregory must necessarily have been already dead in 345, as Constantius only invited Athanasius to return after the death of Gregory, and, as he himself says, he waited for Athanasius a full year before he even began his return journey. Athanas. Hist . Arian . ad Monach . c. 21 sq., and Apolog . c . Arian . c. 51. According to Theodoret (2. 4. 12), Gregory, after having desolated his