Only these sections belong to the present volume of the English translation. The earlier ones belong to vol. 4; the later are not translated. The rest of the Author’s Preface has no reference to the present volume. We possess complete monographs on the Monothelite controversies — (1) from the learned French Dominican, Francois Combefis, Historia haeresis Monotheletarum , sanctaeque in eam sextae synodi Actorum vindiciae , in the second volume of his Auctuarium Novum , Paris 1648, fol., page 1-198; (2) from the learned Maronite, Joseph Simon Assemani, in the 4th volume of his Bibliotheca Juris Orientalis , Rotate 1764; (3) from P. Jacob Ehmel (Benedictine of Brzevnov, and Prodirector of the theolog. faculty in the University of Prague), Vindiciae Concilii Ocumenici vi., praemissa dissertatione historica de origine , etc ., haeresis Monothelitarum , Prag. 1777, 8vo, 484 pp.; (4) Tamagnini, Historia Monothelet .; (5) Walch, Ketzerhistorie , Bd. 9 S. 1-666. Theophanes, Chronographia , ad ann . mundi 6113, A.D. 613, ed. Bonn. vol. 1, page 466. Theophanes says that the Emperor celebrated Easter in Constantinople, April 4, and set out with the army on the following day. But Easter fell upon April 4 in A.D. 622. It is known, besides, that the era which Theophanes follows is short by eight years, and every year begins with the first of September; this year 613, therefore, begins with September 1, 621, and the Easter Monday of his year 613 is the Easter Monday of our year 622. Cf. Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii , ad ann . 621, n. 5, and Diss . de Periodo Graeco-Romana , in vol. 1 of the Critica , sec. 28 and page 37. Ideler, Compend . der Chronol . S. 448. Mansi, Coll . Concil . 9, page 530; Hardouin, 3 page 1311. Sergius only mentions generally that this took place when the Emperor stopped in Armenia on his expedition against the Persians. As, however, Heraclius, in his expeditions against the Persians, was in Armenia both in 622 and 623, it is possible that this incident took place A.D. 623. But his stopping in Armenia in 622 lasted longer, and in the following year only a few days. Cf. Theophanes, l .c . and A.D. 614, page 471f. We cannot think of a later date than 622 or 623, for this incident necessarily occurred, as we shall soon see, before 626. A party of the Monophysites. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 99. Mansi, t. 10, page 471 sq. Hardouin has not reprinted this Disputatio S . Maximi cum Pyrrho . It is found, however, in the Appendix to vol. 8 of the Annals of Baronius, in Mansi, l .c . , and in S. Maximi, Opp . ed.

Combefis, t. 2, page 159 sqq. In his Memorial to the Lateran Synod of the year 649; in Mansi, t. 10, page 894; Hardouin, t. 3, page 711. In the thirteenth session, in Mansi, t. 11, page 555; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1331. Mansi, t. 11, page 526 and 530; Hardouin, t. 3, pages 1310, 1314. Several maintain that these words were interpolated by Timothy Aelurus. See Maximi Opp . ed. Combefis, t. 1, page 52. Another inaccurate explanation of the words of the Areopagite was attempted by Fr. v. Kerz, in his continuation of Stolberg’s Geschichte d . Religion Jesu Christi (Bd. 21 S. 389), when he says: “It is true that S. Dionysius speaks of a divine-human will, but this is no other than the human will, which, however, in all his actions, is ever … connected with the divine will, in everything subjects itself to it, and wills always only that which God wills … so completely loses itself in the divine will, that both wills may figuratively be called only one will.” Mansi, t. 10, page 754. See below, sec. 303. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 98. Theophanes, Chronogr ., ad ann . mundi 6221, ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 506.

Cf. Walch, l .c . S. 83, 84, 101. Renaudot, Hist . Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum Jacobitarum , Paris 1713, page 163 sq. Mansi, t. 11, page 558 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1335. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 626, n. 13. He refers to the famous Epistola dogmatica of Leo to Flavian, in which (c. 4) he says: “Agit ( = ejnergei~ ) enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est.” Cf. vol. 3, sec. 176. Mansi, t. 11, page 559 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1338. Instead of mi>an hJgoumenikhLatin translator read mi>an h]goun monadikh>n , una et singularis operario . Mansi, t. 11, page 526; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1310. Assemani, in his Biblioth . Juris Orient . t. 4, page 12, takes a different view. He places the Synod of Garin in 632. Le Quien, Oriens Christ . t. 1, page 1429. Walch, l .c . S. 106. We are assured of this by the Libellus Synodicus , in Mansi, t. 10, page 606; Hardouin, t. 5, page 1535. Mansi, t. 11, page 526; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1310. Mansi, 11, page 530; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1314. Theophanes, ad ann . mundi 6121, t. 1, page 506; Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium , ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 736; Zonaras, Annales , lib. 14 c. 17, t. 2, page 67, ed. Venet. 1729; Vita Maximi , in the edition of the works of S. Maximus by Combefis, t. 1, page 7 c. 7. Cf. Walch, l .c . S. 60 ff. The author of this Vita is, however, later than the sixth Oecumenical Synod, to which he refers in c. 38. He may perhaps be later than Theophanes (†818). Instructiones historico-theologicae , lib. 5 De Monotheletis , c. 1, page 222, ed. Amstelod. 1645. Pagi, ad ann . 627, n. 10 sqq., 627, 9, and 628, 2. In Maximi Opp . ed. Combefis, t. 1, c. 9, page 8. On the chronology, cf.

Pagi, ad ann . 630, n. 3. He says “the Emperors,” because, in the year 613, the Emperor Heraclius had caused his son, Heraclius Constantinus, then one year old, to be crowned Emperor. Mansi, t. 11, page 562; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1339. The Greek original has mhni< Pau`ni> . As the Egyptian month Payni began with May 28, the old Latin version, which has Mensi Maii die quarta , is plainly wrong. Undoubtedly, for Maii we should read Junii † (see above, p. 12). The sixth Indictim indicates the year 633. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 633, n. 3; Walch, l .c . S. 113; and Ideler, Compend . der Chronol . S. 73. This is the infamous kefa>laion which openly put forth Monothelitism, and will hereafter frequently be referred to. Mansi, t. 11, page 563; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1339. Theophan. Chronogr . ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 507. Cedren. Historiar . Compend . ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 736. Vita Maximi , c. 9, page 8 of vol. 1 of the Opp . S. Maximi, ed. Combefis. In this Vita the expression uJdrobafh>v , watery , is taken as identical with colorless .

Walch, on the contrary, thinks (l .c . S. 113 f.) that it means that the union lasted only for short time, and on the seizure of Egypt by the Arabians became water again. In fact, the Monophysites again got the upper hand. Mansi, t. 10, page 606; Hardouin, t. 5, page 1535. This letter is found among the Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, in Mansi, t. 10, page 971; Hardouin, t. 3, page 778. Epist. Maximi ad Petrum, in Anastasii Collectaneas in Galland. Biblioth . Patrum , t. 13, page 38; and Mansi, t. 10, page 691; Pagi, ad ann. 633, n. 3. Pagi, l .c . n. 4. In order to make out that the letters of Pope Honorius to Sergius were falsified, Bishop Bartholus of Feltre, in his Apologia pro Honorio I. (1750), has pronounced the letter of Sergius to Honorius to be totally corrupt. He has been recently opposed by Professor Pennacchi of Rome, although he is himself a zealous defender of Pope Honorius.

Pennacchi declares most decidedly for the genuineness both of the letters of Honorius to Sergius and of that of Sergius to the Pope.

Pennacchi’s book, De Honorii I Romani Pontificis causa in Concilio ad Partes Concilii Vaticani , published in Rome, A.D. 1870, and sent to all the members of the Council, is the most important which has lately appeared in defense of Honorius (see below, sec. 154). The hypothesis of an essential falsification of these documents is, besides, so utterly unfounded, that any further discussion of it is unnecessary. It suffices to remark that the letters of Honorius were read aloud at the twelfth session of the sixth Oecumenical Council, and at that time an official examination was made (by a deputy of Rome) as to whether the passages read were in enact agreement with the still extant originals; and this was shown. See below, sec. 319. (Added to the second edition.) This is not true. Cyrus of Alexandria straightway adopted Monothelitism in his seventh Kephalaion. (Remark in the second edition.) Sergius exaggerates, in order to make the Pope favorable. Not all the Monophysite parties, but only the Theodorians, had entered the union. Sophronius, perhaps at a later period, collected in a work now lost patristic passages in favor of Dyothelitism, as Stephen of Dor testifies.

Another collection of patristic passages for Dyothelitism by Maximus is still extant. S. Maximi Opp . ed. Combefis, t. 2, page 154, and Combefis, Hist . haeres . Monothelet . Auctuarium Novum , t. 2, page 24.

The sixth Oecumenical Council (sess. 10) also collected a great number of patristic proofs for the Dyothelitic doctrine. Sergius shows clearly, by this comparison, that he considered the human nature in Christ as purely passive without a will of its own. Our body is related passively to the soul, is simply guided by it, has no will of its own, and in the same way, Sergius says, is the human nature in Christ related to the divine. (Added to the second edition.) Mansi, t. 11, page 530 sqq; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1311 sqq. Sergius says, indeed, that there was to be no more speech either of one energy or of two in Christ; but he does not at all accord an equal place to both expressions. The expression du>o ejne>rgeiai , he maintains, has no patristic authorities whatever for it, whilst many Fathers had expressed themselves in favor of mi>a ejne>rgeia , and the patriarch had collected many passages of this kind in his letter to Pope Vigilius. By the expression mi>a ejne>rgeia great good fortune had happened to the Church (the union in Alexandria), and in the Kephalaia of union the mi>a must remain (in spite of the silence), if the union was not to be again destroyed. The Emperor, he said, was also in favor of mi>a ejne>rgeia . The expression du>o ejne>rgeiai , however, would have very serious consequences (relapse into Nestorianism). Accordingly, Sergius, when he at last recommended the avoiding of both expressions, yet wanted to insinuate to the Pope, that mi>a had much more in its favor, and must not be removed front the Kephalaia of union, whereas the du>o ejne>rgeiai was to be entirely rejected. One can see he was a Monothelite, and wanted to mislead the Pope. If the mi>a ejne>rg. was to remain in the Alexandrian Kephalaia, then Monothelitism was practically approved, and the whole talk about future silence deceptive. (Added in the second edition.) In his Vita S . Bertulphi , in Baron. Annal. ad ann . 626, 39. Mansi, t. 20, page 538 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1319 sqq., and page 1593 sqq. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9, S. 14. Mansi, l .c . page 538 sqq.; Hardouin, l .c . page 1319 sqq. In the first edition the letter of Honorius was given somewhat less completely. But no passage of importance was omitted. Compare the author’s treatise, Das Anathem uber Honorius , in the Tubingen Theol . Quartalschrift , 1857, Heft 1. The following, to the end of the paragraph, is added to the new edition. De Honorii I. Romani Pontificis causa in Concilio 6 Dissertatio , Josephi Pennachii, in Romana studiorum universitate historiae ecclesiasticae professoris substituti (for the blind Professor Archbishop Tizzani). Ad Patres Concilii Vaticani Romae, 1870, 287 pp. The una voluntas with Honorius is not, as is here maintained, the one incorrupt human will. Honorius understands by the una voluntate the moral unity of the incorrupt human will with the divine will in Christ. (Note in the second edition.) Schneemann, S. J., Studien uber die Honoriusfrage , Herder, Freiburg 1864, S. 47 f. When we said, in the first edition, that he had forbidden the term du>o ejne>rgeiai , this is too strongly expressed. An actual prohibition was not put forth by Honorius. This paragraph remains unaltered in the second edition. Theophanes, Chronogr ., in the Bonn edition of the so-called Byzantines, t. 1, page 507; Vita Maximi , in Combefis’ edition of the Opp . S. Maximi, t. 1, page 9 c. 11. Both, however, make the mistake of calling the Pope, John. Honorius lived until 638. Mansi, t. 11, pages 461-508; Hardouin, t. 3, pages 1257-1296. Libellus Synodicus , in Mansi, t. 10, page 607; Hardouin, t. 5, page 1535. Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 135. Mansi, t. 11, page 461; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1257. We may add that Sophronius himself calls his letter once sullabai~ sunodikai> , and again, gra>mma sunodiko>n . Mansi, l .c . page 472; Hardouin, l .c . page 1265. Bingham, Origines , t. 1, page 171 sq. Mansi has here, by a misprint, given a wrong text. The correct runs: ta< eJte>rav fusikw~v oujsiav eijrga>zeto, kata< thra| prosou~san oujsiw>dh poio>that h\ kai< fusikhthata .

Hardouin, l .c . page 1272; Mansi, l .c . page 480. Rosler, in his Bibliothek der Kirchenvater , Bd. 10 S. 414, gives the inaccurate text of Mansi and a very incorrect translation. The words of Leo I. in his famous Epistola ad Flavianum : “Agit enim utraque forma (natura) cum alterius communione, quod proprium est.” Sophronius here takes sw~ma as identical with sa>rx = human nature. On the life of Sophronius, cf. the article in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, s .v . Sess. 10 in Mansi, t. 11, page 455; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1251. Mansi, l .c . page 579; Hardouin, l .c . page 1351. In the first edition we added: “Whether it (the e\n qe>lhma ) found place at all in the latter (the second letter) cannot be decided. In any case, Honorius did not recall it (better, does not explain it in its right sense), and therefore the Monothelites had, formally at least, full right to appeal to him as their patron and defender. And herein lies his second fault. When, on the one side (negatively), he forbade the correct expression of the orthodox doctrine (du>o ejne>rgeiai ), so, on the other side (positively), he pronounced the terminus technicus of the heresy.

And yet even on this point his thought was not heretical, but only obscure, as we showed above, and he only failed to draw the right inference from his own premiss. This remark in the first edition finds its connection, as far as that is necessary, in what is said above † (pages 36, 41, 44, n. 1). In Anastasii Collectanea , in Galland. Biblioth . PP . t. 13, page 32 sq., and Mansi, t. 10, page 682 sq. The Apologia of John IV. is here quoted somewhat more fully than in the first edition. S. Maximi Disput . cum Pyrrho , in Mansi, t. 10, page 739 sq. This estimate of the apology agrees substantially with that in the first edition; but, as I believe, is more exact. That which follows up to page 57, “In this manner,” etc., is almost entirely new. Pennacchi (page 113 sq.) understood ejx aujtw~n = uJp j aujtw~n , and assumed that the Roman priests had drawn up at a Synod the letter of Honorius to Sergius. But ejx aujtw~n can mean no more than, “the letter written from Rome to Sergius.” S. Maximi Tomus ad Maximum Presbyt ., in Migne, Patres Graeci , t. 91, page 243; in Mansi, t. 10, page 689 sq., there is only a Latin translation. Mansi, t. 11, page 547; Hardouin, t. 3, page 1326; cf. below, sec. 319 at the close. The genuineness of the letters of Honorius was fully defended by Pennacchi (l .c . pages 75-112). At the same time, he found them quite blameless. (See above, sec. 295.) In establishing this result also there is some deviation from the first edition. In that it is said: “Thus there remains for us the result: The two letters of Honorius, as we now have them, are unfalsified, and do not bear the interpretatio suavis which it is wished to give them. They show that, of the two heterodox terms e[n qe>lhma and mi>a ejne>rgeia , Honorius actually used the former, and placed the latter on the same line with the watchword of orthodoxy, du>o ejne>rgeiai , and rejected both. They show also, however, that the fundamental conviction of Honorius, the foundation of his argument, and at the same time himself, was orthodox in heart, and his error consisted only in an incorrect representation of the dogma, and in a defect of logical consistency. Similar is the judgment of an anonymous writer in the Katholik (1863, S. 689 f.), thus: “The fault of Honorius consisted in this, that he did not discover the tricks of Sergius, which he ought to have suspected; that he did not sharply define and sanction the true meaning of the expression, “two energies”; that he placed this expression on the same line with that of “one energy”; that he treated the whole question in a superficial manner, as a mere strife of words; and finally, that, with the greatest want of prudence, he spoke of one will in a manner which, if it admitted of a good meaning, yet under the prevailing circumstances might easily be mistaken, and give occasion for great errors. He played with the fire which others had kindled; and thus made the fire stronger, and shared the blame of the inventors and adherents of the heresy, although he did not himself share their error.” Added to second edition. So most of the Gallicans, e .g . Richer, Hist . Concil . generalium , lib. i. c. 10, page 567 sqq. ed. Colon. 1683; Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque , etc., t. 6, page 69, ed. Mons. 1692. Bossuet, Defensio Declarat . cleri Gallicani , t. 2, page 190; and Protestants, e .g . Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. S. 125; Bower, History of the Popes , “Honorius.” Forbes, Instructiones Historico-theolog , page 240; Dorner, Lehre v . d . Person Christi , Bd. 2 pt. 1 S. 218 [Eng. trans., T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh].

Even the cardinal of Lucerne formed so harsh a judgment on Honorius in his work, Sur la declaration de l ’assemblee du clerge de France en 1682, Paris 1821, in Palma, Praelectimes hist . eccles ., Romae 1839, t. 2 pt. 1, page 106 sqq. So especially Pighius (Diatriba de Actis 6 et 7 Concil .) and Baronius (ad ann . 633, 34 sq., and 681, 29 sqq.). So, quite recently, Pennacchi; earlier, Cardinal Tunecremata (lib. 2 De Ecclesia , c. 93), Bellarmino (lib. 4 De Rom . Pontif . c. 2), and the learned Maronite, Joseph Simon Assemani (Biblioth . Juris Orient . t. 4, page 113 sqq.). The latter thinks the sixth Oecumenical Council certainly regarded Honorius as a heretic, and anathematized him as such, but that the points which spoke in his defense, particularly the apologies already mentioned of John IV. and of Abbot John, had not been known to the Synod. That the better instructed Pope Leo II, on the contrary, had not completely approved of the anathema of the Synod on Honorius, but had anathematized him, not on the ground of heresy , but of negligence. See below, sec. 324. The judgments of the different savants on Honorius, his guilt or innocence, are collected pretty completely by Schneemann in his Studien uber die Honoriusfrage , Herder, Freiburg 1864, S. 25 ff. Cf. Chmel, O.S.B. Prof. Prag., Vindiciae Concilii Oecumenici 6, Prague 1777, page 441 sqq., 456 sqq. Garnier, De Honorii et Concilii 6 Causa in the Appendix of the Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum . From here to the end of the paragraph added to the second edition. When the Longobardi conquered Upper Italy, the metropolitan chair of Aquileia was removed to Grado, as this city, strong by reason of its marshes could not be seized by the Longobardi; and the metropolitans now took the title of “Aquileia at Grado.” Of the cities belonging to this ecclesiastical province, however, some remained in the power of the Emperor; others had been seized by the Longobardi. The bishops in the Longobardian territory would not enter the union in the year 607; and then appointed for themselves a special ecclesiastical head with the title of “Patriarch of Aquileia.” Mansi, t. 10, page 577; Baron. ad ann . 630, 14. Added to the second edition. Mansi, t. 10, page 741. This fragment of a letter is found in the Collatio inter Maximum et socium ejus coram principibus , Mansi, t. 11, page 9. Mansi, t. 10, page 691. In Maximi Opp . t. 1, page 9 c. 12. Niceph. Breviar . de rebus post Mauricium gestis , ed. Bonn, pages 16, 17; Theophanes, l .c . page 463. Mansi, t. 10, page 873; Hardouin, t. 3, page 695. Mansi, t. 10, page 991; Hardouin, t. 3, page 791. From here to the end of the paragraph altered in the second edition. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 636, n. 2 and 3; Baron. ad ann 636, n. 4, and 643, n. 12. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 86 and 143; Baron. ad ann . 649, n. 64. Fragments of this Synod are preserved in the Secret . 3 of the Lateran Synod of the year 649, Mansi, t. 10, page 999; Hardouin, t. 3, page 798. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 639, 8. Fragments of this in Mansi, t. 10, page 1002; Hardouin, t. 3, page 799.

Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 639, 8. Preserved in Secret . 3 of the Lateran Synod, Mansi, t. 10, page 1003; Hardouin, t. 3, 803. We learn from this that the imperial official (magister militum ) Eustachius, who had been sent with the Ecthesis to Italy to the Exarch Isaac, so that the latter should obtain the subscription of Severinus, traveled by way of Alexandria, and communicated to Cyrus a transcript of that imperial copy for Isaac.

Walch (l .c . S. 144) brought up the question, why the Emperor had not himself sent the Ecthesis to Cyrus, and supposes that Alexandria had been seized by the Saracens, so that Cyrus was no longer a subject of Heraclius. On the other hand, the hierarchical union of Alexandria with the patriarch of Constantinople had continued, and therefore Sergius had written to Cyrus. — This hypothesis is unfounded. It is true that the Arabs had invaded Egypt by the year 634, but Alexandria was first seized by them in the year 641 (Pagi, ad ann . 639, n. 11, and 641, n. 13), and a glance at the end of the letter from Cyrus shows that Alexandria was then still in possession of the Emperor, and not long before had been delivered out of danger. Besides, Walch might have known from Nicephorus, (Breviar . l .c ., ed. Bonn, page 30), that, soon afterwards, Cyrus was summoned by the Emperor Heraclius to Constantinople, and deposed (thus treated as a subject), because he was suspected of an understanding with the Saracens. The succeeding Emperor reinstated him. Baron. ad ann . 638, n. 6; Pagi, ad ann . 638, n. 5. Epist . Maximi ad Thalassium , in Anastasii Collectanea in Galland. Biblioth . PP . t. 13, page 42; and Mansi, t. 10, page 677. That Pope Severinus rejected the Ecthesis is declared by the Professio which several of his successors had to make at their consecration, as follows: “Profitemur etiam cuncta decreta pontificum Apostolicae sedis, i.e. sanctae recordationis Severini, Joannis, Theodori, atque Martini custodire, qui adversus novas quaestiones in urbe regia exortas … cuncta zizaniorum scandala amputasse noscuntur, profitentes juxta duarum naturarum motum ita et duas naturales operationes, et quaecunque damnaverunt, sub anathemate damnamus.” From this Pagi (ann . 639, 3-5) would conclude that Pope Severinus rejected Monothelitism at a Synod. Theophanes, Chronographia , ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 508; Libellus Synodicus in Mansi, t. 10, 607; Hardouin, t. 5, page 1538. Nicephor. Breviar . l .c. page 31. In Anastasii Collectan ., in Galland. t. 13, page 32 sqq., and Mansi, t. 10, page 682 sqq. Zonarae Annales , lib. 15 c. 18, page 68, ed. Venet. 1729; Pagi, ad ann . 641, 3. Cf., on the other side, Walch, Bd. 9 S. 187 f. and 193. For this we have not merely the authority of the less trustworthy Eutychius (archbishop of Alexandria in the 10th century) in his Annales Ecclesiae Alexandrinae , but it is mentioned also by Pope Theodore in his letter, hereafter to be noticed, to the Patriarch Paul of Constantinople. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 641, 4. The very inaccurate Acta Audoeni in Surius, ad 24 Augusti, profess to know that this foreigner had been banished from Asia. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 640, n. 13 and 14; Mansi, t. 10, page 759 sq.; Rivet, in the Histoire litteraire de la France , t. 9, page 7. On S. Audoen, cf.

Engling, Der hl . Audoenus , Luxemburg 1867. Extant only in Latin in Anastasii Collecteanea , in Galland. t. 13, page 39; Mansi, t. 10, page 702. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 643, n. 4. Galland. l .c .page 41; Mansi, l .c . page 705. Galland. and Mansi, ll .cc . Preserved among the Acts of the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649. Mansi, t. 10, page 914; Hardouin, t. 3, page 730. Anastasii Collectanea , in Galland. t. 13, page 38; Mansi, t. 10, page 691. Prefixed to Combefis’ edition of the works of S. Maximus. Thus Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 195. It is believed that Gregory was identical with that George with whom Maximus corresponded, and whom he greatly commended. Cf. Walch, l .c . S. 190. Printed in S. Maximi Opera , ed. Combefis, t. 2, page 159 sqq.; ed.

Migne, Paris 1860, t. 1, page 287 sqq. Also in Mansi, t. 10, page 709- 760 (misplaced by a misprint), and in the Appendix to vol. 8 of Baronius. That the difference of wills rests in the difference of the natures was taught by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril, etc. Cf. the collection of patristic passages for two energies in his Opp . t. 2, page 156 sqq. Mansi, t. 10, page 715. Mansi, t. 10, page 720. Mansi, l .c . page 721. Mansi, l .c . page 725. Mansi, l .c . page 728. Mansi, l .c . page 729. Mansi, l .c . page 732. Mansi, l .c . page 736. Mansi, l .c . page 740. Mansi, l .c .page 744. Mansi, l .c . page 745. Thus, I believe, we must understand the meaning of this difficult passage. The old Latin translation of Turrianus departs here arbitrarily from the Greek, and is incorrect. Mansi, l .c . page 748. Mansi, l .c . page 749. Mansi, l .c . page 751. Cf. above, sec. 291. Cf. above, sec. 291. Mansi, t. 10, page 760. “Vita S . Maximi in Combefis’ edition of the Opp . S. Martini, t. 1, page 12. The Primicerius Theophylact says this at the Lateran Synod in his short remarks before the reading of the African synodal letters, in Mansi, t. 10, page 918; Hardouin, t. 3, page 92; it is also clear from the letter of Victor of Carthage, see below, in this section. Cf. Baronius, ad ann . 646, 13. Mansi, t. 10, page 919; Hardouin, t. 3, 734. Mansi, t. 10, page 926; Hardouin, t. 3, 738. Remi Ceillier (Histoire des auteurs sacres , t. 18, page 810) is doubly mistaken, I think, in supposing that the letter of the Byzacenes to Paul had been lost, and, on the other hand, that the letter of Probus to the primate of proconsular Africa was still extant. Probus was not primate or bishop of Carthage, but bishop of Tatia Montanensis, and subscribed the letter, not primo , but secundo loco . But even the first subscriber, Eubosus, was not bishop of Carthage, but of Puppita. The same passages were also subsequently quoted by Pope Agatho and the sixth Oecumenical Synod. Mansi, t. 10, page 943; Hardouin, t. 3, page 754. Mansi, t. 10, page 607; Hardouin, t. 5, page 1535. In the superscription of the first of these four Synods, in the otherwise accurate Hardouin, Constantinopolitana stands, by mistake, for Byzacena . Theophanes, ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 509. Libellus Synod . in Mansi, t. 10, page 610; Hardouin, t. 5, page 1537; and Anastasius, Vitae Pontif . sec. 127. Theophanes (Chronogr ., ed. Bonn, t. 1, page 525) places his usurpation in the year 638, which is identical with 646 in the Dionysian era. Cf. above, page 3, n. 2. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 646, 1. Mansi, t. 10, page 1019; Hardouin, t. 3, page 815. Mansi, l .c . page 878; Hardouin, l .c .page 699. We see this from a more recent letter of Stephen of Dor in Mansi, t. 10, page 891; Hardouin, t. 3, page 711. Cf. the fragments of his letter to Peter, in Mansi, t. 10, page 690. Mansi, t. 10, pages 879 and 1030; Hardouin, t. 3, pages 699 and 823.

On the Chronology, cf. Pagi, ad ann . 648, n. 2. Here in a very improper manner Monothelitism is identified with the orthodox doctrine: one and the same (Christ) works the divine and the human. Mansi, t. 10, page 1029; Hardouin, t. 3, page 823. Baron. ad ann . 649, n. 4; Surius, t. 4; died Aug. 24. These Acta assert, quite incorrectly, that Andoenus was not then a bishop. He became one as early as 640; see above, sec. 302. Baronius, l .c . Bower, vol. 4. Muratori, History of Italy , vol. 4. Martini, Ep. 15, in Mansi, t. 10, page 852. The Synods were often held in the secretarii , buildings adjoining the church, and it was perhaps for this reason that the sessions themselves were called secretarii or secretaria . Cf. vol. 2, secs. 109, 119; vol. 3, secs. 166, 172, 186. This is, taken literally, not quite accurate. Certainly there stands fast in the Ecthesis the doctrine of one energy, but, as a matter of fact, it forbids, for the sake of peace, the expression mi>a ejne>rgeia and du>o ejne>rgeiai , and defends only e[n qe>lhma . This is the principal content of the rather lengthy discourse of the Pope, in Mansi, t. 10, page 870; Hardouin, 3, page 694. Mansi, t. 10, page 882 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, page 703 sqq. Mansi, l .c . page 891; Hardouin, l .c . page 711. Stephen of Dor subscribes as prw~tov of the aJginodov standing under the patriarchal see of Jerusalem. Mansi, l .c . page 908; Hardouin, l .c . page 722. Mansi, l .c . page 914 sqq.; Hardouin, l .c . page 727 sqq. Mansi, l .c . page 954-970; Hardouin, l .c . page 762-774. Mansi, l .c . pages 970-980; Hardouin, l .c . pages 775-783. On Themistius, cf. Photii Biblioth . cod. 108; and Walch, Ketzerhist .

Bd. 8 S. 652 and 658. Mansi, l .c . page 986; Hardouin, l .c . page 787. Mansi, l .c . page 987; Hardouin, l .c . page 790. Mansi, l .c . pages 990-1007; Hardouin, l .c . pages 791-804. The two latter sought in the moral unity of the human and of the divine will in Christ, the connection of the two persons asserted by them. (See vol. 3, sec. 127). Mansi, t. 10, page 1007 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3, page 806 sqq. Here are adduced the two passages of the Areopagite mentioned in sec. 291, but the Latin translation of one is incorrect, since th~v ajnqrwpi>nhv aujtou~ qeourgi>av is translated by humanae ejus operationi . The four passages which are here adduced are not by Justin. They are quoted as being taken from the 17th chapter of his first book on the Trinity. In the same manner are several of them quoted by Leontius Contra Monophys ., and the anonymous ancient writing, Patrum doctrina , etc. (both in Aug. Mai, Veterum Script . Nova Collectio , t. 7, pages 22, 24, 130). The three first of these four passages are found verbally in the book (of pseudo-Justin) Expositio rectae fidei , seu de Trinitate (Otto, Opp. S. Justini, t. 3, pt. 1, page 34 sqq.), but not c. 17, but c. 11 and 12 (the division of chapters must formerly have been different); and this writing is here called liber 3, not as though it were divided into three books, but because the author (probably the Sicilian Bishop Justin in the 5th century) says, in chap. 1, that he has already written two books against the Jews and heathen, so that the present is the third. (Cf. Prud. Maran. Opp. S. Justini, Admonitio in exposit , rectae confessionis ; and Otto, De Justini Mart . scriptis , etc., page 63.)

The fourth passage here cited I do not find literally in pseudo-Justin, but the sense of it in c. 11. One of the passages here adduced as of S. Athanasius is no longer found in his works. Mansi, t. 10, pages 1066-1114; Hardouin, t. 3, pages 854-890. From his treatise on the “Glorious Consecration” (ejpifanou~v muh>sewv = baptism). The Latin text of our Council is corrupt and gives no meaning — Epiphanius Myeseos . Mansi, l .c . pages 1114-1123; Hardouin, l .c . pages 891-898. Mansi, l .c . pages 1123-1150; Hardouin, l .c . pages 899-919. The Lateran Synod read ejn du>o fu>sesi , for the Latin text has, in duabus naturis (cf. above, sec. 291, and vol. 3, sec. 193, page 348, note 1). The Greek translation of the Lateran Acts, however, has here, ejk dusesin . Mansi, t. 10, page 1150; Hardouin, t. 3, page 919. So we should read instead of the meaningless loci servaturas incongruas . This is clear both from the Greek translation and from Actio 8 of the sixth Oecumenical Council, where this canon is repeated. Mansi, t. 10, page 1151 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3, page 922 sqq. Mansi, l .c . pages 1170-1183; Hardouin, l .c . page 933 sqq. Mansi, t. 10, page 790; Hardouin, t. 3, page 626. Mansi, l .c . page 1183; Hardouin, l .c . page 945. At the same time, the Pope in this letter requested Bishop Amandus not to resign, which, from grief at the bad conduct of his clergy, he had resolved to do, and actually carried out; cf. Pagi, ad anna 649, n. 6. Baronius, ad ann . 649, n. 4 and 37; Pagi, ad ann . 649, n. 6. Cf. above, beginning of this section. Mansi, t. 10, page 798; Hardouin, t. 3, page 634. Cf. on this subject, below, the letter to Pantaleon.

Fta1 Mansi, l . c . p. 806; Hardouin, l . c . p. 639. Philadelphia lies near to Jerusalem on the east side, and near to this Esbus, — both cities belonging ecclesiastically to the province of Arabia.

Fta2 Mansi, l . c . p. 815 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 647 sqq.

Fta3 Mansi, l . c . p. 822; Hardouin, l . c . p. 651.

Fta4 Mansi, l . c . p. 827; Hardouin, l . c . p. 655.

Fta5 Mansi, l . c . p. 834 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 662.

Fta6 Anastas. Vitae Pontif ., secs. 130, 133, t. 4:p. 48 sqq.; in Baronius, ad ann . 649, n. 49 sqq. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 649, n. 7 and 9; and Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9. S. 268 sqq.

Fta7 “Commemoratio corum quae ...acta sunt ...in Sanctum Martinum , etc., in Mansi, t. 10. p. 855; Hardouin, l . c . p. 680. Cf. Muratori, Hist . of Italy , vol. 4.

Fta8 Mansi, l . c . pp. 851, 853; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 676, 678.

Fta9 Mansi, l . c . p. 853 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 678 sqq.

Fta10 Martini Ep. 2, ad Theod ., in Mansi, l . c . pp. 851, 852; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 676, 677.

Fta11 Martini Ep. 1, ad Theod ., in Mansi, l . c . p. 850; Hardouin, l . c . p. 675.

Fta12 Martini Ep. 2, ad Theod . l . c .

Fta13 Either = famulus , or = a precious casket. Cf. Du Cange, Gloss . ad cauculus 3, and caucus 2; also Muratori, l . c .

Fta14 Martini Ep. 2, ad Theod . and Commemoratio , etc. The latter asserts that the Pope was not allowed to leave the ship. Martin himself, however, says (l . c .) that he lodged in a hospitium.

Fta15 Commemoratio , l . c .

Fta16 Martini Ep. 2, ad Theol . l . c .

Fta17 Duellum = rebellio . See Du Cange, s .v .

Fta18 On the insurrection of Valentinus, in consequence of which Constans II came to the throne (sec. 301 ad fin .), cf. Niceph. Breviar . de rebus gestis post Mauricium , p. 33 sqq., ed. Bonn. George was probably a participator in this rising.

Fta19 An Psachnion , of. Du Cange, s .v .

Fta20 In the rock grottoes of Inkerman, on the Black Sea, in the Crimea, there is still shown the cavern where Pope Martin lived.

Fta21 The Greeks venerate him as a confessor on the 11th Of April. We [R.

C.] as a martyr, November 12. What Bower objects (vol. 4) — that Martin did not suffer so much for the faith, but for disobedience — is ridiculous, as Bower himself declares the accusation of treason to be false, and by his disobedience understands only resistance to the Typus.

Fta22 In the northern suburb of Constantinople, Blachernae, the Empress Pulcheria had built a church of S. Mary, which was the most celebrated of Constantinople; and after which churches were erected in or before other cities to the Holy Virgin [our Lady] of Blachernae. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 654, n. 3, and Niceph. Callisti Hist . Eccl . lib. 15 c. 24. Commemoratio , etc., in Mansi, l . c . pp. 855-861; Hardouin, l . c . p. sqq.

Fta23 Mansi, l . c . p. 861 sq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 686 sq.

Fta24 See Dictionary of Christian Antiquities , s .v .

Fta25 Theophanes, Chronogr ., ad ann . 621 (where later events of many kinds in relation to the Monothelite history are compressed), ed. Bonn, t. 1 p. 510.

Fta26 Mansi, t. 11 p. 3 sqq. More completely in Galland. Bibl . Patr . t. 13. pp. 50-78; and S. Maximi Opp ., ed. Combefis, t. 1 pp. 29-70.

Fta27 Italicae historiae Scriptores , t. 2 p. 149.

Fta28 Pagi (ad ann . 657, 8) showed quite correctly that the examination on Maximus took place in 655, but he concluded too hastily that the arrival of Maximus at Constantinople must also be transferred to this year, 655. The Acts of the trial certainly say (in Mansi, t. 11 p. 3) post dies aliquot after the arrival in Constantinople, Maximus was placed upon trial; but elsewhere they bring together events separated in time, and in doing so make use of such vague expressions as post dies aliquot . A striking example will meet us soon.

Fta29 Mansi, t. 11 p. 11; S. Maximi Opp. l . c . p. 41.

Fta30 Assemani, l . c . p. 143.

Fta31 Mansi, t. 11 p. 12; S. Maximi Opp. l . c . p. 43; Galland. l . c . p. 59.

Fta32 In Mansi, t. 11 p. 1.

Fta33 In a subsequent letter to Pope Vitalian the Patriarch Peter expressed himself more clearly. We know that in this he approved both expressions, — one will and two wills, one and two energies. Mansi, t. 11 p. 275; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1107.

Fta34 Assemani (l . c . p. 153 sq.) and Walch (Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 308) thought that this Synod put forth that which is given at the close of the Disputatio Maximi cure Theodosio , in the edition of Combefis, l . c . p. 65 (printed also in Galland. l . c . p. 74, and Mansi, t. 11 p. 74), but not in the Collectanea of Anastasius, from Exinde adductis , etc., namely, that the Synod had decreed that Maximus and his two disciples should be flogged and their tongues cut out, and their right hands chopped off; and that this sentence, however, was not actually carried out until afterwards. Mansi and others, however, rightly saw that this shocking decree belongs to another and somewhat later Synod at Constantinople (see below, at the end of this section).

Fta35 Mansi, t. 11 p. 10; S. Maximi Opp . l . c . pp. 40 and 63; Galland. l . c . pp. 58, 73.

Fta36 This date appears from S. Maximi Opp. l . c . p. 44 Cf. with p. 59 and Galland. l . c . pp. 61, 70.

Fta37 In S. Maximi Op p. l . c . p. 44 sqq., and in Galland. l . c . p. 61 sqq.

Fta38 Not 661, as Walch, l . c . S. 308, thought. Cf. Assemani, l . c . pp. 154, 155.

Fta39 S. Maxinfi Opp . l . c . p. 66; Galland. l . c . p. 74; Mansi, t. 11 p. 74.

Fta40 He was therefore only three months in his third exile, so that several ancient testimonies which speak of three years must be corrected from this. Cf. Assemani, l . c . p. 159.

Fta41 Cf. the appendix to his letter mentioned, and Pagi, ad ann. 660, 4.

Fta42 Mansi, t. 11 p. 14.

Fta43 Mansi, l . c . p. 572; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1347.

Fta44 Baron. ad ann . 655, 1-5.

Fta45 Mansi, l . c . pp. 199, 346; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1047, 1163.

Fta46 Anastasii Vitae Pontif . in Mansi, t. 11 p. 14 sq. Pagi, ad ann. 663, 2, 3; 668, 3.

Fta47 Mansi, t. 11 pp. 199, 346; Hardouin, t. 3. pp. 1047, 1163.

Fta48 That under him the separation between Rome and Constantinople continued is evident from this, that his name and that of his successor were not placed upon the Greek diptychs.

Fta49 Mansi, t. 11 p. 575; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1350.

Fta50 Cf. above, p. 102; and Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 392.

Fta51 Mansi, l . c . p. 195; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1043. Partly different from this, the contents of the imperial convocation letter are quoted by Gregory 2, in Mansi, t. 12 p. 968. Perhaps he had in view a second later letter of the Emperor to the Pope, for at the time of its composition George had ascended he see of Constantinople.

Fta52 Mansi, t. 11 p. 294; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1122.

Fta53 Mansi, l . c . p. 346; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1163.

Fta54 Mansi, l . c . p. 203; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1051.

Fta55 De Gestis Longob . lib. 6 c. 4.

Fta56 Mansi, l . c . p. 175; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1038; Pagi, ad ann . 679, 6. Cf.

Schrodl, Das erste Jahrhundert der engl . Kirche , S. 201 ff.

Fta57 Mansi, t. 11 p. 306; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1131.

Fta58 “Schelstrate, Baronius, and others are of the opinion that Wilfrid really had a commission from the English episcopate to represent them in rebus fidei ; but Wilfrid had gone to Rome, having had a dispute with his colleagues, and to make a complaint against the Primate, Theodore of Canterbury. Baronius, ad ann . 680, 2.

Fta59 Pagi, ad ann . 679, 9, 10.

Fta60 Schrodl, l . c . S. 182 ff. and 224.

Fta61 “The Vitae Pontif . (Mansi, t. 11 p. 165) give, but only by a slip of the pen, the 10th of November . Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 680, 5. That the papal deputies arrived as early as September is shown clearly by the Sacra of the Emperor to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of which hereafter.

Fta62 The animadversions of Roncaglia, on the Church History of Natalis Alexander, maintain that the Pope in this letter prescribed to the sixth (Ecumenical Council what it had to do (Nat. Alex. Hist . Ecclesiastes sec. 7 diss. 1, ed. Venet. 1778, t. 5 p. 513). A certain support for this view is afforded by some expressions in the Decree of Faith of the Synod in the lo>gov prosfwnhtikoEmperor, in the synodal letter to Pope Agatho, in the letter of the Emperor to Leo II, and in the answer of the latter. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 395, 406.

Fta63 We learn their sees from Anastasius, in Mansi, t. 11 p. 165.

Fta64 The Roman priests Theodore and George and the deacon John were the special legates of the Pope (in specie ), on account of which they presided at the sixth (Ecumenical Council. The three bishops, on the other hand, were deputies of the Roman Synod , of the patriarchal diocese (concilii , as they say), and therefore subscribed after the Patriarchs.

Fta65 “Cum duas autem naturas duasque naturales voluntates, et duas naturales operation es confitemur in uno Domino nostro J. Chr., non contarias eas, nec adversas ad alterutrum dicimus (sicut a via veritatis errantes apostolicam traditionem accusant, absit haec impietas a fidelium cordibus), nec tanquam separatas in duabus personis vel subsistentiis, sed duas dicimus eundemque Dominum nostrum J. Chr. sicut naturas ita et naturales in se voluntates et operationes habere, divinam scilicet et humanam: divinam quidem voluntatem et operationem habere ex aeterno cum coessentiali Patre communem; humanam temperaliter ex nobis cum nostra natura susceptam.” Mansi, t. 11 p. 239; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1079.

Fta66 Mansi, t. 11 pp. 234-286; Hardouin, t. 3. pp. 1074-1115. This extract from the letter of Agatho is much more complete than in the first edition.

Fta67 Added in the second edition [a paragraph which gives rise to many reflections].

Fta68 Mansi, l . c . pp. 286-315; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1115-1142.

Fta69 Anastasii Vitae Pontif . in Mansi, l . c . p. 165. Cf. Pagi, ad ann. 680, 6.

Fta70 Baronius (ad ann . 681, 25) supposes that Theodore had been deposed on account of his adhesion to Monothelitism. On the contrary, Pagi remarks (ad ann . 681, 6) that the Emperor had not yet persecuted Monothelitism; this took place only after the eighth session of the sixth (Ecumenical Council. But it is still possible: that Theodore was forced to give way because he was an enemy of union, and this lay in the plan of the Emperor.

Fta71 Of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem the Emperor says not a word, probably because those cities were then in the possession of the Mahometans.

Fta72 Mansi, t. 11 p. 202; Hardouin, t. 3 p, 1050.

Fta73 According to this, Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 343, must be corrected, where he gives the year 679. At p. 387 he has it correctly.

Fta74 “The sixth (Ecumenical Synod drew up no canons. But those of the Quinisext were often ascribed to it. See below, sec. 327.

Fta75 The one Latin translation is placed by the side of the Greek text, and Walch (Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 14) asserts that it was the work of the Roman librarian Anastasius in the ninth century, but without giving his reasons. The other more accurate Latin translation is placed after the Greek text.

Fta76 Cf. Du Cange, Gloss . mediae et inf . Lat . s.v. Trullus . [Smith and Cheetham, Dict . of Antiq , s.v. p. 1998.] Fta77 In Mansi, t. 11 p. 166.

Fta78 Mansi, l . c . p. 639 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1402 sqq.

Fta79 Theophan. Chronogr ., ed. Bonn, t. 1 p. 551.

Fta80 Cf. Wiltsch, Kirchl . Statistik , Bd. 1 S. 72, 126, 402, 431; Assemani, Biblioth-juris oriental , t. 5 p. 75.

Fta81 Cf. Peter de Marca, De Concordia sacerdotii et imperii , lib. 5 c. 19, 2, 3; and c. 29, 11.

Fta82 The left side was formerly the place of honor. See Baronius, ad ann . 325, 58; and 213, 6.

Fta83 Mansi, l . c . p. 656; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1413.

Fta84 In Mansi, t. 4 p. 617 f., Hist . of the Councils , vol. 3. sec. 129.

Fta85 The minutes of our Synod speak here of two bibli>a which contained the Acts of the Ephesine Synod. In the first bibli>on were contained the documents existing before the Synod, e .g ., the letter of Cyril to the Emperor; in the second, the Acts of the Ephesine Synod in specie . Our present collections of Councils divide these Acts into three books, — documents drawn up (a)before, (b) during, and (c) after the Synod of Ephesus.

Fta86 Mansi, l . c . p. 217 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1062 sqq.

Fta87 Mansi, t. 11 p. 221 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1066 sqq.

Fta88 Mansi, l . c . pp. 230, 315; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1071, 1142.

Fta89 We shall get to know them more exactly in the eighth and ninth sessions.

Fta90 Mansi, l . c . p. 322 sqq.; Hardouin, 1 .c . p. 1142 sqq.

Fta91 We learn to know this collection more exactly at the tenth session.

Fta92 Mansi, l . c . p. 327; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1150.

Fta93 Mansi, t. 11 p. 331 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1154 sqq.

Fta94 Mansi, l . c . p. 339; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1159.

Fta95 Mansi, l . c . p. 350; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1167.

Fta96 Mansi, l .c . pp. 350-358; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1167-1175.

Fta97 Athanasii Opp. ed. Montf. t. 1 pt. 2 p. 941.

Fta98 In the collection of Hardouin (but not in Mansi) the patristic passages are suitably made known by marks of quotation. But at p. 1178, Hardouin ought to have begun these marks four lines earlier, at the words, Et dicitis , etc.

Fta99 Mansi, t. 11 pp. 359-378; Hardouin, t. 3 pp. 1175-1190. Cf. the author’s Chrysostomuspostille , 3te Aufl. S. 217, where he has given the homily of Chrysostom here referred to.

Fta100 Mansi, l . c . pt. 378-387; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1191-1198.

Fta101 Mansi, t. 11 pp. 387-455; Hardouin, t. 3 pp. 1198-1252.

Fta102 Mansi, l . c . pp. 462-509; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1257-1295.

Fta103 Mansi, l . c . pp. 510-518; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1295-1303.

Fta104 Isauria, until the beginning of the eighth century, belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch. The Emperor, Leo the Isaurian, was the first to unite it with Constantinople.

Fta105 See above, sec. 292; Mansi, l . c . p. 526; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1310.

Fta106 Mansi, l . c . pp. 518-550; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1303-1327.

Fta107 Added to the new edition.

Fta108 Walch, l . c . S. 332, asserts that only the Romae legates regarded the reading as superfluous. This is untrue and invidious. The Acts say expressly, hJ aJgi>a su>nodov ei+pen , Mansi, l . c . p. 557; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1333.

Fta109 It is the same letter which we fully considered at p. 93 f.

Fta110 Mansi, t. 11 pp. 550-582; Hardouin, t. 3 pp. 1327-1354.

Fta111 Cf. vol. 4 p. 291.

Fta112 Mansi, l . c . pp. 583-602; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1355-1370.

Fta113 Anastasii Vitae Pontificum , in Vita Agathonis , in Mansi, t. 11 p. 168; Pagi, ad ann . 681, 14, 15.

Fta114 Mansi, l . c . pp. 602-611; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1370-1378.

Fta115 Mansi, l . c . pp. 611-622; Hardouin, l . c . pp. 1378-1386.

Fta116 Mansi, l . c . p. 622 sq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1387 sq.

Fta117 At the fifth it is mentioned that they had been assembled against Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius (see vol. 4 p. 295).

Fta118 Mansi, t. 11 p. 631 Sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1395 sqq.

Fta119 Mansi, t. 11 p. 658 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1415 sqq.

Fta120 In the appendix to his Historia Monotheletarum , p. 199 sqq., Combefis gives us an ejpi>logov of deacon Agatho, which asserts that thirty-two years before, when he was still a lector, he had served the holy Synod as secretary, and in union with the secretary, afterwards Archbishop Paul of Constantinople, had written most of the Acts. The five copies of the decree of faith destined for the five patriarchs had also been prepared by his hand. — In the superscription of the copy destined for Jerusalem (Mansi, t. 11 p. 683; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1437), the last words are an addition by a later band. See below, the last note in see. 326.

Fta121 Mansi, t. 11 p. 683 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1438 sqq. This letter was also subscribed by the members of the Synod, with the exception of the papal legates. That a fragment of subscriptions formerly ascribed erroneously to the Nicene Synod (Mansi, t. 11 p. 694) belongs to the sixth OEcumcnical Synod, we remarked before (vol. 1 see. 35).

Fta122 [A court attached to early churches, usually placed in front of the church, and supported with porticoes. See Dict . of Antiquities , s.v.] Fta123 Mansi, l . c . p. 698 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1446 sqq.

Fta124 Mansi, l . c . p. 711; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1459. This letter and the departure of the legates belong to the 10th Indiction (September 1,681=682), and not to December of the same date, as the later superscription of the imperial letter to Leo II states. The December of the 10th Indiction would = December of the year 681. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 683, 5 sqq.; Natal. Alexand. Hist . Eccl . See. 7 Diss. 2; and Chmel, Vindiciae Concilii OEcum . VI p. 83 sqq., who defend the genuineness of this letter and of the two following documents against Baronius.

Fta125 Pope Leo had written to the Emperor immediately after his election, and notified him of it. See Pagi, l . c .

Fta126 Mansi, l . c . p. 719; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1463. The chronological note at the end of this letter, found in one old Latin translation, is lacking in the Greek original, and is worthless. So also with that appended to the letter of Leo II to the Emperor, presently to be mentioned. Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 683, 5, 7.

Fta127 With Macarius were, at the same time, sent to Rome, Stephen, Polychronius, Epiphanius, Anastasius, and Leontius. The two last were converted, and Leo II. received them back into the Church; the others were imprisoned in different monasteries. Anastasii Vitae Pontif . in Mansi, t. 11 pp. 167, 1047.

Fta128 Mansi, l . c . p. 726 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1470 sqq.

Fta129 It is doubtful whether this means Archbishop Quiricius of Toledo. He died in January, 680, whilst Pope Leo did not ascend the papal chair until 682. Perhaps the Pope had not heard of his death.

Fta130 The letter to King Ervig is in many MSS. ascribed to the succeeding Pope, Benedict II.

Fta131 Mansi, l . c . p. 1050 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1730 sqq. As in all these letters of Leo to the Spaniards the anathema on Honorius is mentioned, Baronius wanted to declare them all spurious. But they were well defended by Pagi, ad ann . 683, 5-14; and Combefis, Hist . Haeres . Monothelet . p. 154. The next paragraph in the text meets the objections of Baronius.

Fta132 This section receives many alterations and additions in the second edition.

Fta133 Pennacchi remarks (p. 275), in opposition to me: “Secundam doctissimi episcopi quaestionem praetermittere possem: siquidem et ego fateor (et fateri id etiam omnes illi debent qui veritatem amant ) Honorium in 6 synodo ut Haereticum damnatum fuisse. Further remarks on Pennacchi’s attempt at a solution of the question of Honorius will be found below in this section, p. 188.

Fta134 Mansi, t. 11 p. 554 sq.; Hardouin, t. 6 p. 1832 sq.

Fta135 The Synod, too, remarked that several passages in the letters of Honorius stood in contradiction to his apparent Monothelitism.

Fta136 Mansi, t. 11 p. 938; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1658.

Fta137 Mansi, t. 13 p. 377; Hardouin, t. 4 p. 454.

Fta138 Mansi, t. 12 pp. 1124, 1141; t. 13 pp. 404, 412; Hardouin, t. 4 pp. 134, 147, 474, 482.

Fta139 Mansi, t. 16 p. 181; Hardouin, t. 5 914.

Fta140 in Mansi, t. 11 p. 1047.

Fta141 Libor Diurnus , ed. Eugene de Roziere, Paris 1869, No. 84.

Fta142 Mansi, t. 16 p. 126; Hardouin, t. 5 p. 866.

Fta143 Cf. above, p. 34 ff., Schneemann’s expression.

Fta144 Mansi, t. 11 p. 726 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1470 sqq.

Fta145 Mansi, l . c . p. 1050 sq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1730 sq.

Fta146 Mansi, l . c . p. 1056 sq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1733.

Fta147 Schneemann (l . c . S. 62) comes to the conclusion that “the Pope confirmed the judgment of the sixth Synod on the proviso that it anathematized Honorius only on account of favoring the heresy .”

Schneemann further remarks: “As the validity of the councilor decrees depended entirely on the confirmation by the Pope, it might be said that Honorius had been condemned by the (Ecumenical Council, not for heresy, but for favoring heresy.” It is easily understood how far Schneemann departs from Ns and from Pennacchi. When the latter maintains that Pope II. “abrogated” the sentence of the Council against Honorius, Schneemann gives the milder and relatively more correct statement: “The Pope confirmed the sentence of the Council, but with a “proviso .” But of “a proviso” there is no trace in the letters of Leo . II ; but he defined with greater precision the fault of Honorius, and explained thereby the sense in which the sentence of the Council was to be understood. Note to the second edition.

Fta148 Albert. Pighius, Diatriba de Actis 6 et 7 Concilii . Baron. ad ann. 680, 34; 681, 19-34; 682, 3-9; 683, 2-22. Barrual, Du Pape et de ses droits , pt. 1 c. 1. Roisselet de Sauclieres, Histoire des Conciles , Paris 1846, t. 3 p. 117. The hypothesis of Baronius was received with modifications by Boucat, Tract . de Incarnatione , Diss. 4 p. 162, and recently by Damberger, Synchronist . Gesch . des Mittelalters , Bd. 2 S. 119 ff.

Fta149 But the original was not in the patriarchal archives, but in the imperial palace, as we are assured by the deacon and notary Agatho, who wrote it, in his ejpi>logov , in Combefis, Hist . Monothel ., in vol. 2 of his Auctuarium Novum , p. 199.

Fta150 Combefis (French Dominican), Dissert . apologetica pro Actis sextae Synodi , p. 66 sqq. in the Appendix to his Historia Monothelet . in his Auctuarium Novum , t. 2 An extract from it is given by Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliotheque , t. 6 p. 67 sqq.

Fta151 Pagi, ad ann . 681, 7 sqq.; 683, 4 sqq.

Fta152 Garnier, De causa Honorii , in the Appendix to his edition of the Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontif . p. 1680.

Fta153 Nat. Alexander, Historia Ecclesiastes Sec. 7 Diss. 2 Propos. 1 p. sqq., ed. Venet. 1778.

Fta154 Mamachi, Originum et Antiquitatum , t. 6 p. 5.

Fta155 Ballerini, De Vi ac ratione Primatus , p. 306.

Fta156 Biblioth . juris orient , t. 4 p. 119 sqq.

Fta157 Palma, Praelectiones Hist . Eccl . t. 2 pt. 1 p. 149, Romae 1839.

Fta158 Chmel (Prof. Prag.), Vindicise Concilii OEcum . Sexti , Prague 1777.

Fta159 Cf. on this, Hist . of Councils , vol. 1 p. 128.

Fta160 Mansi, t. 12 p. 242 sq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1082 sq.

Fta161 Pagi, ad ann. 681, 8, 9; Walch, Ketzerhist Bd. 9 S. 423.

Fta162 Mansi, t. 11 p. 715; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1462. I know well that Baronius contests this letter also. But more of this hereafter.

Fta163 See above, pp. 154, 156, 170 ff.; and vol. 4 p. 265.

Fta164 This is proved by Pagi, ad ann . 682, 7.

Fta165 This argument is not quite stringent, for it were possible that the copy destined for Rome might be given to the legates, and might have remained with them in Constantinople until the year 682, and so until the restoration of Theodore (according to the chronology of Baronius).

Fta166 Combefis, Novum Auctuarium , t. 2 p. 204; Mansi, t. 12 p. 190.

Fta167 Baronius, ad ann . 683, 6.

Fta168 Mansi, t. 12 p. 968; Hardouin, t. 4 p. 10.

Fta169 See above, p. 150.

Fta170 Cf. Petr. de Marca, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii , lib. 5 c. 19, 2, 3; and c. 29, 11.

Fta171 Combefis, l . c . p. 138; Pagi, ad ann . 683, 14.

Fta172 Combefis, l . c . pp. 154, 164; Pagi, ad ann. 683, 13.

Fta173 Biblioth . juris orient , t. 4 p. 549; t. 5 p. 39.

Fta174 Baron. ad ann . 686, 4; Pagi, red, ann. 686, 7.

Fta175 Mansi, 11 p. 737; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1478.

Fta176 Anton Boucaut, Tractat . De Incarnatione , Diss. 4, 162. Cf. Chmel, l . c . p. Fta177 In the Vita Aqathonis , printed in Mansi, t. 11 p. 168.

Fta178 Easter fell on April 14 in the year 681. The eleventh session was held on March 20; the fourteenth, April 5; the fifteenth, April 16, 681.

Fta179 But even decided Curialists, like Pennacchi, l . c . p. 193 sqq., defend the genuineness of the Acts of the sixth OEcumenical Council.

Fta180 Mansi, t. 13 p. 377; Hardouin, t. 4 p. 454.

Fta181 Mansi, t. 16 p. 181; Hardouin, t. 5 p. 914.

Fta182 The short original document on this Synod is given by Eddius, in his Vita S . Wilfridi , c. 33, in Mansi, t. 11 p. 187. Cf. Schrodl, Das erste Jahrh . der engl . Kirche , S. 182, 220, 226, 228, 231; and Montalembert, Les Moines de l ’Occident , vol. 4.

Fta183 Mansi, t. 11 p. 1023 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1715 sqq.; Aguirre, Conc . Hisp , t. 2 p. 681 sqq.; Bruns, Biblioth . Eccl . pt. 1 p. 317 sqq.; Coleccion de Canones de la iglesa espanola , por Gonzalez, Madrid 1849, t. 2 p. 453 sqq.; Gams Kirchengeschichte von Spanien , Bd. Thl. 2 S. 168 ft.; Ferreras, Gesch . von Spanien , Bd. 2 S. 438 f.

Fta184 With this ordinance begins the primacy of Toledo. Cf. Cams, Kircheng . von Spanien , Bd. 2 Thl. 2 S. 215ff.

Fta185 Hardouin, Mansi, etc., ll . cc .

Fta186 Of. Mansi, t. 11 p. 1043 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1727.

Fta187 Mansi, l . c . 1046.

Fta188 Mansi, t. 11 p. 1059 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1735; Aguirre, l . c . p. sqq.; Bruns, l . c . p. 333; Gonzalez, Coleccion de Can . de la iglesa espanola , Madrid 1849, t. 2 p. 494 sqq.; Gains, l . c . S. 172 f., 219 f.; Ferreras, l . c . S. 443 ff.

Fta189 Baronius, ad ann . 683, 22, supposes that under gesta synodalia we are to understand a complete copy of all the documents of the sixth Council, and so the Synod of Toledo would contradict the letter of Pope Leo II to the Spaniards, which speaks of only some documents sent. This letter, therefore, would be spurious. Cf. above, p. 201. But Pagi, ad ann . 683, 14, rightly solves the supposed contradiction. Pope Leo sent the principal Acts (decrees) Of the sixth Council... and these might quite properly be called the gesta synodalia .

Fta190 Mansi, l . c . p. 1086 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1754 sqq.; Aguirre, l. c. p. 717 sqq.; Bruns, l . c . p. 349 sqq.; Gonzalez, Coleccion de Can . l . c . p. 520 sqq.; Ferreras, l . c . S. 448.

Fta191 Mansi, l. c. pp. 1058, 1095; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1758; Schrodl, l . c . S. 211; D. Pitra, Histoire de St . Leger . [See also Art. “Leodegarius” in Dict . of Christian Biography .] Fta192 Mansi, l . c . p. 1099. Pope Benedict XII speaks, in his Libellus ad Armenos of A.D. 1341, of an Armenian Synodus Manesguerdensis , in which, 612 years before, and therefore in the year 729, it had been laid down that in the holy Mass the wine should not be mixed with water.

See Raynald, ad ann . 1341, n. 69, sec. 71.

Fta193 Mansi. t. 12 p. 7 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1749 sqq.; Aguirre, l . c . p. 721 sqq.; Bruns, l . c . p. 353 sqq.; Coleccion de Canones , l . c . p. sqq.; Ferreras, l. c . S. 450ff.; Gams, l . c . S. 175f.

Fta194 Ferreras, l. c . 453 L; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth . t. 6 p. 37 sq. ed Mons.

Fta195 Mansi, t. 12 p. 42 sq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1779; Aguirre, l . c . p. 732; Bruns, l . c . pt. 2 p. 102; Coleccion de Canones , etc. t. 2 p. 182 sqq.; Ferreras, l . c . S. 455.

Fta196 Walch, Ketzerhist . Bd. 9 S. 440, is mistaken when he identifies him with the legate, Bishop John of Portus. The facts are correctly stated by Anastasius in his Vita Joannis 5, in Mansi, t. 11 p. 1092.

Fta197 It is differently understood by Assemani in his Biblioth . juris Orient . t. 5 p. 37: “The Acts are no longer preserved anywhere, unless with some imperial Judices and the Emperor himself, but not in the patriarchal archives.” But the word is remiserunt , not remanserunt .

Fta198 Mansi, t. 11 p. 737; Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1478; Assemanni, l . c . t. 4 p. 599 sqq.; t. 5 p. 39 sq., supposes that the deception of the papal legates, of which we speak below (p. 238), had now happened. In what the error, to which they now assented, consisted, Assemani gives no hint; but thinks that it was on the same occasion an that on which the remark in the Acts of the eighteenth session was added: “George of Sebaste, then representative of the patriarchal administrator of Jerusalem, became subsequently patriarch of Antioch” — an addition which is found in all the still extant manuscripts of the synodal Acts, Latin and Greek. (Mansi, t. 11 p. 683, and Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1437.)

Assemani wonders on this occasion, that Baronius did make use of the revision of the synodal Acts of Justinian II, and the deception which might have been practiced at that time, in favor of his hypothesis in regard to Honorius (see above, p. 202), — an hypothesis which Assemani does not accept. But a falsification of the Acts in the year 686 was for Baronius too late, since the genuine Acts had already gone to Rome.

Fta199 Quinisexta Synodus, or Quinisextum Concilium.

Fta200 This is contested by Assemani (Biblioth . jur . Orient . t. 5 p. 85), since he belongs to those who remove the sixth (Ecumenical Synod into the Church of S. Sophia. See above, p. 43.

Fta201 Baronius, ad ann . 692, 7. Only by mistake the Latins also sometimes ascribed the canons of this Synod to the sixth (Ecumenical Council.

The Latin Canons which, in Hardouin, t. 3 p. 1711 sq., are ascribed in the margin to the sixth (Ecumenical Council, belong to Theodulph of Orleans. See Hardouin, t. 4 p. 916.

Fta202 At the fourth session, in Hardouin, t. 4 p. 191; Mansi, t. 13 p. 42.

Fta203 At the sixth session, in Hardouin, t. 4 p. 335; Mansi, t. 13 p. 219.

Fta204 Pagi, ad ann . 692, 2-7; Assemani, l. c. t. p. 60 sqq.

Fta205 Printed in Mansi, t. 11 pp. 930-1006; Hardouin, t. 3 pp. 1651-1712.

To these synodal Acts is prefixed a Greek and Latin Admonitio ad Lectorem , composed by the editors of the Roman Collection of Councils (they say, in the index to the third volume, that it is latine et graece nunc primum composita ), which differs from the Greek translation of the Quinisext. An extensive treatise on the Trullan Synod and its canons was given by Joseph Simon Assemani in his Bibliotheca juris orientalis , Romae 1786, t. 5 pp. 55-348, and t. 1 pp. 120, sqq.; and also the treatise, De hymno Trisagio (t. 5), partially touches on the 81st canon of our Synod. A hundred years earlier, Christian Lupus (professor at Louvain) explained the Trullan canons in his wellknown work, Synodorum generailium , etc., decreta et canones . The older Greek commentaries by Theodore Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, of the twelfth century, are found in Beveridge, Pandectae canonum sine synodicon , Oxon. 1672, t. 1 pp. 151-283, and Beveridge’s own notes upon them, ibid . t. 2 pt. 2 p. 126 sqq. It is yet to be remarked that some MSS., e .g . that of Baronius, counted canons, instead of 102, by dividing one of them into two.

Fta206 Mansi, l . c . p. 930 sqq.; Hardouin, l . c . p. 1651 sqq. Cf. vol. 2 p. 369.

Fta207 This canon already contains a polemic against Rome, since that recognized only the first 50 apostolic canons. Cf. vol. 1 ad fin .

Fta208 This general statement does not enable us to know what special ordinance of an African Synod under Cyprian is meant. It is supposed that the Greeks had here, out of opposition to Route, received that statement of Cyprian which he made at the beginning of the third Synod of Carthage, A.D. 257: “Let no one oppose the episcopus episcoporum . Baronius (ad ann . 692, 16), Assemani Bibioth . jut . Orient . t. 1 p. 414), and others, again, think that the Greeks, from hatred against Rome, had approved the African canon of the invalidity of every heretical baptism. But in that case they would have contradicted themselves. Cf. below, their canon 95.

Fta209 The Synods of Carthage of the year 390, can. 2, and 401, can. 4 (vol. 2 secs. 106, 113), require, however, not temporary, but permanent continence in priests:, etc. The inconsistency of the Greeks is further to be noticed. Whoever becomes a priest as a married man must retain his wife; but if he becomes a bishop she must go into a monastery (c. 48).

Cf. how Baronius (ad ann . 692, 18-27) opposes this canon. On this canon and the marriage of the Greek clergy, Assemani treats copiously, l . c . t. 5 p. 133 sqq., and t. 1 p. 418 sqq.

Fta210 Cf. Assemani, l . c . t. 5 p. 109 sqq.

Fta211 On the sub-diaconate among the Greeks, of. Assemani, l . c . t. 5 p. 122 sqq.

Fta212 That this opinion is incorrect is shown by Baronius, ad ann . 692, 28.

Cf. Assemani, l . c . t. 5 p. 147 sqq.

Fta213 By the koinwni>a ajcra>ntov the old Greek commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, already understood the holy communion. See Beveridge, Synodicon t. 1 p. 182.

Fta214 An attack on the Western practice. By “barbarians” the Westerns are meant.

Fta215 Cf. Assemani, l. c. t. 5 p. 201 sqq.; and above, p. 217, n. 2.

Fta216 Cf. Assemani, l. c. t. 5 p. 287.

Fta217 Hitherto the bishop of Cyzicus was metropolitan of the province of the Hellespont. Now he too is to be subject to the bishop of New- Justinianopolis. What, however, is meant by to< di>kaion th~v Kwnstantinoupo>lewv ? It was impossible that the Synod should place the bishop of Justinianopolis in equal dignity with the patriarch of Constantinople. But they probably meant to say: “The rights which the bishop of Constantinople has hitherto exercised over the province of the Hellespont, as chief metropolitan, fall now to the bishop of New- Justinimopolis.” Or perhaps we should read, instead of Kwnstantinoupo>lewv, Kwnstantine>wn po>lewv , as the MS.

Amerbarchii has it, and translate: “The same rights which Constantia (the metropolis of Cyprus) possessed, New-Justinianopolis shall henceforth have.” The latter is the more probable.

Fta218 Cf. the commentary of Assemani, l . c . t. 5 p. 153 sqq.

Fta219 The old Greek commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, understand by this the fights of animals. Cf. Beveridge, l . c . p. 218.

Fta220 Canon 24, which treats of a similar subject, is more mild. Naturally so, as there it is of spectators, here of actors, dancers, fighters of animals, that mention is made.

Fta221 Cf. the commentary of Assemani, l . c . t. 5 p. 165 sqq.

Fta222 Compare the copious commentary on the canon by Assemani, l . c . t. p. 172.

Fta223 Cf. Assemani, l. c. t. 1 p. 431, and t. 5 p. 212 sqq.

Fta224 According to Balsamon (in Beveridge, l . c . p. 228), old people who had the reputation of special knowledge [identified by Gothofred with the “centenarii” of the Theodosian code. See Dictionary of Christ . Antiq . s .v .].

Fta225 They sold their hair as medicine or for an amulet. Cf. Balsamon and Zonaras in Beveridge, l . c . p. 228.

Fta226 These kinds of superstition are more fully discussed in Balsamon and Zonaras, l. c . p. 230 sqq.

Fta227 The Greeks want here, in their pedantry, to make a temporary prescription of the apostolic time, which was then necessary to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians, of perpetual validity. Cf. Baron. l . c . ad ann . 690, 30.

Fta228 Other laymen, besides the Emperor, ventured to pass the barriers which surrounded the altar, in order to make an offering, and so to reach the innermost part of the sanctuary. When, however, they had offered, they were required immediately to withdraw, and were not allowed to remain within during Mass. Only in Constantinop1e had Byzantine complacency conceded to the Emperor his usual place in the presbytery. When Theodosius the Great came to Milan, he wanted it to be so, and remained, after he had made his offering, within the rails.

Ambrose, remarking this, asked him first, what he wanted, and pointed out to him the difference between clergy and laity. Theodoret, Hist . Ecclesiastes 5:18. Sozomen, Hist . Ecclesiastes 7:25. Cf. the notes of Lupus on this passage, and Baron. ad ann . 692, 317. Our canon does not express the truth exactly with its “ancient tradition.”

Fta229 What we are to understand by the forbidden kuli>strai , Balsamon and Zonaras have not been able rightly to explain. Beveridge, l . c . p. 240 sq.

Fta230 The Synod erroneously here places marriage with a heretic on the same line with that with a heathen. Cf. Assemani, l . c . t. 1 p. 434 sqq.

Fta231 By ta< locei~a others understand the so-called after-birth, secundinae . Cf. the detailed commentary on this canon in Assemani, l . c . t. 5 p. 193 sqq.

Fta232 In the oldest times Christians set up only the figure of the cross without the crucifixus . From the fifth century the figure of a Lamb , or of the bust of Christ, was introduced on the cross, sometimes above, sometimes below, sometimes in the middle. Next to this, the third form was developed, when the whole figure of Christ was attached to the cross, and this form was made universally prevalent by the Trullan Synod. But the older form still lasted on (the cross with the Lamb or with the bust of Christ) here and there. Cf. the author’s treatise on “Antiquity and the oldest form of Crucifixes” in his Beitrage zur Kirchengeschichte , Tub. 1864, Bd. 2 S. 265 f.

Fta233 Cf. Asscmani, l . c . p. 294 sqq.

Fta234 The Libellus Synodicus speaks of 240 bishops; in Mansi, t. 11 p. 1018; Hardouin, t. 5 p. 1539. Assemani remarks (t. 5 p. 73) correctly, that, by a slip of the pen in the subscriptions to the Synod, two archbishops of Caesarea are mentioned, Cyriacus and Stephen; the latter must have been archbishop of Ephesus, as the addition th~v jAsianw~n ejparci>av shows. When, however, Assemani finds two bishops of Ancyra in the subscriptions to the Synod, this rests upon a misprint in the edition used by him.

Fta235 Cf. Pagi, ad ann . 692, 9-12, and Assemani, l . c . 5 p. 72.

Fta236 Baron. ad ann . 686, 4; Pagi, ad ann. 686, 7.

FTB1 All that must have appeared offensive to the Latins in the Trullan Synod is put together by Assemani, 1. c. t. i.p. 413 sqq.

FTB2 Anastas. Vita Sergii, in Mansi, t. 12. p. 3; Baron. ad ann. 692, 34 sqq.

FTB3 Thus relates Anastasius, Vita Joannis VII., in Mansi, t. 12. p. 163; Baron. ad ann,. 692, 89, 40.

FTB4 We learn all this from Anastasius, Vita Constantini, in Mansi, l.c.p. 179; and Vita Gregorii II. ibid. 226.

FTB5 According to this, Pope John VIII. must have pronounced his judgment on the Trullan canons at a Synod. Lupus referred to the Synod of Troyes in the year 878, at which the Pope himself was present. Pagi, ad ann. 692, 16.

FTB6 In Mansi, t. 12. p. 982; Hardouin, t. 4. p. 19. Anastasius (or the Roman Synod under John VIII.) is mistaken in regard to the last statement; for, (a ) as we saw, p. 237, the Greek patriarchs were present at the Trullan Council; (b ) and the Greeks received unhesitatingly the Trullan canons, as canon I of the seventh Oecumenical Synod shows. Cf. Assemani, l.c t. 5. p. 86.

FTB7 Pagi, ad ann. 710, 2.

FTB8 Mansi, t. 12. p. 56; sqq.; Hardenin, t. in. p. 1783.

FTB9 From the province of Narbonne we meet only two two bishops, Ervigius of Beziers and Suniagisidus of Lodeve. Why the rest did not come we are told in canon 13.

Ftb10 Ferreras, Hist. of Spain, vol. 2.

FTB11 On mancipia, cf. Du Cange, Gloss. s.v. By this are meant farmhouses which have been built by the slaves of the Church (mancipia) and their families.

FTB12 Cf. Concil. Tolet. 4. 100. 75; Tolet. 5. 100. 4; Tolet. 6. 100. 17; Tolet. 10. 100. 2.

FTB13 Florez (Espana Saqrada, t. 6. p. 227) takes this quite literally, as though not a single bishop of the province of Narbonne had been present, and therefore supposes that Ervig, who is mentioned above (p. 243, note 2), who was present at this Synod, was not bishop of Beziers (in the province of Narbonne), but of Caldabria in the province of Mexida. On Suniagisid Ep. Laniobiensis (probably = Lutrebensis, Lodeve), he says nothing.

FTB14 Mansi, t. 12. p. 59 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1786 sqq.; Aguirre, Concilia Hisp. t. 2. p. 735 sqq.; Gonzalez, Coleccion, etc., Madrid 1849, t. 2. p. 553 sqq.; Gains, Kircheng. von Spanien, Bd. 2. Thl. 2. S. 180ff.

FTB15 Mansi, t. 12. p. 94 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1810 sq.; Aguirre, 1. c. p. 752 sqq.; Coleccion de Canones, l.c. p. 588 sqq.; Gains, l.c. S. 183.

FTB16 On the presence of abbesses at English Councils, cf. vol. 1. p. 24.

FTB17 We still possess the brief Acts of this assembly in three draughts, in Mansi, t. 12. p. 87 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1806 sqq. Cf. Montalembert, Moines de l'Occident, vol. 5.

FTB18 Cute privari=fustibus caedi. See Du Cange, s.v. Cutis.

FTB19 Mansi, t. 12. p. 111; Hardouin, 1. c. p. 1818; Bruns, Biblioth..Eccles. pt. 2. p. 311. (Hardouin has the older and inferior text.) Cf. Montalembert, l.c.

FTB20 Mansi,l.c.. p. 107 sqq.; Pagi, ad ann. 697, 2.

FTB21 Mansi, t. 12. p. 163; Pagi, ad ann. 701, 4; Baron. ad ann. 701, 15.

FTB22 Baronius, ad ann. 705, 6, identified this Synod with that at the holding of which Pope John VII. was requested to point out what was amiss in the Trullan canons. See above, p. 240. But, in the first place, it is not certain that John VII. held such a Synod (Anastasius, who relates the affair, says not a single syllable of the actual holding of a Synod); moreover, the acquittal of Wilfrid belongs to the pontificate of John VI., not VII. Pagi, ad ann. 704, 8; 705, 4, 12.

FTB23 John received York. Bose, however, died about this time.

FTB24 The Acts of the three Synods of Easterfield, Rome, and on the Nidd, are found in Mansi, t. 12. pp. 158-174; Hardouin, t. 3. pp. 1822-1828, and are mostly drawn from the old biographies of S. Wilfrid by Eddius.

Cf. Monta-lembert, Moines de l'Occident [English translation published by Blackwood], vol. 4.; Schrodl, Das erste Jahrhundert der englischen Kirche, S. 260-271; Pagi, ad ann. 702, 3-6; 704, 8, 9; 705, 4-12.

FTB25 Mansi, t. 12. p. 167; Hardouin, 1. c. p. 1823.

FTB26 Cf. Bede, Hist. Eccles. 5. 18, ed. Migne, t. 6. p. 261. [Ed. Moberly, Oxon. 1881, p. 329]; Mansi, 1.c. p. 175.

FTB27 Mansi, l.c.p. 178.

FTB28 Mansi, l.c.p. 187.

FTB29 Bede, Hist. 1. 35; Mansi, t. 12. p. 209.

FTB30 Mansi, l.c.p. 210; Hardouin, 1. c. p. 1847; Pagi, ad ann. 726, 15; 740, 2. Ina’s consort, who accompanied him after his abdication on his journey to Rome, was called Ethelburga.

FTB31 Cf. vol. 4. p. 367, note 4; and Rettberg, Kirchenges. Deutschlands, Bd. 1. S. 550f.

FTB32 Mansi, l.c.p. 251 sqq.

FTB33 Mansi, l.c . p. 260; Seiters, Bonifacius, der Apostel der Deutschen, 1845, S. 108.

FTB34 Mansi, t. 12. p. 262 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1863; Greith, bishop of S.

Gallen, Gesch. der altirischen Kirche, 1867, S. 154.

FTB35 In Mansi, l.c.p. 267.

FTB36 Scholae palatinae= cohortes variae ad Palatii et Principis custodiam destinaae. Du Cange, thus=Halls for the bodyguard.

FTB37 See Agatho's ejpi>logov in Combefis, Novum Auctuarium, t. 2., and Mansi, t. 12. p. 190; Hardouin, t. 3. p. 1834; Pagi, ad ann. 711, 4 sqq.; 713, 1.

FTB38 Libellus Synodices in Mansi, t. 12. p. 190; Hardouin, t. 5. p. 1542; Pagi, ad ann. 712, 1-7; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. 9. S. 449-468.

FTB39 So Anastasius, in Mansi, t. 12. p. 180.

FTB40 Cf. Pagi, ad ann. 714, 1, 2. He was not deposed, as Zonaras thought.

FTB41 Libellus Synodicus, in Mansi, l.c.p. 255 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 5. p. 1542.

The name of John is wrongly added by the inaccurate author of the Libcellus Synodicus. He also mentions erroneously the actual Emperor as Apsimar, instead of Artemius or Anastasius. Cf. Walch, l.c.S. 471.

FTB42 Cf. the author’s treatise, Ueber das erste Lustrum des Bilderstreits, in the Tubingen Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1857, Heft 4.

FTB43 Justin M. Dialog, 100. Tryph. 200. 14, 49, 85, 100, 110, ed. Otto; Tertull De carne Christi, 100. 9; Adv. Judaeos, 100. 14; Clemens Alex. Paedagog, lib. 3. 1; Stromat. lib. 2. 5, p. 440; lib. 3. 17, p. 559; lib. 6. 17, p. 818, ed. Port; Origen, 100. Celsum, lib. 6. 75. Celsus, among other things, had made this representation of the form of the Lord a reproach to the Christians. Cf. Munter, Sinnbilder u.

Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen, Altona 1825, Heft 2.; Gruneisen, Ueber die Ursachen des Kunsthasses in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Kunstblatt, 1831, No. 29; and the author’s article on ‘Pictures of Christ” in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, s.v. Christusbilder. A beautiful essay on the use of pictures in the ancient Church is given in Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccles. See. 8. Diss. 6. t. 6. p. 91 sqq., ed. Venet. 1778.

FTB44 Cf. Kirchenlexicon, s.v. Christusbilder.

FTB45 See vol. 1. p. 151, 100. 36.

FTB46 Basilii Opp. ed. Garnier, t. 2. p. 141. Cf. Marr, Der Bilderstreit, Trier 1839, S. 6, and his article on Bilder in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexicon, s.v.

FTB47 Theophanes, Chronogr. ed. Bonn, t. 1.p. 600.

FTB48 Spatharius, from spatha = sword, an officer who bears the Emperor’s sword, almost = adjutant. Cf. Du Cange, Gloss. s.v. Spatharius.

FTB49 Baronius, ad ann. 716, 1-3, removes the year of the accession of Leo to 716; Theophanes, on the contrary, almost a contemporary, states (l.c . p. 635) that Leo ascended the throne on March 25 of the 15th Indiction. This ran from September 1, 716, to September 1, 717; and therefore the 25th of together and translated, the best edition by Bekker in the Bonn Collection of Byzantines, t. 2. of the Chronography of Theophanes. On the Historia Miscella, which has been falsely ascribed to the deacon Paul, cf. Bahr, Die christlichen Dichter u.

Geschichtschreiber Roms, 1. S. 152 ff. Of Paul the deacon we use the edition of the Abbe Migne, Paris 1850.

FTB50 Theophanes, Chronogr . Ed. Bonn 1839 (in the Collection of the Byzantines), t. i. p. 617. Of his peculiar chronolgy we spoke before, p. 3, note 2.

FTB51 Their works are included in the Bonn (and also in the Paris and Venice) edition of the Byzantines.

FTB52 The Hist. Eccles . Of Anastasius is one of the three Byzantines:

Nicephorus (patriarch), George Syncellus, and Theophanes, Chronographia Tripartita , put together and translate, the best edition by Bekker in the Bonn Collection of Byzantines, t. 2. Of the Chronography of Theophanes. On the Historia Miscella , which has been falsely ascribed to the deacon Paul, cf. Bahr, Die christlichen Dichter u. Geshichtschreiber Roms, 1. S. 152 ff. Of Paul the deacon we use the edition of the Abbe Migne, Paris 1850.

FTB53 We mention, for brevity’s sake, Anastasius Bibliothecarius as author of the Vitae Pontificum, although he probably wrote only the smallest part of it himself; and certainly the passages which we have to use in the history of the controversy about images are older than Anastasius.

FTB54 Published in Greek and Latin by Montfaucon in the Analecta Graeca, Paris 1688. An old Latin translation of this biography, by Simeon Meta-phrastes, which has a good deal peculiar to itself, was earlier known, and was used already by Baronius, but erroneously ascribed to John Damascene, ad ann. 726, 4.

FTB55 Nicephorus Constantinop. De rebus post Mauritium gestis, in the Bonn edition of the Byzantines, l837.

FTB56 A work as offensive through insipid argument as by prejudiced perversion of history.

FTB57 Schlosser, in his Geschichte der Bildersturmenden Kaiser, S. 161, calls him wrongly Theophilus of Nacolia, copying a mistake of Baronius.

FTB58 The variations of the Greek text leave it undecided whether Beser was by birth a Syrian, or had come into Syria as a prisoner among the Saracens. Cf. the notes of P. Goar to Theophanes, t. 2. p. 636 of the Bonn edition.

FTB59 Germanus, formerly archbishop of Cyzicus, had, under the Emperor Philip Bardanes, held with the opponents of the sixth Oecumenical Synod, but speedily was converted. See above, p. 259.

FTB60 Preserved in the Acts of the fourth session of Nicaea II., in Mansi, t. 13. p. 99 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 4. p. 239 sqq.

FTB61 Mansi, 50. p. 106; Hardouin, 1.100. p. 243.

FTB62 There were several cities of this name in Asia Minor, thus, e.g., a bishopric of Claudiopolis in Isauria and a metropolitan in Paphlagonia.

FTB63 In Mansi, t. 13. p. 107 sqq.; Hardouin, t. 4. p. 246 sqq.

FTB64 In Mansi, t. 12i. p. 968; Hardouin, t. 4. p. 10.

FTB65 Mansi, t. 13. p. 198; Hardouin, t. 4. 319. — Schlosser, I.c. S. 162 f. says: “The same Caliph Jezid also forbade wine to his Christian subjects, and lays importance on this. But it was not Jezid, but his predecessor Omar who did this, as Theophanes testifies” (l.c .p. 614).

FTB66 Maimbourg adorns, here and elsewhere, the subject in his own way without justification from the authorities.

FTB67 The two works in question were formerly, by mistake, attributed to S.

John of Damascus, and are found among his works, ed. Le Quien, t. 1. p. 625sqq., and p. 633 sqq. Cf. Walch, K etzerhist. Bd. 10. S. 151-155.

FTB68 Cf. John 5. Muller, Allg. Gesch. Bd. 13. K. 10.; Marr, Der Bilderstreit, S. 15 f.; Walch, 1. c. S. 217.

FTB69 Theophanes, l.c. p. 622; Nicephorus, De rebus post Mauritium gestis, in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantines, 1837, p. 64, and all later editions.

FTB70 In Mansi, t. 12. p. 960; Hardouin, t. 4. p 5.

FTB71 In Baron. ad ann. 726, 4.

FTB72 Baron. ad ann. 726, 5.

FTB73 So Walch, 1. c. S. 225; and Neander, K.G. Bd. 3. S. 287.

FTB74 A so-called miracle-working image, which once gave bail for a pious sailor Theodore, who was required to raise some money: ajntifwnhth>v =Bail, security. Cf. Walch, 1. c. S. 178 and 183; Pagi, ad ann. 730, 5.