Letter 18: " Verbuin, ceslimatw, Quesn.

[This record consists almost entirely of the Patrologia editor's textual-critical apparatus and editorial notes, with only a short fragment of the letter itself surviving among them. The OCR is badly corrupted; only the legible matter is rendered, and genuine illegible runs are marked.] The word "estimatus" [reckoned], Quesnel omitted. In its place, in other editions, there stands "aestimatus" or "existimatus." That Eustathius was stripped not merely of his diaconate, but was also struck with anathema, is gathered from this: which [...] very harsh against a man by whom nothing was either said against the faith, nor any crime deserving death committed, as no one ever either boasted or invented. The Palatine [manuscript reads] "Dyzoniani." Certain others, "Dezoniani" or "Diozeniani." Thereafter most [read] "et Quiriaci." The editions after Dionysius and Isidore [read]: "restored, let him deserve peace, perceiving charity not feigned. Let charity therefore meet you all and each singly, and by the bonds with which it is connected let it be bound" [...] it is corrected by the help of the better manuscripts, in three of which there stands "charitati" in place of "charitalis." The sentence would be fuller, if it were read "charitatisque vinculis" [and by the bonds of charity]. It stands not only in the collection of [the Spanish] Mercator, but also in the Spanish collection and in that of Dionysius Exiguus. In the latter it holds place 55 among the decrees [...]. We refer it here, [so that whatever things pertain to the Macedonian affair] should not be disjoined; then especially because conjecture is not lacking from which [we judge] that it was written when peace of the church of Antioch was being treated of, and therefore about the year [...]. For Innocent in letter 22 relates that one Maximianus from Macedonia was present as legate at this great business. And this perhaps was the chief cause why this Maximianus and his companions made a longer stay in the City than was expected. In the next letter, as also in letter 165 of Chrysostom likewise written to the Macedonians, Eugenius is joined to Maximianus. Whence there is suspicion that here too "Eumenii" has crept in, in place of "Eugenii." In the copies of the collection of Hadrian, [it could] not [be]: "To be retained with the others it did not behoove": just as Nicholas I also read it. The same passage Hadrian II imitates in the letter to King Charles given in indiction 5. Namely of him who first judged, as is also noted in the margin of Labbe. Hence it is gathered that Bubalius and Taurianus, having been judged by the Macedonians, appealed to the Apostolic See, and that the Macedonians, because their own judgment was being reviewed, bore it with no equable mind. [Note:] These letters are not extant here. Of St. Innocent the Pope. 540 559 [FRAGMENT OF THE LETTER:] [...] the sentence [being] ambiguous, nothing more need be sought in this case henceforth by repeated [inquiries]. But this our little page we send to be read again more carefully by the Cretan bishops, that they may know most fully what has been pronounced concerning Bubalius and Taurianus and the rest; so that those who are in the [day] administration may observe to beware of such men, lest they incur such things. A NOTICE ON THE FOLLOWING LETTERS. 1. All those letters Dionysius Exiguus preserved for us. From his collection they flowed into the Spanish [collection] and into the void [vain copy] of Isidore. That they were written on the occasion of the peace of the Antiochene church is acknowledged. Concerning which peace Theodoret, in book 5 of his history, chapter 35, to render his words summarily as he set them down here in such words: Alexander, [a man] excelling in holiness of life, in zeal for wisdom, in contempt of wealth, in eloquence and innumerable other gifts, when he had succeeded Porphyry, the Eustathians, whom formerly Paulinus, and after him Evagrius, had by no means permitted to be joined [to the rest], by the mild persuasion of words and by frequent exhortations he united to the body of the Church, and for that cause instituted a festival of such a kind as no mortal had ever seen. With these things set down beforehand, the same writer adds concerning Alexander: "He first of all inscribed the name of the most excellent John [Chrysostom] on the ecclesiastical tablets." But the dissension of the Antiochene church, as the same author relates in book 3, chapter 5, lasted right up to Alexander [...] for eighty-five years. Whence it would be easy to discern and define with certainty both the time at which that peace was made and the following letters were written, if the beginning of the said dissension were agreed upon among the learned. And Baronius indeed, while he thinks it must be reckoned to the year 508, either from that day on which Meletius professed [the Son] consubstantial, or from that very [time] when Lucifer ordained Paulinus, that is from the year 361 or 362, is compelled to reject the reckoning of Theodoret as false. But Tillemont judges that it occurred from the deposition of Eustathius, that is in the year 430 or 431, reviewing the beginning of the Antiochene schism, [and] observes that those eighty-five years and more end in the year 415 or 414. With this computation Eutychius, although in other matters not accurate enough, agrees, while he relates that Porphyry, whom he calls Barchus, presided over the Antiochene church for ten years. That this man succeeded into Flavian's place about the year 405 Palladius, in his dialogue on the Life of Chrysostom, page 141, is author. To these things Theodoret, book 5, chapter 35, teaches that the reconciliation of the Antiochene church happened then, when Cyril, the successor of Theophilus, was bishop of the Alexandrian church. But Theophilus, by the testimony of Socrates book 7 chapter 7, ceased to live on the 15th day of the month of October in the year 412. From which it follows that this reconciliation cannot be assigned to the year 415. But there is nothing [unsuitable], if it be deferred to the year 414 or even 413. 2. The reconciliation of the dissenting parties in the Antiochene church was followed, after no long interval, by the legation by which its bishop Alexander [was sent to/designated for] the Roman See; [...] as if, when you have read it again, [nothing] he hastened to seek communion. Alexander's father thought he had not earned this at once; and therefore he devised a twofold legation, one by which Alexander sought communion with Innocent, and for which Eunoecius [?] prescribed the conditions of [granted] peace, the other by which Alexander testified that satisfaction had been made by him according to the conditions prescribed. But of this twofold legation no cause appears. For already from the death of John Chrysostom, that is from the year 407, Innocent had made these conditions well enough known, when he refused his communion to the bishops of the East, until they should have inscribed the name of John among the sacred diptychs. Concerning which matter Theodoret, book 5, chapter 34, speaks thus: "After the death of the great Doctor of the whole world the Western bishops (without doubt by the consent and prescription of Innocent) did not admit the communion of the bishops of Egypt and the East and the Bosphorus and Thrace, until they should have set down the name of that divine man together with the rest of the bishops deceased in the faith." Nor was Alexander so unaware of affairs that he should be ignorant of this; nor so inconsiderate that, knowing the legation [to be] useless, he should undertake it. And indeed Innocent in letter 21, recalling the conditions of peace fulfilled by Alexander, and demanding a like "profession concerning all the conditions completed" from Atticus, does not say "which we prescribed to the legate sent by Alexander," but "which at divers times we foretold." 3. Nor can we also assent to the learned Tillemont, who thinks that letter 20 was sent first, and letter 19 given somewhat afterward. For we judge that both, with letter 21 to Acacius joined to them, were given at the same time. And the former indeed, that is letter 19, that it was synodal and common to Innocent with the twenty bishops who subscribed to it, a note added at the foot makes plain. But the latter, that is letter 20, we reckon to be private and familiar. Mention of the synodal acts, which were appended to the former, is had in both.

" Verbuin, ceslimatw, Quesn. pra'termisil. Ejtis loco in ediiis aliis cxstai (estimalus aut existimatus. Eustaihium non diaconii taniuui graiia spoliatum, scd i't aiiallieuiaie perculsuni liiisse hinc colligitur : qiinil valde duiiiiu adversus hominem a quo nec contr i fidem quidqiiani dictum.nec crimenad moriem admissuin esse ullus umquam vel jaciavit vel finxil. Piih. Dyzoniani. Alii noiiniilli, Dezoniani vel Dioze- niani. Exinde pleriqnc, ei Quiriaci. " Editi p >st Dioo. ei Isid., reparatus mereatur pa- ce.m, uou fictnm pervidens charitalem. Omnibns igitur vobis ac sinqillaliin occwral cliarilns, el vinculis qua' connexa lanetnr : casiigmiur ope ineliorum niss. inqiioruni iribus evstai charitati Inco charitalis. Plenior essel senlentia , si legeretur charitatisque vinculis. Non io Mercaioris laiitum , sed et in llispana et Dimiy-ii Exigui collectione exstat. Apud liniic inter luuoi emii dccreia loeuni 55 olninet Iluc eam refe- rinius, iiiiii ueloiigiiisquaB ad Maceilmiin- res aiiineiit disjuiiganuir : lum maxiine quia nec deest cnnjc- ctura, linde illam cum de pace Aniioclienuc ecclesiae C traciaretur, adeoque circa ann. i\i scripiam esse ceuseamiis. Huic quippe magnn negotio Maxiniianum ex Macedonia: legaiis unuin interfuisse inlra Inno- cen iu- episi. 22 iradit. El lucc loisiiau prxcipua causa fuil cur Maximiaiius isle ac soeius niorain in Urlie inajorem quam sper.ibaiur, facerent. ' ln proxima episiola, ui et in episiohe 1 (>5 Cliry- sostoini pariler ad Macedonas scripla , Maximiano ailjungilur Eugenius. Unde ei hue Eumenii, loco Eugenii, irrepsisse suspicio est. 1 In exeniplaribus coll. Hadr. non potuii : Reti- neniliiin cuni celeris nonaporiuil : quoinodo legil et Nicolaus I. Locum euindeiu Hadiiaous II in epistola ad Carolum regeni lodict. v dala imitatur. 111 lllius scilicel qui prius judicavit, ut et ad inar^i- neni Labbei est annolannn. Hine Bubalmn ei Tau- rianuma Macedonibusjudieatosail a|iostolicamsedem provoeasse, ac Macedonas, qnod sutim ipsorum jndi- ciuiii recognosceretur, iiiiqiioanimotulissecolligilur. " Non exslani luc liiler*. S. 1NN0CENTII f PAP^: 540 559 seniontia ainbigtunn, niiiil reqolrenihim in Imc causade eseiero repetalis. Hanc autem pagiuulaui nosiram snllicitius 0 Cretensibus episcnpis relegendam inittiic • ut sci uii plenissime quid sit ile Buhalio et Tauriano caeterisque proniintiainm ; ut h servenl, qui diani adntiuisiiaiione siinl, cavere a talibus, ne lalia sor- liantur. MONITUM IN EPISTOLAS SEQUENTES. 1. Omnes illas epistolas Diony-ius Exignus nohis asservnvit. E\ ejns coileciione in llispanam ei l-i- dori inani fliixernnt. Eas occasione pacis Autiucheiiae ecelesi:c scripias es-e in confesso est. Qua de pace Thendoretiis lil). v, hisi. c. 55. ui verba ejus sum- nialiin pec-lringnnos , lucc nonioiic inamlavit. A! "Xander aict ons viLoe iu.iliiulo, siudio sapienliie, opum cmlempt i eloquentia aliisnue dotibus innu- meris excellens, einii Porpliyrio SHCeesstssel, Eusia- tbianos, qnos nliin Paulinus, et posl illinn Evagrius conjiiMgi rel i <] > i i- liaod ipi iquam periniserani, blanda vroboruin persuasione erebrisffiie cohortiitionibus Eecle^iae corpori soci.ivit, , eaqiie de cansa fesltvita- lem liiijiismodi insiiiuil, cuju-iuodi neino umquam vldcrai mortalliim. Quibus pr;eniissis, de Alex mdro idcm scriptor subdit : « tlic omiiinni priinns pr;es- launssiuii JoanMis nomeo erclcsiasticis tabnlis inscripsit. > Antiochena; autein eeele^ire dissensin , nt idem auctor lib. m, c 5, reiensel, ail Alexau- driim usqiie. < ociogiolii quiiiqiie anuis prrmansil. i Uode et tempus, qun p;ix illa inila, ac sequentes lit- tera; conscriptae sini, dignoscere ac ilcliuire eerio liecrel, si de dssensio iis pr;e,ilict;B inilin inter eru- diios conveniret. Et B.irnuius quidem ad annuin 508, iluiu iilml vel aii eo die qoo Meteiius consubstan- tialis liilcoi professus est, vel ab eo ipio Lnciler Pau- C liiniiii ordinavit, hoc esi abanno5(51 ;nil 502, repe- teiiilnoi puiit, Theodoreii calculum reilcere cogitur ui filsiiui. At Tillemontius nb Enslathii depositione, ipiiui ann i 450 aut 431 cmnigisse arhitratur , An- tiocheni dissidii principium recehsens, qnitique illos supra octogiuta aiiuos in annuin 415 aol 41 i ilesi- nere observat, Compuiaiioiii huie Euiychius, 1411x11- vis alnis non -aiis aecuratus, sulTragaiur, duiii l'or- pbyiiiioi, quem B.irehuin uppell-tt, eccle^tse Auiio- clieua; deccm annis pr.ufuisse trailil. Iluoc eoiin ciica antii 405 ioiiiinn Flaviano sulTectom esse Pal- lailius dinl. ile Vita Chrys., pag. 141, aiiclor cst. Ad b.cc. Tbeodoreius lita. v, eap. 53, Autiocbenae cecle- si.c reconciiialiouem uiiii cootigisse docei, eum Cyrillus Theophili successor Alcxaudrin.c ecclesiae esset episc ipus. Alqui Theopbilus, le-ie Socraie lil>. vn, c 7, anoo 412 nieusis Ociobvis 1S die vtveve desiii. Ex quo conseque*ns est 111 b cc reennciliaiioci- lius aimo 115, consignavt nequeat. Nullum vcro esl iu- ciiinui.hliiiu, -i Inanuum 1 14 aut eliam ItSdifferatur. 2. Dissidemiiim in Antioch 11.1 ecclesia pavliuni reconcilialionem nou longo intervallo seeui.t cst le- gitio, qua cpiscopus ejus Alexandev Rotnanifi sedis ninn laudaremus. Successuui-|ue ipsuin uleo pr;c- designata est, n! d.iin relcgeritis, nihil A comiminionem expeiere festinavit. Hanc eum non staiim meuiisse Aniiiliiim parens cxistimavit ; ideo- qtit- duplieetn excogilavii legaiiniiem, iinaiu qua ln- norenlii comnitinioneui peiierit Alexahder, et cui ilainl.i' pacis eonditiones Funoecinitis prcscripserit , alleram qua Alexander conili ionibns praescripiis a se satisfariiim tesiific iltts sii. Sed iltiplicis bujus le- Laii"tiis nulla appirct cansa. Ja u eoim ab obitu Joannis Cbrysost., hoc est abaotio 407, saiis notas fcccr.it liniiicc .lins bas rondilinnes, quaudo snaiii Oriciilis episcopis cominnniooem negavil , quoad Joaunis iuooeo sacris diplye^is inscripsissenl. Qtia de re TheOdoretus lib. v, c. 34, ita loquitur : < Post ntorlem magiti Doct tvis orbis terraruni Occideniales episeopi ( haud duloe ex conseusu ae pncscripio Ioiioceuiii) cpiscopoium /E-ypii et Orienlis e( B'»s- plmri ae Thraciie coiniiiuniimcm non piin- admise- runt, qitiio diviui illius viri nomen una eutii reliquis fiio fuiictis episcnpis coiisiisiiasseut. 1 N" |tte lam itidis reriitn eral Alcxander, ut boe iguoraret ; nec tam inconsiileralus, 11 1 sciens legationeni inulilem mii erei. Et vero tnnocentius epi^t. •■±1 paeis coudi- lioues ab Ale\aiulro eonipleias memorans, et simi- lem ab Allico exigens « prolVs-iooeio de Complctis ooiiiibus couiliti otibtts » uon ail , quas remissa Alex iudri legaii ne praescripsimus, sed < quas di- versis teiniioiibus prscdiximus. i 5. Neqne asseuliri etiam possttmus docto Tillc- mooiio, qtii epistolam "20 prins missara, et aliquanto post 10 daiini existimat. Ambas enim, adjuncta eis 21 ad Ae.iciiioi , simiil ilalas arbilraniur. Et priorem qiiidem, boe cst 10, synndicam aiqnc lniio- centio cum episcopis viginli, qui ei subscripseruut, Cimiinuneui litisse annolalio ad calcem ailjeela pro- ilil. Aller.itn vero, boc esl 20, privatam et lami- liaetn eensetntis. Gestomm syiioilalium, qti;c priori subnexa erant, ineniio io utraque liabetiiv.