2 It will be noticed that Leo speaks of Hilary not only with respect, but as if he acquiesced in his sentence (passed against Hilary in Lett. X. above) not having been carried out.

1 No satisfactory conclusion can be reached about this letter as it has come down to us, the Ballerinii not thinking that the Latin version extant is the original on which the Gk.version is based. On the whole I have thought it safer to make my translation chiefly from the Gk., though I am not at all sure that there is sufficient ground for the Balerinii's suspicion of the Latin.

2 A lacuna is here visible in the sense though not in the mss.

3 The Gk. and the Lat. both read plural here e0 p i j k o/ p w n (episcopis) which the Ballerinii alter to the singular. As far as we know, Julius was the only bishop in the party, but the greater includes the less.

4 Viz., Dioscorus. who must have been mentioned in the lacuna above, if anywhere.

5 The old Lat. version has here something very different quia quad necesse est nos dicere, veremur ne cuius religio dissipatur, indignatio provocetur (for we are bound to say we fear lest He whose religion is being undermined, should have His wrath aroused).

6 h9 e0n Cistw= telei/a diamonh/ : here again the Latin Version diverges; reading veroe humanitatis (sc. confessio ) in Christo . So too the next sentence begins with cui sacramento , instead of the Gk. hj= tinoj o9mologi/aj , and elsewhere.

1 Cum consacerdotibus meis . The Gk. version here reads the singular (meta\ tou= sulleitourgou= mou). This, if intentional and not a slip, is, I suppose, Flavian, of whose death Leo was not yet apprized.

2 Both Quesnel and the Ball. agree that the Canon here quoted by Leo really belongs not to the Nicene collection, but to that of Sardica (about 344), In which it stands as no. 4. (Exactly the same mistake is made in Letter LVI., where Galla Placidia Augusta quotes Canon 5 of Sardica to Theodosius as secundum definitiones Nicoeni councilii ). Cf: Gore's Leo, pp. 113, 114. The wording of this fourth Canon is as follows: "Gaudentius, the bishop said, If it please you to add to this admirable declaration which you have passed, I propose that whensoever one bishop has been deposed by the judgment of other bishops, and appeals for his case to be heard in Civitas Novorum ,the other bishop cannot by any means be considered confirmed in the same See after the appeal of the one who appears to be deposed, until he receive tbe decision of the judges there." In applying this to the present case, Leo no doubt proposed to substitute Urbs Roma for Civitas Novorum , though this was hardly the same thing.

1 This is, of course, Letter XLIV.

1 Rom. i. 8.