1 This letter is suspected by Quesnel as being, if not spurious, at least the production of some later Leo than our own: but he would seem to have hardly sufficient ground for his conjecture and the docoment is interesting as showing the existence of Church endowments at the time, and alas ! of their mismanagement.Two centuries before indeed we have Cyprian in Africa uttering a somewhat similar complaint: e.g. de laps. vi., de unit. eccl. xxvi., Lett. XV. 3. It does not appear. however there that the clergy actually misappropriated Church funds, only that they were greedy and intent on worldy gain.
2 Papa. This title. which in later times came throughout the West to denote exclusively the Bishop of Rome, was originally in the West no less than it is still in the East, the common appellation of all priests and spiritual fathers of the Church.
1 The Ballerinii's conjecture is at least very plausible, that this Januarius was the successor of that Bishop of Aquileia to whom Letter I. was written 5 years previously upon the same subject of the Pelagian error. The text of this letter is almost word for word identical with letter II.. written to Septimus, Bishop of Altinum, on the same occasion as Lett. I.
2 Schismaticorrum, considering how easily heresy leads to schism and schism to heresy, there is no need with Quesnel to consider that Novatiaus or Donatists are being here attacked.The Ballerinii say with justice: - generalis regula hic indicatur omnibus tum hoereticis tum schismaticis ad ecclesiam redeuntibus communis.
1 Nequem sacerdotali propere provehebas honore, ad iniuriam eorum quibis sociabatur, inciperet minorque se fieret: the text is no doubt corrupt, though the general sense is clear: the emendation minorque se for miror quis is made almost certain by the quotations that follow, especially the second.
3 Vos autem quoeritis de pusillo crescere et de maiore minores asse.This remarkable addition to S. Matt. xx. 28 is found in Cod. D, in some Syriac and many Latin copies: read Westcott's note in Appendix C: 3 to Introduction to Study &c.
1 Quesnel is of opinion that Eutyches' letter had accused Domnus, Bishop of Antioch and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (cf. Lett.CXX.,chapters iv and v.),of Nestorianizing,and that he thus had gained the approbation of Leo before his own unsoundness had been made known.
1 Contrary to my general plan, I have thought it wiser, in the matter of the Eutychian controversy, to include other than Leo's own writings, that the reader may fulfil the precept audi alteram partem in what was the most important doctrinal discussion of Leo's term of office. This Letter (XXI.) bears the stamp of genuineness upon it, though the Gk. original is not found. It is from a collection of docuuments bearing on Nestorianism published ex ms. Casinensi, first by Christianus Lupus (?), and afterwards by Stephanus Baluzius (1630-I718).
4 Of these four worthies, Athanasius; is is too well known to need further notice. Gregorius is either Greg. Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople (circ. 380) or Greg. of Nyssa, both great champions of the Church against Arianism (not, as the Ball.,Greg. Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Coesarea 244-70): Julius was a Bishop of Rome (337-52): an excerpt from one of his letters is printed by the Ball. at the end of this letter as the passage on which Eutyches based his error, though they suspect it (not unnaturally) as being an Apollinarian imposition: Felix is probably no other than the Arian Bishop of Rome, Felix II. . (355-8) whose appointment is characterized by Athanasius as effected "by antichristian wickedness," but who is yet a canonized saint and martyr of the Roman Church (see Schaff's Hist., vol. ii. p. 371; iii. 635, 6).
7 Of these four documents (1) Eusebius' libellus is preserved in, Act I Chalcedon; (2) is not forthcoming; (3) is appended below; and (4) a fragment of the testimony of Julius, which is given, does not seem important enongh to be added in this edition especially as its genuineness is denied.
1 There are two Latin versions of the original Gk. of this letter, an older and later: the later, as being more accurate, is here translated, though Canon Bright would seem to be right (n. 139) in saying that we must think of Leo as writing the Tome (Lett. XXVIII.) with the older Latin version of Flavian's letter before him.'
9 Pudorem (instead of the impudenter of the mss.) omnem abiciens et pellem quoe eum circumdabat excutiens, the Gk. version of this somewhat obscure passage running ai0dw= pa=san a0pobalw\n kai\ h@n perie/keito th=j pla/nj dora\n a0potinaca/menoj .
10 This was the letter "which was somewhat unaccountably delayed in its transit to Rome" (Bright), which reached Leo after XXIII. was written, and to which Leo refers in the Tome, chap. i., litteris, quas miramur fuisse tam seras. Bright's note 139 should be read throughout as a clear exposition of the preliminary steps in the controversy.