A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. LEO.

ST. Leo a 1.1, after he had gotten himself Repute among the Clergy of Rome b 1.2, under the Pontificate of S. Coelestine and S. Sixtus, in quality of an Arch-deacon, was chosen * 1.3 Bishop of Rome after the death of the latter c 1.4, which happened Apr. 1. in the year 440. He was sent into France to procure a reconciliation between Aetius and Albinus [two chief Cap∣tains of the Roman Army.] While he was there, Deputies were sent from Rome to him, to carry him the News of his Election, and to hasten his return to Rome where he was ordain'd 40 days after the death of his Predecessor. He maintain'd his Dignity with so much Splendor, Vigilance and Authority, that he rendred himself more famous in the Church than any of the Popes which had been before him, even from S. Peter. He not only had a special care of the Church of Rome, and those Churches which were subject to his Metropolis, but he ex∣tended his Pastoral Vigilance over all the Churches of the East and West. He maintain'd the ancient Doctrine, opposed Heresies, upheld the Ecclesiastical Discipline, renewed and con∣firmed the ancient Canons, enlarged the Grandeur and Authority of his See, and manfully defended the Rights of it. There was no Affair almost transacted in the Church in the time of his Pontificate, in which he had not a great share. We do not mention them here, because his Letters teach us them in particular. He died in the 21st. year of his Prelacy, in the year 461. d 1.5.

This Pope is deservedly ranked among the Fathers of the Church, because tho' we have no great Treatises under his Name, his Sermons and Letters are very useful Works. We will be∣gin to make the Extract of his Letters, which contain a great number of very important Points of Doctrine, History, Morality and Discipline.

But before we enter upon the particular discussion of the Letters, it is convenient to exa∣mine the Conjecture of a Modern Critick, who asserts, That the Letters attributed to S. Leo are the Work of S. Prosper. This Conjecture is principally upheld by the Testimony of Gen∣nadius, who speaking of S. Prosper, saith, Epistolae quo{que} Papae Leonis adversus Eutychem de vera Christi Incarnatione, ad diversos datae, & ab ipso dictatae dicuntur aut creduntur. The Epistles also of Pope Leo against Eutyches, written to several Persons, about the Incarnation of Christ, are said or believed to be dictated or published by him. These words are found exactly in Mar∣cellinus's Chronicon in the Consulship of Vivian and Foelix; and 'tis from hence, that Ado Vi∣ennensis hath taken that Passage, as Honorius Augustodunensis and Trithemius have taken it from Gennadius. But Ado gives S. Prosper the Title of a Secretary Notarius to S. Leo. 'Tis from the Testimonies of these Authors that M. Anthelmi takes the boldness to assert this Paradox, That all the Letters of S. Leo were written by S. Prosper. For confirmation, he compares the Letter of S. Leo to Flavian, and that directed to the Bishop of Aquileja, with some places of S. Prosper's Works, and thinks that he finds an entire conformity of Style in them. He adds, That S. Jerom was Secretary to Pope Damasus, and that he made Answer to such as consulted any thing of him in the name of that Pope. And so S. Gregory, when he was a Deacon, was Secretary to Pelagius II. and it is credible, that all the Popes wrote nothing almost themselves, but had Secretaries to write for them. These are the Conjectures upon which M. Anthelmi grounds himself, but they are too weak to prove what he asserts.

For first of all, the whole frame of this Argument is supported by a meer Hear-say, related by Gennadius, who was not himself really of that Opinion; for speaking before of Pope Leo, chap. 70. he attributes to him, in express Terms, the Letter to Flavian, and says nothing of his other Works, insomuch, that he could not have put him in the number of Ecclesiastical Writers, but because he thought this Letter was of his Writing. Now when an Author speak's affirmatively in one place, and in another reports it upon Hear-say only, his Judgment is to be gathered from the place, where he speaks of his own Head, and not from that where∣in he speaks according to the common Opinion.

Secondly, 'Tis not certain that these words in chap. 84. Epistolae quoque Leonis, &c. The Epistles likewise of S. Leo, &c. are Gennadius's: But on the contrary, 'tis probable, that they have been added. To be convinced of this, we need but cast our Eyes upon chap. 84. and we may soon see what is Gennadius's, and what••is added. For after that Gennadius hath spoken of the Works of S. Prosper in such a manner as made it evident, That he did not approve what he had written about Grace, some Body hath added; This Prosper hath been the De∣fender of S. Austin's Books als•• against the Hereticks, who were Enemies to the Grace of Jesus Christ. This is plainly an Addition to the Text of Gennadius. These words which are now in Question follow this Addition, and are a part of it; for, 1. If they were Gennadius's, they would be joined to his Text, and would not follow this Addition. 2. The way in which this Phrase is expressed, Epistolae quoque Leon••s &c. shews, That it hath a relation to the preceed∣ing Addition, and that it hath nothing to do with the Text of Gennadius. It begins with these words, Epistolae quoque. The word qu••q•••• referrs to the preceeding Addition, Hic etiam Prosper, and cannot be joined with the Genuine Text, Quae enim vere Cassiani & Prosperi de gratia & libero arbitrio sententiae fu••runt, i•• aliquibus contrariae sibi inveniuntur. The Opi∣nions of Cassian and Prosper of Grace and Free-will, are contrary the one to the other in some things. Who would say after this, The Epistles of S. Leo also, &c? It is then certain, That this last Phrase hath relation to the Precedent, where he speaks with dislike of the Semi-Pela∣gians. So that it is not certainly Gennadius's; 'tis an Addition no Man can doubt. And what can we say of the other?

But whence comes this Addition? Whence was it taken? It is no hard Matter to guess, since the same words are to be found in Marcellinus's Chronicon. From hence some Person took them to add them here to the Text of Gennadius, chap. 84. One of these two must be, Either that Marcellinus hath taken this place from Gennadius, or some Body hath taken this Passage out of Marcellinus to add it to the Text of Gennadius. The first is very unlikely: Marcellinus doth not use to copy out Gennadius. We must then hold the latter, and so much the rather, because there are other Conjectures to prove, That this Passage is an Addition to the Text of Gennadius, and there is nothing to prove, That it hath been added to Marcellinus.

This being so, all the proofs of M. Anthelmi are resolved into a common Rumour which was current in the time of Marcellinus, who lived an Hundred Years after Leo. For as for Ado, 'tis visible enough, That he hath taken all he says from Marcellinus; and besides, an Author of the 9th. Age is of no great Authority. And the same I say of Honorius of Augusto∣douum, and Trithemius, who have copied the Addition, which had been made to chap. 84. out of Gennadius's Book.

There is likewise very great probability, That the Title of Secretary or Notary, which Ado hath given to Prosper, is grounded upon nothing but what he had read in Marcellinus's Chronicon. For from whence should he know, that S. Prosper had the Title? But if it were certain, That he had the quality of Notarius in the time of S. Leo, it doth not follow that he made the Letters of that Pope. The Notaries, in the time of S. Leo, were not those who composed the Letters, but those who kept them, carried them, published them, and kept the Registers of the Ecclesiastical Affairs. We read, in the 25th. Epistle of S. Leo, That Dulcitius the Notary, was sent to the 2d. Council of Ephesus, to write the Acts of it. Dionysius, who was sent to Constantinople to carry the Letters of S. Leo, Ep. 46. is called, Romanae Ecclesiae Notarius. Tiburtius, Secretary of the Church of Rome, signed the Letter to Flavian, under that Title. Tiburtius Notarius, &c. I Tiburtius, the Notary, by the Command of my Re∣verend Lord the Pope have published. These were the Offices of a Notary. Also, altho' it were certain, That S. Prosper was a Notary of the Church of Rome, it would not follow, That he hath composed the Letters of S. Leo. And, likewise, if we follow the Correction, That M. the Abbot Anthelmi hath made in the Chronicon of Ado, by 2 MSS. in M. Colbert's Library; this Author doth not say, That S. Prosper, as he was a Notary, hath written the Letters of S. Leo, but only that he set them out, a quo editae creduntur.

The Example of the Office of S. Jerom with Pope Damasus, doth not prove, That S. Pro∣sper hath performed the same Office with S. Leo. There have been Popes, who have written for themselves; there are others, who have made use of the help of others, not being of suf∣ficient Abilities to write. For Example, Pelagius II. had need of the assistance of S. Gregory; but who will say, That S. Gregory, being made Bishop, used another to write his Letters?

Nor is there any conformity of Stile between the Letters of S. Leo and the Works of S. Prosper, as is pretended by M. Abbot Anthelmi, but this is that in which he least of all agrees with him. The Comparisons and Paral••els which he makes, shew indeed, That they agree in some Terms, which all that treat of these Matters do commonly use, and which are taken from S. Austin in a Thousand places. But this will never for all that perswade them, who have any Judgment, That the Style of S. Leo's and S. Prosper's Writings, are the same. And let any Man read but a little of each, and he will find a considerable difference, and be convinced, That S. Leo had a loftiness of Expression, which S. Prosper was not able to attain, and a readiness in Writing and Speaking, which raised him above the help of a Secretary. Lastly, The Style of his Letters is so like that of his Sermons, that it cannot be doubted but that they are the same Authors. Now who is there, even at this day, that is so inconsiderate as to say, That S. Leo's Sermons are not his? It is true, That M. Abbot Anthelmi also

thinks, That S. Prosper had an hand in them; but this is another Paradox more extraordinary than the former, and is not supported by the Testimony of any Author, and which he cannot make good, as we shall shew afterwards. But let us return to S. Leo's Letters, and follow the Order of Time, according to which they are disposed by F. Quesnct.

The First is directed to the Bishops of Mauritania Casariensis, which was probably writ∣ten before Gonsericus, King of the Vandals, had conquered that Province, which happened after the Death of Valentinian, who died in 455 a 1.6. This Letter contains Directions how to reform the Disorders which were committed in Africa, in the Ordination of Bishops. Bishop ••o••en∣tius, whom S. Leo had sent into Africa to get Information of it, and to let him know if it were true that the Bishopricks there were so ill bestowed, had given him an Account, That for the most part the Churches were governed by Persons unworthy of the Name of a Bishop; that they were raised to that Dignity either by Bribery or popular Faction. S. Leo immedi∣ately wrote to them, as well to testifie his own Grief, which he had for their Disorders, as to prescribe them Means to reform them. First, he shews, That 'tis prejudicial to the People's Salvation, to place over them Pastors unworthy of their Office, and that in doing it they were so far from comforting them, that they made their Case more dangerous. He Superadds, That though he found some who were Ordained by Sedition or Bribery, worthy of their Office, yet the Example was of ill Consequence, and that it is very improbable that that should end well which had a bad Beginning.

He observes in the Second Article, That if they are obliged to take care, that they do not mistake in the Election of all, that are admitted into the Clergy, that nothing be done in the Church of God, which is not in Order, they are much more obliged to chuse Persons of Worth to rule over others. Upon this occasion he quotes a Text of S. Paul's, wherein he gives Timothy charge to lay Hands suddenly on no Man: What is it, saith he, to lay hands sud∣denly on no Man, but to conferr Priests Orders upon Persons whose Worth we are ignorant of, before they are of fit Age; before we have had Time to try them; before they have ap∣proved themselves fit by their Industry, and have given some Signs of their Knowledge and Experience?

After these general Rules he speaks particularly of the Conditions necessary for entring into Holy Orders. The First is, not to have above One Wife, and she not to be a Widow, The Second, to have passed all the Inferior Orders, and to have exercised them for some Time. After he hath proved the Necessity of these two Conditions in the Third and Fourth Articles, he commands, in the Fifth, the Bishops to whom he wrote to deprive them of their Bishoprick, who were found to have had Two Wives, or had married a Widow: But as to them whose Ordination was not Faulty, but upon this account, because they were made Bishops immediately of Laicks, he permits them to keep their Bishopricks, telling them, That he did it only by a kind of Indulgence, and without prejudicing the Holy See, the Decrees of his Predecessors, or his own, by which it is forbidden to promote any Person to the First, Second or Third Degree of the Clorgy, who have not arrived at these Dignities by the ordinary Ways, declaring to them, that for the future he intended that those Rules should be strictly observed.

He comes at last to the Affairs, in which he was personally concerned: A Novatian Bishop, called Donatus, had been converted with all his People. S. Leo suffered him to keep his Bishoprick, but required him to send a Profession of his Faith to him; in which he condemns the Errors of the Novatians, and professes the Faith of the Church. He exacted the same thing of Maximus, who had been before a Donatist, and had after been made a Bishop of a Layman. As to Aggarus and Tiberianus, who had been ordained Bishops, being before but mere Laymen, and that with a great Uproar, he enjoyned the Bishops of Africk to inform themselves ex••ctly of all that had passed at their Ordination, and to write to him of it. This is what respects the Ordination of Bishops.

He speaks, in the Eighth Article of the Virgins who had been deflower'd by the Barbarians, and advises them, not to compare themselves with those that had yet their Virginity, because▪

although they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Sin, yet they ought to bewall the Loss they had suffered. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Bishops, at l••st to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to his Advice, and observe the Holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

The Second Article, in the ordinary Editions, is not put in this Edition, because it is not to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the best Manuscripts and hath no Connexion with the precedent Article, inso∣much that this is a Supposititious Passage, which is none of S. L••••'s f 1.7, or if it be his, 'tis a Fragment of some other Letter unfitly in••erted in this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 It contains a Prohibition of Ordain∣ing Bishops in the Villages or Castles, and an Advertisement to the Virgins that had been defiled by the Barbarians, That they ought not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reckon themselves, according to the Judg∣ment of the Author of this Fragment, neither among the Widows nor Virgins. Lastly, He there in speaks of a Bishop of Africk, called Lupicinus, who had been excommunicated in Africk notwithstanding the Appeal which he had made to Rome, and in whose Place they had ordained another Bishop, before the Pope had given Judgment. This shews, that the Bishops of Africk retained their Liberty about Appeals for a long time, and did not recede from their Rights in the least, when this Letter was written by S. Leo, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by some other Pope.

The Second Letter is written about the Year 442 g 1.8, to Rustieus Bishop of Nar••••nne. This Bishop se•••••• his Archde••con Her••••es to S. Leo, to p••••pose several Questions to him touching Discipline, and communicate to him his Proceedings against Two Priests, who were under his Jurisdiction, who had withdrawn themselves before their Judgment was pronounced: S. Leo leaves it to his Discretion to consure them as he thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and exhorts him only to do what he was able to recal them again to the good way by treating them with Gentleness. He afterward diverts him from his Purpose to leave his Bishoprick, and pass the remaining part of his Life in a Retreat. At last he answers several Questions, which that Bishop had put to him. I shall in this Place relate the Answers of this Pope.

In the First Place he declares, That they who have not been either chosen by the Clergy, or desired by the People, not ordain'd by the Bishops of the Province, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Consent of the Metropolitan, may not be accounted Bishops, and that they ought not to be allowed the Dignity, which they have not received: Nevertheless, if he finds that these false Bishops have Ordain'd Clerks in the Churches by the consent of such as 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that is to say the Bishops of these Churches, their Ordination may be approvid of, upon condition that they continue in these Churches; but ought to be looked upon as Null, if they have not been fixed in one Church not approved by a Lawful Authority.

In the second he says, That it is not allowable to put a Priest or a Deacon to do publick Penance, although he desires it and if he find himself guilty of any Crime, he ought to re∣tire himself, and do Penance in pri••a••e. This Rule of S. Leo is contrary to the Antient Dis∣cipline of many Churches, and to the Canons of the First Council of Orange, and the Se∣cond of A••les.

In the Third, He orders. That the Ministers of the Altar, That is, the Deacons, and Sub-deacons, as it appears by his Letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, should be subject to the Law of Continence, as well as the Bishops and Priests. He adds, That being Laicks or Readers

they may be married and have Children, but being arrived at the Sacred Ministry of the Altars, 'tis not to be permitted them; That their Marriage ought to be changed from Carnal to Spiritual, that so they may neither forsake their Wives, nor have any Carnal Knowledge of them. S. Leo is the first who hath extended the Law of Celebacy to Sub-Deacons. His Pre∣d••••••ssors S. Siricius and S. Innocent, speak of none but Deacons. The Usage of the Church of France was contrary in the very Time of S. Leo, as it appears by the Canons of the First Council of Orange, the Second of Arles and Anjou, where only Deacons were obliged to Continence; for the Decnee of the Council of Orange was only for the future. It cost a great deal of Trouble to bring the Deacons to a Submission to that Law, seeing that the Bishops were forced to renew it often. It was afterwards enlarged to the Sub-Deacons in some Churches, as appears by the Councils of Venice and Agatha, but that Discipline was not general in all Churches of France, as we learn by the Letter of Lupus of Troyes [Tricassinus] and Euphronius of Autun▪ [Augustodunensis] ••o Thalasius Bishop of Anjou.

In the Fourth he declares, That a Clergyman, who gives his Daughter in Marriage to one that hath a Concubine, ought not to be treated as if he had given her to a Person already married, because Concubines cannot be counted lawful Wives, nor the familiar Commerce with them Marriage; at least, they are not free, endowed nor joyned together by publick Marriage.

In the Fifth he saith, That the Daughters of those Parents, who have married them to Persons that have Concubines, do not sin in dwelling with those to whom they are married.

In the Sixth, That it is not the Sin of Adultery, but a vertuous Action, for a Man to cast off his Concubine, that he may live only with his Wife. The Concubines, which are spoken of in this Place, are Slaves, with whom Men lived as with their Wives, without having any Commerce with others, although they were not solemnly married to them.

In the Seventh he saith, That they are much to be blamed for their Negligence, I who attend Dying Persons, to require Repentance of them, but do not insist upon it, when they are returned to Health again; That they ought not to give over wholly their Design, but bring them by frequent Exhortations to perform that which Necessity obliged them to require; because we ought to despair of no Man so long as he is in this World, and it often happens that Men do that in their riper Age which they have deferr'd through Distrust.

In the Eighth, That those that die after they have undergone their Penance, with∣out being reconciled, ought to be left to the Judgment of God, and no signs of Communion be allowed them. This Practice was contrary to that of the African, French and Spanish Churches.

In the Ninth he speaks of those who having demanded Penance, when Afflictions lay upon them, would not undergo it when they were mitigated. He saith, That it may be this Dis∣p••sition doth not proceed from a Contempt of Repentance, but from a fear of Sinning, and that it must not be deny'd them, if they request it a second Time.

In the Tenth he saith, That a Penitent ought not to go to Law before the S••cular Judges, but before the Ecclesiastical only, because he ought to abstain from such Things as are permitted.

In the Eleventh he saith, That although it is nothing but the Nature of Gain that excuseth o•• condemneth Trading, yet it is most convenient for a Penitent wholly to forbear it, because it is hard to avoid Sin in Commerce, either on the part of the Seller, or on the part of the Buyer.

In the Twelfth he observes, That it is contrary to the Laws of the Church, to become a Soldier after a Man hath done Penance.

In the Thirteenth he says, That he could wish that those who have done Penance when they were Boys, would not marry; yet he excuses young Men who do it, when it is to avoid Incontinency.

In the Fourteenth he orders, That the Monks, who have married, or listed themselves for Soldiers, should be made to do Penance, because they cannot leave that Profession without Sin, when they have once embraced it, but are obliged to perform their Vows.

In the Fifteenth he condemns the Virgins, who married after they had voluntarily put on the Habit of Virgins, and imbraced Virginity, although they were not yet consecrated.

In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth he affirms, That they must be baptized anew who have not any Proof that they have been already baptized, although they remember that they have been heretofore in the Church.

In the Eighteenth he saith, That it is sufficient to lay Hands upon, and call upon the Holy Spirit, over those that do remember that they have been baptized, but know not in what Sect.

In the Nineteenth, and Last, he saith, That those Infants, who after Baptism have Lived among the Heathen, ought to be put to publick Penance, if they have worshipped Idols, or committed Sins; but it is sufficient to purge them by Imposition of Hands, and Fasting▪ be∣fore

〈…〉〈…〉

It 〈…〉〈…〉 of these Questions ha••e been determi•••••• by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Presid••••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop•• of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who was evil aff••cted to that Bishop, ••••d rather ••ave 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of Rome, than to the Councils of his Province; but th••se Decisions of S. Leo 〈…〉〈…〉 the Custom•• of the Church of France, as we have ••••••served, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those Councils.

The Third Letter of S. Leo is directed to the Bishops of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and other Pro••••nces, Da••ed October the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Year 443. S. Leo Observes in the beginning of this Letter, That as the Order of the Churches was a Joy to him, so he was troubled when any thing was done contrary to the Canons and Discipline of the Church. He adds, That if the Bishops did not restrain the disorders with all possible diligence, since they are appointed to watch 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Fl••ck of Jesus Christ, they are inexcusable; t•• suffer, that the Body of the Church, which they ought to keep in Purity, should be de••••••ed and corrupted with Dissentions, is a great 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 annex••s to this Ad•…•…ion these following Ca∣nons.

In the First he forbids, That such Persons be not received into the Clergy, as are Sla••es, as also Farmers, o•• Su•…•…s, or any other, who depend in any manner soever upon Masters, at least, that th••se upon whom they depend, do not require it: He gives Two Reasons for this Prohibition; The First, Because the Sacred Ministry is as it were made Contemptible by such sole of Persons; And the Second is, Because it doth an Injury to their Mistresses. Pope 〈◊〉〈◊〉 allows the contrary, in respect of the Farmers, in his Ninth Epistle.

In the Second Ca••••n he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Ordinations of Persons, that have been twice Mar∣ried, and commands, by virtue of his Apo••••••lical Authorities, that they be hindred from doing the Offices of their Ministry, reserving to himself the Cognizance of the Cause of such as bring some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in; and that no Man might pretend Ignorance ▪altho▪ 'tis not sufferable for a Bishop to be I•…•…ant of what is ordered by the Canons) he tells them, He had sent this Letter by Three Bishops, which may be a reason to think, that it was written in a Sy∣nod.

The Third and Fourth Canons are against Usurers. These are the first, which forbid Usu∣ry 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lay▪Men. In the last Canon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 declares, That those that will not Obey these Decrees, shall be deprived of their Dignities, and they that will not Conform to the Discipline of the Church of Rome, shall have no part in her Communion. Lastly, He commands them to keep the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Ordinances of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but especially of Pope Innocent. Those, saith he, which have been pr••••••lged about the Order of the Church, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dis••ipline. Qu•• de Ecclesiasticis ordinibus, & Canonum promulgata sunt disciplin••s. For so it ought to be read, as it is in the MSS. and no•• Ordi••••••••, as it is in some Editions. Hinoma••us reads promulgata, and m••th Amplifies this passage in Opus••••••••, 33. Ch. 10. This Letter was sent to the Bishops of It al subject to the Church of Rome, as their Me••••opolis, and therefore 'tis no wonder if S. Leo speaks to them with so much Authority.

The Fourth Letter to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of Thessalonica, is taken out of the Acts of the Council of Rome, under 〈◊〉〈◊〉 II, which is to be found in H••••••••••nius's Collection. In this Letter S. Leo makes Anastasius his Deputy in Illyria, imitating therein the Example of S••••••∣cius, who had first granted that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and he exhorts him to imitate his Predeces∣sor, and ••o have a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Churches which he committed to his charge. Above all, he recommends to him, That he cause the Canons about the Ordination of Bishops to be ob∣served, and that he oppose the Election of Persons who have been Twice Married, especially when they have Married the first Wife before Baptism. He would not have him suffer the Metropolitans of Illyria to Ordain any Bishop without his appr••••ation, nor themselves to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but by himself▪ He charges the Bishops to come to the Synods which he shall call, to Judge in common what concerns the Discipline of the Church; and de••••res him, That if there happen any cause of great consequence which they could not determine, he would give him an account of it, that the Holy See might decide it according to the Ancient Custom▪ Whereupon he Observes, That he entrusted him with his Authority, in such manner neverthe∣less, as that he reserved to himself those Causes which could not be ended in the Province, or in which there should be an Appeal to the Holy See. He Admonishes Anastasius to make known all these Orders to all the Bishops, that they may have no ground of Excuse, if they did not put them in practice, and that he had written to the Metropolitans, that they ought to acknowledge him the Deputy of the Holy See. In the conclusion, he reproves the fault of some Bishops, who Ordain'd Priests and Deacons upon other Days than Sundays, an Usage, which he says, was contrary to the Canons and Tradition of the Fathers. This Letter is Dated January the 11th, 444.

The Fifth Letter, which is directed to the Metropolitans of I••••yrin, is that which he men∣tions in the foregoing. S. Leo Exhorts them to take care that the Canons be not broken, and tells them, That he had made Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, his Deputy, that they might Obey him in those things which concern the Discipline of the Church. He sends them at the same time some of the Rules which he wrote in the foregoing Letter, and repeats them in this.

The Sixth Letter is superscribed to a Bishop of Aquilcia, his Name is not found in any MSS. nor in the more Ancient Editions. In the latter Editions the Name of Nicetas is put before it, without any other reason, but only, because there is another Letter of S. Leo's that bears the Title of Nicetas Bishop of Aquileia. But since there is also one to Januarius Bishop of the same See, there is nothing that can determine to which of these Two this Letter be∣longs, but only the time when it was written. That which is directed to Nicetas bears Date in the Year 458, and that to Januarius in 447. This of which we are now speaking is not far from 447, for S. Leo therein speaks against the Pelagians, whom he opposed in the begin∣ning of his Pontificate; at the same time, when he attacked the Manichees, as the Author of the Book of Predictions and Promises attributed to S. Prosper, shews in Chap. 6. Now it is certain, that it was in 444, that he set upon the Manichees. And consequently it must be to Januarius, and not Nicetas, to whom this Letter was written. In it S. Leo tells film, That he had heard, by the relation of Septimius, that some Priests, Deacons, and other Ecclesiasti∣cal Persons, who had been engaged in the Heresie of Pelagius, or Coelestius, had been admit∣ted to the Communion of the Church in their Province, without being required to condemn their Error expresly. Insomuch, that while the Shepherds slept, the Wolves have entred into the Fold of Jesus Christ, without laying aside their Cruel Disposition. That they had like∣wise done a thing which the Canons and Constitutions of the Church do not allow the most Innocent, in leaving the Church, where they had been admitted Clerks, to go to other Churches. That their design was by this means to corrupt many Churches, by hiding the He∣resie, with which they were infected, under the shew of Communion to which they had been received, without being obliged to any Profession of Faith. To remedy this disorder, he en∣joins the Bishop to whom he wrote, To call a Synod, and to compel all his Clergy to Con∣demn openly the Authors of their Heresie, and to make a Confession in writing, That they do firmly hold all the Synodical Decrees made for the Extirpation of that Heresie, and confirmed by the Authority of the Apostolick See. He adds, That great care ought to be had, that they make use of no obscure, or ambiguous Terms, because he knows them to be so deceitful, that if they can avoid the Condemning any Branch of their Errors by that means, they will put themselves under any disguise. That One of their principal Artifices is, when they pre∣tend to condemn all their Doctrines, and renounce them sincerely, to slide in this pernicious Maxim, That Grace is given according to Deserts. That that Opinion is contrary to the Apo∣stles Doctrine, who Teaches us, That Grace, which is not given without Merit, is not Grace, and that the disposition to Good-works is also an effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ, which is the beginning of Righteousness, the Source and Original of our Merits. That when they say on the contrary, that Natural Industry must go before it, their design is to insinuate by it, that our Nature hath not been impaired by Original Sin. Then he Exhorts Januarius to be∣ware, least his People raise new Scandals by obliging them to purge themselves from all man∣ner of suspicion, upon pain of being driven out of the Church. He Admonishes him also about the end, That he should not suffer the Priests, Deacons, or other of the Clergy, to pass from one Church to another at their own pleasure, but force them to continue in that Church wherein they have been once ordain'd. Lastly, He discovers to him the Obligation that all Bishops are under, to see that the Canons be observed, because if they do not do it, they keep up the Disorders of their Inferiors by their Gentleness, and increase the Evil by not using the Remedies sufficient to cure them.

The following Letter to Septimius Bishop of Altinum, (now Torzello) a City of the Patri∣archate of Venice, is upon the same subject with the former, and contains the same things in short. This, and the Fourteenth to Januarius, are written much about the same time, but this applies to the Pelagians in particular, what is said in the Fourteenth in general against Hereticks and Schismaticks, that they ought not to be received, till they have Abjured their Errors, and Condemned the Authors of them. Besides this, the Letter to Septimius doth only repeat what had been said in the First Letter to Januarius concerning those Clerks, who leave their Church to go to another; whereas in the Fourteenth he speaks nothing of this Change, but he Orders, That those Clerks who are Converted, ought to look upon it as a great favour, that they are allowed to continue in the Clergy in which they are, provided, that they have not been Baptized Twice, and they may not hope to be raised to any higher Dignity. The Seventh hath no Date, the Fourteenth is Dated December the 29th, or June the 24th, Anno 447. It was Intitled to Julian in the vulgar Editions. But Dionysius Minor, Cresconius, Hinc∣marus, and all the MSS. carry the Name of Januarius Bishop of Aquileia. There are Three other Letters which bear the Name of S. Leo, very like for the subject. The First and Se∣cond, that is to say, the Sixth and Seventh, contain nothing but the same thing exactly, but the one is a great deal longer than the other. The Seventh and Fourteenth are not so like in the subject, but they are much more so in the terms, or rather they are the same thing, a few Lines excepted. Which made F. Norris believe, That they were really Two Copies of the same Letter sent to Two different Bishops. But that Conjecture doth not seem possible to be defended; for besides, that the sence of the last part of these Two Letters is wholly different, it cannot be of the Pelagians of whom he speaks in the latter, but in general of all Hereticks and Schismaticks, and particularly of the Donatists, who caused themselves to be Rebaptized. It cannot then be said, that these Two Letters are Two Copies of the same Letter, they are

certainly Two different 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ ••or is it likely that S. L••••▪ who had so great a facility of Writing▪ ••••••uld be ••••••ught so 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as I may say, as to Copy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his own Writings himself, Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Word, ••••d to follow the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of one of his Letters to Write another to a di∣stinct Person upon a d••fferent subject? This is not at all Credible. 'Tis more probable, That one of these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letters i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but which of the Two is disputable. Father Qu••s••••l thinks 'tis the Seventh, and his Adversary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that it is the Fourteenth. Let us consider their Reasons.

F. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proves, That the 14th. is Authentick, by the Testimony of Dionysius Exiguus and Cresconius, who have inserted it in their Collections of Hincmarus who hath cited this Letter, and by the Authority of the more Ancient MSS. On the contrary, he rejects the 7th. which is not in the Ancient Collections, but in Isidore's only, by these Conjectures: The most valid is taken from this Term, Metropolitan of the Province of Venice, which is to be found in this Letter, which is not in the 14th. We shall never find, says he, That the Me∣tropolitan of the Province of Venice was ever spoken of, before the City of Venice was made an Episcopal See, and what Sence can that Expression have, when Venice was not the Metro∣polis of any Province, and the Province it self was not called Venice, but Istria? The Bishop of Aquileia was never called Metropolitan of the Province of Venice, but of the Province of Istria, and the Bishops of that Country, Bishops of Istria, and not of the Venetian Province. Photius, in the 54th. Code of his Bibliotheca, says well, That Septimius had written to S. Leo against the Heresie of the Nestorians (he means of the Pelagians, for they were known in the East under the name of the Nestorians only) who would exalt themselves; but he says not That S. Leo had sent a Letter to Septimius.

The Adversary of F. Quesnel doth not oppose the Proofs, by which the 14th. Letter is up∣held, but he makes it his Business to relate such Conjectures as prove it Supposititious, and Answers to those which F. Quesnel hath brought against the 7th. He says then, against the 14th. 1. That the Conclusion is not answerable to the beginning; That it is an unshapen Monster; for in the beginning S. Leo commends the Zeal of the Person to whom he writes, and at the end threatens him, if he neglects to have his Decrees put in practice. 2. That this Conclusion is taken word for word out of the 6th. Letter of S. Leo to the same Januarius; That nevertheless it is all that is different almost in this Letter from that which is directed to Septimius. Now what prohability is there, That S. Leo should use the same Conclusion in two distinct Letters written to the same Person. 3. It is probable, That the Terms, which are in the 14th▪ Letter and not in the 7th. have been added. 4. That the 6th. Letter to Januarius confirms the 7th. It is certain, That Septimius had written to S. Leo, concerning the Pela∣gians, which is also confirmed by the Testimony of Photius. There is then a greater proba∣bility, That the Letter, which is written to him upon that Subject, is Genuine, than another Letter to Januarius concerning the Donatists. For when we have two Writings, one of which is certainly forged, and we find one to have relation to the Circumstances of the History of the time, and the other none at all; we ought to uphold the former rather than the latter.

These are the Arguments which M. the Abbot of Anthelmi brings against the 14th. Letter. Next he answers to those which F. Quesnel hath offered against the 7th. Letter, since there is none but that which respects the Metropolitan of Venice, which appeared strong to us; we will not stay to discuss the other. M. Abbot Anthelmi is sensible of the force of it. And, first, he endeavours to elude it, by saying, That among the Records of the Ancients, the Names of Venice and Istria are to be found. Whereupon he quotes two Inscriptions, and the 25th. Letter of S. Ambrose to the Church of Vercellae, wherein he speaks of the Provinces of Liguria, Ae••ilia and Venice. But distrusting this first Answer, he says, That the Name of Venice, in this Letter, is evidently added or changed for Istria. And he endeavours to dis∣cover after what manner this change might be made, but he doth not prove it by the Autho∣rity of any MSS. that it hath been done; yet this is all that he hath brought to prove it. This is what he saith on both sides concerning the Authentickness of these two Letters. Al∣tho' it doth not belong to me to judge between two Persons, so judicious as these two Criticks are, nevertheless I cannot but give my Opinion concerning these Letters, yet upon this con∣dition, That it be not reckoned of any great Worth.

The Authority of the Collections of Dionysius Exiguus and Cresconius, seem to me to prove the Authentickness of the 14th. Letter, to which 'tis hard not to yield assent. It is true, we have rejected some parts of the first Letter, altho' they are in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus. But 'tis because we had a lawful Reason to doubt, whether they were there heretofore, and because Cresconius had not put them in his Collection, and because they are not to be found in the Ancient MSS. and because they are evidently added. It is certain, That Dionysius hath recited that Letter, Cresconius hath followed him, the MSS. agree, and there is nothing that proves the Letter Supposititious, for the Conjectures of M. Abbot Anthelmi do not seem strong enough.

The first is grounded upon this Supposition, That the last words of that Letter are directly applied to Januarius, but this is not altogether so, for they may as well relate to other Bi∣shops. Furthermore, these words are not so sharp, but S. Leo might make use of them to a∣waken and encrease the Zeal of the Bishop to whom he wrote.

The 2d. is not at all more concluding. It is not very unusual for the same Man to write 〈◊〉〈◊〉 different Letters after the same manner, and to repeat the same sentence in two different ••••aces. S. Le••'s Letters afford us many Examples of it. Read but the ••••th. and 13••th. Let∣•…•…, and you will find there 6 or 7 Chapters transcribed out of the one into the other▪ Be∣sides, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conclusion of these two Letters is perhaps a form of Threatning which th•• Pop••s ordinarily used. But however that be, it is not less •…•…able to S. L••••, to take this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of his 6th. Letter, than to Pope Adrian 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to take the whole 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chapter of this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letter, and inse•••• it into his 97th. Letter.

The third is the very point about which all the Contest is. F. Que•…•… holds, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 i•• over and above in the 14th. Letter is no Addition but what comes naturally in with the Text; and that it is the 17th. Letter which is defective. Let the Readeer judge. The sence of the 2d. part is quite different. The Order, which is found in the 14th. Letter, by which it is forhidden to promote converted Clergy men to any higher degree, is certainly ancient 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bears a mark of Veneration, and is expressed in Terms suitable to S. Leo. This is in my Judgment, of great weight.

The last Conjecture of M. Abbot Anthelmi, al••••o' he thinks it able to determine the Poi•••• yet doth not seem to me to be altogether so. The Forgers of Writings do often take occasion to counterfeit Books from some circumstance of Chronology. They think not upon new No∣tions, nor of Affairs very lately transacted, but they ordinarily derive them from the Anc••en••••. It was much easier for an Imposter to forge a Letter of S. Leo to Septimius, by taking the History of the 6th. Letter, and the Terms of the 14th. than to produce one wholly from his own Fancy.

The Conjectures which F. Quesnel hath alledged against the Letter to Septimius, are not al∣together decisive; but if we must necessarily assert, That one of the two Letters is forged, and the other genuine, I shall readily conclude in favour of the 14th. And must, withal, ac∣knowledge, That the Objection taken from these words, Ad Metropolitanum Episco•…•… Venetiae, is almost unanswerable; a like Example cannot be produced. The word Venetia, in the singular Number, is no where to be found, nor Provincia Venetiae, but Li∣g•…•…, Aemiliae Venetiar••mque partes. In fine, It was never heard, That the Bishop of Aquilei•• was called Metropolitanum Venetiae Provinciae. It is not likely, That this place hath been ad∣ded or changed, since the Letter was written. The Abbot Anthelmi supposeth, That the pre∣cedent Letter, in many MSS. was entitled, Ad Metropolitanum Provinciae Venetiae, and that that gave an occasion to the Notary, who saw that the precedent Letter was spoken of in this, to change Istriae into Venetiae upon the credit of the Title only. But there are only two MSS. wherein this Letter is so superscribed. In all the other, it is only directed to the Bishop of Aquileia, and yet we find in the Letter to Septimius, Metropolitanum Provinciae Venetiae. It is then far more probable, That it was the 7th. Letter, which gave occasion to entitle the 6th. so, in some MSS. than that the meer Title of the 6th. Letter should be the cause, that the Text of the 7th. hath been corrupted. But we have stayed too long upon a Critical Point of little Importance.

The 8th. Letter of S. Leo is dated Jan. 30. 444. In many MSS. it is directed to the Bi∣shops of several Provinces. In one, to the Bishops of Sicily, but commonly to the Bishops of Italy. S. Leo writes, in this Letter, That he had found out, and convinced many Manichees of their Error in the City of Rome; That he received such of them to Penance, as acknow∣ledged their Sin, and the rest he had banished according to the Edicts of the Emperors. He exhorts those to whom he writes, to be Vigilant, as good Pastors, to discover those, who might lurk in their Diocesses.

The 9th. Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna had never been published, had it not been found in a MSS. in the Library of the Abby of Fleury. It is a very dubious piece, as F. Quesnel shews in his Notes, for, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The date, by the Consuls, is apparently false. Va∣lentinian had been Consul 4 times in 435. but never had Avienus for his Collegue, who was not Consul till 450. S. Leo was not yet Pope, when the first was Consul, and Hilarius Bishop of Arles, to whom this Letter was written, was dead, when the latter was Consul. But the date may be amended, by putting it under the Consulship of Valentinian, the 6th. time, and of Nomius. 2. The Stile of this Letter is altogether different from S. Leo's. 3. We find therein the name of Archbishop, which the Latin Authors did not use at that time. 4. Nor is it probable, That S. Leo did write two Letters to the same Bishops, at the same time, and upon the same subject; and the 10th. being certainly S. Leo's, this ought to be accounted a Forgery. 'Tis very short. He therein revokes the Privileges granted to the Church of Arles, because Hilarius had refused to submit to his Judgment, and restored them to the Church of Vienna.

The 10th. Letter to the Bishops of that Province, is about the difference between Hilarius Bishop of Arles and S. Leo. For the full understanding of which▪ we must observe, 1. That there had been a Contest, a long time, between the Bishops of Vienna and the Bishop of Arles, about the Rights of the Metropolis in the Province of Vienna. 2. That the Council of Tau∣rinum, to appease this Quarrel, had ordain'd, That whosoever, of the two, could prove, that his City was the Civil Metropolis, should enjoy the Right of the Ecclesiastical Metropolitan of all the Province; but that, in the mean while, each should have, for Suffragans, the Bi∣shops

which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. That the Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉) That the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which belongs to the Province of N•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that Province. 4. That Hilarius, Bi∣shop of Arles, desitous to maintain the Right of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 given to his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, went 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and light upon a Bishop called 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to a Widow, and who had had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This Bishop went 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rome, and there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Iudgment given against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈…〉〈…〉 5. That 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Bishop of Arles, followed him, and after he had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Church of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and S. P••••l, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••ay to these Apo∣•…•… there, he went to S. Le••, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him not to trouble the Churches. He made his Complaints concerning the French Bishops, who, after they had been deservedly con∣•…•… in France, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, notwithstanding, allowed to assist at the Holy Sacrament in the City of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 des•…•…d 〈…〉〈…〉 to his Pre•…•…sions, declaring to him, at the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That he was not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to accuse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••versary, but •…•…ly to make his Protestations and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and that did not please 〈◊〉〈◊〉, he would would home, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 really did, when he saw, That S. Leo called a Synod to b••ing the Ma•…•… to Tryal. 6. That after his Departure, S. L•••• absolved and restored him to his See.

Upon this occasion, and in this juncture of Affairs did this Pope write in 445. to the Bi∣shop•• of the Province of Vi••••n••, this better of which we are speaking. He begins with an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Apostolick Se••, and says, That he had been consulted very often by the French Bishops, and had disannulled and confirmed their Judiciary Sentences, which had been ••••••ught to him by appeal. He complains, That Hi••••ry had disturbed the Peace and Union of the Churches; That he had endeavour'd to make the Bishops of the Seven Provinces subject to his Authority, without submitting to S. Peter's whom he had resisted and ••essen'd, being puff'd up with a Spirit of Pride. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That having examined the Cause of Celidonius, he found him really Innocent of what he was accused, and therefore had made void the Sen∣tence, which had been given against him, which nevertheless he would have ratif••ed, if what was alledged had been true.

He speaks afterward of the Cause of another Bishop of the Province of Vienna, named Projectus: He complains, That Hi••••••y would have ordained, in his Place, a Person who had been chosen neither by the People, nor Clergy, nor Nobility. He demands why S. Hilary did intermeddle with the Ordinations of another Province. He reproves his Departure from Rome, and at length declares, That he had ordained that Projectus should remain in his See.

He then commands the Bishops to ordain Canonically, in pursuance of the Election of the People or Clergy, and that every one of them keep within their own Bounds. He condemns Hilary for carrying along with him armed Men in ordaining or driving out Bishops: He forbids him the calling of Synods, and declares him deprived not only of his Right of Pri∣macy, which he had pretended to, but also of the Right of Metropolis in the Province of Vienna, which he had us••••ped. He will not have him ordain, and declares him fallen away from the Communion of the Apostolick See. He brings here an excellent Rule about Excom∣munication; We must not, saith he, easily excommunicate any, nor ought it to be inflicted upon any at the Humor of every peevish Bishop, but we ought to use that Means to punish a great Crime. He adds, That none may be Excommunicated but the Guilty, not they that have no Part in the Action.

He exhorts the Bishops, to whom he wrote, to put in execution what he had commanded: He makes them take notice, That he did not assume to himself the Ordinations of their Churches, but preserved them from the Encroachments of Hilary. Lastly, He forbids them calling a Synod, of more than one Province, without the Consent of Leontius an Ancient Bishop (he doth not tell us of what see, but in the Life of Honoratus, written by Hilary Bishop of Arles, there is one Leontius Bishop of Frejus [Forum Jul••••, a City in Provence] spoken of) S. Leo, by this, gives him the Primacy for a Time, upon the account of his Age, but yet wholly by the Leave and Approbation of the Bishops of France, si vobis placet, and without diminishing the Rights of the Metropolitans.

It remains that we observe, That neither Hilary Bishop of Arles, nor the Bishops of France did give place to S. Leo, and that this Pope continued firm to his Opinion, although Hilary sent Two Deputies to him to appease him. This is evident by the Letter of Auxiliaris, Go∣vernour of Rome, recited by H••norat••s; in which he tells this Saint, That he hath spoken with Pope Leo, and Adds: In reading this you will be stirr'd, for you are always the same, and in the same Resolution. He advises him to soften his Terms, because, saith he, Roman Ears are tender.

Upon this account it was that the Pope, labouring with all his Might to have his Decrees put in execution, obtained an Edict of the Emperor Justinian, which he sent after this Let∣ter; by which the Emperor declares, That the Primacy of the Apostolick See ought not to

be lessen'd, being built upon the Merits of S. Peter, and confirm'd by the Authority of the Councils. He blames Hilary Bishop of Arles, for having arrogated the Ordinations to himself that did not belong to him, and having deposed Bishops unjustly. He commands, That the Sentence given against him by the Holy See, which ought to take place without the Imperial Authority; be executed, that no Man oppose it, and that there be no Disturbances in the Churches for the future. He ordains, That for ever hereafter, neither the French Bishops, nor the Bishops of other Provinces, shall undertake any thing hereafter, without the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; That all that he orders shall be acknowledged for a Law; and that the Bishops, which he shall cite, shall be compell'd by the Governour to come to Rome. This Edict, which is contrary to the Canons, and also to the Decrees of the Council of Sardica, hath no place here. It is dated the 6th of June, in 445.

The Eleventh Letter to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, was written, certainly, some Time after the Ordination of that Bishop, and consequently in 445. S. Leo having spoken of the Union and Agreement that there ought to be between the Church of Rome and Alexandria; because the First was founded by S. Peter, and the Second by S. Mark his Scholar: He exhorts Dioscorus to observe that which was practised in the Church of Rome, touching the Times of Ordinations, which ought not to be conferr'd on all Days indifferently, but only on Saturday-night, just before the Lord's Day, which may be looked upon as belonging to the Lord's Day. He would have them, who celebrate Ordination, to be Fasting, and that they continue the Fast of Saturday upon the Lord's Day; that is to say, That since they begin to fast all Day on Saturday, they do not eat till the Evening of the Lord's Day, after the Ordi∣nation is ended; so we ought to understand S. Leo's Words. This Explication is confirm∣ed by Urban II. in the Council of Clermont in the Year 1095. where speaking of Ordinations. he says, Et tunc protrahatur jejunium usque ad crastinum, ut magis appareat in die dominico ordines fieri. And then let the Fast be lengthned till the Morrow, that it may be the more apparent that Orders are conferred on the Lord's Day.

In the Second Part of this Letter he advises him to observe the Custom of the Church of Rome; which was to reiterate the Holy Communion, when so great Numbers come to the Church upon solemn Festivals, that all those that come cannot enter. It was evidently the same, who began the Sacrament again, for the Bishop ordinarily administred it, and it was not allow'd to a Priest to offer in the presence of a Bishop. He wrote this Letter to Dioscorus, by Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria, who is evidently the same that S. Cyril sent to S. Cae∣lestine; for S. Leo witnesses, That he had often been present at the Ordinations and Processions of Rome.

The Twelfth Letter is to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, and although the Date of it be not well known, yet it is referr'd to this Year. S. Leo in this Letter lays some Faults to the Charge of this Bishop, and prescribes him some Rules, which he would have him observe. He tells him, That he and his Predecessors being made his Deputy, he ought to execute that Charge with Moderation, and suspend the Judgment of Matters of Consequence, and which have some Difficulty, to make Report of them to the Holy See. He tells him, That he must act with Gentleness and Charity, principally in reproving Bishops, and that he must rather amend them by Kindness than Severity. He afterward objects some Faults against him, not directly laying them to his Charge. They, saith he, who seek their own Interest more than that of Jesus Christ, take no Care how they manage Affairs; they depart from the Laws of Charity; they love rather to Rule than to Advise; the Honour pleaseth them, when it raiseth them, and they abuse the Title which hath been given them for the Preservation of Peace. He adds, That it is a Grief to him, that he is forced to use such Terms, but he thinks himself in Fault, when he knows, That he, whom he hath made his Deputy, is departed from the Laws which he hath given him. He then tells him, That the Reason of this Imputation is the Severity which he hath used towards Atticus Metropolitan of Epirus, because he had not appeared at the Synod, to which he had been summon'd. He tells him, That although he were Blame-worthy, yet he had not Power to condemn him, without waiting for the Judgment of the Holy See; because being but Deputy, he was assumed, in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis; To share in his Care, not exercise the same Authority.

He appoints, in the Second Canon, that Metropolitans should preserve the Rights which are granted them by the Canons.

In the Third he says, That such Persons may not be chosen for Bishops, as are Laymen, or Novices, or twice married, or have married Widows. In the old Edition it is, Sed nec qui viduam copularit; Neither he that marrieth a Widow: It ought to be read, Qui unam vel habeat vel habuerit, sed quam sibi viduam copularit; He that hath or shall have but only one Wife, but whom he married when she was a Widow. F. Quesnel hath thus corrected it, following the Authority of the Collections of Councils.

In the Fourth Canon he commands the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to live unmarried, and observes, That the Use of Marriage was not allowed to Subdeacons. Never∣theless, S. Gregory, lib. 2. Regist. Ep. 42. says, That it was too hard to refuse it to the latter.

In the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Canon he saith that he ought to be made a Bishop, who is chosen by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and People. He gives Power to the Metropolitan, in case that their Judgments be divided, to preferr him who is of greatest Worth, and hath most Votes: But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 forbids him making any Person a Bishop, whom the People would not have.

In the Sixth Canon he judges it very fit, that the Metropolitan should write to his Vicar concerning the Election, that it may be confirmed by his Judgment, and so, after the Death of the Metropolitan, he wills that the Bishops of the Province should assemble themselves and chuse one of the Priests or Deacons of the Vacant Church, and that they give an Account of their Election to his Vicar, that he may confirm it: He commands him, notwithstanding, to return a speedy Answer; Sicut enim, saith he, Just as electiones nullis volumus dilationibus fatigari, ita nihil permittimus te ignorante praesumi; For as we will not have due Elections to be disturbed with Delays, so we do not allow that any thing be presumed on without your Knowledge.

In the Seventh Canon he appoints, according to the Nicene Council, That two Synods be held every Year in each Province. He requires that if there be any Cause among the Bishops, accused of Crimes, which cannot be determined in the Provincial Synod, it should be made known to his Vicar, and, if he could not end it, he should write to the Holy See.

In the Eighth he declares, That he that would go from one Church to another, out of Contempt of his own, shall be deprived both of that he would have, and of that he hath. Ut nec illis praesideat, quos per avaritiam concupivit, nec illis quos per superbiam sprevit. That he may not preside over those whom he through Covetousness hath desired, not those whom through Pride he hath contemned. S. Leo in this follows the Canon of the Council of Sardica; but those of Nice and Chalcedon permitted them to continue in their First Church.

In the Ninth he forbids the Bishops to receive or invite the Clergy of another Church. He will so have it, That if a Clerk, being come out of his own Diocess, abide in the same Pro∣vince, he should be compell'd to return to his own Church by the Metropolitan; and if he be out of the Province, by the Vicar of the Holy See.

In the Tenth he enjoyns him to observe a great deal of Moderation, in calling his Brethren together. He requires, That if it be necessary to convene a Synod about some weighty Affair, he would constrain no more than Two Bishops of each Province to come to it, and those such as the Metropolitan should chuse; and that he should keep them no longer than Five Days.

In the last he commands Anastasius, That if in any Thing he found his Judgment different from his Brethren's, that he should write to him before he did any thing, that all things might be done with Unity and Concord. He observes, That although the Dignity of Bishops be common (for so it ought to be read, Etsi dignitas communis, non est tamen ordo generalis) their Order is different; that although the Apostles were equal, yet a Primacy was always given to one only: That, according to this Platform, the Distinction of Bishops is formed; and it hath been provided, That all should not assume to themselves all sorts of Rights. For this Reason it is that Metropolitical Bishops have greater Authority than other Bishops; that in great Cities there are those that have a greater Charge: And, that, Lastly, the Care of the Universal Church belongs to the See of S. Peter, that all the Churches may agree with their Head: That he must not take it ill to have one above him, who is himself above others, but he ought to obey the rather, as he desires others should obey him, and as he would not bear an heavy Yoke himself, he must not impose it upon others.

It is to be observ'd, That S. Leo wrote this Letter to a Bishop of Thessalonica, whom he had made his Vicar in the Diocess of Illyria, which he had a Mind to add to his Patriarchate, and govern it with the same Authority that he did the Sub-urbian Pro∣vinces.

The Thirteenth Letter directed to the Metropolitans of Achaia, is taken out of the Col∣lection of Holstenius. It is Dated January the 6th, 446. S. Leo tells them how Joyful he was at the Receipt of their Letters, understanding thereby, that they approved of what he had done, in committing the Care of the Churches of Illyria to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalo∣nica. He Admonishes them, That if there arise any Controversies among the Bishops of that Country, which cannot be decided in the Province, they ought to be brought before him, and determined by his Judgment, but if they are of very great consequence, and cannot be ended in the Provinces, nor accommodated by the Mediation of the Bishop of Thessalonica, the Bi∣shops of the Provinces must come to a Synod, which he will call, and Two or Three Bishops at least of each Province must be present at it. He then Reproves the Metropolitan of Achaia, because he had Ordained many contrary to the Canons of the Church, and particularly had not long before made a Person Bishop of Thespiae, who was unknown to the Inhabitants, and whom they were against. He thereupon forbids Metropolitans to Ordain such Persons as they thought good of, Bishops, without waiting for the consent of the People and Clergy, and enjoins them to accept him who shall be chosen by the common consent of all the City. Lastly, He re∣quires them to Observe the Canons, which forbid a Bishop to take a Clerk of another Bishop,

if he do not shew Letters from his own Bishop, that he is willing to let him have him. He looks upon this point of Discipline as being very useful to uphold Agreement and Peace among Bishops.

We have already spoken to the Fourteenth Letter written to Januarius Bishop of Aquileia.

The Fifteenth Letter written to Turribius, is of July the 21st, 447. S. Leo therein com∣mends that Bishop, that he had care to give him notice, that the Abominable Heresie of the Priscillianists began to spring up afresh in Spain. He also calls it the Sect of the Priscillianists, because, he says, it was an heap of detestable Errors, and most filthy Superstitions.

He adds, That that Heresie hath been Condemned by the Church as often as it hath ap∣peared, and that the Magistrates themselves have had so great an Hatred for that detestable Sect, that they have used the severity of the Laws against them, punishing the Author and principal Abetters with Death. And that not without Reason, because they saw that all Laws, Divine and Humane, would be subverted, and the Civil Society disturbed, if such Persons, who divulged so detestable Errors, were suffered to live. That this severity had been used a long time together with the Lenity of the Church, because, tho' the Church being contented with the Judgment of her Bishops, avoids all Sanguinary Punishments, yet it is helped by the Edicts of Princes, which cause them, that fear Temporal Penalties, to have recourse some∣times to Spiritual Remedies. S. Leo in the next place relates the Sixteen Articles, in which Turribius makes the Doctrine of the Priscillianists to consist; and shews us, that they contain so many Impieties. The Articles are these, 1. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are only One Person. 2. That there comes from the Essence of God, Virtues, that is to say, Spiritual Beings, which proceed from his Essence. 3. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God on∣ly, because he was Born of the Virgin Mary. 4. That they Fast on Christ's Nativity, and Sundays. 5. That the Soul is from the Divine Essence. 6. That Devils were never good by their Nature; that they were not Created by God, but they were Formed out of the Chaos, and Darkness. 7. That Marriage is forbidden, and that Generation is a detestable thing. 8. That the Bodies of Men are made by the Devil, and that they shall not rise from the Dead. 9. That the Children of the Promise are Born of Women, but are Conceived by the Holy Ghost. 10. That the Souls of Men have their abode in Heaven, before they are in∣closed in their Bodies, and that they are thrust into them upon the account of their Sins which they have committed heretofore. 11. That the Stars and Constellations govern all things by an inevitable Fate. 12. That the Body and Soul are subject to certain Powers, those that Govern the Soul are called Patriarchs, and those that Rule the parts of the Body, are Stars. 13. That the whole Body of the Canonical Scriptures is contained under the Name of the Patriarchs, which denote the Twelve Vertues which restore and illuminate the inner Man. 14. That our Bodies are subject to the Stars and Constellations. 15. S. Leo Ob∣serves, That they have corrupted the Books of Scripture, and make use of Apocryphal Works full of Errors; That the Bishops ought to take them from them and burn them, al∣tho' they bear the Names of the Apostles, and have some shew of Piety, because they ordina∣rily have an hidden Poison in them, and lead Men into Error. In the 16th. Article S. Leo prohibits the Book that Dictinius had composed, being a Priscillianist. He also speaks of their Infamous Mysteries, like to those of the Manichees, whom he had made to acknowledge their Crime. Lastly, He condemns those Bishops, who are in those Errors, which he before observed, or rather, who did not oppose them, and would not curse them.

In fine, As to that which Turribius hath Noted to S. Leo, that some of the Orthodox did doubt, Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was really in the Sepulchre, during the time that his Soul went down into Hell? He Answers, That he wondered that any Christian should doubt of that Truth, since it is plain by the Testimony of Holy Scripture, that the Body of Jesus Christ was Buried, and was raised again from the Dead. He concludes, That it is ne∣cessary that a Council be called in Spain in some convenient place, where the Bishops of the Neighbouring Provinces may be present, and there examine, if there be any Bishop who holds these Errors which he hath related, and if any be found, they must be Excommunicated, be∣cause it is not to be endured, that they who ought to Preach the Faith to others, should have the boldness themselves to dispute against the Creed and Gospel. He says, That he hath writ∣ten to the Bishops of the Provinces of Spain to Assemble a National Council and that it be∣longs to him, to whom he writes, to cause it to be put in execution; but if that cannot be done, the Bishops of Gallaecia should at least meet. He leaves the care of calling the Council not only to Turribius, but also to Idacius, and Caeponius, to which Two Bishops Turribius wrote a Letter which he sent a little after along with that which S. Leo wrote to him. That Bishop shews therein his Grief which he was in, to find his Country infected with so many Er∣rors, and commands them not to suffer the Christians to read such Apocryphal Books, as the Acts of S. Andrew, S. John, S. Thomas, and the Book intitled, The Memoirs of the Apo∣stles.

The Sixteenth Letter to the Bishops of Sicily is Dated October the 21st, 447. S. Leo in it reproves the Custom of the Churches of Sicily, in Administring Baptism upon the Feast of Epiphany, and says, That no Man ought to be Baptized, but upon the Feasts of Passover and Pentecost, according to the Custom of the Church of Rome, which he would have them to un∣derstand, that they are obliged to follow, because they were Ordain'd by the Bishop of Rome.

Nevertheless 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••heir 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not as yet given them notice of it, hoping they would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••hi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 t••en prove••; That they ought to observe certain tunes for the Celebration of the Mysteries of Religion; That the Feast of Easter is the most proper time for the ••dministration of Baptism, because that is the time when those Mysteries are remem∣bred, which are represented by Baptism; That the Feast of Pentecost may also be joined with it; That th••se who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sickness, or Absence, could not receive the Sacrament of Baptism at Easter, might not be deprived at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Grace which it conferrs, and which the Holy Spirit pours ou•• upon the Faithful; That the Apostles themselves have Authorized this Usage; but that there is no other Feast on which Baptism can be Administred after a solemn manner, because, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we c••••ght to give a due respect to all the Festivals which are appointed for the Honour of God, yet we must keep the Mystical Representation of that Sacrament; That this Law nevertheless doth not ••inder from succouring those at all times which are in danger of Death; That those, who respect the Feast of Epiphany, as a fit Season for the Ad∣ministration of Baptism, because Jesus Christ upon that Day received the Baptism of John, ought to consider, that there is a great deal of difference between the Baptism of John, and that of Jesus Christ, and tha•• this last was not Instituted till the Side of Jesus Christ was open∣ed, and there came from thence Blood and Water. This was the reason that S. Leo defended the Custom of the Church of Rome, to which he endeavoured to oblige the Bishops of Sicily, who were in his Patriarchate, and commanded them to send every Year Three Bishops to the Synod which he did hold at Rome the 29th. of September.

There is another Letter to the same Bishops, Dated the next Day in which this last was writ∣ten, wherein upon the Complaints of the Clergy of Two Churches of Sicily, who had ac∣cused their Bishops for squandring away the Revenues of their Churches, he forbids the Bishops, That they do not give, pawn, change, or sell the Goods of their Churches, unless it be for the advantage of the Church, and with the advise of all the Clergy. But for fear least the Priests and De••cons should agree with their Bishop to make away the Church-goods, he forbids them, upon pain of Excommunication, to do any thing of that Nature, because it is Just, saith he, That not only the Bishops, but all Ecclesiastical Persons, should preserve the Revenues of the Church, and unreasonable, that the Goods given by the Faithful for the Salvation of their Souls, should be embezelled, or consumed.

Father Quesnel doubts, whether this Letter be S. Leo's, being induced to it by these Con∣jectures, 1. It is not found in any MSS. under the Name of S. Leo, Vossius having met with it in a MS. of Cardinal Sirlit's, hath Printed it under S. Leo's Name, upon the account of the Date. 2. 'Tis not this Pope's Stile, and there are in it many Expressions a 1.9 which he never uses. 3. What probability is there, that S. Leo would write to the same Bishops Two different Letters, Two Days together? could he not have written in the former what is in this latter? 4. The Abuse which is reproved in this Letter, doth not in the least agree with the times of S. Leo, and the Discipline which is therein Establish'd hath yet less resemblance. Who will believe, that in the time of S. Leo, it was allowed to a Bishop to Alienate the Goods of the Church with the consent of his Clergy only? 5. The Author of this Letter imposeth this Penalty upon the Clergy, who Abuse the Goods of the Church, To be deprived both of their Of∣fice, and the Communion of the Church. In S. Leo's time they never joined these Two Pu∣nishments together. These Conjectures are certainly very probable, and make me of F. Ques∣nel's Judgment, who thought this Letter forged, or at least, that it is another Leo's, and the Names of the Consuls have been added to it. This last is so much the more probable, be∣cause it is cited by Gratian under the Name of Pope Leo the 12th. Quaest. 2. cap. 52. sine ex∣••••ptione.

The Eighteenth Letter is written to Dorus, Bishop of Beneventum, and dated the 8th. of March, in the Year 448. He reproves that Bishop, for having disturbed the whole Order of Priests, by preferring a younger Priest before the more aged. He commands, That the more Ancient should t••ke their Places, unless it were those Two who had consented, That the Per∣son, of whom he speaks in this Letter, should be preferred before them, tho' they were Elder than he.

The Nineteenth Letter, dated Jame 1. 448. is an Answer to a Letter that Eutyches had written to S. Leo before he was condemned by Flavian. He had told him, That some Per∣sons did revive the Nestorian Errors again. S. Leo returns him Answer, That he commended his Care; and tells him, That he would provide a sure Remedy, when he should be informed more at large, who they are that have attempted it.

The following Letters, for the most part, concern the Affair of Eutyches, and the History of the Councils of Constantinople under Flavian, of Ephesus under Dioscorus, and of Chalceden. We shall put off speaking of these, till we shall make a particular Relation of that Affair. We shall satisfie our selves to speak, in this place, of those that have no reference to it.

Of this sort is the Thirty Sixth Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Arles. He congra∣tulates them, for that according to the desire of the Clergy, Nobility and People, they had, with one consent, ordained Ravennius Bishop of Arles, in the room of Hilarius; whom he calls a Bishop of blessed Memory. This Letter is dated Aug. 449.

The Thirty Seventh Letter is written to Ravennius, to congratulate his Promotion to the Bishoprick of Arles. He tells him. That he was much rejoyced at it, not only for his own sake; but upon the Account of the Church of Arles; for it is an Honour, as well as an Advantage to the Faithful, to have a Bishop who can help them, and give them an Example. He says, That he hath heretofore experienced his Moderation (Ravennius having been sent to Rome heretofore by Hilarius, his Predecessor.) He exhorts him to join Authority with that Modera∣tion, to mingle Justice with Lenity, to avoid Pride, to love Humility, and to keep himself within the bounds prescribed by the Laws of the Church. Lastly, he desires him to inform him often of his Government.

The following Letter is also directed to Ravennius, to whom he wrote about a, Vagabond named, Petronianus; who, being in France, boasted himself to be a Deacon of the Church of Rome. He gives him notice, That he was a Cheat, and desires him to write to all the Bishops of his Province, That they should not receive him into Communion. It is dated the 26th. of Aug. 449. but it is not very certain, that it is really S. Leo's.

The Bishops of the Province of Arles having receiv'd a Letter from S. Leo, concerning the Ordination of Ravennius, thought that they had a favourable opportunity given them of ob∣taining of S. Leo, a restitution of the Rights belonging to the Metropolis of Arles. They pre∣ferred a kind of Petition to him, in which, after they had shewn what respect they owed to the Holy See, and thanked S. Leo for the approbation he had given to their Election of Raven∣nius, they prayed him to restore the Privileges of the Church of Arles, which had been di∣minished by S. Leo's last Declarations. To prove the Prerogatives of that Church, they al∣ledge, 1. The Antiquity of the Church of Arles, which, they say, was founded by Trophimus, to whom they attribute the first planting of Religion in the Province of France called Narbonne. They observe, That Trophimus was sent by the Apostle S. Peter, which ought to be understood accord∣ing to the ordinary manner of Speaking used at that time, by the Bishops of Rome, Successors of S. Peter and the Apostles. 2. They confirm the Dignity of the Church of Arles by the Pri∣vileges, which the Popes themselves had granted to it. 3. As also by the Privileges which the Emperors Constantine, Valentinian and Honorius, had bestowed upon the City of Arles. 4. They alledged, That the Bishop of Arles was in the present possession of three Provinces adjoyning to Vienna, as subject to his Care; and besides these, which he governed by his own Authority, he had the Inspection over all France, as Apostolick Vicar, to enforce them to ob∣serve the Rules of the Church. Moved, by these Reasons, they entreated him to render to the Church of Arles all his Prerogatives.

The 50th. Letter to the Bishops of the same Province, is an Answer to the precedent Peti∣sion, or the Judgment which S. Leo gives upon their Demand. After he hath declared the Joy, that he did conceive for the kindness which the French Bishops had for Ravennius, he says, That the Bishop of Vienna had prevented him from granting their Petition, having sent Letters and Deputies to complain, That the Bishop of Arles had ordained the Bishop of Vasio. He adds, That having considered the Reasons, on both sides, he had found, That the Cities of Arles and Vienna, having always been very famous, had disputed about their Church-Privileges; That sometimes one was Superior, and sometimes the other got uppermost; so that he must not leave the Church of Vienna without any Prerogative, especially since he had lately honoured it with the Power which he had taken away from Hilarius Bishop of Arles. He therefore grants him four Suffragan-Bishops, which are Valentia, Tarentum, Geneva and Gratianople, and leaves the other under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Arles, who will be, as we require him, saith he, so great a Friend of Peace and Concord, that he will not think that taken from him that is given to his Brother.

The Fifty First Letter is directed to Ravennius. He sends to him his Letter to Flavian; and exhorts him to get himself a Name in the beginning of his Episcopacy, by defending the Catholick Faith, about the Incarnation. 'Tis dated May 5. 450.

The Seventy Sixth Letter is also written to the same Bishop, but upon another Subject. He gives him notice on what day the Feast of Passover was to be celebrated in the year 452. and commands him to publish it to all the French; which shews, That he acknowledged him his Vicar among the French.

This Letter is followed by a Letter of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus, French Bishops, in which they thank S. Leo, That he had sent them his Letter to Flavian, and pray him to re∣view and correct the Copy, which they had taken of it. This Letter is not so considerable as the next to it, which is a Synodical Letter of a French Council to Pope Leo, to thank him for sending them his Letter to Flavian. The name of Ravennius is in the beginning of it, which may make us think, That the Synod was held at Arles. The Subscriptions shew, That it was composed by 44 Bishops out of the 7 French Provinces. These Bishops, after they have ex∣cused themselves, That they gave him an Answer no sooner, because they could not meet to∣gether, say, That they received S. Leo's Letter as a sum of Faith; That many of them ac∣knowledged the Doctrine which they had received by Tradition to be contained in it, and some

of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inst•…•… by •…•…ing of it. They 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. L•…•… in the most obliging 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to•…•…y; That next to God the ••aith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are beholding to him for the •…•…y of there Faith.

They Add, That they had also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Emperor upon the same Subject, to testifie to him the Zeal which why •…•…or the Faith, by following the Example of the Pope, but that having received News from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, they believed that it would be unprofitable. They call the Emperor S. L•…•…'s Son, F•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. In fine, they write, That they never cease to give God Thanks, that he hath given a Bishop of so much Holiness and Faith to the Apostolick Church, from whence comes the Origin and Source of our Religion: Apostolicae Sedi, unde •…•…'s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 orig•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉. They pray to God to preserve him a long Time in that see. They make an End by saying, That although they come short of his Merit, yet they have the same Faith, •…•…s 〈◊〉〈◊〉, pari side, and that they are ready to defend it and die for it. This Letter is full of Expressions very respectful to the Holy See, and very oblig∣ing to the Person of S. Leo.

S. Leo also answers them in a courteous Manner, in Letter 77. He therein accepts their Excuse, commends their Faith, explain the Errore of the Nestorians and Eutyches. He lets them know, That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heretick hath been condemned in a Synod of 600 Bishops, who confirm'd the Catholick and Apostolick Faith. He •…•…es, That the Catholick Faith may not be changed; That it may be assaulted by its Enemies, but that such Opposition rendred it more illustrious. He says, That the Synod hath approved the Letter which he had written, and had condemned Dioscorus. Lastly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 earnestly intreats them to give God Thanks, to pray for the happy R•…•… of them who were gone to the Council: And he desires them to let the Bishops of Spain know what had passed in the East.

This Letter is follow'd by a Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, to S. Leo, in which that Bishop signifies to him the Joy that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had for the Return of the Western Bishops, who had been present at the Council of Chalcedon, and assures S. Leo, That his Letter to Flavian hath been read and approved in the Council of Milan, where also the Error of Eutyches was condemned.

The following Letters are in the Council of Chalcedon. In Letter 78. to Marcian, after having congratuled the Council of Chalcedon, he blames the Ambition of Anatolius, Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, who •…•…ted those Rights that did not belong to him. He was wil∣ling, That the City of Constantinople should be equal to Rome; but he says, It must not be so in the Churches; That there is no solid Foundation, but that Rock which Jesus Christ hath laid for the Foundation of his Church; That Anatolius cannot prove, That his Church is an Apostolick See; That the Privileges of Churches cannot be overthrown by any other way, being established by the Canons of the Fathers, and fixed by the Decrees of the Council of Nice; That he is obliged, by his Office, to see them executed, and he should be much to blame if he should suffer them to be broken. He then exhorts the Emperor to desire Anatolius to desist from the Right he pretends to and to which the Legates of the Holy See opposed themselves, and if he will not, to make use of his Authority to keep him in order, and hinder him from encroaching upon the Rights of other Bishops. This Letter is dated April 22. in the year 452.

He repeats the same things in the 79th. to the Empress Pulcheria, which is of the same date. In it he observes particularly, That Anatolius had obtained the Bishoprick of Constantinople through the favour of the Empress, and through his consent, Pietatis vestrae beneficio, & pietatis meae assensu. He had also said before in the precedent Letter, That he owed his Bishoprick to the kindness of the Emperor, Vestro beneficio. He urges also the Canons of the Council of Nice against the pretences of Anatolius, and declares, That he doth cancel and make void, by the Authority of S. Peter, all the Constitutions which are contrary to the Laws established in the Council of Nice.

He represents the same things to Anatolius in the 80th. Letter. He therein commends his Faith, but condemns his Pretensions. He finds fault with him, That he ordained the Bishop of Antioch, and was willing to break the Decrees of the Council of Nice, by making the Church of Alexandria to lose the second place, and that of Antioch the third, and by depriving the Metropolitans in his Jurisdiction of the Rights and Honours which they had. He accuses him of endeavouring to make use of the Council, which was called for the suppressing of Heresie, to further his own Ambition. He assures him, That no Synod can hurt what the Council of Nice hath done, and that the Legates of the Holy See had reason to oppose his At∣tempts. He exhorts him, at length, to keep himself within the bounds of Humility and Chri∣stian Charity, and not give any further occasion of Scandal in the Church of Jesus Christ. He tells him, That he may not elevate himself upon the account of some pretended Constitutions of the Bishops made 60 years since, which were never sent to the Holy See, and have never been executed. He forbids him disturbing the Metropolitans about their ancient Rights, and he declares, That he intends that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch should remain in possession of their ancient Order. This Letter is also dated the same day.

S. Leo hath not contented himself with writing so strongly against the pretensions of Anato∣lius, but in his 81st. Letter written some days after the former, he commands Julian, Bishop of Coos, who had the charge of his Affairs in the East, not to consent to Anatolius's pretences.

And since Julian had written to him in his Favour, he tells him, That tho' he had a very great respect for him, yet he will never do any thing upon his Recommendation, which is contrary to the Rules of the Church. He adds, That Anatolius ought to be throughly satisfied, That by his Suffrage he had been raised to the Bishoprick of Constantinople, without obliging him to break the Laws of the Church in favour of his Ambition. He commands Julian to have a greater regard to the order of the Universal Church, than the personal Friendship of Anatolius, and not desire a favour of him, which he cannot obtain, without making him that requests it, and him that should grant it, guilty of a great sin.

The 82d. Letter is directed to Rusticus, Ravennius, Venerius and other French Bishops. S. Leo relates the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and sends them a Copy of the Sen∣tence which Paschasius and Lucentius had pronounced in the Council of Chalcedon. It follows this Letter, but is something different from that which is found in the Council of Chal∣cedon.

The 83d. Letter is directed to Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, and dated June 10. Anno 452. S. Leo having been consulted by this Bishop, without communicating it to his Metropolitan, he admonisheth him, That he ought first of all to address himself to him for the obtaining an Ex∣plication of his Difficulties, and if he were also ignorant of the Solution, they might join to∣gether to consult the Holy See, because there ought to be no question made, saith he, of any things which concern the general observation of all the Churches, without the Authority of the Primates, i. e. the Metropolitans. Notwithstanding, he doth not forbear to instruct this Bishop about that which he demanded of him, concerning the discipline of the Church to∣wards Penitents. He says, That Repentance is the only Remedy for Sins committed after Baptism; That Jesus Christ hath given power to Priests to impose Penance upon Sinners, and to admit them when they are purified by a proportionable satisfaction; to admit them, I say, to the participation of the Sacrament by the door of Reconciliation. He adds, That Je∣sus Christ comes between the action of the Priest, as I may, insomuch, That if the effect fol∣low the action, we must believe, that it is by the Vertue of the Holy Spirit; That if any Pe∣nitent die before reconciliation, he can't be reconciled after Death, but must be left to the Judgment of God; but he assures us, That it is very profitable and necessary, that Sins be remit∣ted before the day of Death, by the Prayer of the Priest. He will not have reconciliation denied to those who demand Penance, when they see them in danger of death, but he ad∣monishes Sinners not to trust or depend upon that Pardon, nor put off their Repentance till the hour of death. He saith, That it is a sufficient Reason to grant reconciliation to those, who are in manifest Danger, that they shew their desires of it by some Signs, or there are some to witness that they have required it. Lastly, He commands this Bishop to inform his Metropo∣litan of these Answers.

The 84th. Letter is written to the Emperor Marcian. S. Leo in the first place congratu∣lates the re-establishment of the Catholick Doctrine. He then signifies to him, That he had had some suspicion of Anatolius, and upon that account it was that he had not, for some time, sent him Letters of Communion, but in consideration of the Emperor's Testimony, and the Profession of Faith which he had made, he had receiv'd him to his Communion, yet having advertised him, That he would not communicate with those who had persecuted Flavian, and that the Defender of the Eutychian Party should be deposed; That he was throughly satisfied, by his Letter, in which he signifies to him what had been decided in his Synod, but that he was surprized to hear, That after he had begun so well, he had deposed Aetius the Arch-Dea∣con, who was always an opposer of the Eutychians, to put into his place Andrew an Eutychian; which was done with so great Precipitancy, that he was ordained upon a Friday, contrary to the common Usage and to Apostolick Tradition, and that in degrading the former, they had given him the charge of the Coemetery, condemning him by that means to a kind of Exile. He prays the Emperor to take Aetius into his Protection, and to compel Anatolius to revoke what he had done. This Letter is of March 10. 453.

He wrote also at the same time the 85th. Letter to the Empress Pulcheria. It is upon the same Subject, and contains almost the same things. He therein observes, That tho' Andrew had abjured the Error of the Eutychians, yet he ought not to be preferred before those who have always preserved the Faith in Purity.

He wrote also the next Day the following Letter about the same business to Julian Bishop of Coos his Agent in the East. It appears by that Letter, That Anatolius had taken away the Arch-Deaconry from Aetius, by Ordaining him Priest (for a Priest not being capable of an Arch-Deaconry) under the pretence of raising him to a greater Dignity, he had really deprived him of the Office of Arch-Deacon, which was more Honourable. S. Leo complains of these proceedings, and so much the more, because he had put a Person that favoured the Eutychians into his place. He commands Julian to observe diligently, in the Name of the Holy Aposto∣lick See, what passes in the East, and speak freely to the Emperor about those things that re∣spect the good of the Church. He would have him write to him about such matters as may administer Debates. He enjoins him to reprove Anatolius smartly, because he had put an He∣retical Arch-Deacon into the place of an Orthodox One. He accuses this Patriarch of having no Zeal for the Faith. He desires Julian to let him know, what it was that disturbed the Monks of Palaestine, whether they are Eutychians, or whether they are at odds with their Bi∣shop

Juvenal, because he is a favourer of that Party. He observes,

That they ought to be punished according to the Nature of their fault; for there is a great deal of difference, saith he, between opposing the Faith, and being a little too hot for the Faith.

He requires him also to give him intelligence of the Monks of Aegypt, and the Affairs of Alexandria. In the last place he tells him, That he had not received the Form of Faith which he had sent him. It is not known what Form of Faith this is which S. Leo speaks of in this place, and which Julian sent him. F. Sirmondus hath Published One, which he pretends is this, but F. Chiffletius assures us, That he found it in that MS. of F. Sirmondus attributed to Alcuinus. F. Quesuel believes, That the Form of Faith which Julian sent to S. Leo, was nothing else, but the definition of Faith, which is in the Fifth Action of the Council of Chalcedon. S. Leo also desires Julian to send him a Translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon at large, which were not understood at Rome, because they were written in Greek.

The Eighty Seventh Letter is directed to the Bishops who were present at the Council of Chal∣cedon. In it S. Leo approves of the Decisions of that Council concerning Matters of Faith, but declares at the same time, that he will never consent to what hath been done there contrary to the Canons of the Council of Nice. This Letter bears Date March the 21st. 453.

S. Leo was obliged to write it for the satisfaction of the Emperor, who had required him to give his approbation plainly to that which had been defined in the Council of Chalcedon, for fear, least he should take an occasion to oppose the Council, because the Pope would not ac∣knowledge the Rights which he had granted to Anatolius. This S. Leo himself Testifies in the following Letter to Julian of Coos, wherein he praises the Zeal of the Emperor, and Empress, who had restrain'd the Insolence of some Monks. He also tells him, That the Emperor ha∣ing privately bid him to Admonish the Empress, he wrote presently to her, and he desires him to let him know what was the effect of his Letter, and if in short she hath approved of his Doctrine, or rather, S. Athanasius, Theophilus, and S. Cyril's.

As to the business of Aetius, he says, That he much Commiserated his Affliction, but he thought he must bear it patiently, for fear he seem to carry things too high. In fine, he tells him, That Anatolius persisted in his Claim, and that he understood by the Messenger that brought him the News of the Ordination of the Bishop of Thessalonica, that he would make the Bishops of Illyria to subscribe it. For this reason it was that he did not write to them, al∣tho' Julian had desired him to do it, because he knew by that, that he would not be amended by it. He sends him Two Copies of the precedent Letter, the one by it self, the other at the end of the Letter, which was written to Anatolius, that he might give that to the Emperor which he thought most convenient.

In the Eighty Ninth he writes to the Emperor about that which he required of him, to give his Approbation of what the Council of Chalcedon had defined concerning the Faith. He assures him, That he had approved it already when he wrote to Anatolius, but that that Bishop would not Publish his Letter, because he therein reproves his Ambition. He thanks God, that he had given them an Emperor who knew how to join the Priestly Vigor and Royal Power to∣gether. Perhaps you will wonder at this Expression, but as F. Quesnel has already observed, there are many such in S. Leo's Letters. Constantine assumes to himself the Title of an Out∣ward Bishop of the Church. The Fathers of the Councils of Chalcedon, and of Constantino∣ple, under Flavian, have not scrupled in their Acclamations of Praise to the Emperors, to give them the Title of Bishop. S. Leo also commends Marcian, because he took upon him to main∣tain the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and that he had suppressed the Commotions of the Monks. Lastly, He assures him, That he had declared his Judgment of the Council of Chalcedon in obedience to his Command. He says a little after the same things to Pulcheria in the Ninetieth Letter, Dated March the 21st. 453.

In the Ninety First written to Julian Bishop of Coos, he tells him, That he had omitted no∣thing that he was able to do for the defence of the Church's Cause; That it belongs to the Emperor to suppress the Disturbers of Church and State. He adds, That the Bishops ought not to allow the Monks to Preach, and therefore he wondred, that Thalassius, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, had given that Liberty, to one George, who was fallen from the Monastick State by his Irregularities. He says, That he will write to him according to his Duty, if Juli∣an judges it convenient. Lastly, He exhorts him to do his utmost endeavour, that the Empe∣ror do hinder the Hereticks from troubling the Peace of the Church. This Letter is Dated April the 9th, in the same Year.

The Ninety Second Letter to Maximus Bishop of Antioch treats of several things. He ob∣serves in the first place, That the Catholick Faith keeps the Mean between the Two Extreams of Nestorius, and Eutyches. He Admonishes Maximus to be vigilant over the Churches of the East, but more especially over those, which the Council of Nice had entrusted him withal, to prevent that Heresie be not established in them. And that he might be able to do this with the greater Authority, he advises him to maintain the Rights, which the Council of Nice had allowed his Church, and preserve to himself the third place. That he will easily gain his ends, by doing so, because it is impossible, that the Order established by the Inviolable Canons of the Council of Nice should be overthrown; That Ambition might prompt to make a Change as it already hath happened in the Council, where Juvenal endeavoured to usurp the Primary of Palaestine, and attempted to ground his Pretensions upon some supposititious Wri∣tings,

and that S. Cyril being afraid of that Enterprise, had written to him, but that whatsoever Constitutions were made thereupon against those of the Council of Nice, whensoever a more numerous Council should meet, it would not, nor ought to be valid; That if his Le∣gates had consented to any Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which did not concern Do∣ctrine, he declared it null, because he had sent them for no other end but to defend the Faith of the Church against Heresies; That all that had been handled in the Synods of Bishops, ex∣cept what concerned the Faith, may not be received, if it do not agree with the Decrees of the Council of Nice; That he will see, by the Copy of the Letter written to Anatolius, how vigorously he defends the Council of Nice. Lastly, he advertiseth Maximus to prohibit the Monks and Lay-Men from Preaching, and so much the more because it belongs to the Bishops only to do it. This Letter is of the 10th. of June.

In the Ninety Third Letter to Theodoret, he, in the first place, testifies the Joy which he had when he understood by the Legates which he had sent to the Council of Chalcedon, That the Catholick Faith had triumphed over the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians, and that the Council had confirmed by its Judgment, which was not subject to amendment, the Doctrines which he had asserted. These words are very remarkable, because they evidently prove to us, That there is no Judgment but that of an Universal Council, which may not be re-exami∣ned, and that the Judgment of the Pope himself is subject to amendment. This was it that made him add, That he was not troubled, that some People would not accept the Judgment which he had given, to evidence that the acknowledgment which the other Sees had made of his Supremacy, as given to him by God, was not meer Flattery. That the Opposition which the Truth had met withal upon that occasion, was the cause of some good, because the Divine Favours are more thankfully acknowledged, when they are obtained with difficulty, and God's Providence brings us to the fruition of Good by a kind of Evil. That the Truth is made clearer, and upholds it self with the greater strength, when the examination confirms, that Faith which we have been taught; and that lastly, the Grandeur of the Priestly Dignity shews it self best, when we respect the Authority of the Bishops that are most highly promoted; yet with a Proviso, that we do not in any wise encroach upon the Privileges of such as are infe∣rior to them. Afterward he invites Theodoret to rejoice with him at the Victory which the Truth had obtained. He sets himself against the Outrages which Dioscorus had committed. He tells Theodoret, That he must equally avoid the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. He thanks God, That he hath been freed from all manner of Suspicion; and at last, exhorts him to be watchful for the Defence of the Faith of the Church, and not permit either Lay-men or Monks to become Preachers. This Letter is dared June 12.

The Ninety Fourth Letter to the Emperor Marcian, is about a difficult Controversie which was in the Church, concerning the day on which Easter should be kept in the year 455. S. Leo says, That the Ancient Fathers had imposed that Task upon the Bishop of Alexandria to find out the Feast of Easter every year, and to make it known to the Apostolick See, that he might give notice of it to the far distant Churches. That Theophilus had made a Calendar for an Hundred years, beginning at the year 380. but that the Passover in the 76th. year, i. e. in the year of Jesus Christ 455, is appointed upon an extraordinary day, and too much advanced in the Month of April. He beseeches Marcian to command, That an exact Calculation be made, that all Churches may celebrate this Feast at the same time. The following Letter to Julia•• is upon the same Subject. Both are of June 16. This last, in the ordinary Editions, is dire∣cted to Eudoxia. But the manner of writing, and MSS. prove to us, That it was really written to Julian.

The Ninety Sixth Letter is addressed to the Empress Eudoxia. In it he exhorts her to make use of her Authority to compel some Monks of Palaestine to submit themselves to the Council of Chalcedon.

In the Ninety Seventh Letter to the Monks of Palaestine, he explains the Opinions which he had asserted in his Letter to Flavian, and evinces, That his Doctrine is clear contrary to the Error of Nestorius, as well as that of Eutyches.

In his Ninety Eighth Letter, he desires Julian to give him an exact Account of the News of what happened at Constantinople, and to take effectual care that the Canons be observed. It is dated June 25. 453.

The Ninety Ninth bears date Jan. 9. following. He gives the Emperor Thanks for ap∣peasing the Troubles of Palaestine, and restoring Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, to his See again.

The following Letter to Julian is of the same date. In it he shews much Joy, That the Monks of Palaestine had acknowledged their Error, and that Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, was restored. He adds, That Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, [Successor of Dioscorus, who was deposed] did write him a Letter, in which he makes known to him the Purity of his Doctrine. He speaks of the difference between himself and this Bishop, about the Celebration of Easter, in the year 455. He says, That he hath approved nothing in the Council of Chalcedon but what concerns the Faith, and was much pleased that Aetius had been found Innocent.

In the Hundred and First Letter to Marcian, S. Leo assures this Emperor, That he will free∣ly be reconciled to Anatolius, and for that end had already written to him, if his Letters, which he hath sent him, had had any effect, or he had answered them; yet if he will submit himself

to the Can••ns, and renounce his ambitious Pretensions, he would instantly receive him to his Communion. This Letter bears date, March the 9th.

The following Letter to Julian is of the same date. He lets him know, That he had re∣ceiv'd a Letter from Proterius, in which he shews himself well principle'd in the Faith; but because he was extreamly troubled with the Faction of the Eutychians, who having made a corrupt Translation of S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, would perswade Men, That it favoured the Error of Nestorius; he desires Julian to cause it to be translated into Greek, and send it to Alexandria, sealed with the Emperor's Signet. He commands him to get knowledge of the Emperor's Answer about the day on which the Feast of Easter is to be kept the next year, and send him word of it, because the time of sending the Circular Letters for the Passover is at hand.

The Hundred and Third Letter is written to Proterius Bishop of Alexandria. S. Leo dis∣covers to that Bishop, the Joy which he had conceived, when he understood, by his Epistle, That he is of an Orthodox Judgment, and that the Church of Alexandria hath received of S. Mark, the Scholar of S. Peter, the same Faith which the Romans have received of his Master. He exhorts Proterius carefully to defend this Faith. He adds, That he hath taught no new Doctrine in his Letter to Flavian, nor departed from the Rule of Faith received from his An∣cestors; and if Dioscorus had done the same, he would not have separated from the Church, since he had the Works of S. Athanasius, the Sermons of Theophilus and S. Cyril, which ought to have encouraged him to resist the Error of Eutyches. He advertises Proterius, That he must carefully avoid speaking any thing, which may come near the Opinions of Nestorius; and that in teaching the People, he must let them know, That he vents nothing new, but teaches what the Holy Fathers have unanimously preached, and to convince them of it, it is not sufficient to say so, but it is convenient to prove it, by bringing and explaining their Authorities, to which he may join his Letter.

In fine, S. Leo says, That he applies himself to Antiquity, as well in Matters of Discipline as Faith, and for this reason it is, That he hath opposed them, who through their Ambition would rob the Church of Alexandria of her Privileges, and Metropolitans of their Rights. He advises Proterius to uphold the Customs which were in use in the time of his Predecessors; To keep the Bishops, who according to the ancient Canons, are subject to the Church of Alex∣andria, close to their Duty, by obliging them to be present at his Synod at the appointed times, or when there is some Business that requires their presence. This Letter is of March 10. 454. It hath never been published.

To this Letter the Epistle of Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, to S. Leo touching the Feast of Easter in the year 455. is joined. He was of a contrary Judgment to the Pope, who at length yielded to the Opinion of Proterius. Those that are curious Inquirers after the Ac∣counts which were then made, to find out the day on which Easter was to be kept every year, may find much satisfaction in it. About the end, he cautions S. Leo, That he should not venture to have this Letter turned into Latin, because it is very hard for Men that do not understand it well, to express exactly, in Latin, a Matter so hard and intricate as this is.

The Hundred and Fourth Letter to the Emperor Marcian, is of the same date with the Hundred and Third to Proterius, and contains almost the same things. S. Leo therein com∣mends Proterius, because he had approved his Letter to Flavian. He says, That some Here∣ticks had falsified it, and desires the Emperor to cause it to be turned into Greek and sent to Alexandria.

The Hundred and Fifth to the same bears date the 15th. of April following. In it he pro∣mises the Emperor to be reconciled to Anatolius, provided that he would desist from his Pre∣tensions. He desires his Majesty to banish Eutyches further, because he divulged his Doctrines in the place of his Exile. He thanks him for sending a Person to Alexandria, that he might inform himself exactly of the time, when Easter must be celebrated.

The Letter of Anatolius to S. Leo is taken out of Holstenius's Collection. In it he com∣plains that S. Leo had given over writing to him, and declares, That the Letters which he had written to others about him, had increased his trouble. He tells him, That he desired nothing more than to give him satisfaction, and that having seen a Letter which S. Leo wrote to the Emperor, he had immediately performed what he desired of him for the good of the Church; That he had preferred Aetius to an honourable Office among the Clergy, tho' not to be an Arch-Deacon, as appears by the following Letter; That he had expelled Andrew out of the Church, altho' he had made him Arch-Deacon, for no reason but that he came to that Dignity, by reason of his Age; That he had also put from the Communion of the Church, those who had been of the Eutychian Party, altho' they had satisfied him by their Subscripti∣ons and Declarations, and that he would not receive them, till he had known from him, what he ought to do. He earnestly entreats him to write to him. Lastly, he protests, that as to the Dignity, which the Council of Chalcedon hath granted him in favour of the See of the Church of Constantinople, he had not any hand in it, but it was the Clergy of Constantinople which desired it, and the Eastern Bishops, who had caused it to be ordained; that as for him∣self he had not concerned himself in it, but had always lived▪ in such a manner, as could give

no just Cause to think that he was ambitious or forward in such Attempts. The Body of this Letter is written in Latin, but the words are in the Greek Character.

S. Leo answers this Epistle in his Hundred and Sixth, and tells Anatolius, That it is not for lack of kindness, that he had desisted from writing to him, but being obliged to oppose him∣self against those things which he acted contrary to the Canons, he had received no Answer from him. He commends him, that he hath composed the Business about Aetius, and turned Andrew out of the Arch-Deaconry. He informs him, That he may receive him, and ordain him Priest, yea him, and all that have been engaged in the Eutychian Party, if they do pro∣fess publickly, in writing, that they condemn the Heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius, but that he ought not to make any Person Arch-Deacon, who hath ever been engaged in those Sects. He was not at all satisfied with the Excuse made by Anatolius, about the Prerogatives given to the See of Constantinople, by the Council of Chalcedon; for he says, That the Clergy could not do it without his consent. Notwithstanding, he was glad to see him so well disposed to give over that Enterprise, and exhorts him to do it forthwith. This Letter is dated May 29. 454.

The Hundred and Seventh Letter to the Emperor Marcian is upon the same Subject. He shews him, That he hath returned an Answer to Anatolius; That this Bishop ought to attri∣bute the Interruption of Commerce by Letters, which had been between them, to nothing but his own silence; That he did not doubt, but that it was the Emperor who had disposed him thus to amend himself; That he doth not reconcile himself to him but upon Condition that he abandons his Pretensions, which he hath contrary to the Canons of the Church, and will be watchful to discover close Hereticks; that he may drive them out by the Assistance of the Imperial Anthority, that it is easie, by that means, to extinguish the other Heresies entirely, since Palaestine was already returned, and Aegypt began to acknowledge him; That he was much pleased with that which he had done in favour of Aetius, and desires him to hearken to what Julian hath to communicate to him. Lastly, he requires him to prohibit the Monk Carosus from dispersing his Error in Constantinople as he hath done.

He wrote also another Letter to the Emperor at the same time, in which he thanks him for the Inquiry he had made, to let him know Easter-day. He assures him, That he had received Proterius's Letters, and that he will follow his Judgment, altho' he is not perswaded of the Reason, yet for Peace and Unity sake. Lastly, he prays the Emperor, That the * 1.10 Receivers of the Church of Constantinople might not give up their Accounts before the secular Judges, but leave it according to the ancient Custom to the Bishop's Court.

The Hundred and Ninth Letter is a circular Letter to the Bishops of France and Spain, in which he gives them notice, That the Feast of Easter, in the next year, shall be kept upon the 22d. of April. It is dated July 28. Anno. 454.

The Hundred and Tenth is written to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem. In it he declares his Joy, that this Bishop, having condemned the Error of Eutyches, was again settled in his See. He exhorts him to defend the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, of which the Holy Places, which are in his Bishoprick, are a convincing Proof. He explains the Catholick Do∣ctrine, and tells him, That he will find it proved by Testimonies of Holy Scripture, in his Letter to Flavian. This Letter bears date September 4th.

The Hundred and Eleventh Letter is an Answer to Julian's, wherein he had sent him the News of Dioscorus's death. He tells him, That he hopes that it will render the Conversion of many more easie. He commands him to manage the Inclinations of the Emperor well, and to instruct him, what he may do for the good of the Church, because he knew that this Prince is perswaded, That he never acts so much for the good of his Empire, as when he procures the good of the Church. He puts Julian in mind to let him know, what condi∣tion the Church of Alexandria is in.

The Hundred and Twelfth, Hundred and Thirteenth and Hundred and Fourteenth Let∣ters of S. Leo are written in 455. In the first he thanks the Emperor Marcian for the care he had taken, to have it plainly settled on what day Easter ought to be celebrated; and assures him, That he submits to the Judgment of the Bishop of Alexandria, and that he hath fol∣lowed it in the Letters which he hath written to all the Bishops of the West, to give them no∣tice of the day of that Feast. He also thanks the Emperor for expelling Carosus and Doro∣thaeus from their Monasteries. In the second, he makes answer to Julian's Letter, who had written to him, That Carosus had professed the Orthodox Faith, but was yet at variance with Anatolius; That John was sent into Aegypt to restore the Faith, and settle Peace there. He desires Julian to let him know what success he shall have there, and tells him, That he is much troubled for the condition of the Bishop of Antioch, if what his Accusers say, be true. He adds, That he hath so great confidence in the Piety of the Emperor, that he doth not doubt but that he will hinder the establishment of Heresie. In the 114th. he exhorts Anatolius to labour with all his Might to extinguish the remainders of the Heresie. The last of these Letters is dated March 13.

We have nothing more of that year nor the next, because Rome having been taken by the Vandals, S. Leo was so busy about the Affairs of his own Church, he had no leasure to take care of others. Besides, that in the trouble he then was, it was hard to send or receive Let∣ters

from distant Countries. But as soon as he began to be a little at rest, he then began afresh to give Marks of his Pastoral Care and Vigilance over the Church.

The Hundred and Fifteenth Letter to the Emperor Leo, dated June 9. Anno 457. is the first. He prays the Emperor to protect the Faith, and not permit the Authority of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon to be questioned, particularly at Alexandria, where, according to the account he had received from Anatolius, it was strongly opposed.

To him also he directs the following Letter of July 11. S. Leo praises him, because he was troubled to see the Church of Alexandria reduced to so lamentable a Condition through the Outrage of the Hereticks; That the Emperor Marcian was taken out of the World, just when he was using Remedies for it; but (God be praised) he had left a Son, from whom the Orthodox Religion might expect the same protection; That he had written to him for that reason; That he ought to join with him in endeavouring to maintain the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and prays him to let him know what he could do with him there∣upon.

The Hundred and Seventeenth is of the same date; In it he tells Julian, That he wondred he did not write to him; but being informed, by Anatolius's Letter, that he was gone to Alexandria, he had written to the Emperor to pray him to restore Peace to that Church; and to Anatolius, that he should use his Interest with the Emperor upon that Subject. He commands him to join his Sollicitations with Anatolius, to uphold the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and ordain an Orthodox Bishop at Alexandria in the place of Proterius.

The Hundred and Eighteenth Letter, dated Aug. 23, 457. is directed to Basilius Bishop of Antioch. In the beginning he complains, That this Bishop had not given him notice of his Ordination: He exhorts him to join with him, and other Bishops that are Orthodox, to defend the Catholick Faith with Courage, because he is perswaded, That the Emperor and Lords of the Court will not undertake to innovate any thing, when they see the Orthodox Bi∣shops firm and united.

In the Hundred and Nineteenth Letter he exhorts Euxithius Bishop of Thessalonica, and Ju∣venal Bishop of Jerusalem, to be resolute, and not suffer that any Council be assembled to disannul what hath been done in the Council of Chalcedon. He sent these Letters to Julian and Aetius, that they might deliver them to the Metropolitans to whom they are directed, and by that means all the Bishops may know it. This appears by the 120th. and 121st. Letters.

In the Hundred and Twenty Second Letter he congratulates the Emperor Leo, that he de∣clared himself for the Council of Chalcedon, and exhorts him to further the Peace of the Church. This Letter is dated Sept. 1. 457.

He comforts the Bishops of Aegypt, who had been banished from their Churches for the Orthodox Doctrine in the following Letter. This is of Octob. 11.

The Hundred and Twenty Fourth Letter is to Anatolius. After he hath thanked him for his care in writing to him the News, he exhorts him to oppose the Temptations of Hereticks vigorously, but he reproves him for suffering the Clergy of Constantinople to have Com∣merce with the Enemies of the Catholick Faith. This Letter is dated the 11th. or 14th. of October.

In the Hundred and Twenty Fifth Letter to the Emperor Leo, he endeavours to shew the Emperor, That he ought not to revive again the Questions about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and that he ought to hold to the decision of the Council of Chalcedon. He exhorts him to apply Remedies to the Distempers of the Church of Alexandria, and not suffer the Ene∣mies of the true Faith to thrust themselves into the Government of that Church; That having receiv'd Petitions from both Hereticks and Catholicks, he easily discerned to which of them he ought to lend his Assistance, since on the Hereticks part there is nothing but Violence and Sacrilege, who have put to death an Innocent Bishop, casting his Ashes into the Air, overturn∣ing the Altars, laying open the Mysteries to Parricides and Wicked Men, casting down the Oblation, and destroying the Holy Oyl; That after all this they had the boldness to demand a Council; That the Emperor ought not to suffer this Impudence, but rescue the Church of Alexandria from the Oppression in which it was; That he had sent him a Letter treating of Matters of Faith, to instruct him fully in the Doctrine of the Church. Lastly, he complains, That some of the Clergy in Constantinople held Heretical Opinions. He accuses Anatolius of Negligence in not punishing them, and exhorts the Emperor to banish them out of the City. He recommends to him the Bishop Julian, and Aetius the Priest. This Letter is dated Decemb. 1.

In the Hundred and Twenty Sixth Letter he desires Anatolius to join with him in per∣swading the Emperor to maintain the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, oppose the He∣reticks, and restore the Peace of the Church of Alexandria. He tells him, That he was very Joyful to hear, that there were but four Bishops of Aegypt who were guilty of the same Crime with Timotheus, and who were of his Party; That he must do his endeavour to help the other Bishops of Aegypt, who are under Persecution, and assist those who are withdrawn to Constantinople; That their Presence is very necessary to divert the Emperor from calling a new Synod. He admonishes him not to suffer Atticus and Andrew, two Clergy-men of Con∣stantinople,

to persist in their speaking against the Council of Chalcedon. He likewise makes smart Reflections upon him for suffering them.

In the One hundred twenty seventh he comforts the Orthodox Bishops of Aegypt, who had retired to Constantinople. Anatolius bore the Reflections which S. Leo made upon him, with a sort of Disturbance. Atticus the Priest, whom S. Leo had branded, sought to justify himself, by sending some Writings, which he pretended to be Orthodox, but S. Leo was not satisfied with that, but insisted upon it, that he would plainly condemn the Error and Person of Eutyches, and sign the Profession of Faith made by the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter is dated in March 458.

The One hundred twenty ninth Letter of S. Leo to Nicetas, or rather to Niceas, Bishop of Aquileia, is dated March 21. in the same Year. The First and Principal Question which he treats of in this Letter is this, viz. Whether those Women, who in the Captivity or Absence of their Husbands, whom they thought dead, having been married to others, ought to return to their First Husbands, if perchance they return again? He answers, That they are obliged to it, if their First Husbands demand them again, although their Second Husbands have not sinned in marrying them. And he at the same Time orders, That those Women be Excom∣municated, who would not return to them.

The Second Question is concerning those who have eaten Meats offer'd to Idols, being urg'd to it through Hunger, or constrain'd through Fear. He says, That they must be cleansed by Penance, which ought to be considered not so much in respect of the length of Time, as of the Sincerity of Grief. He orders, That they do the same to those who have been baptized a Second Time, either by Force, or because they have been engag'd in the Heretical Factions. He wisely observes, That the Time for Penance ought to be order'd according to the Devotion, Age or Profession of the Penitents. In fine, as to those Persons who have been baptized but once, but by the Hereticks, he says, That they ought to be Confirm'd by the Imposition of Hands, with Invocation of the Holy Spirit. Sola invocatione Spiritus Sancti, per Impositionem Manuum Confirmandi.

In the One hundred and thirtieth Letter he comforts the Bishops of Aegypt, who were retir'd to Constantinople, and advises them not to suffer those Matters to be disputed afresh, which were decided in the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter is dated March 21.

The One hundred thirty first is of the same Date. He exhorts the Clergy of Constantinople to continue stedfast in the Faith, and separate themselves from the Hereticks; and he admo∣nishes them, That they ought not to suffer Atticus and Andrew to remain in the Church, if they will not make Profession in Writing of the Faith of the Council of Chal∣cedon.

The next Day he wrote to the Emperor the One hundred thirty and second Letter, in which he declareth to him, That he ought not to suffer the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon to be brought under Examination a second Time; That he could neither Communicate with Hereticks, nor depart from the Decisions of the Synod; That he will send the Legates of the Holy See, as he hath desired; That he doth it not to enter into Dispute about that which hath already been decided, but only to clear it, and make it known.

In the One hundred thirty third Letter, to the same Emperor, dated Aug. 17. He writes to him, That he had sent Two Bishops, to require him, in his Name, to take Care of the Peace of the Church, maintain the Faith, and not suffer the Definitions of the Council of Chalcedon to be called in question. He enlarges chiefly upon the latter, shewing, that if once it be allow'd to dispute continually, and use Logical and Rhetorical Arguments in the Explication of the Mysteries there will never be an end. That Jesus Christ hath evidently prov'd that he would not have these Arts made use of, since he had not chosen Philosophers or Orators to preach his Gospel, but poor Fishermen, lest the heavenly Doctrine, which is so powerful, should be thought to need the Help of Humane Eloquence: That the Arguments of Rheto∣rick appear so much the more, by how much the Things that are treated on are the more obscure and uncertain, and accounted true because they are defended with more Wit and Eloquence, but that the Gospel of Jesus Christ hath no need of that Artifice, because the Doctrine of Truth is clear in it self, and that no Man seeks what is pleasing to the Ear, when he desires only to know what he ought to believe. Next he explains, in a few Words, the Doctrine establish'd in the Council of Chalcedon. He bewails the Outrage committed against the Person of the Bishop of Alexandria. He requires no Punishment, but hopes that the Authors of it would amend, and suffer Penance for their Sin. In fine, he recommends to him his Legates, which he sent to him, not to enter any Dispute, but to represent to him what must be done for the Maintenance of the Faith, and Restauration of the Church's Peace. He prays him to send an Orthodox Bishop to Alexandria, and re-settle the Bishops of Aegypt, which have been forc'd away by the Hereticks. This excellent Letter is one of those which F. Quesnel hath lately publish'd. Prudens * 1.11, Bishop of Troyes, hath copied out a part of it in his Book against Joannes Scotus. Vigilius and Pelagius II. have also cited it, and Facundus hath produced a Passage of it.

The One hundred thirty fourth Letter is a Discourse against the Error of Eutyches. S. Leo relates therein first of all the Errors of the Hereticks about the Mystery of the Incarnation. He proves, That the Council of Nice hath confounded them altogether. He demonstrates,

That it was necessary for the Reconciliation of Man to God, that Jesus Christ, should be God and Man, and the Divine and Humane Nature should be united in one Person. He proves afterwards by many Reasons, confirmed by Testimonies of Holy Scriptures, That these Two Natures are really and truly in Jesus Christ: This, in the last Place, he makes good by the Authority of the Holy Fathers, of whom he produces many Passages. In a Word, he proves and explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a clear, noble and sublime manner, without involving himself in School Subtleties.

The One hundred thirty Fifth Letter is written to Neonas Bishop of Ravenna (for so it ought to be read, and not Legio.) F. Quesnel thinks it was written in the Year 458 a 1.12. although it be dated in the Consulship of Marcian. S. Leo, in this Letter, resolves a difficult Question, which had been proposed in a Synod, viz. Where they who were carried Captive in their Infancy, before they had any Use of Reason, not knowing whether they have been baptized or no, must be baptized? He concludes, That they need not fear to baptize them, since they have no proofs that they have been, but if they know that they have been baptized, though it were by Hereticks, they must not be then baptized. This Letter shews, That Bap∣tism upon condition was not in use at that Time.

In the One hundred thirty sixth Letter, directed to the Bishops of Campania, Picenum and Samnium, S. Leo reproves those Persons who baptized without Necessity upon the Festivals consecrated to the Martyrs. He forbids the Celebration of Baptism upon any other Days besides the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost, at left if no Danger or Peril oblige to a speedy Admini∣stration of that Sacrament. He also opposes the Practice of some, who caused Offenders to recite publickly the Sins which they had committed, and says, That it is sufficient to discover them in private Confessions to the Priests; and although it seems to be a commendable Action that Men should expose themselves to Shame through fear of God's Judgment, yet since it is pos∣sible to have Sins, which they that have committed them dare not often even publish them; therefore this Custom must be entirely abolish'd, for fear of frighting Men from the Remedy of Penance, lest they should discover those Crimes to their Enemies, for which they may be punish'd by Civil Justice. It is enough to confess his Sin first to God, and then to the Priest, who ought to pray to God for the Remission of the Sins of Penitents, that by this means Sinners will be more easily drawn to Repentance, when they are sure that the Sins, of which they confess themselves guilty shall not be made publick. This Letter bears date March 6. 459.

In the One hundred thirty seventh Letter S. Leo congratulates the Emperor Leo for having put Timotheus Aelurus out of the See of Alexandria, and exhorts him to take care that some Orthodox Person, worthy of that See, be chosen into his Place, assuring him, that though Timotheus should return from his Errors, and profess the Catholick Faith, yet his Crimes ren∣der him unworthy of being restored. This Letter is dated June 460.

The One hundred thirty eighth Letter, of the same Date, is written to Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople. He complains that he permitted Timotheus to come to Constantinople. He advises Gennadius not to communicate with him, and to put him out of all Hopes of recover∣ing his Bishoprick, by ordaining some Person of Merit in his Place.

This was put in execution, for a little after Timotheus, surnamed Solofaciolus [or Basilicus,] who was an Orthodox Person, was put into the See of Alexandria. S. Leo wrote to him, to congratulate his Election, and to exhort him to oppose the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. This Letter is the One hundred thirty ninth, and dated April 18. 460. He wrote also the One hundred and fortieth Letter, at the same Time, to the Clergy of Alexandria; in which he exhorts them to Peace, and encourages them to maintain the Faith which had been taught them by the Orthodox Bishops of Alexandria, without any Variation, For the Truth, saith he, which is Simple and One, receives no Change. He admonishes him to bring over and receive to Repentance those who are in an Error.

S. Leo a little after (viz. September 1.) congratulates the Bishops of Aegypt, that they had an Orthodox Patriarch, and exhorts them to labour after a re-union of Minds, and the Con∣version of those who were engaged in Heresy. This Letter is the One hundred forty first, and the last of S. Leo's Letters, in this new Edition, augmented with Thirty Letters.

S. Leo hath written many other Letters besides; Pelagius in his One hundred and eleventh Letter, to the Bishops of Istria, cites Two Fragments of a Letter of S. Leo, to Basil: One of these Fragments is found in the One hundred thirty and third Letter, to the Emperor Leo, the other is not to be met with; so that this must be either that S. Leo hath repeated the

same thing in Two Letters, or Pelagius is mistaken in his Quotation. The same Pope cites also a Fragment of a Letter of S. Leo's, to the Archdeacon Aetius, which is not to be found among those we have.

S. L•••• had given his Legates some Memorandums in Writing, when he sent them to the Council of Chalcedon, of which Boniface read a part in the Sixteenth Action of that Council. F. Quesnel hath collected these Fragments, at the End of the Letters, and joyned to them a Letter of Julian Bishop of Coos to the Emperor Leo; in which this Bishop answers the Emperor, who had desired Advice from him and other Bishops about the preferring of Timo∣theus, surnamed Aelurus, and about the Council of Chalcedon: He answers him, I say, That Timotheus ought not to be accounted a Bishop, and that he ought to be expell'd from the See of Alexandria, which he had invaded, and that he ought to keep to the Decision of the Council of C••aloedou, and maintain its Decrees.

There is mention made in S. Leo's own Letters, and some other Records, of several other Letters written by or to S. Leo, of which we have no Fragments. F. Quesnel hath made an exact Catalogue of them, at the End of his Notes upon S. Leo's Letters, to which we may have recourse▪ There also we may see the Inscriptions of Nineteen or Twenty Letters of S. Leo, of which we have not one Word more remaining.

He hath left out a Letter which was heretofore reckon'd the Eighty eighth of S. Leo's Letters, to the Bishops of Germany and France, touching the Office of the Chorepiscopi; but he hath proved in a Dissertation, purposely made on that Subject, that that Letter is certainly supposi∣titious a 1.13 and taken out of the Canons of the Second Council of Sevil, held anno 619. which forbids▪ in the same Terms those Offices to Priests which this Canon does to the Chore∣piscopi; neither hath he ranked in the Number of S. Leo's Epistles, that which was formerly counted the Ninety Sixth Letter, because 'tis not this Pope's, but a Synodical Letter, written in the Name of S. Leo * 1.14 Bishop of Bourges, Victurius † 1.15 Bishop of Mans, Eustochius * 1.16 Bishop of Tours, and some other Bishops in the Churches of the Third Province of Lyons (a), which is that of Tours.

From the Letters we will come to his Sermons, but we must first examine the Conjectures upon which M. Anthelmi grounds himself, in attributing them to S. Prosper. The First is the Likeness of Style, which he pretends is to be found between the Writings of S. Prosper and the Sermons, which are said to be S. Leo's. He thinks that he meets in several Places of them not only with Words but also Phrases, Sentences, Expressions, and particular Modes of Speech proper to S. Prosper, and produces many Examples, which he says are sufficient to determine the Point. The Second Proof is from an ancient Manuscript of Nine hundred Years old, written in the Saxon Character, which was heretofore in the Library of M. Thuanus, and at present is in M. Colbert's; where the Anniversary of the Fourth Year of the Exaltation of S. Leo ••ears the Name of S. Prosper, according to an Ancient Inscription. There are also in the Manuscript two other Sermons attributed to S. Leo; the one is of Collection and Alms-gi∣ving, and the other upon the Fast of the Tenth Month, which are the Tenth and Sixteenth in F. Quesnel's Edition of S. Leo's Sermons. The old Title of these Sermons doth not carry the Name of S. Leo in the Manuscript, but it hath been added by a later Hand: From whence he concludes, That these Two Sermons as well as the former, are S. Prosper's, and not S. Leo's. * 1.17

He brings for a Third Proof▪ That neither G•…•…dius nor Pope Gelasius, who speak of S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, do ••ake the least mention of his Sermons, no more than Anastasius Biblio∣thecarius, who speaks of the Actions of this Pope. It is said also, That in those Times the Bishops preached Sermons made by others: That Gennadius assures us, That Salvian had com∣posed many for Bishops, and says the same thing of Honoratus. That if Bishops did make use of the Sermons of a Priest and * 1.18 Bishop of Marseilles, and desired them of 'em, 'tis very credi∣ble that they should apply 'emselves to S. Leo (whose Reputation was very great) for them. Now S. Leo being busied with so many Affairs▪ 'tis not likely that he could compose them himself, and if so, who should he chuse to do it for him but S. Prosper, who was his Secreta∣ry, and was sufficiently qualified to make good Sermons? And that it was these he sent to the Bishops under the Name of S. Leo. This is the Opinion of the Abbot Anthelmi upon the Sermons which bear the Name of S. Leo, and the Conjectures upon which he Builds it.

But altho' I have no small esteem of the worth of this Author, yet I cannot but say, that this whole frame appears to me a mere Chimaera, and the proofs which he brings are extream∣ly weak; for what probability is there, that other Bishops should address themselves to S. Leo to make Sermons for them? It is visible enough, That the Bishops of Rome have other∣wise been consulted about the affairs of the Church, but whoever said, that they were desired to make Sermons? Is there any example of it? Salvian made Sermons for some Bishops, and Honoratus's Homilies were used by others, but what is this to the Bishop of Rome? M. An∣thelmi supposes that he was burden••d with so many affairs, and incumbred with so much busi∣ness, that he had not leisure to write Letters. And is it Credible▪ That they did address them∣selves to him to have Sermons? Or, That he should contrive to have them made and publish∣ed in his Name? Further, it is discernable, That S. Leo's Sermons were composed by S. Leo for his own People, and Preached in his own Church a 1.19 'Twas only for S. Leo that they were made, and for no other Bishops. But say some, Sozomen assures us in his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story, l. 7. c. 19. That in the Church of Rome, neither the Bishop, nor any in his stead, Preached to the People, as if this remark of Sozomen ought to be followed. Do they not know, that even they, that maintain this▪ as M. Valesius hath done, own that S. Leo did not conform to that Custom. So clear it is, That he Preached himself to the People: But yet it is not probable, that what Sozomen says in that place, was ever true, or he must be understood in another sence, for who can imagine, that in so flourishing and orderly a Church as that of Rome was, the Bishop should neglect his principal Duty, and suffer his Flock to be without Feeding? Besides, S. Leo tells us in several places of his Sermons b 1.20 That he did nothing new in Preaching, but followed the settled Custom, and in the Eighty Second Sermon he ob∣serves particularly, that his Predecessor S. Sixtus had made some publick Instructions. And do we not learn from S. Ambrose, that Liberius * 1.21 made a Sermon upon the occasion of Mar∣cellina's Vowing Virginity in the Church of S. Peter on the Feast of the Nativity? This is sufficient to make it appear, that Sozomen's Observation is false, or ought to be understood in another sence. But however that be, no Man dare extend it as far as S. Leo's time, because 'tis manifest beyond all contradiction, that the Sermons which bear his Name, were composed for the People of Rome, and Preached before them. So that there is nothing more Fictitious, than the System of M. Abbot Anthelmi? But perhaps tho' S. Leo Preached them, yet he did not make▪ them himself? Could a Bishop in so much business as he was, have time to make his Sermons? Is it not more likely that S. Prosper made them? This supposition is not so absurd as the former, but yet not much better grounded? Why might not S. Leo have had time enough to compose such short Sermons as his are? The chief Duty of a Bishop is to instruct his People, and it-being especially appropriated to him, as S. Leo himself saith in his Letters to Maximus and Theodoret, it is evident, that he ought to preferr this Employment before all others. S. Leo was Eloquent, and spoke readily, he needed no very long time to make his Sermons. He Preached apparently without much preparation: Afterwards, They wrote his Sermons either in the time he Preached them, or he dictated them himself. But supposing that

S. Leo had caused them to be made, he did certainly make use of some other Pen, than S. Prosper's, for they are of a more sublime Stile than the Works of that Author. The Stile of this last is Plain and Doctrinal, not at all Florid, as the Sermons and Letters, of S. Leo are. That Jingling and Rhiming Cadence so proper to S. Leo, is very rarely to be found in S. Prosper. This it is that we must judge the likeness of Stile by, and not because the same Words, or Thoughts, are by chance found in Two Authors. And yet this is all that proves the parallels of M. Abbot Anthelmi. And if any Persons will give themselves the trouble to compare the places, which he alledges, they'll see that there is no likeness of Stile between the passages of one Author, and the other, altho' they meet with the same words. And further, Al∣tho' there were some little conformity of Stile between the Writings of S. Prosper, and S. Leo, yet have we not much greater reason to say, That S. Prosper hath imitated his Master whom be often heard speak and preach, whose Sermons he read, and perhaps copied out to keep them, In Scrinio Romanae Ecclesiae, In the Registry of the Roman Church, it being supposed that he was a Notary of the Roman Church?

As to the Saxon MS. as it contains no more than Three Sermons, whatsoever Authority we allow it, it ought to make us doubt of no more than Three Sermons, for this doubt ought not to reach to others, which are always attributed to S. Leo in all the MSS. and never to S. Prosper. But notwithstanding these Three Sermons are not to be found, save in this MS. on∣ly, where the first is attributed to S. Prosper, yet the Stile and Matter do evince that they are S. Leo's, and cannot be S. Prosper's. This, is the Judgment, which the Learned M. Faber; whose is this MS. gives of it, and which he sent to Vossius Provost of Tongres to add them to his Edition of S. Leo. See what this great Man saith in his Letter to Vossius; p. 113. and 114. of his Works, Hearing that Michael Sonnius Bookseller hath a Correspondence with you by Letters, and that he expects shortly your Edition of S. Leo's Works, I thought that I might do you a kindness in sending you Three Sermons of this Father Copied out of an Ancient MS. that you might add them, if they have escaped your Observation. I have sent you them at first, that you might see whether they are among those that you have. And since you have made Answer to Son∣nius, that they are not there, I do send you them so much the more freely, because I observe in them, as I think the Eloquence of that Father, the roundness of his Periods, and that compact Stile, which is peculiar to him. That which is attributed to S. Prosper, doth evidently belong to the same Author as the others, as is proved by the Agreement in the Stile, and because he speaks of himself as Bishop of Rome, for tho' indeed some say, that S. Leo made use of S. Prosper, yet I shall never be persuaded, that so Eloquent a Pope as S. Leo was, hath Craved the Pen of another, and Preached to his People the Sermons that another made. M. Anthelmi must pardon me, if I preferr M. Faber's Judgment before his, and if without relying upon the Authority of that MS. we acknowledge the first Sermon to be S. Leo's. But why doth it bear S. Prosper's Name in that Ancient MS? Do we not know, that there is a great confusion in the most Ancient MSS. about the Titles of Sermons, and that often they are very faulty? Witness the Two Ancient MSS. a Thousand Years old, of which F. Mabillon speaks in the Preface to S. Maximus's Homilies, Mus. Ital. T. 1. P. 4. where the Homilies of S. Maximus bear the Name of S. Austin. We need not then wonder, if a Sermon of S. Leo's carries the Name of S. Prosper in a MS. of 900 Years old. And yet this doth not prove that it is this Fathers, nor that he hath put it under his own Name, because it was known even then, that S. Prosper made S. Leo's Sermons, or that it was Copied out of a Manuscript, wherein the Sermons of S. Leo were attributed to S. Prosper. M. Abbot Anthelmi owns, That in the time of S. Prosper, the Sermons which were made for S. Leo, did bear the Name of that Pope. Why then was the Name of S. Prosper affixed to them Three Hundred Years after? Whence did he that wrote the Manuscript learn that they were S. Prosper's? Why had not all his other Sermons the same luck? What necessity is there for amending all other Manuscripts by this, wherein there are no more than Three of S. Leo's Sermons? The Transcriber might easily mistake, he might Copy the first Sermon from a Manuscript which had been S. Prosper's, or written by S. Prosper, and take the Name of him that wrote the Manuscript, or the Person's, whose it was, for the Name of the Author. He might find this Sermon at the end of S. Prosper's Works, and so attribute it of his own head to S. Prosper? However that he, it often happens, that we find in the most Ancient Manuscripts the Sermons of S. Maximus, and S. Caesarius, under the Name of S. Austin, and Ambrose, which in our time have been restored to their true Authors, upon the account of the mere agreement of Stile with the other Sermons of S. Maximus, and Caesarius, and without the Authority of any Manuscript? And why may we not do the same to the Ser∣mon of S. Leo? A Negative Argument taken from the silence of Gennadius, Gelasius, and Anastasius, is of little consequence. Gennadius often passes over in silence many excellent pieces of those Authors of whom he speaks. Gelasius had no design to speak of his Sermons, and Anastasius never uses to mention the Writings of Popes. We must then leave S. Leo in possession of his Sermons.

The Four First are Discourses upon his own Promotion to the See of the Roman Church. The First was Preached, according to some, a Year after, according to others, on the Day of his Ordination, but it is more probable, that it was on the Octave after it, for he speaks of his Election as lately past, and of some time that came between, and yet he signifies, that he did not Preach it upon the same Day that he was Ordained, but recurrente per suum ordi∣nem

Die, quo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…s Episto•…•… offici•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…re principiu•…•…, The same Day •…•…ing in its course, on which the Lord was pleased to give a beginning to my Episcopal Charge, which agrees very well to the •…•…e. He gives God thanks in this Sermon, for the favours which he hath received of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and more especially, That he had permitted him to return again to Rome, after a long absence, to Govern that Church. He declares to his People the grateful sense he had of their good-will to him, in chusing him their Bishop, beyond his de∣sert. He desires them to help him by their Prayers, that he may govern the Church in Peace. He assures them, That he will always have that Day in great Honour, in which he was ad∣vanced to his See, because, altho he ought to tremble by reason of his unworthiness, yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was obliged to rejoyce in the favour which God had shewn him, hoping, that he, who hath permitted him to be put into a Charge of so great Weight, will help him to undergo it, and give him strength that he may not •…•…t under the Burden of that Dignity. Lastly, He testi∣fies the Joy that he hath to see the Bishops his Brethren assembled, and makes them to hope, that S. Peter is with them, and that he governs that Church in the Person of his Successor.

In the Second Discourse Preached a Year after his Ordination, he says, That tho' all Bishops ought to give God the Honour of their Ministry, yet he had greater reason than any Body else to Attribute it wholly to the Divine Mercy, when he considers on the one hand his own Weakness, and on the other, the Excellency of his Ministry. That the very thoughts of it made him tremble, because nothing is more to be feared, than Labour by the Weak, g•…•… Dignity by Mean Persons, and an Office by Men of no desert. Labor fragili, sublimit•…•… ••••••∣mist, dig•…•… non •…•…l. That nevertheless he doth not despair, nor is faint-hearted, be∣cause he puts his Trust in him who works in, and by Man. That the Psalm, which they are about to sing, is very proper to humble 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop, and to give all the Glory to Jesus Christ; that it speaks of Melchisedeck an Eternal Priest, whose Parents are not known, which is a Type of the New Law, and the practice of the Church, which bestows not the Priesthood upon Persons of Quality, or of a particular Family, nor by Succession, but chuses such Men as the Holy Spirit hath fitted for it, insomuch that it is not the Prerogative of Birth that qua∣lifies for the Sacerdotal Unction, but 'tis the Heavenly Grace that makes Bishops. That the Church is still governed by Jesus Christ, who hath given to S. Peter the Apostolick Power. That that Apostle never forsakes his Church, but continues to be the Foundation of it; that his Authority and Power still lives in his Successors, and that it is to him that that little good which he doth in his Charge is to be attributed. That it is S. Peter also that he ought to Ex∣tol upon that Day, that it is the Feast of that Apostle; That the Bishops his Brethren were assembled not so much to Honour him, as S. Peter, who is not only Bishop of the Roman Church, but the Head of all the Churches in the World. Upon this Account he Exhorts the Christians of the Church of Rome to excel the Christians of all other Churches in the World in Vertue.

In the Third Discourse upon the same subject, after he hath shewn that all Christians ought to join in that Feast, because all are in some measure Priests to God, having received the Unction of the Holy Spirit, which makes them in a sence Priests, he speaks of the Preroga∣tives granted to S. Peter, and he adds, That the Right of that Power hath passed to all the Pri∣mates of the Church, but it is not without good reason, that God spake that to One, which belongs to all, because in chusing S. Peter to entrust with his Power, he hath made him the Prototype of all Bishops, and that this privilege granted to S. Peter meets in all those who Judge according to the Justice of that Apostle. That as all the Apostles and Bishops have received the Keys in the Person of S. Peter, so likewise it was for all the Apostles, and all the Bishops, that Jesus Christ hath Prayed, when he Prayed in particular for S. Peter, That his Faith fail not. Last∣ly, That S. Peter doth still take care of his Church, and tho' he doth not refuse to assist all the Christians in the World, yet it is to be believed, that he helps in a particular manner those of the Church of Rome, whom he hath preferred, and among whom his Body is Buried.

The Fourth Sermon is almost spent upon the same matters. After he hath proved, that all the good that we do, ought to be referred to God, he demonstrates, that the higher Men are promoted in the Church, the more they ought to fear; That all Bishops must give an Ac∣count of their Flocks; That all Churches having recourse to the Holy Apostolick See God requires of his Bishop such an Universal Charity, as he hath commanded S. Peter to have; That it would be impo•…•…le for him to discharge so great an Office well, and that he must in∣fallibly faint under the Burden, if Jesus Christ, who is an Eternal Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, did not by his Divine Assistance continually aid and assist his Church. That this Anniversary Festival was not appointed for Pride, and Vanity, but to give Jesus Christ upon that Day the Honour of what he doth in the Person of his Minister, and to Celebrate the Memory of S. Peter, who never ceaseth to preside over the Holy See, and hath transmitted to his Successors the same Constancy which he hath received from Jesus Christ; That it is to him that we are obliged for that small Power which remains yet in the Church of Roman.

For, saith he, if God hath granted to the Martyrs as a recompence of their sufferings, and to make known their deserts: If he hath granted them, I say, an Ability to relieve Men in Distress, restore Health to the Sick, and cast out Devils out of the Bodies of such as are pos∣sessed, and to heal all manner of Diseases, who can be so Ignorant, or so Repining,

against the Glory of S. Peter, as to assert, That there is any part of the Church which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 governed by his Care, or strengthened by his Help?

He concludes, That if all the Church acknowledge it self obliged to S. Peter, the Roman Church ought more especially to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all ••••••ens of the respect which it hath for him, and make all thankful acknowledgments 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Bounty; That it is to this Apostle, that all the Honour and Respect which is this Day given to his Successor is directed and intended.

The Six following Sermons, are upon the Collections, or Contributions, which were made for the Poor upon some Sundays in the Year. They are very short, and much commend Alms-giving to us, and shew, that Gatherings for the Poor are derived to us from Apostolick Practice.

Next there are Nineteen Sermons upon the Fast of the Tenth Month, that is, upon the Ember-Week in the Month of September. He observes, That the Ember-Fasts were appointed to Teach us, That there is no time which ought not to be employed in the doing of Good Works; That this Fast in September was Instituted to give God thanks for the Fruits of the Earth, which they had just gathered in, and put us in mind of bestowing a part of those things which God hath given us, to the Poor, by abstaining from them our selves. That the New Law doth not discharge Men from the obligation of Fasting, but on the contrary, the Fasts which it prescribes, are of longer continuance than those of the Jews; That the Apo∣stles commanded it; That Fasting is of great advantage, but it ought to be accompanied with other Christian Vertues, and chiefly, Charity to our Neighbours; That Almsgiving, Prayer, and Fasting, are efficacious means to obtain remission of Sins, that when we give Alms, we lend our Money to God upon Usury; That such Usury is allowed, but 'tis not per∣mitted under any pretence whatsoever to lend to Men upon Usuries.

The Ten Sermons upon the Nativity, contain in them more of Doctrine, than Morality. In them he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation, confutes the Errors of the Hereticks who have opposed it, and adds to the Doctrine some Moral Considerations.

The Eight Sermons upon the Epiphany, contain some Considerations upon the circumstances of that Mystery.

In the Twelve Lent-Sermons he speaks of the Institution and Benefit of Fasting. He be∣lieves, That it was appointed principally to make Expiation for Sins, and do Penance for their Sins; That the Catechumens are obliged to it, as well as the Faithful; That Vertues must be joined with the due Observation of Fasting, and chiefly Almsgiving, and forgiveness of Enemies; That the whole Lent, and above all, the last Days of it, ought to be used to prepare our selves for the Feast of Easter.

In the Nineteen following Sermons he explains the Mystery, Fruit, Effects and Circum∣stances of the Passion of our Saviour.

He hath Two Sermons upon the Resurrection, Two upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and Three upon the Pentecost. In these last he proves the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, in the second he takes notice of some Circumstances of the Heresie of Manes.

The Four next Sermons are upon the Ember-days immediately after Whitsuntide, which fol∣lows that Feast, saith S. Leo, That the Graces bestowed by Virtue of those Mysteries may be preserved by that means. He speaks in these Sermons of the Benefit of Fast∣ing.

The Sermon upon the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul is looked upon, and that with a great deal of Reason as one of the best Sermons of S. Leo. He shews, in the beginning of it, That tho' this Feast be common to all the Churches in the World, it is reasonable that it should be celebrated with the greatest Solemnity in the City of Rome, where these two Apostles have manifested the Light of the Gospel, and where they received the Crown of Martyrdom. He describes the manner how Religion was first settled at Rome, and how that City, which was the chief City of the Empire, became the principal Church in the World. He extolls the Zeal of S. Peter who came thither first of all to preach the Faith. He equals S. Paul 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Peter in desert, and says. That these two Apostles were as the two Eyes of the Body of the C•…•…, of which Jesus Christ is the Head; That their Call, Travails and End, made them e•…•…. He concludes saying, That he doth not doubt but that these two glorious Apo∣stles do endeavour, by their Prayers, to move our Lord to Mercy.

There was heretofore another Sermon upon this Feast, but F. Quesnel hath rejected it in his Appendix, because all of it, except the beginning, is taken out of the 3d. Sermon of S. Leo, ••••on the Anniversary of his advancement to the Popedom.

The following Sermon is on the Octavo of the preceding Feast, if we may believe the Title: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it appears by the Body of the Sermon, That it was made upon another Subject, and ap∣parently at another time after that Rome was freed from the Vandals. S. Leo therein condemns the Romani•…•… Superstition, who after they were delivered by the help of the Saints and the Mercy of God, did celebrate their * 1.22 Cirque-shews with a great deal of Pomp and State.

The Eighty Second Sermon is upon the Feast of the 7 Macchabees, which was joined to the ••east of the Dedication of some Roman Church. He exhorts the Faithful to imitate these Generous Martyrs in conquering the Persecutions of their Spiritual Enemies. He highly praises the Person that had built the Church, which was dedicated, and takes an occasion

to admonish the Christians, That they ought to build a Spiritual Temple in them∣selves.

S. Leo makes an Observation in the beginning of his Panegyrick of S. Lawrence, That the Martyrs are those, who have most exactly imitated the Charity of Jesus Christ; That our Lord in dying for us hath redeemed us, and that the Martyrs shew us by their death, that we ought not to fear Tortures; That among all the Martyrs, there is none that was more cruelly Persecuted, and shewed more Constancy than S. Lawrence; That as he was a Minister of the Sacraments, the Persecutor was animated by a double Motive, and put on by two diffe∣rent Passions. Being Covetous of Money, and an Enemy to the true Religion, his Avarice put him upon seizing the Treasures of the Church, and his Impiety upon destroying the Chri∣stian Religion. He could not make S. Lawrence deliver up the Treasures of the Church, but he must at the same time make him renounce his Religion. He demands of him then the place where the Treasures of the Church were? Our Saint shews him the Flocks of Poor which were maintained and cloathed out of the Church's Revenues. The Tyrant being dis∣appointed of his hopes, was all in a fury, and prepared the most cruel Torments; and after he had torn and mang••ed his Body with many Blows, he broiled his Body upon a Grid-Iron. But the more cruel his Tortures were, the greater was the Glory of this Martyr: So that Rome hath been as famous for the Martyrdom of S. Laurence, as Jerusalem for S. Stephen. We hope, adds this Father, that we shall be helped by his Prayers and his Intercession.

The Nine following Sermons are upon the Summer Ember-days. He exhorts the Faithful to Fasting, and shews the Advantage of it, and requires them always to join Fasting and Ab∣stinence together. He recommends the Love of God.

The Ninety Third Sermon is against the Error of Eutyches. The Ninety Fourth contains some Reflections upon the Mystery of the Incarnation upon the occasion of the Transfiguration of our Lord. In the Ninety Fifth he explains the Degrees of Blessedness, set down in the Sermon of Jesus Christ upon the Mount. The Ninety Sixth upon the Feast of S. Peter's Chair is newly published out of a Manuscript of the King's Library. It is S. Leo's Stile.

F. Quesnel observes, in this place, That there are many Prayers in the Missal and Roman Pontifical, which are S. Leo's Stile. In this number he puts the Prefaces of the Mass, and hence he adds two of them, the one for the Mass of Consecration of Bishops, the other for the Ordi∣nation of a Priest, with a Prayer of the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop, upon the reconciling of Penitents. These Pieces are taken out of the Pontifical, but 'tis not certain that they are S. Leo's.

The Appendix contains 3 Sermons falsly attributed to S. Leo, and 2 others made up of little pieces taken out of this Father. The 1st. is upon S. Vincent. The 2d. upon the Nati∣vity of our Lord. The 3d. upon the Ascension. The 4th. upon the Feast of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul; and the Last is a Treatise against the Errors of Eutyches and other Hereticks.

We do not here speak of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, the short Heads about Grace and Free-will, nor of the Epistle to Demetrias, Works which Father Quesnel hath put under S. Leo's Name in the beginning of his Works, because we will allow a Chapter by it self for the Examination, whether they are S. Leo's or not.

The Stile of S. Leo is polite and over-elegant. His Discourse is made up of Periods, whose Parts are well distinguished and measured. He has a Rhyming Cadence of words, which is very wonderful; it is swelled with noble Epithets, fit Appositions, suitable Antitheses and admirable endings of Periods; this renders it pleasant to the Ear, and that sets such a lustre upon it as is dazling and ravishing. But this Stile not being natural, is found some∣time intricate and obscure, and keeps the Reader or Hearer in suspense. The Elegancy of these sort of Discourses arises from nothing but the ranging of the words, which makes a won∣derful Cadence. If we will alter it, and express the same sence in other words, we shall per∣ceive no such Beauty as we admired before. Nevertheless S. Leo's sence is very good; he is exact in Points of Doctrine, and very skilful in Discipline, but he is not very full of Moral Points; he treats of them very dryly, in a way that rather diverts than affects. He was zea∣lous for the Rights and Privileges of his See, and sought all opportunities of advancing and en∣larging them as much as possible. This design is very apparent in all his Writings, but we must own that he used his Power with a great deal of Meckness and Moderation, being per∣swaded, That the only use of it was to provide that the Laws of the Church he duly observed, and that nothing be commanded or allowed contrary to the Decrees of the Councils. These were his Principles. He greatened his Authority, but it was for Edification, and never for Destruction. He had a great Veneration for Emperors and Kings. He medled not with Ci∣vil Affairs. Lastly, it may be said, That the Church of Rome never had more Grandeur and less Pride than in this Pope's time. The Bishop of Rome was never more honoured, more con∣siderable and respected than in this Pope's time, and yet he never carried himself with more Humility, Wisdom, Sweetness and Charity.

The first Edition of S. Leo's Works was composed by John Andrew, Bishop of the Isle of Corsica, and printed at Venice in 1485. This Edition was Reprinted in 1505. by Portesius. This had but a few of his Letters. But the Collections of Merlin and Crabbe, afford us a greater

number. Canisius undertook a new Edition of S. Leo's Works, which he published at Collen in 1546, and 1547. Surius made another in 1561. This was followed by another of the Canons of S. Martin of Louvain in 1575, and 1578. and at Antwerp in 1583. The Letters of S. Leo are inserted in the Collection of the Decretals and Councils. In 1614, and 1618. the Works of S. Leo were Printed with the Homilies of S. Maximus and S. Chrysologus [at Paris], and afterwards Reprinted several times at Lyons, [viz. 1633, 1651, and 1671.] and at Paris.

But all these Editions are not comparable to the last, which F. Quesnel, a Priest of the Ora∣tory, hath published. It was printed at Paris by Coignard in 1675. He hath published 31 Sermons never before printed, and reviewed the Works already publick, by a great number of MSS. from which he hath taken very considerable Amendments. It is divided into 2 Tomes, in Quarto. The 1st. contains S. Leo's Sermons and Letters, with the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, the Aphorisms of Grace attributed to S. Coelestine, and the Epistle to Demetras, which he pretends to be S. Leo's. He hath ranked his Sermons and Works in a better Order, and hath separated his Supposititious Works from his Genuine. This Tome ends with the Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles, written by Honoratus. The 2d. Tome contains an ancient Book of Canons and Constitutions of the Popes, which F. Quesnel holds to be that which the Church of Rome used heretofore; six Dissertations upon Matters that have relation to the Works he was about to publish, and very learned and useful Notes upon S. Leo's Letters. Al∣tho' his Dissertations seem to be something long, and contain some things which seem remote from the Works of this Father, yet they are written with so much Reason, and are so full of Learning, that no Man will be troubled to have them joined with the Works of this Father. The Industry of the Printer, the Beauty of the Character, and Correctness of the Edition, are answerable to the Learning of him who had the care of it.

Notes

• a 1.1

  S. Leo.] It is commonly believed, That he was a T••scan. F. Quesnel thinks rather that he was a Roman, because he himself calls the City of Rome his Country, Ep 27. S. Prosper, in his Chronicon, says the same thing. It is true, that in the ordinary Editions of the Pontifical, 'tis said, he was a Tus∣can. But there are 2 MSS wherein 'tis said, he was a Roman. However that be, he was brought up and educated at Rome.
• b 1.2

  Repute among the Clergy, &c.] He carried Zosi∣mus's Letter to Aurelius, when he was but an Acoly∣i••••••, as appears by the 1••1st. Letter of S. Austin to Sixtus. He was Arch-deacon under Pope Coelestine; the Books of Cassian, concerning the Incarnation, written in 420. at the desire of S. Leo, then Arch-deacon, are a plain proof of it. In 439. he got him∣self a great Name by appearing against the Pelagi∣ans, as it is noted in S. Prosper's Chronicon.
• * 1.3

  S. Leo.
• c 1.4

  Was chosen, &c.] After the same manner doth S. Prosper describe S. Leo's Election.
• d 1.5

  In the year 461. according to the Vulgar Aera.] The day is not certain. An ancient Ka∣lendar, which is in the 10th. Tome of M. Luke D' Ac••eri's Spicilegium, places the death of S. Leo on Octob. 30. Marianus Scotus places it on June 28. His Memory is celebrated on that day in several Mar∣tyrologies and Ecclesiastical Offices. His Festival is commonly on April 11.
• a 1.6

  In 455.] It is not probable that it was writ∣ten in 458. as ••••••••••ius and ••londel are of Opinion, because Rome was sack'd by the Vindals. S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had Business enough to watch over his own Ohurch, without troubling his Thoughts about the condition of others. It is very likely that Maurit••ia was still under the Dominion of the Empire, because otherwise he could not have received the News so ••••sily, no•• have written thither. He says, indeed, That that Province was at war with the Barbarians, but he doth not say that it was entirely subdued. F. Quesnel thinks, That this Letter was written in 442. One thing may make it doubtful, which is, That he speaks of the Decrees which he had made already, to hinder Laymen from being raised to the First, Second or Third Degree of the Clergy, which is pretended to have relation to ••••ist. 12. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, where he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him to preferr Laymen to the Episcopal Dignity: But, besides that he speaks not in that Place of the Second or Third Degree of the Clergy, but only of Bishops, he might make this Decree in are∣ther Letter. F. Quesnel grounds himself upon this, That Potentius might well be one of the Bishops of Africk, who having been exposed to the M••r••y of the Winds by the Vandals, were driven a shore at Naplas: but this is not beyond Controversy, all that can be said is this, That this Letter was written before the Year 455.
• f 1.7

  It is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Supposititious Passige, which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of S. Leo's.] This Article is found in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus, where the Sixth. Seventh and Eighth are not to be found▪ But these are in Four Ancient Manuscripts, where the Second is not. Mer••••'s Editions of the Councils in 1524, and 1525. agree with these last Manuscripts, which are the ancientest and best. It cannot be said that S. Leo hath repeated the some thing in one and the same Letter▪ in two different Articles, about Virgins; either then the Second or Eighth Article must be added: Now 'tis most probable that it is the Second. For, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. It is not to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the most Ancient Manuscripta 2. It begins with the Conclusion of the same Letter: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. This supposeth That the Letter is finished, when at this is but the Second Article of the Letter; and he speaks after∣wards of many other Things, contained in P••••e••∣tius's Relation. 3. F. Quesuel, says, That that which is discoursed of in these Articles doth not agree with the Condition the Church of Africa was then in. It is not probable that in the Perfecution, where in the Church was, they could ordain Bishops in the Boroughs. 4. He maintains, that '••is not Leo's Style, that the Words Diocess for P••••ish, Sp••c••••lius & propensius eommoveri, damnum proprii bonoris evadere, Epi∣scopali•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, were not S. Leo's, nor so much as used in his Time. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath not put this Article into his Collection, although he hath omitted nothing that might say or the Right of Appeals to the Holy See. 6. 'Tis likely that it hath been added to the ancient Colle∣ction of Dlo••y••i••s Exiguus, for the Title is different∣ly expressed from that of the others; that the titles at the beginning of the Letter, and Index are diffe∣rent. Lastly, Cres••••••ius, who follows the Code of Dionysius Exiguus, and hath inserted it in his Collection, hath put nothing of that Letter in it. These Reasons have made F. Quesuel to conjecture, That this Fragment hath been added in the Co••e of Di••••y••••us Exiguus, by the same Person that hath added the Letters of Pope Hilary and his Successors▪ as far as Gregory II.
• g 1.8

  In 442.] The Question which I Rusticus pro∣pounded to S. Leo, proves, That he wrote in a time when the Christians were much distress'd by the Barbarians. F. Sirmondus hath referr'd this to the Irruptions of the Hu••••s into France, under the con∣duct of Attilas; F. Quesnel to the taking of ••••••∣thage and the Desolation of Africa by Gensericus, in 450. This Opinion is confirmed by the Eighteenth Question; wherein he speaketh of the Christians of Africa and Mauritania.
• a 1.9

  Expressions.] Of which these are some Exam∣ples, Ab omni Episc••porum usurp••tione resecare, Ec∣clesi•• nuditatem deplorare, querim••niarum causam defer∣re, exemplum fiat imitabile, diversis modis alienare, co••∣••iventiam in Ecclesiae dam•••• miscere. All the Letter is written after a dry and barren way.
• * 1.10

  [Oecono∣mi.]
• * 1.11

  [Trica••••••∣nus.]
• a 1.12

  Thinks it to be written in 458.] He affirms, That there is a Fault in the Date of the Consulship, and that we must read Majorian for Marcian. 1. Because all the Letters of S. Leo, written in 451. un∣der the Consulship of Marcian and Adelphius, carry all the Name of Adelphius; and indeed when S. Leo mentions but one Consul, 'tis always the Western one which he names. 2. It is there Consulatu, but S. Leo never sets it down so, but Consule or Consuli∣bus. 3. Because it is evident by the Letter, that it is written on the occasion of a Question raised upon the account of some Persons who had been carried Captives by the Barbarians, and were lately return∣ed into the Province of Ravenna, their Country. In 451. there was no Invasion of the Barbarians in Italy, it could not be before 452. that A••••ilas laid waste the Country of Ravenna. This Letter then must be written some Years after.
• a 1.13

  Certainly Supposititious.] The Reasons which he alledg••s are convincing: These are the principal of them. 1. This Letter is not in the Ancient Manuscripts, but only in those which are later than Isidore's Collection. 2. The Ancients have not cited it: It is not in any Collection of Canons before S. Isidore's. 3. The Style is different from Leo's: It doth not come up to his Elegancy: S. Leo's would not have been so barren upon so good a Subject. 4. In the Title the Name of a Bishop of the Roman Church is given to this Saint, whereas he never assumed any other but that of a Bishop of the Church of Rome, or of the City, or Orthodox Church of the City of Rome. 5. This Letter is copied Word for Word out of the Second Council of Sevil, except the first part of it, which is imper∣tinent. 6. It contains Rules contrary to the Usage of the Church of Rome; as for instance, this, by which it is forbidden a Priest to enter into the Bap∣tistery, or to baptize in the presence of a Bishop. It will be said, perhaps, That in a Canon of the Council of Sevil it is said, That these Prohibitions were made by the Holy See, which agrees very well with S ••e••'s Letters. But this may be answer'd, 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ That this concerns not S. Leo more than any other Bishop of Rome. 2. That these Words are not in ••oaysas's Edition. It may be further objected, That Leo III. in his Letter to the French Bishops▪ writing against the Chorepiscopi, quotes the Decrees of S. Leo▪ but it is not this Letter which he cites, but the Letter to Rusticus, which lays down the Principles against the Ordination of Chorepiscopi. The Councils of Paris, Meldae and Metae cites the Decrees of Damasus, Innocent and Leo to prove, that the Episcopal Functions which the Chorepiscopi did perform were of no worth: But this doth not prove that these Popes have written any thing in particular against the Chorepiscopi. But although it were true that the Authors of the Eighth and Ninth Age had cited the Letter, under Examination, under the Name of S. Leo, it would not follow that it were really his: Perhaps 'tis Leo III's. This is what F. Quesnel says upon this Letter in his eleventh Dissertation.
• * 1.14

  [Leo Bi∣tu••••cen••••s.
• † 1.15

  Cenomanum vidunum.
• * 1.16

  Caesarodu∣num Turo∣nes.]
• * 1.17

  (b) The Third Province of Lyons.] This Letter was falsly directed to the Bishops of Thrace, for the Bishops named in the Title are French Bishops. It was Ecclesiarum quae sunt intr•• Provincia•• ter••iam con∣stitutae; some Scribe, not knowing what was meant by Ter••ia, put Thracia instead of it.
• * 1.18

  [Salvi∣an was no Boishp. Du Pin mi∣stakes Gen∣nadius's words. See C••ve in Sal∣vian.]
• a 1.19

  Preached in his own Church.] It is evident that the ••our first Sermons upon the Anniversaries of S. Leo's Exaltation to the Pontificate, are proper to this Pope, and were Preached at Rome. They can∣not agree to any other Bishop, or any other Church. There are also in these Sermons some things which none could fitly speak but S. Leo. The Sermons upon the Collects are built upon the usage of the Church of Rome. The end of the Sermons upon the Monthly Fasts, prove invincibly, that they were Preached at Rome; for could he otherwise say, Sabbato apud Be••tum Pe••••um Vigilias celebr••mus. The Fifth of Fasting contains a particular Fast of S. Leo's. The ••ent-Sermo••s relate to the Usage of the Church of Rome. The 80th. and 81st. upon the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, cannot be for any o∣ther Church, but for that of Rome, no more than that for the Feast of St. Peter's Chair. Lastly, They have all the Character of the Bishop of Rome speaking to his People. There is very little of them which could be Preached by any other Bishop, in any other Church.
• b 1.20

  In several places of his Sermons.] Sermon III. of the Epiphany. Tamen u•• nostri ••ihil de••i•• of∣••••cii, loqui de ead••m festivi••••••••, quod D••••i•••••• do••••••••∣••i••, audebo. Serm 7. de Pass. c. 10. De s••••vi••••te quam debeo. Serm. 2. de Resurrect. c. 1. Repos•••••••• v••s co••suetudinis debitum. Serm. 82. in Nat. Macc. he says of S. Six••••s, that he was, Magnificus Senator p••∣••ietum, sed magnificentior aedi••ica••••r anim••rum—•••• ••∣tilit••tibus institution•••• ejus etiam in ipso fru•••••••••••• de∣vo••a posteritas, & ••abi••ando quod condidit, & faci∣endo quod do••uit.
• * 1.21

  [Valesius says, Non erat Sermo ad Popuium sed exhorta∣tio ad Mar∣celli••am. No pu lick Sermon, but a private A mo••ition. But this is only to maintain his assertion, for the F. says, Populus con∣venerit, ne∣mo ••mpastus recedet, ••nd for that end goes on Preaching, Amb. lib. 3. de Virgin. in ipso li∣m ••••e.
• * 1.22

  [Ludi Cir∣censes, in honour of Neptune, or as others, of Juno, Minervd, & Jupiter.]