16 – ὅροι.
17 – There is no text in Holy Scripture exactly corresponding
to this. Lev. xxv. 11 which is referred to by Ed. Ben. is
hardly to the point.
18 – There can be little doubt that the true date is iii. Non.
Sept. i. e. the 3rd of Sept., and not Nonis, the 5th. For
in 381 A.D. the 5th of Sept. was on a Sunday, and it is
hardly likely that a Council would have sat from daybreak
till one o’clock (Ep. 10. 5) in the Church on such a day,
and moreover it would not have been natural for Palladius
to say, as he does in § 47. Non respondebo nisi auditores
veniant post Dominicam diem, if he were speaking on a
Sunday.
19 – The reading of Ed. Rom. has been adopted, which omits the
preposition ‘cum. ’ If this were correct, it would imply
that the consuls were themselves taking a leading part in
the Council; whereas it is clear that they are mentioned
solely as the ordinary way of fixing the year; nor had
the consuls at this time any other than such ornamental
functions. See Gibbon’s description, ch. xvii. vol. ii.
ed. Smith p. 206–208.
20 – By ‘acta’ here are meant formal and official records taken
down and published by authority. Thus Jul. Cæsar ordered
the ‘Acta’ of the Senate to be regularly published. Suet.
Cæs. 20.
21 – It is to be remembered that ‘diocese’ was then a civil and
not an Ecclesiastical term. A ‘diœcesis’ was an aggregate
of provinces, under the charge of a Vicarius, who was
subordinate to one of the four Præfecti Prætorio, each
Præfectus having under him a number of dioceses. Thus
the Vicarius Italiæ, who was subordinate to the Præfectus
Prætorio Italiæ, had in his diocese fourteen provinces,
including both Liguria of which Milan was the capital,
and Venetia in which Aquileia was situated. It is to be
remembered also that Italia at this time meant only the
north of Italy, the rest of Italy being now included in
the Diocese of Rome, and under the Vicarius Urbis Romae.
See the table given in Smith’s Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 315.
taken from Marquardt. When the word diocese came into
Ecclesiastical use, it was applied, first to “an aggregate
not merely of several districts, governed each by its own
bishop, but of several provinces (ἐπαρχίαι) each presided
over by a metropolitan. The diocese itself was under
an Exarch or Patriarch.” Dict. of Chr. Ant. sub voc.
‘Creditâ’ is here read for ‘creditam,’ as required by the
order of the words.
22 – It is not certain to whom the Emperor’s letter was
addressed. Some have thought that it was addressed to
the Pretorian Prefect of Italy. Tillemont maintained
that it was addressed to Valerian, Bishop of Aquileia, in
whose see the Council was held. The language, though not
decisive, seems in favour of the former supposition. In
§ 7. the Prefect of Italy is spoken of as issuing letters
in pursuance of it.