Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[Nine_Two]

Has this thread been about Papal infallibility or about the threat of unilateral action by hierarchs. I thought the latter, actually. I am glad to find that you know something of the historical use of power by the EP.

However I am unhappy to learn that despite this you continue to make smug replies, instead of trying to address the points.

 

[dvdjs]

However I am unhappy to learn that despite this you continue to make smug replies, instead of trying to address the points.

I had a simple point to make about these repeated suggestions of Hesychios; I think the point has been made. You seem to want to go off in some new directions. I am not sure what these new directions are, and thus am not sure that I want to go along. Sorry if that offends.

 

[Nine_Two]

I had a simple point to make about these repeated suggestions of Hesychios; I think the point has been made. You seem to want to go off in some new directions. I am not sure what these new directions are, and thus am not sure that I want to go along. Sorry if that offends.

I’m answering your points. You claim the Pope is infallible in certain situations, we disagree, you counter by attacking Patriarchs (who we say are not infallible under any circumstance) and attempt to allude to situations where they exercised additional power as the Ottoman ethnarch to the Greeks which was outside the powers attributed to Patriarchs, which even then we neither believe to be infallible, and which the pope himself has also done in the past, showing that apparently he does have power, which he has used, which we don’t recognize as belonging to any individual bishop.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m answering your points. You claim the Pope is infallible in certain situations, we disagree, you counter by attacking Patriarchs (who we say are not infallible under any circumstance) and attempt to allude to situations where they exercised additional power as the Ottoman ethnarch to the Greeks which was outside the powers attributed to Patriarchs, which even then we neither believe to be infallible, and which the pope himself has also done in the past, showing that apparently he does have power, which he has used, which we don’t recognize as belonging to any individual bishop.

I have said nothing about Papal infallibility - apart from the recent post in which I said that that was not, IMO, what the thread was about. I have attacked no one; in particular, I have stipulated that I hold no expectations whatsoever about how EO Patriarchs should act. I have alluded to elements of history that are responsive to the the suggestive remarks of Hesychios. That’s it. Nothing more. Accordingly, I honestly have no idea what you are going on about. One thing is certain: you are not answering my posts.

 

[prodromos]

1. The Orthodox church asserts seven ecumenical councils, so your point about the eighth council is moot.

And you had the hide to claim Nine_Two wasn’t answering your posts.

In actual fact the Orthodox Church asserts many councils though it only enumerates seven of them as Ecumenical. Your Church labelled the council of 879 as Ecumenical for 200 years and it was believed by 50 of your Popes to be Ecumenical until the reforms of Pope Gregory VII.
So for 200 years, both Rome and Constantinople accepted the council of 879 as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople”. This council, accepted by both Rome and Constantinople, not only healed the schism which had seperated Rome and Constantinople, but also repudiated the earlier council of 869 as a false council.
As Pope John VIII wrote to the council of 879, the same being read out at the council by his legates: **"We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."In a letter he wrote to Patriarch Photius, he states:“As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it…”**Apparently Pope Adrian II had not even signed the procedings of the 869 council, thus it cannot be listed among the Ecumenical Councils according to Latin standards since it had not been ratified by the Pope.

So for the reign of 50 Popes the Latin records listed the 879 council as the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”, however at the end of the 11th century, Rome suddenly did an about face, and without fanfare or explanation, shelved the 879 council and reinstated the false council of 869, calling it the “Fourth Council of Constantinople” and “Eighth Ecumenical Council”. How do Catholics explain this reversal and what reason do they give for the removal of the 879 council from the records?

1. Rubber stamp or not, we just cannot say that the Popoe’s approval was not crucial for acceptance as ecumenical.

Why not? The Eastern Churches certainly did not wait for the Pope’s approval as though he had some power of veto on the decisions of the councils, nor did some of the Western Churches.

 

[prodromos]

I also notice that very few Orthodox posters are ever willing to acknowledge the popes’ huge contribution and leadership in fighting heresies. Most of you guys won’t budge much on that because Orthodoxy gets a lot of fuel from an anti-papacy sentiment. I have my own issues right now with the papacy. Maybe I’ll work 'em out, maybe I won’t, but in order to be intellectually honest I have to acknowledge their mammoth contributions. And to think that the popes didn’t play a huge role in blasting down the Iconoclasm crises is just plain dishonest.

I know this post if from a while back, but I recently found a reference which I wanted to post in response to the above claim.

From volume 1 of Theology of the Icon by Leonid Ouspensky.

Regarding the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in which the papal legates read two letters of Pope Hadrian I, one to Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople and the other to Emperor Constantine and his mother the Empress Irene.
The pope expressed his support for the veneration of icons and insisted on their necessity, but his confession of Orthodoxy amounted to a refutation of the accusation of idolatry. For the Eastern Church, then, this was a subject which had been left behind long ago, almost an anachronism. Quoting Scripture, the Pope referred to the tabernacle with the image of the cherubim. He then quoted a series of texts by Greek and Roman Fathers who, in his opinion, were in favor of icons, especially the one by Pope St Gregory I, which we already know, about the unlettered who should read on church walls what they cannot read in books. All this, for want of the christological arguments so important for the Church, could not have sounded very convincing to the Orthodox or to the iconoclasts. But the opinion of the Pope of Rome, first in honor among the bishops, played an important role. It was respected; if not sufficiently founded, however it jeopardized the Orthodox position or at least did not add effectively to the argumentation of the council. To give the message of the Pope more weight, the Greeks completed the quotation of St Gregory the Great–“The illiterate must read on church walls what they cannot read in books”-- with the following precision: “and in this way, through the intermediary of images, those who gaze upon them ascend to faith, and to the recollection of salvation through the Incarnation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” Thus, they gave a christological basis to the reasoning of the Pope, and raised it to the level of the Byzantine theological discussions. The text of the other pontifical messages were also completed in passages that dealt with other questions raised by the Pope. Nonetheless, the two legates did not react against such modifications, and declared at the council that the modified messages were indeed the ones they had brought.

 

[Deconi]

Our difference is in that the Orthodox do not recognise the (singular) authority of Popes.

It is amusing then that you keep citing them inclusively in argumentation against Rome!

 

[Contarini]

You turn reality on its head here, and thus it is you who sends up a meaningless smoke screen. Our understanding of the exercise of power must, to be anything more that fantasy, be informed by the reality of its exercise.

So if President Obama claimed to have the power to annul the Constitution and rule by fiat, but as a matter of fact he only used this in pretty minor ways, it wouldn’t bother you? (The U.S. happens to be the country where I live, and many of the posters here do as well, so I use that as an example.)

No matter how conservatively the Popes use their power, the fact is that the Pope claims a “plenitudo potestatis” which cannot be reconciled with Sacred Tradition.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There will never be a first time (you would think that after 2000 years a pope would have done so already)

No, only 140 years.

because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (hence dvdjs’s post).

Or because modern popes have been generally sensible people–in fact, I would say that they have generally been wise and good people. A lot of the credibility of the modern Papacy depends on this–but of course it is no part of Catholic belief that Popes must always be wise and good people.

What some of the medieval and Renaissance Popes might have done with the power given them by Vatican I is terrifying to contemplate. And there is no guarantee that such Popes might not arise again–no guarantee within the theology and polity of Catholicism, that is (it’s unlikely unless social circumstances change dramatically).

p.s. This is what I meant by “scare tactics”, i.e., no amount of “what ifs” can deter us from the knowledge that the CC is guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore guaranteed (the gates of Hell shall not prevail) to teach infallibly (always).

Fine. That’s what you believe. But arguing in circles like that isn’t going to convince those who don’t already believe that the Popes should have this kind of power.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hardly.
You post about abilities - what the Pope “can” do. I am not sure that the Pope can do what you suggest. (Just as I am not sure that the EP has the ability to, for example, quash the Serbian Patriarchate.) We need to be guided by historical realities in these assertions, not flights of fantasy.

When discussing the merits of a theological view of Papal power, we should discuss the nature of the claim itself, and not restrict ourselves to the way it has been exercised.

Edwin

 

[addictedkoala]

What some of the medieval and Renaissance Popes might have done with the power given them by Vatican I is terrifying to contemplate. And there is no guarantee that such Popes might not arise again–no guarantee within the theology and polity of Catholicism, that is (it’s unlikely unless social circumstances change dramatically).

Except of course that since it would have been infallible teaching there wouldn’t have been an issue since they would have been prevented by teaching error This “Popes gone wild” with infallible teaching only applies if infallibility is false, and since as Catholics we don’t believe it’s false there isn’t much of a problem from our perspective.

 

[crazzeto]

Except of course that since it would have been infallible teaching there wouldn’t have been an issue since they would have been prevented by teaching error This “Popes gone wild” with infallible teaching only applies if infallibility is false, and since as Catholics we don’t believe it’s false there isn’t much of a problem from our perspective.

More over this teaching is far older than Vatican I, as Catholics we believe they did in fact have this authority already and never once has there ever been a false teaching ex cathedra.

 

[Contarini]

Secondly; The false Protests that the EO makes about this superman Pope they invented in the 20th century is very appealing to the Western protestants who also refuse to recognize Peter’s authority Jesus gave to him and his successors in the Popes. What makes EO appealing in the West is their false inventions of a superman Pope which does not exist, Protest of authority which gives new claims to freedom to do what ever “I want to do” in the freedom of authority, as Western Protestants are attracted too,

 

[Contarini]

More over this teaching is far older than Vatican I, as Catholics we believe they did in fact have this authority already

You now believe that they always had this authority, of course. But they did not officially claim it and it was not generally granted them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Except of course that since it would have been infallible teaching there wouldn’t have been an issue since they would have been prevented by teaching error This “Popes gone wild” with infallible teaching only applies if infallibility is false, and since as Catholics we don’t believe it’s false there isn’t much of a problem from our perspective.

Of course. But you are talking to people who are not already convinced.

Edwin

 

[addictedkoala]

Of course. But you are talking to people who are not already convinced.

Edwin

Well sure we can talk about the ecclesiastical dictatorship the Popes essentially have over the Church, and I would agree it’s not pragmatic. The vast majority of the time I don’t like it and prefer the Orthodox church in this regard. However, Popes haven’t ruled with an iron fist for a few centuries and it’s doubtful that it will happen again in our lifetime. Most importantly it’s all part of accepting of the Church that I consider to be the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t promise the best ecclesiastical authority

 

[josie_L]

As far as I can remember, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were accepted in the Eastern Patrarchates well before Rome gave them her rubber stamp of approval, including at least one Canon which Rome refused to rubber stamp (until it seemed to their advantage, centuries later).

Wasn’t the purpose of sending papal legates to ecumenical councils a way in which the pope’s voice could be heard, i.e., as head of the Church don’t you think his response would matter? Moreover, it was procedure that whatever was conducted and/or decreed at any council be finalized via the pope’s ratification of said conciliar decisions, i.e., this was not a rubber stamp of approval as you contest but a necessary means of ensuring the validity/orthodoxy (little “o”) of the decisions made. In fact, those members at Chalcedon (about 100 or so out of 600) who put together “canon” 28 (all clergy from Constantinople or thereabouts) sought out the ratification of this “canon” by the pope; this is affirmed by the council as well as in a letter from Patriarch Anatolius to Pope Leo:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

Now, Pope St. Leo the Great (who is revered as a saint by the Orthodox) refused to ratify the canon because it displaced Alexandria and Antioch thus violating the canons of Nicea; as to why it was later accepted by Rome would not the fact that it would heal the schism between East and West be a factor. Moreover, wasn’t Antioch and Alexandria (at that point in time) under conquered territory, therefore leaving Constantinople the only free agent so to speak, i.e., the issue of preserving the privileges of Antioch and Alexandria were moot at this point.

If you should contest or deny the fact that popes had the last say or that their judgments were not necessary for validating conciliar decisions, then you defy the fathers:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

“A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed (father); and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up…”

Constantinople III Council to Pope Agatho,(A.D. 680),NPNF2,XIV:349

to be continued . . .

 

[josie_L]

This heretical doctrine spread throughout the Eastern Church, and forced St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, to call a local synod to condemn it. However, Eutyches refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I. This is what he wrote:

I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me,** but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith.** – Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep 21.

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828 a.d.):

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 (Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30)

Theodore the Studite (759-826 a.d.)

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation, according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter” (Theodore of Studite, Bk. II Ep. 63, Patr. Graec. 99, 1281)

Peter of Chrysologus (c. A.D. 400-450)

“We exhort you in every respect, honourable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.”

Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople, d. A.D. 449) - to Pope Leo I

“The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio
Conciliorum, vol. 10)

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575 - 593 A.D.) to the Archbishop of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his city:

“As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, Chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the churches. ‘Thou are Peter, etc.’ To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.”

to be continued. . . .

 

[Contarini]

to be continued. . . .

I think it’s safe to say that you will harm, not increase your credibility if you keep posting in this vain.

Quantity isn’t impressive unless you are willing to discuss the context of *each *quotation.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (ca. 638 a.d)

Traverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See, where are the foundation of the orthodox doctrine, make clearly knows to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to be then until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgment and destroyed from the foundation. . . . the new heresy." (Sophoronius [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Martin I at Lateran council]
, Mansi, x, 893).

St. Isidore of Seville

We know who is in charge in the Church of Christ to the extent that we reverently, humbly, and devoutly profess more especially to give due obedience in all things to the Roman Pontiff as God’s Vicar. Whoever proudly resists this principle, we decree, is altogether outside the fellowship of the faithful as a heretic. (Isidore, Ep. ad Claud. ducem)

Three councils in Africa, in their Synodical letter sent to Pope Theodore, and read in the Council of Rome under Martin I a.d. 646: - 'No one can doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great unfailing fountain, pouring forth waters for all Christians; whence rich streams proceed, bountifully irrigating the whole Christian world; to which See also, in honour of blessed Peter, the decrees of the Fathers gave special veneration in searching out the things of God, which ought by all means to be carefully examined; and above all, and justly, is, as well to condemn evils as to commend things that are to be praised. **For by the ancient discipline it is ordained that whatsoever be done, even in provinces remote and afar off, shall neither be treated or nor accepted, unless it be first brought to the knowledge of your August See, so that a just sentence may be confirmed by its authority, and that the other Churches may thence receive the original preaching as from its native source, and that the mysteries of saving faith may remain in uncorrupt purity throughout the various regions of the world. **(Epist. Synod. ad Pap. Theod. lect. in Concil. Rom. ann. 649, sub. P. Mart.)

[St. Gregory the Great] Gregory receives this oath from a bishop returning from schism: "And therefore after I discovered the snare of division by which I was held, I humbly and spontaneously was led by divine grace to return to the unity of the apostolic see (Rome) and lest I be thought to return not through a pure intention but deceitfully, I swear, under pain of the loss of my order, and under the bond of anathema, and promise to thee, and through thee to Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, and to his vicar, the most blessed Gregory or his successors , that I will never, through anyone’s persuasion or in any other way return to schism, from which I have been delivered through the mercy of our redeemer, but shall always remain, throughout all things, in the unity of the holy Catholic Church and the communion of the Roman Pontiff." (St. Gregory the Great, Register of Epistles , Book XII, Ep. 7).

Pope Pelagius II (ca. 579-590 a.d. ):

“Since the authority of convoking General synods by a singular privilege has been delivered to the Apostolic See of Blessed Peter, **and we do not read that any synod was ever considered ratified which was not supported by Apostolic authority.” **(Pope Pelagius II, Ep. 6 ad Orient)

Roman Synod in 531 writing to Pope Boniface II:

“**Nor is it lawful for us to dissent in any way from the height of Your Apostleship, whom Christ our Lord willed, in his place, to be the head of us all on earth.” **(Ep. ad Bonif.)

Emperor Justinian I (520-533 a.d.)

“**Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy priests of God, and because as often as heretics have arisen in these parts, have been repressed by the sentence and judgment of that Holy See.” **(Justinian Epist. ad Epiphan. Cod. Justinian, lib. i. n. 7)

"Yielding honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, and honouring your holiness, as one ought to honour a father. . . we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness. . . For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches." (Justinian, Epist. ad Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 1)

St. Avitus

“You know that the Synodal laws have it that if any doubt arise in matters pertaining to the state of the Church, we have recourse to the Bishop of the Roman Church as to our head.” (Avitus, Fragm. i., p. 746, t.x. Galland.)

Pope St. Gelasius (ca. 492 a.d.)

The first See both confirms every synod by its authority, and guards by its continuous rule, by reason, to wit, of its supremacy, which, received by the Apostle Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding, it both always has held and retains. . . We will not pass over in silence what every Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right to absolve from what has been bound by the sentence of any prelates whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church; neither is it lawful for any one to pass judgment on its judgment, seeing that the canons have willed that it may be appealed to from any part of the world, but that from it no one be permitted to appeal." (Gelasius, Epist. xiii, ad Episc. Dardum, p. 1200, Labbe; and Thiel, Epist. xxvi. n. 5, tom. i. p. 399)

to be continued. . .