Hilarus, bishop, to his most beloved brothers — Victurus, Ingenuus, Ydatius, Eustasius, Fonteius, Viventius, Eulalius, Veranus, Faustus, Auxanius, Proculus, Ausonius, Paulus, Memorialis, Coelestius, Projectus, Eutropius, Avitianus, Ursus, and Leontius.
With Us most solicitous, and suspended in much expectation by those things which the recent and certain report had brought to Us, the letters of your charity were delivered — borne by Our brother and fellow bishop Antonius, whom We approve as a worthy interpreter for so great a legation — and they saddened Us from the very principles of their contents. For what We had believed would give rest to Our solicitude and would relieve Us in great part of the things which were fixed by Our predecessor of holy memory concerning the Viennese bishop — this We have recognized by clear assertion, and not without grief do We marvel, that those definitions could now be transcended by Mamertus the bishop, through which definitions that Church had proven to have acquired its privilege. Especially since the moderation of Our brother and fellow bishop Leontius ought to have provided a form of restraint for the aspirant — or if, inflated by a spirit of rivalry, Mamertus judged this (what was not fitting) to be neglected — he ought to have imitated the temperance of his predecessor, trained by his example, whose honor he discharges, and ought not to have violated by transgression what he could now lose (did We not hold the reins of patience).
To whom did a rebellious mind ever profit? Or whom did the elation of pride not bring low? The grace of humility is higher, to which, by poverty of spirit, the way of the kingdom of heaven is opened for the reward of the promised beatitude. Let the transgressor not think perfunctorily that what he has done is small, if, instructed in ecclesiastical doctrines, he acknowledges what each of them deserves: since the one — according to the prophetic voice — is forbidden to dwell in the middle of the Lord’s house; the other is declared ever joined to the one who sees him, by whose consolation he is saved. Many things of venerable ancients could be recounted, which are shown to be said in accord with the truth — but since the case has itself prompted Us to speak, recent examples are to be drawn upon. For Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, knew that the dignity of the Church of Vienne had grown once through the transgression of the Arles bishop, and that afterward — for the correction of the things which were being wrongly done — it was settled by an inviolable definition, so that one should not be found inglorious, and the other should not be found entirely stripped of his former honor through the fault of his predecessor. Since therefore, as the report of your charity and the communication of Our brother and fellow bishop Antonius have disclosed, it is clear that the aforementioned [Mamertus], wishing to destroy rather than enlarge a privilege enclosed by certain boundaries — by abuse of the moderation of Our brother and fellow priest Leontius — did not fear to consecrate a bishop for the Deensians, even if he was deserving, contrary to divine law.
In which matter, his deed would have required such resolution that, according to the character of the things perpetrated, not without loss of his own order, he would discern that he too [the consecrated man] must be removed from the priestly fellowship — whom Mamertus had improperly created — and would perceive, pierced by just punishment, that the temerity of his conceived audacity, uncastigated, had given birth to an example of license. But for the peace of the Churches — mindful of apostolic wisdom — We will that the wounds of so great a transgression be treated first with soothing remedies, so that a possibly healing member of Our body may be recalled to its former integrity by milder medicines, lest what is not meanwhile warned be thought neglected and hidden.
Leniency is ever the forerunner of healing severity, nor is every fault immediately restrained by iron, nor is whatever might easily profit offered without examination. Now indeed, the opportunity of the time, now the necessity of the ailing, now the mode and quality of the medicine itself must be sought and assessed; so that all the solicitude of the one caring, exercised through wisdom in restraining vices, may rejoice in the reparation of what it saves, nor lack moderation in what it cuts away. These things, therefore, having been gravely and prudently weighed by your fraternity, think that such things cannot be dissimulated before Us — against Whom especially (not without merit) he has raised contumely — for to Our brother Leontius nothing constituted by Our predecessor of holy memory could be revoked, nothing that is owed to his honor could be taken away: because it has been decreed also by the law of Christian princes, that whatsoever the bishop of the Apostolic See has pronounced by his examination — concerning the churches and their governors, for the peace of all the Lord’s priests and for the very observance of discipline, in removing confusions — is to be reverently received, and tenaciously preserved — when your charity acknowledged with its own people: nor could those things ever be undermined which were supported by both priestly and ecclesiastical precept, and by royal.
Whence, dearest brothers, the presumption of the aforementioned [Mamertus], which proceeded to the injury of Our brother and fellow bishop Leontius, has thus seemed fit to be tolerated — so that, worthy of present punishment, he is granted an exemption in the meantime: on the condition that, if the transgressor abuses the remedies of satisfaction and pardon, and does not promise by the diligence of future observance that the fault of this present excess is to be corrected — upon the renewal of the complaint, the privileges of the Viennese Church shall be transferred by that example to the Arles bishop, by which they were first transferred away from him.
Chapter I: Veranus Is Delegated to Warn Mamertus, and to Require Written Profession That the Apostolic See’s Definition Will Be Preserved on Pain of His Order
Whence, holding the name of Our moderation, We have directed writings to Our brother and fellow bishop Veranus, that by Our delegation he may confront the aforementioned, so that he may acknowledge whatever he has reported to him — for it ought not to be burdensome to rebuke a delinquent brother for his own excesses, to whom it is established that pardon is frequently granted. But it is necessary, if We receive no sign of his correction — which must be retained by that profession by which he shall testify that the definition of the Apostolic See is always to be preserved, on peril of his own order, without any further transgression — that the same four cities, with whose ordination Mamertus the bishop was not content, be recalled to the Church of Arles. Which must also happen if ever anyone after him — whom We now rebuke with charity, and whom We trust will further abstain from illicit acts — appears as an imitator of this presumption.
Chapter II: The Bishop Consecrated at Die Is Confirmed, but the Confirmation Is Left to Leontius
But concerning him who, though improperly, is known to have been ordained for the Deensians: by the reasoning of justice We have decreed that his priesthood be confirmed by the judgment of Our brother and fellow bishop Leontius — by whom he ought rightly to have been consecrated. May God keep you safe, dearest brothers, through long ages.
Given on the sixth day before the Kalends of March, after the consulship of Basilius, most illustrious man (A.D. 464).
Footnotes
- ↩ Twenty bishops of the Gallic provinces are named as recipients: the synod that examined Mamertus’s case under the mandate of Letter X. Several are known from the earlier correspondence: Ingenuus is the metropolitan of Ebredunum whose rights Hilarius vindicated in Letter IV; Veranus was among the three delegated in Letter IV to investigate the Ingenuus-Auxanius dispute (and is delegated again here to confront Mamertus personally); Faustus and Auxanius presided at the Roman anniversary council of 462 that produced Letter VIII; Leontius is the primatial coordinator Hilarius named in Letter VIII and reaffirmed in Letter X. The composition of this synod shows how the Gallic conciliar structure was actually populated: the bishops who had already been working with Rome on earlier cases were the bishops who sat on subsequent cases.
- ↩ The Latin is definitiones illas a Mamerto episcopo nunc potuisse transcendi, per quas Ecclesiae privilegium probarat acquiri. The phrase refers directly to Leo’s Letter X (446 AD), in which Leo stripped Hilary of Arles of metropolitan authority over the province of Vienne and redirected jurisdictional dignity to the Viennese see. Hilarius names Leo’s rulings as definitiones — definitions — a word that carries the force of authoritative settlement. These are not customary arrangements that Mamertus has merely inconvenienced; they are the very definitions by which the Church of Vienne acquired the privilege Mamertus now enjoys. Hilarius’s marvelment is precise: Mamertus has violated the Roman definition that gave his own see its standing.
- ↩ Allusion to Matt. 5:3: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Hilarius pairs the warning against Mamertus’s presumption with the beatitude of humility — an implicit reminder that ecclesiastical rank is gained not by ambition but by submission to the order established above.
- ↩ The Latin is inviolabili postea definitione compositum — “afterward composed/settled by an inviolable definition.” This is Hilarius’s most explicit characterization of Leo’s Letter X (and the rulings surrounding it): Leo’s jurisdictional settlement is named as inviolable (inviolabili), and Mamertus’s transgression of it is thereby marked as a double offense — a violation both of the canonical order and of the specific Roman definition that established the order now in force. The concept of a papal ruling as inviolable definition is the same vocabulary Leo himself used for the doctrinal definitions of Chalcedon; Hilarius applies it here to Leo’s jurisdictional rulings, treating them as equally binding and equally beyond dispute.
- ↩ The Latin is memores apostolicae sapientiae, curari volumus ante fomentis. Fomenta — literally warm medicinal applications — are the gentlest stage of a course of treatment, used before harsher measures. The phrase memores apostolicae sapientiae — “mindful of apostolic wisdom” — names the source of the pastoral calibration: the wisdom of the Apostle (Paul is in view, per 2 Tim. 2:24-25 and elsewhere), who instructs that gentler remedies are to be tried before severer ones. The pastoral restraint is grounded in apostolic teaching, not merely personal preference — the medical metaphor extends through the whole passage: soothing remedies first, then milder medicines, and only at the last resort the iron (cautery) which cuts away.
- ↩ The Latin is in quorum se maxime contumeliam, qui non immerito pulsatur, erexit. The possessive “quorum” (plural genitive) likely refers back to Hilarius and/or to the Apostolic See collectively. Hilarius names Mamertus’s transgression as contumely raised against the Apostolic See itself: because Mamertus has violated Leo’s definition, which is an act of the Apostolic See, the offense is contumely against Rome, not merely against Leontius or against canonical order in the abstract. The See is the victim, and the See’s response is therefore grounded in its own wounded dignity.
- ↩ Hilarius invokes Valentinian III’s Novella XVII (July 8, 445) — the imperial rescript issued less than three weeks after Leo’s Letter X (June 22, 445), which had settled the Hilary of Arles affair. The Novella did not confer papal authority; it recognized authority Rome already held by apostolic commission and added civil enforcement to it, declaring that the Roman pontiff’s judgments bound the whole Western Empire. Valentinian’s text is explicit that Leo’s authority flowed from “the merit of St. Peter” and “the primacy of the apostolic see” — the emperor confirms what he did not create. Hilarius now invokes that same imperial law, twenty years later, not as the ground of his ruling but as a corroborating witness: ecclesiastical authority and civil law speak with one voice, and what Leo defined must therefore be “reverently received and tenaciously preserved.”
- ↩ This is the specific conditional penalty: if Mamertus transgresses again, Vienne’s privileges (which Leo had originally transferred from Arles to Vienne in the settlement of 446) will be transferred back to Arles. The remedy is perfectly balanced: Leo’s definition moved the privileges to Vienne when Arles had overreached; Hilarius will move them back to Arles if Vienne now overreaches. The principle is that Roman jurisdictional grants are conditional on canonical conduct, and Rome retains the authority to revise them in response to transgression. The same principle Leo demonstrated with Patroclus of Arles (noted in Leo’s Letter X: the Apostolic See granted, then revoked) is here reaffirmed as a live instrument of Roman governance.
- ↩ The Latin is nostrae moderationis nomen tenentes — “holding the name of Our moderation.” Hilarius explicitly identifies the present restraint as an exercise of his own moderatio — a posture consistently named throughout his correspondence as moderaminis apostolici or the virtue proper to the apostolic office. The name is not neutral: to hold the name of moderation is to exercise an apostolic virtue that is the pope’s own, grounded in his office, not borrowed from elsewhere.
- ↩ The same Veranus who was delegated in Letter IV to investigate the Ingenuus-Auxanius dispute. He is evidently trusted with personal confrontations of difficult cases. “By Our delegation” (ex nostra delegatione) is the formal phrase by which Hilarius authorizes Veranus to speak with the authority of the Apostolic See in the face-to-face encounter with Mamertus.
- ↩ The Latin is quod illa est professione retinendum, qua definitionem sedis apostolicae periculo ordinis sui semper conservandam sine ulla deinceps transgressione testetur. This is the required profession: a written undertaking that Mamertus will always preserve the Apostolic See’s definition, and that his own episcopal order stands in peril if he transgresses. The combination is weighty: the Apostolic See’s definition is named as the object of ongoing preservation; Mamertus’s own ordination and episcopal dignity are placed at risk on its violation. The definitio sedis apostolicae is treated as a binding norm against which Mamertus’s conduct is measured, with his own sacerdotal standing as the guarantee.
- ↩ Concrete specification of the conditional penalty: four named cities will be transferred from Vienne’s jurisdiction back to Arles’s if Mamertus transgresses again. The four cities are not named here, but the PL apparatus and broader records of the period identify them as the principal cities of the diocese whose status was disputed in the wake of Leo’s 446 ruling. The penalty has geographic teeth: whole cities change jurisdictional allegiance based on a single metropolitan’s conduct.
- ↩ The calibrated resolution: the consecration is not nullified (the consecrated bishop was deserving, Mamertus had the sacramental power), but its confirmation is routed through the proper authority. Leontius, as the one who should have performed the consecration, confirms it after the fact. The ruling respects the sacramental act while reasserting the canonical geography: Die was Leontius’s, not Mamertus’s, to ordain for. The specific bishop consecrated keeps his orders; the jurisdictional principle is affirmed; and the authority that should have acted is recognized as the one that must now act.
- ↩ February 24, 464. The notation P. C. Basilii — post consulatum Basilii, “after the consulship of Basilius” — was the dating convention used when no current consul had been officially designated. Basilius had been consul in 463 (the date of Letter IX); 464 is therefore the year after. The four-month interval between Letter IX (October 463) and Letter XI (February 464) represents the time required for the Gallic synod to convene, examine Mamertus, report to Rome, and receive this response.
Historical Commentary