nothing would induce him to violate the canons, and to the other fact that Anatolius, himself bishop of Constantinople, confessed that it was rather his clergy than himself who made this attempt, and that all lay in the power of the Apostolic See. And, thirdly, did not St. Leo, who confirmed the Council of Chalcedon, annul in it whatever was done beyond the Nicene canons? If it was said that, in the case of the bishops of Alexandria and of Antioch, it was rather the emperor who had acted than Acacius, should not a bishop suggest to a Christian prince, whose favour he enjoyed to the utmost, that he should suffer the Church to keep her own rules, and judgment on bishops should be given by bishops in council. If a bishop was the greater for being bishop of the imperial city, should he not be the more courageous in suggesting the right course? Then he quotes Nathan before David, and St. Ambrose before Theodosius, and St. Leo reproving the second Theodosius for excess of power in the case of the Latrocinium of Ephesus; and Pope Hilarus reproving the emperor Anthemius, and Pope Simplicius and Pope Felix resisting not only the tyrant Basiliscus, but the emperor Zeno, and they would have succeeded if he had not been urged on by the bishop of Constantinople. "And we also," adds the Pope, "when Odoacer, the barbarian and heretic, held the kingdom of Italy, when he commanded us to do wrong things, by the help of God, as is well known, did not obey him." In this same letter the Pope uses the following words: "We are confident that no one truly a Christian is ignorant that the first see, above all others, is bound to execute the decree of every council which the assent of the universal Church has approved; for it confirms every council by its authority, and maintains it by its continued rule, in virtue of its own principate which the blessed Apostle Peter received by the voice of the Lord, but continues to hold and retain by the Church subsequently following it".