講道與書信 第 181 章

When, in the name of God, we had held in the Roman Church a synod of bishops, and of the other fellow-priests and of the faithful of Christ, gathered together... See the rest in vol. II, in dissertation 11 of Quesnel. Since the following epistle, in the old common editions written as no. 96, is set forth as by Leo, Victorius, and Eustochius, and is reckoned among the Leonine epistles in the codices of the twelfth collection, it was published together with Leo's epistles by Martin, and from him it flowed into other editions before Quesnel. This letter indeed, as if it were of our Leo, held with a synod at Rome, Hincmar of Reims praised twice: first in the quaternion to King Charles, opusculum 1, vol. X of the Councils of the Venetian edition, col. 1243, and then at the beginning of opusculum 2, col. 868.

And so this is truly recognized as an error. Some have detected the spurious attribution, among whom especially to be heard is Fr. Jacques Sirmond, in his posthumous notes, vol. IV of the Councils, p. 667. The name of Leo, he says, has hitherto led almost all to ascribe this epistle to Pope Leo, and to place it among his epistles as number 96, whereas in truth it is of Leo of Bourges, who together with Victorius of Le Mans and Eustochius of Tours wrote it to the bishops and presbyters of the province—not of Thrace, as was commonly printed among Leo's epistles, but of the Third, by which name the province of Tours is designated, which is the Third Lyonnaise. But at the foot of the epistle, after the subscriptions of the three bishops, there followed in the codex of S...

Remigius of Rheims and the other bishops who were present subscribed; so that from this it may appear that certain things were perhaps issued by several bishops and in a synod, after the Council of Angers (in the year 453), at which, together with these three, Chariato also had been present, who in this passage is numbered among the prelates of the same Third Province. Wherefore this letter was written in the age of our Saint Leo. Moreover, certain errors of the common editions the praised Sirmond corrected from the Remigian codex, collection 12, to which our copies of the same collection also lend their support. Hence only the errors of the common editions will be indicated in the annotations. LETTER III.

So great a reverence toward the sacerdotal order has prevailed among the powers of the world, that even those whom the divine Power has commanded, under the imperial name, to preside over the lands, have—according to the divine constitutions—granted to the holy bishops the right of settling disputes. And although this has been confirmed both by the formulas of ancient law and by laws frequently enacted, yet in the present time we have found that it has been trampled upon by very many. For, the sacerdotal judgment being set aside, they have everywhere passed over to the secular tribunal. Therefore it has seemed good to us that a full severity should for the present avenge this insult both to the sacred law and to our order, and should establish a rule to be observed in the future.

We have therefore decreed that whosoever, passing over the priest of his own Church, shall come to the tribunal of the secular authorities, shall be driven from the sacred thresholds and barred from the heavenly altar; nor let anyone after this definition, which has been established by common judgment, endeavour to claim for himself anything beyond what is prescribed. Thus it shall come to pass that those who erred before may correct themselves by a fitting amendment; and whoever is proved to serve the heavenly office under clerical observance shall know that he is to be cast out from the clergy, if, setting aside the judgment of the priests, he has resorted to the secular power.

We have willed that both individuals and all together should acknowledge this, so that what has been established in full order of justice and law may obtain the effect of complete firmness in all the affairs of the clergy. Indeed, if a layman should bring suit against a cleric, let him first demand to be heard by the bishop; then, if he sees the layman opposing his petition, let him, with the permission of his bishop, contend in the tribunal of the secular ruler. I, Bishop Leo, have subscribed. I, Bishop Victorius, have subscribed. I, Bishop Eustochius, have subscribed. In two Vallicellian manuscripts, XVIII and B. 58, and also in the much older Vatican Palatine 277, there is set forth the Judgment of Pope Leo concerning apocryphal Scriptures.

This judgment, attributed to Leo from a codex of the Heroballian collection, was published by Jacobus Petit after the Penitential of Theodore, and then from the aforementioned Palatine manuscript by our fellow-citizen P. Joseph Blanchinius, in volume I of the Vindiciae of the Canonical Scriptures, page 405, who also gave on page 295 a specimen of the script, which points to about the eighth century. The first chapter of this judgment is indeed taken from Leo's letter 15, to Turribius, chapter 15. But the second chapter does not have Leo for its author. Moreover, the variation of this second chapter in the aforesaid codices is remarkable. For the older Palatine codex contains many things which are lacking in the other three manuscripts.

In these there is introduced, in the first chapter, the form of a general sanction, by which books corrupted by heretics are forbidden to be read in the Church; while in a second, shorter chapter it is decreed concerning the reading of the books of the orthodox Fathers. But in the Palatine manuscript, in the first chapter—taken more exactly from Leo—it is forbidden that books falsified by Priscillian be read under the name of the canonical codices; while in the second chapter is set forth the order in which the canonical books are to be read according to the rite of the Basilica of St. Peter—which seems to be taken from some very ancient Roman order. For the Order which is appended in Burchard, book III, chapter 222, and in Gratian, distinction 15, chapter 3, § 82, to the decree of Gelasius concerning the apocrypha, although it agrees in many points, is nevertheless fuller and more recent.

Then indeed in the Palatine codex a few things are added concerning the reading of the books of the holy Fathers, which differ somewhat from the text of the other codices. We shall present the reading of the older Palatine codex, but the variants of the others will be indicated in the annotations.