講道與書信 第 187 章

In the consulship of our lord Marcian, ever Augustus, and of him who shall be named, on the day before the kalends of November, at Chalcedon, according to the command of our most divine and most pious lord Marcian, ever Augustus, there being gathered in the most holy Church of the holy martyr Euphemia — with the most magnificent and most glorious master of soldiers, ex-consul and Patrician Anatolius, and the most magnificent and most glorious prefect of the sacred praetoria Palladius, and the most magnificent and most glorious master of the divine offices Vincomalus;

there being present also the most reverend bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the most reverend presbyter Boniface, holding the place of the most holy archbishop of elder Rome, Leo; and Anatolius, most reverend archbishop of Constantinople of great name; and Maximus, most reverend bishop of Antioch of Syria; and Juvenal, most reverend bishop of Jerusalem; and Quintillus, most reverend bishop of Heraclea of Macedonia, holding the place of the most holy archbishop of the Thessalonians, Anastasius; and Thalassius, most reverend bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia; and Stephen, most reverend bishop of Ephesus; and Lucian, most reverend bishop of Byzae, holding the place of the God-most-beloved Cyriacus, bishop of Heraclea;

of Thrace; and Eusebius, most reverend bishop of Ancyra of Galatia; and Diogenes, most reverend bishop of Cyzicus; and Peter, most reverend bishop of Corinth; and Florentius, most reverend bishop of Sardis; and Eunomius, most reverend bishop of Nicomedia; and Anastasius, most reverend bishop of Nicaea; and Julian, most reverend bishop of Cos, himself also holding the place of the Apostolic See of Rome; and Eleutherius, most reverend bishop of the Chalcedonians; and

Basil, most reverend bishop of Seleucia of Isauria; and Meletius, most reverend bishop of Larissa, holding the place of the most reverend bishop of Apamea of Syria, Domnus; and Amphilochius, most reverend bishop of Side; and Theodore, most reverend bishop of Tapsus; and Cyrus, most reverend bishop of Anazarbus; and Constantine, most reverend bishop of the Bostreni; and Photius, most reverend bishop of Tyre; and Theodore, most reverend bishop of Damascus; and Stephen, most reverend bishop of Hierapolis; and Symeon, most reverend bishop of Amida; and Epiphanius, most reverend bishop, holding the place of the most reverend Olympius, bishop of Constantia; and John, most reverend bishop of Sebastia; Seleucus, most reverend bishop of Amasia; and

Constantine, most reverend bishop of Melitene; and Patricius, most reverend bishop of Tyana; and Peter, most reverend bishop of Gangra; and Eustathius, most reverend bishop of Berytus; and Apragmonius, most reverend bishop, holding the place of the most reverend bishop of Claudiopolis, Calogerus; and Atarbius, most reverend bishop of Trebizond, holding the place of Dorotheus, most reverend bishop of Neocaesarea; and Photinus, archdeacon, holding the place of Theoctistus, most reverend bishop of Pessinus; and Romanus, most reverend bishop of Myra of Lycia; and Nunechius, most reverend bishop of Aphrodisias of Caria; and Critonianus, most reverend bishop of Laodicea of Phrygia; and Marinianus, most reverend bishop of Synnada; and

Onesiphorus, most reverend bishop of Iconium; and Pergamius, most reverend bishop of Antioch of Pisidia; and Epiphanius, most reverend bishop of Perge; and Atticus, most reverend bishop of Nicopolis of Epirus; and Martyrius, most reverend bishop of Gortyna; and Lucas, most reverend bishop of Dyrrhachium; and Vigilantius, most reverend bishop of Larissa of Thessaly; and Franciso, most reverend bishop of Philippopolis; and Sebastian, most reverend bishop of Beroea; and Basil, most reverend bishop of Trajanopolis; and Trypho, most reverend of Chios, holding the place of John, bishop of Rhodes; and Theoctistus, most reverend bishop of Beroea; and Gerontius, most reverend bishop of Seleucia of Syria; and Eusebius, presbyter, holding the place of Macarius, bishop of Laodicea of Syria; and Eusebius, most reverend bishop of Dorylaeum; and the rest of the holy and ecumenical synod, which was gathered according to the sanction of our most divine and most pious Lord in the city of the Chalcedonians.

And when all had taken their seats before the rails of the sacred altar, Boniface, presbyter, holding the place of the Apostolic See of elder Rome, said: The apostolic bishop, and the bishop of the apostolic faith of Rome, Leo, my lord, has sent a letter to the most holy synod: command that it be received and read. The most glorious judges said: Let the letter of Leo, most reverend archbishop of Rome, be read. And Julian, most reverend bishop of the city of the Coans, himself also holding the place of the Apostolic See, presenting both the authentic Latin letter and its translation, Constantine, the most devoted secretary, read it thus: Leo, bishop, to the holy synod established at Chalcedon, to his most beloved brothers in the Lord, greeting. I would indeed have wished...

and the rest, as the letter is read as epistle 95, up to those words: Fare well in the Lord, most dear brothers. After the first volume of our edition had been published, in which, besides the Sermons, the Letters of St. Leo, collated and emended especially against the Roman codices, are also contained, there came forth into the light from the Roman press of Joseph Collinus the second part of the Works of the same holy Doctor, which presents his Letters revised against nearly the same codices. Concerning these codices, which served both our and the Roman edition, we think it necessary to give one warning, lest anyone should perhaps doubt our good faith in alleging these same manuscript exemplars. In the preface of the Roman edition this admonition is read on p. 53:

In this edition of ours, indices of the manuscripts, which are lacking in all others, occur, noted for the learned reader; which indeed we did for this reason, that we might remove from the reader's mind every suspicion that we had rather indulged in conjectures than religiously adhered to the readings and authorities of the same manuscript codices. Wherefore in the future it will be altogether easy for anyone doubting our good faith to appeal to our indicated sources, and thereupon to know whether the variant readings — either annotated by us at the foot of each letter or document, or introduced into the text — truly and sincerely correspond to those sources from which we indicated they had been drawn.

But comparing the Vatican codices indicated in this edition at the margin of each letter with those which we alleged in our own edition, we sometimes detected that in that Roman edition this or that letter of Leo is noted as being found in certain Roman codices which most certainly lack them. For we composed a most exact catalogue of the letters which are described in each codex, on separate pages, lest confusion should creep in; and we are most certain that neither more nor fewer letters of Leo are found in the individual codices or manuscript collections than those which were recounted by us either in the preface or in the notes, as will also be clear to those comparing the codices themselves.

But the Roman edition not infrequently assigns codices to letters which are lacking in those very codices, and that this must be attributed to certain error we can prove from that same edition. In the account of the manuscripts of the Vatican library, which is subjoined to the preface of the same edition, on p. 66 it is written that Vatican codex 1341 contains forty-one Leonine letters; where it should be read forty-one 'of' letters: for that codex belongs to the Hispanic collection, which comprises only 39 Leonine letters, exactly recounted by us in the preface to the Letters, § 10, pp. 522 and 523. But in the edition of the Letters, besides that the allegation of this codex is omitted in the ten letters which are read in it, the number of the same codex Vat.

1341 is affixed to 45 letters, of which sixteen are lacking in that same codex — namely letters 24, 34, 35, 36, 39, 46, 48, 58, 98, 99, as well as one of Valentinian to Theodosius, one of Marcian to Leo, of Pulcheria, of Ceretius and Salonius, and of the Chalcedonian synod to the same pontiff, which in our edition are letters 54, 37, 38, 39, 62, 50, 51, 72, 67, 123, 124, 55, 73, 68 and 98. In the same account of the manuscripts, p. 65, to Vatican manuscript 1342 of the third collection are ascribed sixteen letters of St. Leo, which indeed we found in the same.

But in the body of the edition the number of that codex 1342 is noted against 21 letters, so that, the allegation of the same being omitted against the six letters which are contained in it, the same number is wrongly added to eleven letters which you will by no means find in it — namely letters 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 73, 81, 94, 95, 139 of that edition, and of the synodical letter of Ravennius and other Gauls to Leo; but for us letters 3, 2, 7, 18, 15, 93, 106, 115, 120, 166 and 99. Similar lapses occur in alleging several other codices. Letter 24, for us 54, for example, is set in the margin of codices Vat. 1340, 1341, 4343, 4353 and 3791, whereas that same letter is found in one manuscript, 1340, and is lacking in the rest.

Letter 39, for us 41, which exists only in the Arlesian collection, from which we were able to find one Vallicellan codex G. 99, is ascribed in the margin to codices Vat. 541, 542, 1340 and 1341, which, belonging to other collections, are devoid of that letter. We forbear to report the same about other letters, since those indicated hitherto suffice. These errors seem to be attributed partly to the drowsiness of the workmen, partly indeed to the confusion of the annotations in the working papers, which did not present a separate description of each codex. But whether some error likewise lurks in certain readings ascribed to this or that codex in the same edition, there has been no leisure to weigh. Certainly on p. 1, note a, when it is related that all the Vatican

codices, of greater antiquity and of more notable mark — except Vat. Reg. 1997 — have these words 'in the cause of bishop Lupicinus,' the error is manifest: for the codices of greater antiquity and more notable mark praised in the margin, 1341 and 1342, not only lack these words, but in the body of that first letter itself, for us the twelfth, they omit that chapter which pertains to the cause of Lupicinus. On p. 62, note c, in letter 15 to Turribius, it is affirmed that codex Vat. Reg. 1997 has 'sentina' where we there read 'sententiam.' On p. 194, notes b and f, in letter 47, for us 59, readings are adduced from codices Vat. 3787 and 4961, which, being of the Avellan collection, lack that same letter:

but those readings were found by us in the manuscripts of collection 21, to which pertain the manuscript codices Vat. 542 and 543, which you will find indicated in the margin of the same edition together with the two mentioned of the Avellan collection. We pass over other things to observe, which are not necessary for vindicating our edition. Further, in the same Roman edition, in the elaboration of which the illustrious author, expending very much toil and labour, took care also to revise the Greek codices, we found three Greek fragments previously unedited, which we thought should be republished in this little Appendix. The first was brought out from ms. Vat. Graec. 120, of the tenth century, as it is reported. This codex contains many fragments of the little works of the Greek Fathers.

Among these is read part of the letter of St. Leo to the emperor Theodosius. Nothing could be conjectured from the style, since it is a Greek version. But the substance of the fragment itself does not conflict at all: for it exhibits the right faith and the same doctrine which Leo taught. The author of the Roman edition judges that this fragment pertains to the letter which is indicated by Leo as epistle 24, for us 54, to the same emperor, in those words: 'By me, however, and by all catholic priests, that piety of the evangelical faith which is to be defended has been quite fully and clearly disclosed in my letters, which I think your Clemency has received through your servant Epiphanius the tribune, who was sent for this cause.'

But he judged so, being misled by the erroneous chronological note of this letter, by which in the common editions it was marked as given on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, that is, before the letter (numbered 44 by us) to the emperor himself; whence, once the words were recited, another letter, written by a synod of bishops and now lost, seemed to be signified. But when that chronological note has been corrected from our excellent Ratisbon codex to read thus, 'the eighth day before the Kalends of January,' that is, the 25th day of December in the year 449, it at once becomes clear that by the words in question letter 44 itself is indicated, which indeed had been given by the synod long before the aforesaid letter 54, namely on the third day before the Ides, or on the very Ides of October of the same year.

What then? If this fragment, which is taken from a Greek miscellaneous collection, is to be trusted at all, it is far more credible that Leo here has in view what he writes to the same emperor in Letter 69, chapter 2: 'What the form of our faith is, you may deign to recognize by the instructions we have sent, once they are made manifest.' For this very purpose there were sent by Leo into the East, to be handed to Theodosius, the testimonies of the Fathers, by which he might prove that in his dogmatic Letter 28 he had taught no other doctrine than that which had been handed down by the holy Fathers, both Latin and Greek. See Letter 71.

But from this fragment, if it be genuine, there seems at the same time to have been sent another epistolary declaration directed to the emperor himself, which would have to be said to have been added to the testimonies of the Fathers and to the instruction of the legates. But since Letter 28 alone is famous, and to this one alone the testimonies of the Fathers were subjoined in the Greek manuscripts of the most ancient Chalcedonian collection, before the acts of that council, and since nowhere besides this is any mention made of another declaration of Leo, a kind of formula of faith addressed to the emperor Theodosius—which, after the publication of the dogmatic Letter 28, might seem superfluous—hence a certain suspicion, and not altogether a slight one, arises concerning a fragment of this kind.

Whatever it may be, we shall set out the fragment itself in this little appendix, just as it was published. The second is a fragment of the memorial of St. Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, to St. Leo, which the codex Vaticanus Graecus 431 has supplied. In this fragment several rather difficult things occur. Two parts are to be distinguished in it: the former, in which a certain memorial of the faith is set forth; the latter, in which the deeds concerning John and Gregory are described. In the former part, or in the memorial of the faith, Leo's dogmatic Letter 28 is praised, by which two natures and one person are declared to be in Christ: 'For into one person,' he says, 'as YOUR HOLINESS ALSO TEACHES (in Letter 28), the two natures concur.'

But this Letter 28 of Leo was handed to Flavian not at Constantinople, but at Ephesus, to which Flavian had come for the council. For the pope's legates, who had received these same letters to convey, were compelled, on account of the time of the summoned council, to make not for Constantinople but for Ephesus. Furthermore, the deeds that are narrated in the latter part took place at Constantinople. For the condemnation of John and Gregory carried out by Flavian, and the tumult of the populace against them, fits not with Ephesus, nor with the time of the Ephesine brigandage (Latrocinium), when the faction of the Eutychians was prevailing, but with Constantinople, before the time of that same brigandage, when Flavian, having condemned Eutyches, was freely defending the catholic faith, and the people favored him.

Nor indeed can it be assigned to a time after that same brigandage: for then Flavian did not return to Constantinople, but, driven into exile, met his last day on the very journey. See our note on Letter 53. But since the former part of this fragment, in which mention is made of Leo's letter, contains that memorial of the faith which is reported to have been read before these Constantinopolitan deeds concerning John and Gregory ('Since the memorial contained these things, THIS HAVING BEEN READ, etc.'), the memorial itself too had been written at Constantinople, before Flavian went to Ephesus. How then could Leo's Letter 28 be praised in it, since it was received by Flavian only at Ephesus? Add that, while this memorial was being read at Constantinople, Eutyches had been deposed.

But how could Flavian, in the very memorial, have called a man already deposed by himself and stripped of the dignity of archimandrite by the name 'archimandrite'? Since the whole document from which this fragment was excerpted is lacking, nothing certain can be affirmed. Yet, lest the mark of a forgery be branded upon it, one may surmise that this fragment belongs to the memorial of appeal of Flavian, which was written at Ephesus and handed to Leo's legates. Into this, moreover, must be said to have been inserted the memorial of the faith which had been read at Constantinople, and the deeds concerning John and Gregory likewise inserted. The words by which Leo's Letter 28 is praised were added to that same memorial while it was being transcribed at Ephesus.

But then Flavian called Eutyches 'archimandrite,' because in the pseudo-synod he had been restored and was conducting himself as archimandrite. The third fragment, taken from Vaticanus Graecus 1455, is a mere paraphrase of the eighth chapter of Leo's Letter 14 to Anastasius. 'An example of the interpretation of a part of the letter of LEO, bishop of Rome, which he wrote to the emperor THEODOSIUS concerning the divine incarnation, and against those who believe in the abominable dogmas of the heresiarchs Photinus and Apollinaris and of others like them.'

We believe that the Son of God, from eternity and without any exterior beginning, who is with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the last ages took up a perfect man of our nature from Mary ever-virgin; and that the Word was made flesh by taking up manhood, neither changing His Divinity, nor—as certain men have impiously supposed—that the Holy Spirit stood in the place of seed; but through the power and wisdom of the Founder of the nations we confess that Christ is one person of the Son, yet two perfect and entire substances, of Divinity and of humanity, the latter of which consists of soul and body.

We pronounce anathema against Photinus, who asserts that Christ is a mere and bare man; and likewise against Apollinaris and those like him, who say that the Son of God took up something less than a human nature—whether in flesh, or in soul, or in mind, or in the assumption of man—and that He was unlike us in that which was assumed: whom we believe to have been made a man without the single stain of sin (which sin is not physical), of the same form as ours in all things. We also execrate the blasphemy of those who by a novel invention endeavor to say that, from the time of the assumed flesh, all things of the divine nature were changed into the human, and all things of the human into the divine—which no heresy ever dared to say.

For by a confession of this sort they suppose that each nature, both of Divinity and of humanity, was changed into something else, and they confess the Son to be neither perfect God nor, according to truth, perfect man. But we say thus: that our nature was assumed by the Son of God, while the Divinity remained impassible; for the Son of God suffered, not in appearance but in very truth, whatsoever Scripture testifies—that is, hunger, thirst, weariness, toil, death, and the rest of such things. But He suffered according to that whereby He could suffer, that is, not according to the assuming, but according to the assumed nature.

For the Son of God Himself, according to His Divinity, is impassible, as the Father is invisible, as the Father does not fall under touch, as the Father is immutable. For the proper person of the Son, God the Word, assuming a passible man and dwelling in him, suffered nothing, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit; for we must confess the Trinity altogether impassible. When therefore the Son of God had died according to the Scriptures, insofar as He could die, He rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens, sits at the right hand of God—the substance of His flesh remaining, in which He was begotten and suffered and rose again. For the substance of the humanity was not dissolved or changed, but, abiding in the Divinity, was glorified forever.

From the memorial of FLAVIAN, bishop of Constantinople, which he wrote to LEO, the Roman pontiff, concerning the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God. 'The Word,' he says, 'was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' But the dwelling is one thing, and the one dwelling is another. I do not say 'one and another' as of two persons, but 'diverse and diverse' as in two natures. For every evangelical and apostolic exhortation and testimony concerning Emmanuel is divided into two modes: sometimes signifying His solitary person, sometimes plainly declaring His two natures.

For He was twofold, and He is one and only Son and Christ, and there is in Him a twofold principle—not before He was joined, but after the inexplicable conjunction: perfect in that place both in Divinity and in humanity. For if He were simple, in what manner could He suffer and die? In what manner could He be scourged and fastened with nails and struck with blows, save in a passible body and an earthly nature? Just as, being consubstantial with God and the Father, since He is God, He is perfect from the perfect, so also, having the same nature as we, He exists as a perfect man. For He who was in the form of God took the form of a servant for our sake. Now the form of God signifies the substance of God, just as the form of man declares human nature.

The wounds therefore and the cross and death pertain to the man, in whom is the Lord God the Word; but the glory and power belong to the Lord, in whom is the servant, that is, the man. If therefore that which cannot suffer pertains to the Divinity, but the suffering is in the humanity, who among those who think rightly would say to be one those two natures which are in Him? But if there is one nature, namely a demigod, then God assumed flesh, and, of a halved nature, a man was assumed. But the sanction of piety does not so teach—which Eutyches the archimandrite rejected by preaching one nature of the uncreated Divinity and of the humanity of Christ, which is the same as ours.

But the whole choir of the saints confesses Christ to be a twofold substance, or nature, yet not a twofold subsistence, or person. For into one person, as your Holiness also teaches, two natures concur, which I have said are both preserved by an immutable principle and confessed in an indivisible manner in Christ. For there is one and only begotten Son and Word of God—not that His natures are divided into two subsistences, but that the inexplicable Word joined two natures into one subsistence:

within indeed, the most holy body being adorned by the divine Word; but without, being guarded by the Spirit, so that from both He may show forth the clearness of the natures. For thus also we say that He ate, not before the passion only, but even after He rose again. We believe in the nature of His body. But the body, against which the heretics raise their doubts, is called a nature and a substance; and it is furthermore manifest that in the one Christ each nature—that is, the divine and the human—is preserved, and that in the divine He received the things that befitted God, while in ours He again puts forth things human and lowly, being one who has no defilement, no confusion, no division regarding the natures, but exists as one Son and Christ and Lord and Savior to those who piously will to believe in Him. Since the memorial contained these things, this having been read, both John and Gregory spat upon, cast off, and struck with anathema the things written in it:

And when these things had been rent with curses and anathema, we brought forward into the midst the books of the holy Fathers, from which came all the testimonies that are contained in the memorial. We also have them ready in our hands, and refutations drawn out against every reply; and when we had shown from their very own books that it was not Flavian who had been struck with curses and anathema, but the holy Fathers, the common people rose up, utterly despising them, and almost willing to overwhelm them with stones. This was the triumph and the disgrace which John and his companions publicly suffered. 'If any bishop, despising the smallness of his own city, should pass over to the ministry of a more illustrious place, and by foolish counsel transfer himself to a greater population;

then he shall be expelled from the alien chair, and shall also be deprived of his own, so that he may neither preside over those whom he coveted out of greed, nor over those whom he despised out of pride. Let each therefore be content with his own boundaries, and not covet to have the measure of his power increased. Know, most beloved brother, that the cause of necessity and usefulness is one thing, but that of rashness and one's own will—or of private pleasure—for passing from city to city is another; rather, let one be transferred on account of necessity and usefulness. Should one not prefer the usefulness of the many to the usefulness or will of one? For it is one thing to pass over of oneself, another to be transferred; for the former is to cross over of one's own accord, the latter to advance under compulsion and unwillingly. Wherefore these men do not change their city, but are changed:

for they do this not of their own accord, but through force brought to bear. They do not therefore know the ecclesiastical canons, who deny that it can be done for the cause of usefulness and necessity, as often as common necessity and usefulness should so counsel it.