講道與書信 第 89 章

Nothing is more precious to priests than piety and the right dispensation of the word of truth, as you well know, most beloved of God. For all our hope and salvation, and the recompense of the good things promised, depend upon this. Therefore all things must be done by us, and every labor undertaken, for the sake of the true faith and of those things which have been set forth by the holy Fathers and handed down in the place of dogmas, so that in all things and in all manner of circumstances these may be kept whole and inviolate and guarded. It was therefore necessary that we too now, seeing the orthodox faith injured and the heresy of Apollinaris and Valentinus renewed by the impious monk Eutyches, should not despise it, but should openly uncover the error for the safeguarding of the peoples.

For this man, this Eutyches, retaining in himself the hidden disease of a corrupt opinion, and assailing our gentleness, has dared shamelessly and impudently to carry his own impiety to many; saying that before the incarnation of our Savior Jesus Christ there were indeed two natures, of divinity and of humanity, but that after the union there came to be one nature—not knowing what he says or of what he affirms. For the union of the two natures which came together in Christ does not, as your piety also knows, confound their properties in the union; rather, even in the union the properties of the two natures remain whole.

He has added yet another impiety, saying that the body which arose from Mary, the Lord's body, is not of our substance nor of human material; but though he calls it human, yet he says it is not consubstantial with us, nor with her who bore Him according to the flesh. And these things, when the acts drawn up at Ephesus by the holy and ecumenical synod, in the letter written to the impious and deposed Nestorius, thus have word for word: That the natures indeed are diverse which came together into a true unity, but one out of both is Christ and the Son.

Not as though the distinction of the natures were removed through the union, but rather because the same natures, of divinity and of humanity, have perfected for us one Lord Jesus Christ, through an ineffable and incomprehensible concurrence unto unity. And this does not escape your holiness, since you have surely read the acts which were completed at Ephesus. Setting these at naught, this same Eutyches thinks that he will not pay the penalties determined by that holy and ecumenical synod.

And so, on account of these things, since many of the simpler folk were being injured in the doctrine of the faith through his disputation, we deposed him—accused by the most religious bishop Eusebius, appearing before the holy council, and disclosing with his own voice to the Fathers of the synod what he himself held, as one alien from the right faith—just as all the acts drawn up concerning him will teach your holiness; which acts we have also sent with these our letters.

It is moreover fitting, in my opinion at least, that you should also be informed of this: that this same Eutyches, subjected to a just and canonical deposition, when he ought at least by his later course to have cared for his earlier one, and by exact penitence and many tears to have appeased God, and by true repentance to have soothed our heart, which was greatly grieved at his fall—not only did not do this, but rather has striven in every way to disturb the most holy Church of this place; publicly posting placards full of insults and curses; and besides, offering petitions to our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, petitions crammed with arrogance and insolence, attempting in all things to trample upon the divine canons.

But when these things had thus been carried out in due sequence, there were delivered to us the letters of your holiness, by the count Pansophius, a man worthy of all admiration; from which we were informed that this same Eutyches had sent to you documents full of deceit and cunning, saying that at the time of the trial he had handed over documents of appeal to us and to the holy synod of the bishops then present, and had appealed to your holiness—which was by no means done by him, but in this part too he lied, like the father of lies, thinking that he would creep in upon your ears.

Moved therefore, most holy father, by all that he has dared, and because of those things which have been done and are being done against us and against the most holy Church, use your accustomed confidence, as befits the priesthood, and, vindicating the common cause and the settlement of the holy Churches, deign by your own letters to support the deposition canonically enacted against him, and to confirm the faith of our most pious and Christ-loving emperor. For the matter needs only impulse and support from you, which through your prudence will straightway transfer all things to tranquility and peace. For thus the heresy which has arisen, and the tumult stirred up because of it, will easily cease, with God cooperating, through your sacred letters.

And that synod which is rumored to be about to take place will be prohibited, so that the most holy Churches of the whole world may not be thrown into confusion. All the brotherhood that is with you, I and those who are with me, salute. Being in health in the Lord and praying for us, may you be granted to us, most beloved of God and most holy father. Chapter 1.—Nothing is more honorable to priests than piety and the right preaching of the word of truth, as you know, most God-loving. For all our hope and salvation and the recompense of the good things promised are in these. Therefore all things must be done by us, and we must labor for the true faith and for the expositions and dogmas of the holy Fathers, so that in all things and amid all the shakings of affairs these may be kept whole and inviolate and guarded.

It was therefore necessary that we now also, seeing the orthodox faith being injured and the heresies of Apollinaris and Valentinus renewed by the monk Eutyches, should not despise this, but reveal it in the open for the safeguarding of the people. For this man, this Eutyches, retaining in himself the hidden sickness of an evil sect, springing upon our gentleness, has presumed shamelessly and impudently to bring in his own impiety upon many, saying: Before the inhumanation of our Savior Jesus Christ there are indeed two natures, of divinity and of humanity; but after the union one nature was made—neither knowing what he says, nor of what he affirms.

For the union of the two natures that came together in Christ, as your religiousness also knows, has not confounded their properties in the union, but the perfect properties of the natures remain in the union. He has added yet another impiety, saying: The body which was made from Mary, the Lord's body, is not of our substance nor of human commixture; but though he calls it human, yet not consubstantial with us, nor with His mother according to the flesh. Chapter 2.—And these things he was saying, whereas in the acts held at Ephesus by the holy and universal council, in the letter written to the impious and condemned Nestorius, it is openly held thus: That the natures indeed are diverse which came together into a true unity, but one out of both is Christ and the Son;

not as though the difference of the natures were destroyed on account of the union, but rather that it has effected for us one Lord Jesus Christ, through the ineffable and unintelligible concurrence of divinity and humanity unto unity. And this does not escape your holiness, since you have surely read the acts which were completed at Ephesus. Reckoning these as nothing, this same Eutyches supposes that he will not pay the penalty predetermined by that holy and universal council:

since through these things many of the simpler sort are injured in the discourse of the faith by his utterances. But when he had been accused by the most reverend Eusebius, and had appeared before the holy council, and had with his own voice disclosed his own sect, and shown himself alien from the right faith, we condemned him—as all the acts which have been drawn up concerning him will teach your holiness, which acts we have directed with these our letters. It is right also, as I think, that this too be made known to you: that this same Eutyches, having suffered a just and canonical condemnation, when he ought to have saved his earlier state by his later, and by perfect penitence and many tears to have appeased God, and to have healed by true repentance our heart, which was vehemently grieved at his ruin:

not only did he not do this, but he even hastened in every way to disturb the holy Church which is among us, publicly posting placards of injuries and full of curses; and besides these, offering petitions to our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, and these too full of arrogance and insolence, attempting in all things to trample upon the divine rules. Chapter 3.—But when these things had thus followed, the letters of your holiness were given to us by the admirable count Pansophius, through whom we were informed that this same Eutyches had directed to you documents full of all deceit and cunning, saying: At the time of the trial he had given documents of appeal both to us and to the holy council here assembled, and had appealed to your holiness:

which was by no means done by him; but in this part too he lied, thinking to creep in upon your holy ears through the deceit of falsehood. Moved therefore, most holy father, in all these things which have been presumptuously done by him, and because of those things which have been done and are being done against us and against the most holy Church, act with your accustomed confidence, according to what befits the priesthood, and, making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches your own, deign at once to decree in favor of the condemnation regularly enacted against him, and by your own writings; and to strengthen the faith of our most pious and most Christ-loving emperor.

For the cause needs only your comfort and defense, whereby you ought by your own consent to lead all things to tranquility and peace. For thus the heresy which has arisen, and the crowds which have been gathered because of it, will most easily be destroyed, with God cooperating, through your most sacred letters. And that council which is rumored to be held will be removed, so that the most holy Churches may nowhere be thrown into confusion. All the brotherhood that is with you, I and those who are with me salute. Being safe in the Lord and praying for us, may you be granted to us, most religious and most holy father. That the letters of your love have reached us we make known, as soon as we found the opportunity of our honorable son Rodanus, the son who was coming:

which made us more certain concerning the cause, which we grieve to have been stirred up among you by a perverse error. Since he who lately seemed to be of a religious purpose was thinking otherwise about the faith than is fitting—he who ought not to have deviated from the catholic tradition, but to have persisted in that same belief which is held by all. But concerning this matter we write back more fully through him who brought us the letters of your love: so that we may instruct your brotherhood what ought to be determined about the whole cause. For we do not permit either that he persist in the perversity of his persuasion, or that your love, which resists a perverse and foolish error out of zeal for the faith, be troubled by the prolonged assault of the opposing party.

But the aforesaid son of ours, through whom we have given these letters, we wish you to receive with that affection which is worthy, and to write back to us when he returns to us. Given on the twelfth day before the Kalends of June, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes. Among all the decrees of the Roman pontiffs concerning the faith, most celebrated is the following letter of St. Leo to Flavian, in which the whole controversy concerning the Incarnation is exactly discussed and defined, and, the contrary errors of Nestorius and Eutyches being proscribed, the catholic doctrine is found so accurately declared, not only in its opinions but even in its very words, that whatever is written in it is proved to be taken from the apostolic and evangelical doctrine (Letter 152). Now St. [Leo].

Flavian, to whom the authority of the apostolic see was well known, had forewarned that this matter, with Eutyches stirring up disturbances after the judgment at Constantinople, needed only the pontifical impulse and support, by which all things might straightway be transferred to tranquility and peace (Letter 26). Indeed, as soon as it had been transmitted to the East, after the Ephesine robbery—in which by fraud and force it had been suppressed lest it be read—and had been brought to light, it was soon received and subscribed by all, so that it was universally held as a rule of faith and, as it were, a Lydian touchstone by which catholics were to be distinguished from heretics. And so it further appeared that the pontifical definition sufficed, and that there was no need of a general council, as Flavian too had advised (Letter

26), since even without a council, and before the synod of Chalcedon was held, the whole Church received it, and the bishops appended their subscriptions to it—not in order to add force and authority to it, but in order to prove themselves catholic, and lest, if they refused, they be held heretics. For it had already become common talk, which afterwards all the most reverend bishops proclaimed at Chalcedon, act. 4, page 1403: He who does not consent to the letter of the most holy bishop Leo is a heretic. Furthermore, in that same council, in which the acts of the Ephesine robbery were to be rescinded, it was received with the greatest praises, act. 2 and 4, and held in such honor as if it had been issued by Peter himself: which even before it was issued.

Peter Chrysologus, most skilled in apostolic authority, had foretold in letter 25 that it was to be observed and held fast. Nothing is more illustrious for the authority of the apostolic definitions than this testimony of the whole Church and of the general synod, which recognizes Peter living and speaking in his successors. In the Roman synod under Gelasius, an anathema was pronounced: If anyone should dispute concerning the text of this letter down to a single iota, and not receive it in all things with veneration (Vol. V of the Venetian edition of the Councils, page 387). And St. Gregory, book vi, letter 2: If anyone ever presumes to speak anything against the faith of these four synods, and against the tome and definition of Leo the pope of holy memory, let him be anathema.

Hence, in professions of faith nothing is more frequent than, after the general councils, to profess the doctrine of this letter. It is clear that among the Easterners, where the heresy of Eutyches had stirred up disturbances, this custom was first introduced, as is evident among other things from several of the letters of Hormisdas, from the letter of the deacon Peter to Fulgentius, and from the council of Adelbert of the year 535. The same custom passed also to the Westerners, and long prevailed. See the profession of Adelbert, bishop of Thérouanne, to Hincmar of Reims, edited by Sirmond, Vol. X of the Venetian edition of the Councils, p. 1388, and the pledge of the bishops of the province of Aquileia to Paulinus the patriarch, from Vatican manuscript 1322, edited by Father Bernardo de Rubeis in the Monuments of the Church of Aquileia, at the year

801, page 380. When St. Amatus the abbot, already about to die, wished to make a profession of faith, he ordered this letter to be brought to him and read to him, because in it is contained the fullest account of the catholic faith, as the author of his Life relates, n. 24, Vol. II, second Benedictine century, page 126. 3. Among the divine offices, this letter was formerly read publicly in the Roman Church at the time of Advent, whence we find it copied out in the Lectionaries which were in use in the Vatican basilica, and also in another very ancient one which belonged to the basilica of Saints Philip and James. Hence in the Roman Ordo xi, in Mabillon (Vol. II of the Museum Italicum, p. …), which was written by Benedict, canon of the basilica of St.

Peter, in the twelfth century, on the third Sunday of Advent it is stated: Then the bishops read the fourth and fifth lection from the letter of St. Leo the pope sent to Flavian the bishop concerning the incarnation of the Lord against the heretic Eutyches. We have learned that the very same was received in other Churches of Italy from very many manuscript Lectionaries of other cities, which present the same letter on various different days during the same season of Advent. From a manuscript of the Royal Library Quesnel gathered (Dissertation 1, at the year 440, n. 9) that the same used formerly to be done in the Churches of Gaul, which can be confirmed from the Lectionary of St.

Benignus of Dijon's Lectionary, which Chifflet used when he published the same letter at the end of the works of Vigilius of Thapsus, and also from the Gallican monuments which are cited by Father Martène, On the Ancient Rites of Monks, book III, ch. 2. Moreover, from Lectionaries of this kind it was transferred into several collections of the Sermons of St. Leo, which take their origin from the Lectionaries. 4. When Gennadius, ch. 70, listed Leo among the ecclesiastical writers, he made mention only of this letter, because it was the most widely circulated of all his works above the rest. Hence he doubtless reckoned him the certain author of that same letter. But if the common editions of Miraeus, Fabricius, and Vallarsius, ch. 84, have in [the place of] Prosper:

'The letters also of pope Leo against Eutyches concerning the true Incarnation of Christ, addressed to various persons, are said to have been dictated by himself'—this Quesnel contends to be a corrupt reading that creates a false impression, and that one should read instead 'to Prosper' (that is, dictated by Leo himself, namely to Prosper); for Ado wrote in his Chronicle that Prosper was Leo's notary. But Antelmius, letter 2, n. 28 and 30, declares that the more correct editions and manuscripts do not offer either 'and' or 'to Prosper,' but only 'are believed to have been dictated by himself.' Indeed, in a most ancient manuscript of the chapter of Verona, marked with the number 46, we read thus: 'They are believed to have been dictated by that man,' as Marcellinus in his Chronicle reported from Gennadius. Yet Gennadius handed this down not from his own opinion, but from that of the Gauls, among whom he lived:

for it easily tends to happen that things which are reported by common opinion are augmented or even altered. 5. Indeed, that this and the other letters against Eutyches are Leo's, and not Prosper's, is evidently shown by the style, which is similar to Leo's other works and most manifestly differs from the style of the works of Prosper. Nor can Prosper be maintained as the author of these letters, without at the same time his being called the author of all the rest of Leo's works, so that from the beginning of his pontificate to its end he wrote all his letters—or rather sermons—and indeed in a style that would differ from the style of his own works: which is surely incredible to say, and neither the text of Gennadius nor the common opinion among the Gauls put it forth;

indeed not even Antelmius himself dared to affirm this concerning the sermons, as is clear from the same letter 2, n. 40. It can only be said that St. Prosper contributed some diligence and assistance to these letters against Eutyches, which demanded a special study of the Scriptures and of words; from which some have believed them to be by him, and, to the glory of a Gallican writer, have spread this abroad among the Gauls. 6. Moreover, how much it matters that so celebrated a dogmatic letter be published as free of error as possible, is understood well enough of itself, but is also demonstrated still more clearly by those words of the three bishops of Gaul to Leo, letter 67, ch. 2:

'Therefore, if you graciously admit him, we beseech that this work, destined to profit both present and future times' (they are speaking about this letter), 'which by zeal for preserving it we have taken care to commit to leaves, your holiness may deign to peruse, and to correct if anything be lacking through the copyist's error.' For the accomplishing of this matter we have expended thirty codices and more, and among these six very ancient ones which attain a thousand years of age. Since this letter is found in all the collections which we have reviewed in the preface, except collections 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16, we have also reread it against the principal manuscript books of each collection, among which the most ancient are: Vat. Reg., collection 1; Vat. 1342, collection 3; Vindobon[ensis], collection 5; Vat.

5845, collection 8; Vat. Ottobon. 93 similarly; also Vat. 3791, collection 11, which two present the same letter twice from different sources; Vat. 4322 and Veron. 27, collection 17; and Ratispon[ensis], collection 19. The other codices of a later age we shall mention in the annotations, where it will be needful. Among the Lectionaries we have reread the most ancient, Vat. 3836. There must be added besides two other codices a thousand years old: Veronensis 8, in which this letter of Leo is copied out after the canonical epistles, and another, Veronen. 58, which presents this letter before certain documents of the synod of Chalcedon.

When we cite the first edition of this letter, we mean the first edition of the Sermons of St. Leo, into which this letter was inserted before the sermons On the Nativity, from a manuscript codex of the third collection of those same Sermons. There will be added finally, besides the codices of Quesnel, four others employed by Baluze, namely: Colbertinus 2574, Parisiensis, Divionensis, and Corbeiensis, of which the three latter contain the collection of Chalcedon. 7. The most ancient Greek version, which was read and inserted in act. 2 of the synod of Chalcedon, was first published by John Leunclavius from the library of Sambucus at Basel in the year 1578; afterward, from other manuscripts, by Gerard Vossius, provost of Tongeren, at the end of the Works of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in the year 1604;

then the Roman editors of the Councils in the year 1608, and after the Romans other later collectors of the Councils. We have adjusted the Greek text against the very ancient codex 19 of the monks of St. Basil of the city of Rome, to which the Coislinianus codex 241 of the Coislin Library (page 269), praised by Montfaucon, seems equal; from which we learn that this is the sole letter of the Roman pontiffs inserted into the Greek collection of Canons (which shows the special celebrity of this letter among the Greeks at Chalcedon); and against the Venetian codex of St. Mark 164, wholly similar to codex 555, which comprises the Greek Chalcedonian collection; and also against another likewise Venetian codex 165, which contains some parts of the same collection. That we may distinguish these, we shall call codex 164 the first manuscript

Venetian, and the second, codex 165. But since this letter is read in a double place in these Venetian codices—first among the letters before the acts, then in the very acts of the council in which it was read—we have sometimes collated both texts of the same codex, and therefore we shall cite the variant readings as presented in the first or in the second place. 8. On this occasion something must be said about the testimonies of the Fathers, which are found subjoined in Greek and Latin to this letter 28 to Flavian in the published acts, act. 2, of the Councils. To these testimonies the Roman editors prefixed this little note: 'Most of these testimonies of the holy Fathers were adjoined by St.

Leo adjoined to his own letter 97 (now 165) to Leo Augustus, but in some Greek codices of this council they are inserted also in this place, namely after the aforesaid letter to Flavian.' And Stephen Baluze, understanding this to be about the second action, noted: 'These testimonies are not extant in the manuscript codices, nor in the ancient editions; and yet, even if in some Greek ones, as the Roman editors advise, they are inserted in this place, I think nevertheless that they were not read in the synod, and so were in vain copied out in these acts, in which there is no mention of any of these testimonies, but only of the letter.'

But the observation of the three Greek Chalcedonian exemplars, which we mentioned from the Venetian library of St. Mark, has removed the whole difficulty. For since in these the aforesaid letter to Flavian, as we have indicated, is brought forward twice—namely before the acts, and in the very acts—the said testimonies of the Fathers are not subjoined to the letter inserted in the acts, as they were published by the Romans, but are copied out after the letter which is presented before the acts. And we do not doubt that in the very Greek codices of the Roman editors, which likewise offered this letter also before the acts—as is clear from the title proposed by them before the very acts, chapter 7 (Vol. IV of the Councils, page 782)—we do not doubt,

I say, that the same testimonies were likewise read after the letter copied out before the acts. Only, just as they thought the Latin version was to be omitted in the documents before the very acts, lest they should repeat the same again in the acts, so they judged that the testimonies were to be appended to the letter inserted in the acts: concerning which, since they had not forewarned the readers, they gave cause to the difficulty raised by Baluze. Rusticus the deacon acted more cautiously, when he omitted this letter before the acts, because, he says, it is inserted in the acts (Vol. IV of the Councils, page 1982); and he likewise omitted the testimonies subjoined to it, rather than subjoin them to the letter inserted in the acts.

Hence it came about that these testimonies are not found before the acts in the Latin codices of the Chalcedonian collection which proceed from Rusticus; and in the acts they are absent, because in them they have no place. 9. For the rest, that these same testimonies, which in the Greek codices are read after the following letter, have St. Leo for their author no less than those which will be given as copied out after letter 165 to Leo Augustus, there is nothing to be doubted. For not only are they the same in both places, if you except a few small things; but besides, it is clear from letter 71 that they were collected after the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, and were handed over to the bishops Abundius and Asterius,

and to the presbyters Basil and Senator, sent to Constantinople by the pontiff himself, that they might confirm the doctrine of the letter to Flavian by the authorities of the Greek and Latin Fathers; and that these same testimonies, together with those very letters, were produced by the legates in the assembly at Constantinople before the synod of Chalcedon, is manifest from letter 88. Hence it is no wonder if these testimonies were subjoined to the aforesaid letter in the Greek documents before the Chalcedonian acts, although the first exemplar of that same letter lacked them: whence they are not to be subjoined to it by us either. But since among the Latins no exemplar has hitherto been found in which these testimonies are copied out after the letter to Flavian.

But since these documents occur separately, both published and inserted, in several ancient collections of the Latins — namely in the Quesnelliana collection 5, chapter 41, where you will find them transcribed in the third volume, and in the manuscript of collection 3, chapter 82, and also in the Veronese codex 58, chapter 37 — it is quite probable that only the Greeks, who had received these documents cited and adduced together at the Council of Constantinople, wrote out copies in which this letter was read together with the testimonies, and that from this source they transmitted both together into the Greek codices before the Acts of Chalcedon. From these facts, moreover, it is evident how wrongly Father Garnier ascribed this collection of testimonies to Theodoret — concerning which, however, there is more to be said in the observations on Quesnel's final note.

Now among the testimonies gathered by Leo, there occur in the first place three rather lengthy passages taken from Hilary; and this Latin writer, previously unknown to the Greeks, we believe was cited with particular honour among the Fathers who uphold the catholic faith at the Council of Chalcedon by Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, on the basis of his acquaintance with Leo's testimonies (Act. 2, vol. IV of the Councils, p. 1207).