De Epistolis Deperditis

Concerning the Lost Letters Both those of Saint Leo to others, and those of others to Saint Leo, as well as other documents pertaining to the letters, arranged in chronological order. Letter I To the Gallic Bishops of the Province of Vienne. To the most beloved brothers, the bishops established throughout Gaul and the province of Vienne, Leo, bishop. With what stubbornness Hilarius, bishop of Arles, has evaded our judgment, your holy fraternity is not unaware. Hence we also deem it just that, because the bishop of Arles did not await the great moderation in judgments which the prince of the apostles always exhibits through his vicars in his power, he, removed from the privilege of his city, may learn in a humble place what he was unwilling to hold as a great gift freely granted by our predecessors. And let the privilege and ancient right, which apostolic benignity partially transferred to the city of Arles, be restored to the archbishop of Vienne, so that Hilarius, restrained by such severity, may learn not rashly to transgress the ancient boundaries established by canonical pronouncement. Given on the eighth day before the Ides of January, under the consulship of Valentinian Augustus for the fourth time and Avienus.

Letter II To all the bishops of the regions of Germany and Gaul Concerning the privilege of chorepiscopi or presbyters Leo, bishop of the Roman Church and of the apostolic see, to all the bishops of the regions of Germany and Gaul, greeting. When, in the name of God, we had held a synod of bishops and of the other fellow priests of Christ and of the faithful assembled in the Roman Church, see the rest in volume II, in the dissertation of Quesnel. WARNING CONCERNING THE THIRD LETTER Since the following letter, written in ancient vulgar editions, is attributed to Leo, Victorius, and Eustochius, and is listed among the Leonine letters in the codices of collection 12, it was published together with the letters of Leo by Marlinus, and from him it passed into other editions before Quesnel. This letter, as if it were of our Leo held with a synod at Rome, was twice cited by Hincmarus of Rheims, first in a quaternion to King Charles, opuscule 1, volume X of the Venetian edition of the Councils, column 1243, and then at the beginning of the opuscule, column 868. Thus this true hallucination is recognized. However, the supposition was uncovered by several, among whom especially is to be heard Father Jacobus Strimondus in the posthumous notes, volume IV of the Councils, page...

The name of Leo, he says, has led almost everyone up to now to attribute this letter to Pope Leo and to place it among his letters as number 96, when in fact it is by Leo of Bourges, who together with Victricius of Le Mans and Eustochius of Tours wrote it to the bishops and presbyters of a province, not of Thrace, as has been commonly published among Leo's letters, but of Tertia, by which name the province of Tours is designated, which is the third Lugdunensis. At the end of the letter, after the subscriptions of the three bishops, there followed in the codex of Saint Remigius of Reims, "and the other bishops who were present subscribed"; so that it appears from this that it was issued by several bishops and perhaps in some synod, after the synod of Angers (in 453), at which, along with these three, Chariato was also present, who is here counted among the bishops of the same province of Tertia. Therefore this letter was written in the time of our Saint Leo. Moreover, the noted Sirmond corrected certain errors of the editors from the Remigian codex, collection 12, which is also supported by our own copies of the same collection. Hence only the errors of the editors will be indicated in the annotations.

LETTER III. Leo of Bourges, Victricius of Le Mans, and Eustochius of Tours to the bishops and presbyters established within the Third Province. To our lords, the most blessed brothers, venerable in Christ, Sarmatio, Chariato, Desiderius, bishops, and to the presbyters of all the churches which are established within the Third Province, Leo, Victricius, and Eustochius, bishops. The powers of the age have so far prevailed in reverence for the priestly order that even those whom divine power has commanded to preside over the lands under the imperial name have permitted to holy bishops, according to the divine constitutions, the right of deciding cases. Although this has been confirmed both by the formulas of ancient law and by laws frequently enacted, we find that in the present time it has been trampled upon by many. For, setting aside the priestly judgment, they have everywhere passed over to secular examination. Therefore it has seemed to us that this insult to the sacred law and to our order should be avenged at present by full severity, and that a formula to be observed should be established for the future. We have thus decreed that whoever, setting aside the priest of his own church, comes to the judgment of seculars, shall be expelled from the sacred thresholds and barred from the celestial altar; nor shall anyone after this definition, which has been established by common consent, attempt to claim anything for himself beyond what is prescribed.

Thus it will come about that those who previously erred may correct themselves through fitting amendment, and that anyone who is proven to serve the celestial office under clerical observance shall know himself to be cast out from the clergy if, having set aside the judgment of priests, he has recourse to secular authority. We have wished that each and every one recognize this, so that what has been established by the full order of justice and law may obtain the effect of complete firmness in all the affairs of clerics. Indeed, if a layman brings a charge against a cleric, let him first demand to be heard by the bishop; then, if he sees that the layman opposes his petition, he may, with the permission of his own bishop, contend in the court of the secular magistrate. I, Leo the bishop, have subscribed. I, Victorius the bishop, have subscribed. I, Eustochius the bishop, have subscribed. ADMONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE. In two Vatican manuscripts, XVIII and B. 58, as well as in the much older Vatican Palatine 277, there is exhibited a Sentence of Pope Leo on the Apocryphal Scriptures. This sentence, attributed to Leo from the codex of the Herovallian collection, was published by James Petit after Theodore's Penitential, and then from the aforementioned Palatine manuscript by our fellow citizen P. Joseph Blanchinius in volume I of the Vindiciae Canonicae Scripturarum, page 405, who also gave a specimen of the character, referring to about the eighth century, on page 295. The first chapter of this sentence is indeed taken from Leo's letter 15 to Turribius, chapter 15. The second chapter, however, does not have Leo as its author.

Moreover, the variations of this second chapter in the esteemed manuscripts are significant. For the older Palatinus codex contains many things that are absent in the three other manuscripts. In these, a general form of sanction is introduced in the first chapter, by which books corrupted by heretics are forbidden to be read in the Church; in the second, shorter chapter, it is decreed concerning the reading of the books of the orthodox Fathers. In the Palatine manuscript, however, the first chapter, taken more precisely from Leo, forbids that books corrupted by Priscillian be read under the name of canonical codices; the second chapter, moreover, sets forth the order in which the canonical books are to be read according to the rite of the Basilica of Saint Peter, which seems to have been taken from some very ancient Roman order. For that order, which is placed under Gelasius’s decree on apocrypha in Burchard, book III, chapter 222, and in Gratian, distinction 15, chapter 3, § 82, although it agrees in many respects, is nevertheless more abundant and more recent. Then, in the Palatine manuscript, a few things are added concerning the reading of the books of the holy Fathers, which differ not a little from the text of the other manuscripts. We will present the reading of the older Palatine codex, and the variants of the others will be indicated in the annotations.

LETTER IV. OR THE SENTENCE OF POPE LEO Concerning Apocryphal Scriptures. Therefore care must be taken, and provision made with priestly diligence, that false codices and those discordant from sincere truth be used in no reading whatsoever. Apocryphal Scriptures, which under the names of the apostles contain many seeds of falsehoods, are not only to be forbidden, but also to be utterly removed and burned with fire. For although there are in them some things which seem to have an appearance of piety, yet they are never free from poisons; and through the allurements of fables they work secretly so that, having seduced by the narration of marvels, they entangle those led astray in the snares of some error or other. Hence if any bishop has not forbidden apocryphal works to be held, or has permitted those books which are the Priscillianist ones, vitiated by adulterine emendation, to be read in church under the name of canonical codices, let him know that he is to be judged a heretic: because he who does not recall others from error demonstrates that he himself errs.

CHAPTER II.— Moreover, all divine Scripture of the holy Canon is read from the beginning of the year to its end in the church of St. Peter in this order. In the spring season, that is, seven days before the beginning of Lent until the eighth day before Easter, the five books of Moses are read, together with Joshua son of Nun and Judges. And seven days before Easter, the book of the prophet Isaiah, where it comes to the passion of Christ, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. On the days of Easter, the epistles of the apostles and the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse are read until Pentecost. In the summer season, the books of Kings and Chronicles are read until the middle of autumn, that is, the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November: then the book of Solomon, and of Women, and of Maccabees, and the book of Tobit until the Kalends of December. Before the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel are read until the Epiphany. Afterwards, indeed, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets, and Job are read until the Ides of February. The Psalms are read at all times. The Gospel and the Apostle are read similarly. The treatises of St. Jerome, Ambrose, and the other Fathers are read as the order requires.

A WARNING CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING LETTER. The letter of Turribius of Astorga to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, which Quesnellus published among the Leonine letters after Leo’s letter to Turribius, is called into suspicion by Stephanus Baluzius (see vol. IV of the Councils, p. 731) and by several others. But the antiquity of the codex of St. Æmilianus, from which it was first brought forth by Ambrosius Morales, sufficiently vindicates it, as we will show at greater length in our observations on Quesnellus’s notes on St. Leo’s letter to Turribius. Other objections which might be brought forward will be easily refuted, so that we believe this letter, no less than the booklet against the Priscillianists, which is recognized as having been sent together with this letter to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, was written by Turribius before his episcopate. Hence Idatius and Ceponius are understood to have been bishops older than Turribius; whence Idatius, in the year 445, names himself before Turribius. The same booklet, together with the same letter prefixed to it, seems to have been sent later to Leo, so that from this letter the holy pontiff, understanding the antiquity and merit of Idatius and Ceponius, judged them at the end of the letter to be especially suitable to join more effective labor to the younger bishop Turribius, so that a synod of Gallaecia might be convoked against the Priscillianists.

LETTER V. SAINT TURIBIUS OF ASTORGA. On not receiving apocryphal Scriptures into the authority of the faith, and on the sect of the Priscillianists. To the holy, most blessed, and with all veneration to be revered bishops Idacius and Ceponius, Turibius. Pilgrimage is always troublesome and unpleasant. The whole letter of Turibius should be brought forth here. But since it was printed after Leo’s letter XV, to the same Turibius, column 711, because we found it appended in the Quesnellian edition which we used, we refer the readers to that place, lest it be repeated twice. A WARNING CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING LETTER. Concerning the letter of Julian of Cos to Leo Augustus, Quesnellus prefaced this. To the letters of Leo the Great we subjoin the only surviving letter of Julian, bishop of Cos, not only for the sake of filling an empty page, but also on account of the close relationship which existed between the two pontiffs. This was especially evident in the cause of the faith, which one defended from the watchtower of the apostolic see in the Western parts especially, and the other as vicar of apostolic solicitude in the Eastern parts. Liberatus the Deacon has the argument of the letter in the chapter of his Breviary where he relates that Leo Augustus, in order to restrain the heretics who were importunately demanding that a new synod be gathered, wrote to the bishops of individual cities, consulting them on what ought to be done concerning both matters, either concerning the ordination of Timothy or concerning the decrees of the synod of Chalcedon.

Those who reply that the Council of Chalcedon is to be avenged to the point of bloodshed, because it held no other faith than that which the Council of Nicaea established. But that Timothy is not only not to be counted among the bishops, but even to be deprived of the name Christian. You have this judgment of all in one letter of Julian, which ought by no means to have been separated from the eighteen (now twenty) letters which Leo wrote to him. Moreover, the same Quesnellus, in his dissertation 1, to the year 457, thinks that this letter was written by Julian to Coius, whence he infers his return to his own Church from this letter; and he believes that he no longer remained at Constantinople after the death of Marcian. But these things are falsely inferred from the letter now published for the first time to Julian himself, and also from letters 152, written under Leo Augustus in the year 457, in which it is openly assumed that he still remained at Constantinople, and that he even gave letters to Saint Leo about the disturbances stirred up at Constantinople after the assumption of the new emperor, to which the holy pontiff replied in letter 144. That Julian would have abandoned the vicariate and care entrusted to him by the same pontiff without his consent is incredible, especially since other difficult circumstances demanded his diligence. Nor can it be believed that Aetius was substituted for Julian as if he had already left Constantinople and laid down the office committed to him; for both to Julian and to Aetius on the same kalends of September of the year.

The surviving letters of Leo number 153, in which the care of both for the faith is stirred up. Nor should the inscription of the letter to Julianus move you; since, as it is inscribed in the Grimanic manuscript also "to the presbyter Aetius" as an equal, it is believed to have been sent to Aetius as well by the same copy, for the reason that it was uncertain to the pontiff whether Julianus was staying at Constantinople. For we suspect that both that epigraph and "to the presbyter Aetius as an equal" omitted in the Ratisbon codex should be deleted, and we have conjectured in the annotation (Col. 1115, n. h) on epistle 147 that another letter was delivered to Aetius perhaps on the same day. But if the holy pontiff in this letter complains that Julianus had not written on that occasion when Anatolius had sent letters to the same pontiff, this rather presumes him still residing at Constantinople: but he perhaps omitted to write for this reason, because he had written about nearly the same matter a little before, and knew that Anatolius had given more complete letters. A delegation and substitution of Aetius in Julianus's place is nowhere indicated. That in the following years no other letters to Julianus are found, while many others certainly written are missing, this argument is weak, so that Julianus is believed to have left Constantinople and to have abandoned his office, which the cause of the faith still required. Since moreover the same Julianus is recorded as a subscriber to the synod of Constantinople under Gennadius, successor of Anatolius, around the year (Tom. V Conc. p.

up to this time it seems quite probable that it remained in the same city. Among those to whom Leo Augustus sent the encyclical of which we spoke in the admonition to letter 156 was Julianus, to whom, although he was residing in Constantinople, that encyclical could be directed, just as it is found inscribed to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. But since all the others to whom that same imperial letter was sent were at least metropolitans, only Julianus, a simple bishop of Coa, lacked this rank. However, this demonstrates his particular esteem on account of his distinguished actions against the Eutychians. This was preserved for us in the encyclical codex by Epiphanius Scholasticus, who, besides the autograph letter of Leo, which a Western man could easily find and insert, translated the other letters from Greek; and for this reason this letter of Julianus is not the original itself, but a version from the Greek: for the entire encyclical codex was published in Greek. Baluzius, after Surius, published this codex collated with several manuscripts, and its variants were useful to us.

LETTER VI. JULIAN, BISHOP OF COS, TO THE EMPEROR LEO. To the most pious and most faithful, victor and triumphator LEO, prince and perpetual Augustus, JULIAN, humble bishop of Cos. I, my lord, emperor beloved of Christ, perceiving in my mind that most wise admonition which says, "Know thyself," wished to rest in silence and to await the judgment of the greater Fathers. For equality of summons does not preserve an equal effect in matters, but when compulsion agrees with the summons, then the likeness of names also possesses the immutable truth of things. Nevertheless, since your Tranquillity has commanded us to consult concerning each chapter contained in the petitions of the God-beloved fellow priests of the Egyptian diocese, I make known the manifest will of my littleness, being sorrowful and drenched with showers of tears, not knowing what to say, lamenting the captivity and destruction of piety, and especially the unexpected death of the pontiff. For those things which were committed in the city of Alexandria, from the narration itself, declare the passion of the mind, and provoke only your equity to the vengeance of such a crime. For constituted as you are to govern the orb of the lands, hastening with the utmost zeal to heal the sickness of indiscipline leading to destruction, not unsheathing the sword for slaughter, but by the word of threat leading the undisciplined regularly to the will of obedience.

Therefore, the holy canons, which the abominable Timotheus has repeatedly rejected through his tyranny, confusing ecclesiastical discipline and inflicting injuries, have more clearly explained the sentence that he has incurred against himself, having become an enemy of the whole of Christianity in some way. For caught in such matters, he ought to experience your justice alone, since, as is contained in the petitions, the power of ecclesiastical sanctions does not suffice for the magnitude of his crimes. I also disclose to your power what I am known to think about the holy Council of Chalcedon. For this in no way departs from the truth, because it confirmed the faith handed down by the holy and blessed three hundred and eighteen Fathers with harmonious will and divine inspiration; it did not celebrate a vain exposition, nor a duality of the only-begotten Son of God, nor any novelty, but in all things it also agrees with the holy Council of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, and likewise with the Council of Ephesus, over which the thrice-blessed and most holy Fathers Celestine, pontiff of the city of Rome, and Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, presided. Therefore we beseech your power that you inviolably preserve those things which have been well established by Christ through him and concerning him. For where such a great multitude of pontiffs was gathered, with the holy Gospels present and frequent prayer, there we believe that the maker of all creation was present by an invisible power.

There was then no terror of imperial authority: for Marcianus, of holy and pious memory, crowned with the diadem of divine love, also taking up spiritual care, hastened to have the doctrines of the apostles confirmed by the bishops of the Church, kindled by the desire of orthodox faith. Whom when your Piety imitates, you both gain victory against the barbarians and also destroy the enemies of truth. Julianus, humble bishop, having defined, has reported. WARNING ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER. The letter of Eutyches to Saint Leo, among the Leonine letters 21, with the other documents, also annexed to it, after the death of Flavianus, or after the year 449, was sent by a certain nobleman to some expert, so that he might set forth what he thought concerning those matters. Which that expert believed should be refuted, together with the censure itself, were added as an Appendix to the documents pertaining to the Nestorian heresy, which Lupus and Baluzius published from the Codex Casinensis, and are found reprinted in volume IV of the Councils, page 499. The letter of Eutyches and the other fragments, which are called to judgment by the anonymous author, we have already presented as letter 21. Now we present the refutation itself, which, since it makes no mention of the Council of Chalcedon, seems to have been written before that Council, namely around the year 450. We present the title itself from the same Codex Casinensis.

LETTER VII. A letter, with the name suppressed, to a certain old man desiring to know what Eutyches thought contrary to the Catholic faith. Your nobility sent me a copy of the little book on the new exposition of the faith by Eutyches, which he set forth in writing to the most blessed pope of the apostolic see, Leo. You also deigned to write, so that if I thought anything about it, I might indicate it in a letter of my humility. This indeed you yourself, out of zeal for the holy, have affectionately deigned to enjoin; but for me, having a trembling mind and a heart filled with fear, it seems perilous to approach this question, with the teacher and enlightener of the gentiles, the apostle Paul, commanding and generally warning and saying: "Avoid foolish and unlearned questions and contentions and fights of the law. They are useless and vain." Nevertheless, with the prayers of the same most blessed apostle Paul, with the Lord and God Jesus Christ helping, I shall approach what my rustic speech and slender understanding can manage; not as the greatness and majesty of the faith demands, but as the weak powers of my humility allow. Therefore, when I ran through the aforementioned copy of the letter or little book on the faith of Eutyches, among other things in the text of his words I found where he complains that he was required by the holy council of bishops to confess two natures in Christ. If, consulting his own continence and the labors of his ancient chastity, he had wished to confess, he would never have suffered danger to the judgment of his faith.

But because he was unwilling to confess two natures in Christ in one person of Christ according to the tradition of the apostles, prophets, or Gospels, at the very harbor of his departure he not only suffered shipwreck of the labors of his own continence, but also disturbed the faith of the churches long and well founded throughout the world, and to the height of his perfidy he killed the blessed bishop Flavianus, a venerator of Christ and a faithful preacher of the true faith. And he indeed, in times of peace, with no public persecution existing, receiving the crown of martyrdom, now glories with his blessed master the apostle Paul and says: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. For the rest, the crown of justice remains, which the Lord, the just judge on that day, will give to me, and not only to me, but to all who love his manifestation. And while he glories with all the saints in the Lord, it is necessary for us, if we are worthy to follow his footsteps and the tradition of faith through which he merited a glorious end, to hold with all the strength of faith and unto death, and to confess two natures in one person of Christ: of divinity and humanity, of the creating and the created, of the assuming and the assumed, which substances or natures, however, are not confused but united, and in one and the same person inseparably, and always remain in their own property.

Therefore, the properties proper to each substance must be assigned accordingly: that is, the weaknesses of humanity, which was created, to the human nature, and not the mutable attributes to the divinity, which created. For these two natures are so united and joined together in the one person of Christ that the same Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God and man, sometimes does or says human things, sometimes divine. For finally, to show in himself the substances of the two natures, that is, of divinity and humanity, while sailing he sleeps in the ship as a man, and commands the storm, the raging wind, and the sea as God, saying: "Be still, be silent." And after a fast of forty days and nights, he hungers as a man, and in the wilderness he refreshes five thousand men, besides infants and women, with five loaves and two fishes as God. And what more? Crucified by the Jews and pierced with a lance in his side, he dies as a man, and raises the four-days-dead Lazarus from the tomb as God, with divine authority saying: "Lazarus, come forth." Therefore, lord, the tradition of these two natures in Christ is to be firmly guarded, lest, confounding them into one with Eutyches and his other followers, we hold to a new path of uncertain faith.

For they very well disdain you, because everything that is known to be confused, obscure, and uncertain: since, as can be understood, they seem to confound the very natures of Divinity and humanity into one with imprudent sense, so that, not separating the substance of humanity from the nature of Christ’s Divinity, they pronounce God passible by that very word. For then the letter which Eutyches says is of Julius, once bishop of the city of Rome, and which he brought forth, perhaps falsely, for the solace of his perfidy, and by whose perverse sense he is known to be led, in its very final text thus professes, saying: Therefore those who think thus do not exceed, from those who think inconsistently and contrarily, so that when they agree with divine precepts in mind, they disagree in words. For it is necessary that they, when they understand two natures, worship one, not adore the other, and be baptized into the divine indeed, but not be baptized into the human. You see, therefore, how, attacking and confounding the substance of the two natures, they attempt with perfidious sense to pronounce God passible. But we, who hold the straight path of catholic faith, having set aside this confusion of the two natures, baptized into the Lord’s flesh, adore it for that reason, because it was assumed by the Divinity and so united to it that we confess not one and another, but one and the same God and man, the Son of God.

For if Eutyches or the others who agree with him prepare a man apart from Christ as God, we never adore or serve that man. Or if someone finds our purple robe or royal diadem lying on the ground, would he attempt to adore it? But as soon as the king has put it on, he incurs the danger of death if he has disdained to adore it together with the king. Thus, if anyone disdains to adore the perfect humanity of our Lord Christ—not alone and naked, but united to His Divinity, one and the same Son of God, true God and true man—he will incur eternal death. Next follows the statement of Julius, by whose reasoning Eutyches is led, and he says: “But if they are baptized into the death of the Lord, we profess one nature of the impassible Deity and of the passible flesh.” I would like to understand more fully how they speak of “flesh.” If this flesh is without a soul, what is that flesh but earth without sensation, which could neither give thanks nor feel the pains of the cross? That flesh without a soul cannot feel is manifest to all. But if, as they think, in that Lordly flesh the Divinity served as the soul, then they subject the Divinity to passions. But if, as the most faithful reasoning of the Scriptures truly holds, He assumed a human soul together with the flesh, then the perfect God assumed the perfect nature of man, so that He showed that He assumed a human soul together with human flesh, that is, a perfect man.

He says: "The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. And I have the power to lay down my life, and again I have the power to take it up." And in that very moment of his passion he says: "My soul is sad unto death," and: "Now my soul is troubled." For God is never troubled, but certainly that man who hungered, who thirsted, who slept, who was weary and wept: all of which the flesh alone could not have felt without the affections of the soul, unless that perfect man, whom the perfect God assumed, had experienced them, as the prophet Jeremiah says: "This is our God; no other shall be compared to him: he who found every path of discipline and gave it to his servant Jacob, and to his beloved Israel." And he added: "After this he was seen on earth, and he conversed with men." But in what form he was seen on earth and conversed, the most holy of the prophets, Isaiah, explains most fully and openly: "Lord, who believed our hearing, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? We announced before him as children, like a root in thirsty ground. He has no beauty nor glory. We saw him, and he had no beauty nor comeliness; but his form was without honor, and abject before all men. A man placed in affliction, knowing how to bear infirmities, and he was accounted as nothing. He bears our sins, and grieves for us. We thought him to be in pain and in affliction and in torment.

But was he himself wounded because of our sins, and did he become weak because of our iniquities? By the teaching of our peace in him, we have been healed by his bruise. All of us have strayed like sheep, and all men have wandered from their way. And the Lord gave him up for our sins. But he, ill-treated, kept his lips closed, and was led like a sheep to the slaughter. And like a lamb before its shearer without a sound, so he did not open his mouth. His judgment was taken away in humility. But who has recounted his generation? Because his life will be taken from the earth, and by the iniquities of my people he was given over to death. And I will give empty things for his burial, and rich things for his death. For he committed no iniquity, nor was deceit found in his mouth. And the Lord wishes to cleanse him from the wound. If you give your souls for sin, you will see the seed of long life, and the Lord wishes to kindle his soul, to show him light, to form prudence, to justify the just man, who serves many well. And he himself bore their sins. Therefore he himself will possess many as an inheritance, and will share in the spoils of the strong. Because his soul was given over to death, and he was counted among the wicked. And he himself takes away the sins of many, and was given over because of our iniquities.

Therefore, my lord, according to the zeal of your holy mind, consider how the aforementioned prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, in agreement with each other, assert how the perfect God, descending from heaven for the salvation of the human race, took on a man, and how Isaiah assigns the previously mentioned sufferings of each nature to that man taken on in Christ. For could the God who is invisible be incomprehensibly seized, or handed over to enemies, or counted among the impious, or die, or his life be taken from the earth? But certainly that one who, as we have already said above, hungered, thirsted, was weary, slept, and wept, who also, hanging on the cross of passion, when he saw the God dwelling in him departing from his body, cried out after him with a tearful voice, saying in the Hebrew language: "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is: "My God, why have you forsaken me?" although he was to revive him on the third day. Yet it was necessary that what Jesus had already foretold in the Gospel be fulfilled, saying to his disciples: "I came from God, I came forth from the Father, and I entered this world, and again I leave this world and go to the Father." Indeed, even in that passion itself, although the perfect man, taken on by the perfect God, suffers an impious punishment dying on the cross, yet the impassible God himself, in that same perfect man taken on by him, although he did not undergo the passion, nevertheless suffered the injury.

Just as one who tears a garment does injury to the one wearing it, so also those who crucified His flesh inflicted injury upon His Divinity. Therefore, all the elements, seeing this injury to the Divinity, were terrified. For indeed the earth trembled, rocks were split, the sun fled into night, the moon was darkened with a blood-red color, and as if the world were already oppressed by perpetual condemnation, stars torn from their celestial places fell, the law of the elements was confounded, and tombs opened, and bodies long buried received back their souls. For this reason, therefore, the most faithful Catholic doctors throughout the whole world, according to the authority of the Scriptures, preach two natures in Christ, of Divinity and of humanity. (Would that Eutyches had considered this), and had not, with open eyes, plunged himself into the labors of so many years of continence, nor brought forth impious disturbance to the Churches of the East through confused substances of the two natures, pronouncing God passible. But since in this matter the Apostle Paul completes his statement, saying: "Because in the last times some will depart from the faith," yet he warns us solicitously, saying: "Beware of seductive spirits in the hypocrisy of liars, who have a cauterized conscience.

For unless, according to the Apostle’s saying, he had a cauterized and uncertain conscience of his own faith, he would never have stirred up such great confusion in the Churches of God, making the holy three hundred and eighteen Fathers of the Council of Nicaea, as well as Cyril and the holy bishops, companions of his perfidy: who, not by following his perfidy, but by teaching the faith set forth above by my humility, are numbered among the saints and elect of God in the number and book of the living. But in order to deceive the simple and the unskilled and to draw their minds to himself and unite them, he pretends that the aforementioned men, the authors and preachers of the Catholic faith, are companions of his new and most recent perfidy. Truly in this Eutyches the Apostle’s saying is fulfilled: “Such false apostles, deceitful workers, transfigure themselves into apostles of Christ.” And it is no wonder. For Satan himself transfigures himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not a great thing if his ministers are transfigured as ministers of righteousness: whose end is according to their operation.

According to this saying of the Apostle, therefore, since he is a minister of perfidy, he pretends to be a companion of the ministers of justice, from whom he did not hold the aforesaid (not) of our faith, and he set forth the reason taught by himself; among whose disciples and most beloved faithful sons of the faith I desire your nobility to be enrolled together with me, so that, if we are worthy, following the footsteps of their faith, we may deserve to obtain mercy by our prayers at the future judgment from the triune majesty of the one piety, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen. LETTER VIII. Or FRAGMENT OF THE ACTS OF THE SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE held in the year 450, in which the letter of St. Leo to Flavian was read and received, from the Life of St. Abundius, Bishop of Como. Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, having received the letter of St. Leo the Pope for the confirmation of the Catholic faith against the madness of the heretics, gathered a council of all the bishops, archimandrites, presbyters, and deacons; and before the sight of all, the letter of St.

The letter of Pope Leo, which the blessed Abundius presented before all: with the concordant testimonies of the Roman Fathers and the Greeks, Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, gave his full devotion and subscribed to this letter of Saint Pope Leo containing the truth of the Catholic faith, with the testimonies of the Fathers also agreeing, decreed (or sent) by the same apostolic see, pronouncing anathema against Eutyches and Nestorius, and against their dogma itself together with their followers. All the bishops, presbyters, archimandrites, and deacons who were present did the same.

Soon after, the holy Abundius, the bishops Asterius, and the presbyters Basil and Senator said: Thanks be to Almighty God, because we have learned the professions of the reverend bishops, presbyters, archimandrites, deacons, and the entire clergy, that they profess the right faith handed down by the Fathers, as the subscription of the same inserted in the present acts declares. Therefore we also, since we have found that all demand and expect this, in accordance with the assertion of the venerable man Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, and the opinion of Flavian, bishop of blessed memory, or the assent of Pope Leo, who sent us from Rome to make known the catholic faith to all, pronounce anathema upon Eutyches, and upon all who follow his perfidy, and who say that in Christ there were two natures before the incarnation, but only one nature after the incarnation: whereas the catholic faith confesses that before the incarnation there was only one nature of the Word, and after the incarnation two, that is, of the Word and of a perfect man, remaining in one person, with the properties of each nature unconfused. We also pronounce anathema upon Nestorius, who (as is read) long ago disseminated his insane dogma, saying that the Lord Jesus Christ was born from the Virgin Mary as man only, and not also as God, and upon his followers who persist in such perversity. For which reason it is fitting, for the confirmation of the subscription, that the holy brotherhood which is present likewise pronounce anathema upon the same, and upon all who follow their doctrine.

ADMONITION Concerning the following session, the previously unpublished text of the Council of Chalcedon: the Greek codices of the Council of Chalcedon from the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, and 555, are more ample than those which the Roman editors used. Gaps in the Greek are marked with dots at the beginning of the session in the same codices, so that in the third lacuna noted in volume IV of the Venetian Council edition, page 1357, entire pages are filled with the names of bishops, which are missing from the ancient Latin version itself. Also supplied are the names of bishops at the beginning of the 6th session, which are absent from the published Greek and are read only in the ancient Latin translation; and for that reason those words—"and the other most holy and most religious bishops"—are omitted, since they have no place when the complete list of bishops is recited. In the session concerning Sabinianus, bishop of the Perrheni, which is the 15th in the Venetian codices, the published Greek text presents only certain names, which are entirely absent from the ancient version; moreover, the same codices add many names, and only through a skip by the ancient scribe were certain intermediate names omitted. The same thing happened in the session which is the 16th in the published texts, but the 17th in the same manuscripts; for the names which are presented in the ancient interpretation, but are absent from the published Greek, can be drawn from the cited codices, as can other matters which will become clear to those who compare them.

What, however, is found to be especially important in these is an action hitherto unknown, in which Pope Leo’s letter 93 was read. This above all confirms the opinion that in the Greek codices of the Council of Chalcedon not all the actions were collected, and that from the fact that some action is missing in one or several Greek codices, that action cannot be rejected. Thus the action concerning the Lord is not read in our Greek codices nor in the Roman ones, and it was also missing in that copy from which the ancient version came; but it was found in the manuscript of Patricia Julia by Rusticus. The action concerning Photius, bishop of Tyre, which was absent from the copies of the ancient translator and of Rusticus, is found in the Greek Roman codices and in our codices at the end of the other actions, just as it was in the codex which Balsamon cites. So also the Greek codices which are known of the Council of Ephesus lack several actions, which, since they survive from the ancient version, were found in some ancient Greek codex. Why this happened is excellently explained by Baluze in the preface to the ancient version of the Synod of Chalcedon, numbers and 41. Indeed, that this unpublished action, which only the Venetian codices supplied, cannot be called into question, besides the authority of the manuscripts, is made manifest from the fact that, according to the custom of all councils, the letters of the supreme pontiff to the council were always read. Therefore this action, which pertains especially to our Saint Leo, will close the appendix.

Since, however, mention of the usefulness of the Greek manuscripts of St. Mark’s occurs at this point, we consider another observation will be welcome, which we extract from another Greek codex of the same Venetian library, marked with a number. In this, which contains part of the Acts of Chalcedon, the canons of the same council are written out, each canon being assigned a number from 3 etc. up to 27, because these canons were established in one and the same session. Then, after the last canon, a line is drawn indicating the end of the canons, and after a certain interval three other additional canons are subjoined without any numerical notation, which in the Greek collections of canons alone are presented together with the rest, and all together make up 30 canons, as they have been published from the Greek collections and collectors of canons in volume IV of the Councils, page 1691. The first canon, which in the printed editions is the 28th, decrees the privileges of the see of Constantinople, and is expressed in the same words as in the printed editions, and is taken from the last session. But the other two canons are more extensive than in the printed editions. For the canon which in the printed editions is excerpted from the session concerning Photius, metropolitan of Tyre, begins from the words of the same session, page 1440 D, etc., up to the point where the petition of the judges necessary for understanding the canon is expressed. Then are subjoined the interlocutions of the legates of the apostolic see and of Anatolius, from which the printed canon is compiled. Finally, the approval of the synod from the same session, page

Canon 30 in the Vulgate, however, poorly arranged from the act, begins in our codex with the interlocution of the judges and senate at page 1407 D, and with the appended interlocution of Paschasinus, legate of the apostolic see, the opinion of the same judges and senate is concluded up to page 1410 A. The same canons are read in the Greek collection of canons contained in the ancient codex of the Nineteen Monks of St. Basil at Rome, page 54. From these, what and whence these three additional canons are is known. LETTER IX. OR THE SIXTEENTH ACTION OF CHALCEDON. Now published for the first time from the Greek manuscripts of the Venetian Library of St. Mark’s, 555, of the twelfth century, and of the fourteenth century, in which the letter of St. Leo to the same synod was read.

In the consulship of our lord Marcian, always Augustus, and of the one who will be announced, on the day before the Kalends of November, at Chalcedon, in accordance with the command of our most divine and most pious lord Marcian, always Augustus, gathered in the most holy church of the holy martyr Euphemia, with the most magnificent and most glorious master of the 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; also assembling the most reverend bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the most reverend presbyter Boniface, holding the place of the most holy archbishop of senior Rome, Leo, and Anatolius, the most reverend archbishop of great Constantinople, and Maximus, the most reverend bishop of Antioch of Syria, and Juvenal, the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem, and Quintillus, the most reverend bishop of Heraclea of Macedonia, holding the place of the most holy archbishop of the Thessalonians, Anastasius, and Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, and Stephen, the most reverend bishop of Ephesus, and Lucian, the most reverend bishop of Byza, holding the place of the most God-beloved Cyriacus, bishop of Heraclea of Thrace, and Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Ancyra of Galatia, and Diogenes, the most reverend bishop of Cyzicus, and Peter, the most reverend bishop of Corinth, and Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, and Eunomius, the most reverend

Bishop of Nicomedia, and to Anastasius, the most reverend bishop of Nicaea, and to Julian, the most reverend bishop of Cos, who also holds the place of the Apostolic See of Rome, and to Eleutherius, the most reverend bishop of Chalcedon, and.

To Basil, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, and to Meletius, the most reverend bishop of Larissa, holding the place of the most reverend bishop Domnus of Apamea in Syria, and to Amphilochius, the most reverend bishop of Side, and to Theodore, the most reverend bishop of Tapsus, and to Cyrus, the most reverend bishop of Anazarbus, and to Constantine, the most reverend bishop of Bostra, and to Photius, the most reverend bishop of Tyre, and to Theodore, the most reverend bishop of Damascus, and to Stephen, the most reverend bishop of Hierapolis, and to Symeon, the most reverend bishop of Amida, and to Epiphanius, the most reverend bishop holding the place of the most reverend Olympius, bishop of Constantia, and to John, the most reverend bishop of Sebaste, and to Seleucus, the most reverend bishop of Amasia, and to Constantine, the most reverend bishop of Melitene, and to Patricius, the most reverend bishop of Tyana, and to Peter, the most reverend bishop of Gangra, and to Eustathius, the most reverend bishop of Berytus, and to Apragmonius, the most reverend bishop holding the place of the most reverend bishop Calogerus of Claudiopolis, and to Atarbius, the most reverend bishop of Trapezus, holding the place of Dorotheus, the most reverend bishop of Neocaesarea, and to Photinus, archdeacon, holding the place of Theoctistus, the most reverend bishop of Pessinus, and to Romanus, the most reverend bishop of Myra in Lycia, and to Nunechius, the most reverend bishop of Aphrodisias in Caria, and to Critonianus, the most reverend bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia, and to Marianianus, the most reverend bishop of Synnada, and to Onesiphorus

To the most reverend bishop of Iconium, and to Pergamius, the most reverend bishop of Antioch of Pisidia, and to Epiphanius, the most reverend bishop of Perga, and to Atticus, the most reverend bishop of Nicopolis of Epirus, and to Martyrius, the most reverend bishop of Gortyna, and to Lucius, the most reverend bishop of Dyrrhachium, and to Vigilantius, the most reverend bishop of Larissa of Thessaly, and to Franciso, the most reverend bishop of Philippopolis, and to Sebastian, the most reverend bishop of Beroea, and to Basil, the most reverend bishop of Trajanopolis, and to Tryphon, holding the place of John, bishop of Rhodes, of Chios, and to Theoctistus, the most reverend bishop of Beroea, and to Gerontius, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia of Syria, and to Eusebius, presbyter, holding the place of Macarius, bishop of Laodicea of Syria, and to Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Dorylaeum, and to the rest of the holy and ecumenical synod, which, according to the decree of our most divine and most pious lord, has been assembled in the city of the Chalcedonians. And with all sitting before the rails of the sacred altar, Boniface, presbyter, holding the place of the apostolic see of elder Rome, said: The apostolic bishop and of the apostolic faith of Rome, my lord Leo, has sent a letter to the most holy synod: order that it be received and read. The most glorious judges said: Let the letter of Leo, the most reverend archbishop of Rome, be read.

And with Julian, the most reverend bishop of the city of the Coans, also holding the place of the apostolic see, when the authentic Latin letter and the interpretation of the same were read by Constantinus, the most devoted secretary, as follows: Leo, bishop, to the holy synod assembled at Chalcedon, to his most beloved brothers in the Lord, greetings. They would indeed have wished... and the rest, as is read in letter 95, up to that point: Farewell well in the Lord, dearest brothers.