Appendix Secunda Ad Secundam Patrem Operum S. Leonis Magni / FRAGMENTA S. LEONI MAGNO ATTRIBUTA

APPENDIX TWO TO THE SECOND PART OF THE WORKS OF SAINT LEO THE GREAT ADMONITION- After the publication of the first volume of our edition, in which besides the Sermons the Letters of Saint Leo are also contained, corrected and emended especially according to the Roman codices, the second part of the Works of the same holy doctor, which presents his Letters recognized according to nearly the same codices, came to light from the Roman press of Joseph Collini. Concerning these codices, however, which served both our edition and the Roman edition, we consider it necessary to give one warning, lest anyone perhaps doubt our good faith in citing these same manuscript exemplars. In the preface of the Roman edition this admonition is read on page: In this our (edition) the indices of manuscripts, which are lacking in all others, appear to the learned reader: which we have done, led indeed by this reason, that we might remove all suspicion from the reader's mind that we have indulged in conjectures rather than religiously adhered to the readings and authorities of those same manuscript codices. Therefore, in the future, it will be entirely easy for anyone doubting our good faith to appeal to our indicated sources, and then to ascertain whether the variant readings, either annotated by us at the foot of any letter or monument, or introduced into the text, truly and sincerely correspond to those sources from which we have indicated they were drawn.

Comparing the Vatican codices indicated in the margin of each letter in this edition with those which we have cited in our own edition, we have discovered that in that Roman edition it is sometimes noted that this or that letter of Leo is found in certain Roman codices which most certainly lack them. For we have compiled a very exact catalogue of the letters described in each codex, on separate pages, lest confusion should creep in; and we are quite certain that no more or fewer letters of Leo are found in individual codices or manuscript collections than those which have been enumerated by us either in the preface or in the notes, as will be clear to those who consult the codices themselves. The Roman edition, however, not infrequently assigns codices to letters which are absent from them, and we can prove that this is due to a definite error from the same edition. In the notice of the manuscripts of the Vatican library, which is appended to the preface of the same edition, it is written on page that the Vatican codex contains forty-one letters of Leo; where one should read forty: for that codex belongs to the Spanish collection, which comprises only the Leonine letters exactly enumerated by us in the preface to the Letters, § 10, pages and 523. But in the edition of the Letters, besides the fact that the citation of this codex is omitted for ten letters which are read in it, the number of the same Vatican codex is attached to 45 letters.

of which sixteen are missing in the same codex, namely letters 24, 34, 35, 36, 39, 46, 48, 58, 98, 99, as well as one of Valentinian to Theodosius, of Marcian to Leo, of Pulcheria, of Ceretius and Salonius, and of the Synod of Chalcedon to the same pontiff, which in our edition are letters 54, 37, 38, 39, 62, 50, 51, 72, 67, 123, 124, 55, 73, and 98. In the same notice of manuscripts, page 65, sixteen letters of St. Leo are ascribed to the Vatican manuscript of the third collection, which indeed we have found in the same. But in the body of the edition, the number of that same codex is noted for twenty-one letters, so that, with the citation of it omitted for 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 of that edition 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 73, 81, 94, 95, 439, and the synodical letter of Ravenna and other Gauls to Leo; for us, letters 3, 2, 7, 18, 15, 93, 106, 115, 420, and 99. Similar errors occur in citing several other codices. Letters, for example, 24, for us 54, are noted in the margin of Vatican codices 1340, 1341, 1343, and 3791, although the same letter is found in one manuscript, 1340, and is lacking in the others. Letter 39, for us 41, which exists only in the Arelatensis collection, from which it was possible to find one Vallicellanus codex G. 99, is noted in the margin of Vatican codices 541, 542, and 1341, which pertain to other collections that have no part in that letter.

We forbear from reporting the same regarding other letters, since what has been indicated thus far suffices. Those errors seem attributable partly to the negligence of the copyists, and partly to the confusion of annotations in the notebooks, which would not present a separate description of each codex. But whether some similar error lies hidden in certain readings ascribed to this or that codex in the same edition, there was no leisure to examine. Certainly on page 1, note a, when it is reported that all the older and more notable Vatican codices, except for the Vatican Reg. 1997, have these words, "In the case of Bishop Lupicinus," there is a manifest error: for indeed the older and more notable codices cited in the margin, Fac. and 1342, not only lack those same words, but also in the body of the first epistle itself, no. 12, they omit that chapter which pertains to the case of Lupicinus. On page 62, note c, in the letter to Turribius, it is affirmed that the Vatican Reg. codex has *sentinam* when we read *sententiam* in the same place. On page 194, notes e and f, in epistle 47, no. 59, readings are adduced from codices Vat. and 4961, which, since they are of the Avellana collection, lack that same epistle: but those readings were found by us in the manuscripts of collection 21, to which the mss. codices Vat. and 543 belong, which you will find indicated together with the two aforementioned codices of the Avellana collection in the margin of the same edition. Other observations, which are not necessary for the vindication of our edition, we pass over.

Furthermore, in the same Roman edition, in which the distinguished author, expending much effort and labor, also took care to consult Greek manuscripts, we have found three Greek fragments previously unpublished, which we believed should be reprinted in this Appendix. The first was taken from Vatican Greek manuscript 120, of the tenth century, as is reported. This codex contains many small works and fragments of the Greek Fathers. Among these is read a part of a letter of Saint Leo to the Emperor Theodosius. Nothing could be conjectured from the style, since it is a Greek version. The substance of the fragment itself, however, is not at variance: for it exhibits the same right faith and doctrine which Leo taught. The author of the Roman edition judges that this fragment belongs to the letter which Leo indicates as letter 24, for us letter 54, to the same emperor, with these words: "But by me and by all catholic priests, that the piety of the evangelical faith be defended, has been sufficiently and clearly set forth in my letters, which I think your clemency has received through your servant Epiphanius the tribune, who was sent for this cause." He, however, judged this, deceived by the erroneous chronological notation of this letter, which in the published editions was marked as given on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, that is, before our letter 44 to the same emperor: whence by the recited words another letter, written from a synod of priests and now lost, seemed to be indicated. But this chronological note has been corrected from our excellent codex of Regensburg thus: on the eighth day before the Kalends of...

January, that is, December of the year 449, it immediately becomes clear from the aforementioned words that the same letter 44 is indicated, which indeed had long before the aforementioned letter 54, namely on the third day before the Ides, or the Ides of October of the same year, been given to the synod. What then? If this fragment, which is taken from a Greek miscellaneous collection, is to be entirely trusted, it is much more credible that Leo refers to it in letter 69, when he writes to the same emperor in chapter 2: "You may deign to recognize what the form of our faith is from the manifest instructions that we have sent." For this purpose, testimonies of the Fathers were sent by Leo to the East to be delivered to Theodosius, 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 Latin and Greek Fathers. See letter 71. But from this fragment, if it is genuine, another epistolary declaration seems to have been sent at the same time, directed to the emperor himself, which would be said to have been added to the testimonies of the Fathers and the instruction of the legates. Since, however, that letter is famous, and to this one alone the testimonies of the Fathers were subjoined in the ancient Greek manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection before the acts of this council, and no mention is made anywhere of any other Leonine declaration or, as it were, formula of faith to the emperor Theodosius, which after the publication of the dogmatic letter might seem superfluous, hence some suspicion, and not a light one, is cast upon this kind of fragment.

Whatever it may be, we will present the fragment itself in this appendix, just as it was published. The second is a fragment of a booklet by Saint Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, to Saint Leo, which was supplied by Vatican Greek Codex 431. In this fragment, a few somewhat more difficult points occur. Two parts are to be distinguished in it: the first, in which a booklet of the faith is set forth; the second, in which the proceedings concerning John and Gregory are described. In the first part, that is, in the booklet of faith, the dogmatic letter 28 of Leo is praised, in which two natures and one person are declared in Christ: "For into one person," it says, "just as Your Holiness teaches (in letter 28), two natures come together." This letter of Leo, however, was delivered to Flavian not at Constantinople, but at Ephesus, where Flavian had come to the council. For the legates of the pontiff, who had received the same letters to be carried, were compelled to proceed not to Constantinople but to Ephesus, because of the time of the announced council. Furthermore, the proceedings narrated in the latter part took place at Constantinople. For the condemnation of John and Gregory was carried out by Flavian, and the tumult of the people against them, not at Ephesus, nor at the time of the Robber Council of Ephesus, when the faction of the Eutychians prevailed, but at Constantinople, before the time of that same Robber Council, when Flavian, having condemned Eutyches, freely defended the Catholic faith, and the people favored him.

Nor can it be rejected after that same latrocinium: for at that time Flavian did not return to Constantinople, but was driven into exile and died on the very journey. See our note in epistle 53. Since, however, the first part of this fragment, in which mention is made of Leo’s letters, contains that creedal booklet which is recorded as having been read before these Constantinopolitan acts concerning John and Gregory (And when this booklet contained, AFTER IT WAS READ, etc.), that same booklet had also been written at Constantinople, before Flavian set out for Ephesus. How, then, could Leo’s epistle 28, which was only received by Flavian at Ephesus, be praised in it? Add that while this booklet was being read at Constantinople, Eutyches had already been deposed. But would Flavian, who had already deposed that man and deprived him of the dignity of archimandrite, have called him archimandrite in the booklet itself? Since the complete document from which this fragment was excerpted is lost, nothing certain can be affirmed. Lest, however, the mark of forgery be branded upon it, one may suspect that this fragment belongs to the appeal booklet of Flavian, which was written at Ephesus and handed over to Leo’s legates. In this, however, the creedal booklet that had been read at Constantinople is to be said to have been inserted, and the acts concerning John and Gregory likewise inserted. The words in which Leo’s epistle 28 is praised were added to that same booklet while it was being copied at Ephesus.

Then indeed Flavianus summoned Eutyches the archimandrite, because the latter, having been restored in the pseudo-synod, conducted himself as an archimandrite. The third fragment, taken from Vatican Greek Codex 1455, is a mere paraphrase of the eighth chapter of Leo’s epistle to Anastasius. FRAGMENT I. From Vatican Greek Codex 720. OF POPE LEO TO THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS, ON THE INCARNATION OF THE DIVINE WORD. An example of the interpretation of part of the epistle which Leo, bishop of Rome, 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 those like them. We believe that the Son of God, who is with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is from eternity and without external beginning, and that in the last ages he took upon himself a perfect man of our nature from Mary, always a virgin, and that the Word was made flesh by taking on man, neither changing the Divinity, nor, as some have impiously thought, having the Holy Spirit as seed; but through the power and wisdom of the Creator of all things we confess that Christ is one person of the Son, but two perfect and complete substances, of Divinity and of humanity, which consists of soul and body. We pronounce anathema against Photinus, who asserts that Christ is a mere and naked man; likewise against Apollinaris and those like him, who say that the Son of God took on something less than the full human nature.

either in the flesh, or in the soul, or in the mind, or in the assumption of humanity, and that he was unlike us in that which was assumed: we believe that man, without the sole stain of sin (which sin is not physical), was made of the same form as ours in all things. We also execrate the blasphemy of those who, by a novel invention, attempt to say that from the time of the assumption of flesh all things of the divine nature were changed into the human, and all things of the human into the divine, which no heresy has ever dared to assert. For by such a confession they claim that each nature, of divinity and humanity, has been changed into something else, and they do not confess the Son as either perfect God or perfect man according to the truth. But we say that our nature was assumed by the Son of God, the divinity remaining impassible: for the Son of God suffered, not in opinion but in reality, whatever Scripture testifies, that is, hunger, thirst, weariness, toil, death, and other things of this kind. However, he suffered according to that according to which he could suffer, that is, not according to the assuming nature, but according to the assumed nature. For the Son of God himself is impassible according to his divinity, just as the Father is invisible, just as the Father does not fall under touch, just as the Father is immutable.

For the Son's own person, the Word of God, assuming a passible man and dwelling in him, suffered nothing, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit: for we must confess the Trinity entirely impassible. When, therefore, the Son of God died according to the Scriptures, insofar as he was able to die, he rose from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the substance of his flesh remaining, in which he was born, and suffered, and rose again. For the substance of the humanity was not dissolved or changed, but, remaining in the Divinity, was glorified forever. FRAGMENT II. From Vatican Codex Graecus 451. FLAVIAN, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, TO SAINT LEO THE POPE. From the booklet which Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, wrote to Leo, the Roman pontiff, concerning the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God. The Word, he says, became flesh, and dwelt among us. But dwelling is one thing, and the dweller is another. I do not say one and another as of two persons, but different and different, as in two natures. For every evangelical and apostolic exhortation and testimony concerning Emmanuel is divided into two modes: sometimes indeed signifying his person alone, sometimes clearly declaring his two natures.

For there was a twofold nature, and He is one and only Son and Christ, and a twofold principle in Him, not before the union, but after the inexplicable conjunction: He was then perfect both in Divinity and in humanity. For if He were simple, how could He suffer and die? How could He be beaten, and fastened with nails, and struck with fists, unless in a passible body and earthly nature? Just as He is consubstantial with God the Father, being God, perfect from perfect, so also, having the same nature as us, He exists as 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. Therefore, the blows and the cross and death pertain to the man in whom the Lord God the Word is; but glory and power belong to the Lord, in whom the servant, that is, the man, exists. If, therefore, what cannot suffer pertains to the Divinity, but suffering is in the humanity, who among those thinking rightly would say that the two natures which are in Him are one? But if it is one, namely, a demigod God assumed flesh, and of a half nature, the man was assumed. Yet the pious decree does not teach this, which Eutyches the archimandrite rejected by proclaiming one nature of the uncreated Divinity and of the humanity of Christ, which is the same as ours. But the whole chorus of saints confesses Christ to be of a twofold substance, or nature, not however of a twofold subsistence, or person.

Into one person, as your holiness also teaches, two natures come together, which I have also said are preserved by immutable reason, and we confess them in Christ in an indivisible manner. For He is one and only begotten Son and Word of God, not because the two subsistences of that nature are different, but because the inexplicable Word has joined two natures into one subsistence: the interior indeed adorned by the divine Word with the sacrosanct body, the exterior guarded by the Spirit, so that from both it might show the clarity of the natures. For thus we say that He eats, not only before the passion, but also after He rose, we believe the nature of His body. For the body, against which heretics raise doubts, is called nature and substance; moreover, it is manifest that in the one Christ both natures, that is divine and human, are preserved, and in the divine indeed He received what was fitting for God, in our own again He brings forth the human and wretched, who has no stain, no confusion, no division concerning the natures, but exists as one Son and Christ and Lord and Savior for those who piously wish to believe in Him. Since this booklet contained these things, when it was read, they rejected, cast out, and anathematized what was written in it, both John and Gregory; after these were torn apart with curses and anathema, we brought forth in the midst the books of the holy Fathers, from which all the testimonies that exist in the booklet were taken. We also have them in

Prepared by hands, and from whatever response, explicit refutations; and when we had shown from their own books that it was not Flavianus who had been struck with curses and anathema, but the holy Fathers, the insignificant populace rose up, greatly despising, and almost wishing to overwhelm them with stones. This was a triumph and a disgrace, which John and his followers publicly suffered. FRAGMENT III. From Vatican Greek ms. 1455. POPE LEO TO ANASTASIUS, BISHOP OF THESSALONICA. Leo, bishop of Rome, to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica. If any bishop, having scorned the insignificance of his own city, should pass over to the ministry of a more illustrious place, and by foolish counsel transfer himself to a greater people, then he shall be expelled from the alien see, and also deprived of his own, so that he may preside neither over those whom he coveted out of desire, nor over those whom he despised out of pride. Let each one, therefore, be content with his own boundaries, and not desire to increase the measure of his authority. Know, dearest brother, that there is one kind of passing from city to city based on necessity and utility, and another based on temerity, self-will, or private pleasure; but it is for necessity and utility that a transfer is made. For one ought to prefer the utility of many to the utility or will of one; for it is one thing to pass over, another to be transferred: the former is to cross over voluntarily, the latter to proceed under compulsion and unwillingly.

Therefore, these men do not change the city, but are changed: for they do this not of their own accord, but by force inflicted upon them. They are therefore ignorant of the ecclesiastical canons, who deny that it cannot be done for the sake of utility and necessity, whenever common necessity and utility advise it.