Leo the Great, Letters

(m) continued from col 750, set in n750

(a) ‹turbae quae› · printed under col 751

Editi et plerique codd., propter eum. Emendavimus ex antiquissimo ms. Veronen., cui et Graecus textus cohaeret.

The editions and most manuscripts: propter eum. We have emended from the very ancient Verona manuscript, with which the Greek text also agrees.

(b) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 751

Al. 22. Quae autem antea 27 erat, nunc 51. Scripta 21 Maii an. 449.

Elsewhere 22. And what was formerly 27 is now 51. Written 21 May, in the year 449.

(c) ‹AD FLAVIANUM› · printed under cols 751–752

Edita fuit haec epistola a Quesnello ex codice Grimanico, eamque nullibi in nostris mss. reperire potuimus.

This letter was published by Quesnel from the Grimani manuscript, and we have been able to find it nowhere in our manuscripts.

(d) ‹tuae dilectionis› · printed under col 752

Intelligit epistolam 22, quam primo scriptam a Flaviano in admonitione eidem praemissa ostendimus.

He means Letter 22, which we showed, in the admonition placed before it, to have been the first written by Flavian.

Synopsis. — Flavianmm de receptis ejus litteris monet; gesta per eum adversus Eutychem laudat; sollicitudinem suam spondet.

Synopsis. — He informs Flavian of the receipt of his letters; he praises what was done by him against Eutyches; he pledges his own care.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Inter omnia Romanorum pontificum decreta fidei, celeberrima est sequens S. Leonis ad Flavianum epistola, qua tota de Incarnatione controversia exacte discussa ac definita, contrariisque Nestorii et Eutychetis erroribus proscriptis, catholica doctrina ita accurate nedum sententiis, sed etiam vocibus declarata invenitur, ut quidquid in ea scriptum est, ex apostolica et evangelica probetur sumptum esse doctrina (Epist. 152). Jam S. Flavianus, cui explorata erat apostolicae sedis auctoritas, praemonuerat, rem hanc, Eutyche post Constantinopolitanum judicium turbas commovente, solo indigere pontificio impulsu atque subsidio quo cuncta ad tranquillitatem et pacem statim transferrentur (Epist. 26). Enimvero ut primum transmissa in Orientem, post Ephesinum latrocinium, in quo per fraudem et vim suppressa fuerat ne legeretur, in lucem edita est, mox suscepta et subscripta fuit ab omnibus, ita ut haberetur universim tamquam regula fidei ac veluti lydius lapis ex quo catholici ab haereticis discernerentur. Ita porro apparuit pontificiam definitionem sufficere, nec opus esse generali concilio, ut Flaviauus etiam monuerat (Epist. 26), cum etiam sine concilio, et antequam haberetur synodus Chalcedonensis, tota Ecclesia illam susceperit, eidemque episcopi suas subscriptiones apposuerint, non ut vim et auctoritatem illi adjicerent, sed ut se catholicos probarent, et ne, si renuerent, haeretici haberentur. Jam enim vulgatum fuerat, quod postea omnes reverendissimi episcopi clamaverunt in Chalcedonensi, act. 4, pag. 1403: Qui non consentit epistolae sanctissimi episcopi Leonis, haereticus est. Porro in eodem concilio, quo Ephesini latrocinii gesta rescindenda erant, maximis cum laudibus suscepta fuit act. 2 et 4, eoque honore habita ac si ab ipso Petro edita fuisset: quod et antequam ederetur. Petrus Chrysologus apostolicae auctoritatis callentissimus, observandum ac tenendum praedixerat epist. 25. Nihil pro apostolicarum definitionum auctoritate illustrius hoc totius Ecclesiae ac generalis synodi testimonio, quod Petrum in successoribus viventem et loquentem agnoscit. In Romana synodo sub Gelasio pronuntiatum fuit anathema, Si quispiam de hujus epistolae textu usque ad unum iota disputaverit, et non eam in omnibus venerabiliter receperit (Tom. V Concil. Ven. edit. pag. 387). Et S. Gregorius, lib. VI, epist. 2: Si quis contra harum quatuor synodorum fidem, et contra sanctae memoriae Leonis papae tonum atque definitionem aliquid umquam loqui praesumit, anathema sit.

1. Among all the decrees of faith of the Roman pontiffs, the most celebrated is the following letter of St Leo to Flavian, in which the whole controversy on the Incarnation is exactly discussed and defined, the contrary errors of Nestorius and Eutyches are proscribed, and the catholic doctrine is found declared so accurately, not only in its propositions but even in its words, that whatever is written in it is proved to have been taken from apostolic and evangelical doctrine (Letter 152). St Flavian, to whom the authority of the apostolic see was well known, had already warned that this matter, while Eutyches was stirring up disturbances after the judgement at Constantinople, needed only the pontiff's impulse and support, by which all things would at once be brought to calm and peace (Letter 26). And indeed, as soon as, having been sent to the East, it was brought to light after the Ephesine robbery, at which it had been suppressed by fraud and force so that it should not be read, it was at once received and subscribed by all, so that it was held everywhere as a rule of faith and as a Lydian touchstone by which catholics were distinguished from heretics. So, further, it became clear that the pontifical definition sufficed and that there was no need of a general council, as Flavian also had warned (Letter 26), since even without a council, and before the synod of Chalcedon was held, the whole Church received it, and the bishops set their subscriptions to it, not to add force and authority to it, but to prove themselves catholics, and lest, if they refused, they should be held heretics. For it had already been made public, what all the most reverend bishops afterwards cried out at Chalcedon, action 4, p. 1403: Whoever does not assent to the letter of the most holy bishop Leo is a heretic. Further, in the same council, at which the acts of the Ephesine robbery were to be rescinded, it was received with the greatest praises, actions 2 and 4, and held in the same honour as if it had been issued by Peter himself: which, even before it was issued, Peter Chrysologus, most versed in the apostolic authority, had foretold was to be observed and held (Letter 25). Nothing is more illustrious for the authority of apostolic definitions than this testimony of the whole Church and of a 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 about the text of this letter down to a single iota, and not receive it with veneration in all things (vol. V of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 387). And St Gregory, book VI, letter 2: If anyone presumes ever to say anything against the faith of these four synods, and against the tome and definition of Pope Leo of holy memory, let him be anathema.

et per propria scripta dignare; confortare autem et piissimi et Christo amantissimi nostri imperatoris fidem. Causa enim eget solummodo vestro solatio atque defensione, qua debeatis consensu proprio ad tranquillitatem et pacem cuncta perducere. Sic enim haeresis quae surrexit, et turbae quae propter eam factae sunt, facillime destruentur. Deo cooperante per vestras sacratissimas litteras, Removebitur autem et concilium quod fieri divulgatur: quatenus nequaquam ubique sanctissimae turbentur Ecclesiae. Omnem quae vobiscum est fraternitatem ego et qui mecum sunt salutamus. Incolumis in Domino, et orans pro nobis, doneris nobis, religiosissime et sanctissime pater.

(c) continued from col 751, set in n751

(d) called in col 751, printed under this column, set in n751

(e) ‹de hac re› · printed under col 752

Nimirum sequenti epistola 28. Post pauca Quesnellus, patiemur. At codex Grimanicus, ex quo uno hanc epistolam habemus, teste P. Cacciario, praefert patimur.

Namely, in the following Letter 28. A little after, Quesnel: patiemur. But the Grimani manuscript, from which alone we have this letter, shows patimur, on the witness of Fr Cacciari.

2. Hinc in fidei professionibus nihil frequentius quam post generalia concilia hujus epistolae doctrinam profiteri. Apud Orientales, ubi Eutychis haeresis turbas excitaverat, haec consuetudo primum inducta, ut liquet inter caetera ex aliquot epistolis Hormisdae, ex epistola Petri diaconi ad Fulgentium et ex concilio Apamensi an. 535. Idem mos etiam ad Occidentales transivit, et diu etiam obtinuit. Vide professionem Adelberti episcopi Morinensis ad Hincmarum Remensem ex Sirmondo editam tom. X Concil. Venetae editionis p. 1388, et sponsionem episcoporum provinciae Aquileiensis ad Paulinum patriarcham e ms. Vat 1322 editam a Patre Bernardo de Rubeis in Monumentis Ecclesiae Aquileien. ad an. 801, pag. 380. Cum S. Amatus abbas jam moriturus professionem fidei edere vellet, hanc epistolam ad se afferri, et sibi legi jussit, quoniam in ipsa plenissima ratio fidei catholicae continetur, quemadmodum tradit ejus Vitae auctor, n. 24, tom. II, saecul. Benedictini II, pag. 126.

2. Hence in professions of faith nothing was more frequent, after the general councils, than to profess the doctrine of this letter. Among the Easterners, where the heresy of Eutyches had stirred up disturbances, this custom was first introduced, as appears, among other things, from several letters of Hormisdas, from the letter of Peter the deacon to Fulgentius, and from the council of Apamea in the year 535. The same practice passed to the Westerners also, and prevailed for a long time. See the profession of Adelbert, bishop of the Morini, to Hincmar of Reims, edited from Sirmond in vol. X of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 1388, and the pledge of the bishops of the province of Aquileia to the patriarch Paulinus, edited from the Vatican manuscript 1322 by Father Bernardo de Rubeis in the Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquileiensis, at the year 801, p. 380. When St Amatus the abbot, already near death, wished to make a profession of faith, he ordered this letter to be brought to him and read to him, because the fullest account of the catholic faith is contained in it, as the author of his Life relates, no. 24, vol. II of the Benedictine saecula, II, p. 126.

3. Inter divina officia olim in Romana Ecclesia tempore Adventus publice legebatur haec epistola, unde eam descriptam invenimus in Lectionariis quae usui erant basilicae Vaticanae, nec non in alio vetustissimo quod ad SS. Philippi et Jacobi basilicam pertinebat. Hinc in Ordine Romano XI, apud Mabillonium (Tom. II Mus. Itaic. p. 123), qui a Benedicto canonico basilicae S. Petri, saeculo XII, scriptus fuit, in Dominica 3

3. Among the divine offices this letter was once read publicly in the Roman Church in the season of Advent, whence we have found it copied in the Lectionaries that were in use in the Vatican basilica, and also in another very old one that belonged to the basilica of Saints Philip and James. Hence in the eleventh Roman Ordo, in Mabillon (vol. II of the Museum Italicum, p. 123), which was written by Benedict, canon of the basilica of St Peter, in the twelfth century, on the third Sunday […]

Adventus habetur: Deinde episcopi legunt quartam et quintam lectionem de epistola S. Leonis papae missa Flaviano episcopo de incarnatione Domini contra Eutychen haereticum. Idipsum in aliis Italiae Ecclesiis receptum didicimus ex quampluribus mss. Lectionariis aliarum urbium, quae eamdem epistolam aliis atque aliis diebus eodem Adventus tempore exhibent. Ex ms. bibliothecae Regiae Quesnellus collegit (Diss, 1 ad an. 440 n. 9), idem olim factitatum esse in Galliarum Ecclesiis, quod confirmari potest ex Lectionario S. Benigni Divionensis, quo Chiffletius usus est, cum eamdem epistolam edidit in calce operum Virgilii Tapsensis, nec non ex monumentis Gallicanis, quae a P. Martene laudantur De antiquis monachorum Ritibus, lib. III, c. 2. Ex hujusmodi autem Lectionariis traducta fuit in aliquot collectiones Sermonum S. Leonis, quae ex Lectionariis originem ducunt

[…] of Advent one has: Then the bishops read the fourth and fifth lesson from the letter of St Leo the pope sent to Bishop Flavian on the incarnation of the Lord against the heretic Eutyches. We have learned that the same was received in other Churches of Italy from very many manuscript Lectionaries of other cities, which present the same letter on various days of the same season of Advent. Quesnel gathered from a manuscript of the Royal Library (Diss. 1, at the year 440, no. 9) that the same was once regularly done in the Churches of the Gauls, which can be confirmed from the Lectionary of St Bénigne of Dijon, which Chifflet used when he edited the same letter at the end of the works of Vigilius of Thapsus, and also from the Gallican documents cited by Fr Martène, De antiquis monachorum ritibus, book III, ch. 2. And from Lectionaries of this kind it was carried over into some collections of the Sermons of St Leo, which take their origin from the Lectionaries.

4. Cum Gennadius, c. 70, Leonem inter ecclesiasticos scriptores retulit, hujus tantum episolae fecit mentionem eo quod haec super omnia ejus opera vulgatissima esset. Hinc autem eum certum ejusdem epistolae auctorem procul dubio existimavit. Quod si vulgatae ejusdem editiones Miraei, Fabricii atque Vallarsii, c. 84, in Prospero habent: Epistolae quoque papae Leonis adversus Eutychen de vera Christi Incarnatione ad diversos datae, et ab ipso dictatae dicuntur, corruptam lectionem et fucum facere, et legendum ei id est Prospero, ab ipso scilicet Leone dictatae, Quesnellus contendit; Prosperum enim Leonis notarium fuisse Ado in Chronico scripsit. At emendatiores editiones et mss. nec et, nec ei praeferre, sed tantum ab ipso dictatae creduntur, pronuntiat Antelmius, epist. 2, n. 28 et 30. In ms. quidem antiquissimo capituli Veronensis, signato num. 46, sic legimus: Ab isto dictatae creduntur, uti ex Gennadio Marcellinus in Chronico retulit. Id tamen Gennadius non ex sua, sed ex Gallorum, inter quos versabatur, opinione tradidit: facile autem evenire solet ut quae opinione vulgari feruntur, augeantur vel etiam immutentur.

4. When Gennadius, ch. 70, listed Leo among the ecclesiastical writers, he made mention of this letter only, because it was more widely known than all his other works. And from this he doubtless judged him the certain author of that letter. But if the printed editions of the same by Miraeus, Fabricius and Vallarsi, ch. 84, under Prosper, have: The letters of Pope Leo too against Eutyches on the true Incarnation of Christ, given to various people, are also said to have been dictated by him, Quesnel contends that the et makes a corrupt reading and a deception, and that one should read ei, that is, [dictated] to Prosper, by him, namely Leo; for Ado wrote in his Chronicle that Prosper was Leo's notary. But Antelmi declares, letter 2, nos. 28 and 30, that the more correct editions and manuscripts show neither et nor ei, but only: are believed to have been dictated by him. Indeed in a very ancient manuscript of the chapter of Verona, marked no. 46, we read thus: are believed to have been dictated by him, as Marcellinus reported in his Chronicle from Gennadius. Yet Gennadius handed this on not from his own opinion but from that of the Gauls, among whom he lived; and it easily happens that what is carried about by popular opinion is enlarged or even changed.

5. Enimvero Leonis, non autem Prosperi hanc et caeteras in Eutychen epistolas esse evidenter ostendit stylus, qui aliis Leonis Operibus similis, a stylo Operum Prosperi apertissime discrepat. Neque harum epistolarum auctor astrui potest Prosper, quin auctor simul dicatur caeterorum omnium Leonis Operum, ita ut ab initio ejus pontificatus usque ad finem omnes ejus non tam epistolas quam sermones scripserit, et eo quidem stylo, qui a suorum Operum stylo differret: quod sane incredibile dictu est, nec Gennadii textus, nec vulgata apud Gallos opinio prodidit; immo nec ipse Antelmius, quoad sermones, ausus est affirmare, ut patet ex eadem epist. 2, n. 40. Solum dici potest S. Prosper in has adversus Eutychen epistolas, quae peculiare Scripturarum et verborum studium exigebant, aliquid diligentiae ac subsidii contulisse; ex quo aliqui eas ab ipso crediderunt, et in Gallicani scriptoris gloriam apud Gallos vulgarunt.

5. In truth, the style shows plainly that this and the other letters against Eutyches are Leo's and not Prosper's: it is like Leo's other works and differs most openly from the style of Prosper's works. Nor can Prosper be asserted to be the author of these letters without his being called at the same time the author of all Leo's other works, so that from the beginning of his pontificate to the end he wrote all his letters, and his sermons too, and in a style that differed from the style of his own works: which is surely incredible to say, and neither the text of Gennadius nor the opinion current among the Gauls put it forward; indeed not even Antelmi himself dared to affirm it as regards the sermons, as is clear from the same letter 2, no. 40. It can only be said that St Prosper contributed some care and help to these letters against Eutyches, which demanded a particular study of the Scriptures and of words; from which some believed them to be his, and spread them abroad among the Gauls to the glory of a Gallic writer.

6. Quantum porro intersit, ut tam celebris dogmatica epistola emendatissima, quoad fieri potest, edatur cum per se satis intelligitur, tum vero demonstrant etiam luculentius illa trium episcoporum Galliae ad Leonem epist. 67, c. 2: Idcirco ei dignanter admittitis, deprecamur ut opus et presentibus et futuris temporibus profuturum, (de hac epistola loquuntur), quod nos asservandi studio foliis mandare curavimus sanctitas vestra percurrere et si quid librarii errore defuerit, emendare dignetur. In hanc rem perficiendam codices triginta et amplius expendimus, et inter hos sex vetustissimos, qui millenariam aetatem attingunt. Cum haec epistola invenitur in omnibus collectionibus, quas in praefatione recensuimus, exceptis collect. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15 et 16, tum vero ad praecipuos cujusque collectionis mss. libros eamdem relegimus, inter quos vetustissimi sunt Vat. Reg. collect. 1, Vat. 1342 collect. 3, Vindebon. collect. 5, Vat. 5845 collect. 8, Vat. Ottobon. 93 simil,se † Vat. 3791 collect. 11, qui duo bis ex diversis fontibus eamdem epistolam exhibent; Vat. 1322 et Veron. 27 collect. 17. et Ratispon. collect. 19. Caeteros inferioris aetatis codices in annotationibus, ubi opus erit, memorabimus. Inter Lectionaria relegimus antiquissimum Vat. 3836. Addendi sunt praeterea duo alii codices millenarii, Veronensis 8, in quo haec epistola Leonis post epistolas canonicas describitur, et alius Veronen. 58, qui hanc epistolam ante quaedam documenta synodi Chalcedon⟨e⟩nsis repraesentat. Cum primam hujus epistolae editionem citabimus, intelligimus primam editionem Sermonum S. Leonis, cui haec epistola inserta est ante sermones de Nativitate ex mss. codice collectionis tertiae eorumdem Sermonum. Accedent tandem praeter codices Quesnelli alii quatuor a Baluzio adhibiti, nimirumi Colbertinus 2574, Parisien., Divionen. et Corbeiensis, quorum tres postremi collectionem 17 Chalcedonensem continent.

6. How important it is, further, that so celebrated a dogmatic letter be published as correct as possible, is both sufficiently understood of itself and is shown still more clearly by the words of the three bishops of Gaul to Leo, Letter 67, ch. 2: Therefore, [if] you graciously admit it, we pray that Your Holiness may deign to run through the work, which will be of profit both to present and to future times (they are speaking of this letter), which we have taken care, out of zeal to preserve it, to commit to pages, and to correct it if anything is lacking through a copyist's error. To accomplish this we have weighed thirty manuscripts and more, and among them six very old ones, which reach the age of a thousand years. Since this letter is found in all the collections which we reviewed in the preface, except collections 4, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16, we have re-read it in the chief manuscript books of each collection, among which the oldest are the Vatican Regina of collection 1, Vat. 1342 of collection 3, the Vienna manuscript of collection 5, Vat. 5845 of collection 8, Vat. Ottoboni 93 [and] Vat. 3791 of collection 11, which two present the same letter twice, from different sources; Vat. 1322 and Verona 27 of collection 17, and the Regensburg manuscript of collection 19. The other manuscripts, of a later age, we shall mention in the annotations where there is need. Among the Lectionaries we re-read the very ancient Vat. 3836. To these must be added besides two other thousand-year-old manuscripts, Verona 8, in which this letter of Leo is copied after the canonical epistles, and another Verona manuscript, 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, in which this letter was inserted before the sermons on the Nativity, from a manuscript of the third collection of the same Sermons. Finally, besides Quesnel's manuscripts, there are four others used by Baluze, namely the Colbert 2574, the Paris, the Dijon and the Corbie manuscripts, of which the last three contain the Chalcedonian collection 17.

7. Antiquissimam Graecam versionem quae lecta et inserta fuit act. 2 synodi Chalcedonensis, primus edidit Joannes Leunclavius ex bibliotheca Sambuci Basileae an. 1578, postea ex aliis mss. Gerardus Vossius praepositus Tungrensis in calce Operum S. Gregorii Thaumaturgi an. 1604; dein vero Romani Conciliorum editores an. 1608, et a Romanis alii posteriores Conciliorum collectores. Graecum textum exegimus ad perantiquum ms. 19 monachorum S. Basilii Romanae urbis, cui aequalis videtur codex Coislinianus 241 (Bibl. Coislin. pag. 269), a Montfauconio laudatus, ex quibus hanc unicam Romanorum pontificum epistolam Graecae collectioni Canonum insertam discimus (id praecipuam hujus epistolae apud Graecos celebritatem testatur), et ad codicem Venetum S. Marci 164, codici 555, omnino, similem, qui Graecam collectionem Chalcedonensem complectitur; nec non ad alium item Venetum 165, qui nonnullas ejusdem collectionis partes continent. Hos ut distingnamus, codicem 164 primum ms. Venetum appellabimus, secundum vero codicem 165. Cum vero haec epistola in his Venitis codicibus duplici loco legatur, primum inter epistolas ante gesta, dein, in ipsis gestis concilii, in quo lecta fuit; nonnumquam utrumque textum ejusdem codicis contulimus, et idcirco variantes lectiones primo vel secundo exhibitas allegabimus.

7. The very ancient Greek version, which was read and inserted in action 2 of the synod of Chalcedon, was first edited by Johannes Leunclavius from the library of Sambucus at Basle in 1578; afterwards, from other manuscripts, by Gerardus Vossius, provost of Tongeren, at the end of the Works of St Gregory Thaumaturgus in 1604; and then by the Roman editors of the Councils in 1608, and, after the Romans, by other later collectors of the Councils. We have checked the Greek text against the very old manuscript 19 of the monks of St Basil in the city of Rome, to which the Coislin manuscript 241 (Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 269), praised by Montfaucon, seems equal in age; from these we learn that this letter alone of the Roman pontiffs was inserted in the Greek collection of Canons (which attests the special fame of this letter among the Greeks); and against the Venetian manuscript of St Mark 164, entirely like manuscript 555, which contains the Greek Chalcedonian collection; and also against another Venetian one, 165, which contains some parts of the same collection. To distinguish them, we shall call manuscript 164 the first Venetian manuscript, and manuscript 165 the second. And since this letter is read in these Venetian manuscripts in two places, first among the letters before the acts, then in the acts themselves of the council in which it was read, we have sometimes collated both texts of the same manuscript, and we shall therefore cite the variant readings shown by the first or the second.

8. Hac occasione dicendum est aliquid de testimoniis Patrum, quae huic epist. 28 ad Flavianum in editis Conciliorum act. 2 Graece et Latine subjecta inveniuntur. His testimoniis editores Romani hanc notatiunculam praefixere: Pleraque haec sanctorum Patrum testimonia a S. Leone adjuncta sunt epistolae ipsius 97 (nunc 165) ad Leonem Augustum, sed in aliquibus Graecis codicibus concilii hujus inseruntur etiam hoc loco, nimirum post laudatam epistolam ad Flavianum. Haec autem Stephanus Baluzius intelligens de actione secunda notavit: Haec testimonia non exstant in codicibus mss., neque in antiquis editionibus: ac tamen et si in aliquibus Graecis ut monent editores Romani, inserantur in hoc loco, puto tamen lecta non fuisse in synodo, adeoque frustra descripta esse in his gestis quibus nulla horum testimoniorum mentio est, sed epistolae tantum. Omnem vero difficultatem sustulit observatio trium Graecorum exemplarium Chalcedonensium, quae memoravimus e bibliotheca Veneta S. Marci. Cum enim in his laudata ad Flavianum epistola, ut innuimus, bis proferatur, nimirum ante gesta, et in ipsis gestis; memorata testimonia Patrum non subjiciuntur epistolae gestis insertae, ut a Romanis edita sunt; sed describuntur post epistolam quae ante gesta exhibetur. Nec dubitamus quin in ipsis Graecis codicibus editorum Romanorum, qui praeferebant pariter hanc epistolam etiam ante gesta, ut liquet ex titulo ab iisdem proposito ante ipsa gesta cap. 7 (Tom. IV Concil. pag. 782), non dubitamus. inquam, quin eadem testimonia similiter legerentur post epistolam ante gesta descriptam. Solum, sicuti istam praetermittendam putarunt in documentis ante ipsa gesta, ne eamdem iterum in gestis repeterent; ita ea testimonia epistolae gestis insertae appendenda censuere: de quo cum non admonuissent lectores.

8. On this occasion something must be said about the testimonies of the Fathers which are found appended, in Greek and Latin, to this Letter 28 to Flavian in the editions of the Councils, action 2. To these testimonies the Roman editors prefixed this little note: Most of these testimonies of the holy Fathers were added by St Leo to his Letter 97 (now 165) to Leo Augustus, but in some Greek manuscripts of this council they are also inserted in this place, namely after the letter to Flavian mentioned above. And Étienne Baluze, understanding this of the second action, noted: These testimonies are not extant in the manuscripts, nor in the old editions: and yet, even if in some Greek ones, as the Roman editors point out, they are inserted in this place, I think nevertheless that they were not read in the synod, and so were copied to no purpose into these acts, in which there is no mention of these testimonies, but only of the letter. But all the difficulty has been removed by examining the three Greek Chalcedonian copies from the library of St Mark at Venice, which we have mentioned. For since in them the letter to Flavian mentioned above is, as we indicated, given twice, namely before the acts and in the acts themselves, the said testimonies of the Fathers are not appended to the letter inserted in the acts, as they were published by the Romans, but are copied after the letter that is presented before the acts. Nor do we doubt that in the very Greek manuscripts of the Roman editors, which likewise showed this letter before the acts as well, as is clear from the title set by them before the acts themselves, ch. 7 (vol. IV of the Councils, p. 782), we do not doubt, I say, that the same testimonies were likewise read after the letter copied before the acts. Only, just as they thought the letter should be omitted among the documents before the acts themselves, so as not to repeat it again in the acts, so they decided that those testimonies should be appended to the letter inserted in the acts: and since they had not advised readers of this […]