PL 54 · cols. 785–788

Leo the Great, Letters

Letter XXX

PL 54:785

EPISTOLA XXX.

LETTER XXX.

AD PULCHERIAM AUGUSTAM.

To Pulcheria Augusta.

Leo episcopus, Pulcheriae Augustae.

Leo the bishop to Pulcheria Augusta.

CAP. II. — Quantum sibi fiduciae de fide vestrae clementiae Ecclesia Dei debeat polliceri, multis saepe probavimus documentis, dum sicut Spiritu sancto

CHAP. II. — How much confidence the Church of God ought to promise itself from the faith of your clemency, we have often proved by many evidences, since, as by the Holy Spirit […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 785

Footnotes

(a) ‹EPISTOLA XXX.› · printed under col 785

Scripta 13 Junii an. 449.

Written 13 June in the year 449.

(b) ‹Leo episcopus, Pulcheriae› · printed under col 785, continued under col 786

In mss. Latinis collectionis Chalcedonensis inscriptio desideratur; solum enim habetur hic titulus: Epistola Leonis arehiepiscopi Romae ad Pulcheriam Augustam. Ex antiqua autem versione, quae in Graecis codd. Chalcedonensibus invenitur, haec inscriptio Latine reddi potest: Gloriosissimae et humanissimae filiae Pulcheriae Leo episcopus. Retinuimus inseriptionem vulgatam, quae in caeteris nostris Latinis codicibus legitur.

In the Latin manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection the inscription is lacking; for only this title is found: Letter of Leo, archbishop of Rome, to Pulcheria Augusta. But from the ancient version found in the Greek Chalcedonian codices, this inscription can be rendered in Latin: To the most glorious and most humane daughter Pulcheria, Leo the bishop. We have kept the common inscription, which is read in our other Latin codices.

Editors' prose

post acceptas Theodosii litteras, id est paulo post III idus Maias; notam enim chronicam, quae idus Junias signat, et in pluribus mss. deest, ex breviori epistola 30 sumptam ac perperam translatam est opinatus. Breviorem vero epistolam 30 missam fuisse per legatos idibus Junii manifestum est.

[…] after receiving the letter of Theodosius, that is, a little after 13 May; for he supposed that the chronological note, which marks the Ides of June and is lacking in many manuscripts, was taken from the shorter letter 30 and wrongly transferred. But it is evident that the shorter letter 30 was sent by the legates on the Ides of June.

4. Haec tamen opinio nec probari, nec defendi potest. Cum enim Leo imperatoris litteras acceperit III idus Maias, si statim scripsisset ad Pulcheriam, ad ipsum etiam imperatorem rescripsisset. Liquet autem eum accepta imperatoris epistola III idus Maias, et Flaviani litteris per idem circiter tempus acceptis una cum gestis Constantinopolitanae synodi adversus Eutychem, mox scripsisse ad eumdem Flavianum brevissimam epistolam 27, XII kal. Junias, qua eum de acceptis gestis monuit, nec non de fusiori epistola quam citius fieri posset transmittenda, ubi de controversia judicium ferretur. Huic autem studio intentus, nec non legatis eligendis atque instruendis, qui concilio jam indicto vice sui interessent, epistolas pluribus tradendas in illud tempus distulit, quo legati cum dogmatica epistola transfretarent. Hinc plures ejusdem epistolae datae leguntur iisdem idibus Juniis, quibus dogmatica ad Flavianum epist. 28 signata fuit, ac in omnibus nominantur legati, et eadem epistola ad Flavianum illis jam tradita memoratur. Horum vero omnium satis expressa fit mentio etiam in longiori epist. 31 ad Pulcheriam, legatorum quidem illis verbis cap. 4: In his fratribus meis, quos vice mea misi; epistolae autem dogmaticae scriptae idibus Junii illis capitis ultimi: Quod etiam S. Flaviano episcopo me clementia tua scripsisse cognoscat; quae verba pariter inserta leguntur epistolae 30 iisdem procul dubio idibus Junii scriptae. Quomodo ergo epist. 31 aliquanto ante Junium mensem exarata ac transmissa dici potest?

4. This opinion, however, can be neither proved nor defended. For since Leo received the emperor's letter on 13 May, if he had written to Pulcheria at once, he would also have written back to the emperor himself. But it is clear that, having received the emperor's letter on 13 May, and the letter of Flavian at about the same time together with the proceedings of the synod of Constantinople against Eutyches, he soon wrote to the same Flavian the very short letter 27, on 21 May, in which he informed him of the receipt of the proceedings, and also of a fuller letter to be sent as quickly as possible, in which judgement would be given on the controversy. Intent on this task, and also on choosing and instructing the legates who were to attend in his stead the council already summoned, he put off the letters to be delivered to several persons until the time when the legates should cross the sea with the dogmatic letter. Hence several letters of the same [batch] are read as given on the same Ides of June on which the dogmatic letter 28 to Flavian was dated; and in all of them the legates are named, and the same letter to Flavian is mentioned as already delivered to them. And of all these things a sufficiently express mention is made also in the longer letter 31 to Pulcheria: of the legates, indeed, in these words of chap. 4: In these my brothers, whom I have sent in my stead; and of the dogmatic letter written on the Ides of June, in these words of the last chapter: Let your clemency know that I have written this also to the holy bishop Flavian; which words are read inserted likewise in letter 30, written without doubt on the same Ides of June. How then can letter 31 be said to have been composed and sent some while before the month of June?

5. Quid autem dicendum? Ut omittantur incerta, cum brevior epistola 30 in Graeca et Latina collectione Chalcedonensi inveniatur, et legatorum nomina distincte praeferat, ut epistolae caeterae, quae cum litteris ad Flavianum iisdem legatis traditae fuere, haec quoque ad Pulcheriam transmissa, eidemque aliquando tradita, ac in Oriente vulgata, ac exinde Graece reddita negari non potest. Auctior vero epistola 31, etsi in Graeca collectione desideretur, cum tamen exstet in pluribus Latinis antiquis collectionibus, quae breviori epistola carent, Leoninamque rationem ubique referat, a Leone abjudicari nequit. Eodem autem die iduum Junii data dici debet, ut eae quoque collectiones praeferunt, quae carent epistola 30; neque enim chronicam ejusmodi notam harum collectionum auctores transcribere potuerunt, ut conjecit Quesnellus, ex epistola breviori, quam ignorarunt. Sine ullo autem certiori documento aliud quidpiam affirmare seu divinare non licet. Solum probabiliter credi potest duo ejusdem epistolae exemplaria a Leone fuisse lucubrata, alterum longius, brevius alterum; hoc autem brevius in Orientem misisse, unde in Graecam linguam translatum fuit; alterum vero longius retinuisse apud se, et in Occidente aliquando vulgatum, in plerasque Latinas collectiones transisse.

5. What then is to be said? To leave aside uncertainties: since the shorter letter 30 is found in the Greek and Latin Chalcedonian collection, and displays the names of the legates distinctly, it cannot be denied that, like the other letters which were delivered to the same legates together with the letter to Flavian, this one too was sent to Pulcheria, and at some time delivered to her, and published in the East, and thence rendered into Greek. But the fuller letter 31, although it is lacking in the Greek collection, yet since it exists in many ancient Latin collections which lack the shorter letter, and everywhere shows Leo's manner, cannot be denied to Leo. And it must be said to have been given on the same day, the Ides of June, as those collections also show which lack letter 30; for the compilers of these collections could not have copied a chronological note of this kind, as Quesnel conjectured, from the shorter letter, which they did not know. But without some more certain document it is not permitted to affirm or divine anything else. It can only be believed with probability that two copies of the same letter were worked out by Leo, one longer, the other shorter; that he sent this shorter one to the East, whence it was translated into the Greek language; but kept the other, longer one by him, and that, published at some time in the West, it passed into most of the Latin collections.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Christum nostri generis hominem esse. Nestorii et Eutychis errores. — II. Cum veritas carnis in Christo impetitur, totam fidem concuti.

SYNOPSIS. — I. That Christ is a man of our race. The errors of Nestorius and of Eutyches. — II. That when the truth of the flesh in Christ is attacked, the whole faith is shaken.

Page

running head: EPISTOLA XXX. (centred across the page; column numbers 785 and 786 at the outer corners)
marginal letters: none printed on this page: nothing stands in either margin beside the full-width ADMONITIO, nor in the gutter beside the two-column start of Letter XXX below it (re-read by V4 at zoom 2.5–3; the scan is cropped close to the type block)
old-edition numerals: 847 before ‹Leo episcopus, Pulcheriae›
signature: none
other: the upper part of this page is the continuation of the full-width ADMONITIO; the end of section 3 and sections 4–5 are set here, sections 6–7 in n786; below it, full width, the heading EPISTOLA XXX., the title AD PULCHERIAM AUGUSTAM. (set in layer 1 under this rail) and the SYNOPSIS (set here, under Editors' prose)

PL 54:786

Editors' notes and page, col. 786

Footnotes

(b) continued from col 785, set in n785

(1) ‹πολλαῖς πολλάκις διδασκαλίαις (Greek version)› · printed under col 786

In marg. edit. Rom., ἐπέγνωμεν. Ex Lat.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ἐπέγνωμεν. From the Latin.

Editors' prose

6. Longior epistola in eo potissimum discrepat a breviori, quod in illa a cap. 2 ad medium cap. 3 catholicum dogma aliquot probationibus statuitur, quae in breviori omittuntur. Forte post scriptam epist. 28, ad Flavianum, in qua idem dogma similibus probationibus plenius constituitur, ex litteris ad Pulcheriam eas probationes detrahendas censuit, et hac occasione eam quoque partem subduxit, qua se excusabat ne ad synodum accederet, aliaque pauca suo more mutavit vel addidit, quae in breviori epistola leguntur. Haec autem in Orientem missa, epistola longior ob dogmaticam fusiorem institutionem Occidentalibus maxime placuit, et idcirco haec potissimum inter Latinos vulgata fuit.

6. The longer letter differs from the shorter chiefly in this, that in it, from chap. 2 to the middle of chap. 3, the Catholic dogma is established by a number of proofs which are omitted in the shorter. Perhaps, after writing letter 28 to Flavian, in which the same dogma is established more fully with similar proofs, he judged that those proofs should be taken out of the letter to Pulcheria, and on this occasion also removed that part in which he excused himself from going to the synod, and, in his usual way, changed or added a few other things which are read in the shorter letter. This [shorter one] being sent to the East, the longer letter, because of its fuller dogmatic instruction, greatly pleased the Westerners, and for that reason it above all was published among the Latins.

7. Unum hic suspicari quispiam posset, epistolam 31, ad Pulcheriam, cum aliquot sententias contineat similes sententiis epistolae 37, ad Theodosium datae die 20 Junii, eodem die scriptam ac eadem occasione missam fuisse. Leo nimirum acceptis imperialibus litteris, quae ipsum invitabant ad synodum, sicut hac de re bis ad Theodosium scripsit, ita etiam bis ad Pulcheriam scripsisse videri potest. Primum ad utrosque per legatos scripsit idibus Junii, ad Theodosium epistola 29, ad Pulcheriam vero epistola 30. Dein cum ad imperatorem iterum dedit epistolam 37 die 20 Junii, ea forte de causa quod metueret ne in ea angustia temporis synodo praestituti legati Ephesum properare coacti, epistolam 29 eidem Augusto tradere non possent, hac eadem occasione et causa ad Pulcheriam quoque scripsisse epistolam 31 non improbabile judicabitur. Sed contra fidem earum collectionum quae chronicam notam iduum Junii exhibent, eamque ex epistola 30 non potuerunt sumere, hanc opinionem inducere nequivimus. Id autem multo potuimus alia ratione, quae conjecturam numero praecedenti propositam magis magisque confirmabit. Si epistolae, inquit Leo epist. 45, quae in fidei causa per nostros clericos directae sunt, ad vestram pietatem pervenissent, certum est remedium vos his rebus quae contra fidem factae sunt... praestare potuisse. Indicatur epistola 30, per legatos missa quae, his Ephesum profectis ad Augustam non pervenit. Aliam ergo eadem in re et pleniorem quidem epistolam ad eamdem Pulcheriam se alia occasione post legatorum discessum non direxisse praesumit; alias haec, non aeque ac illa prior alio traducta, eumdem effectum multo magis peperisset, ita ut opus non fuerit prioris epistolae 30 exemplum ad eamdem una cum epist. 45 iterum mittere. Igitur epistola 31 ad Pulcheriam missa non fuit, sed ab ipso Leone apud se retenta, solaque epist. 30 ad eam prius per legatos directa, et iterum cum epist 45, unde haec sola in Graecum traducta fuit, ut numero 6 conjecimus. Hanc autem breviorem epistolam, cum ad Pulcheriam certo missa fuerit, primum proferemus.

7. One thing someone might suspect here: that letter 31 to Pulcheria, since it contains some thoughts similar to the thoughts of letter 37 to Theodosius, given on 20 June, was written on the same day and sent on the same occasion. Leo, that is, having received the imperial letter which invited him to the synod, may be thought to have written twice to Pulcheria, just as he wrote twice to Theodosius on this matter. First he wrote to both by the legates on the Ides of June: to Theodosius in letter 29, and to Pulcheria in letter 30. Then, when he gave letter 37 to the emperor a second time on 20 June, perhaps for the reason that he feared that the legates, forced to hurry to Ephesus in the narrowness of the time fixed for the synod, might not be able to deliver letter 29 to the same Augustus, it will be judged not improbable that on this same occasion and for the same reason he wrote letter 31 to Pulcheria too. But against the credit of those collections which show the chronological note of the Ides of June, and could not have taken it from letter 30, we have been unable to adopt this opinion. And we could [do so] much [less] for another reason, which will confirm more and more the conjecture put forward in the preceding section. If the letters, says Leo in letter 45, which were sent in the cause of the faith by our clerics had reached your piety, it is certain that you could have supplied a remedy for these things which have been done against the faith... It is letter 30 that is indicated, sent by the legates, which, when they had set out for Ephesus, did not reach the Augusta. He therefore takes it for granted that he had not sent to the same Pulcheria, on another occasion after the departure of the legates, another and indeed fuller letter on the same matter; otherwise this one, not being diverted elsewhere as that former one was, would have produced the same effect far more, so that there would have been no need to send again to her a copy of the former letter 30 together with letter 45. Therefore letter 31 was not sent to Pulcheria, but was kept by Leo himself; and only letter 30 was directed to her, first by the legates and again with letter 45, whence it alone was translated into Greek, as we conjectured in section 6. We shall therefore bring forward first this shorter letter, since it was certainly sent to Pulcheria.

Ancient version (Greek)

Τῇ ἐνδοξοτάτῃ, καὶ φιλανθρωποτάτῃ θυγατρὶ Πουλχερίᾳ, Λέων ἐπίσκοπος Ὅσην πεποίθησιν περὶ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ὑμετέρας φιλανθρωπίας ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησία ὀφείλει ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, πολλαῖς πολλάκις διδασκαλίαις ἐπεδείξαμεν. Τοῦτο τοῦ

Page

running head: EPISTOLA XXX. (centred across the page; column numbers 785 and 786 at the outer corners)
marginal letters: none printed on this page: nothing stands in either margin beside the full-width ADMONITIO, nor in the gutter beside the two-column start of Letter XXX below it (re-read by V4 at zoom 2.5–3; the scan is cropped close to the type block)
old-edition numerals: 848 before ‹Τῇ ἐνδοξοτάτῃ›
signature: none
other: the lower part of the full-width ADMONITIO on this page (sections 6–7) is set here

PL 54:787

docente didicistis, illi per omnia potestatem vestram subjicitis, cujus munere et protectione regnatis. Unde quia contra integritatem fidei Christianae, dissensionem quamdam in Constantinopolitana Ecclesia, Eutyche auctore generatam, fratris et coepiscopi mei Flaviani relatione cognovi, ita ut totius causae speciem synodalium gestorum textus ostenderet, dignum gloriae vestrae est ut error qui de imperitia magis quam de versutia natus est auferatur, priusquam ullas vires de consensu imprudentium pertinacia pravitatis acquirat. Nam quantum Nestorius a veritate excidit, dum Dominum Jesum Christum de matre virgine hominem solum asserit natum, tantum etiam hic a catholico tramite deviavit qui de eadem virgine editum non nostrae credit esse naturae: ut quod formam servi gessit, quod nostri similis fuit atque conformis, quaedam nostrae carnis fuerit imago, non veritas. Nihil autem prodest Dominum nostrum beatae Mariae virginis filium, hominem dicere, si non illius generis ac seminis homo creditur, cujus in ipso Evangelii exordio praedicatur.

[…] teaching, you have learned, you subject your power in all things to Him by Whose gift and protection you reign. Therefore, since I have learned from the report of my brother and fellow bishop Flavian of a certain dissension against the integrity of the Christian faith, brought forth in the Church of Constantinople by the agency of Eutyches, in such a way that the text of the synodal proceedings showed the form of the whole case, it is worthy of your glory that an error born of ignorance rather than of cunning be taken away, before the obstinacy of perversity acquires any strength from the consent of the imprudent. For as far as Nestorius fell away from the truth when he asserted that the Lord Jesus Christ was born of the virgin mother as a man only, so far has this man also strayed from the Catholic path, who does not believe that He Who was brought forth from the same virgin is of our nature: so that the form of a servant which He bore, in which He was like us and conformed to us, would have been a kind of image of our flesh, not its reality. But it profits nothing to call our Lord, the son of the blessed virgin Mary, a man, if He is not believed to be a man of that race and seed of which, at the very beginning of the Gospel, He is proclaimed to be.

Unde multum doleo, multumque contristor, quod hic qui antea de humilitatis proposito laudabilis videbatur, contra unicam spem nostram patrumque nostrorum, vana et nimis perversa audet astruere. Qui cum videret insipientiae suae sensum catholicis auribus displicere, revocare se a sua opinione debuerat, nec ita Ecclesiae praesules commovere, ut sententiam damnationis exciperet. Quam utique si in suo sensu voluerit permanere, nullus poterit relaxare. Sedis enim apostolicae moderatio hanc temperantiam servat, ut et severius agat cum obduratis, et veniam cupiat praestare correctis.

Hence I grieve much and am much saddened that this man, who formerly seemed praiseworthy for his profession of humility, dares to build up vain and very perverse things against the one hope of ourselves and of our fathers. When he saw that the sense of his folly displeased Catholic ears, he ought to have recalled himself from his opinion, and not so to have stirred up the prelates of the Church that he received the sentence of condemnation. And if he chooses to persist in his way of thinking, no one will be able to relax it. For the moderation of the apostolic see keeps this measure, that it both acts more severely with the obdurate and desires to grant pardon to the corrected.

CAP. II. — Quia ergo mihi multa fiducia est de pietatis tuae sincerissima fide, obsecro gloriosissimam clementiam tuam, ut sicuti sancto studio tuo catholica praedicatio semper adjuta est, ita nunc quoque ejusdem faveas libertati. Non enim portiuncula aliqua fidei nostrae, quae minus lucide sit clara, pulsatur; sed hoc imperita resultatio audet incessere quod Dominus in Ecclesia sua neminem voluit ignorare. Et ideo pro vestrae pietatis consuetudine elaborare dignemini, ut quod contra singulare sacramentum salutis humanae blasphema insipientia protulit, ab omnium animis repellatur. Ac si

CHAP. II. — Since therefore I have great confidence in the most sincere faith of your piety, I beseech your most glorious clemency that, as the Catholic preaching has always been helped by your holy zeal, so now too you may favour its freedom. For it is not some small portion of our faith, less clearly evident, that is being assailed; but an unskilled opposition dares to attack that which the Lord willed no one in His Church to be ignorant of. And therefore, according to the custom of your piety, deign to take pains that what blasphemous folly has put forth against the singular mystery of human salvation may be driven from the minds of all. And if […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 787

Footnotes

(a) ‹nostrum beatae› · printed under col 787

Codd. Ratisp. et Veron. 57, cum Graeca versione omittunt Mariae.

The Regensburg and Verona 57 codices, with the Greek version, omit Mariae.

(b) ‹debuerat,› · printed under col 787

Haec lectio ms. Ratisp. melior visa est, quam vulgata et aliorum codicum, ne ita Ecclesiae praesules commoveret, eo quod eadem praefertur in epistola sequenti, ubi haec pericope totidem verbis repetita invenitur.

This reading of the Regensburg manuscript seemed better than the common one and that of the other codices, ne ita Ecclesiae praesules commoveret, because the same is shown in the following letter, where this passage is found repeated in as many words.

Cod. Veron., gloriosam. Mox, tuam pro vestram emendavimus ex Ratisp. et quinque aliis codd. cum magis cohaereat antecedentibus pietatis tuae, et subsequentibus studio tuo huic eidem periodo insertis.

The Verona codex: gloriosam. Shortly after, we have corrected vestram to tuam from the Regensburg and five other codices, since it agrees better with the preceding pietatis tuae and the following studio tuo inserted in this same period.

(d) ‹clementiam tuam,› · printed under col 787

In editis Concilior. additur ex Graeca versione illustrissima et gloriosissima filia.

In the editions of the Councils there is added from the Greek version: illustrissima et gloriosissima filia.

(e) ‹elaborare dignemini,› · printed under col 787

Editi Leonis, ut contra singulare sacramentum salutis humanae, quod blasphema, etc. Praetulimus lectionem ms. Ratisp., cui editi Concilior. astipulantur.

The editions of Leo: ut contra singulare sacramentum salutis humanae, quod blasphema, etc. We have preferred the reading of the Regensburg manuscript, with which the editions of the Councils agree.

Footnotes

(1) ‹καὶ τῆς ἐκδικίας (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In ms. Ven., βασιλεύοντες.

In the Venice manuscript: βασιλεύοντες.

(2) ‹ἐκ τῆς (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom. συναινέσεως.

In the margin of the Roman edition: συναινέσεως.

(3) ‹προσπορίσοιτο. (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom., καὶ γὰρ ὅσα Νεστόριος ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς.

In the margin of the Roman edition: καὶ γὰρ ὅσα Νεστόριος ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς.

(4) ‹ἄνθρωπος εἶναι (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

Ms. Ven., πιστεύεται.

The Venice manuscript: πιστεύεται.

(5) ‹κατὰ τῆς ἐλπίδος (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom., τοῦ γένους, ἢ ἴσως, τῆς μονογενοῦς.

In the margin of the Roman edition: τοῦ γένους, or perhaps τῆς μονογενοῦς.

(6) ‹τὴν ἀπόφασιν (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom., ἀναμένοντας.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ἀναμένοντας.

(7) ‹περὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom., ἴσως, τῆς σῆς μακαριωνάτης.

In the margin of the Roman edition: perhaps τῆς σῆς μακαριωνάτης.

(8) ‹εὐσεβεστάτη θύγατερ, (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom., ἵν' ὥσπερ τῇ θείᾳ σου σπουδῇ τῷ καθολικῷ πάντοτε κηρύγματι βεβοήθηκας, οὕτω καὶ νῦν τῇ ἐκείνου συμπράττῃς ἐλευθερίᾳ.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ἵν' ὥσπερ τῇ θείᾳ σου σπουδῇ τῷ καθολικῷ πάντοτε κηρύγματι βεβοήθηκας, οὕτω καὶ νῦν τῇ ἐκείνου συμπράττῃς ἐλευθερίᾳ.

(9) ‹ἐκ σπουδῆς θείας (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

Cod. Ven. 164, εἰς τὸ καθολικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀξίωμα, In marg. edit. Rom., εἰς τὸ τῆς καθολικῆς.

The Venice codex 164: εἰς τὸ καθολικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀξίωμα. In the margin of the Roman edition: εἰς τὸ τῆς καθολικῆς.

(10) ‹συνδράμοις (Greek version)› · printed under col 788

In marg. edit. Rom., ἴσως, οὕτω καὶ νῦν τῆς αὐτῆς τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ συνεργὸν παρέχῃς.

In the margin of the Roman edition: perhaps οὕτω καὶ νῦν τῆς αὐτῆς τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ συνεργὸν παρέχῃς.

Ancient version (Greek)

ἁγίου Πνεύματος διδάσκοντος μ⟨ε⟩μαθήκατε. Τούτῳ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἐξουσίαν ὑπετάξατε. Διὰ ταύτης τῆς δωρεᾶς, καὶ τῆς ἐκδικίας βασιλεύετε. Ὅθεν ἐπείπερ κατὰ τῆς ἀκεραίου πίστεως τῶν Χριστιανῶν διχόνοιάν τινα ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν Εὐτυχοῦς αὐθεντοῦντος γεγενῆσθαι, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μου, καὶ συνεπισκόπου Φλαυιανοῦ διὰ τῆς ἀναφορᾶς ἔγνων, καθὼς καὶ πάσης τῆς ὑποθέσεως τὸ εἶδος τῶν πεπραγμένων ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ δείκνυσιν, ἄξιόν ἐστι τῆς ὑμετέρας δόξης τὴν πλάνην, τὴν δι' ἀπειρίαν μᾶλλον ἢ κακοθέλειαν εἰσδυομένην ἀφελέσθαι, πρίν τινα δύναμιν ἐκ τῆς συνέσεως τῶν ἀπείρων τὸ ἐπίμονον τῆς φαυλότητος προσπορίσοιτο. Καὶ ὅσα Νεστόριος, ὃς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐξέπεσε πίστεως, τὸν δεσπότην Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου Μαρίας ἄνθρωπον μόνον φάσκων γεγενῆσθαι, τοσούτῳ καὶ οὗτος ἀπὸ τῆς καθολικῆς ὁδοῦ ἀπεπλανήθη ὃς τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς παρθένου γεννηθέντα οὐ τῆς ἡμετέρας εἶναι πεπίστευκε φύσεως· ὥστε τὸν τὴν μορφὴν τοῦ δούλου φορήσαντα, καὶ ἡμῖν ὅμοιον γενόμενον, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὄντα μορφῆς, τινὰ τυγχάνειν τοῦ ἡμετέρου σώματος εἰκόνα, καὶ μὴ ἀλήθειαν. Οὐδὲν δὲ ὠφελεῖ, τὸν ἡμέτερον Δεσπότην τὸν τῆς μακαρίας Παρθένου Υἱὸν, ἄνθρωπον λέγειν, εἰ μὴ τοῦ γένους αὐτῆς, καὶ τῆς ῥίζης ἄνθρωπος εἶναι πιστεύοιτο· περὶ οὗ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ προοιμίῳ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου προλέγεται. Ὅθεν πάνυ πονῶ, καὶ στυγνάζω, ὅτιπερ οὗτος, ὃς πρὸ τούτου περὶ τῆς προθέσεως τῆς ταπεινότητος ἐπηνεῖτο, κατὰ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡμῶν, καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων, μάταια, καὶ πάνυ διεστραμμένα τολμᾷ λέγειν. Ὁρῶν γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ της ἀφροσύνης τὴν αἴσθησιν ταῖς καθολικαῖς ἀκοαῖς ἀπαρέσκουσαν, ὤφειλεν ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας ὑπονοίας ἀνακαλέσασθαι, καὶ μήτε τοὺς ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις παραμένοντας κινῆσαι, τῆς καταδίκης τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἀναμένοντα. Δῆλον γὰρ, ὡς εἰ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ αἰστήσει παραμένειν θελήσοι, οὐδεὶς αὐτὸν ἀπολῦσαι δυνήσεται. Καὶ γὰρ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ τὸ σύμμετρον ταύτην φυλάττει τὴν εὐκράτειαν, ὥστε καὶ σκληρότερον πράττειν κατὰ τῶν ἐπιμενόντων, καὶ συγγνώμης ἀξιοῦν τοὺς τὴν διόρθωσιν ἐπιγινώσκοντας. Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν πολλὴ πεποίθησίς ἐστι περὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας τῆς μακαριωτάτης πίστεως, παρακαλῶ τὴν ὑμετέραν φιλανθρωπίαν, ἐπιφανεστάτη καὶ εὐσεβεστάτη θύγατερ, ἵν' ὥσπερ ἐκ σπουδῆς θείας ἐν τῷ καθολικῷ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀξιώματι τῆς ἐλευθερίας συνδράμοις, οὐδὲ γὰρ μέρος τι τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἡμετέρας μὴ ὂν σαφὲς μεθοδεύεται. Ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἡ ἄπειρος ἀντίστασις τολμᾷ διαθορυβεῖν, τοῦτο πειράζεται ὅπερ