Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 801

Alias 31. Quae autem 34 erat, nunc 38. Scripta 13 Junii an. 449.

Otherwise 31. The one that was 34 is now 38. Written 13 June in the year 449.

(b) ‹AD JULIANUM› · printed under col 801

Haec epistola inventa est hactenus in solis mss. collect. 12, 18 et 19.

This letter has so far been found only in the manuscripts of collections 12, 18 and 19.

(c) ‹Leo episcopus› · printed under col 801

Cod. Ratisp., Juliano episcopo Coensium.

The Ratisbon codex has Juliano episcopo Coensium.

(d) ‹faciunt, quod› · printed under col 801

Vulgati in eadem sententia. Magis placuit lectio cod. Ratisponensis.

The printed editions have in eadem sententia. We preferred the reading of the Ratisbon codex.

(e) ‹Eutyches› · printed under col 801

Iidem editi, facit extraneum qui in sua. Codd. Vat. et Venet. collect. 12, fecit extraneum, qui, etc. Praetulimus exemplar Ratisponense.

The same editions have facit extraneum qui in sua. The Vatican and Venetian codices of collection 12, fecit extraneum, qui, etc. We have preferred the Ratisbon copy.

(f) ‹quibus vinculis› · printed under col 802

Vulgati ante Quesn., perperam a Domino.

The printed editions before Quesnel have, wrongly, a Domino.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Eutychen ab unitate fidei excidisse dolet. — II. Legatos ad synodum a latere mittit.

SYNOPSIS. — I. He grieves that Eutyches has fallen away from the unity of the faith. — II. He sends legates from his side to the synod.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Verba cap. 1 et 4, direximus atque miserimus, quibus legati ab Urbe directi, et epistola ad Flavianum data idibus Junii missa traditur, indicare videntur sequentem epistolam scriptam fuisse post laudatas litteras ad Flavianum, immo etiam post legatorum discessum, qui profecti dicuntur in epist. 38, data die 23 Julii, quin et epist. 36, data die 20 Junii, ut probabilius ostendemus annot. 3 in ipsam epistolam (Col. 812, n. (o); quod tamen in rem praesentem nihilum refert. In eadem epist. 38, memoratur adventus Basilii diaconi, qui profectis jam legatis, Flaviani epistolam ad Leonem detulerat. Si is esset idem Basilius, qui Juliani quoque litteras attulisse traditur, multo evidentius haec epistola scripta dicenda esset post idus Junias, quando legati nondum ab Urbe erant profecti. Ita ex duabus epistolis ad Julianum, quas de eadem re eodem die scriptas credere videtur difficile, sola praecedens epistola data fuisset idibus Junii, sequens vero in posterius tempus protrudenda esset. At omnes codices resistunt, et licet collectiones plures ac diversae sequentem epistolam contineant, in omnibus tamen idibus Junii data notatur.

1. The words of chapters 1 and 4, direximus and miserimus, by which the legates are said to have been sent from the City and the letter to Flavian given on the Ides of June to have been dispatched, seem to indicate that the following letter was written after the aforesaid letter to Flavian, and indeed even after the departure of the legates, who are said to have set out in letter 38, given on 23 July, and even in letter 36, given on 20 June, as we shall show to be more probable in note 3 on that letter itself (col. 812, n. (o)); which, however, makes no difference to the present matter. In the same letter 38 mention is made of the arrival of the deacon Basil, who, after the legates had already set out, had brought Flavian's letter to Leo. If he were the same Basil who is said to have brought Julian's letter too, it would much more evidently have to be said that this letter was written after the Ides of June, when the legates had not yet set out from the City. Thus, of the two letters to Julian, which it seems difficult to believe were written on the same subject on the same day, only the preceding letter would have been given on the Ides of June, while the following one would have to be pushed on to a later time. But all the manuscripts stand against this, and although several different collections contain the following letter, yet in all of them it is marked as given on the Ides of June.

(g) ‹per fratres nostros› · printed under col 802

Iidem vulgati cum mss. collect. 12, Julianum Vide annot. 81 in epist. 28 (Col. 779, n. (b).

The same printed editions, with the manuscripts of collection 12, have Julianum. See note 81 on letter 28 (col. 779, n. (b)).

(h) ‹et quid› · printed under col 802

Ratisp., immutabiliter.

The Ratisbon codex has immutabiliter.

(i) ‹miserationis omittere,› · printed under col 802

Ita cum ms. Grim. Quesnelli etiam nostri codices. Solum Ratisp. credimus pro credidimus praefert; et postea omittit vocem presbyter, forte melius. Vulg. ante Quesn., congrua moderatione credidimus sanciendum, ut si, etc.

So our codices too, with Quesnel's Grimani manuscript. Only the Ratisbon codex shows credimus for credidimus; and afterwards it omits the word presbyter, perhaps better. The printed editions before Quesnel have congrua moderatione credidimus sanciendum, ut si, etc.

2. Quesnellus, ut haec conciliet, not. 8, observat in aliquibus epistolis, quae idus Junii nunc praeferunt, nullam fieri Ephesinae synodi jam indictae mentionem. Conjecit autem Leonem acceptis primis Flaviani litteris cum gestis synodi Constantinopolitanae consilium cepisse mittendi legatos quatuor in Orientem, qui rem totam Constantinopoli componerent. Ad hunc unice finem scriptas primum credit epistolas plures, quae 13 Junii datae nunc leguntur. Solas autem duas nominat, scilicet epist. 28 ad Flavianum, et 32 ad archimandritas Constantinopolitanos, in quibus reapse nihil de synodo habetur, sed de fidei tantum causa per legatos curanda. Addit porro: At antequam legati profecti essent, acceptae sunt a Leone Theodosii litterae, quibus de indicta synodo monebatur; statimque iidem legati, qui ad fidei negotium cum Flaviano tractandum destinati erant, ad synodum directi sunt, eorumque tardata profectio, quo novis litteris scribendis tempus daretur, vel prioribus amplificandis: et in his de concilio fit mentio. Hac autem de causa et anterioribus et ultimis litteris eamdem chronicam notationem idibus Junii affixam innuit.

2. Quesnel, in order to reconcile these things, observes in note 8 that in some letters which now show the Ides of June no mention is made of the synod of Ephesus as already summoned. And he conjectured that Leo, on receiving Flavian's first letter with the proceedings of the synod of Constantinople, formed the plan of sending four legates to the East to settle the whole matter at Constantinople. He believes that several letters, which are now read as given on 13 June, were first written for this purpose alone. But he names only two, namely letter 28 to Flavian and 32 to the archimandrites of Constantinople, in which in fact nothing is said about a synod, but only about the cause of the faith to be looked after through the legates. He adds further: 'But before the legates had set out, a letter of Theodosius was received by Leo, by which he was informed of the summoning of the synod; and at once the same legates who had been appointed to deal with the business of the faith with Flavian were directed to the synod, and their departure was delayed so that time might be given for writing new letters or for enlarging the earlier ones: and in these mention is made of the council.' And for this reason he suggests that the same date, the Ides of June, was affixed to both the earlier and the last letters.

3. Nemini tamen haec satisfacere poterunt. Primo enim Flaviani litteras cum gestis Constantinopolitanae synodi a Leone acceptas, antequam Theodosii epistola de indicto concilio deferretur, non solum absque ullo fundamento, verum etiam contra documentorum fidem praesumit. Priores enim Flaviani litteras cum gestis Constantinopolitanis adversus Eutychen sese recepisse Leo significavit solum epist. 27, data die 21 Maii, cum Theodosii epistolam die 13 ejusdem mensis sibi traditam fuisse testetur epist. 31. Praeterea ante diem 13 Maii scripta praesumitur celebris epist. 28 ad Flavianum, et legati jam destinati. At die 21 ejusdem mensis, quo data fuit epist. 27, se eidem epist. 28 scribendae operam dare profitetur, nondumque cogitasse eam legatis tradere, inquit enim: De hac re plenius per eum qui ad nos tuae dilectionis portavit epistolam,

3. Yet these things will be able to satisfy no one. For first, he assumes, not only without any foundation but even against the evidence of the documents, that Flavian's letter with the proceedings of the synod of Constantinople was received by Leo before the letter of Theodosius about the summoning of the council was delivered. For Leo indicated that he had received Flavian's earlier letter with the Constantinopolitan proceedings against Eutyches only in letter 27, given on 21 May, whereas he testifies in letter 31 that the letter of Theodosius was delivered to him on the 13th of the same month. Moreover, the celebrated letter 28 to Flavian is presumed to have been written before 13 May, and the legates already appointed. But on the 21st of the same month, on which letter 27 was given, he declares that he is giving his attention to writing that same letter 28, and had not yet thought of handing it to the legates; for he says: 'On this matter more fully through him who brought us the letter of your Love, […]'

(a) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 803

Alias 25. Quae autem antea 35 erat, nunc 39. Scripta 13 Junii an. 449.

Otherwise 25. The one that was formerly 35 is now 39. Written 13 June in the year 449.

(b) ‹XXXV.› · printed under col 803

Exstat haec epistola in mss. collectionibus 2, 5, 11, 12, 13 et 17 usque ad 24, ac in peculiari codice Vat. Reginae 293. In tabula collect. 5 hic titulus legitur c. 88: Ad Julianum episcopum de damnatione haeresis Eutychianae.

This letter is extant in the manuscript collections 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, and 17 through 24, and in a separate codex, Vatican Reginae 293. In the table of collection 5 this title is read at c. 88: To Julian the bishop, on the condemnation of the Eutychian heresy.

(c) ‹episcopum coensem.› · printed under col 803

Codd. collect. Chalcedon., Dilectissimo fratri Juliano Leo, in Ratisponensi caeteroquin emendatissimo haec erronea inscriptio legitur: Juvenali episcopo Hierosolymitano.

The codices of the Chalcedonian collection have: To his most beloved brother Julian, Leo; in the Ratisbon codex, otherwise very correct, this erroneous inscription is read: To Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem.

(d) ‹CAP. I. — Licet› · printed under col 803

Mss. collect. 21 habent, per eos propter nostros. Mox editi Leonis ante Quesn. cum ms. Florentino, ad Urbem. In solo ms. Chig. collect. Chalced. omittitur ab Urbe.

The manuscripts of collection 21 have per eos propter nostros. Shortly after, the printed editions of Leo before Quesnel, with the Florentine manuscript, have ad Urbem. In the Chigi manuscript of the Chalcedonian collection alone ab Urbe is omitted.

(e) ‹quos ab Urbe› · printed under cols 803–804

Voces pro fidei causa desunt in septem Quesnelli codicibus indicatis in margine, et in duobus nostris Vat. collect. 11 et Florentino collect. 13. Item Quesnellus not. 8 has voces expungendas credit, ut quae, inquit, ex Graeca versione in textum Latinum irrepserunt, quae versio longe plura habet a textu originali discrepantia. Perperam: exstant enim in tredecim nostris codicibus, inter quos Vindebonensis collect. 5 et Ratisponensis a Graeco non pendent, ipsi etiam mss. libri Latinae collectionis Chalcedonensis adeo non dimanant a Graeca versione, ut careant quibusdam additamentis, quae sunt in Graeco textu, et tria membra exhibeant, quae in Graeco desiderantur; unde Latinus textus hujus collectionis ab ipso originali Leonis originem ducit.

The words pro fidei causa are lacking in seven of Quesnel's codices indicated in the margin, and in two of ours, the Vatican of collection 11 and the Florentine of collection 13. Quesnel likewise, in note 8, believes these words should be struck out, as having, he says, crept into the Latin text from the Greek version, a version which has far more things differing from the original text. Wrongly: for they are extant in thirteen of our codices, among which the Vienna codex of collection 5 and the Ratisbon codex do not depend on the Greek; and the manuscript books of the Latin Chalcedonian collection themselves are so far from deriving from the Greek version that they lack certain additions which are in the Greek text, and show three clauses which are missing in the Greek; hence the Latin text of this collection draws its origin from Leo's original itself.

(f) ‹ad fratrem› · printed under col 804

Vocem nostrum a Quesnello insertam omittunt plerique nostri codices, sicut et anteriores editiones. At illam exhibent mss. Vindebon. collect. 5 et Florent collect. 13 ac Graeca versio.

The word nostrum, inserted by Quesnel, is omitted by most of our codices, as also by the earlier editions. But it is shown by the manuscripts, the Vienna of collection 5 and the Florentine of collection 13, and by the Greek version.

(g) ‹adjecimus, ut› · printed under col 804

Graeca versio, observante etiam Quesnello not. 1 addit: Pro veritate humanitatis Christi. Post pauca, loco verborum in nobis atque in vobis, eadem Graeca versio, Quesnello pariter animadvertente not. 2, habet, in universa catholica Ecclesia.

The Greek version, as Quesnel also observes in note 1, adds: For the truth of the humanity of Christ. A little after, in place of the words in nobis atque in vobis, the same Greek version, as Quesnel likewise notices in note 2, has: in the whole Catholic Church.

(h) ‹doctrina: quam› · printed under col 804

Mss. Veron. 57, Vindebon. collect. 5, Vat. collect. 11 et Ratisp., quisque, vel quisquis non recipit. Mox codd. collect. 21, nec membrum corporis Christi esse potest, nec capite gloriari.

The manuscripts Verona 57, the Vienna of collection 5, the Vatican of collection 11 and the Ratisbon have quisque, or quisquis non recipit. Shortly after, the codices of collection 21 have: he can neither be a member of the body of Christ nor glory in the Head.

rescribemus. Epistola autem 31 affirmat, post acceptas Theodosii litteras legatorum profectioni ordinandae exiguum tempus superfuisse: Cum a III iduum Maiarum, inquit, quo serenitatis ejus scripta suscepimus, major pars reliqui sit temporis assumenda, ut profectio sacerdotum qui negotio sufficiant valeat ordinari. Secundo etiamsi haec aliqua ratione conciliari possent in Quesnelli sententia, nondum tamen solvitur alia difficultas, qua dies iduum Junii signatur in hac epistola, siquidem profectis jam legatis scripta dicenda sit, ut initio notavimus.

[…] we shall write back. But Letter 31 declares that, after the letter of Theodosius had been received, little time remained for arranging the departure of the legates: 'Since from the third day before the Ides of May,' it says, 'on which we received the writings of His Serenity, the greater part of the remaining time must be spent so that the departure of priests equal to the business may be arranged.' Secondly, even if these things could in some way be reconciled on Quesnel's view, another difficulty is still not solved, namely that the day of the Ides of June is marked in this letter, since it must be said to have been written when the legates had already set out, as we noted at the beginning.

4. Quid ergo? auctoritatem tot et antiquarum et praestantissimarum collectionum, quae nulla variante idus Junii constanter praeferunt, deserere nefas ducimus: ac propterea Leonem eadem die duas ad eumdem Julianum Coensem dedisse epistolas arbitramur, alteram brevem per legatos afferendam, longiorem alteram per Basilium diaconum ab illo diversum, qui profectis jam legatis Flaviani litteras detulit. Verba autem praeteriti temporis direximus et misimus nihil movebunt, si considerentur quae observavimus in annot. 17 (Col. 727, n. (b) ait epist. 22, ubi similia exempla praeteriti temporis de re praesenti vel mox futura ab ipso Leone adhibita allegavimus. Duas autem epistolas eodem die ad eosdem dari a Leonis more alienum non est, ut ex exemplis in admonit. ad epist. 17 laudatis patet.

4. What then? We consider it wrong to abandon the authority of so many collections, both ancient and most excellent, which consistently show the Ides of June with no variant; and therefore we judge that Leo gave two letters on the same day to the same Julian of Cos, the one short, to be carried by the legates, the other longer, to be carried by Basil, a deacon different from the former, who brought Flavian's letter after the legates had already set out. The words in the past tense, direximus and misimus, will not trouble anyone, if one considers what we observed in note 17 (col. 727, n. (b)) on Letter 22, where we cited similar examples of the past tense used by Leo himself of a present or soon-to-follow matter. And that two letters should be given on the same day to the same persons is not foreign to Leo's custom, as is plain from the examples cited in the admonition to Letter 17.

5. Unum monendum restat quoad Graecam hujus epistolae versionem, quae cum in editionibus Conciliorum puncta alicubi praeferat lacunas indicantia, de luxato exemplari Romanorum editorum initio dubitavimus. At Graecum textum conferentes cum mss. Vat. 1455, alterius originis ab eo quo Romani editores usi sunt, ac praeterea cum duobus codd. Venetis S. Marci 164 et 555 deprehendimus, nec puncta in illis esse, neque luxationem ullam, sed omnia distincte uno contextu describi; nec tamen quae in editionibus Graecis desunt, suppleri. Hinc antiquum Graecum interpretem ea quae desiderantur in Graeca versione consulto omisisse non improbabiliter conjicimus. Forte Julianus, qui Leonis epist. 93 ad synodum Nicaenam Graece interpretatus videtur, uti animadvertemus in actionem ineditam concilii Chalcedonensis, quam in appendice publicabimus, hanc quoque ad se missam statim Graece reddidit; et cum magnae turbae tunc effervescerent, quae in Graeco desunt, consulto praetermittenda putavit. Libertatem quidem dissimulandi apud Graecos nonnulla alterius epistolae Leonis ad synodum Chalcedonensem idem Julianus Leoni indicaverat, uti colligitur ex ep. 127, c. 3. Ut autem indicentur quae in Graeca versione omissa fuerunt, ea in Latino textu uncis clausa exhibebimus.

5. One thing remains to be pointed out concerning the Greek version of this letter. Since in the editions of the Councils it shows dots in places indicating gaps, we at first suspected a dislocated exemplar of the Roman editors. But comparing the Greek text with the manuscript Vatican 1455, of another origin than the one the Roman editors used, and besides with two codices of St Mark's at Venice, 164 and 555, we found that there are no dots in them, nor any dislocation, but that everything is written out plainly in one continuous text; and yet what is lacking in the Greek editions is not supplied. Hence we conjecture, not improbably, that the ancient Greek translator deliberately omitted the things that are missing in the Greek version. Perhaps Julian, who seems to have translated into Greek Leo's Letter 93 to the synod of Nicaea, as we shall remark on the unpublished session of the council of Chalcedon which we shall publish in the appendix, also translated this letter into Greek as soon as it was sent to him; and since great disturbances were then boiling up, he thought that what is lacking in the Greek should deliberately be passed over. The same Julian had indeed pointed out to Leo the freedom of suppressing among the Greeks some things of Leo's other letter to the synod of Chalcedon, as is gathered from Letter 127, c. 3. So that what was omitted in the Greek version may be indicated, we shall show it in the Latin text enclosed in brackets.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Eutychen spem Christianam omniumque mysteriorum veritatem perimere. — II. Utriusque naturae proprietates in Christo servari. — III. Animam Christi non praeextitisse corpori, nec corpus ex nihilo conditum; sed utrumque ejusdem nobiscum esse naturae.

SYNOPSIS. — I. That Eutyches destroys the Christian hope and the truth of all the mysteries. — II. That the properties of each nature are preserved in Christ. — III. That the soul of Christ did not exist before the body, nor was the body made from nothing; but that both are of the same nature as ours.

(i) ‹σαθερῶς τούτοις ὑμᾶς› · printed under col 804

In marg. edit. Rom., ἴσως, ἀντιτεῖναι.

In the margin of the Roman edition: perhaps ἀντιτεῖναι.

Τῷ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ Ἰουλιανῷ Λέων ἐπίσκοπος. Εἰ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων γε, ὧν ἀπεστάλκαμεν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἐπὶ τοῦ πράγματος τῆς πίστεως πληρέστατα πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν Φλαυιανὸν διεπεμψάμεθα γράμματα κατὰ τῆς πλάνης τῆς πολλῆς ἀσεβείας. Ὅμως ἐπειδὴ διὰ τοῦ τέκνου ἡμῶν Βασιλείου τὰ γράμματα τῆς σῆς ἀγάπης ἐδεξάμεθα, ἅπερ ἡμῖν ἤρεσε πάνυ, τῷ ζήλῳ τοῦ καθολικοῦ φρονήματος ζέοντα, καὶ τόδε τὸ γράμμα, ὅπερ οὐκ ἀπᾴδει τῶν γραμμάτων ἐκείνων καὶ νῦν προσεθήκαμεν· ὥστε ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμοψύχως, καὶ σαθερῶς τούτοις ὑμᾶς ἀντιθεῖναι, οἵ τινες τὸ τοῦ Δεσπότου Εὐαγγέλιον διαφθείρειν ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, ἐπείπερ ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐν

(a) ‹hominis substantia› · printed under col 805

Graeca versio, observante Quesn. not. 3, addit: et ab ipsa Virginis conceptione. Dein aliqui codd. discedat pro desciscat.

The Greek version, as Quesnel observes in note 3, adds: and from the very conception by the Virgin. Then some codices have discedat for desciscat.

(b) ‹monstra nascantur?› · printed under col 805

Potior visa est haec lectio, quam codex Ratisponensis et quatuor nostri ac totidem Baluzii collect. Chalcedon. approbant. Concinit etiam Graeca versio. Quesnellus cum suis mss. Thuan., Grim. Corbei. et Victor. ac Surio: Qui enim negat mediatorem Dei et hominum hominem Jesum Christum. Caeteri editi cum ms. Vindebon. collect. 5, et codd. collect. 21 ac 24, atque exemplo Sichardi: Negator enim mediatoris Dei et hominum hominis Jesu Christi necesse est, etc. Cod. Vat. collect. 11: Negato enim mediatore Dei et hominum homine Jesu Christo necesse est, etc. Mox pro impleatur Quesnellus in marg.: Al., implicetur.

This reading seemed preferable, which the Ratisbon codex and four of ours and as many of Baluze's of the Chalcedonian collection approve. The Greek version also agrees. Quesnel, with his manuscripts of de Thou, Grimani, Corbie and St Victor, and with Surius: For whoever denies the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ. The other editions, with the Vienna manuscript of collection 5 and the codices of collections 21 and 24, and with Sichard's copy: For the denier of the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, must, etc. The Vatican codex of collection 11: For the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, being denied, it is necessary, etc. Shortly after, for impleatur Quesnel has in the margin: Otherwise, implicetur.

(c) ‹die tertio› · printed under col 805

Vulgati ante Quesn. addunt a mortuis; delent mss. etiam Quesnelli, et Baluzii ac Graeca versio.

The printed editions before Quesnel add a mortuis; the manuscripts of Quesnel too, and of Baluze, and the Greek version delete it.

(d) ‹ad dexteram Patris› · printed under col 805

Rastipon. sedet, et ad judicandos.

The Ratisbon codex has sedet, et ad judicandos.

(e) ‹in quo est judicatus› · printed under col 806

Vulgati ante Quesn. addunt ad mortem; codices ignorant ac interpretatio Graeca.

The printed editions before Quesnel add ad mortem; the codices and the Greek translation do not know it.

1 ‹τὴν Θεότητα τοῦ Λόγου› · printed under col 806 Ita juxta textum Latinum, ab assumpti hominis substantia separando, restituimus hunc locum ope mss. Ven. et Vat. In vulgatis, χωρίζων ἀπὸ τοῦ προσληφθέντος ἀνθρώπου.

So, in keeping with the Latin text, ab assumpti hominis substantia separando, we have restored this passage with the help of the Venice and Vatican manuscripts. In the printed editions: χωρίζων ἀπὸ τοῦ προσληφθέντος ἀνθρώπου.

2 ‹ἀλήθειαν.› · printed under col 806 In marg. edit. Rom., ἀφ' οὗ.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ἀφ' οὗ.

3 ‹ἄρνησιν πίπτει› · printed under col 806 In marg. edit. Rom., ἴσως, τοῦ.

In the margin of the Roman edition: perhaps τοῦ.

4 ‹καὶ ψυχὴν λογικὴν› · printed under col 806 Ms. Ven., ὁ Θεός ἦν ἐν μορφῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The Venice manuscript: ὁ Θεός ἦν ἐν μορφῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

5 ‹καὶ ὅτι› · printed under col 806 Abest καθεζόμενος a ms. Ven.

καθεζόμενος is absent from the Venice manuscript.

6 ‹Υἱὸς ὢν ἀληθὴς› · printed under col 806 Ms. Ven., τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἀνθρώπου ἦν ἐμὴν φύσιν ἀνειληφώς, mendose. Etiam ms. Vat. habet ἐμὴν.

The Venice manuscript: τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἀνθρώπου ἦν ἐμὴν φύσιν ἀνειληφώς, faultily. The Vatican manuscript also has ἐμὴν.

7 ‹οὐ πιστεύεται·› · printed under col 806 In marg. edit. Rom., ἢ

In the margin of the Roman edition: ἢ

8 ‹ἔχειν μὲν› · printed under col 806 In marg. edit. Rom., ὅπως πλάστης νοηθῇ μὴ ἔχει (leg., ἔχειν) δὲ ἀφ' ὧν μέλλει πωθῆναι (leg. σωθῆναι τὸ πλάσμα. In mss. vero Ven. et Vat. haec ultima verba sic, sed corruptissime, repraesentantur: ἀφ' ὧν μέλλει καὶ ἡ μήτηρ γενησομέν σωθῆναι.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ὅπως πλάστης νοηθῇ μὴ ἔχει (read ἔχειν) δὲ ἀφ' ὧν μέλλει πωθῆναι (read σωθῆναι) τὸ πλάσμα. But in the Venice and Vatican manuscripts these last words are given thus, though most corruptly: ἀφ' ὧν μέλλει καὶ ἡ μήτηρ γενησομέν σωθῆναι.

9 ‹ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ἐμείωσεν·› · printed under col 806 Ms. Vend., ὁ δὲ ἕν ἐστι.

The Venice manuscript: ὁ δὲ ἕν ἐστι.

πάσῃ τῇ καθολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ μία ἐστὶ μάθησις, καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ διδασκαλία· ἣν εἴ τις μὴ δέχεται, οὐκ ἔστι μέλος τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὔτε δύναται ταύτῃ δοξάζεσθαι τῇ κεφαλῇ ἐν ᾗ τὴν οἰκειαν φύσιν διαβεβαιοῦται μὴ περιέχεσθαι. Τί δὲ ὄφελος τῷ ἀμαθεῖ γέροντι, ὀνόματι τῆς τῶν Νεστοριανῶν αἱρέσεως, ἐκείνων διαβάλλειν τὴν δόξαν, ὧν τὴν εὐσεβεστάτην πίστιν καταλῦσαι μὴ δύναται; ὁπότε Νεστόριος ὅσον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπέστη, τὴν Θεότητα τοῦ Λόγου χωρίζων ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ προσληφθέντος ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἀπ' αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως τῆς Παρθένου, τοσοῦτον ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ οὗτος ἀφηνιᾷ· ὃς τὸν Μονογενῆ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὕτως ἀπὸ τῆς γαστρὸς τῆς μακαρίας Παρθένου νομίζει τεχθέντα, ὥστε ἀνθρωπίνου σώματος εἰκόνα ἔχειν αὐτὸν, ἀνθρωπίνης δὲ σαρκὸς μὴ ἀνειληφέναι ἀλήθειαν. Περὶ οὗ τερατώδους ψεύδους τίς οὐκ ἂν ἴδοι ποῖα βλασφημιῶν ἀτοπήματα τίκτεται; ὁ γὰρ ἀρνούμενος τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀναγκαίως πλείστων ὅσων ἐμπαιγμάτων πληροῦται τοῦ διαβόλου· καὶ τοῦτον ὡς οἰκεῖον Ἀπολλινάριος ἔχει, ἢ Οὐαλεντῖνος ἑαυτῷ προσχυροῖ, ἢ Μανιχαῖος κρατεῖ· ὧν οὐδὲ εἷς ἐν τῷ Σωτῆρι ἡμῶν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης σαρκὸς ἐπίστευσε τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἧς τινος δηλαδὴ μὴ ἀληθῶς ἀναληφθείσης, οὐ μόνον εἰ, ἄρνησιν πίπτει τὸ ὅτι κατὰ σάρκα καὶ ψυχὴν λογικὴν ὁ ὢν ἐν μορφῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ αὐτὸς μένων, ἐν μορφῇ δούλου ἄνθρωπος ἐγεννήθη ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ὅτι σταυρωθεὶς, καὶ ἀποθανὼν, καὶ ταφεὶς, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀνέστη· καὶ ὅτι καθεζόμενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐπὶ τῷ κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σώματι ἐστιν ἐλευσόμενος, ἐν ᾧπερ ἦν καταδικασθεὶς, οὐδαμῶς ὁμολογεῖ· ταῦτα γὰρ ἅπαντα τῆς ἡμετέρας λυτρώσεως τὰ μυστήρια ματαιοῦται, εἴγε ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς ὢν ἀληθὴς τοῦ ἀληθοῦς, ἀνθρώπου τὴν ὅλην φύσιν ἀνειληφὼς οὐ πιστεύεται· καὶ ἐπειδήπερ ἀληθῆ τὰ θεῖα σημεῖα γεγένηται, ψευδῆ τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἀποδεικνύμενα λέγεται, ὥστε τὰς μαρτυρίας ἑκατέρας τῆς φύσεως ἔχειν μὲν ὅπως ὁ Σωτὴρ νοεῖσθαι δυνηθῇ, μὴ ἔχειν δὲ ἀφ' ὧν μέλλει τὸ ἡμέτερον γένος σωθῆναι; ὃ τοίνυν ἐστὶ Θεότητος, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ἐμείωσεν· ὃ δέ ἐστι σαρκὸς, ἡ Θεότης οὐκ ἔφθειρεν· ὁ γὰρ αὐτός ἐστι καὶ προαιώνιος ἐκ Πατρὸς, καὶ κατὰ χρόνους ἀπὸ μητρός· καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς οἰκείας δυνάμεως ἄφθαρτος ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ἀσθενείας τῆς ἡμῶν παθητός καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ Τριάδι τῆς Θεότητος μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως, ἐν δὲ

(a) ‹eam in substantiis› · printed under col 807

Codex Ratisp, delet suis.

The Ratisbon codex deletes suis.

(b) ‹aliter ex Patre ante› · printed under col 807

Idem codex delet omne.

The same codex deletes omne.

(c) ‹quoniam Dominus Jesus› · printed under col 807

Duo codd. omittunt nomen Christus.

Two codices omit the name Christus.

(d) ‹dogmatum apparebat› · printed under col 807

Ita omnes nostri codices et editi ante Quesn. apud quem affusum, et in margine ed., effusum.

So all our codices and the editions before Quesnel, in whom affusum is read, and in the margin of the edition, effusum.

(e) ‹Verbum in utero› · printed under col 807

Ratisp. cum codd. collect. 21 et editis Leonis anterioribus Quesnello, copularit.

The Ratisbon codex, with the codices of collection 21 and the editions of Leo earlier than Quesnel, has copularit.

(f) ‹ut prius› · printed under col 807

Quesn. in margine: Al., creata sumeretur.

Quesnel in the margin: Otherwise, creata sumeretur.

(g) ‹animarum, antequam› · printed under col 807

Veron. 57, in corporibus. Mox pro insererentur Quesn. in marg.: Al., misceantur. Dein editi et aliqui codd., non solum vitas. Quesnelli emendationem noster cod. Vindebon. collect, 5 et omnes coll. Chalcedon. approbant.

Verona 57 has in corporibus. Shortly after, for insererentur Quesnel has in the margin: Otherwise, misceantur. Then the editions and some codices have non solum vitas. Our Vienna codex of collection 5 and all those of the Chalcedonian collection approve Quesnel's emendation.

(h) ‹nisi maluerit sententiam› · printed under col 807

Rastipon. addit suam.

The Ratisbon codex adds suam.

1 ‹τοῦ ἀναληφθέντος› · printed under col 808 Mss. et Vat., ἀνθρώπου, ἑνὸς προσώπου.

The manuscripts, including the Vatican: ἀνθρώπου, ἑνὸς προσώπου.

2 ‹προσληφθεῖσαν μακαρίαν› · printed under col 808 Ita ex ms. Vat. legendum Videtur suffragari etiam Ven. cod. qui habet ἀποτελέσασαν. Male in vulgatis ἀποτελέσας.

So it must be read from the Vatican manuscript. The Venice codex, which has ἀποτελέσασαν, seems also to support it. Wrongly in the printed editions ἀποτελέσας.

3 ‹ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ› · printed under col 808 Ms. Ven., ἐν ἀμφοτέραις, sicque notatur etiam in marg. edit. Rom.

The Venice manuscript: ἐν ἀμφοτέραις, and so it is also noted in the margin of the Roman edition.

4 ‹πάθεσιν. Ὥστε› · printed under col 808 In marg. edit. Rom., ὁ ἀληθὴς Θεὸς, ἀληθὴς ἄνθρωπος, ex Lat.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ὁ ἀληθὴς Θεὸς, ἀληθὴς ἄνθρωπος, from the Latin.

5 ‹ἐξ οὐρανοῦ› · printed under col 808 Mss. Ven et Vat., καταχθείς.

The Venice and Vatican manuscripts: καταχθείς.

6 ‹ἐκ τοῦ μηδενός· ἀλλὰ› · printed under col 808 Ms. Ven. et Vat., τὸ αὐτό ἡμῖν ἔχων, pessime.

The Venice and Vatican manuscripts: τὸ αὐτό ἡμῖν ἔχων, very badly.

7 ‹ψυχῇ· οὐ γὰρ› · printed under col 808 Vulgati omittunt ἂν: quod tamen supplendum ex ms. Vat., ut vis verbis esset, quod est in Latino textu, exprimatur.

The printed editions omit ἂν: which must nevertheless be supplied from the Vatican manuscript, so that the force of the word esset, which is in the Latin text, may be expressed.

8 ‹εἷς ὑπῆρχεν,› · printed under col 808 Deest καὶ, sed male, in ms. Ven.

καὶ is lacking, but wrongly, in the Venice manuscript.

τω μυστηριω του ἀναληφθέντος ἀνθρώπου, οὐ μιᾶς οὐσίας, ἀλλ' ἑνὸς προσώπου, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε γὰρ ὁ Λόγος εἰς σῶμα, ἢ εἰς ψυχὴν κατά τι μέρος οἰκεῖον ἐτράπη· ὁπότε ἁπλῆ, καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ τῆς Θεότητος φύσις, ὅλη ἐν τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἀεὶ ὑπάρχει οὐσίᾳ, οὐδεμίαν ἑαυτῆς μείωσιν δεχομένη, οὔτε προσθήκην· καὶ πάλιν, οὕτω τὴν προσληφθεῖσαν μακαρίαν ἀποτελέσασα φύσιν, ἵνα ἡ δοξασθεῖσα ἐν τῇ δοξασάσῃ μεμενηκυῖα τυγχάνῃ. Οὔτε οὖν ὁ Λόγος εἰς σῶμα, ὡς εἴπομεν, οὔτε εἰς Λόγον τὸ σῶμα ἠλλοίωται ἀλλ' ἑκάτερον ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ἐν ἀμφοτέροις ὁ εἷς· οὐ διαφορᾷ διῃρημένος, οὐ τῷ μεμίχθαι συγκεχυμένος· ὥστε ἕτερος μὲν ἐκ Πατρὸς, ἕτερος δὲ ἐκ μητρός· ἀλλ' ὁ αὐτὸς ἄλλως μὲν ἐκ Πατρὸς πρὸ πάσης ἀρχῆς. Ἄλλως δὲ ἐκ μητρὸς ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν· ἵνα γένηται μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς· ἐν ᾧ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς κατοικεῖ· ἐπειδήπερ τοῦ προσληφθέντος, οὐ τοῦ προσλαβόντος ἐστὶν ἡ προκοπή· ὅτι καθάπερ ὁ Ἀπόστολος λέγει, Ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσε, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα, τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων, καὶ ἐπιγείων, καὶ καταχθονίων, καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται, ὅτι Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ Πατρός· τοιγαροῦν ἡ κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ δεσπότου γέννησις, εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἔχει τινὰς ἰδιότητας, δι' ὧν τὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης παρόδου τῆς εἰς τὸν βίον ὑπερβαίνει προοίμια, εἴτε καθὸ μόνος ἐξ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἀπὸ ἀφθάρτου παρθένου χωρὶς ἐπιθυμίας συλληφθείς ἐστι καὶ τεχθεὶς, εἴτε καθὸ οὕτως ἐκ τῆς γαστρὸς τῆς μητρὸς ἀπεκυήθη, ὥστε καὶ τὴν εὐγονίαν τεκεῖν, καὶ μεῖναι τὴν παρθενίαν· ὅμως οὐχ ἑτέρας ἦν φύσεως ἡ τούτου σὰρξ, ἥπερ ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς ἡμῶν· οὐδὲ καθ' ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν ἐνεπνεύσθη τούτῳ ἡ ψυχὴ παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους, ἥ τις ὑπερεῖχεν οὐ κατὰ τὸ τοῦ γένους διάφορον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ τῶν δυνάμεων ὑπερβάλλον. Καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲν εἶχεν ἐναντιούμενον ἐξ ἐπιθυμίας σαρκός· ἐπείπερ ἤκμαζον αἰσθήσεις τοῦ σώματος δίχα νόμου τινὸς ἁμαρτήματος, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῶν κινήσεων ὑπὸ τῷ τῆς θεότητος καὶ τῷ τῆς διανοίας οἴακι· οὔτε ἐπηρεάζετο διὰ τῶν δελεασμάτων, οὔτε παρεχώρει τοῖς πάθεσιν. Ὥστε ὁ ἀληθὴς Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐγεννήθη· καὶ οὔτε κατὰ προυπάρχουσ⟨α⟩ν ψυχὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατενεχθεὶς, οὔτε κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ στοιχείου τινὸς προσληφθεὶς ἢ τεχθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ μηδενός· ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχων ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι πρόσωπον, καὶ τὴν κοινὴν ἡμῶν κρατῶν φύσιν ἐν σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦν Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων μεσίτης, εἰ μὴ ὁ αὐτὸς Θεὸς, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ εἷς ὑπῆρχεν, καὶ