Gregory to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of Antioch. The charity by which I am very tightly bound to you by no means permits me to be silent, so that Your Holiness may know whatever things are done among us, and, not deceived by false rumors, may hold more perfectly the way of your justice and rectitude, as you have perfectly begun. For the representatives of our brother and fellow-priest Cyriacus, coming, brought to me his synodical letter.
And indeed, between us and him there is, as your Beatitude knows, a grave discord because of the appropriation of a profane title; yet in a matter of faith I judged that the representatives he had sent were to be received, lest the fault of pride which has arisen in the Church of Constantinople—almost against all bishops—should produce a dissension of faith and a rift in ecclesiastical unity. And since they most humbly begged this, I caused these same representatives to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass together with me; for, as I was also careful to intimate to the most serene lord emperor, the representatives of our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus were bound to hold communion with me, because, God being my author, I have not fallen into the error of self-exaltation.
But my deacon ought not to celebrate the solemnities of the Mass with our aforesaid brother Cyriacus, because through a profane title he has either committed or follows after the sin of pride; lest—which God forbid—if he persists in such exaltation, we should seem to confirm the vanity of a foolish name. I have been careful to admonish that same brother to correct himself from such exaltation; for if he does not amend this, he will in no way have peace with us. Moreover, this same brother of ours has spoken in his synodical letters, God being his author, in all things catholically. Yet he has condemned a certain Eudoxius, whom we find neither condemned in the synods nor reproved by his predecessors in their synodical letters. And the canons indeed of the Council of Constantinople condemn the Eudoxians;
but who Eudoxius, their founder, was, they by no means say. Now the Roman Church has not to this day possessed those canons or the acts of that synod, nor has it received them; yet in this respect it receives that same synod, namely in what was defined by it against Macedonius. But the remaining heresies which are there mentioned it reproves as already condemned by other Fathers. Concerning the Eudoxians, however, it has hitherto known nothing. In the history of Sozomen, indeed, certain things are related about a certain Eudoxius who is said to have seized the episcopate of the Church of Constantinople. But the Apostolic See refuses to accept that history also, because it tells many falsehoods and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia excessively, asserting that he was a great doctor of the Church even up to the day of his death.
但他們卻絲毫不說這歐多西派的創始人歐多西烏究竟是誰。羅馬教會至今並未擁有那些教規或那次會議的紀錄，也未曾接受它們；然而在這一點上羅馬教會接納該次公會議，即它針對馬其頓紐（Macedonius）所定的斷案。至於那裡所提及的其餘異端，羅馬教會則譴責它們，視為已被其他教父所定罪。然而關於歐多西派，羅馬教會迄今一無所知。在索佐門（Sozomen）的教會史中，確實記載了某些關於一位據說曾奪取君士坦丁堡教會主教職位的歐多西烏之事。但宗座也拒絕接受那部教會史，因為它多有謊言，並過度稱讚摩普綏提亞的狄奧多若（Theodore of Mopsuestia），聲稱他直到臨終之日仍是教會的偉大導師。
It is therefore right that, if anyone accepts that history, he should contradict the synod which was held in the times of Justinian of pious memory concerning the Three Chapters. But whoever cannot contradict this synod must of necessity reject that history. In the Latin tongue, moreover, concerning this Eudoxius we have to this day found nothing—neither in Philaster, nor in blessed Augustine, who wrote much about heresies, nor in the other Fathers. Let your Charity therefore, if any among the Greeks of the approved Fathers has made mention of him, make it known to me by your letters.
Moreover, three years ago, compelled by the case of the monks of Isauria, who were accused of heresy, my former brother and fellow-bishop the lord John, seeking to satisfy me, sent me letters in which he strove to show that they had contradicted the definitions of the Synod of Ephesus; and, as though from that same synod, he sent us certain chapters by which they might be opposed. Among other things, however, it was there written concerning the soul of Adam, that it did not die in sin, on the ground that the devil does not enter into the heart of man; and that if anyone should say this, he would be anathema. When these things had been read over to me, I was greatly grieved. For if the soul of Adam, who first sinned, did not die in sin, how was it said to him concerning the forbidden tree:
'On whatever day you eat of it, you shall die the death' (Genesis 2:17)? And Adam and Eve did indeed eat of the forbidden tree, and yet afterward they lived in the flesh more than nine hundred years. It is therefore established that he did not die in the flesh. If, then, he did not die in the soul—which it is impious to say—God pronounced a false sentence concerning him, who said that on the day he ate he would die. But far be this error, far be it from the true faith. For we say that the first man, on the day he sinned, died in soul, and that through him the whole human race was condemned to this penalty of death and corruption. But through the second Man we trust that we can be freed, both now from the death of the soul, and afterward from all corruption of the flesh in the eternal resurrection.
But, as we also said to the aforesaid representatives: We say that Adam's soul died by sin, not from the substance of living, but from the quality of living. For since substance is one thing and quality another, his soul was not so dead as not to exist, but so dead as not to be blessed. Yet this Adam afterward returned to life through penance. But that the devil enters into the heart of man, if the Gospel is believed, is not denied. For there it is written: 'And after the morsel Satan entered into him' (John 13:27). And again it is said there: 'When the devil had now put it into the heart of Judas that Judas should betray Him' (John 13:2). But whoever denies this falls into the Pelagian heresy.
Since therefore, on examining the Synod of Ephesus, we found nothing of the kind contained in it, we also caused a very ancient codex of that same synod to be brought to us from the Church of Ravenna, and we found it to agree with the copy which we possess so exactly that it differed in nothing, and contained nothing else in the definition of anathema and reprobation except what the twelve chapters of Cyril of blessed memory reprove. This whole account, moreover, we have rendered much more fully and subtly to his aforesaid representatives who are present here, and we have given them fullest satisfaction. Therefore, lest either these things or any similar ones should creep in there to scandalize the holy Church, it was necessary for us to bring these very matters to the judgment of your Holiness.
And although we know our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus to be orthodox, nevertheless on account of others we ought to be cautious, so that before these errors come out into public, the seeds of them may be trodden down. The writings of your Holiness I received when our common son Sabinianus the deacon came. But because the bearer of these present letters, being already prepared to set out, could not be detained, I will reply to these matters when my representative deacon comes. (See above, letter 31.)