Sermons & Letters 227

But although I have noted all these things in the preceding chapter, preserving the order of times, I shall seem to have accomplished nothing yet, unless I overthrow the foundations of Joseph Anthelmi, Ussher, Cave, Martin Steyaert, Fr. Salinas, and other writers. They therefore adduce only one testimony of St. Prosper, drawn from chapter 3 of the poem De Ingratis, by which they flatter themselves that this work was written while Augustine was still alive. St. Prosper thus sings: 'To what other end could that holy Council proceed, whose leader was Aurelius and whose genius was Augustine? whom the grace of Christ, watering him with a more abundant horn, gave as a light to our age, kindled from the true Light; for God is to him food, and life, and rest, and every delight;

the love of Christ alone is his, the honor of Christ alone is his, and while he attributes no good things to himself, God becomes all things to him, and wisdom reigns in the holy temple.' 'Thus Prosper (says Father Salinas), in which lines he celebrates the best master with a sustained eulogy as though still surviving; how indeed does he not there speak of other bishops or men foremost in this cause who were already deceased?' 2. But Martin Steyaert, doctor of Louvain, in adorning or correcting this work, led by exactly the same argument, thus annotated at that word 'reigns': 'From this (namely the word), and from other words of the present tense throughout the whole paragraph, it is gathered that he wrote these things while the holy doctor was still living.' But what is feebler than an argument of this kind?

For if we first consider that kind of praise, than which nothing more sublime or more splendid can be said of any blessed spirit now reigning with God in heaven, that surely cannot apply to a man still living a mortal life except with open and shameless flattery. Besides, in what sense or on what ground could Prosper have sung this of Augustine, were he not still surviving: 'the grace of Christ, watering him with a more abundant horn, gave him as a light to our age, kindled from the true Light'; when afterward, that same man now deceased, the same Prosper more diligently consulted the Apostolic See: 'whether even a rumor of unfavorable suspicion had besprinkled him, or whether he was of such great learning that he ought to be reckoned among the best masters of the Church.'

For how these can be reconciled with one another I plainly do not see; especially since a layman, utterly stripped of all ecclesiastical authority—such as Prosper was while Augustine was still alive—would by no means have arrogated to himself to pass judgment on the holy Father's writings before Pope Celestine's decision. 3. Finally, the words of the present tense do not press upon us, since the talents of poets always use a freer license, very often fashioning for themselves such images that they describe as though present those who are already deceased, and from the deeds and writings before their eyes persuade themselves that the dead are still living.

And indeed Prosper there alludes to Augustine's heavenly wisdom, by which he eluded, rejected, and overthrew the arts, contrivances, and errors of the Pelagians and Semipelagians. Therefore after his death he set him before himself, as it were living, in his composed works. Nor is it true that throughout that whole paragraph he uses words of the present tense; but, wishing to express the thoughts of his mind poetically, he has recourse now to words of the present, now of the past tense, and, as though by a gradual step, he describes him, under the name of wisdom, in these words—passing from Augustine's mortal life to that immortal life in which he reigns with God:

'And while he attributes no good things to himself, God becomes all things to him, and wisdom reigns in the holy temple.' Do the aforesaid writers, whom we oppose, think that these things can be said with propriety of any most wise living man? When has God been wont to become all things to the living, so that, still surrounded by mortal flesh, they reign in the holy temple? That the Scriptures and the Fathers asserted this with truth of Christ alone, the only-begotten Son of God, is sufficiently ascertained by all Catholics; but if we should wish to fit such a saying to anyone else, we must needs contend with the Catholic religion itself. 4. When I had seriously turned my mind to these things, I judged

that the opinion of those was too weak and feeble who supposed that the aforesaid little works were written by Prosper before Augustine died, or before Pope Celestine adorned Augustine's writings with eulogies, or finally before that Julian, the standard-bearer of the Pelagians, was brought to utter destruction with his devices. But the other points which are added by Fr. Salinas fall utterly to the ground, if we attend to Prosper's aim in writing or his manner of discoursing. For the sacred poet had not proposed to himself in that poem De Ingratis to adorn with eulogies those leaders, three hundred strong, who had convened in the case of Pelagius, but his intention was to attack and harass the enemies of divine grace.

Therefore it is no wonder if, apart from Aurelius, primate of all Roman Africa, and the excellent doctor Augustine, he concealed in silence the names of all the rest, especially since in Prosper's age the names of those same Fathers could easily be found in the Acts of the councils, which had not yet perished. 1. But now the reckoning of the time and of our undertaking demands that we speak concerning the writings of Leo the Great. As regards his writings, therefore, nothing more magnificent shines forth—especially in his homilies—than that divine doctrine handed down in the sacred letters concerning the power and gifts of divine grace.

Wherefore, Julian being extinguished, and the Pelagians now destroyed throughout Campania, and the authors of these heretics finally falling silent at Rome, what was there that he could treat amid the sacred mysteries more worthily of so great a pontiff, and urge upon the assembled people? Therefore in the greatest solemnities of the year, to the ears of the Roman citizens, as long as he lived, he directed at least some part of his discourse to this end, that he might censure and subvert the errors of the Pelagians and of other heretics. For in them he now describes the weakness and infirmity of the natural powers, now most frequently inculcates the supernatural power of divine help, necessarily required for attaining the good of eternal happiness.

Hence he explains, from the Apostle, from the Gospel, and from other testimonies of the sacred Scriptures, that the whole offspring of Adam remained corrupted by the sin of disobedience. Then he describes the greatest work of divine mercy, by which, through the cross and death of the only-begotten Son of God—the price of our redemption now paid—the chains of sin were broken, and, the yoke of infernal captivity shaken off, the door of paradise was unbarred for these same and for all the sons of Adam. What more need be said? 2. Perpetually therefore and everywhere the holy

pontiff perpetually and everywhere seizes the occasion of pursuing the Pelagian dogma, in case perhaps there were some among his hearers who doubted concerning the Catholic truth and concerning the sanctions of the Apostolic See, so that, at length overcome by the weight of reasons and persuaded by the authority of the apostolic discourse, they might no longer defer to condemn Pelagius, Celestius, and Julian together with their errors. For this reason especially he exhorts the people neither to presume upon their own righteousness, nor to distrust God's mercy, because almighty God, in order to make His grace wonderful in him (he speaks of himself), conferred His gifts upon him in whom He found no support of merits. And in the following sermon, in the earlier chapter, having described the weakness of human nature, he adds:

'And yet we do not despair, nor do we fail, because we presume not upon ourselves, but upon Him who works in us.' But lest these words should be drawn by anyone into the meaning of the opposite party—as though he wished it thought that the powers of the human will had been so crushed by sin that the faculty of choice remained utterly destroyed—how God repairs us to His own image, that He may find in us the form of His goodness, he explained in the following wonderful and magnificent sentence: 'He gives that whereby we too may do what He works, kindling, that is, the lamps of our minds, and inflaming us with the fire of His charity, that we may love not only Himself, but also whatever He loves.'

And again in another place he compares human hearts to an earthly field, which, if it be neglected through lazy idleness and slothful indolence, brings forth no noble growth, and, given over to thorns and thistles, will produce not what is to be stored in barns, but what is to be burned in flames. Then, about to explain this allegory, he burst forth into these words: 'But this field, most beloved, watered from above by the grace of God, is fortified by faith, exercised by fastings, sown by almsgiving, made fruitful by prayers, so that among our plantings and waterings no root of any bitterness may sprout up, nor may the growths of any harmful stock raise themselves, but, every seed of the vices being killed off, the joyful harvest of the virtues may grow strong.'

Here the holy pontiff speaks in the person of the sacred prelates, who are appointed as laborers in the Lord's field. 3. But that the sacred laver of baptism heals the infirmity and corruption of human nature—which the authors of the Pelagian dogma in some measure denied—the holy pontiff himself teaches in the seventeenth sermon. Yet not so that, once the original disease has been healed by the power of divine help, a man can subsist by his own powers, as though, while living this mortal life, he could in no way turn aside from the grace of righteousness he has attained—whereas very often he does turn aside. For since our nature is mutable, and mortal by the original stain (although even now redeemed and reborn in sacred baptism), inasmuch as it is passible,

just so far is it prone to worse things, and would be corrupted by carnal desire, unless it were fortified by spiritual help: 'Because (these are golden words) just as one never lacks that whereby he may fall, so one always has at hand that whereby he may subsist.' Nothing therefore more agreeable and useful could our most holy Leo undertake than the office of perpetually censuring and assailing the sects of the heretics, and at the same time teaching the people to beware of their errors. Therefore it is no wonder if in almost all his sermons he lashed the Pelagians, and attacked that heresy with such weight of reasons and authority of the Scriptures that he brought very many to repentance. 4. Let the reader consult the first sermon on the Nativity

which the Roman Church has always kept in its Breviary. Does he not, in the earlier chapter, call Christ the Lord the Redeemer not only of all men, but even of infants? For he asserts Him to be the destroyer of sin and death, who, as He found none free from guilt, so came to free all. And a little after, employing those words of Job, chapter 14, verse 4: 'No one is clean from filth, not even the infant whose life upon earth is of one day,' he overthrows one of the fundamental articles of this heresy. Let him also consult chapter

chapter 5 of the sermon on the Nativity of the Lord, in which with all the sinews of eloquence he directly opposes himself to Pelagius, who, arrogant and puffed up under the pretext of defending human liberty, taught that Adam by his fall harmed himself alone, but that the rest of men are born in that perfection of nature in which Adam was created by God. But against this the holy pontiff teaches that this is a mystery of the Catholic faith: that absolutely all men perished in Adam;

so that, unless the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us, unless the Creator Himself descended into communion with the creature and by His nativity recalled the human oldness to a new beginning, death would reign from Adam even to the end, and upon all men an insoluble condemnation would remain, since from the sole condition of being born there was one and the same cause of perishing for all. And finally, to pass over almost innumerable other passages, let the reader consult the sixth sermon on the Epiphany, chapter 4, where, having described the frailty of the human condition—which always slips down into sins—he demonstrates that one must by no means quickly acquiesce in deceptive pleasure, because no sin is without delight.

Wherefore, amid so many and so great enticements of the flesh, and with human nature beset by infernal enemies, a man can obtain for himself no help or safeguard at all, unless from carnal desires he has recourse to spiritual protection, and, having a mind that knows its God, turns himself away from the counsels of the enemy who wickedly persuades him. But whoever, already delighting in carnal pleasures and overcome by his enemies, is bound fast by the chains of sins, let him never be at ease as to impunity; for if he has lost the time for repentance, he will find no place for pardon.

Let him utterly distrust that he can rise up again by his own power, or that he can at least by the movements of nature dispose himself unto justification, as the throngs of the Massilians and Semipelagians wrongly asserted; but let him flee to the mercy of the God who helps, and beg that the chains of evil habit be broken by Him who—alleluia!—raises up all who fall and sets upright all who are cast down. For then the prayer of him who confesses will not be empty, since the merciful God will fulfil the will of those who fear Him, and will give what is asked, He who gave the wherewithal to ask. But he assails and hems in these same Semipelagians and Pelagians more openly and more forcibly, moreover, in the last sermon on the Epiphany, chapter [ten].

Chapter 3, where, discoursing on true and supernal virtue, he asserts that it is nothing, nor possesses the property of the Godhead, unless it is visited by the Spirit of its Author; for when the Lord said to his disciples, 'Without me you can do nothing,' he therefore immediately adds: 'There is no doubt that a man who does good things has from God both the effect of the work and the beginning of the will.' 5. Finally, in Sermon 18, which is the fifth of Lent, he prepares new battering-rams for the destruction of the Pelagian and Semipelagian heresy, when, namely, being about to prove that the hearts of men are made a temple of the living God by the power of the supernal Spirit, he uses the example and likeness of houses made by hand.

For these, by praiseworthy diligence, provision is made, so that if anything has been damaged either by the pouring of rains, or by the whirlwind of storms, or by age itself, care may restore it to its whole and sound state; so likewise (he says) must we by continual solicitude take precaution, lest anything disordered, lest anything unclean, be found in our souls. But then, presently making the step from human to divine and supernal things, he thus reasons wonderfully to our purpose:

For although our building does not stand without the aid of a craftsman, nor can our structure be sound unless the protection of the Maker presides over it, yet, because we are rational stones and living material, the hand of our Author so builds us up that he who is being restored also works together with his workman. For here Leo does not exclude the effort, the cooperation, and the free consent of the human will, upheld and aided by divine assistance—as afterward Calvin, Jansenius, and Quesnel wickedly and too licentiously dared to assert. Nor indeed did he teach that man's free will conducts itself entirely after the manner of a stone or of some other dead thing;

on the contrary, he taught that when it is stirred by the movements of divine grace, it ought not to withdraw itself from obedience to God, nor to fall away from that Good without which it cannot be good. Wherefore the same holy pontiff, in praiseworthy words, adds these things: 'Let therefore human obedience not withdraw itself from the grace of God, nor fall away from that Good without which it cannot be good; and if it finds anything impossible or arduous in the fulfilment of the commandments, let it not remain within itself, but have recourse to Him who commands, who therefore gives the precept in order to arouse desire and to bestow the effect.'

Meanwhile, indeed, while I was transcribing these things, I was carried away by so great a delight that I could only with difficulty refrain from adducing very many other like passages. But it was needful for me to pass these over, lest I should abuse the patience of my friendly reader. For the rest, our most holy pontiff Leo has very many other sentences, full of apostolic vigor and authority, by which not only the Pelagians and Semipelagians, once the enemies of divine grace, could be checked and restrained, but also others and others still which discomfit and press hard upon Calvin, Jansenius, and Quesnel, and cut to pieces their throngs. But now it is fitting that we discourse concerning the other writings of the Great Leo, and this we shall endeavor to accomplish chiefly in the following chapter. 1.

Come then, now let me turn my mind to those things which were canonically decreed by the holy pontiff Leo concerning the reception back into the Church of deserter clerics who abhorred the Pelagian heresy. Therefore in the fourth year of that same pontificate, neither at Rome nor throughout Campania was the hiss of the Pelagian error any longer heard. But if any here or there were still found tainted with this defilement, either doing penance they bitterly abjured their errors, or at least, struck with a grave fear of punishments, they outwardly feigned to profess the Catholic faith, and strove as it were with a certain veil to conceal their own impiety. This last thing, in the province of the Venetians, S[eptimius]...

Septimius, bishop of the Church of Altinum, understood to be occurring; who, when he had noticed that many clerics of his diocese had abjured the Pelagian heresy only in appearance, and who afterward, once they had been admitted into the fellowship of the Catholics, secretly and as it were by stealth were reviving the heresy they had abjured, at once made the Roman pontiff informed of this matter by his letters. But that the letter of Septimius perished through the injury of time is the settled conviction both of me and of all learned men; for we were not able, even with much painstaking effort, to find it upon searching for it. Yet there still survive two letters of the holy...

...two letters of the pontiff, written to Januarius, bishop of Aquileia, the metropolitan of Septimius; and from both of them the history of the deeds transacted, as well as the decrees of the Apostolic See against the Pelagians, are most easily recognized. 2. As regards the earlier letter, it was long doubted to which of the bishops of Aquileia it was written. The old editors, following perhaps the reading of certain corrupted manuscripts, read the name of Nicetas instead of Januarius. Quesnel afterward published the heading of that letter in a mutilated form, and, having left out either name, wrote merely: 'A letter to the bishop of Aquileia.' But in this matter he asserts that he followed Crabbe, Picard, Isidore, the Cologne edition of the year 1551, and several codices.

But we (as we shall say in the notes), moved by the authority of two Vatican copies, one archetype from Florence, and another from the Vallicelliana, of the best quality, have inserted the name of Januarius, there also favoring us the manuscript Chronicle of the bishops of Aquileia, which exists in the Vatican library, marked with the number 5286, in which the following things pertinent to our matter are read: 'Januarius was ordained in the year of the Lord Jesus Christ 443. To this bishop Januarius St. Leo writes, that bishops and the rest of the clerical order, wishing to return to Catholic unity from the Pelagian and Coelestian heresy, should not be restored in their sees unless they publicly renounce their errors.'

'In the same Chronicle, written by Dandolo, it is likewise read concerning the same Januarius: This man, born in the city of Pola in Istria, and instructed in Catholic disciplines, and a glad bishop, by his prudence and doctrine kept the people subject to him unharmed by errors, though hedged about by many straits because of the pressing persecutions; in whose praise Pope Leo speaks thus: Upon reading the letters of thy fraternity.' 3. But with these words Leo began the second letter, which was written in the year 447, as the note of consolation most certainly makes known.

But since we have resolved first to discourse concerning the canonical sanctions of Leo in the cause of which we treat, we wish to begin our discourse from that letter which was most apt for overthrowing the Pelagians and most weighty for the authority of the Apostolic See. Such a letter, indeed, was divided by its author Leo into five distinct chapters; and in the first chapter, that he might at once turn away from the mind of the metropolitan of Aquileia every suspicion and scruple—namely, that the Roman See had lent its ears to the false rumors of certain men—he not only sets forth the name of the informer, Bishop Septimius, but also appended to this letter copies of the accusation he had received, and transmitted them to Januarius.

In few words, therefore, he expresses all the evils which it was needful for the vigilance of the supreme pastor to meet, in these words: 'By the report of our holy fellow-bishop Septimius, which is contained in the appended documents, we have learned that certain presbyters and deacons, and clerics of various orders, whom the Pelagian or Coelestian heresy had held entangled, have so come into Catholic communion in your province, that no condemnation of their own error was required of them.' 4. After these things our Leo censures the sluggish disposition of certain bishops who, overly drowsy, allowed wolves clothed in sheep's skins to enter the Lord's sheepfold.

...allowed [them to enter], and, against the authority of the canons and of the decrees issued by himself, granted to roving clerics that they might forsake their own churches in which they had either received or acquired their clerical office, carrying their instability about through diverse places, ever loving to wander, and never to remain upon the apostolic foundation. But how many, and what sort of evils, would forthwith arise from such violation of the canons to the detriment of Catholic society, he at once subjoins: 'Since (he says) those who, by no scrutinized examination, are bound by no prejudgment of their profession, especially seek this fruit, that under the veil of communion they may approach many houses, and by knowledge of a false name may corrupt the hearts of many.' 5.

But to which canons or decrees issued by himself the holy pontiff meant to appeal, no one hitherto out of so many learned men who have adorned his writings has noticed or annotated. Yet it is a matter of the greatest moment, nor could it be passed over without grave carelessness of mind. For from it, indeed, the supreme authority of the Roman prelate throughout the whole world in framing ecclesiastical laws becomes more clearly explored; and then, moreover, it becomes most fully known with what and how great honor the statutes of the Apostolic See were received by all the pastors of the other Churches. Therefore, inquiring what St....

...what Leo defined in those canons to which he appeals, we have been able to understand it, besides, both from the Aquileian Chronicle praised in the foregoing, and from Letter 12 as well as from the following Letter 13. In the former, indeed, which was written to Anastasius of Thessalonica, chapter 9, he has these words concerning these deserting and erring clerics: 'Let no one receive, let no one solicit, another's cleric against the will of that man's own bishop, unless perhaps by an agreement of charity it has been arranged between the giver and the receiver. But if the case is conducted against the province, the metropolitan shall compel the runaway cleric to return to his own Church. If, however, he has withdrawn farther off, he shall be recalled by the authority of thy precept, so that no occasion be left either for cupidity or for ambition.'

But in the other, the subsequent letter to the metropolitan bishops established throughout the province of Achaia, treating of the manner and institution of the clerical life, and of the bond of priestly concord to be kept by all the sacred ministers, he not only commands that what he had written to Anastasius be religiously observed, but he willed moreover this to be cautioned, that no bishop should dare to claim for himself the cleric of another bishop, without the cession of him to whom he belongs—a cession which, however, evident writings should contain—since this both the authority of the canons has defined, and the very principle of preserving unity teaches, lest by this license the ecclesiastical order become altogether unstable. But after these things he addressed the same metropolitans of Achaia with these words...

...he addressed [them] with these words, full of apostolic vigor: 'Let therefore those things, dearest brethren, which you perceive to be decreed by us with a devoted affection of mind, descend more deeply into your breasts, that we, who anxiously desire to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, may receive the fruit of our injunction, and may rejoice in the works of your love.' 6. Here Quesnel altogether stumbled at what Leo asserted he decreed and enjoined, and, turning to those words, 'Since this both the authority of the canons has defined,' he rightly inquires to which canons the holy pontiff there looked; but at last, hesitating, he asserts that it seems to him St. Peter's [the holy pontiff] looked either to the 16th of Nicaea, or to the Sardican 18th and 19th, nay rather to the canons of the first council of Carthage;

but he sincerely confessed that no mention is had in the canons of a consent handed over in writing. Why then does he conjecture that this discipline was first introduced by Leo, since he does not find it expressed in the decrees of the preceding councils and of the Roman pontiffs? This inference, moreover, ought by no means to have been dissembled or passed over by a man who had set himself to adorn Leo's life and deeds with study. But now it is helpful to dismiss these and other like matters. For then they will have to be unfolded by us more diligently and likewise more eloquently, when, led very much by the authority of the Vatican archetypes, the titles of the 49 decrees of Pope Leo will have to be treated. 7.

But now the plan of our undertaking demands that we return to the Pelagians, from whom our discourse has for a little digressed. St. Leo, therefore, in the second chapter of that letter, to restrain the unbridled boldness of the Pelagian clerics, and to lead them to the execration of the impious dogma, enjoined upon the metropolitan Januarius: 'That, a synod of the provincial priests having been gathered before you, all—whether presbyters, or deacons, or clerics of any order—who from the fellowship of the Pelagians and Coelestians have been received into Catholic communion with such imprudence that they were not first constrained to the condemnation of their error;'

'...now at least, after their hypocrisy is in some part uncovered, let them be compelled to a true correction, by which it may both profit themselves and be able to harm no one.'

But lest a bold and cunning counsel should settle in anyone's mind, to hide under the veil of hypocrisy the nefarious poison of that heresy, and that he might close off the approach to every evasion and deceit, he commanded: 'That by open professions they should condemn the authors of the proud error, and detest whatever the universal Church has abhorred in their doctrine, and that they should declare, by full and open protestations, signed with their own hand, that they embrace and in all things approve all the synodal decrees which the authority of the Apostolic See has confirmed for the cutting off of this heresy.' 8.

Quesnel, indeed, foreseeing the force and weight of these words, in order to procure defenses for his ill-undertaken cause, having noted only two of those words, 'synodal decrees,' and dissembling the rest, endeavored to distort the whole testimony of the holy pontiff into an entirely other sense, subjoining thus: 'of the African Church especially, of Milevis and Carthage, gathered several times. Which decrees were first approved by the Roman pontiffs Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, and Coelestine; then by the ecumenical synod of Ephesus, with an irrevocable decree, together with the acts of Pope Coelestine, unto the condemnation of the same heretics.'

And in order that he himself might augment the force of this last annotation, he praises the synodal letter of the Fathers of Ephesus to Pope Coelestine, reckoning to himself, namely, with this hope, that he could more and more corroborate his preceding assertion. Wittily indeed does Quesnel, who, mixing many things into one, gradually diminishes the authority of the Apostolic See and exalts the rights of councils above the Roman pontiffs themselves. But now let him say, I pray, whether the Apostolic See confirmed the Ephesine decrees issued against the Pelagians, or not? Whichever way, he now runs upon the rocks;

for if the authority of the Apostolic See did not confirm these, it forthwith follows from Leo's words that the heretical Pelagians returning to the Church ought by no means to have embraced, by their open professions, those things which the praised synod had defined for the cutting off of that heresy. Nor were they bound to confess, by full and open protestations signed with their own hand, that they embraced and in all things approved other synodal decrees, than those which the authority of the Apostolic See confirmed for the cutting off of this heresy. But if he say that these decrees also were confirmed by the Apostolic See, then he would not even be consistent with himself, since, when treating of the Council of Chalcedon, he denies that this power resides in the Roman pontiffs;

nor ought that decree to be called irretractable, which before the confirmation of the Roman pontiff could be void. 9. And indeed, how comes it that the Ephesine synod confirmed the statutes of the preceding councils with an irretractable decree, together with the acts of Pope Coelestine? The annotator forges the history out of his own brain. For in that synod nothing at all was transacted about adding strength to the constitutions of the praised supreme pontiffs. Nay, the Ephesine Fathers themselves, led by zeal for truth and justice, asserted that the privilege of irretractable judgment belongs to the Roman pontiff alone. For they begin their synodal letter with these words: 'For this is so established for you, great men...'

'...it is so established that in all things you should be renowned, and that by your zeal you should establish the foundations of the Churches.' Not, therefore, do the Fathers of Ephesus arrogantly ascribe the firmness of the faith to themselves, but they say: 'It is established as a custom that the Roman pontiffs should in all things be renowned, and that by their zeal they should establish the firm supports of the Churches.' Or must it be suspected that the praised Fathers were ignorant of the rights of general councils? Those rights, namely, which in later ages were forged by certain persons out of pseudo-dogmas? They were ignorant of them, I say, because, breathed upon by the divine Spirit, they thus depended on no injunctions or decrees of the Roman pontiffs, so that I would think it a grave crime for them even lightly to draw back from these;

but rather they both taught and believed that, when graver causes arise, the Apostolic See is perpetually to be held as the mother and mistress of the other Churches. In vain therefore did Quesnel study to prepare an escape for himself, appealing to those words with which the Ephesine Fathers close that synodal letter, saying: 'Moreover, when the Commentaries of the Acts in the condemnation of the impious Pelagians and Coelestians—of Coelestius, Pelagius, Julian, Florus—which were decreed and constituted by thy piety concerning them, had been read through by the holy synod, we judged that these too ought to remain solid and firm, and we all determined the same with thee, holding them as deposed and condemned.'

And what escape will he procure out of these things, since, striking upon new rocks, he falls also upon others, by which he is bound the more and more? 10. For in that synod the Commentaries of the Acts, delivered for the condemnation of the impious Pelagians and Coelestians, were merely read and published; and those Fathers affirmed that the things which Pope Coelestine had already decreed were polished and solid. But what then? Could the mere reading of those same Acts, or that unanimous consent of the Fathers, by which they were everywhere held as deposed and condemned whom the Roman pontiff had condemned and deposed—could these be of such strength as to render firm and irretractable the decrees of the Apostolic See, if in reality they had not been such?

A plainly new fabrication of a crafty man. And in order that we may snatch it away, to the utmost disgrace of its author, it will be needful that we observe the aim and end of the holy pontiff Coelestine in directing those Acts to the council. For the Roman pontiff did not transmit such proceedings through his legates to the council in order that they might acquire strength and firmness, but only that they might be more published abroad and be more speedily handed over to execution. 'We have directed (he says), according to our solicitude, our holy brothers and fellow-priests, of one mind with us, and most approved men, the bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and Philip our presbyter, that they may take part in the things which are being done, and may carry out what has previously been decreed by us;'

'...to which we do not doubt that assent will be given by your holiness.' There is therefore here no discourse about the confirming of the statutes of the Apostolic See, but only about the executing of them; which office, since it pertains to inferiors and subordinates, it can by no means be affirmed that the acts of Pope Coelestine in the condemnation of the Pelagians could obtain strength and firmness from the Ephesine Fathers. Otherwise all the constitutions and laws of emperors, kings, and supreme magistrates would very much depend, in their strength and firmness, upon those to whom the care of executing them is wont to be entrusted. 11. Our Quesnel, moreover, fabricates many things concerning the African canons of Milevis and Carthage. Many concerning the decrees of Innocent, Zosimus...

...the decrees of Boniface, which he asserts were confirmed by the same Ephesine synod with an irrevocable sanction. But what does the innovator bring upon the stage? That the Fathers of the Council of Milevis published no canons at all, the more learned theologians have already understood from the synodal letter to Pope Innocent, as we have observed also in the foregoing passages, following Dionysius Petavius. For when the praised Fathers had wished the Apostolic See to be consulted concerning the impious disputations of the Pelagians, lest silence should be turned to them as a fault of negligence, they first indicate the new figments of the heresy, without any exaggeration of words at all;

then they assert that they had preferred the architects of the errors to be healed within the Church, rather than to be cut off in a desperate state of salvation by the Church, if no necessity should compel it. Therefore they smelled out the greatest falsity and impiety in the sayings of the Pelagians, and yet they did not pronounce anathemas upon the leaders of the heresy, but judged that the judgment of them was to be reserved for the Apostolic See:

'Because the Lord (thus those bishops gathered at Milevis begin their letter to Innocent), by the special gift of His grace, has placed thee in the Apostolic See, and has rendered thee such in our times, that it may rather be reckoned to us as a fault of negligence, if we keep silent before thy veneration about the things which ought to be suggested for the Church, than that thou couldst receive these either disdainfully or negligently: we beseech thee, deign to apply thy pastoral diligence to the great perils of the weak members of Christ.' And at the end of the same letter they thus address the same pontiff Innocent:

'But we judge (with the mercy of the Lord our God Jesus Christ helping—who deigns both to direct thee as thou consultest and to hear thee as thou prayest) that, by the authority of thy holiness, drawn from the clear light of the Scriptures, those men (who now think such perverse and pernicious things) will more easily yield, so that we may rather rejoice at their correction than be saddened at their perishing, most blessed father.' These things the Fathers of Milevis wrote to St. Innocent, from which we plainly understand not only that no canons were then issued, but that no thought had been given even to framing them. 12.

Let us grant, nevertheless, that Quesnel did not run through the preceding letter, but, deceived by the persuasion of others, esteemed those canons which are circulated under the name of the Council of Milevis to be genuine. Why then afterward, led by no authority, does he feign that these canons were first confirmed by Innocent, then by the Ephesine synod with an irretractable decree? Quesnel therefore claims for himself a great license of babbling, so that whatever is most repugnant to pontifical authority and to the governance of the Church he may dare of his own right to defend. But now let our discourse turn itself to the canons of the councils of Carthage, brought forth against the same Pelagian heresy. 13. What of new arrangement, then, is contained in them?

Nothing at all that would injure the authority of the Apostolic See; nay rather, the sixty-seven bishops who, after the synod of Diospolis, convened at Carthage in the year 419, declared that the things they had a second time defined against the Pelagians for the safeguarding of the salvation of many, and for the correcting of the perversity of certain persons, were altogether infirm, unless the supreme authority of the Apostolic See should be added to give them strength. 'This therefore (say the Fathers of Carthage to Innocent) we have deemed should be intimated to thy holy charity, lord brother, that to the statutes of our mediocrity the authority of the Apostolic See also may be applied, for the safeguarding of the salvation of many and the correcting also of the perversity of certain persons.'

The collectors of the synods have noted that the Acts of this council perished. But indeed, both among the letters of Augustine and in the collection of the Councils, the rescripts of Pope Innocent to the Carthaginian and Milevitan Fathers are preserved, than which nothing more constant, nothing more firm, for asserting the rights of the Roman See, could without doubt be desired. Wherefore we can by no means pass over here what Quesnel altogether dissembled, lest his cause should go to ruin. Innocent therefore first adorns with praises the vigor of religion of the Carthaginian Fathers, because 'no less now in consulting than before when you were pronouncing, you confirm by true reasoning, in that you judged that what pertains to us should be referred to our judgment for approval. Knowing (he subjoins) what is owed to the Apostolic...'

'...what is owed to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle himself, from whom this very episcopate and the whole authority of this name has emerged; following whom, we know how to condemn things now so evil, as also to approve things praiseworthy. Or indeed that which, keeping by your priestly office the institutions of the Fathers, you judge not to be trampled upon—namely, that they decreed by a sentence not human but divine, that whatever should be transacted, even concerning disjoined and remote provinces, they should not deem it to be concluded until it should come to the notice of this See, so that by the whole authority of this See every just pronouncement might be confirmed;'

and that from thence the other Churches should draw (as though from their native fount the waters of their own supply proceeded, and flowed forth pure and incorrupt through the diverse regions of the whole world) what they were to enjoin, whom they were to wash clean, and whom, as though defiled in unclean filth, the wave worthy of pure bodies should shun. 11. Does not Quesnel, then, perceive that he is stabbed through by these very words? Let him consider, I pray, that three darts are contained in these words, which pierce him through and assail and overthrow all the engines of his cunning. The first, namely, is that the name of the episcopate, and the whole account of its authority, springs from the Apostolic See, to which it had always been reserved to judge concerning matters of the faith.

The second: that the holy Fathers decreed cases of this kind not by human but by divine sentence, and that, although such cases were agitated in provinces disjoined and remote, they judged that they were not to be brought to a conclusion until they should reach the notice of this See, so that the whole pronouncement, when it was just, might be confirmed by the authority of this See. The third, finally: that all the other Churches ought to draw the catholic doctrine from this single fount of the Apostolic See, from which, as from a pure head, the wisdom of Christ and the Apostles flows down. Do not, therefore, these three fictions of Quesnel plainly stand refuted? How can it come to pass that all the Churches of the other regions, gathered into one through their pastors, should lend firmness to the decrees of the Apostolic See? For that is impossible.

For neither do the members add force and strength to the head, on which they depend, nor can the waters of the streams increase the brightness and sweetness of the founts from which they are drawn. Quesnel therefore sows seeds in the sand, feigning that the decrees of the Roman pontiffs against the Pelagian offspring were rendered irrevocable by the sanction of the Council of Ephesus. 15. But now let us pass over trifles of this sort, intending to treat of these same matters more fully again, when, in refuting the not-dissimilar contentions of Quesnel, we shall have discourse concerning the Council of Chalcedon.

Leo therefore, in the third chapter of that same epistle, sets forth the catholic doctrines concerning the grace of Christ, and, relying on the testimony of the Apostle to the Ephesians (2:8), he emphasizes that so great an infirmity is present in human nature, wounded by the original taint, that any bestowal of good works is a divine preparation; for no one is justified by virtue before he is justified by grace, which is for each the beginning of righteousness, the fount of good works, and the origin of merits. Moreover, to the same Januarius, in the following fourth chapter, he commends that the tasks of a most excellent watchman be discharged more carefully, lest through men of this sort scandals long since extinguished be stirred up, and some seed of that same evil, from the doctrine once cut off, spring up in the province of Aquileia.

Then, wishing that the rigor of ecclesiastical discipline toward the penitent Pelagians be in some measure tempered, he orders that those perfectly corrected, once they have first given signs of sincere obedience, be retained in the Church; but those who, abusing indulgence, were disposed to resist the precepts of the Roman See, he determined were first to be cast down from the clerical orders and then to be banished far from the fellowship of catholics. 16. Finally, in the fifth chapter, he restores to its full force that part of ecclesiastical discipline which had once been established both by the holy Fathers and by himself: namely, that it be lawful for no one to pass from Church to Church, neither in the rank of the presbyterate, nor in the order of the diaconate, nor in the subsequent office of the clergy.

But whoever, led by whatever pretext, shall refuse to remain where he was ordained—so that, seeking his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ, he shall neglect to return to his own people and his own Church—let him be held a stranger both from the privilege of honor and from the bond of communion. And closing this epistle, using rather grave words, he sincerely confessed that he would be more vehemently moved if what he had decreed for the guarding of the canons and the integrity of the faith should be neglected: because the faults of the lower orders (he says) are to be referred to none more than to the slothful and negligent rulers, who often nourish much pestilence while they refrain from applying the more austere medicine. This decree of the holy

pontiff's decree holds the last place in that manuscript collection which in the Vatican codices is inscribed: 'Titles of the decrees of Pope Leo.' For under number 49 is read: 'Leo the bishop, concerning the preservation and discipline of the canons, that no one presume unduly and in disorderly fashion to approach the clergy.' 17. The letter, praised thus far, since it lacks a consular date, gave occasion to almost all the preceding writers to strike upon it as upon reefs; which reefs, however, we too could hardly have avoided, had we read it cursorily and hastily (as is wont to be done). As for Quesnel's opinion, he judged that it was to be referred to no other time than to 444.

Now to Quesnel have subscribed Du Pin, Tillemont, and most recently the Reverend Father Bernard de Rubeis, an eminent member of the Dominican regular family, in his celebrated work On the Monuments of the Church of Aquileia. But that Leo wrote that epistle later, the most eminent Cardinal Noris affirms, saying: 'This epistle to Januarius was drawn up in the year 447, and indeed before the fourth epistle which is likewise inscribed to Januarius.' We, however, though we are not moved to either side, will nevertheless indicate the genuine time of this epistle. For, as was observed before, the holy pontiff, in the first and fifth chapters of this epistle, orders Januarius to observe the canons already elsewhere issued by him for receiving heretical clergy.

Moreover, since we read such canons expressed both in the twelfth and in the thirteenth epistle, it therefore follows that the epistle which in Quesnel's edition is placed in the sixth position is later than those two, namely the twelfth and the thirteenth. But the twelfth epistle, although it lacks a consular date, must nevertheless be assigned to the year 445, as is most evidently understood from the next one following; for since that was written to the metropolitan bishops throughout the province of Achaia on the eighth of the Ides of January, in the consulship of the most illustrious men Aetius and Symmachus—which is the year of Christ 446—and since in it there is mention of those things which he had written in the preceding letter to Anastasius, therefore the twelfth is to be referred to the year 445.

Therefore the opinion of Quesnel, Tillemont, and others, affirming that the sixth epistle was drawn up by St. Leo in the year 444, not only totters but wholly collapses; and on that account we judge the opinion of Noris to be more probable, by which he assigned it to the year 447. 18. Nor is it an objection that another epistle of Leo to Januarius was written in the same year. For what of it? Is it repugnant that the Roman pontiff, within the space of twelve months, could have sent two epistles to the same bishop of Italy, when a most grave cause—such as this was—pressed urgently? Was not the last one composed in the year 447, at its close? For indeed it was issued on the Kalends of January, in the consulship of the most illustrious men Alypius and Ardabur.

The pontiff therefore was able to write the earlier epistle to Januarius either at the very beginning of the year, or about the middle of the same year, especially since the distance of the journey from the City to Aquileia is not so great that even in the space of five or six months an exchange of several letters could not have passed between them. From these things it is established that these conjectures are not weakened even if the other epistle to Januarius had been issued on the Kalends of July, as very many manuscript codices have it. In a matter, however, so thoroughly explored, I shall not delay longer.