Sermons & Letters 227 part 2/2

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.