Sermons & Letters 236

Three legates of the Apostolic See having departed from the city of Rome together with Dulcitius the notary, holy Leo omitted none of those things which he had reconsidered with himself as able to bring the causes of the faith to their issue—all those scandals besides being cut away, through sacerdotal concord and peace, which on account of private rivalries and ancient hatreds were growing throughout almost the whole East. As therefore he judged fit, by that supreme authority which St. Peter had received from Christ the Lord for confirming his brethren in the faith, he willed to teach by ever new letters what ought to be believed and professed by all concerning the Lord's Incarnation, and what ought to be decreed for abolishing the depraved errors which had lately arisen under the pretext of overthrowing the Nestorian heresy;

from the rules of which, if no one of the Catholics had departed, the Catholic faith would by no means have suffered that grave ruin, concerning which we are now about to speak. Therefore on the Ides of June of the same year he gave to his legates several letters to be conveyed into the East. Among which the first place is held by that dogmatic letter written to holy Flavian, which—as the sincere rule of our faith in those things which pertain to the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation—was, by the highest consent of the holy Fathers, by the sanctions of councils, and by the decrees of the Roman pontiffs, established as to be held in the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, attending to this, declared this judgment: namely, that it differs in no way from that revelation made to St. Peter when he confessed the divinity of Christ the Lord, on account of which he was pronounced blessed. For the illustrious Fathers received it with the highest veneration, as being congruent with the confession of the great Peter and standing as a kind of common pillar against those who think perversely. Moreover, Pope Gelasius judged it to be of such great worth that, in the Roman council dealing with apocryphal scriptures, he issued that decree in which it is asserted: 'We approve the letter of Blessed Pope Leo sent to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople;'

whoever shall have struck out its text down to a single iota, and shall not have received it reverently in all things, let him be anathema. How great, indeed, and how great a veneration it obtained in the Church, is proved also by that custom noted by Cardinal Baronius, who affirms that the Roman clergy was accustomed to read it in the divine offices recited during the season of Advent; and that this was observed perhaps immediately after the decree of Gelasius is indicated by the books of sacred lessons which served for the use of the choir, among which we beheld with our own eyes one most ancient, preserved in the Vatican library.

Moreover, that this codex of lessons was written in the sixth century of the Church by the presbyter Agimundus, in Roman and uncial letters, and divided into two parts, is revealed by a certain inscription placed at the foot of the second part; in which not only is the name of the writer given, but it is also indicated that the church of the Twelve Holy Apostles of the city of Rome was accustomed to use that codex in performing the divine offices. Therefore, running through it entirely, we found nearly all the

sermons and homilies of our pontiff, distributed according to the order of days and feasts; and the scribes of the Vatican library themselves most kindly persuaded us to append and display at the end of this our Work one entire specimen of this arrangement — so that from it readers might gather, against certain more recent critics, that the institution of certain solemnities is most ancient, and that down to our own times that rite has been inviolably preserved in the Church which our forefathers and pastors of souls handed down.

Just as, therefore, from this book of sacred lessons it will be proved that the ancient tradition of ecclesiastical discipline in celebrating feasts and rendering the divine praises has by no means been changed; so the heterodox will easily be able to argue that the sacred tradition was preserved with the utmost devotion, and has remained inviolably uncorrupted in matters pertaining to the dogmas of the faith and the administration of the sacraments — concerning which it is at present neither fitting nor necessary to speak.

Now indeed, leaving this Vatican codex, let us return to the praised letter, in the composing of which Leo the Great set for himself this aim: that he might furnish protection and support to the faith wavering and imperiled in the hearts of many Easterners because of the baneful new doctrine of an unskilled old man; that he might condemn the wicked errors, and set forth and decree to the whole assembly of Catholics what was to be believed perpetually and inviolably. There is no need here to review the doctrine with which this letter is filled, or even to explain its individual chapters into which it is divided. We think these can scarcely be hidden from any of the theologians. This one thing only we judged worth noting, which we also touched upon in some way in the preceding pages: namely, that St. Leo

namely, that Leo, without any council of the Westerners and without the vote of any other bishop, condemned the profession of Eutyches as absurd and perverse, and rebuked with fitting reproofs the judges of Constantinople, who in the synod omitted to reprove a discourse exceedingly foolish

and exceedingly blasphemous discourse, as if nothing offensive had been heard, since it is said just as impiously that the only-begotten Son of God existed of two natures before the Incarnation, as it is impiously asserted that after the Word was made flesh a single nature is in him. Yet he commands that mercy be shown toward Eutyches, on these conditions being kept: that he should not refuse to subscribe to this letter, and should with living voice condemn the wicked dogmas he had imbibed. Finally, he affirms that he committed the execution of the whole cause to his legates, who ought to act and sustain the part of the pontiff in the council, confident that the help of the Divinity would come to aid, so that he who had erred might be saved, the depravity of his opinion being condemned.

If, therefore, anyone now attend for a little while to this manner of acting of the Supreme Pontiff, I know not whether he will reasonably be able to doubt that St. Leo exercised full and absolute power and jurisdiction — whether in condemning the Eutychian heresy, or in drawing up the rules of faith, or finally in decreeing those formulas and conditions under which alone he commanded that Eutyches was to be received unto penance and satisfaction, if he would abjure and execrate the false dogma which he had too obstinately defended.

This manner of acting, therefore, is very different from that which Quesnel fabricates, contending that the causes of the Easterners were referred not to one supreme Roman pontiff, but to all the bishops of the principal sees and to synods, to whose judgment those always appealed who were condemned by provincial or metropolitan bishops. Let them say, I pray, all who tell such fables, by the authority of what council this dogmatic letter to Flavian came to light, or who indeed were those bishops of the West who cast their vote in condemning this heresy or in prescribing the rule of faith? St. Leo

alone accomplished all these things, and ought to have accomplished them — this is sufficiently established. He, using the fullness of the power of his see, indicated, defined, and prescribed what belonged to the apostolic authority; the execution then of all matters being committed to his legates, whom he had ordered to take up his part in the future synod. Not because the decrees already issued would obtain force and vigor from the vote of other bishops, but only a more solemn promulgation; so that those who in the East were being required concerning that faith, or were suspect, might be tested by their subscription to these letters, and as often as they refused to subscribe, being deprived of all clerical honor and rank, they might be expelled from the assembly of Catholics. And indeed, what else do those other letters indicate which the holy

pontiff gave to be delivered to his legates in the East — what else do they indicate? In harmony with this is another subsequent letter written to Julian, bishop of Cos, who, being very well informed of the things which had happened at the two preceding synods of Constantinople (in which we understand from the series of the Acts that he took part), had already directed his own writings to St. Leo through the deacon Basil, which (says Leo) 'greatly pleased us by the fervor of their catholic sense; we have also added this page which would harmonize with those letters.' That here the preceding letter to Bishop Flavian is meant there can be no doubt, since St. Leo expressly acknowledges it at the opening of this letter, writing:

'Although through our envoys, whom we sent from the City for the cause of the faith, we have sent most full letters to our brother Flavian against the error of exceeding impiety.' But what he wished at present to add to the aforesaid letter directed to Flavian — namely, that they might unanimously and constantly resist those who desired to corrupt the Gospel of Christ — this text plainly shows. In it he demonstrates that Eutyches corrupts the Christian hope and the truth of all the mysteries; that the properties of both natures remained in Christ; that the soul of Christ did not pre-exist the body, nor was the body created out of nothing; but that both are of the same nature as ours.

But at length he says that he was impelled to a breadth of discussion by the very greatness of the subject matter; yet that he ought not to labor further with an abundance of speaking, especially since through his legates he had sent to Flavian letters sufficient for confirming the minds not only of the priests but also of the laity. In harmony with these, indeed, are two other subsequent letters signed on the same day, of which one is to Theodosius Augustus, the other to Pulcheria likewise Augusta; or that which he directed to Faustus and Martin, archimandrites of Constantinople.

For in this letter he most evidently confesses that he especially ratifies the acts of the council of Constantinople, from the reading of which, when he had learned that the Eutychian dogma had rightly been reprobated, 'we also (he adds) decree that it must be detested.' He adds moreover: 'So that, if the foolish man shall have wished to remain in his depravity, let him have fellowship with those whose error he has followed. For deservedly will he become outside the Church of Christ, who denies that there is in Christ a human nature.'

But now let us speak of the letter written to the Synod of Ephesus, from which the zeal of the holy pontiff and his manner of acting will become better known — the measures which he employed so that the scandals, rivalries, and private hatreds of the Easterners might be abolished, and the catholic faith might be strengthened in the heart of all. For in running through this letter we understood that St. Leo

was entirely unaware of all the arts of Eutyches, Chrysaphius and Dioscorus employed to pervert the pious mind of Theodosius, so that he could not even slightly suspect that the rights of the Apostolic See were to be brought to ruin and led to destruction in the said Synod of Ephesus. Rather, carefully inspecting the text of this letter, it was rightly necessary for us to conjecture that the praised emperor Theodosius, by insisting on the divine institutions, altogether wished to interpose and employ (as was fitting) the authority of the Apostolic See for convoking that same synod; namely, so that through the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, might be declared whatever in that controversy of faith was to be held by all Catholics.

These things surely furnished Leo with arguments that the emperor at first had such a mind that he judged it altogether wicked that, under the protection of the synod, the Fathers should act for violating those rights of the Apostolic See which had already, in the preceding general councils, been confirmed and approved first by divine and then by human authority. But lest I seem to tell fables, I will immediately subjoin those words with which the holy pontiff began his letter to the Synod of Ephesus. 'The devout faith (he says) of the most clement prince,

knowing that it pertains most greatly to his own glory if within the catholic Church no seed of any error should arise, paid this reverence to the divine institutions: that for the effecting of holy disposition it employed the authority of the apostolic see, as though it desired that it be declared by the most blessed Peter what in his confession was praised.' If, therefore, St. Leo, about to address the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, narrates why, on what occasion, and by what title the emperor employed the authority of the apostolic see, I do not see how certain writers have too confidently asserted that that synod was convoked and assembled by the sole authority of the emperor.

He asked, at any rate, that the authority of the apostolic see be employed, in order to obey the divine institutions, and that the new seed of error might be plucked out by the roots. Moreover, if the emperor desired that it be declared by the apostolic see, as by St. Peter, what in his confession had been praised by Christ the Lord, it can scarcely be believed that he was so opposed in mind and deed to the rights of the Roman pontiffs, and so hostile to them, as to have sought to abolish them. And therefore we most firmly maintain that all the injury which the apostolic see then suffered is to be laid not upon the emperor, but upon his ministers, who abused the clemency of the prince and above all the weakness of his mind.

And if we had to set forth other arguments of this matter, that one alone would abundantly suffice for all which we gather from the earlier letter of the same Theodosius to St. Leo, by which he sincerely indicated all the scandals and disturbances stirred up in the Church of Constantinople on account of the heresy of Eutyches, and earnestly begged that he would apply a remedy to them. This indeed he made clear, not obscurely, also in this letter to the Synod of Ephesus, writing: 'But (he speaks of Eutyches) because the treatment even of such men is not to be neglected, and because the most Christian emperor devoutly and religiously wished an episcopal council to be held, so that by a fuller judgment every error might be removed... our brothers, etc.'

'and by a common judgment with you may establish the things that will be pleasing to the Lord.' Behold, then, the cause of holding the synod most sufficiently explained. It was necessary to heal the evils from which Eutyches suffered, who (as St. Leo says) contradicted the Gospel of Christ, showing that he had never had any zeal for knowing the truth. This the emperor had demanded. And therefore, first following the dictate of the divine institutions, he employed the authority of the apostolic see for the effecting of holy disposition;

he asked that an episcopal council be held, believing that in this way he could also provide and take counsel for the reputation of Eutyches. Since, on account of his old age and his ministry as archimandrite of a great and rather famous monastery, he seemed worthy of honor, as Leo himself more clearly indicated in his letter to Julian of Cos. Therefore the emperor did not despise or reject the authority of the apostolic see, if he wished to employ it for holding the synod. And no reason whatever counseled that the Roman pontiff could or ought to resist his wishes in this — since it was chiefly a matter of plucking out such and so great a seed of tares, which was turning the sacred and ecclesiastical economy and the administration of affairs upside down, with the destruction of the catholic faith.

Wherefore, to abolish the din of such great disturbances, and to compose the discords already stirred up — which on the one hand drew their origin from the remnants of the Nestorians, and on the other were produced by a new sprouting error growing greater day by day — a fuller judgment seemed expedient and, as it were, necessary. Although in truth the cause of faith was sufficiently treated in the synod of Constantinople, first by Flavian, and at length reviewed, approved, and confirmed by the same most holy pontiff Leo. This, whether he will or not, Quesnel ought to confess, who nowhere admitted, as was needful, the distinction between a canonical and a more solemn judgment — which indeed St. Leo himself indicated in many places.

And most especially in this same letter, and in the subsequent ones, in which he not only discussed a fuller judgment or a more diligent examination to be held, but also the sentence canonically pronounced against Eutyches and approved and confirmed by the apostolic see; nay, he also indicates a document long since received from Eutyches himself, in which he professed with his own voice and subscription that he would condemn his opinion, promising that in all things (says the same St. Leo) he would follow our judgment. We observe not dissimilar writings in two letters likewise signed on the Ides of June, of which he directed one to Pulcheria Augusta, the other to Julian of Cos himself.

When Paschasius Quesnel had noticed these, he asked why Leo had issued two letters on the same day, both to Julian and to Pulcheria Augusta, when one might have sufficed for each — especially since the cause and arguments of the new letters do not appear. The same Quesnel endeavored to settle the question, bringing forward various conjectures, which we are not loath to transcribe for the reader, so that perhaps he may deduce what we have thus far not fully attained. 'Let me therefore affirm (says Quesnel) nothing certain:

whether it was on the occasion of a messenger who might get ahead of the legates, or from fear lest the legates should be prevented from approaching the Augusta — which certainly happened, as is sufficiently clear from Letter 41. For the other letter to Pulcheria briefly comprises those things which were written through the legates, and the legates being detained for some time at Rome — gathered from the shorter letter which we received, again addressed to Flavian, on the twelfth of the Kalends of July: "Since he is to be more fully instructed (he says) by those things which they themselves will carry in writing." And again: "I signify that others will follow, whom it has pleased me to appoint in this matter."' I frankly confess that these earlier conjectures of Quesnel are by no means to be despised.

Admitting also that reasoning by which he asserts that the legates were hindered from presenting themselves before Pulcheria Augusta, as appears from that praised Letter 41, in which he vehemently complains that the letters which he had directed to her through his clerics in the cause of faith had not reached her. And there he makes manifest, further below, that by 'the voice of the clerics' he wished to designate the legates to the Synod of Ephesus, subjoining: 'But since those who were sent could so little reach your gentleness that scarcely one of them, our deacon Hilarus, escaping, has returned to us, we thought the writings ought to be repeated.'

That he wrote this letter after the Synod of Ephesus is manifest both from its whole context — of which we will speak more suitably in its own place — and from the note of time; for it was indeed signed on the Ides of October of the same year. However the matter befell — namely, whether Leo had a messenger who got ahead of the legates' journey, or whether he feared that the legates would be prevented from approaching the Augusta — we do not know. Yet one thing is established concerning St. Leo: that he applied all his zeal, and sought all means, so that the scandals of the Easterners might be abolished, and the catholic faith, there wounded and as it were imperiled, might be strengthened.

However, another conjecture of Quesnel — by which he persuaded himself that on the twelfth of the Kalends of July the legates were still detained at Rome — we have already rejected in the preceding chapter, and so we dismiss it. Meanwhile, indeed, the legates of the apostolic see having already set out, St. Leo did not interrupt his correspondence with St. Flavian. For when he had received new letters from him through the deacon Basil, he wrote back to him on the twelfth of the Kalends of August; and in his letters he exhorts him to fight strenuously against the enemies of the nativity and cross of Christ, and not to be terrified by the powers and snares of his adversaries. To persuade him of this firmness of mind he used the words of the apostle Paul:

'In nothing be terrified by your adversaries, which to them is a cause of perdition, but to you of salvation.' But one may argue that the machinations of Dioscorus, Chrysaphius, and the rest of the Eutychians had in some way become known to the holy pontiff. For that Basil, the bearer of Flavian's letters, had recently departed from Constantinople, and had told Leo many things which were not contained in Flavian's letter, those words of the holy Pontiff indicate: 'And the discourse of the aforesaid man was well suited to familiar inquiry, through whom now, rendering our converse, we exhort your love through the grace of our God, in whom we trust, using the apostolic words, etc.' Nevertheless, notwithstanding the conflict of such great disturbances, desiring to cure the madness of the unskilled,

and so he charges Flavian to apply the medicine of patience. 'For curing (he says) the madness of the unskilled, we wish you also to apply the medicine of patience, so that, if the Eutychians who had grown strong should execrate their error, mercy may be shown; the judgment which preceded remaining in force (let Quesnel attend to these words), if the impiety, deservedly condemned, should persist in its own depravity.' But that St. Leo had been informed by Basil, through those familiar inquiries, about the most grave machinations which were being contrived for the destruction of the faith and of Catholics — and so that episcopal benevolence should not be denied to those same men — another letter, signed on the third of the Ides of August, plainly discloses.

For he writes to the same Flavian, whose silence, he shows, increased the pontifical solicitude, saying: 'Since we make you a partaker of our cares, being anxious for the defense of the faith, we have frequently, through suitable occasions, sent letters to your love.' Desiring to aid him with the consolations of pontifical exhortations, lest he be moved by the goads of his adversaries, he finally exhorts him: 'and that with all speed (he says) you answer our writings, and thereupon make us more certain about your actions, and those of our men (namely the legates), and about the settlement of the whole cause, so that we may soften with more prosperous tidings the solicitude which we now bear for the defense of the faith.'

Those words signify, therefore, that the pontifical mind was then pressed and tormented with the greatest anxieties. But what more? He was forced to endure yet graver things, because the Eutychians — Dioscorus and Chrysaphius acting outrageously — dared to elude his zeal and render it void. For that Synod of Ephesus, convoked on the Kalends of August, having a most unhappy beginning, on the sixth of the Ides of the same month, when Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, spurning all ecclesiastical rules, claimed the primacy in it for himself — letters having been extorted for this cause (as we have seen) from the secular power, namely from the emperor Theodosius, by which authority and primacy were granted to him.

The most illustrious Christian Lupus, however, attending to this manner of acting both of Dioscorus and of the emperor Theodosius, strives to excuse Theodosius, and, judging his letters kindly, holds that he had by no means it in his counsels to violate and infringe the rights of the Roman pontiff, but that Dioscorus had constituted himself president of the synod by violent usurpation, by no means by delegation of the prince. Hence he subjoined certain not contemptible reasons, writing: 'Far be it that Theodosius Augustus permitted himself to be seduced by a eunuch into excluding the Roman bishop from the presidency. For to his sacred letters to Dioscorus this note is added:

"In the same tenor it was written to Juvenal, most reverend bishop of Jerusalem"; and Dioscorus himself in the Council of Chalcedon said to the most glorious judges: "Your clemency has ascertained that our most holy emperor entrusted the judgment not to me alone, but also to the most blessed Juvenal and to the most holy bishop Thalassius."' But the same Christian Lupus, wishing on the one hand to purge the emperor Theodosius from this mark, and to protect the rights of the apostolic see, relates how, when Dioscorus was striving to usurp the presidency of the synod by the force of the sacred imperial rescript, Julius, bishop of Puteoli, one of St. Leo's legates, opposed him — Florentius, bishop of Lydia, interpreting — saying:

'In the same tenor, by the most pious and most Christian emperors, our most holy pope, set over the Roman Church, was summoned.' And Hilarus the deacon, another of the legates from the side of St. Leo, openly protested in that pseudo-synod: 'The most glorious and most Christian emperors, holding charity and affection toward the catholic faith, sent venerable letters supplicating our most blessed bishop Leo, prelate of the apostolic see, that he might be present at this venerable and holy council.'

From which manner of speaking the same most wise annotator gathers that the emperor's letters to the Roman pontiff did not present rigorous commands but supplications — which, however, Leo, for the sake of a certain reverence, wished to call commands, in order to indicate that he held them in high esteem. And again, that Hilarus insisted that the office committed to himself and the other legates should not be cast down to the dishonor and contempt of the apostolic see, these following words prove: 'The pope directed us, not doubting that he himself is present in us, whom he especially knows to do all things that pertain to the sincerity of the catholic faith and to the reverence owed to St. Peter the apostle.'

The annotations of Lupus seem finally to attain greater strength from those things which Lucentius, bishop of Asculum, objected against Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon, charging him with a grave crime, saying: 'It is necessary that he render an account of his judgment, who, since he had not the standing to judge, presumed and dared to hold a synod (that is, to preside over a general synod) — which without the authority of the apostolic see was never permitted, was never done.' These, then, are the things which the same Christian Lupus annotated with a praiseworthy apparatus of remarkable erudition; namely, in order to show that Theodosius could easily be cleared of that mark of schism with which, for the violated rights of the apostolic see, he might be branded — as, following Baronius,

many, and nearly all, writers have supposed. Nevertheless, various things can make trouble for Christian Lupus and weaken his opinion. For in the first place, as regards the imperial rescript by which Dioscorus is read to have been constituted president of the synod, it is difficult to interpret it otherwise than its words sound. For it has: 'For this cause we have judged it necessary to use these sacred letters to your reverence, through which we make manifest to your beatitude and to the whole holy synod that we, following the rules of the Fathers, grant authority and primacy to your beatitude — not only as regards you on account of Theodoret, but also all the others who belong to the assembled holy synod.'

These words indeed—when read together with the preceding causal clause—Rusticus the deacon, the ancient translator of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, understood as stirring up and provoking an open schism against the divine Roman See; which he indicated by the following annotation upon those last words, adding: 'Openly against the Roman See.' 11. Nor do we think it can prove anything that in the same imperial decree we come upon the names of Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and of Thalassius, primate of Caesarea in Cappadocia, such that we might conjecture that by the force of the same decree the primacy had been attributed to these men also by the emperor.

For the emperor there merely indicated that he was persuaded that these two bishops would be of one mind and one action with Dioscorus himself; but concerning any primacy conferred upon them and any authority of presiding he keeps deep silence. Let us therefore transcribe the words that follow: 'Knowing more diligently that both the most reverend archbishop of Jerusalem, Juvenal, and the most blessed archbishop Thalassius, and every such fervent lover and zealous defender of the orthodox faith, will be in agreement with thy holiness, who art radiant through the grace of God in honor of life and in the catholic faith.' It is therefore evident that no faculty whatever was granted to the archbishops Juvenal and Thalassius.

Otherwise, anyone whatever who had held a place in that synod, and who had attached himself by his own consent to the partisanship and party of Dioscorus, could have assumed to himself the authority of president, and adjudged it to himself, on the strength of those words: 'and every such fervent lover . . . will be in agreement with thy holiness'; which indeed Christian Lupus neither grants nor could have granted. There remains the difficulty whether Theodosius wrote in the same tenor either to Juvenal or to St. Leo the pope. The subscription adduced by Lupus on Juvenal's behalf wavers. For Labbé believed it should be read 'at the same time' (eodem tempore). Although Stephen Baluze judged that the former reading ought to be retained, as it stands in the manuscripts written by hand. He adds: 'The Romans have it: It was written in the same tenor also to Juvenal,' etc.

The Royal Edition has: 'At the same time it was also written.' Therefore the same Baluze concludes: 'No one fails to see that it is a printer's error, nor do I see why it was retained by Labbé.' In this variety of manuscript codices and of printed editions, what certain conclusion we can draw I do not see. Therefore I do not think one should firmly insist upon an annotation of this kind, especially since it lies hidden by whom and by what authority it was appended to the Acts of the councils. Moreover, granting still that the reading adopted by Christian Lupus be genuine, and called into doubt by no one—what then? Cannot those words, 'it was written in the same tenor also to Juvenal,' be expounded without any forced interpretation as meaning that it was written to Juvenal that he should adhere with unanimous consent to Dioscorus?

In this case the letter directed to Juvenal of Jerusalem corresponds exactly to the imperial decree of Theodosius given to Dioscorus, in which mention is made only that Juvenal and Thalassius would be in agreement, in that synod, with the holiness of Dioscorus, who is radiant by the grace of God in the honor of life and in the catholic faith—no regard whatever being had to the authority and primacy which Dioscorus alone had extorted with the utmost injustice. But the words by which Dioscorus, wishing to clear himself of the crimes perpetrated in the Ephesine synod, boldly answered the Chalcedonian Fathers, can rather carry weight in Lupus's favor:

'Your clemency has learned that our most sacred emperor entrusted the judgment not to me alone, but also gave the authority of the synod to the most blessed Juvenal and the most holy Thalassius. We therefore have judged the things that have been judged. The whole synod consented with us. Why then are these things extended to me alone, when the authority was equally bestowed and shared, and the whole synod, as I said, consented to the things judged by us?' 12.

These last words, which Lupus omitted to note, if they had not been put forth deceitfully and for the purpose of enlisting accomplices for himself in his crimes, would supply an argument for judging that Dioscorus had not arrogantly assumed to himself the authority over the synod from the emperor's decree as president-primate, but that it had been given equally to Juvenal and Thalassius as well. Yet what could be deduced in favor of our cause, if in that decree no mention whatever is had of Leo the supreme pontiff, to whom, considering all rights and the custom of preceding councils, it pertained to preside over the synod?

I do not see, therefore, how Theodosius can be fully cleared of that mark of blame by which, hemmed in by his ministers, he of his own accord lent a hand to infringing the rights of the apostolic See. Now at last the difficulty returns, whether Theodosius wrote in the same tenor to St. Leo. Two things indeed occur to be considered, which seem to support Lupus's opinion. The one, which has already been discussed and unfolded by us in this chapter, in treating of St. Leo's letter to the Ephesine synod. The other is the testimony of Julius of Puteoli, brought forward by Lupus himself. As regards the first, only very grave conjectures present themselves. For up to now no letters of Theodosius to Leo concerning the convoked Ephesine synod have been found by the learned:

—such that we might establish with certainty that these were of the same tenor as the decrees directed to Dioscorus. This one thing only is ascertained: that St. Leo never suspected that the prerogative of the primacy and the right of presiding over the synod ought to be adjudged to him by the powerlessness of others. Otherwise Theodosius would never have invoked the authority of the apostolic See which he employed, nor would he have exposed his legates to so many and such great labors and dangers, nor would he perchance have given place and time to factious men, being most well aware that those same times cannot always run their course. Such and so great was the strength the holy pontiff held in his virtue, that he could in no way be overcome by any worldly power whatsoever;

—especially when there was question of the rights and prerogatives of the apostolic See, which he did not permit anyone to wound even slightly, as we could illustrate with countless examples drawn from his life. The utterance of Julius, bishop of Puteoli, would indeed accomplish much. It would carry authority and weight toward clearing and washing away the mark of schism with which the emperor Theodosius is branded by very many writers. But what the tenor of Theodosius's letters may have been is hitherto unknown.

Therefore those who are wont to seek a knot in a bulrush, and who strive either to make the emperor guilty of violated ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or to reform and utterly cast down the authority of the Roman pontiffs in the convoking and holding of councils, if other more evident arguments were not at hand, will reply: Those words, 'in the same tenor,' fall only upon the convocation of the council, so that holy Leo was summoned by the emperor on equal terms as Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius;

—but that they by no means refer to the primate and president of the synod, which prerogative was committed uniquely to Dioscorus, as both the cited decree and the series of synodal acts make plain. If it were thus objected to me, I would nonetheless not think that the opinion of Christian Lupus should be cast into a corner. For it attains greater strength and force from the protest of Hilary the deacon, likewise legate of the apostolic See, if that most learned man had brought it forward whole, as we have deemed it necessary to do—as indeed learned men, who cling to no party, will judge. 13. Hilary, then, the Roman deacon, with Florentius bishop of Lydia interpreting for him, said:

'The most glorious and most Christian emperors, holding charity and affection toward the catholic faith, sending venerable letters, besought the most blessed bishop Leo, prelate of the apostolic See, that he should be present at this venerable and holy council—whose piety it might have pleased, if in this matter any likeness were maintained. For your holiness can better recognize that neither in the holy synod of Nicaea, nor in that of Ephesus, nor in any other such holy council, was the pope of the perpetual most holy See present.'

Here perhaps Hilary alludes to what the holy pontiff wrote to the emperor Theodosius and to the empress Pulcheria, recounting the causes which hindered him from setting out beyond Italy to hold the council. Then Hilary added: 'For which reason, following the custom of this practice, he has directed us. He, the most holy one, not doubting that he is here present in you—whom especially he knows to do all things that pertain to the sincerity of the catholic faith and to the reverence due to St. Peter the apostle—who also through us has directed letters fitting for a council of the holy Fathers, which you are to receive and read.'

This most weighty address of Hilary, and his most just demand, resting upon the rights of the apostolic See, ought neither to have been despised nor rejected by Dioscorus; since Hilary had borne witness that the holy pontiff was present at the council through his legates, and had demanded that this be acknowledged by the Fathers, and that his dogmatic letter be received and read. But then Dioscorus, the reins of his intemperance loosed, set himself up as an ambitious judge of all things to be transacted; relying on the protection of the imperial ministers and the guard of an armed cohort, he boldly commanded: 'Let the things be received that have been written to this holy and universal synod by our most holy brother and fellow-bishop Leo.'

He prevented their being read out, and in place of these letters the imperial letters were rendered, which John the presbyter and chief of the notaries held ready in his hands; and these, by the command of Juvenal, were read and inserted into the records of the faith. These things indeed, to confess sincerely, portend that Dioscorus had set himself up as president of the synod by a violent invasion, as Christian Lupus indicated. Yet I do not know whether they altogether exclude a delegation of the prince. Still, Rusticus, the ancient translator of the Acts of Chalcedon, seems to support Lupus, who, noting this manner of Dioscorus's acting, annotated in the margin: 'The prevarication of Dioscorus, that the letter of the pope should be received by the synod, and not read out.' These things indeed, as—

—as equity demanded, it behooved us to write, both to expound more fully the opinion of Christian Lupus, and to settle or illustrate certain obscure and entangled questions stirred up by the same Lupus on the occasion of his opinion; yet by no means departing from the supreme zeal of the holy pontiff Leo, who employed all the stronger means so that in the convoked synod all things might be conducted to the very summits of justice. 14. But after Dioscorus had seized all arbitrary power in the synod, what good remained to be hoped for by Leo and by the whole catholic Church?

What protection remained for Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who behold Elpidius present at the synod with armed companies of soldiers, by the emperor's command, having already received the faculty of casting into chains whomever should oppose the will of the president? I confess indeed that this faculty was granted to Elpidius against the disturbers of concord. But by what reasoning could Flavian and Eusebius, and others who were bravely and deservedly contending for the catholic faith and for the rights of the apostolic See, be in concord and of equal mind with those who, under a show of honesty, wished to overthrow the faith of the incarnation and to oppress the defenders of catholic doctrine? 'The bishops who had previously condemned Eutyches are forbidden (Quesnel observes) to pronounce sentence;

—nay rather, they are commanded to await the judgment concerning their own judgment upon Eutyches. Letters were moreover sent by the Augustus to the proconsul of the province, to the magistrates and commanders of the army, that they should put the decrees of the council into execution. Finally, to the synod itself, where he assails Flavian as turbulent and as one contriving novelties in religion, but addresses Eutyches honorably, as an upright man and a holder-fast of the truth.' These things concerning the beginnings of that synod Quesnel recounted briefly, departing somewhat in describing them from Baronius and others, who with a more orderly method describe this tragic history; which, however, we make it our study to relate only summarily, lest we should seem to do over what has been done by others.

Among, then, the other injuries which Flavian was first compelled to undergo, one was this: that, when there had assembled in that synod Domnus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Stephen of Ephesus, and others, Flavian himself was by no means permitted to sit after the bishop of Antioch, but after Juvenal. And when one hundred and thirty bishops had assembled in the basilica of Mary the Mother of God, it was ordered by Dioscorus that the letters of the emperor addressed to himself be read; and the legates of the apostolic See—namely Julius bishop of Puteoli, Renatus presbyter of the title of St. Clement, and Hilary the deacon—instructed the synod concerning their legation, likewise producing the letters which the most holy Leo the Great had directed both to the synod and to Flavian.

Letters of this kind were indeed received (as we saw a little before), but by no means read. And although the pontifical legates had repeatedly insisted that they be read, and Dioscorus had promised this under oath, nevertheless he chose rather to become guilty of perjury, to violate the rights of the apostolic Church, and to stir up scandal throughout the whole world, than to permit that they be recited. 15. In place of these letters, therefore, he preferred that the emperor's letter be read; and when the suggestion was heard by which it was demanded that the cause of the faith be treated, Dioscorus rejected the petition, saying it had been decreed by the emperor that there be treated the controversies arisen at Constantinople between Flavian and Eutyches.

The notaries who were taking down the Acts, by command of the same Alexandrian bishop, added that the bishop assented to Dioscorus, and acclaimed that nothing concerning the faith was to be done or innovated. But this foul falsehood was exposed in the Council of Chalcedon, in the first session. Nay more, it was added that the notaries of Dioscorus made an assault upon the notaries of Stephen bishop of Ephesus; and that what had recently been written down was erased, and great violence was applied, so that they snatched away their tablets, and the fingers of those resisting were almost crushed by these same men.

Therefore, in order that Dioscorus might carry into execution what he had devised in his mind, at the suggestion of the count Elpidius, Eutyches—the bishops approving—was ordered to enter and plead his cause, that he might announce what he held concerning the faith. He, using his accustomed cunning, blandly appealed to the Fathers of the synod as if they were witnesses of his faith, first commending himself to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He confessed that he had a booklet of faith ready in his hands, which he offered to the holy synod. In it he asserted that from boyhood he had resolved to live in silence, and to pass his life even to decrepit old age, far from all disturbances;

—but then he contended that he had been surrounded by the most grievous perils of those lying in wait for him, because he had not acquiesced in holding, according to the definition of your former council assembled at Ephesus, anything beyond that faith which was set forth at Nicaea by the holy Fathers. As a testimony of his sincere faith, Eutyches subjoined the Nicene Creed, to which, pretending to allude, he afterward said: 'Thus from the beginning, receiving it from my forefathers, have I believed; and in this faith I was both born, and immediately consecrated to God, and his own mercy received me; in this faith I was baptized and sealed, that I have lived in it thus far and choose to die in it.' He confessed that he likewise accepted the things which had been established by the Ephesine synod according to St. —

—Cyril's doctrine had established, adding at last an anathema against Manichaeus, Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, and all heretics down to Simon Magus, and against those who say that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ descended from heaven. After these things he relates how Eusebius of Dorylaeum, wishing to drive him from his peace, had impleaded him as a heretic in the synod of Constantinople under Flavian, inserting in his pleadings no specification of heresy. Wherefore he subjoins that, the bishop of Constantinople commanding, he was compelled to make satisfaction to the accusation.

'Which bishop nevertheless (Flavian, namely) dwelt in many things with my accuser, and was almost inseparable from him, thinking that I, as I was wont, always continued in the monastery. Of which matter I was made more certain by a great man, a Silentiary, whom the emperor himself had delegated to me, that I should not expose myself to the peril of a threatened welfare; who replied that my presence (he said) was for the rest superfluous, since already before the discussion, by the hatreds and rivalries of private persons, I had been as it were condemned by a conspiracy.' He then relates that he came to the trial to make satisfaction—

—exhibiting a confession of faith plainly consonant with the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers, afterward confirmed by the Ephesine synod, which neither the Fathers of the council of Constantinople under Flavian deigned to receive, nor permitted to be recited. But a tumult of the secretaries having arisen, and many clamors supervening, by which his mind was disturbed, as also by the interlocutions of the judges, which he affirmed he held in writing, it was still demanded of him that he should add something else to the Nicene and Ephesine decrees.

'I (behold the greatest cunning of Eutyches), fearing to transgress the definition put forth by the holy synod which by God's will is here assembled, and the things which were defined by the holy Fathers who convened at Nicaea, kept asking to make it known to your holy council, that they should acquiesce in those things which were approved by you, being ready to remain in them.' But that nothing concerning a general council, to which he might appeal, was demonstrated in the earlier chapters, we judge. Nor on that account shall we linger over refuting this falsehood.

Yet he made this falsehood graver by a subsequent calumny, saying that a conspiracy had been formed against him and brought to its conclusion, because, against me, a sentence written long beforehand, as it seemed to him, was read out as a condemnation. He adds that his profession of faith was afterward changed in the series of the records, while no word was made of my appeal to your holiness, O most reverend and distinguished bishop Flavian, nor any blushing at my hairs grown grey in battles against heretics and in the confession of piety. His own merits, by which he here thought himself distinguished in fighting against the Nestorians, Eutyches here especially exaggerates, that he may gradually win for himself the favor of the judges and their commiseration.

But he framed a still worse calumny against Flavian, fabricating that the holy bishop had unjustly assumed to himself alone the right of judging concerning matters of faith, and had reserved nothing of so great a judgment to your holiness; and, the tenor of the sentence being made public which the same Flavian had pronounced against him, and which after the appeal he had affixed in various oratories and memorials of the saints, '(he says) I read the sentence brought against me. And he anathematized me and those who came together to me and conversed with me, making them aliens from holy communion, not awaiting the judgment of your holiness.' Finally, after such a series and heap of so many and so great falsehoods, he addresses the Fathers of the Ephesine council with these words:

'I now therefore beseech your holiness, consider the calumny contrived against me, and the factions, and the disturbance everywhere brought upon the holy Churches from this cause, and from this the scandal befalling very many. . . . For I from the beginning sought the judgment of your blessedness, and again, I call to witness before Jesus Christ.' 16. 'Who, pray,' writes the most eminent cardinal Baronius, 'reading these things, and not knowing that it is Eutyches, would not suppose that some one of the most holy Fathers, the chief defenders of the orthodox faith, is speaking?'

'Or who, knowing that these things are said by Eutyches, but not knowing what preceded or what followed, would not at once join him with the standard-bearers of the catholic faith—the Athanasiuses, the Gregories, the Basils, and the Chrysostoms?' Yet how grievously Flavian's mind was moved by these things—he who had heard himself impeached as a calumniator, and a conspirator against another's innocence, and was being traduced as a disturber of ecclesiastical peace in the full synod, by a lying heretical man—let the reader, I pray, ponder with himself.

By these afflictions Flavian, believing to be relieved without sorrow of soul, found himself made more bitter, when, namely, the booklet of Eutyches having been recited, he asked that place be given to the accuser, and that Eusebius of Dorylaeum be bidden to enter; and he was not heard, but rebuffed, and Eusebius was forbidden to be admitted into the assembly of the bishops. This new crime was afterward objected to Dioscorus in the council of Chalcedon, who cast the baseness of this deed upon the count Elpidius, and Elpidius upon the emperor thus commanding—that Eusebius and Flavian were to be held not as accusers, nor as vindicators of what had previously been done in the synod of Constantinople, but only as defendants, to be judged with no defense admitted.

Hence Dioscorus at once proposed that the acts of the council of Constantinople against Eutyches should be read; and although Julius, legate of the apostolic See, had opposed this, protesting that he would permit those Acts to be read only if first the dogmatic letter of St. Leo were read, as Hilary the deacon likewise attested—nevertheless the demand of the pontifical legates was rejected, because Eutyches, boldly coming forward, maliciously proclaimed them as hostile and suspect to himself, because they had stayed with Flavian, and had dined with the same man. The Constantinopolitan Acts were therefore read, and when it came to the writings of St. —

—Cyril's writings, Eustathius bishop of Berytus suggested that, according to the opinion of Cyril, one ought not to speak of two natures in Christ after the incarnation, but only of one, according to the opinion of Athanasius. The Eutychians acclaimed the cause as won. For Eustathius the bishop did not grasp the mind of those two Fathers, who indiscriminately sometimes use 'nature' for hypostasis and person—which we have taught and demonstrated, in our scholastic Exercitations, to have been most especially common to the Greek writers before the Antiochene schism. Meanwhile the rest of the bishops, either driven by fear of threats or corrupted by promises, did not dare openly to profess and expound the faith of the catholic Church;

—but when it came to that final part of the Acts, in which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had impleaded Eutyches to confess that after the union of the Word with flesh there are two natures mutually distinct in Christ, the patrons and abettors of Eutyches more audaciously cried out: 'Away with him, burn Eusebius, let that man burn alive, let him be cut in two; as he has divided, let him be divided.' 17. To this brigand-like form of judging Dioscorus sought to give some feigned color of canonical judgment. And therefore he questions the synod: 'Is this saying tolerable to you, to speak of two natures after the union?' The synod answered: 'Anathema to him who shall say it.' But that these things were said by those who fawned upon Dioscorus, Baronius asserts.

And the same most learned writer of the Annals borrows his foundations from the testimony of those Fathers who were present at this synod, and afterward retracted the whole cause in the council of Chalcedon. And he appeals especially to Basil of Seleucia the bishop, who through the blessed John the bishop had asked Dioscorus to amend his interlocution, and added: 'For you imposed upon us a great necessity then, both from those who were outside and from your own tongue. Soldiers with arms were rushing into the church, the monks who were with Barsumas were pressing in, and those who were called Parabolani, and another great multitude.'

These things, which we describe concerning the force and fear then tyrannically inflicted upon the Fathers through Dioscorus, the rest who were present at the Ephesine council attested in the synod of Chalcedon. Only the legates of the apostolic See could by no fear and violence be moved to obey the will of Dioscorus, or even slightly to depart from the instructions and the memorandum which they had received from the holy pontiff Leo. 'They protested loudly, they cried out,' says Baronius, 'and publicly attested that those Acts had no force whatever, which were extorted by violence alone and tyranny; and that no prejudice could be done to the catholic faith, the formula of which, sent from the See of Peter to the synod, the wicked Dioscorus had not even allowed to be read.'

Concerning the apostolic See's authority being injured, above all, St. Leo afterward gravely complained in his letter to the emperor Theodosius, of which we shall speak in its proper place. But the bishops themselves too were compelled to suffer violence on every side. For if they professed that there are two natures in Christ the Lord after the union, they were proclaimed as Nestorians to be put to death: 'Condemnation was threatened against us (they say), the menaces of exile were leveled, soldiers stood by with clubs and swords. We feared the swords and clubs. Where there are clubs and swords, what kind of synod is it?' Forty-two bishops were ordered to be silent, who could have brought forth even one word, and only fifteen who favored Eutyches were permitted to speak.

Finally, Barsumas was depicted as the executioner of all the orthodox. For when the Egyptians and the monks who followed Barsumas rose up, the whole crowd began to say: 'Cut in two him who says two natures; he who says two natures is a Nestorian.' 18. What a tragic end, then, that synod had, one can argue from so mournful and deplorable an order of things, from the apparatus and prosecution of the Acts. For the absolution of Eutyches was proclaimed by Dioscorus himself. And although Flavian protested, having made his solemn declaration that he had not been heard, nevertheless the bishops, driven by penalties, fear, and weariness, and harassed even until evening, by their own subscriptions ratified the absolution of Eutyches himself.

At last the condemnation of Flavian and of Eusebius of Dorylaeum followed. Wishing to proceed in it by his customary frauds, Dioscorus ordered that the Acts of the general Council of Ephesus pertaining to the faith be read. And when all were asked whether they assented to those decrees of faith, without any hesitation of mind at all they all agreed. For proceeding thus, Dioscorus sought a specious pretext, that he might not seem to condemn the innocent; but he wished to remove them from the Catholic religion, as guilty of injured faith and of the Nestorian dogma, by making and declaring them estranged from the episcopate and from all priestly ministry.

Therefore Dioscorus expressed or alleged no other cause in the sentence pronounced, except this single one, namely, that Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum had violated the decrees of the ecumenical synod of Ephesus: recalling and altering nearly everything, and becoming a cause of scandal and disturbance to the most holy Churches and to Catholic peoples everywhere. Therefore he concludes: It is certain that these men of themselves lie under the synodal condemnations once defined by the holy Fathers. Whence we also, confirming what is theirs, judge the aforesaid, that is Flavian and Eusebius, to be estranged from all priestly and episcopal dignity.

And lest he should seem to have set himself up as arbiter of the whole case, as if turning to the bishops who had gathered at the synod, he thus urges them: Let each one of the most religious bishops confess his own proper will, and make it manifest under the pledge of the records. But which bishops does he thus address, when forty-two were forbidden to speak? When those who were pious, lawful, and most holy judges are deprived of the right of voting and of speaking, are slandered with false-sought pretexts, are persecuted, and no place is given to their protests?

And finally, how could they make their will manifest, with the executioner Barsumas present and the soldiers, who together with the rest, with clubs and swords, compelled them to subscribe blank sheets? For there exist, as Baronius notes, the subscriptions of ninety-six bishops, afterwards recited with great ignominy in the Council of Chalcedon, when they pleaded the violence inflicted, while chains were displayed and soldiers stood ready, so that if anyone resisted, he should be bound with chains and led into exile. 19. At last Flavian, ill-bearing that the cause of the faith should be led to destruction by such brigandage, fearlessly cried out: I appeal from you. And Hilarus, the legate of the Apostolic See, said: Objection is raised;

and the other legates of the same See, moved by no fear, although they had seen the proconsul with soldiers enter the place in which the brigandage was being conducted, withstood the most audacious Dioscorus to his face, attesting that those things which had hitherto been extorted by force and fear were of no validity. This public and solemn protestation made by the pontiff's legates the notaries did not insert into the Acts of the synod. For the notaries wrote those Acts according to Dioscorus's will, adding some things, removing others, and finally interpreting, fabricating, and adapting still others according to their own depraved disposition.

That no one could moderate and restrain the tyrannical fury and impetus of malice of Dioscorus, several of the bishops testified, among whom Basil of Seleucia, who said in the Council of Chalcedon: After the condemnation of Flavian, when we had all been made sorrowful, and some indeed unwilling to utter a voice, others fleeing, Dioscorus rising up and standing on high, pointed and said: See who does not wish to subscribe to me, or holds against me. And because Eusebius bishop of Ancyra deferred his voice a little, he too was in danger of being condemned. Some of the bishops sitting there, who saw the divine and ecclesiastical laws so gravely violated and ruined, held the feet of Dioscorus, saying:

Because you too have presbyters, a bishop ought not to be condemned on account of a presbyter. He has done nothing worthy of condemnation. But if he be reprehended, he is worthy [only] of reproof. Now those bishops were Onesiphorus of Iconium, Marinianus of Synnada, and Nunechius of Laodicea. Therefore even the most humble supplications of these men could not even lightly move the soul of the ambitious and overbearing Dioscorus. Nay rather, all the laws of Christian moderation being broken, having become bolder, relying chiefly on imperial power and surrounded by a throng of scoundrels, he reckoned that he had obtained such protection that it would be a religious duty to obey him alone, drawing to himself by impious usurpation the rights of all inferiors and equals, nay even of superiors.