Sermons & Letters 236 part 3/7

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.

But who, or by what color, will be able to excuse this unbridled greed of his soul? Not indeed he who exaggerates the excellence and dignity of the Alexandrian See (as Quesnel was wont to do), which held the primacy among the Easterns; nor the merits and prerogatives of his predecessor Saint Cyril, on account of which he presided over the ecumenical general synod held at Ephesus, as Dioscorus himself, too much flattered by the royal ministers, seemed to persuade himself, and to whom nearly all the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, then showed deference; nor finally did the cause of the Catholic faith, whether sufficiently difficult, or intricate, or not yet explored, carry him into error; but cunning alone, rivalry, and fury. For he knew very well that the Roman [See of] Saint

Peter's chair, and that its bishops are to be held as the supreme judges and masters of the other Churches; and that therefore the Roman bishop, as Father, is to be consulted even by the Alexandrian prelate, and his judgment is to be held as the true rule of all controversies, this he confessed by writings and deeds. 20. For in the year of Christ 443, Dioscorus himself, scarcely raised to the Alexandrian See, had informed the holy pontiff Leo of his ordination and election to the episcopate. And fearing lest he should at some time fail in his pastoral office, he proposed to him two questions to be resolved.

One concerning the ordination of bishops and presbyters, namely when or on what days it could be done according to apostolic tradition; the other concerning the repetition of the sacrifice [the Mass], to be held on the more solemn days of the year and on recurring festivals, that satisfaction might be given to the people coming in crowds. For meeting both, Saint Leo the Great bestowed the highest affection of charity, that from this he might recognize what he desired to establish more firmly, the beginnings of that dignity which Dioscorus had attained. For the supreme pontiff, beginning his letter with these words, confessed that he was performing toward Dioscorus the offices of a true father and brother, so that of course he might receive with grateful and willing mind that whole explanation and rule concerning the two questions set forth.

How great an affection of the Lord's charity (he says) we bestow upon your love, you will be able to prove from this, that we desire to establish your beginnings more firmly; lest anything seem lacking to your charity for perfection, since the merits of spiritual grace, as we have approved, support you. That Dioscorus was then adorned with outstanding merits, and that holy Leo was informed of them, becomes known without any doubt at all. Wherefore he immediately added:

This paternal and fraternal conference, therefore, ought to be most welcome to your holiness, and to be received by you in such manner as you understand it to proceed from us. But how Dioscorus ought to have received these institutions to be submitted, he explains a little below in the same preface of the letter, showing that the Roman episcopate not only obtained the primacy in the Church from the Lord, but firmly remains in the institutions of Saint Peter, from which it is lawful for no bishop to recede. For since the most blessed Peter received the apostolic primacy from the Lord, and the Roman Church remains in his institutions, it is impious to believe that Saint

Mark, who first governed the Alexandrian Church, formed the decrees of his traditions by other rules, this is impious. And he attested the necessity of the highest concord to be maintained between the Roman and the Alexandrian Church, writing thus: We do not therefore allow that, while we profess ourselves of one body and one faith, we should differ in anything, and that the institutions of the master should appear one thing, those of the disciple another. Not therefore from the excellence of his own Alexandrian Church could Dioscorus seek or beg a title or pretext.

For he had understood clearly enough that this is the rule of ecclesiastical governance: that in the universal Church the Roman pontiff should hold the primacy, and that all bishops, even of the first sees, should recognize and venerate him as father and teacher. To such and so great a rebellion, then, he was led by a certain wicked fury arising from ancient rivalries and private hatreds, being himself very well aware that what he had decreed against Saint Leo, his legates, and the appealing bishops was void and of no force whatever. Nor could the footsteps of Saint Cyril his predecessor supply any title for his manner of acting. He indeed presided over the ecumenical synod of Ephesus, not as the Alexandrian prelate, but as [legate of] Saint

Pope Celestine's legate, receiving the pontifical letters, and ordered that they be read to the synod; and he willed that they be held as the rule of all things to be done in the synod. It remains, then, [to suppose] that he had stumbled upon some grave difficulty in the cause of faith, which contained in itself such great and insoluble knots that he himself knew not how to loose them, so that the plea of ignorance might seem able to defend him. But what ignorance could excuse a single bishop, otherwise versed in the sacred canons, who presided over the more principal Church of the East, and who finally could not be ignorant of what had been observed by his predecessors in conducting ecclesiastical judgments?

Furthermore, that his manner of judging had no other title than that which Saint Leo brought forward, we can clearly understand from the following words: But this fault proceeded for this reason, that not with pure conscience and right judgment according to custom did (Dioscorus) and those who were gathered pronounce concerning the faith and those erring. And in the judgment itself we have learned that not all who had assembled took part: behold the careful selection of judges, designated such as would hang on the nods of Dioscorus. Then with a gentle arm he rebukes the emperor's manner of acting and his mandates, of which we spoke before when discussing the imperial decrees of Theodosius. For we have learned that some were rejected, others admitted, who according to the will of the aforesaid priest, to impious

subscriptions gave their captive hands. 21. Although, therefore, none of the three aforesaid titles can prepare a defense or excuse for Dioscorus, there will nevertheless be, as there have been, those who claim for emperors and princes the right of convoking synods, who will also be able to affirm and teach that the order of judgments had been prescribed to Dioscorus by the decree of Theodosius. For this reason, that the emperor himself had forbidden that Flavian bishop of Constantinople, or the other bishops, who had given the sentence against Eutyches in the synod of Constantinople, should cast their vote in the Council of Ephesus. For Elpidius gravely pressed the execution of the mandate in this part, claiming for Theodosius the management of affairs in these words:

The emperor, himself first fulfilling the order of laws of which he is the founder and guardian, ordered that those who had once judged should keep the place of the judged. With this kind of excuse, then, since Dioscorus himself had attempted to clear himself of the charges brought against him in the Council of Chalcedon, who could now make use of it to lessen at least, if not entirely to wash away, that mark of infamy with which Dioscorus is generally branded? But what shall we say to these things, which bring with them various knots and difficulties, by no means to be unraveled and extricated in few words?

With the most illustrious man Pierre de Marca, who asserted for the Roman princes this right of sometimes convoking synods and of appointing judges when ecclesiastical judgments happened to take place, as also of declaring councils void, 'when they exceeded the limits prescribed by the prince in the manner of proceeding, yet the Fathers of the councils did not complain of the incompetence of the prince, but of the surreptitious procurement which they showed in the legates sent to the first synod of Ephesus,' I should here have to institute a long engagement, and recall to examination each point, which present nothing but the color of truth. But we judge it opportune to reserve this for another leisure, with only a few things noted here. 22.

And first, as regards the convocation of synods and the order of things to be treated in them, the most illustrious de Marca ought to have pointed out some right that would cohere with the laws of nature and divine institutions. For it does not suffice to adhere to equity and concord and the zeal for peace, which are to be procured between the priesthood and the empire, if to the prejudice of one or the other many evils should arise. Otherwise we shall always remain in doubt whether the general councils of former times were convoked by the authority of the emperors alone or of the Apostolic See together.

And again, granting freely that the Roman pontiffs, not being able to resist the wills of the emperors, acquiesced in the convocation of synods, there remains the question whether the princes convoked the synods rightly or wrongly, and whether in convoking them they exceeded the limits of their own authority. If we turn our mind to the first Nicene synod, we understand that the emperor Constantine indeed convoked it, but according to the judgment of the priests [bishops].

And since the gathering of so many prelates could neither take place nor be sustained without imperial consent, aid, and protection, therefore, in order to prevent tumults and to give the bishops free power, so that, their episcopal sees being left for a time, they might be present at the council at the appointed time, he gave letters to them, that they might commit themselves to the journey. That in this business he used a vicarious power, even Marca himself must affirm, since he himself elsewhere sincerely confesses that, according to the ancient canon of the Church, it is not lawful to celebrate an ecumenical synod without the judgment of the Apostolic See. If, then, things stand thus, the emperors convoked the general synods not by their own authority but by the vicarious authority of the supreme pontiffs.

And this is more clearly established from the synod of Ephesus of which we are treating, for whose convocation Theodosius employed the authority of the Apostolic See, as Leo the Great protested in his letter to that same synod, whose words we reported above, and which Marca himself transcribed in the margin to the cited passage. Yet, to confess the truth, the reason of equity and concord always demanded that, when the gravest disturbances were swelling in the Roman empire on account of the scandals and rivalries of the clergy, the Roman pontiffs should not resist the petitions of princes and emperors, lest, with the affairs of the Church turned upside down, even the business of civil administration should tend to ruin, the care of which pertained chiefly to the secular power.

Therefore it is no wonder if, to settle the tumults sometimes stirred up, the emperors themselves took counsel about convoking synods, and demanded this faculty from the Apostolic See. That the most illustrious Pierre de Marca wished to indicate this is my opinion. 23. As for what further regards the order of things to be treated, there is a graver difficulty whether the Roman princes could prescribe it, which (he says) is taught by several examples. Among which de Marca adduces this: that Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum held in the synod the place not of judges but of those to be judged.

I can scarcely think that the reason of this statute of Theodosius could have been approved by the truly most learned prelate of the Parisian Church, the most illustrious de Marca, since that statute is repugnant to natural and divine institutions. For it was evident that nothing wrong had been done by Flavian and his synod, that Theodosius should therefore decree so injurious an order of things in the cause of the faith and of Eutyches, which was utterly inseparable from the priestly dignity which Flavian exercised in the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, what crime, and of what sort, was it, that Flavian should be deprived of the right of voting, what was objected to Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, that they should hold the place of defendants to be judged?

What lawful accusers were there, what proofs and evidences were brought forward, that they should be judged as guilty of more serious crimes? Under the veil indeed of malicious justice, Eutyches affirmed by voice and by written petitions that he had been judged by the synod through hatred and subornation. But that prince, who also seized the pretext of protecting and preserving Christian tranquillity in the Church and the empire, the case not yet known, claimed for himself to take cognizance of things which did not pertain to him, since it concerned a new heresy and the judgment pronounced upon it; and therefore he could not violate that natural law. Elpidius there calls the emperor the founder and guardian of the laws.

But in what sense did he guard the natural and divine law, which dictate that the lawful rights of others are not to be violated, and that no one is to be deprived of his right unheard, unless perhaps the fault be such as by its very kind induces some penalty? And perhaps that ought not to be reckoned a most grave penalty, by which both Flavian and Eusebius were deprived of the right of judging, and by imperial statute were ordered to hold the place among those to be judged? Only contumacy, for some present or past crime, could have permitted Theodosius either to abolish or to alter the ancient established order of the laws. But what?

Neither Flavian nor Eusebius were admonished and summoned by three proposed edicts, or by one in place of three, which is commonly called peremptory, nor did they refuse their presence. Therefore they could not be held as contumacious. Nay rather, scarcely had they received the letters announcing the synod when, with no delay interposed nor any impediment begged as excuse, they flew to the assembly. Whence it is wrongly affirmed there that the emperor himself first fulfilled the order of laws, when he observed no order, no equity, no law at all, in ordering that those who had once judged should obtain the place of the judged.

I therefore would rather believe that Elpidius abused the emperor's authority, and wished to press that law so that, against all right, neither Flavian nor Eusebius, nor the others who, innocent and without any crime, were condemned, should, even with every kind of defense excluded, undergo undue penalties. Yet we do not intend to brand any stain upon the most illustrious bishop of Paris, because he wished to claim such rights for the princes of the world; but we have only had it in our wishes to explain that those principles are very weak and false, from which he undertook to prove the order of judgments prescribed by those princes. 24. But at last I shall very briefly review the final part of the Ephesine proceedings, by which Dioscorus brought the brigandage to its end.

Hence, moreover, the legates of the Roman pontiff refused to be present at the synodal session; but, having received the document of Flavian's appeal, by no violence at all could they be compelled to remain longer at Ephesus, and they constantly, as was fitting, protested that the Apostolic See would by no means receive that which was being decreed. That Dioscorus made light of these protestations of the pontifical legates, and of Flavian's appeal itself, Hilarus attested in his letter to Pulcheria Augusta. After he refused to communicate with the unjust will of Dioscorus

and sentence communicate, says Hilarus, he attempted by terrors and snares to draw me to another council (that is, as Christian Lupus notes, another synodal session), in order that, which God forbid, he might either by seductions make me consent to condemning the most holy bishop Flavian, or hold me as resisting, so that I should have no means to hasten to your piety at Constantinople or to return to the Roman Church. Nevertheless, trusting in the help of Christ, as regards the condemnation of the most reverend and most holy man, I kept myself innocent and whole; although no scourges, no torments could make me consent to his sentence; but, having abandoned all things, I departed thence, coming to Rome through unknown and trackless places, that I might be a fit messenger to the most reverend pope of all the things that were done at Ephesus.

Prosper in his Chronicle and Theodoret agree with Hilarus. Dioscorus, however, after the flight of the pontifical legates, neither becoming milder nor fearing that he must someday pay the due penalties, adding new crimes to crimes, not only absolved and received into communion the monks who were contending for the Eutychian heresy, but declared that very many orthodox bishops were to be cast down and expelled from their sees: others he deported into exile, and, these still surviving, he caused others to be substituted for them. The first of all to be deposed was Theodoret of Cyrus, unheard, not summoned, and absent beyond fifty stages of journey, who by the decrees of Theodosius was being detained an exile.

It is very well known that Dioscorus procured a sought-out pretext for his condemnation. For since Theodoret had previously attacked the Chapters of Saint Cyril, even after peace was made and ecclesiastical reconciliation obtained, he was cast down from the episcopate. Wherefore, deprived of his episcopal house and compelled to live on the alms of friends, one of whom was most liberal toward him, Uranius bishop of Emesa, hence (Christian Lupus adds) through the patrician Anatolius he petitioned the prince, either to go to Rome to prosecute his appeal, or at least to return to his own monastery, in which he had once professed as a monk, distant a hundred miles from the city of Cyrus. But concerning his appeal to Saint Leo we reserve to speak more opportunely elsewhere.

The second whom Dioscorus determined to be cast out of his episcopal see was Ibas, metropolitan of Edessa, on account of the famous letter, injurious to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, written to Maris the Persian; he likewise, not permitted to be present at the synod, was condemned in absence. Of his exclusion from the synod there is mention in the Council of Chalcedon, action 9, and in Liberatus the deacon, chapter 12. An equal misfortune likewise suffered Sibinianus bishop of Perrhe in the province of Euphratensis, and Evagrius of Epiphania; the source adds that there were also deposed Aquilinus of Byblos, Irenaeus of Tyre, Sophronius bishop of Constantia, metropolitan of the Cypriots, and John of Germanicia.

The last of all to be deposed was Domnus, bishop of Antioch, of whom Liberatus has this: But after all the others, Domnus of Antioch too, who held back from the deposition of the orthodox, because Dioscorus had been made a partaker in the deposition of the orthodox and the absolution of Eutyches. He was, however, deposed by the fraud of Dioscorus thus: After Domnus had consented to Dioscorus in all things, his letters being produced in the midst, which Domnus of Antioch had written to Dioscorus himself against the twelve Chapters of Cyril, because they were obscure, Dioscorus condemned him, sick and absent on that day.

Finally, Dioscorus dared to substitute, elect, and ordain others in the places of the deposed bishops, usurping to himself the plenary authority of general synods, even against the mandate of canon 4 of the Council of Sardica, by which it is ordered that no one be substituted in the place of a deposed bishop before the Roman pontiff has pronounced sentence. For so far was Dioscorus from being willing to obey this canon, which was cited under the name of the Nicene canons; nay rather, having usurped to himself the command of the whole ecclesiastical governance against all natural, divine, and ecclesiastical rights and the faith, he willed to lead to ruin and to subvert the state of all the Churches, with obedience to himself alone.

But concerning the elections and ordinations of these men we shall speak a word when describing the acts of Saint Leo in Book II of the History of the Eutychians, just as also concerning the Sardican canons in chapter 10 of this book. 1.

Thus by zeal for novelties was the mind of Quesnel led, that, desiring to sell foreign doctrines differing from the more common opinions, he was not at all ashamed to reason with erroneous and false arguments, from which he was not even willing to be removed, even when truth, more splendid than light, met him. For vehemently bound by his own prejudices, to which he always adhered in conducting disputations and engagements, and departing from the paths of the most illustrious and most learned men, touching only the rinds of things, he painted sophisms and fallacious conjectures with the color of truth, not only to deceive his readers, but to exercise hatred against the Apostolic See, and to establish a new manner of governance in the Church, under the pretext of pursuing and illustrating antiquity.