Sermons & Letters 238 part 2/2

One, namely, to the presbyter Martin and the rest of his colleagues, as Quesnel himself rightly noted in the margin from its context; whom he praises on account of the evils they had endured in defence of the truth, the unity of which truth distances of place do not sever. And at length he declares that he has sent his legates to strengthen the fortitude of holy minds, whose pious work he exhorts them to assist with care and counsel. Another likewise, not long after, he wrote to two presbyters, Faustus and Marinus. But whether the Martin to whom this new letter is addressed is the same as the Martin to whom the preceding was given, I shall not judge. It is, however, very probable that the presbyter of this name was one and the same.

These presbyters, therefore, the supreme pontiff wished to have as sharers of his labors, which he expended for the care of the universal Church. And persuading himself that he had already received from the legates then residing at Constantinople a most complete instruction of all matters to be transacted: 'Even now (he says), through our son Maximinus the count, we continually exhort you with discourses, that, since by the Lord's favor the liberty of catholics has been greatly increased, you may take up spiritual constancy against the forerunners of Antichrist.' That by these last words he wished to assail and harass Nestorius and Eutyches, the holy pontiff himself explained immediately afterward in the following chapter.

In what way, therefore, the liberty of catholics had been increased—from which the praised presbyters ought to take up spiritual constancy against the forerunners of Antichrist—St. Leo did not indicate. Therefore it was necessary for us to seek this out from other monuments, so that we might make plain to readers what Quesnel altogether omitted to note. We understand, then, that the liberty of catholics had been increased on a twofold ground. The first was that, while a most grievous schism endured in the East—by which the Egyptian, Thracian, and Palestinian bishops followed Dioscorus, while the Orientals, the Pontics, and the Asians held the side of Flavian and the catholics, as Liberatus the deacon says in his Breviary, ch.

12—the emperor would not have seen that schism abolished after Flavian's murder, had he not begun seriously to reflect on the evils that had befallen the Eastern Churches. For he, having long before been imbued by Pulcheria with the best instruction, then, depraved in his morals to the ruin of the Church by the eunuch Chrysaphius and his wife Eudocia, had given occasion to so many and so great evils festering in the East, on account of the favor and protection afforded to heretics, schismatics, and robbers up to that time. Nevertheless, illumined by divine light, he discovered that he had been deceived by the cunning of the eunuch and the arts of his wife Eudocia.

Concerning the expiation, therefore, of the crime he had admitted, he deliberated that it should henceforth be made by the new promptings of the most holy Pulcheria. Wherefore, since he could not repair the murder of St. Flavian, he poured out all his fury upon Chrysaphius. And so, first stripping him of his dignity, then also of all his substance, he banished him to a certain island, as Nicephorus relates, who narrates that the same man was swallowed up by the waves while sailing. But Cedrenus also, making mention of him, asserts that he was killed by Jordanes; with whom Marcellinus the count seems in part to agree, who says: 'But Pulcheria handed over that most unjust eunuch Chrysaphius to Jordanes, son of John, whom that man had treacherously slain, and Jordanes repaid him in kind.'

The same Theodosius had also already exhibited other proofs of penitence: he assailed his wife Eudocia with sharp rebuke, as another origin of all the evils of the East, and sent her with severity to Jerusalem to do penance, and performed many other things, which are described by Nicephorus—although in truth Baronius rightly admonishes readers that Nicephorus suffered a hallucination when he wrote that Theodosius had ordered the sacred body of Flavian to be transferred with solemn pomp into the city of Constantinople. For it is established that this translation took place by the decree of Marcian. 9. But how the matters came to pass, there is no need to inquire at present.

Wherefore, since meanwhile nothing else occurs to us which pertains to Leo's pontifical manner of acting, we therefore withdraw our hand from this Disputation. There remains only a very brief letter written to the presbyter Faustus, in which St. Leo praises his faith and exhorts him to solicitude. But whether this is to be associated with the preceding ones, neither has been indicated by its very text—in which no mention is made of the matters to be transacted at Constantinople through the legates—nor can it be gathered from the consular note, which is wanting.

Concerning the synod of Constantinople, therefore, in which the solemn profession of faith was made by Anatolius, and concerning the rest of the things done by St. Leo the Great before the Council of Chalcedon, we reserve to speak in this following chapter.