Sermons & Letters 85

To his most beloved son, the presbyter Eutyches, Bishop Leo. By the letter of your Charity you have brought to our notice that the Nestorian heresy is again sprouting up through the efforts of certain men. We write back that your solicitude in this matter has pleased us, since the discourse which we have received is an index of your mind; whence do not doubt that the Lord, the author of the catholic faith, will be present to you in all things. But we, when we shall have been able to learn more fully by whose wickedness this comes about, must, with the Lord's help, take measures, so that the abominable and long-since-condemned poison may be utterly extinguished at the root. May God keep you safe, most beloved son. Given on the Kalends of June, in the consulship of the most illustrious Posthumianus and Zeno.

Now for the first time inserted among the letters of Leo. Synopsis.—The letter of Eutyches the heretic: wherein, writing to Leo the bishop of the city of Rome, he denies in Christ the two natures, that is, of Divinity and of humanity. Chapter I.—Confiding in my hope and faith toward the Lord and God of all, Christ, before all things indeed God the Word is my witness, who discerns the proof of the truth in feelings of this kind; and I call upon your Holiness as witness of my heart and of the reasoning of my senses and words. But the most wicked devil has bewitched such zeal and purpose of ours, by which his powers ought to have been destroyed. Rousing by these means every force domestic to himself, moving against me [read: he moved]

[moved] Eusebius, bishop of the town of Dorylaeum, to bring a bill of complaint to the holy bishop of the Church of Constantinople, Flavian, and to certain others found in the same city who had assembled there for their various affairs, wherein he denounced me as a heretic—not moving the accusation out of truth, but contriving my ruin and the disturbance of the Churches of God. I was summoned to answer the accusation by their Holiness; but being held back by a grave illness on top of old age itself, I hastened to my clearing, not unaware of the plot compounded against my well-being. And indeed I immediately presented in writing, with my signature added to these documents, showing my profession concerning the holy faith.

But when the holy archbishop Flavian neither received the bill nor ordered it to be read, yet hearing me and while I answered in those very words that faith which was set forth at Nicaea by the holy synod and confirmed at Ephesus, I was demanded to confess two natures and to anathematize those who would deny this.

But I, fearing the definition made by the synod, neither to take away nor to add a word against the faith set forth by the holy Nicene synod, and knowing that our holy and blessed fathers Julius, Felix, Athanasius, Gregory, most holy bishops, refuted the term 'two natures,' and not daring to treat of the nature of God the Word, who came into flesh in the last days into the womb of the holy Virgin Mary, unchangeably as He willed and knows, in truth, not in phantasm, made man, nor to anathematize our aforesaid fathers, I begged that these things might become known to your Holiness, and that you might judge what seemed good to you, professing that I would in all ways follow what you had approved. Chapter II.

But having heard none of the things that were being said by me, they broke off the synod and published the sentence of my deposition, which they had prepared against me before any hearing; to such a degree did they mount up their calumnious faction against me, that danger even threatened my safety, had not the hand of Miles quickly, by the work of God through the prayers of your Holiness, snatched me from the assault.

Then the leaders of the other monasteries began to compel men to subscribe to my condemnation (which was never done even against those who professed themselves heretics, nor even against Nestorius himself), to such a degree that, when I put forward the confessions of my faith in order to satisfy the people, not only did they prevent these from being heard, but those who were plotting the aforesaid faction against me seized upon them, so that thenceforth I might be held by all as a heretic. Chapter III.

Therefore I take refuge with you, defenders of religion and those who detest factions of this kind, introducing nothing new even now against the faith already handed down to us from the beginning, but anathematizing Apollinaris, Valentinus, Manes, and Nestorius, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior descended from heaven, and not from the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary, and all heresies down to Simon Magus. And nonetheless I am imperiled in my life as though a heretic. And I entreat you,

that with no prejudice done to me from those things which were carried out against me through treachery, you may pronounce concerning the faith the sentence which shall seem right to you, and permit no calumny thereafter to proceed from the factious against me, and that he who for seventy years has lived his life in continence and all chastity be not shaken out and taken away from the number of the orthodox, so that at the very departure of life he should suffer shipwreck. And I have subjoined to this my letter both bills—the one that was presented to the synod by my accuser, and the one that was indeed drawn up by me but not received—and the setting-forth of my faith, as well as those things which were decreed concerning the two natures by our holy fathers.

I call you to witness before God, who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus, who under Pontius Pilate testified that excellent confession, that you do nothing for favor. For I myself have held the same as my elders held, and from my childhood I have been enlightened even as the holy synod of three hundred and eighteen most blessed bishops, held from the whole world at Nicaea, established the faith, which the holy synod gathered at Ephesus confirmed and defined to hold alone anew; and I have never held otherwise than as the right and only true orthodox faith has commanded. And I assent to all whatsoever were established concerning that same faith by the same holy synod at Ephesus;

of which synod the leader and chief was the bishop of blessed and holy memory, Cyril of Alexandria, companion and partaker of the preaching and faith of the holy and elect of God, Gregory the Elder, and likewise Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Atticus, Proclus. Him and all those I have held as orthodox and faithful, and honored as saints, and esteemed as my masters. But I pronounce anathema against Nestorius and Apollinaris and all heretics down to Simon, and against those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ descended from heaven. For He Himself who is the Word of God descended from heaven without flesh, and was made flesh in the womb of the holy Virgin from the very flesh of the Virgin, unchangeably and inconvertibly, as He Himself knew and willed.

And He who is ever God, perfect before the ages, the same was made also perfect man in the last of days for us and for our salvation. Let your Holiness therefore hold this full profession of mine. I, Eutyches, presbyter and archimandrite, have subscribed to this bill with my own hand. A copy of Julius, bishop of the city of Rome—as they assert, of Eutyches's writings to Dionysius the bishop, by whose meaning Eutyches himself, being led, fell into error. I marvel to hear that certain men, while indeed confessing our Lord in the flesh, yet fall into the division wrongly introduced by the Paulianists. For they, following Paul of Samosata, understand as one Him who descended from heaven, confessing Him God;

but they say that another is an earthly man, and that the one is uncreatable, this one lord, the other a servant; whether they venerate Him whom they call servant and created thing, or do not worship Him who redeemed us by His blood. But these men who confess that God descended from heaven, and that flesh was taken from the Virgin, and that He is one with the flesh, are troubled in vain, passing over into the words of the impiety of those others. For they too, as I hear, speak of two natures. Against which even John clearly proves our Lord to be one, when he says: 'The Word was made flesh'; and Paul the apostle, when he says: 'One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.' For if Jesus born of the Virgin

be understood to be the very One through whom all things were made, then one nature has been made, since there is also one person, not divided in two—since neither is there a proper nature of the body and a proper nature of the Deity according to the flesh. But just as man is one nature, so also is Christ, who was made after the likeness of man. But if they do not acknowledge that which through the union is one, they can also divide the one into many and say very many natures: since the body is manifold, being composed of bones, sinews, and veins, flesh and skin, blood and spirit—all which are indeed diverse among themselves, yet their nature is one. Whence also the nature of the Deity is one with the body. And it is not divided into two natures.

For neither could He who descended from heaven be called wholly Son of Man, and again He who was born of a woman be called Son of God, if He admitted the division of two natures; but then that which had descended from heaven would be called Son of Man, not Son of God. And this belongs to the Paulian division. But the divine Scriptures teach us to think as concerning one Lord, both when He descended from heaven and when He was born on earth. Those therefore who think thus do not depart into contradiction, thinking things at variance, so that while they consent in mind to the divine precepts, they should disagree in their words.

For it is necessary that they, when they conceive two natures, should venerate the one and not adore the other, and be baptized indeed into the divine but not into the human. But if we are baptized into the death of the Lord, we profess one nature—both of the impassible Deity and of the passible flesh—so that through this our baptism is received both into God and into the death of the Lord. For we do not fear the calumniators, who divide the Lord into two persons. Nor, since we preach the evangelical and apostolic unity, let them tear us apart as though saying that the flesh is heavenly, since we on the contrary read the divine Scriptures saying that the Son is not from heaven.

For neither, when we say that the Son of God was created from a woman, can we be reproved as though saying that the Word is from earth and not from heaven. For we say both: both wholly from heaven on account of the Deity, and wholly from a woman on account of the flesh, being ignorant of any division of the one person. 1. It was of great concern to Quesnel, out of his own prejudices, to defend against the most eminent Baronius that St. Flavian wrote nothing to St. Leo the pontiff concerning the condemnation of Eutyches except after he had been stirred up by the letters of the latter. Wherefore he perverted the order of Flavian's two letters to Leo (Diss. 1, on the year 449, no. 1 and following). And the letter that is our 26th, which Flavian wrote after receiving Leo's letters, about April of the year 449, he made out to be as it were the first;

and he laid down that the following letter was, as it were, the second, delivered later, and drew into the same opinion even Antonius Pagi, who therefore thought Baronius ought to be corrected on the year 448, no. 8. The chief, or rather the sole, argument of Quesnel, likewise repeated by Pagi, rests upon these words of Flavian, from letter 26, in which, signifying that Eutyches was condemned, he adds: 'As all the things which have been done concerning him, and which we have directed together with these our letters, will inform your Holiness.' Upon which that man says: 'You see how Leo had received nothing of the letters or acts of the synod from Flavian before this letter?'

And when Flavian then mentions Leo's letters delivered to him by Pansophius (it is letter 23), by which he had been informed that the same Eutyches had directed to Leo documents full of all deceit and craftiness—from these, Quesnel adds, it likewise appears that Flavian did not think of writing to Leo about this matter before he learned that the pontiff had been deceived by wicked arts and had conceived a false opinion concerning the Constantinopolitan judgment. 2.

If letter 23 be read attentively, you will find Leo not deceived, but cautious and demanding and awaiting the necessary documents. But as regards the argument, even in letter 22, when Eutyches's errors have been set forth, the things which had long ago been done against him are said to have been directed by Flavian to Leo (chapter 4), and indeed with the same Greek word 'we directed' (direximus) which he used in letter 26. In which matter, lest the word 'we directed' cause difficulty, see note 17 (col. 77, n. b) on the same letter 22. Since therefore Flavian, twice writing to Leo about the same condemnation, twice also transmitted the acts to him—namely together with letter 22 and with letter 26—nothing can be deduced from this one point in favor of asserting either as the earlier. 3.

But if judgment be passed from the context of both letters, Tillemont, although he favored Quesnel in many other things, yet could not assent in this matter: whence in article 16, on Leo, he did not at all doubt that the first place should be adjudged to letter 22: 'I believe that with but a little reflection upon it, one will readily recognize that it (the letter now 22) was written very shortly after the council held against Eutyches, and that it is the first which Flavian wrote to Rome on this affair, as Baronius believed.' The words from the Greek, 'such has Eutyches now appeared to us,' declare a most recent manifestation and condemnation of the heretic.

But those words toward the end, by which Flavian asks that the acts concerning the same man be brought to the notice of the Western bishops, lest any who know not what that man held should address him as though orthodox, whether by letters or by some association—these betray writings made right from the beginning. For it would have been inopportune to ask Leo to promulgate the condemnation of Eutyches at that time when it was most well-known, that is, after letter 26, when a general council to be held for that cause had already been made public. 4. But let us bring forward a more evident argument. St. Leo relates that he received two letters of Flavian together with the acts. First, letter 28, written to the same Flavian on the Ides of June of the year 449, in these words in chapter 1:

'On reading the letters of your Charity, which we marvel to have been so late, and on reviewing the order of the episcopal acts, we have at length recognized what scandal against the integrity of the faith had arisen among you.' He indicates that he had already then received this same letter of Flavian, when he wrote letter 27, given on the 21st day of May of the same year. If Flavian's letter, received about this day, was very late, then it had been written much earlier. These things are without doubt to be understood of Flavian's first letter. Again, letter 36 to the same Flavian, given on the twelfth or fifteenth day before the Kalends of July of the same year, other letters of his, then received together with acts, are named thus: 'I have received the letters of your Charity with the acts which were drawn up among you concerning the question of the faith.'

These things are to be understood of the second letter of the same Flavian, to which the acts against Eutyches had been annexed equally as to the first. Furthermore, that in this letter 36 Flavian's letter 26 is referred to is manifest from this: that Flavian, in letter 26, chapter 2, says he hopes that the synod which was being rumored as to come would be removed; but Leo, answering this article in letter 36, signifies that the council cannot be hindered. Therefore letter 26 is Flavian's second, but letter 22 is the first, sent a little after the Constantinopolitan synod at the close of the year 448 or somewhat later at the beginning of the year 449. That the letter of Eutyches, transmitted together with the emperor's letters which were given on his behalf, arrived more quickly is nothing to marvel at.

But whence longer delays were cast upon Flavian's letter, which Leo marveled to have been brought so late, we do not know. Hence letter 22 described the earlier acts which had befallen up to the Constantinopolitan synod; but letter 26 added the later ones which Eutyches had stirred up after the same synod. But the acts of the synod were again annexed to this second letter, because from Leo's letters Flavian feared lest perchance the former letter with the acts had been lost. And if in letter 26 no mention is made of letter 22, which we have proved to have been sent earlier, that can move nothing: since neither in letter 22, which Quesnel judges to be the later, does Flavian make mention of another letter written earlier. 5.

Let it therefore stand that letter 22 was given first, and that it is that letter which is mentioned by Leo in letter 28, and upon which this whole celebrated definition of Leo rests. Hence indeed we believe it came about that in the ancient Latin collections 2, 3, and 8, as well as in the Hispanic and Isidorian and other later ones which proceed from those ancient sources, only Flavian's letter 22 to Leo is prefixed to Leo's letter 28 to Flavian. And since this former one was delivered to Leo, and forthwith also translated into Latin and everywhere divulged in the West, therefore we suppose it was inserted in so many distinct and ancient collections: which will be confirmed by what is to be said at the end of annotation 5, col. 886, note g, on letter 67.

This did not happen to letter 26, which, since it was written later, the matter being sufficiently known through the earlier letters, ought not to have been scattered abroad among the crowd to the same degree: whence it is found in the codices of collection 17, the Chalcedonian alone, where very many documents pertaining to Eutyches were more diligently collected, and indeed in order after letter 22, as may be seen in Baluze, tome IV of the Councils, Venetian edition, page 1981—which very thing confirms this one to be the earlier, that one the later. 6.

Hence likewise it is permitted to conjecture that the translation of letter 22, beginning 'Nulla res diaboli,' which exists in the praised ancient collections, and is found in some also together with the acts of the Constantinopolitan synod against Eutyches subjoined by Flavian to that same letter, is the first translation, which, immediately promulgated, was thereupon received into the collections: while the other translation, which begins 'Nihil est,' is found in the ancient Latin Chalcedonian collection alone, from which it was afterward carried over into the later collection 22 together with other Chalcedonian documents. That older translation, made right from the beginning, was of use to Leo before he wrote his dogmatic letter to Flavian;

just as it is beyond doubt that the translation of the acts of the Constantinopolitan synod against Eutyches was of use to the same, which, published at the same time in collections 3 and 8 together with the praised older version of letter 22, is read as received: for from this translation of the acts he recites in the same dogmatic letter, chapter 6, several things word for word. 7. From all these things, moreover, it is made plain how vainly Quesnel labored against Cardinal Baronius to persuade that letter 22 was written after letter 26, as though Flavian, who after the condemnation of Eutyches wrote to Domnus and to the other bishops of the East, had neglected to warn the Westerners, and above all the Roman pontiff, of so great a heresy.

The same Flavian, immediately after the condemnation of Eutyches, had been sufficiently warned by Florentius, when, the assembly being dissolved, he was ascending to the upper part of the house, that Eutyches himself had appealed to the Roman, Alexandrian, and Jerusalem bishops; whence it was to be feared by him lest, if he did not write to Leo at once, that man should forestall the pontiff. But there is no need to add more to refute the Quesnelian prejudice or fabrication. 8.

Now between the two Latin versions which we have mentioned, of the following letter, although that one which begins 'Nulla res' is the first and older than the other, whose beginning is 'Nihil est,' yet since it was rendered into Latin by a less skilled or not very diligent translator and corresponds less exactly to the original Greek, while another version, which is exhibited in the Chalcedonian collection, elaborated by a more skilled and more diligent translator, approaches more nearly to the Greek text—preferring this latter one, though sufficiently ancient, to that former, we have thought it should be annexed opposite the Greek text.

But afterward we shall subjoin the older version, to which, besides the difficulties of the less accurate translator, other difficulties accrued from the copyists, who, differing wonderfully in their readings, rendered the text of the primitive version more obscure and more uncertain. Quesnel published this older version set opposite the Greek original, as it is presented in the editions of the councils, with not a few and repeatedly rather long readings described in the margin, which may seem to be variants taken from manuscripts, but in truth are readings set beside it out of the Greek by the first Roman editors of the Greek text; because the ancient version seemed less fitting.

Nay, these same editors even altered some things out of the Greek in the very text of the version, just as they had repeatedly done in the ancient version of the Chalcedonian collection itself; and nonetheless Quesnel, although he had several codices of that translation and earlier editions of Leo which read otherwise, so transcribed the Roman reading that, using neither the codices nor the other printed editions, he neglected to restore the ancient version—whereas those who exhibit ancient versions ought not to bring forward that which is more congruent with the original, but that which was rendered by the old translator. But the other, more accurate version, which we shall give in the first place together with the Greek, was first published by Quesnel from the Thuanean manuscript of collection

17, the Chalcedonian; then indeed from the same codex and two others of the same collection, the Corbeian and the Divionese, Baluze reissued the same in the ancient version of the Chalcedonian council emended by Rusticus, chapter 5. We too have recognized it with four manuscripts of the aforesaid collection—the most ancient Veronese, two Vatican ones, and the Chigi—as well as with the Venetian one of St. Mark's, collection 22; but the Greek original, which the Greek collection of the Chalcedonian council has preserved for us, we have collated with two Venetian codices of St. Mark's.