Sermons & Letters 91

How greatly divine providence deigns to take counsel for human affairs, the solicitude of your Clemency, stirred up by the Spirit of God, demonstrates — a solicitude which wills that in the catholic Church there be nothing unpacified, nothing at variance: since FAITH, which is but one, can in nothing be unlike itself.

Hence, although Eutyches, so far as the order of the episcopal proceedings makes clear, has been detected in erring ignorantly and imprudently, and ought to have withdrawn from his persuasion, which is deservedly reproved — yet because your Piety, which most religiously loves the catholic truth to the honour of God, has appointed a synodal judgment at Ephesus, that the truth in which he too much gropes in darkness might be made known to the ignorant old man — I have sent my brothers Julius the bishop and Renatus the presbyter, and my son Hilarus the deacon, who might suffice in the place of my presence for the quality of the business;

and who might bear with them the affection of justice and kindness, so that — since it cannot be doubted what is the integrity of the Christian confession — the whole depravity of error might be condemned; and if he who had gone astray, coming to his senses, should plead for pardon, sacerdotal benevolence might come to his aid; since in his own document, which he sent to us, he reserved for himself at least this much towards meriting pardon, namely that he would promise to correct whatever our sentence should have disapproved concerning those things which he had wrongly held. But what the catholic Church universally believes and teaches concerning the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, the writings which I sent to my brother and fellow-bishop Flavian contain more fully.

Given on the Ides of June, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes, most illustrious men. 1. Although the two letters that are found written to Pulcheria on the same day and concerning the same matter are plainly similar in several respects, both in thoughts and in words, nevertheless they differ from each other in many things, and one, on account of the additions inserted, is far more prolix. But the manner of style and the authority of the ancient codices and collections by which each is supported by no means allow either one to be attributed to any other than Leo. The exemplars, both Latin and Greek, of the most ancient collection 47 of Chalcedon, and the Ratisbon collection 19, besides the twelfth and twenty-second collection, sufficiently vindicate the first letter; while the codices of collections 2, 5, 11, 12, 13.

18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, together with the copy of Sichardus, and the peculiar manuscript Vat. Reginae 295, uphold the other. But why two letters of this kind were delivered to Pulcheria on the same day, and which is to be reckoned written earlier and which later, can be inquired into more curiously than defined by any sufficiently secure reasoning. 2. Quesnel in his first edition (vol. II of the first edition, p. 850) supposed that it was written by the pontiff first, so that the synod might be changed into a simple assembly at Constantinople. For for this reason he thinks that letter 30 was written towards the end of the same, and transmitted to Pulcheria through the legates, while there yet remained some hope that it would be written:

But he who is in error will be better counselled if, where he lost his wits, there he should recover them; and where he merited condemnation, there he should obtain indulgence. But when impediments arose by which this letter was not delivered to Pulcheria, Leo transmitted a copy of it to her again after the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, as is clear from letter 45.

On this occasion, moreover, he judged that this letter — with the omission of a few things which we have already recited concerning Eutyches, and with some things also altered — was enlarged by Leo himself, that is, letter 31. But if, after the Ephesine brigandage, anything had been altered in the same letter when it was sent again to Pulcheria which no longer suited the time and circumstances, that addition would doubtless not have been added, by which the holy pontiff more solicitously excuses himself from attending the Ephesine synod.

3. This first opinion, however, Quesnel himself abandoned in the second edition, and passing over to an entirely contrary view, he taught that the longer letter, 31, was written by Leo and sent to Pulcheria immediately after the reception of the letters of Theodosius, that is, a little after the Ides of May; for he supposed that the chronological note, which marks the Ides of June and is missing in several manuscripts, was taken from the shorter letter, 30, and wrongly transferred. But that the shorter letter, 30, was sent by the legates on the Ides of June is manifest. 4. Yet this opinion can neither be proved nor defended. For since Leo received the emperor's letters on the third day before the Ides of May, if he had at once written to Pulcheria, he would also have written back to the emperor himself.

Now it is clear that, having received the emperor's letter on the third day before the Ides of May, and having about the same time received Flavian's letters together with the acts of the Council of Constantinople against Eutyches, he soon wrote to the same Flavian the very brief letter, 27, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of June, in which he informed him that the acts had been received, and also that a fuller letter, in which judgment on the controversy would be delivered, would be sent as speedily as could be done. But being intent upon this task, and also upon choosing and instructing the legates who were to attend the council, already announced, in his stead, he deferred to that time the letters to be entrusted to several persons, namely the time when the legates should cross the sea with the dogmatic letter.

Hence several letters of the same author are found dated on those same Ides of June, on which the dogmatic letter to Flavian, letter 28, was signed; and in all of them the legates are named, and the same letter to Flavian is mentioned as already delivered to them. Of all these, moreover, sufficiently express mention is made even in the longer letter, 31, to Pulcheria: of the legates indeed in those words of chapter 4, 'In these my brethren, whom I have sent in my stead'; and of the dogmatic letter written on the Ides of June in those words of the last chapter, 'That your clemency may know that I have also written this to the holy bishop Flavian'; which words are likewise found inserted in letter 30, written, beyond all doubt, on those same Ides of June. How then can letter 31 be said to have been composed and dispatched somewhat before the month of June?

5. But what is to be said? To pass over uncertain matters: since the shorter letter, 30, is found in the Greek and Latin Chalcedonian collection and distinctly displays the names of the legates, like the other letters which were delivered to those same legates together with the letters to Flavian, it cannot be denied that this too was sent to Pulcheria, at some time delivered to her, published in the East, and thence rendered into Greek. But the fuller letter, 31, although it is missing from the Greek collection, yet since it exists in several ancient Latin collections which lack the shorter letter, and everywhere reflects Leo's manner, cannot be denied to Leo.

Moreover it ought to be said to have been given on the very same day of the Ides of June, as those collections also indicate which lack letter 30; for the authors of these collections could not have transcribed such a chronological note, as Quesnel conjectured, from the shorter letter, which they did not know. But without any more certain document one cannot affirm or divine anything further. Only this can be believed with probability: that two copies of the same letter were elaborated by Leo, one longer, the other shorter; and that he sent this shorter one into the East, whence it was translated into the Greek tongue; but the longer one he retained with himself, and it, at some time published in the West, passed into most of the Latin collections. 6.

The longer letter differs from the shorter chiefly in this, that in it, from chapter 2 to the middle of chapter 3, the Catholic doctrine is established by several proofs which are omitted in the shorter. Perhaps after writing letter 28 to Flavian, in which the same doctrine is more fully established by similar proofs, he judged that those proofs should be removed from the letter to Pulcheria, and on this occasion he also withdrew that part in which he excused himself from attending the council, and changed or added a few other things after his manner, which are read in the shorter letter. And this having been sent into the East, the longer letter, on account of its fuller dogmatic instruction, pleased the Westerners most, and therefore this above all was published among the Latins. 7.

Here one might suspect one thing: that letter 31, to Pulcheria, since it contains several sentences similar to those of letter 37, given to Theodosius on the 20th of June, was written on the same day and sent on the same occasion. For Leo, having received the imperial letters which invited him to the synod, just as he twice wrote to Theodosius on this matter, so also may seem to have written twice to Pulcheria. First he wrote to both by the legates on the Ides of June: to Theodosius by letter 29, but to Pulcheria by letter 30.

Then, when he a second time addressed letter 37 to the emperor on the 20th of June—perhaps for this reason, that he feared lest, in that narrow span of time appointed for the synod, the legates, compelled to hasten to Ephesus, might not be able to deliver letter 29 to that same Augustus—on this same occasion and for this cause it will not improbably be judged that he also wrote letter 31 to Pulcheria. But against the authority of those collections which display the chronological note of the Ides of June, and could not have taken it from letter 30, we have not been able to introduce this opinion. That, however, we have been much better able to do by another argument, which will more and more confirm the conjecture proposed in the preceding number. 'If the letters,' says Leo in letter

letter 45, 'which in the cause of the faith were directed through our clergy, had reached your piety, it is certain that you could have provided a sure remedy for these things which are easily done against the faith...' Letter 30 is here indicated, which, sent by the legates, did not reach the Augusta when they had set out for Ephesus. He therefore presumes that on another occasion, after the departure of the legates, he did not direct to the same Pulcheria another and indeed fuller letter on the same matter; otherwise this letter, not conveyed elsewhere as equally as that former one, would have produced the same effect much more, so that there would have been no need to send a copy of the former letter, 30, to her again together with letter 45. Therefore letter 31 was not sent to Pulcheria, but was retained by Leo himself with him, and only letter

letter 30 was first directed to her through the legates, and again together with letter 45, whence this alone was translated into Greek, as we conjectured in number 6. Now this shorter letter, since it was certainly sent to Pulcheria, we shall bring forward first. CHAPTER II.—How much confidence the Church of God ought to promise itself concerning the faith of your clemency, we have often proved by many documents, since, as you have learned by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you subject your power in all things to Him by whose gift and protection you reign.

Wherefore, since I have learned by the report of my brother and fellow-bishop Flavian that a certain dissension, contrary to the integrity of the Christian faith, has been generated in the Church of Constantinople, Eutyches being its author—so that the text of the synodical acts sets forth the whole aspect of the case—it is worthy of your glory that this error, which was born of unskillfulness rather than of reverence, be taken away before it acquires any strength from the assent of the imprudent through the obstinacy of its depravity. For as much as Nestorius fell away from the truth when he asserted that the Lord Jesus Christ was born of his virgin mother as mere man, so much also has this man deviated from the Catholic path who does not believe that He who was brought forth of the same Virgin is of our nature;

as though what took the form of a servant, what was like and conformed to us, were some kind of image of our flesh, and not the reality. But it profits nothing to call our Lord, the son of the blessed Virgin Mary, man, if He is not believed to be man of that race and seed of which He is proclaimed at the very beginning of the Gospel. Wherefore I greatly grieve and am greatly saddened that this man, who before seemed praiseworthy for his purpose of humility, now dares, against our one hope and that of our fathers, to build up things vain and exceedingly perverse. And when he saw that the sense of his folly displeased Catholic ears, he ought to have recalled himself from his opinion, and not so to have provoked the prelates of the Churches that he should incur the sentence of condemnation.

And if indeed he shall have willed to persist in his own opinion, no one will be able to relax it. For the moderation of the Apostolic See preserves this restraint, that it acts more severely with the hardened, and desires to grant pardon to the corrected. CHAPTER III.—Since therefore I have much confidence in the most sincere faith of your piety, I beseech your most glorious clemency that, just as by your holy zeal the Catholic preaching has ever been aided, so now also you may favor its liberty. For it is not some little portion of our faith that is less clearly evident which is assailed; but this unskilled resistance dares to attack that which the Lord willed no one in His Church to be ignorant of.

And therefore, according to the custom of your piety, deign to labor that what blasphemous folly has uttered against the one sacrament of human salvation may be repelled from the minds of all. And if he himself, who fell into this temptation, comes to his senses, so that by his own voice and subscription he condemns what he had wrongly held, let the communion of his own order be restored to him. Let your clemency know that I have also written this to my brother and fellow-bishop Flavian; and that I have charged those whom we have sent that pardon be granted, if the error is abolished.

But lest it should seem that my presence was wanting to the arrangement of the most pious prince, who willed an episcopal council to be assembled, I have sent my brethren Julius the bishop, Renatus the presbyter, and my son Hilary the deacon, who might suffice to fulfill the office of my presence. But he who is in error will be better counseled if he comes to his senses in the very place where he lost his wits; and where he merited condemnation, there he obtains indulgence. Given on the Ides of June, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes, most illustrious men. CHAPTER I.—How great a protection the Lord has prepared for His Church in your clemency, we have often proved by many documents. And whatever in our times

whatever priestly diligence has obtained against the assailants of Catholic truth has redounded chiefly to your glory; since, as you have learned by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you subject your power in all things to Him by whose gift and protection you reign. Wherefore, since I have learned by the report of my brother and fellow-bishop Flavian that a certain dissension, contrary to the integrity of the Christian faith, has been generated in the Church of Constantinople, Eutyches being its author—so that the text of the synodical acts has set forth the whole aspect of the case—it is worthy of your glory that this error, which, as I think, was born of unskillfulness rather than of cunning, be taken away before, through the obstinacy of its depravity, it acquires any strength for itself from the assent of the imprudent.

For ignorance too has sometimes fallen into grave lapses, and incautious simplicity has often rushed into the devil's pit; through which I understand that the spirit of falsehood has crept up on the aforesaid man, so that while he thinks he holds a more religious opinion concerning the majesty of the Son of God—if he were to deny that the reality of our nature was in Him—he might suppose that the whole of that fact, that the Word was made flesh, was of one and the same substance. And as much as Nestorius fell away from the truth when he asserted that Christ was born of His mother as mere man, so much also does this man deviate from the Catholic path who does not believe that our substance was brought forth of the same Virgin;

willing indeed that it be understood to be of the Deity alone, so that what took the form of a servant, and what was like and conformed to us, were some kind of image of our nature, and not the reality. CHAPTER II.—But it profits nothing to call our Lord, the son of the blessed Virgin Mary, true and perfect man, if He is not believed to be man of that race of which He is proclaimed in the Gospel. For Matthew says: 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham' (Matthew 1:1); and so he follows the order of human origin, so as to bring down the lines of the generations even to Joseph, to whom the mother of the Lord was espoused. But Luke, tracing back the degrees of succession in reverse, returns to the very origin of the human race (Luke 3:

3:23), so as to show that the first Adam and the last Adam are of the same nature. For the omnipotence of the Son of God could indeed have appeared to teach and justify men in the same way as it appeared to the patriarchs and prophets in the semblance of flesh, when either He engaged in a wrestling (Genesis 32:24), or held converse, or did not refuse the offices of hospitality, or even took the food set before Him (Genesis 18). But those images were indications of this man, whose reality the mystical significations announced was to be taken from the stock of the preceding fathers.

And therefore the sacrament of our reconciliation, arranged before eternal ages, no figures were fulfilling, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon the Virgin, nor had the power of the Most High overshadowed her; so that, within her inviolate womb, wisdom building for herself a house (Proverbs 9:1), the Word might become flesh (John 1:14); and, the form of God and the form of a servant coming together into one person, the Creator of times might be born in time; and He through whom all things were made might Himself be brought forth among all things.

For unless the new man, made in the likeness of sinful flesh, had taken upon Himself our oldness, and, being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial also with the mother, and, alone free from sin, had united our nature to Himself, human captivity would be held generally under the yoke of the devil; nor could we make use of the victory of the Triumphant, if it had been joined outside our nature. CHAPTER III.—But out of this wondrous participation the sacrament of regeneration has shone upon us, that through the same Spirit by whom Christ was both conceived and born, we too, who were begotten through the concupiscence of the flesh, might be born again by a spiritual origin. For which reason it is said by the evangelist concerning believers:

'Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' (John 1:13). Whoever does not partake of His ineffable grace, and cannot be reckoned in the adoption of the sons of God, is whoever excludes himself from his faith—that which principally saves us. Wherefore I greatly grieve and am greatly saddened that this man, who before seemed praiseworthy for his purpose of humility, now dares, against our one hope and that of our fathers, to build up things vain and exceedingly stupid. And when he saw that the sense of his folly displeased Catholic ears, he ought to have recalled himself from his opinion; and not so to have provoked the prelates of the Church that he should merit to incur the sentence of condemnation;

which indeed, if he shall have willed to persist in his own opinion, no one will be able to relax. For the moderation of the Apostolic See preserves this restraint, that it acts more severely with the hardened, and desires to grant pardon to the corrected. Since therefore I have much confidence in the most exalted faith of your piety, I beseech your glorious clemency that, just as by your holy zeal the Catholic preaching has ever been aided, so now also you may favor its liberty—which perhaps the Lord for this reason permitted to be assailed by this temptation, that those who lay hidden within the Church might be recognized. Their care is plainly not to be neglected, that their loss may not sadden us. CHAPTER IV.

—But the most august and most Christian emperor, desiring that the disturbed matters be settled as speedily as possible, has appointed for the episcopal council, which he wishes to be held at Ephesus, an exceedingly brief and narrow time, prescribing the day of the Kalends of August for the assembly; whereas from the third day before the Ides of May, on which we received the writings of his serenity, the greater part of the remaining time must be consumed, so that the departure of the priests who are equal to the business may be arranged. For as to that which his piety believed that I too ought to attend the council, even if it were required according to some preceding precedent, yet now it could by no means be fulfilled: because the exceedingly uncertain condition of present affairs would not allow me to be absent from the people of so great a city;

and they would be cast into a certain despair of their tumultuous mind, if for the occasion of an ecclesiastical cause I should seem to wish to desert my country and the Apostolic See. Since therefore you recognize that it pertained to the public good that, saving the leave of your clemency, I should not deny myself to the charity and prayers of the citizens, esteem that in these my brethren, whom I have sent in my stead, I too am present with the others who shall be present: to whom, according to the matter made known to me sufficiently from the series of the acts and from the profession of the very man in question, I have shown evidently and fully what ought to be observed. For it is not concerning some little portion of our faith, which may be less clearly declared, that inquiry is made;

but this most foolish resistance dares to attack that which our Lord willed no one of either sex in His Church to be ignorant of. Since indeed the very brief and perfect confession of the Catholic Creed, which is sealed with as many sentences as the twelve apostles, is so furnished with heavenly fortification that all the opinions of heretics can be cut down by its sword alone. If Eutyches had willed to conceive the fullness of this Creed with a pure and simple heart, he would in nothing deviate from the decrees of the most sacred Council of Nicaea; and he would understand that it was established by the holy Fathers that against the apostolic faith, which is but one, no talent, no eloquence should exalt itself. And

therefore, according to the custom of your piety, deign to labor that what blasphemous folly has brought forth against the singular sacrament of human salvation may be repelled from the minds of all. And if he himself, who fell into this temptation, comes to his senses, so that by a written satisfaction he condemns his own error, let the communion of his order not be denied him. Let your clemency know that I have also written this to the holy bishop Flavian; that the demand of charity be not neglected, if the error is abolished. Given on the Ides of June, in the consulship of Asturius and Protogenes, most illustrious men.