But since this also has sufficiently appeared, that even if, as has been feigned, the bishops Theodoret and Ibas were not present at the Chalcedonian council before the definition, it was not on that account to be excused; let us also inquire of what sort this is: that, by saying that to the Roman Church only the definition of the faith, and not also the acts of the Chalcedonian council, had been conveyed, they wish from this to bring it about that we believe that in that definition of the faith alone the blessed Leo confirmed the decrees of the Chalcedonian synod, and that we too should condemn the said letter of the venerable Ibas: whereas he says—as we have already mentioned in the second book:
«Let both the universal brotherhood and the hearts of all the faithful know that I have united my own opinion with yours, not only through the brethren who have executed my office, but also through my approval of the synodal acts.» He therefore declares that he has approved not the definition of the faith alone, but the synodal acts themselves. But that which, from certain letters of the blessed Leo, to deceive the credulous—as they cull other passages—they say that he said, namely that the Chalcedonian council had been assembled for the extinguishing of heresy alone and for the confirming of the catholic faith, and whatever such things we find in his letters, so that even from this they may bring to the condemnation of this letter whomsoever they can, as though it had not been approved by him:
it is not because of what was said by him that it is taken up by these men. And therefore let us show why and in what manner he said this. For Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, because, as we have recalled, he had presumed to take his seat in that same synod in a place before Maximus of Antioch: for this cause the blessed Leo, writing to that same Anatolius, said (Epist. 53):
«I grieve also that your dilection has so far lapsed as to attempt to shatter the most sacred constitutions of the Nicene canons, as though this time had opportunely offered itself to you, wherein the see of Alexandria might lose the privilege of the second honor, and the Church of Antioch lose the property of the third dignity, so that, these places being made subject to your jurisdiction, all the metropolitan bishops might be deprived of their proper honor. By which unheard-of excesses, never before attempted, you are so carried away that you drag the holy synod—assembled, by the zeal of a most Christian prince, for the extinguishing of heresy alone and for the confirmation of the catholic faith—into an occasion for ambition, and you compel it to surrender its submission to you.
» Not, therefore, from these and from things of this sort, which the most blessed Leo wrote either to Anatolius himself or to others against this same Anatolius, do we make it manifest that the sentence of the council was reproved by him which was set forth concerning the letter of Ibas. Since for this reason he says that the holy synod was assembled, by the zeal of a most Christian prince, for the extinguishing of heresy alone and for the confirmation of the catholic faith, namely that it might dissolve those things which had been usurped for the ambition of the bishop of Constantinople—which in his other writings also will appear far more fully. Otherwise he would be said to have emptied the rest of the things that were done in that synod:
he who, when he had written like things also to that same holy synod held at Chalcedon, in order to lay open to all the intention of his words, added and said (Epist. 61): «Concerning the keeping also of the ordinances of the holy Fathers which were fixed by the inviolable decrees of the Nicene synod, I admonish the observance of your holiness, that the rights of the churches, as they were ordained by those three hundred and eighteen divinely-inspired Fathers, may remain permanent. Let no one wickedly covet what belongs to another, nor let anyone seek his own increase through the diminution of another. For however much the elation of vanity may equip itself by extorted flatteries, and however much it may reckon that its appetites are to be strengthened under the name of councils;
whatsoever shall have disagreed with the canons of the aforesaid Fathers will be feeble and void—Fathers whose rules the apostolic see uses with the utmost reverence: your holiness will be able, by the reading of my writings, with which I repelled the attempts of the prelate of Constantinople, to recognize that I am, by the help of our God, a guardian both of the catholic faith and of the constitutions of the Fathers.» Behold, even in this letter which the blessed Leo wrote to the holy synod, he declares that nothing else in that same synod had displeased him, except that Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, presumed to sit in a place before that of Antioch.
Otherwise, he will be said to have blamed not only the sentence set forth concerning the letter of Ibas, but also the fact that the episcopate was restored to that same most reverend Ibas, and all the canons which the holy Fathers there usefully established concerning the observance of ecclesiastical discipline—against which Leo, his enemy, will be affirmed to have fought—and to have broken the rest of the things that were there specially decreed concerning particular persons.
Or if they do not presume to say this openly concerning the blessed Leo, let them understand with us that, since he was writing to the bishop of Constantinople concerning only these two matters done in the Chalcedonian council—that is, concerning the cause of the faith for which the council itself had been assembled, and concerning his proud elation—he said, «that you drag the holy synod, assembled by the zeal of a most Christian prince for the extinguishing of heresy alone and for the confirmation of the catholic faith, into an occasion for ambition,» and whatever like things are found in his letters: judging in these words only the two things which we have mentioned, of which he had made mention, and not also the rest of the things that were there done. Just as the Apostle, writing to the Philippians concerning Timothy, says:
But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be of good cheer when I know the things concerning you. For I have no one like-minded, who with sincere affection is solicitous for you. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's (Phil. ii, 19). Not directing his speech against Titus and Luke, not against Epaphroditus and Mark, not against the rest, of whom he says in the same epistle: I beseech Euodia, and I entreat Syntyche, to be of the same mind in the Lord. I entreat you also, true yoke-fellow, help those women who labored with me in the Gospel, with Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life (Phil. iv, 2); but rather against those of whom he there says:
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision (Phil. iii, 2). Comparing Timothy, then, with these alone, he said: For I have no one like-minded, who with sincere affection is solicitous for you, and he had regard only to those, so as to say: For all seek their own, not the things which are Christ Jesus'. Finally, when, speaking of the blessed Timothy himself, he said: But you know the proof of him, that, as a son with a father, he has served with me in the Gospel. Him therefore I hope to send, as soon as I shall see how it will go with me. But I trust in the Lord that I myself also shall come shortly to you (Phil. ii, 22). There, continuing, he added:
But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, but your apostle and minister to my need: since indeed he longed after you all, and was sorrowful because you had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. The more eagerly, therefore, did I send him, that, seeing him again, you might rejoice, and that I might be without sorrow. Receive him therefore in the Lord with all joy, and hold such men in honor:
because for the work of Christ he came even unto death, delivering up his own soul, that he might supply what was lacking on your part toward my service (ibid., 25). Was the word of the Apostle Paul — when he says, 'For I have no one likeminded, who with sincere affection is solicitous for you; for all seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's' — directed at this Epaphroditus, apostle of the Philippians, and his other holy helpers in the Gospel? Or rather at those of whom we have already spoken above? Or is Epaphroditus reported not to have been likeminded — he on whose recovery from sickness Paul says that God had mercy upon himself also, lest he should have sorrow upon sorrow on his account?
Or was holy Epaphroditus not solicitous for the Philippians with sincere affection — those whom he longed to see, and on account of whose grief over his sickness he was grieved, because they had heard that he was sick; he who for the work of Christ had come even unto death, delivering up his soul to supply what was lacking to him in service toward Paul? Wherefore Paul also rightly commended him to them, that they should hold such men in honor. So then, when Paul the Apostle, writing to the Philippians about Timothy, said, 'I have no one likeminded, who with sincere affection is solicitous for you,' he did not have in view Titus and Luke, nor Epaphroditus and Mark, nor his other helpers whose names are in the book of life:
'for all seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's' — but rather those of whom it was said by him, 'Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.' So too the most blessed Leo, when he wrote, did not have in view the sentence pronounced concerning the letter of Ibas, nor the episcopate restored to the said Ibas, nor the other things decreed at the Council of Chalcedon concerning certain persons, nor the canons of ecclesiastical discipline wholesomely established there by the holy Fathers, when he said: 'That you should drag into an occasion for ambition the holy synod, gathered by the zeal of the most Christian prince solely to extinguish heresy and to confirm the catholic faith,' and the like;
but rather the proud arrogance of the bishop of Constantinople, as his very words indicate. For nothing else is found that he censured in these same letters of his. Thus are the words of Leo of Rome to be understood; thus must the writings of the apostolic see be expounded by examples from the apostolic writers — if we do not wish to stir up all the canons usefully established by the holy Fathers in that same synod, and the other matters confirmed there in the particular causes of various persons, into a greater disturbance of the Church than the one we now suffer.
But who would dare to say of blessed Leo that, if the letter which the synod approved were Nestorian, he — setting aside the blasphemy by which Christ is denied to be God, which He is — would have complained only of this, that in that synod one bishop did not sit in his proper place? Therefore either this is the only fault that blessed Leo did not keep silent had displeased him in the Council of Chalcedon; or, if it is said there was something else as well, that is surely less than the fault which the bishop of Constantinople committed; for otherwise Leo could never, leaving aside the matter of heresy, have complained about the seating of one bishop. But let it be shown to us anywhere that blessed Leo said (Letter
62) that he did not confirm all the things that were done in that synod, in the sense that he detests the synod's sentence concerning the letter of Ibas, rather than chastises and restrains the ambition of the bishop of Constantinople. And once that bishop is acquitted, the synod alone will lie under the charge — if the letter it approved is truly Nestorian. For the same blessed Leo, writing also to Maximus of Antioch — from whom the aforesaid Anatolius of Constantinople had attempted to take away the dignity of the third see — makes plainly clear to all what we assert; who, after much that he spoke both with acceptable reasoning and with vehement rebuke concerning that same presumption, concludes the letter thus:
'For whatever, apart from the special causes of synodal councils, is brought to episcopal examination may have some ground of judgment, if nothing concerning it has been defined by the holy Fathers at Nicaea. For what disagrees with their rules and constitution can never obtain the consent of the apostolic see. But with how great diligence this is guarded by us, you will be instructed by the copies of that letter which we sent to the bishop of Constantinople, restraining his cupidity; which you will cause to come to the knowledge of all our brethren and fellow-priests, that they may know that ecclesiastical peace ought to be preserved through concord pleasing to God.
This too it befits your charity to take precaution against: that besides those who are the Lord's priests, no one dare to claim for himself the right of teaching and preaching — whether he be a monk, or whether he be a layman who glories in the name of some learning. For although it is to be wished that all the children of the Church should be wise in what is right and sound, yet it is not to be permitted that anyone set outside the priestly order should take to himself the rank of a preacher; since in the Church of God all things ought to be ordered, so that, in the one body of Christ, the more excellent members may fulfil their office, and the inferior may not rebel against the superior.
These things, I think, are clear, and the matters we have recalled need no interpreter, so that it can be understood that blessed Leo said them against the ambition of the bishop of Constantinople, not against the sentence pronounced concerning the letter of Ibas. For writing similarly also to the emperor Marcian and to the Augusta Pulcheria (Letters 74 and 75), which letters it would be too long to recount, he complains of no other cause. But what is worse: not only does no one deign to observe the things for which they were said, but furthermore the things written with another intention are turned, by a savage interpretation, to the prejudice of the faith.
But contending on our side is Pope Gelasius, a better and more acceptable interpreter of his predecessor's words, who, writing to all the bishops established throughout Dardania, confirms that the things we have recalled were written by blessed Leo not for the destruction of the sentence pronounced concerning the letter of Ibas, but for restraining the presumption of the bishop of Constantinople. For thus he says: 'Just as a city, however small, does not diminish the prerogative of the present kingdom, so the imperial presence does not change the measure of the religious dispensation. So that famous city, by the power of the present empire — religion under it stands henceforth firm, henceforth free, henceforth advanced, if rather, with this empire present, it keeps its own measure without any disturbance.
Finally, if they flatter themselves over the emperor's presence, and from that think that the person of the bishop of the city of Constantinople can be made more eminent, let them hear Marcian, prince of that same city, who — after, as intercessor for the aggrandizement of that city's priest, he had been able to obtain nothing against the rules — followed Pope Leo of holy memory with the highest praises, because in no way had he suffered the rules of the canons to be violated. Let them hear Anatolius, prelate of that same see, confessing that it was rather the Constantinopolitan clergy, than himself, who had attempted such things, and saying that the whole matter was placed in the power of the apostolic prelate;
and that blessed Pope Leo himself, prelate of the apostolic see, by whose authority the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, by a fitting refutation nullified whatever — beyond what was established to have been delegated by him to be done there for the faith and for catholic and apostolic communion — seemed, on the occasion of that gathering, to have been attempted by a novel proceeding contrary to the Nicene canons.' Did the wise Gelasius understand that his predecessor blessed Leo had said what we have recalled on account of the synod's sentence concerning the letter of the venerable Ibas, and not rather, as we have said, on account of the ambition of the bishop of Constantinople? For why else would he there add, regarding the letter of Ibas, saying:
'On the occasion of that gathering, [something] seems to have been attempted by a novel proceeding contrary to the Nicene canons'? Let no one therefore try to twist his words into another meaning, since neither the very evidence of the facts nor Gelasius, the truthful interpreter, permits this. And so let us allow the apostolic see to interpret itself, and let us more prudently perceive why it first said those earlier things through Leo, from what it afterwards spoke through Gelasius. There is also another letter of the same blessed Gelasius, by which the wayward interpreters of these writings of Leo are likewise refuted; but we have judged this one alone sufficient for the case.
But suppose, setting all these things aside, that Leo of Rome is thought to have said those things in order to destroy the synod's sentence concerning the letter of Ibas. How then will the synod be excused on this account, which is convicted both of having received that letter — which has been falsely denied — and of having received it though it ought not, with Leo reprehending it? Wherefore, if such alleged words of blessed Leo are taken in this way, they will without doubt serve not to repel but to confirm the accusation against the synod; and if that letter is called Nestorian, blessed Leo perhaps, as already said, will be defended from the charge of Nestorianism, but the Council of Chalcedon will plainly be condemned on his own testimony; and the Eutychian heretics will seem not without reason to have withdrawn themselves from our communion:
if indeed those will still be called heretics who, even with Leo as witness, will prove that the synod — which is named in the confession of the sacrifice — is Nestorian. Yet let us see how even blessed Leo himself can be excused, since concerning him too it has been said to us: Why did he not with ready and clear words convict so great a crime? Why did he not openly and manifestly break the synod's sentence approving a Nestorian letter? Why did the apostolic see not condemn, with such authority and severity, that which was first announced by its own legates to the prejudice of the faith, so that hereafter the Church could not be in doubt — unless because, not with true know-
-ledge, but deceitfully and in name only, repudiated Nestorius, being forestalled by the prejudgment of his predecessor Celestine? Otherwise he would also refute his dogma in the letter of Ibas. He evidently rebukes and condemns — in letters as vehement as they are lengthy, and indeed many letters, writing not only to the aforesaid Anatolius but also to the whole synod, and to Maximus of Antioch, and to the emperors themselves — that in that council one bishop presumed to sit out of his proper place, and he commands that his displeasure be carried to the knowledge of all the priests; yet concerning the synod's sentence, by which the Nestorian letter was approved, he is silent and dissembles; or, if he is not silent, as you say, still he says nothing openly, nothing clearly.
Surely this is what the Lord rebukes in the scribes and Pharisees, the hypocrites (Matt. 23:23): to tithe mint and anise and cummin, and to leave the weightier matters of the law and faith. Surely this is what He likewise reproaches in those same blind guides: to strain out a gnat and to swallow a camel. And what shall we be able to bring against this, what shall we answer to these things even on behalf of blessed Leo — whose solicitude and diligence for the catholic faith, whose labor and industry, whose freedom and constancy, your piety knows full well and the whole Church ceases not to proclaim? But that letter is not Nestorian. For surely no little vixen, whatever it be, would now be nibbling at it, but back then the most valiant Leo would have assailed it.
But how do they say that the synod's sentence concerning the letter of Ibas was not confirmed by blessed Leo, while they admit that he confirmed the things defined by that synod concerning the faith — since in another part of the acts, from which that same letter was read out, it is found that its writer Ibas had been accused of the Nestorian heresy? For thus his accusers said: 'Because he is a Nestorian, and calls blessed Bishop Cyril a heretic'; and again it is contained in the same place: 'Maras said: Let us first raise the question of the faith,' and the other chapters afterward. 'The most reverend bishops said: Even if we proposed to you that the examination of these three chapters should follow, we have not for that reason refused the inquiry into the rest.' Maras said: Let us first raise the question of the faith.
By these things, then, and the like, it is proved that the bishop Ibas was most especially accused concerning the faith. For it was on that account that they brought forth the aforesaid letter against him. But that letter itself proclaims two natures and one person of the one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ — on account of which the synod also pronounced it orthodox; which word it would not have uttered, were not its judgment about the faith. But there is no reason to delay here any longer. Let them not call it Nestorian, and let it not be thought to pertain to the cause of the faith. But if it is called Nestorian, it is certainly accused concerning the faith; and since it is now said to have been received by the holy synod, consequently it is also said to have been confirmed by blessed Leo, whom they do not deny to have confirmed the things there defined concerning the faith.
For even if this too is granted to them — that, besides the definition of the faith, Leo neither confirmed nor condemned the other things done in that synod — even so the inventors of this new diligence could not escape the charge of rashness, who dared to decree and to say: 'If anyone says that the letter to Maris is correct, or defends it, and does not anathematize it, let him be anathema.' For the Council of Chalcedon calls it correct; Leo, even if he does not confirm it, does not anathematize it: therefore by these men Leo, along with the Council of Chalcedon, has been made anathema.