講道與書信 第 235 章

1. I think there is no writer on ecclesiastical matters more audacious than Quesnel, nor one in whose mind there has more deeply settled a desire of perverting the form and order of Christian governance. That this has hitherto been abundantly demonstrated here and there in our Exercises, and especially in the preceding chapters of this Eutychian history, will be judged by those who, drawn by no partisan zeal, have not disdained to illustrate the same. But meanwhile, after we have written two whole chapters concerning the appeal of Eutyches to the Apostolic See, we have thought that a third must still be added, in which there may be objected against Quesnel the very letter of Eutyches himself,

...his profession of faith, and the memorials which, for the defense and safeguard of his cause, he addressed to the supreme Pontiff, the great Leo—all which documents our adversary has striven in many ways to suppress and to explain away by violent interpretation. That he might more easily be able to accomplish this, he persuades himself that four kinds of memorials must be distinguished, which memorials Eutyches, condemned by his own bishop, either offered, or lyingly claimed to have offered. 'The first was the memorial of appeal, of which we have spoken. The second was the contestatory one, concerning which S. Leo in Epistle 20 to Flavian, chapter...

...chapter 1, namely: after an appeal has been interposed, letters must be given by him from whom the appeal is made to him who is to take cognizance of the appeal, which letters they call dimissory or apostolic..... But if he does not accept, let him contest, etc.' The third memorial was one of complaint; for he sent to the Apostolic See, through memorials, the complaint of his grief, says our Leo in Epistle 21 to Theodosius Augustus. 'The memorial, moreover, of complaint or grievance, the same Quesnel subjoins, is rightly and properly said to be offered by a presbyter against his bishop or father.' To confirm which conjecture he transcribes that axiom of the jurisconsults:

'That a son complaining of paternal injuries should be heard is just and customary, whereas scarcely anyone would tolerate the same son accusing.' The fourth memorial, namely the suppliant one, Eutyches offered against the sentence of Flavian. Nay, several, which may be seen in Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon.' 2. This distinction of memorials having thus been premised, Quesnel further reasons thus: 'Four memorials of this kind must in the first place be distinguished, lest the force and energy of each be attributed to another, whence too this whole affair would consequently be obscured. There was, therefore, first the memorial of appeal to the council; second, the contestatory one to the people of Constantinople; third, the querimonial or one of complaint to S. Leo; fourth, the suppliant memorial to the emperor.'

'The first was fabricated, and not really given; the other three were really offered. Of all which memorials S. Flavian made mention in Epistle 1 to S. Leo.' And with these words Quesnel closed his dissertation. If, therefore, this pretty and equally ingenious distinction of memorials, devised by our adversary, should stand, then the things which we have hitherto written concerning the appeal of Eutyches would in part utterly collapse. We would say that Eutyches made only a complaint before the Apostolic See, not an appeal. But I ask the adversary whence he drew that distinction, lest we judge it to have been fabricated and devised for throwing dust?

Certainly in the codices and in the digests of the laws we do not stumble upon those four kinds of memorials being distinguished, so that one alone could not have that whole force and energy. Nay, that the contestatory memorial—which the jurists call evocatory—contains appeal, complaint, and supplication, they will affirm with us who, by no means deceived by the preceding apparatus of Quesnellian trifles, will not be loath to scrutinize the truth of things. Socrates first relates how, in the synod of Tyre, with the Meletian faction acting together with the Eusebians, no natural or ecclesiastical order being preserved, the great Athanasius was condemned as though guilty of many crimes.

Hence Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, in a contestatory memorial—which today (as Petrus de Marca also noted) would in legal usage be called evocatory—demanded of the count Dionysius, who had been sent by Constantine to the synod to be an observer of the proceedings and a guardian of preserving equity, that he give no place to cobbled-together calumnies, lest through the snares and false charges of their enemies who sat as judges in that council they should suffer injury. The words of the memorial offered to Dionysius are these:

'Since we saw the cobbling-together of many calumnies, and out of these cobbled-together things the snares of Eusebius, Narcissus, Flacillus, Theognis, Maris, Theodorus, and Patrophilus against us—whom, since from the beginning it was not permitted to reject them as those declining our cause, we necessarily came to a protestation, especially since we observe that many things are being carried on to the favor of the Meletians, and many again to the snares of the Catholic Church under the guise of our alleged crimes—we for this reason also present this necessary memorial to you with many entreaties, that, the fear of God being preserved in your soul, who guards the empire of the most august and most pious emperor over Constantine, you may reserve the cognizance of our causes to the emperor.'

'For it is just that you, sent by the emperor, should retain this whole matter intact.' There is no one who would dare to deny that this contestatory memorial contains in itself all the force and energy which Quesnel fancies to be scattered and divided among the four kinds of memorials. Do not Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops complain in it that they were assailed with falsehoods and a cobbling-together of crimes by the calumnies of their enemies, on account of the snares of Eusebius, Narcissus, and the others? Did they not testify, by a solemn protestation, that in that synod snares had been contrived against the Catholic Church, under the pretext of false crimes charged against them, concerning which they feigned to make an inquiry?

Did they not finally, with entreaties, ask that, the fear of God being preserved, the cognizance of the causes be reserved to the emperor Constantine? For the matter concerned false crimes which, if they had been true, would already have offended both the civil administration of affairs and the imperial governance. And therefore it is no wonder if, in those circumstances of such great straits, they appealed to the emperor that new judges be appointed who, led neither by hatred, malice, nor iniquities, might undertake to examine their cause. It is not therefore true that four kinds of memorials must be distinguished in similar causes, lest the force and energy of each be attributed to another, whence too the whole affair would be obscured.

For the affair of an appeal is clearly made known from a single kind of memorial alone, if that memorial has in itself whatever is necessary for constituting and obtaining a true appeal. 3. And indeed that the memorials and letter by which Eutyches appealed to S. Leo are of this kind, the things we are about to say at once will make plain. For that letter, or memorial, contains three heads within itself. The first has two kinds of complaints. The first, that he was accused of injured faith by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who was hostile to him; the second, that the Acts of the Council of Constantinople were unjustly drawn up against him. Whence, the testimony of the holy Pontiff having been invoked in support of the sense of his propositions and words, he subjoins:

'But the most wicked devil has bewitched such zeal and purpose of ours, by which his own powers ought to have been destroyed. Feigning against me all his household force, he moved against me Eusebius, bishop of the town of Dorylaeum, giving a memorial to the holy bishop of the Church of Constantinople, my Flavian, and, with certain others devised in the same city........ he called me a heretic, not moved to the accusation by truth.' Afterward, in like manner, he complains that, his profession of faith having been exhibited to the Fathers of Constantinople, drawn up in a written memorial and signed with his own subscription, Flavian neither received the memorial, nor ordered that it be read.

He added, moreover, that in that synod he had said and asked that the judgment of the Apostolic See should be awaited: 'I asked that these things might become known to your holiness, and that you might judge what seemed right to you, professing that I would in every way follow what you approved.' Making a graver complaint about this refusal, he at once subjoins: 'But, none of the things that were said by me having been heard, they broke off the synod and published the sentence of deposition, which they were preparing against me before the cognizance.' He relates the violence and deposition threatened against the archimandrites of other monasteries, that they might subscribe to his condemnation. Which things led his zeal to satisfy the people, his confession of faith having been publicly set forth.

These, I say, are the things which regard the complaints of Eutyches, and which the whole first head of his memorial contains. After these laments of grief, the same Eutyches makes a step to his appeal, and, the prior judgment held in the synod of Constantinople having been refused, thus he appeals to the supreme Pontiff, beginning his address from these words: 'To you therefore, defenders of religion, and abhorrers of factions of this kind, I take refuge.' And, more expressly asking that the things hitherto enacted and defined in that synod of Constantinople be abolished and rendered void, he entreats that a judgment and a new sentence be pronounced by the Roman Pontiff.

Hence, therefore, let Quesnel attend to his following words, and say whether Eutyches appealed to the Roman Pontiff or not: 'And I beseech (he says) that, no prejudice having been done to me from those things which were carried on against me by snares, you may bring forth the sentence concerning the faith which shall seem good to you, and permit no calumny thereafter to proceed from the factious against me, and that I be not shaken out and removed from the number of the orthodox, etc.' 4. Moreover, lest the supreme Pontiff should make light of Eutyches's appeal, as though it were not supported by the necessary conditions prescribed by the canons, he joined both memorials to his letters.

That is, the man who had been laid before the synod by his accuser Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and who had been heard by it, was nevertheless not received by Flavian and the synod, nor was his profession of faith, since it was not that which had been decreed by the holy Fathers concerning the two natures. This profession of faith he appended immediately to the letter or libellus just praised, as we have ascertained from a Vatican manuscript codex written about six hundred years ago, in which, after the first two chapters were completed, we came upon the following note: 'Likewise the words of Eutyches.' We here indicate only in summary what that profession of faith contains, since our dispute does not turn upon it. Elsewhere the most illustrious Christian Lupus set it forth in print from the Cassinese codex.

Christian Lupus adorned it, though Quesnel judged that it should be struck from his appendix. Eutyches therefore, in issuing that profession of faith, declares that he rests wholly upon the sanctions of the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, in which the divinity and incarnation of the Word had been treated; he professes to honour the doctrine and opinions of Saint Cyril bishop of Alexandria, of both the Gregories, of Atticus and Proclus, and of all the orthodox, and he affirms that he holds them as saints and as his masters. Finally he pronounces anathema upon Nestorius, Apollinaris, and all heretics down to Simon, and upon all others 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 so forth.

5. Yet our adversary judged that a contest ought to be instituted with the most illustrious Christian Lupus. And for this reason, in the second edition of the Works of Saint Leo the Great, he composed a certain appendix, to which he affixed this title: 'Appendix to the dissertation on the appellatory libellus of Eutyches, which Christian Lupus published from the Cassinese codex, whether it be in truth a libellus of appeal.' For he could not prove this letter to be an appellatory libellus without seeming to sing a recantation. Therefore he first carps at Christian Lupus for having transcribed it into his own lucubration on appeals.

Next, insisting upon what was said before, he denies that it can bear the name of a libellus, thinking himself supported chiefly by the very inscription of the writing and by its author's own resistance. For Eutyches himself (he says) expressly distinguishes between the libelli and this letter of his. 'I have appended (he says) to these my letters both libelli, both the one that was laid before the synod by my accuser, and the one that was indeed produced by me, yet not received.' Therefore the slip of Christian Lupus, or his drowsiness (on Quesnel's authority), seems to consist in this, that he called the letter of Eutyches a libellus, though the inscription of the writing itself contradicts it. But what of it? Cannot the appellation of libellus fit any letter whatsoever, and most especially one of this kind?

For my part, lest I recall the rules of grammarians and writers to Quesnel's mind, I forbear to adduce those examples which could be cited from Cicero himself, though I was not loath to note down at least some of them. Nevertheless I cannot deny that to this letter, even though our own inscription contradicts it, all the characters and notions of a libellus apply. For first of all it contains the narration not of one thing, but of many matters heaped together at once, and by reason of these it may deservedly bear the appellation of a certain commentariolus (little memorandum), in which it will not at all differ from a libellus, as those will judge who have learned the meaning of this word from the Latin writers. Nor is it any objection that Eutyches appended to it other writings which he called libelli.

For these writings were not sent to persons absent, but were merely exhibited in the solemn episcopal assembly; and therefore it is not to be believed that they obtained from Eutyches the appellation of both a letter and of libelli at once. That earlier note of our adversary is not only weakened by what has just been reviewed, but is even wholly dissipated by his own testimony. For he admits that Saint Leo used the name of libellus, yet did not call it an 'appeal,' but one of grief and complaint. 'But when (he adds) he mentions the libellus of appeal, he understands that which Eutyches confessed he had presented in the trial, as the solemnities of appeals demanded,' as Saint Leo says. But he falsely claims Saint Leo as his supporter.

For although one cannot deny that the holy pontiff, writing to Theodosius, said: 'For although the aforesaid presbyter has sent to the Apostolic See through a libellus the complaint of his grief,' yet nowhere in his Works do we find those last words used: 'in the trial, as the solemnities of appeals demanded.' For Quesnel fabricated these out of his own opinion, so as to lend strength to his conjectures. And in the letter to Flavian, in which he treats of the libellus of appeal offered in the trial, he has only this: 'so much so that he asserts he offered in the very trial the libellus of his appeal, yet that it was not received.'

We are compelled to note these things on account of what was said in the preceding. For to fulfil the solemnity of an appeal, it could have sufficed for Eutyches to refuse publicly the sentence pronounced against him, made while the Fathers of the council were still sitting, as is clear from Rusticus the deacon and from Peter de Marca himself, whom we have cited, especially since he solemnly confirmed such a refusal by protestatory libelli. 6. Yet Quesnel contends that these letters of Eutyches have nothing of a canonical appeal. And he appeals to those passages which Christian Lupus adduced for his own opinion, saying that Eutyches wished, first by this saying: 'And I invoke your holiness as witness of my heart.'

'…and for the reasons of my thoughts and words,' to compel the reader whom he addresses (says Quesnel) to judge what error is contained in this sincere profession of his faith; and perhaps he alludes to that saying of the Apostle, 2 Corinthians 1:23: 'But I call God to witness upon my soul.' Hence he afterwards seizes an occasion to censure the translation of this letter as rough and ill-digested; and therefore he distinguished that narration by another rendering, which he judged to favour his own studies. But what indeed could be desired clearer and more express in these letters, that we might gather from them that it puts forward a canonical appeal? That the Roman pontiff…

…is the legitimate judge of such controversies, and most especially of those which arose in the clergy and in the Church of Constantinople, has been most evidently proved by the more celebrated and most certain testimonies, both of the Fathers of Chalcedon and of Anatolius bishop of Constantinople himself, and even of Flavian himself. And especially because Eutyches not only in the exordium of that letter addressed the Roman pontiff as his sole witness, but lays open the whole series of things done against him. He not only complains of the injury inflicted upon him through hatred and circumvention, but professes that he submits himself to the judgment of the Apostolic See, ready in all ways to follow whatever that See should approve. Nor is it any objection that Eutyches wrote:

'I was asking that these things be made known to your holiness, and that you would indicate what should seem good to you'; upon which words Quesnel, insisting, says: 'These are the words of one asking, not of one appealing and demanding judgment as of his own right.' For Eutyches there describes his own manner of proceeding, which he had observed with the Fathers of Constantinople, so that he might either escape the sentence of condemnation, or that at least the judgment of his cause might be suspended, until, the Apostolic See being consulted, it might become known what it should judge of these things. For then Eutyches, lest he should seem to proceed by pride and haughtiness, used supplications, as he did, not an appeal, because, while the Fathers were still sitting in council and discussing his cause, no sentence had yet been pronounced against him.

He had, however, alleged Eusebius, namely the bishop of Dorylaeum, as an accuser hostile to himself, and as suspect on account of a selection proceeding against him through calumny. This manner of proceeding intimated that, if the Fathers had wished to proceed against this canonical protestation, he was already about to appeal to another tribunal. Wrongly and perhaps craftily, therefore, does Quesnel labour to confound the supplications of Eutyches made to the Fathers of Constantinople before sentence was pronounced, with an appeal interposed after sentence was pronounced.

Hence, therefore, his whole reasoning falls, by which, wishing to explain according to his own measure the words of the asking Eutyches, he sought to conjoin them with other things which were said in the second session of Flavian by Basil the bishop, namely: 'If the Fathers, the Roman and the Alexandrian, should command me, I say this very thing; but this not as one appealing, he said, but as one saying: I have not dared to speak before the Fathers.' That this last act of Eutyches is to be referred to those things which the heretic said after sentence was pronounced, we have already observed in the preceding chapter 5. Whence who will believe that these can be joined with those words of one asking? 7.

Not in vain, therefore, does Lupus endeavour to draw the sense and words of this letter toward an appeal, even though Eutyches in another part addresses Leo the supreme pontiff in the plural number, writing: 'To you, therefore, defenders of religion and detesters of factions of this kind, I flee for refuge…and I beseech that, no prejudice being done to me from those things which have been contrived against me by treachery, you would pronounce upon the faith whatever sentence shall seem good to you.' For first of all he asks there two things in few words: namely, protection against the factious calumniators who had laid snares for him; and then a judgment, or a sentence, in the question of faith.

And what else are wont to ask all those who have been accustomed to interpose a canonical appeal, except protection to overturn the snares of the calumniators, and a sentence concerning those things about which the question has been raised? There is added moreover that Eutyches refused the sentence canonically pronounced in the council, and confirmed his refusal by public and protestatory libelli. But other words, which he immediately subjoined to those just praised and which Quesnel entirely omitted to note, show more clearly that those words put forward a true appeal: 'And to permit henceforth no calumny to proceed against me from the factious, nor that I be shaken and removed from the number of the orthodox,' and so forth.

Does he not intend that the full and entire judgment of his cause be reserved to him to whom he writes and to whom he appeals? Therefore Quesnel seems to me to jest ineptly and insipidly when, addressing Lupus as though he were bleary-eyed, he says: 'You see, my Lupus, what you are unwilling to see; namely that Eutyches flees to the defenders of religion, not that he appeals to judges; that he beseeches that no prejudice be created against him from Flavian's sentence, not that he cries the judgment void by the voice of appeal; that finally he demands a sentence to be pronounced concerning the faith rather than concerning his own deposition and excommunication, about which, however, if he were appealing, he ought to have acted first.' This is a plainly childish note.

As if to ask that no prejudice be brought upon oneself from the sentence pronounced were not the same as to cry out and demand that it be made void; and as if one who asks not to be shaken and removed from the number of the orthodox were not demanding that a sentence also be pronounced concerning his own deposition and excommunication. But Quesnel would have seen that Eutyches demanded both sentences, had he not neglected to look at the whole passage; and therefore there can be no doubt that the derision cast upon Lupus applies excellently to its author—especially since from the second Council of Constantinople…

…we have it that the sentence pronounced against Eutyches was suspended, and that the emoluments, honour, and the prerogatives and name of archimandrite were restored to him, by force of the letters of Pope Leo, which had been read to the Fathers of the council. Now indeed Paschasius Quesnel himself flattered himself that these things could suffice him for refuting Christian Lupus. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of right, he judged it should be added: 'This writing, if it was sent whole to Saint Leo the Pope (he says), was not sent to him alone, nor drawn up for him alone; but it is an encyclical letter to all the chief bishops of the sees, whose authority Eutyches was eager to move against Flavian's judgment and to render favourable to himself.'

'For even when those who acted on his behalf at Ephesus feigned the appeal of the heresiarch, they did not name the Roman pontiff alone.' A charming as well as fabulous divination! For its confirmation he again brings into the midst the testimony of Constantine the monk and heretic, and that other testimony of Basil the bishop, of which we have already treated above. But that Quesnel is talking trifles I shall demonstrate in what follows. Who, first of all, will affirm that that letter can be called encyclical, whose inscription puts forward the name of one single person? For that is called encyclical which is addressed to many; as may be seen from six hundred examples drawn from ecclesiastical history and from the monuments of the ancients in Labbe.

But the letter of which we treat exhibits only the name of Pope Leo. And although, whether through the negligence and carelessness of the translator, or from estrangement of mind and malice, we do not find in it those titles of honour which occur in the writings of others; nevertheless we can by no means affirm that a similar copy of this letter was transmitted either to Dioscorus of Alexandria, or to other bishops of the first sees, since the manuscript codices of Cassino and the Vatican have no other inscription than that which Christian Lupus, guided by the authority of the manuscript codices, affixed to it. What of it?

If Eutyches had sent the same letter to other bishops, would Dioscorus, a factious man whose wicked deeds are known to all, have omitted to read it publicly in the Robber Synod, and delayed to cast it up against Flavian and the legates of the Apostolic See to whom he was making trouble? Certainly, lest he should seem to overturn everything by injury and impiety and to usurp for himself the rights of others, and especially of the Roman pontiff, he would have shown this letter or libellus, commanding at the same time that it be transcribed by the notaries into the Acts of the synod.

For this alone could have cleared him from all odium, and made plain to all that on no other ground was the chief part in the synod owed to him and the office of president to be exercised by him, save because, at Eutyches' appeal, he had appealed his own see from the sentence and judgment of the Council of Constantinople. This letter, therefore, is not to be called encyclical, which exhibits the name of the Roman pontiff alone, and of which not a single trace or mention appears in the monuments of the ancients that it was directed to other bishops of the first sees. It would also be superfluous to refute the other conjectures fabricated by Quesnel for this side, since they fall of their own weakness.

For besides that he himself admits that Constantine the monk and Basil the bishop, who acted at Ephesus on Eutyches' behalf, were liars, there is now no reason why we should lend our ears to them. 9. As to what he finally subjoins, 'that it is an encyclical letter its whole self proclaims, in which there is not even a tittle about the Apostolic See, or about the Roman pontiff, whose prerogatives and splendour he would not have failed to proclaim—a man at that time most intent upon conciliating to himself the minds of all whom he needed. He therefore used only those words which are fitting to the bishops of all the first sees. For to which of them do these not suit: I invoke your holiness…that these things might be made known to your holiness…

To you, therefore, defenders of religion and detesters of factions of this kind, I flee for refuge.' Wherefore our adversary, flattering himself too much, closed his appendix with these words: 'Certainly these last words alone: To you, defenders of religion, etc., make plain as the noonday sun that this writing, whatever it was, was sent not to one, but to many.'

But indeed, in my opinion, Quesnel's conjecture could not gain any greater strength from these words which close his appendix. For although, as we have said, in that inscription the titles of honour are lacking, this perhaps must be ascribed to the fault of the copyist, since on the other hand from those very words, 'to Leo, pope of the city of Rome,' we have all this: that one alone is named, to whom, according to the rights of the ecclesiastical primacy, it belonged to judge concerning matters of faith and concerning the deposition of presbyters. I confess next that no express mention of the Apostolic See is made, and that he omitted also to proclaim its splendour and prerogatives. But what of it? Was this writing, then, whatever it be, sent to many? Away with the fiction!

In the first place, Eutyches was not accustomed, in composing his letters and libelli, to occupy himself in proclaiming the splendour and prerogatives of those to whom he appealed. He merely set forth the account of his own affairs and business, without leisure to conciliate to himself the minds of those whom he needed. If it had not been burdensome to our adversary—who strove to overthrow and abolish the rights of the Apostolic See by feeble conjectures—to survey two of Eutyches' writings, both directed to the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, he would doubtless not have been deceived by too much divination. 10. For in these he did not proclaim the prerogatives of the emperors, or their supreme dominion, nor was he intent upon conciliating their minds to himself.

He set forth in few words the cause pleaded by Flavian against him, adding: 'I therefore supplicate your serenity, patron of the accustomed orthodox faith, to command the most blessed bishops, on behalf of my slender opinion,' and so forth. And finally, closing his supplication, he used this brief formula containing no praises of prerogatives: 'That, having obtained this'—namely the examination of the proceedings under Flavian—'I may, praising after the wonted manner, give thanks to the Lord, and to Christ the God of all, and to your piety ever.' He has things not unlike in the other letter written to the same emperors, as may be seen in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.

Eutyches, therefore, did not use in his writing that copiousness of style by which his luxuriance might feed itself in proclaiming the praises and prerogatives of those to whom he wrote, even though he needed their help and protection. Will Quesnel perhaps deny that he needed imperial protection and patronage? Finally, on the very authority of our adversary, Eutyches addressed the one to whom he writes as a defender of the faith and a detester of evil factions, most humbly asking that the things done against him through treachery should bring no prejudice upon him, nor should he permit him to be shaken and removed from the number of the orthodox.

Who else could ever have rightfully fulfilled all these things, and granted the prayers of the supplicant, save the supreme pontiff, seeing that the matter was already being dealt with concerning a business ordinarily concluded in a provincial synod, and concerning a sentence already pronounced—whose Acts could be invalidated, or rescinded, or reproved, or ratified only by the one and supreme judge? If we desire any certain testimony on this matter, it will help to consult one man, Saint Peter Chrysologus, who, when Eutyches had solicited him by letters to take himself as the vindicator of his cause, replied to him without ambages and any putting-off:

'But in all things we exhort you, honourable brother, that you obediently attend to those things which have been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome; since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, affords the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, out of zeal for the peace of the faith, cannot hear causes of faith apart from the consent of the bishop of the city of Rome.' Let Quesnel look to it! Blessed Peter alone, who lives and presides in his own see, affords the truth of faith to those who seek it. Nor can any other bishop by his own right hear causes of faith apart from the consent of the Roman bishop.

Whether the things we have written thus far in these three chapters concerning Eutyches' appeal are solid or infirm, only the reader who is led by no partisan zeal will be able sincerely to judge. One thing at last, as a crown, we have judged should be added: namely, that in defending the legitimate rights of the Apostolic See, and in vindicating the opinions of Baronius and Christian Lupus, we have not indulged in our own conjectures. We have wished only to set forth those things which can be drawn from the ancient monuments, upon which we have always laboured most to rely. 1.

It would not have been permitted me to treat and expound the rights of the Apostolic See concerning Eutyches' appeal solely on the faith of the ancient monuments, unless I had also instituted various encounters with the adversaries, who interpret otherwise the form and method of ecclesiastical governance, employing all their force and zeal in distorting either the testimonies of Saint Leo the Great, or the writings of others, which could lead us to a full and sincere knowledge of all things. Now indeed we ought to perform something weightier; and, being unwilling in the least to break the thread of the history which pertains to the second Ephesine synod—which furnished the greatest increase of the Eutychian heresy—

we now at once set about describing it, with the greatest loss to the Catholic faith, and the ruin of the Eastern Churches, and the disgrace of the priestly dignity, and the grief of the holy pontiff Leo, and to the delight of the heathen. In weaving together which history, although very many most eminent men have bestowed their labour, yet since not all were led by the same spirit of truth, hence it came about that they reasoned in one way and another concerning the rights of the Apostolic See; or from that synod—turned into a robbery by the fury and violence of Dioscorus of Alexandria and others—they draw arguments for amplifying more and more the authority of the emperors, but for restricting the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs within narrow limits.

I confess indeed that my mind is pressed with the greatest anguish and sorrow on account of this mournful tragedy, which filled the Church herself and almost the whole world with betrayals, murders, squalor, exiles, contumelies, and afflictions. Calling to mind how old rivalries can pervert the hearts of priests, and private hatreds rage; when, namely, the bonds of the Christian religion being broken, ambition alone, arrogance, and presumptions strive in tyrannical fashion to claim for themselves all dominion, by fair means and foul, every moderation of piety being cast away.

When such evils grow rank in any commonwealth whatsoever, it is very difficult to remedy them, namely when the authors of scandals and rivalries enjoy the patronage of great princes, and foster it more and more—those princes' ministers, who by wicked arts circumvent the pious and most clement moderators of affairs, and, following the wantonness and impetus of their own will, imbue their minds with prejudiced opinions, so that at last, deceived by false suggestions, they decree and establish that which is repugnant to divine and human laws.

By these most grievous calamities the Eastern Church was harassed and as it were wholly oppressed, when Chrysaphius, abusing the piety of the most clement emperor Theodosius, in order to defend the base, proud, and heretical man Eutyches, wished the cause of which the question was treated to be committed not to the judgment of the Roman pontiff, nor to the examination of a universal council, but to the arbitration and power of Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria. For he, namely Chrysaphius, ungovernable in his hatred against Flavian, had moved the will of Theodosius—when the Constantinopolitan synod had been concluded—so that, under the pretext of rendering due obedience to the Roman pontiff and of affording protection to ecclesiastical affairs, he might most solicitously write to Saint Leo on behalf of peace.

But whether by that earlier letter he requested that a general council be assembled is not certain. Nay rather, one may readily descend to this opinion, that he then kept deep silence about holding one. For although Theodosius' letters have perished through the injury of time, yet since Saint Leo's replies to him survive, we by no means find that imperial petition indicated in them. Especially since Saint Leo hopes to inform Theodosius that, after the admonition made to Flavian by letters, he himself will report all things to our notice, so that, these things which still seem hidden being brought to light, that which accords with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine may be judged. It is therefore probable and certain that Theodosius wrote nothing to Leo about a new synod to be convened.

Otherwise he would have spoken of a matter of such great moment, nor would he have reserved to himself to judge after those things which were then hidden to him should be brought to light. 2. Nevertheless I cannot deny that at that time, or a little after, a rumour was spread at Constantinople about a similar synod to be convened, and that it was insinuated to the emperor Theodosius by the counsel of Chrysaphius and other depraved ministers, and by the machinations of Dioscorus. For, as we have seen, Flavian, compelled to write again to Saint Leo, who had not received the earlier letters, asks that the council which is being divulged as to take place be removed. And although this letter lacks a temporal note, yet we can conjecture that in the month of April a rumour of celebrating a council had been spread in the East.

But I am persuaded that as yet nothing of this deliberation of the emperor had become known to Leo in the following month of June. For on the eighth or ninth of the Kalends (as the Vatican codices have it) of this month, writing back to the same emperor, filled with apostolic vigour, he confidently addresses him, that he may become solicitous for the integrity of the Catholic faith: 'This (he says) I ask by unwearied prayers of the divine mercy, that it may inspire your heart with that which is of the truth, and may not suffer you to be deceived in anything by the deceit of human rivalries.' Saint Leo, therefore, had understood that Theodosius' mind had already been somehow alienated from the truth by the deceits of human rivalries, and circumvented by the suggestions of wicked men.

To elude these, he most wisely resolved to ask and to insinuate to the emperor that he should order an episcopal council to be held within Italy, whereby all the scandals which have been stirred up to the disturbance of the whole Church might be cut away. Here I am forced to confess that it does not at all escape me that certain theologians of our age, hostile to the Roman curia, insist upon those words of Leo, 'that you would order an episcopal council to be held within Italy,' in order to gather therefrom that the right of convening councils pertains not to the Roman pontiff, but to the emperor. But since Catholic doctors everywhere refute arguments of this kind, and since we have said something on this in another work of ours, it will not be for the present leisure to sift out this controversy.

For this reason we confirm the foregoing account of the historical facts by another letter of Leo written to Flavian. In it, indeed, he advises the holy bishop concerning the letters he had received together with the synodal Acts drawn up against Eutyches. He pledges his own solicitude, being unwilling on any account to allow either Eutyches to persist in the depravity of his conviction, or Flavian himself, who was resisting a foolish error with the zeal of the faith, to be troubled by the prolonged assault of the opposing party. In this letter, however, he expresses not a single word about a council to be held either within Italy or at Ephesus—which perhaps he was not yet turning over in his mind, and which council he afterward, scarcely four days having elapsed, announced to the emperor Theodosius, as we have seen.

Quesnel, however, attending to the aforementioned letter of Leo written to Theodosius, suspects that the emperor's deliberation concerning a council to be held at Ephesus had already become known to the holy pontiff. On that account he resolved to append the following note at the foot of the letter: «On the eighth day before the Kalends of June: since Leo, from Letter 27 to Pulcheria, testifies in express words that on the third day before the Ides of May he received letters announcing the synod convoked by Theodosius, it is remarkable why he makes no mention of that same synod before the prince. Perhaps the pontiff judged that it should be dissembled, so that he might the more freely ask of Theodosius that the synod be gathered within Italy.»

...he could, or else that in one or the other letter the number of the day or the month is corrupt.» Baronius too, stumbling on this same knot, after he noted that the emperor wrote letters to the Roman pontiff after the conclusion of the second Constantinopolitan synod, on the fifth day before the Ides of April, concerning the holding of a synod at Ephesus (which letters holy Leo received, as he himself testifies in his letter to Pulcheria, on the third day before the Ides of May), reconsiders with himself that within the space of a single month the letters were conveyed from the City to Constantinople. But the same most learned Cardinal Baronius neither offers any light nor furnishes us any weighty consideration for reasonably removing the difficulty afterward raised by Quesnel.

Since, therefore, we were pressed more or less by both of those consequences of Quesnel's reasoning, we prefer to admit that a corruption of the number of the month or of the day crept into one letter or the other, rather than to make or suspect the holy pontiff guilty of dissimulation. We ought certainly to believe that he employed no dissimulation with bishop Flavian; but in the letter written to him on the twelfth day before the Kalends of June he has (as we have seen) not one word about the letters received from Theodosius announcing the Council of Ephesus. Indeed, if that whole letter be scanned carefully once and again, it is gathered that the Roman pontiff had not even in a dream imagined that the emperor was about to deliberate over the convening of such a synod.

For in it he speaks as the supreme arbiter of all those controversies: concerning the wounded faith of Eutyches, whose doctrine he declares to deviate from tradition; he promises Flavian timely instruction, so that he may be taught what ought to be determined about the whole cause; and finally he testifies that he by no means suffers the obstinacy of Eutyches, nor that the holy bishop be harassed by such grievous disturbances. If therefore on the third day of the already past Ides of May he had received from Theodosius the letters announcing the Council of Ephesus, all these things could not cohere; and Leo himself would not only have employed dissimulation, but would have used lies, whereby the deceived Flavian was awaiting the protection of the Roman pontiff, which he was promising him by these very letters.

It remains, therefore, that an error crept into one or the other of those letters, and that in place of the Ides of May, the Ides of June ought to be read in that letter which he wrote to Pulcheria. The words that follow lend strength to the conjecture, namely: «The greater part of the time remaining must be spent so that the departure of the priests who are equal to the business may be able to be arranged.» For Leo's complaint would seem feeble if from the day of receiving the letters by which the Ephesine synod was announced, nearly three whole months still had to run their course, since the council was not to begin until the Kalends of August, or the Ides of that same month. For who will affirm that the remaining part of these three months was not sufficient for the bishops of Italy to set out for Ephesus?

Especially since in those months, with the aid of ships, one is wont to sail in tranquillity, and in the space of a single month the whole journey can be completed, as Baronius noted above. But to us this consular note is nevertheless not more fully pleasing, even if we should say that perhaps it ought to be read: the third day before the Ides of June. For if we attend to the other letters of the holy pontiff, either those directed to Julian bishop of Cos, or to Theodosius and Flavian, we plainly understand that already on the Ides of that same month the legates of the Apostolic See had been designated, who were to be present at the announced synod. And although he has express mention of its being held only in the letter to Theodosius, writing:

«Since, however, your Piety, which in honour of God most religiously loves the catholic truth, has established a synodal judgment at Ephesus,»—nevertheless I can hardly be brought to believe that an interval of only three days could have sufficed for Leo to dispatch from the City three apostolic legates together with Dulcitius the notary. Yet since the monuments that survive do not dissolve all the doubts which may be conceived on this side and that, we need not linger longer in resolving them, if from the series of events we did not still have one argument that holy Leo could by no means have received Theodosius's letters announcing the Council of Ephesus on the third day before the Ides of May.

But whatever may be the case concerning any error which could have crept into the temporal note of the day or the month, this one thing is most certain: that holy Leo neither dissembled nor lied, in the letters directed both to Flavian and to Theodosius. This, we judge, is evidently established from the following computation of times. And first of all we suppose that the holy pontiff Leo, having been warned by the emperor concerning the disturbed affairs of the Church of Constantinople, sent his first letters both to Flavian and to Theodosius on the twelfth day before the Kalends of March, which was the sixteenth of February.

We likewise suppose that Flavian received these letters given to him on the twenty-fifth day of April, namely when the second Constantinopolitan synod was being held, in which also the Acts of the earlier synod, at the demand of Eutyches and by the mandate of the emperor, were reviewed and reread, with Thalassius the bishop and Florentius the patrician presiding. That the Ides of May fell on the fifteenth of that month is a matter fully ascertained by all. Therefore the third day before the Ides ought to fall on the twelfth day.

Wherefore, since from the twenty-fifth day of April to the twelfth of May no more than twenty-two days elapsed, it does not follow but that Leo could not have received from Theodosius the letters announcing the Council of Ephesus on the third day before the Ides of May—especially since it is by no means likely that on that very twenty-fifth day of April, on which the acts of Flavian against Eutyches were reviewed and re-covered, with Thalassius and Florentius the patrician presiding, the emperor deliberated concerning the holding of a synod at Ephesus. For first it was necessary to be informed of the things that had happened; and then also time had to be given for the machinations and councils of Chrysaphius and Dioscorus and the rest of those scoundrels.

...just as also to wait until the imperial decrees were dispatched. If therefore we were to believe that all these things were accomplished most swiftly, namely in the space of two or three days, and that the mind of the prince, being seduced, deliberated that that council should be held at Ephesus—what then? Could the letters announcing the Council of Ephesus have reached Leo on the twelfth of May? It is a fabrication. For the letters could not be conveyed from the city of Constantinople in the space of fifteen or eighteen days, as will be established from the subsequent narrative of events. Falsely, therefore, did Quesnel reason, falling into the suspicion that holy Leo dissembled these letters announcing the council, under the pretext of a council to be gathered within Italy.

Now, however, let us proceed to the command of Theodosius, by which he willed it to be decreed that a general council be gathered at Ephesus; from which narrative it will be more and more clearly established, whatever we have explained in the foregoing. After, then (writes Liberatus the deacon), nothing had been proven to the notaries concerning the falsity of the acts, Eutyches asked Dioscorus the Alexandrian bishop to inquire into what had been done concerning him, and to examine the cause. He urged before the prince that a universal synod be held, so that the judgment of Flavian might be tested. Dioscorus therefore wrote to the emperor Theodosius, that a general synod ought to be held, and Eutyches persuaded that it should be done. The emperor assented. And directing...

...a sacred [rescript] to Dioscorus in Alexandria. Now if we attend to this exchange of several letters, which took place between Eutyches and Dioscorus, and between Dioscorus and the emperor, which was not begun until after the twenty-fifth day of April, we ought to believe that the letters announcing the general Council of Ephesus were protracted until at least the last day of that same month—unless we wish to affirm that they were only signed on the third day before the Ides of June, as Leo himself, in addressing Pulcheria, perhaps wished to indicate. In which case, through the injury of time and the negligence of copyists, some lacuna crept into the text, which nevertheless we have hitherto been able to supply with the aid of several manuscript codices.

This conjecture acquires still greater force from the words of Nicephorus. He, in recounting the devices employed by Chrysaphius to circumvent the imperial mind, describes this man's nefarious contrivances in these words: «Now when they had by their own authority approved those Acts and decrees as legitimate,»

«...the eunuch Chrysaphius, who held the same views as Eutyches, since he could not bear the affront, greatly increased his wrath against Flavian, and indicated to Dioscorus of Alexandria, that impious man, that he would gratify him in all things that were pleasing, if he would defend the imperilled Eutyches, but would assail Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum.» Finally, that that temporal note contains an error, but that Leo by no means dissembled in demanding that the council be held within Italy, is clearly demonstrated from Theodosius's letters announcing the Council of Ephesus, whether directed to Dioscorus, or to Barsumas and the other Orientals. For the first, written to Dioscorus, the emperor signed on the third day before the Kalends of May;

the second on the Ides of May; and the third indeed, which was given to Barsumas, we find written on the day before the Ides of May. It is therefore not likely that holy Leo, dwelling at Rome, could have received from Constantinople the imperial letters announcing the Council of Ephesus on the third day before the Ides of May, if even then the emperor had scarcely deliberated about holding the council, and on the day before the Ides of that month was wholly occupied in summoning to the synod the chief patrons of the Eutychian faction. Therefore it would rather have to be inferred that holy Leo, in the course of the month of June—indeed almost as it was ending—received from Theodosius the letters announcing the council, signed on the third day before the Ides of May; and that this is what those words noted in the letter to Pulcheria signify, upon which Quesnel insists.

At length Chrysaphius obtained what he desired. For, on the authority of Liberatus, the emperor, in directing the sacred [rescript] to Dioscorus, ordered that he himself should choose ten metropolitan bishops whom he wished, and should come to Ephesus, and, the council being gathered, should discuss the cause of Eutyches. He commanded also that Barsumas, that abandoned man, an archimandrite, should be present, and act in the stead of all the monks accusing the Oriental bishops. But he forbade Theodoret bishop of Cyrus to be present at the council, and ordered him to remain in his own city. For Eutyches had already, through his son (as I said), Chrysaphius, banished into exile Ibas bishop of Edessa into many dwelling-places, lest he should be present at the synod.

Now these things which the deacon Liberatus here narrates correspond excellently to those which are read in the imperial rescript concerning the convening of the Ephesine synod, as may be seen in Baronius and in the collection of councils. But Baronius has rightly observed that the temporal note of this imperial letter was corrupted, so that in place of «the third day before the Kalends of April, Zeno and Postumianus most illustrious men being consuls,» it ought to be restored as «the third day before the Kalends of May, Asterius and Protogenes being consuls.» This we had to note in confirmation of those things which we have described above.

But Chrysaphius and Eutyches did not believe that all these things could suffice for them to crush the most holy men Flavian, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and other men distinguished in doctrine and morals, unless by the mandate of the emperor they had Dioscorus appointed as arbiter of all the matters to be transacted. On that account they extorted letters from the emperor, that Dioscorus, as the head of all the factious, should preside over the council—the emperor arrogating and usurping to himself that right which hitherto none of the emperors had dared to exercise.

Yet the wicked ministers had impelled Theodosius, under the cloak of piety, to assume this to himself, namely that Theodoret should not be present at the council: «he presumed (says the emperor) to put forth things contrary to those which Cyril of holy memory wrote concerning the faith.... For this reason (he adds) we have judged it necessary by these sacred letters to make manifest to your reverence, to your beatitude, and to the whole holy synod, that we, following the rules of the Fathers, grant the authority and primacy to your beatitude, not only on account of Theodoret, but of all others who pertain to the assembled holy synod.»

But Theodosius, entangled in these sacrileges in arrogating ecclesiastical rights to himself, exhibited protection and authority so that the Eutychians might with impunity practise all their evil, deceitful, and base machinations; and under the pretext of the Nestorian heresy, Theodoret was hissed out of that assembly; Ibas was compelled to live in exile; and, on the contrary, those who were most devoted to Eutyches were ordered both to be present at and to preside over the synod. What more? To bring about the graver ruin of the Catholics, Theodosius, deceived by the plotters, gave new letters to Dioscorus, in which he proclaims Barsumas as a man most approved in the faith and adorned with equal integrity of life, whom he orders to hold the place of all the Oriental archimandrites.

On the same day at length, namely on the Ides of May, he writes to the same Barsumas, adorning this man's labours in overthrowing the Nestorians and their heresy with the highest praises, judging it just that in the synod to be held at Ephesus (as we have said) he should hold the place of all the Oriental archimandrites. Thus therefore, matters being arranged, the Eutychians, reconsidering among themselves, [held] that that synod could by no means be called ecumenical, to which the supreme head of the Church had not been summoned, and into which the Roman Pontiff had no influence—since moreover they had by now understood from the preceding letters of holy...

...Leo had condemned Eutyches, and would condemn him by a more solemn judgment if he were present at the general synod; [and so] they moved the mind of the emperor that he should be advised of the future synod late, being led by this persuasion, that the shortness of time would prevent him from being present at the assembly either in person or through his legates. And so, since neither ecclesiastical custom derived from the canons, nor the afflicted times owing to the disasters pressing on from the devastation of the Huns, nor finally his own love for his fatherland and citizens permitted him to desert Rome (having left the Apostolic See, as though bereft of its own father and pastor) in order to set out for Ephesus, he judged it right to depart excused, with the emperor Theodosius and Pulcheria, in these words:

«For as to that which his Piety (namely the emperor's) believed that I too should be present at the council—even if it were demanded according to some precedent, yet now it could by no means be fulfilled, because the too 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 tumultuous spirit, if for the occasion of an ecclesiastical cause I should seem to wish to desert my fatherland and the Apostolic See.» But because the affairs of the Church of the East were especially dear to the heart of the supreme pontiff, when he judged that provision must be made both for the safety of the citizens and for the advantage of the Apostolic See, he by no means neglected to fulfil his own part, so that the things to be done in the announced Ephesine synod might proceed according to the divine and ecclesiastical laws. On that account, addressing the same Pulcheria, he immediately added:

«Since therefore you recognize that it has pertained to this public interest, that—saving the leave of your Clemency—I should not deny to my charity and to the prayers of the citizens, deem that in these my brethren whom I have sent in my stead, I too am present with the rest who shall be present; to whom, according to the cause sufficiently and fully made plain to me from the series of the acts and from the very profession of the man in question, I have clearly and fully shown what ought to be observed.» From which manner of acting, indeed, the holy pontiff flattered himself that all things in that synod would be brought to a happy issue through his legates; since he had first necessarily instructed them by a memorandum concerning all the matters to be done or defined, clearly making plain also what ought to be observed.

But now he also makes mention of the sending of these legates and of their necessary instruction for all the things that were to be done, in the letter to the emperor, written on the same day. In which likewise, more briefly, he set forth in few words those three causes or motives by which, being hindered, he was detained from being present in person at the Ephesine synod; yet he makes him certain that from the series of the acts he had learned more than sufficiently that Eutyches had erred ignorantly and imprudently, and ought to depart from his conviction, which is deservedly reproved. Wherefore, since the emperor himself had determined that a synodal judgment ought to be held at Ephesus, so that to the ignorant old man the truth in which he too greatly gropes might become known:

«I have sent my brothers Julius the bishop, and Renatus the presbyter, and my son Hilary the deacon, who in place of my presence may suffice for the quality of the business;» yet he closes this letter by indicating that he had sent to bishop Flavian such writings, from which it appears beyond doubt what the Catholic Church universally believes and teaches concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation. Wishing to intimate that it was permitted neither to Eutyches, nor to any other whosoever, to shrink back—without the manifest mark of heresy and contumacy—from those things which were proposed to be followed by the See of holy Peter, the pillar and firmament of the true faith.

Meanwhile the legates of the Apostolic See, instructed concerning all the things that had already occurred also in the Eutychian affair, and receiving from the supreme pontiff a written memorandum concerning each of the things to be done in the Ephesine synod, commit themselves without delay to the journey. For it was necessary to elude all the arts of the Eutychians against holy Leo, who, under the pretext of the evils growing in the East on account of the new heresy, had led the mind of the emperor to appoint a very short time within which the bishops should assemble at Ephesus.

It behoved them therefore to undertake their journey most swiftly, to frustrate the will of Dioscorus and the rest, who had it among their wishes that the general council should be conducted without the Roman pontiff, who might preside over it either in his own person immediately or through his legates. Hence therefore we can by no means subscribe to Quesnel, who, in his dissertation on the Life and Deeds of the great Leo, and also in his notes on Letter 32, insisting on a certain corrupt reading borrowed from the Grimani codex, contends that the legates of the Apostolic See had not yet set out from the City on the twelfth day before the Kalends of July to go to the Ephesine synod. For the letter of which we speak holy Leo had written to Flavian. In which he says:

«Although it evidently appears that the matter in question by no means requires synodal treatment, yet, most dear brother, those whom it pleased [me] to appoint in this affair have followed after.» Quesnel therefore, having expounded that word «followed after,» inserted another into the text, namely «about to follow after,» following the reading of the Grimani codex; and in the margin he added this supplement: «But that the legates had not yet set out is established from this Letter 34.» But that already on the twelfth day before the Kalends of July the legates had set out from the City, and that an error had crept into the Grimani codex, we can conjecture from many things, and chiefly from the preceding letter directed to Julian bishop of Cos, in which, writing about the aforesaid legates, he says, «whom I have sent from my side in my stead.»