講道與書信 第 236 章 第 1/7 段

Three legates of the Apostolic See having departed from the city of Rome together with Dulcitius the notary, holy Leo omitted none of those things which he had reconsidered with himself as able to bring the causes of the faith to their issue—all those scandals besides being cut away, through sacerdotal concord and peace, which on account of private rivalries and ancient hatreds were growing throughout almost the whole East. As therefore he judged fit, by that supreme authority which St. Peter had received from Christ the Lord for confirming his brethren in the faith, he willed to teach by ever new letters what ought to be believed and professed by all concerning the Lord's Incarnation, and what ought to be decreed for abolishing the depraved errors which had lately arisen under the pretext of overthrowing the Nestorian heresy;

from the rules of which, if no one of the Catholics had departed, the Catholic faith would by no means have suffered that grave ruin, concerning which we are now about to speak. Therefore on the Ides of June of the same year he gave to his legates several letters to be conveyed into the East. Among which the first place is held by that dogmatic letter written to holy Flavian, which—as the sincere rule of our faith in those things which pertain to the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation—was, by the highest consent of the holy Fathers, by the sanctions of councils, and by the decrees of the Roman pontiffs, established as to be held in the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, attending to this, declared this judgment: namely, that it differs in no way from that revelation made to St. Peter when he confessed the divinity of Christ the Lord, on account of which he was pronounced blessed. For the illustrious Fathers received it with the highest veneration, as being congruent with the confession of the great Peter and standing as a kind of common pillar against those who think perversely. Moreover, Pope Gelasius judged it to be of such great worth that, in the Roman council dealing with apocryphal scriptures, he issued that decree in which it is asserted: 'We approve the letter of Blessed Pope Leo sent to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople;'

whoever shall have struck out its text down to a single iota, and shall not have received it reverently in all things, let him be anathema. How great, indeed, and how great a veneration it obtained in the Church, is proved also by that custom noted by Cardinal Baronius, who affirms that the Roman clergy was accustomed to read it in the divine offices recited during the season of Advent; and that this was observed perhaps immediately after the decree of Gelasius is indicated by the books of sacred lessons which served for the use of the choir, among which we beheld with our own eyes one most ancient, preserved in the Vatican library.

Moreover, that this codex of lessons was written in the sixth century of the Church by the presbyter Agimundus, in Roman and uncial letters, and divided into two parts, is revealed by a certain inscription placed at the foot of the second part; in which not only is the name of the writer given, but it is also indicated that the church of the Twelve Holy Apostles of the city of Rome was accustomed to use that codex in performing the divine offices. Therefore, running through it entirely, we found nearly all the

sermons and homilies of our pontiff, distributed according to the order of days and feasts; and the scribes of the Vatican library themselves most kindly persuaded us to append and display at the end of this our Work one entire specimen of this arrangement — so that from it readers might gather, against certain more recent critics, that the institution of certain solemnities is most ancient, and that down to our own times that rite has been inviolably preserved in the Church which our forefathers and pastors of souls handed down.

Just as, therefore, from this book of sacred lessons it will be proved that the ancient tradition of ecclesiastical discipline in celebrating feasts and rendering the divine praises has by no means been changed; so the heterodox will easily be able to argue that the sacred tradition was preserved with the utmost devotion, and has remained inviolably uncorrupted in matters pertaining to the dogmas of the faith and the administration of the sacraments — concerning which it is at present neither fitting nor necessary to speak.

Now indeed, leaving this Vatican codex, let us return to the praised letter, in the composing of which Leo the Great set for himself this aim: that he might furnish protection and support to the faith wavering and imperiled in the hearts of many Easterners because of the baneful new doctrine of an unskilled old man; that he might condemn the wicked errors, and set forth and decree to the whole assembly of Catholics what was to be believed perpetually and inviolably. There is no need here to review the doctrine with which this letter is filled, or even to explain its individual chapters into which it is divided. We think these can scarcely be hidden from any of the theologians. This one thing only we judged worth noting, which we also touched upon in some way in the preceding pages: namely, that St. Leo

namely, that Leo, without any council of the Westerners and without the vote of any other bishop, condemned the profession of Eutyches as absurd and perverse, and rebuked with fitting reproofs the judges of Constantinople, who in the synod omitted to reprove a discourse exceedingly foolish

and exceedingly blasphemous discourse, as if nothing offensive had been heard, since it is said just as impiously that the only-begotten Son of God existed of two natures before the Incarnation, as it is impiously asserted that after the Word was made flesh a single nature is in him. Yet he commands that mercy be shown toward Eutyches, on these conditions being kept: that he should not refuse to subscribe to this letter, and should with living voice condemn the wicked dogmas he had imbibed. Finally, he affirms that he committed the execution of the whole cause to his legates, who ought to act and sustain the part of the pontiff in the council, confident that the help of the Divinity would come to aid, so that he who had erred might be saved, the depravity of his opinion being condemned.

If, therefore, anyone now attend for a little while to this manner of acting of the Supreme Pontiff, I know not whether he will reasonably be able to doubt that St. Leo exercised full and absolute power and jurisdiction — whether in condemning the Eutychian heresy, or in drawing up the rules of faith, or finally in decreeing those formulas and conditions under which alone he commanded that Eutyches was to be received unto penance and satisfaction, if he would abjure and execrate the false dogma which he had too obstinately defended.

This manner of acting, therefore, is very different from that which Quesnel fabricates, contending that the causes of the Easterners were referred not to one supreme Roman pontiff, but to all the bishops of the principal sees and to synods, to whose judgment those always appealed who were condemned by provincial or metropolitan bishops. Let them say, I pray, all who tell such fables, by the authority of what council this dogmatic letter to Flavian came to light, or who indeed were those bishops of the West who cast their vote in condemning this heresy or in prescribing the rule of faith? St. Leo

alone accomplished all these things, and ought to have accomplished them — this is sufficiently established. He, using the fullness of the power of his see, indicated, defined, and prescribed what belonged to the apostolic authority; the execution then of all matters being committed to his legates, whom he had ordered to take up his part in the future synod. Not because the decrees already issued would obtain force and vigor from the vote of other bishops, but only a more solemn promulgation; so that those who in the East were being required concerning that faith, or were suspect, might be tested by their subscription to these letters, and as often as they refused to subscribe, being deprived of all clerical honor and rank, they might be expelled from the assembly of Catholics. And indeed, what else do those other letters indicate which the holy

pontiff gave to be delivered to his legates in the East — what else do they indicate? In harmony with this is another subsequent letter written to Julian, bishop of Cos, who, being very well informed of the things which had happened at the two preceding synods of Constantinople (in which we understand from the series of the Acts that he took part), had already directed his own writings to St. Leo through the deacon Basil, which (says Leo) 'greatly pleased us by the fervor of their catholic sense; we have also added this page which would harmonize with those letters.' That here the preceding letter to Bishop Flavian is meant there can be no doubt, since St. Leo expressly acknowledges it at the opening of this letter, writing:

'Although through our envoys, whom we sent from the City for the cause of the faith, we have sent most full letters to our brother Flavian against the error of exceeding impiety.' But what he wished at present to add to the aforesaid letter directed to Flavian — namely, that they might unanimously and constantly resist those who desired to corrupt the Gospel of Christ — this text plainly shows. In it he demonstrates that Eutyches corrupts the Christian hope and the truth of all the mysteries; that the properties of both natures remained in Christ; that the soul of Christ did not pre-exist the body, nor was the body created out of nothing; but that both are of the same nature as ours.

But at length he says that he was impelled to a breadth of discussion by the very greatness of the subject matter; yet that he ought not to labor further with an abundance of speaking, especially since through his legates he had sent to Flavian letters sufficient for confirming the minds not only of the priests but also of the laity. In harmony with these, indeed, are two other subsequent letters signed on the same day, of which one is to Theodosius Augustus, the other to Pulcheria likewise Augusta; or that which he directed to Faustus and Martin, archimandrites of Constantinople.

For in this letter he most evidently confesses that he especially ratifies the acts of the council of Constantinople, from the reading of which, when he had learned that the Eutychian dogma had rightly been reprobated, 'we also (he adds) decree that it must be detested.' He adds moreover: 'So that, if the foolish man shall have wished to remain in his depravity, let him have fellowship with those whose error he has followed. For deservedly will he become outside the Church of Christ, who denies that there is in Christ a human nature.'

But now let us speak of the letter written to the Synod of Ephesus, from which the zeal of the holy pontiff and his manner of acting will become better known — the measures which he employed so that the scandals, rivalries, and private hatreds of the Easterners might be abolished, and the catholic faith might be strengthened in the heart of all. For in running through this letter we understood that St. Leo

was entirely unaware of all the arts of Eutyches, Chrysaphius and Dioscorus employed to pervert the pious mind of Theodosius, so that he could not even slightly suspect that the rights of the Apostolic See were to be brought to ruin and led to destruction in the said Synod of Ephesus. Rather, carefully inspecting the text of this letter, it was rightly necessary for us to conjecture that the praised emperor Theodosius, by insisting on the divine institutions, altogether wished to interpose and employ (as was fitting) the authority of the Apostolic See for convoking that same synod; namely, so that through the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, might be declared whatever in that controversy of faith was to be held by all Catholics.

These things surely furnished Leo with arguments that the emperor at first had such a mind that he judged it altogether wicked that, under the protection of the synod, the Fathers should act for violating those rights of the Apostolic See which had already, in the preceding general councils, been confirmed and approved first by divine and then by human authority. But lest I seem to tell fables, I will immediately subjoin those words with which the holy pontiff began his letter to the Synod of Ephesus. 'The devout faith (he says) of the most clement prince,

knowing that it pertains most greatly to his own glory if within the catholic Church no seed of any error should arise, paid this reverence to the divine institutions: that for the effecting of holy disposition it employed the authority of the apostolic see, as though it desired that it be declared by the most blessed Peter what in his confession was praised.' If, therefore, St. Leo, about to address the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, narrates why, on what occasion, and by what title the emperor employed the authority of the apostolic see, I do not see how certain writers have too confidently asserted that that synod was convoked and assembled by the sole authority of the emperor.

He asked, at any rate, that the authority of the apostolic see be employed, in order to obey the divine institutions, and that the new seed of error might be plucked out by the roots. Moreover, if the emperor desired that it be declared by the apostolic see, as by St. Peter, what in his confession had been praised by Christ the Lord, it can scarcely be believed that he was so opposed in mind and deed to the rights of the Roman pontiffs, and so hostile to them, as to have sought to abolish them. And therefore we most firmly maintain that all the injury which the apostolic see then suffered is to be laid not upon the emperor, but upon his ministers, who abused the clemency of the prince and above all the weakness of his mind.

And if we had to set forth other arguments of this matter, that one alone would abundantly suffice for all which we gather from the earlier letter of the same Theodosius to St. Leo, by which he sincerely indicated all the scandals and disturbances stirred up in the Church of Constantinople on account of the heresy of Eutyches, and earnestly begged that he would apply a remedy to them. This indeed he made clear, not obscurely, also in this letter to the Synod of Ephesus, writing: 'But (he speaks of Eutyches) because the treatment even of such men is not to be neglected, and because the most Christian emperor devoutly and religiously wished an episcopal council to be held, so that by a fuller judgment every error might be removed... our brothers, etc.'

'and by a common judgment with you may establish the things that will be pleasing to the Lord.' Behold, then, the cause of holding the synod most sufficiently explained. It was necessary to heal the evils from which Eutyches suffered, who (as St. Leo says) contradicted the Gospel of Christ, showing that he had never had any zeal for knowing the truth. This the emperor had demanded. And therefore, first following the dictate of the divine institutions, he employed the authority of the apostolic see for the effecting of holy disposition;

he asked that an episcopal council be held, believing that in this way he could also provide and take counsel for the reputation of Eutyches. Since, on account of his old age and his ministry as archimandrite of a great and rather famous monastery, he seemed worthy of honor, as Leo himself more clearly indicated in his letter to Julian of Cos. Therefore the emperor did not despise or reject the authority of the apostolic see, if he wished to employ it for holding the synod. And no reason whatever counseled that the Roman pontiff could or ought to resist his wishes in this — since it was chiefly a matter of plucking out such and so great a seed of tares, which was turning the sacred and ecclesiastical economy and the administration of affairs upside down, with the destruction of the catholic faith.

Wherefore, to abolish the din of such great disturbances, and to compose the discords already stirred up — which on the one hand drew their origin from the remnants of the Nestorians, and on the other were produced by a new sprouting error growing greater day by day — a fuller judgment seemed expedient and, as it were, necessary. Although in truth the cause of faith was sufficiently treated in the synod of Constantinople, first by Flavian, and at length reviewed, approved, and confirmed by the same most holy pontiff Leo. This, whether he will or not, Quesnel ought to confess, who nowhere admitted, as was needful, the distinction between a canonical and a more solemn judgment — which indeed St. Leo himself indicated in many places.

And most especially in this same letter, and in the subsequent ones, in which he not only discussed a fuller judgment or a more diligent examination to be held, but also the sentence canonically pronounced against Eutyches and approved and confirmed by the apostolic see; nay, he also indicates a document long since received from Eutyches himself, in which he professed with his own voice and subscription that he would condemn his opinion, promising that in all things (says the same St. Leo) he would follow our judgment. We observe not dissimilar writings in two letters likewise signed on the Ides of June, of which he directed one to Pulcheria Augusta, the other to Julian of Cos himself.

When Paschasius Quesnel had noticed these, he asked why Leo had issued two letters on the same day, both to Julian and to Pulcheria Augusta, when one might have sufficed for each — especially since the cause and arguments of the new letters do not appear. The same Quesnel endeavored to settle the question, bringing forward various conjectures, which we are not loath to transcribe for the reader, so that perhaps he may deduce what we have thus far not fully attained. 'Let me therefore affirm (says Quesnel) nothing certain:

whether it was on the occasion of a messenger who might get ahead of the legates, or from fear lest the legates should be prevented from approaching the Augusta — which certainly happened, as is sufficiently clear from Letter 41. For the other letter to Pulcheria briefly comprises those things which were written through the legates, and the legates being detained for some time at Rome — gathered from the shorter letter which we received, again addressed to Flavian, on the twelfth of the Kalends of July: "Since he is to be more fully instructed (he says) by those things which they themselves will carry in writing." And again: "I signify that others will follow, whom it has pleased me to appoint in this matter."' I frankly confess that these earlier conjectures of Quesnel are by no means to be despised.

Admitting also that reasoning by which he asserts that the legates were hindered from presenting themselves before Pulcheria Augusta, as appears from that praised Letter 41, in which he vehemently complains that the letters which he had directed to her through his clerics in the cause of faith had not reached her. And there he makes manifest, further below, that by 'the voice of the clerics' he wished to designate the legates to the Synod of Ephesus, subjoining: 'But since those who were sent could so little reach your gentleness that scarcely one of them, our deacon Hilarus, escaping, has returned to us, we thought the writings ought to be repeated.'

That he wrote this letter after the Synod of Ephesus is manifest both from its whole context — of which we will speak more suitably in its own place — and from the note of time; for it was indeed signed on the Ides of October of the same year. However the matter befell — namely, whether Leo had a messenger who got ahead of the legates' journey, or whether he feared that the legates would be prevented from approaching the Augusta — we do not know. Yet one thing is established concerning St. Leo: that he applied all his zeal, and sought all means, so that the scandals of the Easterners might be abolished, and the catholic faith, there wounded and as it were imperiled, might be strengthened.

However, another conjecture of Quesnel — by which he persuaded himself that on the twelfth of the Kalends of July the legates were still detained at Rome — we have already rejected in the preceding chapter, and so we dismiss it. Meanwhile, indeed, the legates of the apostolic see having already set out, St. Leo did not interrupt his correspondence with St. Flavian. For when he had received new letters from him through the deacon Basil, he wrote back to him on the twelfth of the Kalends of August; and in his letters he exhorts him to fight strenuously against the enemies of the nativity and cross of Christ, and not to be terrified by the powers and snares of his adversaries. To persuade him of this firmness of mind he used the words of the apostle Paul:

'In nothing be terrified by your adversaries, which to them is a cause of perdition, but to you of salvation.' But one may argue that the machinations of Dioscorus, Chrysaphius, and the rest of the Eutychians had in some way become known to the holy pontiff. For that Basil, the bearer of Flavian's letters, had recently departed from Constantinople, and had told Leo many things which were not contained in Flavian's letter, those words of the holy Pontiff indicate: 'And the discourse of the aforesaid man was well suited to familiar inquiry, through whom now, rendering our converse, we exhort your love through the grace of our God, in whom we trust, using the apostolic words, etc.' Nevertheless, notwithstanding the conflict of such great disturbances, desiring to cure the madness of the unskilled,

and so he charges Flavian to apply the medicine of patience. 'For curing (he says) the madness of the unskilled, we wish you also to apply the medicine of patience, so that, if the Eutychians who had grown strong should execrate their error, mercy may be shown; the judgment which preceded remaining in force (let Quesnel attend to these words), if the impiety, deservedly condemned, should persist in its own depravity.' But that St. Leo had been informed by Basil, through those familiar inquiries, about the most grave machinations which were being contrived for the destruction of the faith and of Catholics — and so that episcopal benevolence should not be denied to those same men — another letter, signed on the third of the Ides of August, plainly discloses.

For he writes to the same Flavian, whose silence, he shows, increased the pontifical solicitude, saying: 'Since we make you a partaker of our cares, being anxious for the defense of the faith, we have frequently, through suitable occasions, sent letters to your love.' Desiring to aid him with the consolations of pontifical exhortations, lest he be moved by the goads of his adversaries, he finally exhorts him: 'and that with all speed (he says) you answer our writings, and thereupon make us more certain about your actions, and those of our men (namely the legates), and about the settlement of the whole cause, so that we may soften with more prosperous tidings the solicitude which we now bear for the defense of the faith.'

Those words signify, therefore, that the pontifical mind was then pressed and tormented with the greatest anxieties. But what more? He was forced to endure yet graver things, because the Eutychians — Dioscorus and Chrysaphius acting outrageously — dared to elude his zeal and render it void. For that Synod of Ephesus, convoked on the Kalends of August, having a most unhappy beginning, on the sixth of the Ides of the same month, when Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, spurning all ecclesiastical rules, claimed the primacy in it for himself — letters having been extorted for this cause (as we have seen) from the secular power, namely from the emperor Theodosius, by which authority and primacy were granted to him.

The most illustrious Christian Lupus, however, attending to this manner of acting both of Dioscorus and of the emperor Theodosius, strives to excuse Theodosius, and, judging his letters kindly, holds that he had by no means it in his counsels to violate and infringe the rights of the Roman pontiff, but that Dioscorus had constituted himself president of the synod by violent usurpation, by no means by delegation of the prince. Hence he subjoined certain not contemptible reasons, writing: 'Far be it that Theodosius Augustus permitted himself to be seduced by a eunuch into excluding the Roman bishop from the presidency. For to his sacred letters to Dioscorus this note is added:

"In the same tenor it was written to Juvenal, most reverend bishop of Jerusalem"; and Dioscorus himself in the Council of Chalcedon said to the most glorious judges: "Your clemency has ascertained that our most holy emperor entrusted the judgment not to me alone, but also to the most blessed Juvenal and to the most holy bishop Thalassius."' But the same Christian Lupus, wishing on the one hand to purge the emperor Theodosius from this mark, and to protect the rights of the apostolic see, relates how, when Dioscorus was striving to usurp the presidency of the synod by the force of the sacred imperial rescript, Julius, bishop of Puteoli, one of St. Leo's legates, opposed him — Florentius, bishop of Lydia, interpreting — saying:

'In the same tenor, by the most pious and most Christian emperors, our most holy pope, set over the Roman Church, was summoned.' And Hilarus the deacon, another of the legates from the side of St. Leo, openly protested in that pseudo-synod: 'The most glorious and most Christian emperors, holding charity and affection toward the catholic faith, sent venerable letters supplicating our most blessed bishop Leo, prelate of the apostolic see, that he might be present at this venerable and holy council.'

From which manner of speaking the same most wise annotator gathers that the emperor's letters to the Roman pontiff did not present rigorous commands but supplications — which, however, Leo, for the sake of a certain reverence, wished to call commands, in order to indicate that he held them in high esteem. And again, that Hilarus insisted that the office committed to himself and the other legates should not be cast down to the dishonor and contempt of the apostolic see, these following words prove: 'The pope directed us, not doubting that he himself is present in us, whom he especially knows to do all things that pertain to the sincerity of the catholic faith and to the reverence owed to St. Peter the apostle.'

The annotations of Lupus seem finally to attain greater strength from those things which Lucentius, bishop of Asculum, objected against Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon, charging him with a grave crime, saying: 'It is necessary that he render an account of his judgment, who, since he had not the standing to judge, presumed and dared to hold a synod (that is, to preside over a general synod) — which without the authority of the apostolic see was never permitted, was never done.' These, then, are the things which the same Christian Lupus annotated with a praiseworthy apparatus of remarkable erudition; namely, in order to show that Theodosius could easily be cleared of that mark of schism with which, for the violated rights of the apostolic see, he might be branded — as, following Baronius,