講道與書信 第 238 章

1. As soon as the great Leo, from Hilary the deacon, the Apostolic See's legate returning to Rome, received notice of all the things which had taken place in the Ephesine brigandage: although he was pressed by grievous sorrow and grief of soul over the collapsed dogma of the Catholic faith and the universal subversion of all the Churches of the East, nevertheless he did not abstain from pronouncing judgment; but, without any hesitation, undaunted he made use of that vigilance and those rules of economy which most befitted his supreme pastoral office over the whole Church, and by his authority and beneficence he wished at once to meet so many and so great evils—arising from the arts of Chrysaphius, the blasphemies of Eutyches, and the impiety of Dioscorus;

that he might forthwith remedy them, and that they might be utterly abolished. First, therefore, he abolished all the preceding Acts of that predatory synod as null and void, as Pope Gelasius too not obscurely indicated in writing to the bishops of Dardania. And likewise, by a like tenor, he absolved the pontiff Flavian of holy memory (understand: of the Greeks), condemned by their assembly, since the Apostolic See alone did not consent; and rather condemned Dioscorus, the prelate of the second see, who had there been received; and by not consenting he set aside the impious synod, and for the truth's sake decreed by himself alone that the Council of Chalcedon should be held.

And let it not be objected to me, after Launoy's opinion, that the supreme Pontiff Gelasius had regard to the ecclesiastical canons, by whose authority and privileges alone Leo the Great seems, by the praised words, to have acted. For Saint Gelasius himself explained in what manner and by what rules the Apostolic See, relying upon them, is wont to reject those things which were ill done in synods, or to hold ratified and confirm those things which are consonant with truth and justice. For he adds:

"Whereupon it is consequently shown that a synod ill conducted, that is, against the Scriptures, against the doctrine of the Fathers, against the ecclesiastical rules, which the whole Church deservedly did not receive, and especially which the Apostolic See did not approve, both ought to and could be altered by a synod well conducted, that is, according to the Scriptures, according to the tradition of the Fathers, according to the ecclesiastical rules, brought forth for the Catholic faith and communion, which the whole Church received, which most of all the Apostolic See approved; but a synod well conducted according to the aforesaid manner can in no wise be altered by a new synod."

That Gelasius there treated, therefore, of judgments made by the Apostolic See alone without any gathering of councils, is manifest from the context of the whole letter. The records of which judgments the Pontiff indeed gathered from the authentic archives of the Apostolic See, or retained in mind as an eyewitness of all that had occurred in the cause of Flavian and the Eutychians. For he himself was taken up to the pontificate in the year 492, and Saint Leo had departed from this light in 461. Hardly, therefore, can we doubt that the Apostolic See, the faithful interpreter and guardian of the sacred Scriptures and of the doctrine of the Fathers, to whose norm it directs its judgments, was able to render void any synod whatsoever which did not answer to these rules;

and then to make its issued decrees known to other bishops, lest they should dare to hold ratified what had been reproved by it. That Saint Leo followed this mode of acting is established from what is presently to be described. For when the autumn season came round, in which an anniversary synod was solemnly held at Rome, he announced to the bishops and the other ministers of the Churches who had convened there the ill-conducted predatory Ephesine synod, that no one might dare in time to come to communicate with Dioscorus and the Eutychian faction, but that all might adhere to holy Flavian. Moreover, having pity upon the unhappy state of all the Churches of the East, he judged that it must be determined concerning the convoking of a general council.

For since the sum of the whole cause had devolved upon him by every divine and ecclesiastical right, both on account of the remonstrance of his legates and on account of the appeals brought to his legates, for this reason he had to select the more fitting remedies—those which might strengthen the collapsing faith, raise up the fallen bishops, condemn the contumacious and obstinate; and to those who, driven by fear of threats, had lent their captive hands to impious subscriptions, he had to impart liberty for solemnly retracting them. For this cause, therefore, the same Saint

Leo, dealing gently and pleasantly with the emperor Theodosius, took care by various letters to insinuate to him that, every obstacle being removed, he should order all things to be restored to that state in which they were before any judgment, until a greater number of priests from the whole world should be gathered. To these his insinuations he likewise joined the prayers of the Western bishops, subjoining: "All the Churches of our parts, all the priests with groans and tears beseech your gentleness." To which supplications they were led by no other reason than that the gravest evils by which the Churches of the East were straitened might more easily and expeditiously be remedied. 2.

Meanwhile, also, that he might furnish some solace to Flavian's necessities, he wrote one letter to him, having the greatest compassion upon him on account of the gravest evils by which he was afflicted, and he testifies that he grieves over the ruins of those through whom the truth was being assailed, and the very foundations of the whole Church were being shaken. And he moreover makes him more certain that he labors for the common cause, "that we may first of all merit to arrive at those things which profit the whole body of the faithful." Now this letter indicates to us that Flavian's death had not yet become known to the holy Pontiff. Wherefore the most eminent cardinal Baronius learnedly noted—and Quesnel too supports him—that there was a varying report concerning the death of this holy bishop, on account of the diverse opinions of writers.

For Prosper, in his Chronicle, says that Saint Flavian, amid the hands of those by whom he was being led into exile, passed to Christ with a glorious end. Nicephorus asserts that he died three days afterward. In Count Marcellinus and in the Greek Menologion we read that he was banished to Epirum of Lydia, and there, worn out by weariness, grief, and torments, was deprived of life and breath. Like things the little compendium of the Eutychianists has: "Flavian is led into exile, and at Epypa, which is a city of Lydia, he died, either by death supervening or by death inflicted." The Synodicon, chapter 85, says he was killed by kicks. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon charge the monk Barsumas as the author of the slaying. Evagrius, book II of the History, chapter

2, on the testimony of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, attributes his death to Dioscorus, by whom he is said to have been assailed with kicks, thrust out of the church, and killed. "Surely no one doubts" (says Quesnel) "that he was most grievously maltreated at his instigation." Very many, finally, in the Council of Chalcedon called Dioscorus the smiter and murderer of Flavian a second Cain. In this so great variety of writers, however, one thing is most evidently established, namely, that Flavian, having been struck with blows and worn out by the greatest hardships, gave up the ghost. And although the time of his death can by no means be certainly defined, yet we can conjecture that it did not occur until the following year, 450, and probably in winter, as can easily be evinced from the ordination of his successor.

The Greeks, therefore, each year celebrate his triumph on the 18th of February, on which day his translation to Constantinople was made under Marcian. Hence the praised Baronius reports this eulogy, written in the Greek Menologion: "Commemoration of our holy Father Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, who, cast out by the impious Dioscorus and the heretics conspiring with him, and sent into exile, departed this life vexed by various pressures and hardships." Like things the Western Church re-echoes on the same day. Finally, one thing I judge by no means to be passed over: namely, that cardinal Baronius himself, out of so many opinions just praised, judged that one the truer which affirms that Flavian set out into exile:

nay rather, that bruised by blows from the soldiers, bound in chains, he was led along, and there, his victorious soul augmented with the crown of martyrdom and adorned with a triumphal pomp, migrated to God. But that the Roman Church held the virtues of Flavian, and his glorious combats for the defense of the Catholic faith, in the greatest honor, those pictures expressed in mosaic in the most noble oratory of the Holy Cross betray—which oratory, at the right of the baptistery of Constantine, Hilary, Saint Leo's legate and afterward his successor in the pontifical Roman see, constructed. Which whole oratory, although leveled to the ground under Sixtus on account of wars threatening in Italy, nevertheless its memory (says Baronius) was restored at least in writings. 3.

Meanwhile the Church of Constantinople, deprived of its holy pastor, was afflicted with mourning and sadness. And all the more so, when it saw Anatolius substituted in the place of the deceased. For he, since he had long before been the apocrisiarius of Dioscorus of Alexandria, and was protected by the patronage of the emperors, Saint Leo deservedly judged that even in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs he might have a mind too inclined toward Eutyches and his faction. But that Anatolius, after attaining the see of Constantinople, by no means adhered to Dioscorus, can be demonstrated by several arguments. First, namely, because Dioscorus, having been made more certain that the Acts of the brigand synod had all been solemnly declared abolished and void by Saint

Leo, together with a Roman council, abolished and declared void, he himself, impotent in his wrath, having returned to Alexandria, held an assembly of bishops, in which he pronounced a sentence of excommunication against the supreme Pontiff, and perpetrated that crime which none of the most abandoned men would have devised. To which most grievous deed he is set down to have induced only ten bishops, weeping and unwilling. On which occasion it is most certain that Anatolius by no means stood on his side.

Secondly, Anatolius himself, as if foreseeing that his election to the bishopric of Constantinople would be less pleasing and acceptable—nay rather, exceedingly suspect for many reasons—to the supreme Pontiff Leo, who, induced by graver motives drawn from the Nicene canons, would have refused to hold him as legitimately elected and to communicate with him, by his own letters and by imperial ones, written perhaps in the waning month of May, most humbly petitioned that he be held henceforth in the communion of the Apostolic See. For it is probable that Anatolius's letter has either been lost through the injury of time, or is still preserved in the more secret archives. Of it there survives only a fragment, in Greek and Latin, in Quesnel's edition, which (he says) was extracted from a Royal

codex extracted, which also affords us some light for the history which we are describing. From it, therefore, we understand that, Flavian having died, the emperor Theodosius took care that the clergy of Constantinople should inquire who could govern that Church. And first (he says) indeed he commissioned the most religious clergy of that city to choose, with approbation, those more apt for the governance, reserving to himself the election of the chief of all. Yet his importunate mandate could not easily restrain the depraved ambitious movements of certain men. For when, an immoderate dissension having arisen among the electors, and all being therefore split into various partisanships toward many, the emperor again orders the clerics to be sought out in the royal city;

also from other cities, those sojourning there for certain affairs (as it happens), so that among them the more eminent, without any partiality, might be promoted to the episcopal dignity. By which words it is indicated that Anatolius wished to clear himself of the mark of ambition, by which he could justly be charged on account of his very great connection previously held with Dioscorus. Finally he says that he was, by the suffrages of all, elected bishop and Primate, "not on account of my justice" (he says) "but that Christ Jesus might show in me all his patience, according to the Apostle." And ordination followed the election.

For the synod of bishops staying at Constantinople (he subjoins) proceeded to ordain me without delay. These things only concerning the election and ordination of Anatolius are indicated from the praised fragment of the letter. Wherefore it is greatly to be lamented that the rest are wanting, from which we might understand that Anatolius not only petitioned from Saint Leo the accustomed communion, but especially that he might hold ratified and deign to confirm his election to the bishopric of Constantinople—concerning which matter we have noted various things in the foregoing, speaking of the appeal of Eutyches, and will again explain when treating of Anatolius's letter written to the same Saint Leo after the Council of Chalcedon.

Yet still more is it to be lamented that the letter of Theodosius, written to the same supreme pontiff on behalf of Anatolius, has perished altogether. Its contents we are nevertheless able in some measure to gather from the reply of the same holy pontiff to the emperor himself. Taking note of this, Baronius says: 'Although unhappily deceived by Eutyches and Dioscorus and led astray, he ratified the condemnation of Flavian; he was nevertheless not sunk in so deep an abyss of impiety as to think that the authority of the Roman Church was utterly to be despised. On the contrary, understanding that same See to be the head of all, he did not deem that Anatolius, set up by Dioscorus in the place of Flavian, ought to be received before he was approved by the assent of the Roman pontiff himself; and concerning these matters he sent letters to St.'

Leo, to ascertain his will and to implore his aid. He adds that this is exactly confirmed by the holy pontiff's letter, of which we shall presently speak. A weighty question, however, will arise if we compare this letter of the holy pontiff with the fragment of the preceding letter of Anatolius. For the words of the holy pontiff seem to indicate not obscurely that Anatolius had not yet been initiated by sacred episcopal ordination, since the pontiff suspends his consent to that ordination and demands a profession of faith—just as we also read in the first chapter of the synopsis of this letter. But we draw this even more clearly from Leo's own words:

'But lest (he says) I should seem to have acted to the prejudice of the catholic defence, I have thought that for the present nothing should be rashly written either way concerning the ordination of him who has begun to preside over the Church of Constantinople—not denying love, but awaiting the manifestation of catholic truth.' These words indeed might even, without any forced interpretation, be explained to mean that Anatolius had not yet been ordained, but had only been chosen bishop, and was then awaiting the consent of the Roman pontiff so that he might obtain the gift of sacred ordination. But this explanation by no means coheres with Anatolius's own words, in which he confessed that the synod of bishops then residing at Constantinople had proceeded to ordain him without delay.

Wherefore, to reconcile the meanings of both letters, I judge that one of two things must be affirmed: namely, either that the emperor wrote to St. Leo immediately after the election of Anatolius as bishop, and before he was ordained by the bishops; and that he flattered himself with confidence that the Roman pontiff would by no means disapprove this ordination, and therefore, moved by the same spirit by which he had been impelled to procure Anatolius's election, acted a little afterward so that the synod might ordain him. From which observation that other point necessarily follows, namely, that the fragment of Anatolius's letter has been placed outside its proper position in the Quesnellian edition, and therefore ought to have held its place after Theodosius's letter. 4.

But whatever may be said concerning this presently very doubtful question, I judge it not to pertain to our undertaking—especially since the rights of the Apostolic See remained wholly safe and guarded by Leo's manner of acting, who hung suspended in giving his assent to Anatolius's ordination until he had obtained sure and solemn testimonies, both concerning the probity and sincerity of faith of the new bishop, and also concerning those with whom he held communion. Therefore, acting reverently toward the emperor, while at the same time holding and exercising the majesty and authority of the pontifical dignity, he asks that the emperor himself should not take ill the suspension of his own mind, saying: 'I beseech your clemency to bear this with equanimity;'

'that, when he shall have shown himself such toward the catholic faith as we desire, we may rejoice more fully and more securely in his sincerity.' Wherefore, to cast off any sinister suspicion, he seeks to remove the occasion of the whole difficulty, not by demanding anything arduous, but by inviting him to that which no catholic can refuse. Namely, he asks that Anatolius recall to his mind the doctrine of the Greek and Latin Fathers concerning the mystery of the Incarnation, by which the Nestorian heresy was already condemned; and that he likewise read over what Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, preached in the exposition of the Nicene faith, which, sent by him, the archives of the Apostolic See received.

'Let him also review (he says) the acts of the Ephesine synod, in which, against the impiety of Nestorius, the testimonies of the catholic priests concerning the Incarnation of the Lord were inserted and adduced by Cyril of holy memory.' To these he adds that he should not despise also to review my letter (understand the 24th, to Flavian), which he will find to agree in all things with the piety of the Fathers. And when he has come to know that this, which will profit him, is sought and desired of him, let him with all his heart consent to the judgments of the catholics; so that he may declare a sincere profession of the common faith, with a most complete subscription, in the presence of all the clergy and the whole people, to be made public to the Apostolic See and to all the priests and Churches. 5.

But because all these things could have been provided by Anatolius only deceitfully and in mere appearance—whose faith was deservedly suspect to the Apostolic See—without the Roman

pontiff, on account of the very great distance of the places, knowing the truth of what had been done for certain, he applied every care lest he should be deceived, suggesting to the emperor, namely, to deal with Anatolius so that 'as soon as possible (he says) there may come to us the writings of the bishop of Constantinople, such as those of an approved and catholic priest ought to be, openly and clearly protesting that if anyone should believe or assert anything else concerning the Incarnation of the Word of God than what the profession of all catholics and my own protests, he should cut such a one off from his communion, so that we may deservedly be able to bestow on him fraternal charity in Christ.' These things St. Leo demands of Anatolius, to which he plainly added this, that he should pronounce anathema upon Dioscorus, Eutyches, and all his sectaries.

This faith of Anatolius, the prelate of Constantinople, had indeed to be so examined that every doubtful or contrary suspicion might be removed from the pontifical mind. Therefore, with no delay interposed, he resolved to send four legates of approved life to Constantinople, who should receive his profession, wholly consonant with the pontifical instructions, so that thence it might be discerned whether the new bishop ought to be held worthy of the communion of the Apostolic See. Concerning this solemn legation, indeed, he admonished the same emperor Theodosius in the same letter with these words:

'But that a swifter and fuller effect may be given to these salutary cares, with the Lord aiding, through the faith of your clemency, I have directed to your piety my brothers and fellow-bishops Abundius and Asterius, and also the presbyters Basil and Senator, whose devotion has been proved to me, through whom, by the instructions which we have sent being made manifest, you may worthily recognize what is the form of our faith. So that, if the prelate of Constantinople consents with all his heart to the same confession, we may rejoice in security (as is fitting) over the peace of the Church, and nothing doubtful may seem to remain, lest we should labor under perhaps superfluous suspicions.'

He did not therefore demand any profession of faith whatsoever from Anatolius, but that one which should correspond exactly to the legates' instructions, and to the formula composed by himself and proposed to the new bishop; who thereafter also had to bind himself under oath, solemnly in the presence of the whole clergy and the people of Constantinople, perpetually to keep and profess it. What therefore were the rights of the supreme pontiff in the Eastern Churches, we need not here review, since from such a manner of acting—indicating the highest and greatest authority—they are most fully made known to all. 6. That Leo, however, directed the mission of these legates toward another aim as well, the following passages of his letter make plain:

'But if any dissent from the purity of our faith and from the authority of the Fathers, let your clemency grant that a universal council be held within Italy, as the synod which had assembled at Rome for this cause asks together with me, so that, all those who have lapsed either through ignorance or through fear coming together into one, provision may be made for them by the remedies of correction.' Whoever does not refuse to attend to this saying will excellently understand that Leo was led to prescribe a general synod for no other cause than that, all the lapsed coming together into one, the remedies of correction might be afforded them by priestly authority. The appeal of Flavian, therefore, did not demand that a general synod be held;

nor did his expulsion from ecclesiastical affairs, as Galla Placidia says. For the mind of the Roman pontiff could not have been moved to demand it from these causes, since Flavian had by that interval of time already put off the man, and a new bishop had been substituted upon the throne of Constantinople. Wherefore we gather new arguments to strengthen the preceding Disputations, written in the foregoing chapters. To the preceding letter, the same supreme pontiff wrote another not unlike it to Pulcheria Augusta, in the synopsis of which the sum of the whole text is read. For it is of this kind: that he awaits the profession of Anatolius's faith; that legates have been sent by him to the East; that scandals must be removed through a general council.

This letter, therefore, if it be compared with the preceding one written to Theodosius, will be found to differ from it only in words; and at its end it appeals to the clemency of the same Augusta, that, with her endeavoring, a universal council of priests may be ordered to be held within Italy, by which, the art of deceiving being overcome, it may at last be made plain what ought either to be restrained or to be healed by a deeper treatment. 7. Meanwhile we judge that it must be more diligently inquired why St. Leo, the supreme pontiff, hung suspended in granting his assent to Anatolius, already assumed to the episcopate of Constantinople, and deferred to write to him, 'not denying love, but awaiting the manifestation of catholic truth.'

That this suspension of the pontifical mind had its origin from many causes, we have indicated above. Two among the rest, however, the same St. Leo expressly disclosed in another letter written to the archimandrites of the monasteries of Constantinople, which is the 53rd in Quesnel, but elsewhere the 34th. In this letter, indeed, he asserts that he labors with a solicitude which compels him also to fear lest the Eutychian wickedness, which ought to have been cut off at its very beginnings, should in the process of time become more obstinate and more widespread. The fear of his mind was increased by the manner of acting of the new bishop of Constantinople and of those who consecrated him:

'Who (he says), besides that which pertained to the ordination of the new prelate, indicated to us nothing concerning errors suppressed or renounced, as though in that Church no scandal, no offence had existed, or as though the merit of the ordained one was not chiefly to be demonstrated from this, if he had taught things alien to himself which are contrary to the sentiments of catholics.' St. Leo therefore had merely been informed of Anatolius's ordination, without the

emperor, or the bishops who had assembled to ordain Anatolius, having made a sincere report to the Apostolic See concerning the state of the Church of Constantinople, and having given sincere testimony concerning the faith, the merits and qualities of the new prelate-elect—who not only intended to communicate with the Roman pontiff, but further requested that his own election and ordination as bishop be held as canonical.

Wherefore, lest—what is wont to happen between distant regions, says the holy pontiff—the examination of the truth should stretch into excessive delays, and lest he should rashly do anything in vain, or hold as ratified anything which might be prejudicial to the cause of the faith and to the rights of the Roman See, he decreed that solemn legation, those four most approved men being given sufficient instruction of patristic authorities. 'Whom (he adds), dearest brothers, we desire to be aided in all things by your diligence and solicitude.'

Trusting at length in the faith and doctrine of the praised archimandrites, whom he knew to love the truth most greatly, he exhorts them to expend their labors for the cause of the faith with these honorable words, commending the sacrament of the catholic faith and the authority of the Roman See: 'And therefore you, who are justified through faith because you love the catholic truth, and have been taught through the Holy Spirit concerning the singular sacrament of human salvation, labor together with us, and strive with all the devotion you can, so that, falsehood being destroyed and the solidity of the faith defended, we may obtain a secure peace of God throughout the whole world.'

8. To Leo, however, ardently desiring the firmness of the catholic faith and the tranquillity of the Eastern Churches, it did not yet seem that he had applied all precautions and necessary means, if, besides the letters written to Theodosius, Pulcheria, and the archimandrites of Constantinople, he had not labored still further toward the happy outcome of this cause. Wherefore, while the four legates already sent by him were solicitously journeying toward Constantinople, the holy pontiff himself wrote yet other letters.

One, namely, to the presbyter Martin and the rest of his colleagues, as Quesnel himself rightly noted in the margin from its context; whom he praises on account of the evils they had endured in defence of the truth, the unity of which truth distances of place do not sever. And at length he declares that he has sent his legates to strengthen the fortitude of holy minds, whose pious work he exhorts them to assist with care and counsel. Another likewise, not long after, he wrote to two presbyters, Faustus and Marinus. But whether the Martin to whom this new letter is addressed is the same as the Martin to whom the preceding was given, I shall not judge. It is, however, very probable that the presbyter of this name was one and the same.

These presbyters, therefore, the supreme pontiff wished to have as sharers of his labors, which he expended for the care of the universal Church. And persuading himself that he had already received from the legates then residing at Constantinople a most complete instruction of all matters to be transacted: 'Even now (he says), through our son Maximinus the count, we continually exhort you with discourses, that, since by the Lord's favor the liberty of catholics has been greatly increased, you may take up spiritual constancy against the forerunners of Antichrist.' That by these last words he wished to assail and harass Nestorius and Eutyches, the holy pontiff himself explained immediately afterward in the following chapter.

In what way, therefore, the liberty of catholics had been increased—from which the praised presbyters ought to take up spiritual constancy against the forerunners of Antichrist—St. Leo did not indicate. Therefore it was necessary for us to seek this out from other monuments, so that we might make plain to readers what Quesnel altogether omitted to note. We understand, then, that the liberty of catholics had been increased on a twofold ground. The first was that, while a most grievous schism endured in the East—by which the Egyptian, Thracian, and Palestinian bishops followed Dioscorus, while the Orientals, the Pontics, and the Asians held the side of Flavian and the catholics, as Liberatus the deacon says in his Breviary, ch.

12—the emperor would not have seen that schism abolished after Flavian's murder, had he not begun seriously to reflect on the evils that had befallen the Eastern Churches. For he, having long before been imbued by Pulcheria with the best instruction, then, depraved in his morals to the ruin of the Church by the eunuch Chrysaphius and his wife Eudocia, had given occasion to so many and so great evils festering in the East, on account of the favor and protection afforded to heretics, schismatics, and robbers up to that time. Nevertheless, illumined by divine light, he discovered that he had been deceived by the cunning of the eunuch and the arts of his wife Eudocia.

Concerning the expiation, therefore, of the crime he had admitted, he deliberated that it should henceforth be made by the new promptings of the most holy Pulcheria. Wherefore, since he could not repair the murder of St. Flavian, he poured out all his fury upon Chrysaphius. And so, first stripping him of his dignity, then also of all his substance, he banished him to a certain island, as Nicephorus relates, who narrates that the same man was swallowed up by the waves while sailing. But Cedrenus also, making mention of him, asserts that he was killed by Jordanes; with whom Marcellinus the count seems in part to agree, who says: 'But Pulcheria handed over that most unjust eunuch Chrysaphius to Jordanes, son of John, whom that man had treacherously slain, and Jordanes repaid him in kind.'

The same Theodosius had also already exhibited other proofs of penitence: he assailed his wife Eudocia with sharp rebuke, as another origin of all the evils of the East, and sent her with severity to Jerusalem to do penance, and performed many other things, which are described by Nicephorus—although in truth Baronius rightly admonishes readers that Nicephorus suffered a hallucination when he wrote that Theodosius had ordered the sacred body of Flavian to be transferred with solemn pomp into the city of Constantinople. For it is established that this translation took place by the decree of Marcian. 9. But how the matters came to pass, there is no need to inquire at present.

Wherefore, since meanwhile nothing else occurs to us which pertains to Leo's pontifical manner of acting, we therefore withdraw our hand from this Disputation. There remains only a very brief letter written to the presbyter Faustus, in which St. Leo praises his faith and exhorts him to solicitude. But whether this is to be associated with the preceding ones, neither has been indicated by its very text—in which no mention is made of the matters to be transacted at Constantinople through the legates—nor can it be gathered from the consular note, which is wanting.

Concerning the synod of Constantinople, therefore, in which the solemn profession of faith was made by Anatolius, and concerning the rest of the things done by St. Leo the Great before the Council of Chalcedon, we reserve to speak in this following chapter.