1. When the edict had now been promulgated concerning a new general synod to be held in the East, the emperor Marcian saw the old tumults of the Eutychians being revived here and there, the partisan zeal of the factions being stirred up on every side, and disturbances being aroused; since indeed those who had once clung to Eutyches, lest -- as Baronius says -- they be charged with fickleness, persisted in their opinion and with every effort defended the wicked cause they had once taken up, and if in no other way, at least by acclamations of the name of Eutyches. That these tumults were first aroused at Constantinople with great sedition is made plain by the edict of the emperor Marcian for suppressing and abolishing them.
Since these were fostered by the gravest hatreds and rivalries, danger threatened the city lest the Constantinopolitans should slay one another in mutual slaughter. Therefore, by God's favour, through the emperor's edict issued on the third day before the Ides of July, they were quelled, the seditious men of both parties understanding that they would be punished with the ultimate penalty if they persisted in their seditions. From these things, then, one ought to judge that Marcian's mind was somewhat moved; nor is it without probability that he repented of not having permitted the synod to be held in Italy, as Leo had with all his prayers desired, in order indeed to forestall those tumults of sedition and the gravest commotions which the two opposing factions had already stirred up.
The emperor feared too that these troubles might be transferred to Nicaea in Bithynia, where the synod was to be held. Hence Pulcheria Augusta sent a letter to Strategius, the consular of that province, in which, desiring to provide for the common tranquillity and willing that the Catholic faith be guarded undisturbed and unshaken from every sort of men, she charges that same consular man to permit no one to approach that city without the consent of the bishops summoned to the general synod: nay rather, that he should altogether expel from the city and from those very places all the monks and laymen whom no reason summons to the synod.
So that, when the holy synod should sit with all discipline, without any commotion or contention, those things which had been revealed by the Lord Christ might be confirmed in common by all. 2. While these things were being done, the emperor was informed that Illyricum was greatly disturbed through fear of a barbarian invasion. Wherefore, reflecting with himself that it was not very safe to withdraw far from Constantinople, by repeated letters he summoned the Fathers of the council to Chalcedon, near Constantinople, that he might more easily and more securely provide for the safety of the holy bishops and for the felicity of the empire.
Meanwhile here Baronius describes the grave disaster brought upon the Roman empire by Attila, king of the Huns, concerning which Sidonius Apollinaris, Gregory of Tours, Salvian the presbyter of Marseilles, and other writers have spoken. We make mention of this matter only that anyone may understand with how great reason St. Leo the Pope desired the general synod to be deferred to more peaceful and tranquil times. Therefore, passing over these things, before we undertake a brief narration of the deeds at Chalcedon, we hasten to speak of certain deeds of St. Leo and of two synods of the Gauls and another of the Milanese. 3. And first indeed there occurs to us a very short letter of the holy
pontiff's letter to Ravennius of Arles, which the most learned Sirmond brought to public light, and then Paschasius Quesnel transferred into his new edition. In it the holy pontiff treats of the Easter to be celebrated in the following year 453, on the tenth day before the Kalends of April. That it pertained to the Roman pontiff to announce the celebration of that day is made plain by the summary of the letter. So that, namely, those whose confession in the faith is one (he says) may have one devotion in this festival.
Moreover, about that time the bishops of the Gauls wrote two letters to our holy pontiff, in which they show themselves so obedient and zealous toward the apostolic see that they reckoned it sacrilegious to deviate from its decrees and from the Catholic truth set forth in the letter to Flavian. And since the Gallican prelates have always striven with all zeal to hold and keep this observance, they have guarded that Church unstained from every blemish of heresy, adhering to the Roman Church by the strictest bond of obedience, just as they received it handed down from their forefathers. And indeed no one can deny that this is to be gathered from that letter which bears the names of Ceretius, Salonius, and Veranus.
Although the episcopal sees of these prelates have seemed to learned men uncertain and very obscure, so that they have reasoned only by leading from one conjecture to another, nevertheless by common consent they have judged, without any hesitation or suspicion of fraud, that the bishops of the Gauls were the authors of the praised letter. Therefore, for the copy of the letter to Flavian which they had received -- enriched with the abundance of divine doctrine -- they first render thanks, acknowledging the fatherly care and solicitude in the Roman pontiff, because by an anticipated cure of remedies he willed to bestow benefits upon them before the experience of evils.
For in this they profess to recognize a peculiar affection of his mind toward their Churches, by which he took care to succour the safety of these, while, set upon the watchtower of the apostolic see, with care and solicitude he cried out lest an unforeseen enemy come upon them off their guard, and lest (they say) incautious security afford a place for a wound. They also congratulate the Roman pontiff that the praised letter was so celebrated throughout the assemblies of all the Churches that it was truly declared by the verdict of all that the primacy of the apostolic see was deservedly established there, whence even now the oracles of the apostolic spirit are unsealed. 4. After such praises poured out concerning Leo's dogmatic letter, they address the holy pontiff:
We beseech that this work, profitable both for present and future times, which we have taken care to commit to parchment with the zeal of preserving it, Your Holiness may deign to peruse and, if anything be lacking through a copyist's error, to amend; or if you have augmented the page, salutary to all who shall read it, with any addition of your study, may you with solicitous piety command that very thing to be added to this little book: so that not only many holy bishops, our brethren throughout the Gauls, but also many of the laity, your sons, who greatly desire this letter for the manifestation of the truth, may be counted worthy to transcribe, read, and hold it sent back to us and amended by your holy hand.
Many other things indeed worthy of note occur in this letter, which have perhaps been indicated either by Baronius, or by Quesnel and others as well, over which there is no need to linger. I shall add only two. The one, namely, that those three bishops twice, thrice, and four times employed those words, 'most blessed pope,' in addressing the most holy pontiff -- words which Quesnel denies to have been in use at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, so as to gather from this that the act concerning Domnus of Antioch is false and supposititious. But that this editor of the works of Leo was deluded is proved both by these and by the subsequent synodal letter of Ravennius and the other Gallic bishops, in whose superscription we meet these words:
To the truly holy lord, deservedly most blessed in Christ, and venerable for his apostolic honour, Pope Leo, Ravennius. Yet although, employing a certain violent interpretation in his notes on this following letter, he contends that those words and those other appellations -- 'your apostolate' and 'the apostolic see' -- were said of all bishops whatsoever and of their sees, as we shall see in what follows. While it has not irked us to note these things, we by no means intend to defraud Quesnel of the praises due to him, who with much zeal sought out the episcopal sees of Ceretius, Salonius, and Veranus, but on account of the loss of ancient monuments laboured in vain. Therefore, relying on the sayings of Baronius, Sirmond, and other preceding writers,
judges that Salonius and Veranus were sons of Eucherius of Lyons, and that Salonius was present at the Council of Orange; and finally he noted that Veranus, surviving into the age of Hilary, discharged a legation of the apostolic see in the Gauls for defending the rights of the Church of Vienne and the decree of St. Leo against the bishop of Arles, as may be seen in the volume of the Councils. 5. That the whole assembly of the Gallic bishops gathered in synod displayed to the apostolic see a not dissimilar deference and a no lesser reverence and devotion of mind, the synodal letter of Ravennius of Arles and the other bishops makes evident.
For in the first place the bishops ask pardon to be granted them for the delay of time by which they were detained from quickly coming together into one, and they allege two reasons why they did not most speedily hold the synod: namely, the distance of the places, and the inclemency of the airs which that year vexed the bodies of living creatures with diseases in the Gauls. Therefore, lest they should seem slothful and less obedient in executing the mandates of the apostolic see, and lest they be marked with the brand of disobedience, they at once add: Let your apostolate therefore grant pardon to our tardiness, which descended not from idleness but from sure necessity; and which, even though it took from us the grace of speed, yet could not take away the matter for rejoicing.
They openly testify that they experienced the utmost exultation of mind in receiving and perusing that dogmatic letter, most apt for instructing all who are established within the Gauls. Grieving likewise (they say) with you for those who, having forsaken the light of the Catholic faith, fell into the darkness of errors. And so they confessed that they received this letter as a rule and symbol of faith. They understand and esteem that by this gift not the Gauls only but the whole world was adorned with most gracious gems, and they affirm that no one can pay worthy thanks for it. Wherefore they explain in the following words that Leo's doctrine has greatly profited both the faithful and the unfaithful, saying:
To your teaching, after God, every faithful soul owes it that he steadfastly holds what he believed; the unfaithful also owes it that, the truth being recognized, he departs from his perfidy, and, suffused with the light of apostolic instruction, forsakes the darkness of his error, etc. They then subjoin how they had at one time wished to send a letter to the emperor Marcian, that most faithful prince, by which they might congratulate him, inform him, and disclose the solicitude with which they followed the pontifical doctrine in Christ. But when a messenger had reached them from the parts of the Easterns, they thought it by no means necessary that this be done.
Therefore, adjudging the triumph of the faith to Leo's vigilance, zeal, and ministry, as suppliants they pray God to preserve your apostolate, and the Church herself diffused throughout the whole world. Having this always before their eyes, they promise to offer thanks and supplications to God unceasingly: rejoicing that He has given to the apostolic see -- whence, Christ being propitious, the fount and origin of our religion flowed -- a prelate of such sanctity, such faith, and such doctrine; asking also that He may guard the gift of your pontificate, granted unto the edification of His Churches, for the longest age. 458. 6.
Now this eulogy upon Leo and his Roman see, publicly recited in that Gallican synod of forty-four bishops, and consigned to writing for the perpetual memory of posterity, exhibits a firm and weighty testimony of that greatest devotion and deference by which they then gloried to be bound to the apostolic see. From whose institutes and footsteps the Gallican Church never departed, whether on account of the vicissitudes of the times, or the superstitions of false opinions. Since the prelates of that Church had always been ready, the Lord strengthening them, to lay down their lives together with the Roman pontiff for the truth, and to spend their life for the author of salvation and the giver of eternity.
With these words, then, those forty-four bishops close their letter, and each subscribes to it, employing those formulas by which it is everywhere wont to be proved that the supreme government of the Church belongs to the Roman pontiffs. Paschasius Quesnel, in the volume of the Works of St. Leo, individually reviewed the episcopal sees of these Gallic prelates from various monuments, as may be seen on page 478, to which we refer the reader, lest we wander too far outside the proposed scope. This synodal letter of the Gallic bishops having been received by the holy pontiff Leo, he did not long delay to write back to them, and, preserving the amplitude of his office, he begins his letter with these weighty words:
We had indeed wished to receive the letter of your fraternity at that time when you had promised, so that to our brethren setting out for the East -- whom we have directed to the holy synod in our stead for the defense of the Catholic faith -- the profession of your judgment also might be joined. Yet he confesses that they excuse their tardiness on account of unforeseen obstacles which hindered them from coming together into one more quickly. He then asserts that he has reviewed their letter with much joy, which he says he approves, because he had recognized that there flourished in it that doctrine of the erudition of the Holy Spirit which the cunning of the demon, through his followers, had taken care to wear down in the Eastern Churches, so that, by divine grace working, it might at length become stronger and clearer.
He finally says that he rejoices with much exultation, because, as the cause demanded, you have faithfully and obediently increased the confidence which we have concerning you in the Lord. O would that Quesnel had attended to these last words! He would not indeed have stirred up such great tumults in the past century, nor given occasion to the gravest disturbances, if, following the examples of the Gallic bishops, he had not frustrated the confidence which the Roman pontiffs first had concerning him, and had not refused faithfully and obediently to profess the definitions of the apostolic see. 7.
In the second chapter of his letter he narrates how, by the zeal and devotion of the pontifical legates, it had plainly and evidently appeared to the priests of Christ, to the Christian princes and powers, and to all the clergy, peoples, and orders fully gathered in the Synod of Chalcedon of six hundred Fathers, that the doctrine intimated in that dogmatic letter coheres with the evangelical and apostolic tradition concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that therefore Nestorius and Eutyches had been condemned. Whose errors he reviewed and attacked in the following third chapter, that he might make ever more plain how greatly they were to be abhorred. Then in the following fourth chapter he narrates how the holy
Synod of Chalcedon, with religious unanimity, consented to his dogmatic letter -- strengthened by the authority and merit of my most blessed lord Peter the apostle -- by cutting away the reproach from the Church of God, and by condemning Dioscorus of Alexandria in his impiety, lest that Church (he says) which, amid the very first beginnings of the Gospel, had as its founder blessed Mark, disciple of the most blessed apostle Peter, in all things assuredly concordant with the magisterium of his teacher, should remain undermined.
Since I have observed these words enclosed by little lines in the Grimani codex, I have judged that either the ancient amanuensis or some learned man wished to designate the supreme fellowship which was preserved from the beginnings between the Roman Church and the Alexandrian, not only on account of the universal magisterium of St. Peter, but also on account of that origin from which the Alexandrian Church itself drew its beginning. Hence the holy pontiff brings forward into the midst the examples of Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril, whom he calls most approved prelates. And since this turn of phrase displeased Quesnel, for I know not what reason, he thought fit to note:
"Someone will marvel that this Theophilus is reckoned by Leo among the most approved prelates, and held worthy to be proposed to Dioscorus as an example." And then, wishing to forestall the response that might be offered, he at once subjoins: "That this be not restricted only to sincerity of faith is opposed by the fact that he is called of holy memory by the same Leo in Epistle 94 to the emperor Marcian, and in Epistle 68 to Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, and his writings are cited with the encomium of sanctity both in Epistle 134 to Leo Augustus and in the excerpts of the Holy Fathers re-read at Chalcedon." He adds besides: "Nor yet could St. Leo have been ignorant with how wicked and how open violence Theophilus persecuted, and at last oppressed, St. John Chrysostom.
" But whether before death he repented of so many crimes, Quesnel does not explain, but refers his readers to the work written in French by Godefroid Hermant on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, and finally concludes: "I, for my part, would believe that from these turns of phrase nothing is to be determined concerning the sanctity of bishops, since we see most depraved men adorned with the same titles even in ecumenical councils, and this custom to have flourished through those times, so that whoever among the bishops had in no way deviated from the Catholic faith and had died in the communion of the Church were placed in the sacred diptychs and called men of holy memory." 8.
But who does not understand that this censure upon Theophilus is too grave and too malign, by which not only are that man's enmities against Chrysostom exaggerated, but it is also intimated that the judgment of St. Leo and the acts of Chalcedon are to be lightly esteemed -- as though the same Theophilus were neither a most approved prelate, nor could reasonably be called of holy memory? Quesnel contended that what he did against Chrysostom stood in the way. But if we attend to these things, they are by no means of such a kind that we should wear away the reputation of Theophilus and compare him with most depraved men.
For those enmities had no other origin than that zeal by which he sought everywhere to pursue the pagan and heretical Anthropomorphites, and at the same time procured to turn Catholic men away from the reading of the books of Origen, on account of the open errors found in his writings. Wherefore, when he himself had ordered that they be condemned by all, and the Tall Brothers and their followers had refused to comply, he expelled these from Egypt and, a synod having been convened at Alexandria, condemned Origen himself with his books, acting also that they should be condemned in another synod of Cyprus, over which Epiphanius presided. Thus far Theophilus had been in no way moved against Chrysostom. But hearing that the monks expelled by him had been kindly received at Constantinople by the same Chrysostom,
moved by zeal for guarding ecclesiastical discipline, as though desiring to defend the rights of the Alexandrian see, he began to inveigh against John, and -- his manner of acting perhaps not yet sufficiently explored -- he sets out for Constantinople and, a synod having been convened, deposed John as a violator of the canons, even though the people cried out against it. I will grant indeed that Theophilus did not then preserve that moderation of mind which befitted a bishop, and that, acted upon by excessive zeal, he inquired into this cause with precipitate judgment. But do these things perhaps stand in the way of his being called a most approved prelate and a man of holy memory? Let Quesnel, I pray, attend to the reasons by which he was led, let him call to mind the excellent and outstanding virtues with which he was endowed.
For besides the knowledge of sacred things, in which he greatly excelled, as long as he lived he shrank from every heresy, took care with all effort for the conversion of the Jews, sought to lead the pagans to the worship of the true religion, and omitted to undertake none of those things which could redound to the defense, safeguard, and increase of the Catholic faith. But it now wearies me to linger longer over these matters, especially since in another work, in pleading the Rufinian Vindiciae, I have described how Theophilus attacked Origen and the Origenists. I will add only that the opinion of Quesnel and of any other more recent writer could never obtain so much force as to be able to weaken or cast down the testimonies and judgment of Leo the Great and of the Fathers of Chalcedon.
testimonies and judgment. Since it escapes no one that the gravest controversies once stirred up among most holy men could in no way prejudice their sanctity and the celebrity of their name, even if they suffered something of human infirmity, in that they adhered too vehemently to their own pursuits and opinions, as we ourselves could prove by six hundred examples. 9. It now remains at last that we speak of the Synod of Milan, which St. Leo ordered to be held for no other cause than that, by the consent also of the bishops of that province and by their public subscriptions, the dogmatic letter to Flavian might be received -- which, says Baronius, was diligently seen to.
At that time, then, Abundius of Como and the other pontifical legates had returned from the East to Rome, to render an account in words of all that had taken place in the Synod of Chalcedon. Wherefore the holy pontiff, that it might be known by sure documents that all the Western bishops received the rule of faith written and defined by himself, charges Abundius the bishop and Senator the Milanese presbyter, his colleagues, returning to their fatherland and episcopate, to meet with Eusebius for indicting a synod. Over this synod Eusebius presided, and eighteen other bishops took part in it, either in person or through their presbyter-legates, many of whom were celebrated above all for sanctity and learning;
namely Maximus, bishop of Turin, Abundius of Como himself, Crispinus of Pavia, and others whose names are entered with much praise in the records of the Church, as may be seen in Baronius under the year praised above. Hence we easily gather that those writers departed far from the truth who said that Maximus of Turin died while Honorius and Theodosius were reigning. For how could that have come to pass, if he not only took part in this Synod of Milan, but also subscribed to the Acts of the Roman council under Pope Hilary? But whatever may have been said by others concerning these and similar questions, let us not inquire into it in this present leisure. We shall only review in a few words the sum of this synodal letter.
The manuscript codices, then, and all the editors have presented it as distinguished into three chapters. In the first of these, Eusebius with his companions confesses that they exult because the legates of the apostolic see sent to Chalcedon had attained the happy and favourable effect of the legation committed to them -- which indeed they affirm came to pass unto the praise of God and the safeguarding of the Christian faith, by the protection of the divine majesty, When (namely, they say) He placed you, fit assertors of His worship, as prelate in the see of His apostle. In the second chapter of the letter they praise the doctrine contained in the letter to Flavian, as wholly consonant with the assertions of the prophets, the authorities of the Gospels, and the apostolic testimonies;
243:35
camquenitorequodomlucisacveritatissplendoreradiare, omnibusquesensibusconvenirequosbeatusAmbrosiusdeincarnationisDominicæmysteriosuislibrisSpiritusanetoincitatusinseruit. IntertiotandemcapiteidemEusebiuscumsociisanathemaEutychianisdixisseprofitetur; atque, litterarum (aiunt) vestrarumformamsecuti, modumprœscriptœordinatiouisnossevasse, hisperfratremetcoepiscopumnostrumCyriacummissisostendimus.
and that it shines with a certain brightness of light and splendour of truth, and agrees with all those meanings which blessed Ambrose, moved by the Holy Spirit, inserted in his books concerning the mystery of the Lord's incarnation. Finally, in the third chapter, the same Eusebius with his companions professes to have pronounced anathema upon the Eutychians; and, Having followed (they say) the form of your letters, we have shown by these things sent through our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus that we have preserved the manner of the ordination prescribed.
Which words surely intimate that the form and the order of all things to be done, prescribed by the holy pontiff, were -- with none gainsaying -- preserved by them, indeed unto the manifesting of that due obedience which the bishops of the whole world, even gathered piously in synods, have everywhere rendered to the Roman pontiffs. 461. One thing at last still remains in this synodal letter which excited our attention, and which, against the printed and manuscript codices, is otherwise exhibited in Quesnel's edition. For Eusebius implores the present help, and adjudges that, by the zeal of the pontiff Leo, the destruction of the Eutychian heresy, the palm of the faith, and the crown of the consummated contest are to be retained in perpetual rest, then adding:
May you leave this memorable to the ages to come, that from this -- the contumacy of the impious sect being now extinguished in the present time -- it may be seen to lie laid low forever before you, the champions (supply: of the Catholic faith). With this reading agree Surius, the collectors of the councils, and others from the printed copies, which reading we are persuaded to be genuine also from some manuscript copies, whose authority we have judged to be followed. Although Quesnel, in place of that word 'extinguished' (exstincta), introduced another to have stood ('exstitisse'), and perhaps through the heedlessness of his copyist admitted 'pugnatoribus' for 'propugnatoribus.' Yet he confesses in his notes on this letter that the cited passage needed a healing hand, which he amended according to the Trecop. and Thuan. codices, a fortunate collation having been made with this printed text:
It remains that, with the Lord's favor, holding fast to it forever, you may bequeath this to ages to come as a thing to be remembered; so that, from the present time onward, the obstinacy of the impious sect may be seen to be extinguished, and, laid low in new purgings, may sink down crushed forever. No one will deny that this reading is indeed false and corrupt, if he considers it and then compares it with the context of the preceding letter, in which, as we have said, both the destruction of the heresy, and the palm of the faith, and the crown of the contest brought to completion are adjudged to the supreme pontiff Leo. There was therefore no need to apply any new purging, that the extinguished heresy, laid low, might sink down crushed forever.
Wherefore the most recent edition by the Venetian printer Agostino Savioli stirred in me the greatest astonishment, in that it introduced so corrupt a reading into the context of this letter, having expunged that reading which Surius, the compilers of the councils, and Quesnel himself judged ought to be retained. And what increased my astonishment is that the editor himself professed that he had followed the trustworthiness and authority of the best manuscript codices, although in truth, from this and similar lapses, I may infer that he consulted no codices at all; concerning which matter I shall reserve some remarks for a more fitting place in the second volume of Leo's Works.