Sermons & Letters 234 part 1/2

1. In our preceding discussion we defended, to the best of our ability, that Eutyches' appeal was made to the Apostolic See, setting forth also each of the several weighty considerations of reasoning and judgment by which we believed we could attain the goal we had set before us.

Nevertheless, since we could not fulfil all the parts of the task we had undertaken in that single contest—both on account of what the most learned Peter de Marca, Archbishop of Paris, set down in his celebrated work concerning the causes and rights of the Eastern bishops, and on account of the Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, held over the cause of the Eutychian heresy, which we observed to be greatly disturbed and confused—therefore, lest our readers be too greatly wearied in running through our writings, we judged that not all that occurs to be said concerning a matter of this kind ought to be treated under one and the same title. Since, then, besides the things we have already set forth,

there yet remain other and further arguments of Quesnel to be examined and discussed, which its author himself contends can be clearly deduced from the foregoing letters of Flavian to St. Leo, and which, at least in appearance, would enervate what we have thus far said—for that reason we judged it fitting to reserve them to be dissolved in this new dissertation. Nor indeed, at the very threshold of this contest, do I think the reader ought to be warned of Quesnel's excessive zeal in interpreting, distorting, and mutilating the testimonies upon which he strove to insist, that he might procure a defence for his cause and entrap the reader's belief. For this will be established clearly enough in the exposition of his arguments.

Let this, then, be the first of Quesnel's arguments, which he draws from the words of Flavian brought against himself. For when he set the testimony of the monk Constantine, expounded above, over against the words of St. Flavian: «In these» (says Quesnel) «apart from Leo alone, no other is named to whom Eutyches appealed.» And he then adds: «It is not laborious to reply. For this was done for no other reason than that he was addressing Leo alone, and the heresiarch had named him alone when he wrote to him, thinking, as it were, to creep in by the fraud of a lie upon the holy ears of Leo, as Flavian writes to St. Leo;»

and because, among the patriarchs and metropolitans to whose council they claimed the appeal had been made, St. Leo stood pre-eminent without controversy—and that by manifold right, as one who both held the primacy in the Church and was the head of the whole synod to which appeal was made.» So says Quesnel. But who does not perceive that these interpretations are all too pretty, polished and painted with the colours of honour? Yet Quesnel goes still further, saying: «Moreover, although the same pontiff seems to have drawn the whole cause to himself,» since he both demands to be instructed on the particulars and complains of Flavian's silence: «For (says he) whereas he ought first to have laid open all things to us, it is nevertheless not so in reality;»

for likewise any other of the bishops, to whose judgment appeal should be made by a bill of appeal, would both demand to be instructed concerning the business and raise complaints about the silence. Rightly therefore, and by a superior right, did Leo will that the account and knowledge of the whole matter be brought to himself, and indeed first of all, as being the primate, to whom, together with the rest and before the rest, it belonged to decide upon it, if room was to be given to the appeal.» 3. But let us assign these lies, masked with the colours and shadows of truth. In the first place, vainly and altogether wrongly would Quesnel affirm the testimony of the monk Constantine to be opposed to the words of Flavian, if the manner of speaking of each tended toward the very same end.

Constantine—as even Quesnel asserts, a heretic and a most mendacious man—testified that Eutyches had appealed to other patriarchs, the metropolitans of the principal Churches, and to their synods. If Flavian had wished to grant this, as our adversary attempts to interpret, when he wrote back to St. Leo, although he names him alone because he was addressing him alone, then it would follow either that Flavian did not dissent in the matter from Constantine's testimony, or that he denied any appeal at all was made by Eutyches. To affirm the former Quesnel's conscience does not permit.

For it would be impious even lightly to suspect that Flavian—a bishop of so great holiness, who fell a martyr in defence of the Catholic faith—was willing to subscribe to the lying monk Constantine. The other, therefore, must be granted: namely, that Flavian denied any appeal whatsoever as having been made by Eutyches—not, however, that it was made in any manner at all, but at the time of the trial. For he did not deny that Eutyches, once the assembly had been dissolved, appealed to Leo, the Roman pontiff, since he was now made more certain of this appeal by Leo's own letters. Let Quesnel, I pray, weigh Flavian's words; let him see whether his distorted and pretty interpretation can fit them. But «with these things thus accomplished, letters have been delivered to us from Your Holiness....»

«by which we were informed that this same Eutyches directed to you bills full of all deceit and cunning, saying that at the time of the trial he had delivered bills of appeal both to us and to the holy council convened here, and that he had appealed to Your Holiness.» Let him mark these words: «and that he had appealed to Your Holiness.» Therefore Eutyches wrote that he had appealed to no other than St. Leo. Flavian denies this by immediately subjoining: «Which was by no means done by him.» But what is it that Flavian denies to have been done by Eutyches, save that the heretical archimandrite, at the time of the trial, had given to him and to the council bills of appeal, appealing to St. Leo? He does not then say that he had appealed to you and to your council, but «to Your Holiness.»

Furthermore, if the heresiarch, in writing to St. Leo, named him only—as even Quesnel asserts—with no mention at all made of the other patriarchs and synods, on what ground should we say that this was done contrary to the custom of the Easterners, involving the patriarchs and metropolitans of the most renowned dioceses and their synods as those also who ought to have been appealed to? If such a fabricated custom had prevailed, Flavian, indeed, keeping the reverence due toward the head of the whole Church, would have called this appeal altogether irregular, and would have written back to St.

Leo that the rights of the Eastern Church had been violated and broken, since the patriarchs and metropolitans, whose concern it was to pronounce judgment on cases of the like sort, were altogether ignorant of this appeal. But Flavian's silence on this point he confirms by the words that follow, addressing that same Leo as the one who alone was to conduct this business and to judge the heretic: «But in this too he lied, thinking, as it were, to creep in by the fraud of a lie upon your holy ears.» Had Flavian known or believed that Eutyches had also attempted, by the fraud of a lie, to creep in upon others by his letters, he would have added to these words, «your holy ears,» these other ones, or equivalent ones: «and of the other bishops»;

nay, he ought to have added it, that Leo might be more fully instructed, as Leo requested. For Leo had written: «and therefore, since Your Charity sees that so grave a cause makes us of necessity solicitous, let him hasten to make known to us as fully and clearly as possible all things—which he ought to have done before.» For these are golden words, indicating authority and command. For there would by no means have been a fullest and clearest narration or exposition of all that had been done, if Flavian had concealed by silence either that Eutyches had appealed to the Roman See against the rights of the Eastern Church, or had not said that he had appealed to the synods and the other patriarchs, or that he ought to have appealed to them.

Therefore this new form of ecclesiastical judgments, of which our adversary speaks, was altogether unknown to Flavian himself. 4. But perhaps Quesnel foresaw the force of this reply; who, in order to confirm his preceding statements, says that from Leo's manner of writing it appears that Leo had drawn the whole cause to himself, since he demands to be instructed on the particulars and complains of Flavian's silence, as those words intimate: «Whereas he ought first to have laid open all things to us.» But the adversary subjoins a very feeble reply, contending, namely, that this could have been done by any of the bishops, to whose judgment appeal should be made by a bill, etc. Do you thus distort the Fathers' formula of speaking, Quesnel, by making a step from one thing to another?

Let us therefore examine wherein the difficulty lies. And first let us inquire by what right any other of the bishops could have received bills of appeals of this kind and demanded to be instructed concerning the business. If the discourse here be of an arbitral judge assumed by compromise from both parties to settle the question, then indeed any bishop who was chosen, lest he pronounce judgment on things unknown to him, was assuredly bound to demand to be instructed. But in the present case, of what judge is the dispute?

Of none other than of him who, by divine and ecclesiastical laws, was established for settling controversies of faith and for reviewing the judgments of others—whether, namely, these were conformable to the rules of right, and whether the ordinary judges, moved by hatred or envy or any other passion whatsoever, had inflicted violence and oppression on the condemned. On that account, then, did Leo the Great draw the whole cause to himself, because Eutyches, not acquiescing in the sentence pronounced by his own ordinary bishop and by the Council of Constantinople, was bound to appeal to a superior and final judge. Therefore St. the pontiff uses in his letter those imperative words, full at once of authority and dignity:

«And therefore let Your Fraternity signify to us by a fullest report, through a suitable and most fitting person, what novelty has arisen against the ancient faith»; or those others: «Since we, who wish the judgments of the Lord's priests to be mature, can define nothing in matters unknown to the prejudice of either party, before we truly hear all that has been done.» 5. And indeed these and other similar words of Leo—written not in the name of the council but in his own name—had such and so great force and authority that they had already at least moved Flavian's mind, if they had not compelled it, to present himself before Leo, either through his own suitable legates, or by a report made in authentic writings, to render an account of all that had been done.

But that Flavian had already done this before he received this letter of Leo, we saw in the foregoing. Wherefore, if we bring all things together at once, we shall have a certain argument that Leo so drew the whole cause to himself that it was by no means lawful for any other bishop and judge to meddle in these matters, save by the sentence of the supreme pontiff. And that Leo had referred the whole business to be defined by his own authority, he himself not obscurely indicated in the letter cited.

For, in order to bar the way to all difficulties and excuses that could be alleged concerning the contumacy and obstinacy of the archimandrite Eutyches, he reserves to himself to bring the whole matter to examination, the moderation of the Church so demanding, and the solicitude for Christian peace, intimated to him also by imperial letters: «that (says he), all dissensions being cut off, the Catholic faith may be preserved inviolate, and, those who defend perverse things being recalled from error, the faith approved by our authority may be fortified.» Three things does Leo here promise to do by his authority: to take away dissensions for the preserving inviolate of the Catholic faith; the second, to recall from error those who were defending perverse things;

the third, finally, to bring protection and support to those whose faith was approved. If, then, Leo promises that he will accomplish these three things by his own authority, not that of others, there is no reason for us to have recourse to a distorted interpretation, fabricating other arbiters and judges of this cause, and to affirm that Leo, together with the other bishops and before the rest as primate, ought to have passed judgment as to whether room should be given to the appeal. But Quesnel still presses, objecting those words of St. Leo, in the letter to Flavian: «Since we, who wish the judgments of the Lord's priests to be mature, can define nothing in matters unknown to the prejudice of either party, before we truly hear all that has been done.»

From which our adversary, cheerfully and as though singing a triumph, reasons thus: «These are the words of a man not arrogating to himself the whole right of passing sentence, but of a prudent, keen-sighted, and most equitable judge, who is unwilling rashly to cast his vote when the cause is unknown. But why do we waste time in resolving arguments of this kind drawn from Leo himself?» The same Quesnel says: «We do not inquire in this present cause whether Leo claimed for himself that prerogative, but whether in fact Eutyches appealed, and whether to the Roman pontiff alone.» O pretty evasion!

He understands that he is losing his cause; he recognizes that those equivocal and unwonted formulas of speaking avail him nothing at all: «not arrogating to himself the whole right of passing sentence,» which carry a certain presumption, or that other one, «to cast his vote»—as if Leo had indicated that he wished to compel it, that a council was necessary, so that he might play the part of a keen-sighted, prudent, and most equitable judge. For «to cast a vote» ordinarily has the meaning of a cause to be treated in an assembly, a synod, and a college. Of which matters there is deep silence in Leo, nor does even a slight indication of any of them appear from what he had written. 6.

But in very truth, because Quesnel recognized that he had a bad cause, and turned his reasoning to other things, let us attend—so as to follow step by step in his footsteps—to what he subjoins. He says, then: «But if Eutyches had appealed to the Roman pontiff alone (as St. Leo, from the crafty and lying bill, judged had been done by him), there would be nothing for us to wonder at that Eutyches, appealing to the Roman See, was of his own accord received by the Roman pontiff, especially since the question seemed to concern the Nicene faith, to which both Eutyches himself and his accuser professed inseparably to adhere;»

«for these are the chief functions of the Roman president, as the head of the episcopal crown: that from the first chair, as from a watchtower, he keep vigilant guard over the preservation of the canons, and act as guardian of the Catholic faith.» For the vindicating of the Apostolic See's powers, those would affirm that no one could write things more honourable than these, who paid no heed to Quesnel's subsequent statements. Nevertheless, since Quesnel in the following paragraph, or chapter 8 of his dissertation, affirms that ear ought not to be lent to Leo when he too greatly pursues the splendour and rights of his own See, it is therefore more than sufficiently ascertained that he spoke thus only slyly and hyperbolically. Thus, then, does he reason:

«But let us not put faith in Eutyches, that most crafty impostor; nor let us lend ear even to Leo himself, most holy man though he be, when he is pursuing the splendour and rights of his own See. Let us hear Flavian, bishop of New Rome and most valiant martyr of Christ, from whom the Easterners' mind and custom concerning appeals, and the whole manner of Eutyches' proceeding, could not lie hidden. Did he judge that the sentence of his own council concerning Eutyches was to be sent to Leo, so that if it were approved by him it might stand, if reproved it might vanish away? Nothing indeed of the kind appears in either of his letters.»

These things, therefore, and others of the sort which he set down in the same or at least equivalent words in other places, show that Quesnel exaggerated beyond his own good faith, in order that, by discoursing little by little concerning the ancient governance of the Church and the form and order of judgments, he might sell fables and fictions. Who will believe that it does not smack of a fiction or an injurious quibble to say that the most holy pontiff Leo, beyond the laws of justice and equity, flattered himself too much in the cause of Eutyches, claiming for himself those rights which did not belong to him? This is that Leo the supreme pontiff, whom the whole Church, gathered together in the Council of Chalcedon, venerated as the lawful heir and champion of all the rights of St.

Peter—he who preserved the doctrine of faith necessary for salvation undefiled, being constituted the interpreter of blessed Peter's voice to all. This is that great Leo, by whom those Fathers, using the author of good things unto profit, were able to show to the sons of the Church the inheritance and the lot of truth, and, existing in a common crown of joy, feasting as it were at an imperial banquet on spiritual delights, which Christ had prepared through your letters, were invited.

To this supreme pontiff, then, to whom the whole Church lent ear, shall we not lend ear, led by this suspicion alone—that he was pursuing the splendour and rights of his own See—an injury having been done to the See of Constantinople and the rights and prerogatives of the Eastern Churches being despised and abolished? Quesnel alone could reason thus, thereafter unduly exaggerating the prerogatives and honour of the throne of Constantinople. But let us inquire what and of what sort were the prerogatives and rights of this See, since Quesnel says: «Let us hear Flavian, bishop of New Rome, and most valiant martyr, etc.»

«New Rome» indeed the city of Constantinople obtained as a name, through the munificence and majesty of the emperors, but by no means the honour and prerogatives in those things which pertain to religion. 7. For neither was the chair of that episcopate founded by the apostles, or by the divine Peter, or by his disciple, as was the See of Antioch, in which the prince of the apostles first sat; and Alexandria, in which his disciple Mark was constituted bishop; and Rome, which Peter himself reserved for himself even unto his martyrdom. For that these Churches were called apostolic, and obtained the honour and prerogatives of patriarchate from the very beginnings of their foundations—that distinction of ranks being preserved which St. Leo and the other Fathers

handed down—is established even from the Nicene canons. But the bishop of Constantinople neither enjoyed the honour and prerogatives of a patriarchate in its beginnings, nor in the age of the Nicene Council. And that name of patriarchate it obtained only after the year of the Lord five hundred, by the efforts of the emperor Justinian of the Romans, and with the permission of the pontiffs acceding. 8. Nor does it help Quesnel to appeal to the fifth canon of the First Council of Constantinople, convened under Theodosius the elder, or to the twenty-eighth of the Synod of Chalcedon, in which the honour of primacy after the Roman pontiff is asserted for the bishop of Constantinople.

For, as we saw in the preceding chapter, that canon of the Council of Constantinople obtained no force at all, whether as to the name of primacy, or as to the prerogatives and power in ordaining the metropolitan bishops of the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. Nor does it accomplish anything that the Fathers of Chalcedon attempted to renew and confirm that canon. In the first place, the Fathers of Chalcedon flattered themselves that the holy pontiff would be willing, with a ready mind, to communicate new titles and prerogatives to the bishop of the royal city—namely, by increasing his glory, if he did not disdain to impart the privileges of ancient Rome.

And indeed they were led by this consideration, namely, that the See of the bishops of Constantinople was, as it were, another part of old Rome, and therefore ought to be raised above the other Churches of the East. Then, lest the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch should suffer some injury and violence, who had been accustomed to hold the episcopate of Constantinople as, so to speak, a member and part of the episcopate of ancient Rome. Then they took notice that the Nicene canons were repugnant to this sanction; and that therefore the bishop of New Rome could not peaceably enjoy those privileges and prerogatives which were in question, without an express decree of the Apostolic See,

and a peremptory judgment, by which all dissensions and contentions, especially those of the Ephesians, should be perpetually abolished. On this account that whole council, together with the entire assembly of the Easterners, determined to present themselves most humbly before Leo through letters. Nor did the Fathers of that general council, in addressing St. Leo, employ any of those phrases which Quesnel adopted to exaggerate the glory of New Rome and to magnify the rights of that Church. They petitioned, indeed, for the confirmation of all their acts, and especially of the aforesaid canon of Constantinople, and, confident, they said: «because, the apostolic ray shining forth among you, you are wont to govern even unto the Church of the Constantinopolitans;»

«scattering that ray abroad, you more often spread this too, in that you were wont, without envy, to enrich your household by the participation of your good things.» The Roman pontiff, therefore, was wont, by this formula of the Fathers' speaking, even down to those times, to extend the apostolic ray to the Church of the Constantinopolitans, governing it, as had very often been done in the arduous affairs and causes of dissensions. On that account they thought that he was willing and able to enrich his household by the participation of honours—that is, of privileges. They then subjoin to this sanction that the papal legates vehemently resisted it, endeavouring to send the same into nothing: «wishing this good too to be begun by your providence, that, as of faith, so of good ordering, the effect may be reckoned to you.»

What then? Not upon the Roman council, not upon themselves the Fathers of Chalcedon, but upon Leo do they pour back the victory of the Catholic faith—from whom likewise they hoped they would obtain that other ordering of ecclesiastical governance, on account of which they earnestly entreated him. «We beg, then (among other things they subjoin), that you honour our judgment also by your decrees; and, as we have added concordance to the head in good things, so let your Sublimity fulfil for the sons what is fitting.» 9. But now, to know whether Quesnel's cause and manner of reasoning can stand even in appearance without utterly collapsing, let it be permitted me to discourse thus from the foregoing.

Could Flavian, bishop of New Rome, most valiant martyr of Christ, have thought otherwise concerning the appeals of the Easterners, concerning the judgments of the provincial synods, than the Fathers of all the Churches of the East thought when gathered in a general synod? My opinion at least—and that of every sensible man, who does not seek a knot in a bulrush, and, led by an excessive lust for wrangling, does not busy himself to sell masked trifles for true things—must be that Flavian could not have thought otherwise concerning all these matters, apart from that which those Fathers of Chalcedon, convened in so celebrated an assembly, confessed:

namely, that the bishop of Constantinople, especially among the Easterners, was subject to the Apostolic See, and that in causes of whatever kind he had chiefly sought out, awaited, and obtained its judgment and moderation. Wherefore it must be held for certain that so great and so eminent a bishop as Flavian, adorned with holiness and the greatest merits, laid open the whole cause of Eutyches to Leo, the supreme pontiff, no preceding impulse having been given, and sent to that same Leo all the synodal Acts, exercising due subjection, so that the sentence pronounced against the heretic, if it were approved, might stand; if reproved, might vanish away.

That this can now be gathered from both of those letters of Flavian upon which alone Quesnel insists, we proved in the two preceding chapters. And since at present we are ashamed to repeat again what has already been said, and, as it were, to be led little by little to wander outside the rights of appeals, therefore we have judged that these things should be passed over, turning our discourse to other most weighty considerations. 10. And that we may discourse concerning the rights of the Church of Constantinople of that age, we must be persuaded that Flavian had no better and sincerer interpreter of the cause he was to plead than Anatolius, who after Flavian's death was assumed to the same See. I too confess that this man was not endowed with equal holiness, morals, and virtues as Flavian was.

Nevertheless, no one will go to deny that he laboured with excessive ambition for the enlarging and augmenting of his own Church's rights and prerogatives, in no way preserving that moderation which was necessary, lest by presumption and arrogance he should usurp to himself things belonging to others. But what subjection he preserved toward the Roman See, he himself indicates in his letter written to the great Leo after the Council of Chalcedon. He complains, in the first place, of Dioscorus of Alexandria, whom the synod found to be the author of so great a tempest stirred up against the common peace. «It behoves (he subjoins) that wicked man to be taken away out of the midst, who had filled the whole world with storms and tempests.»

Now Dioscorus was not only opposed to the affairs of faith, but also strenuously set himself against the ambition of the bishops of Constantinople, claiming for himself the rights of primacy over that Church which was reckoned second according to the Nicene statutes. Hence, therefore, Anatolius, having recounted those things which in that council had been established concerning the Catholic faith by the common consent of the Fathers, thus begins his discourse concerning the confirming and decreeing of the honour and prerogatives of the See of Constantinople.

«But since it was fitting that other propositions should not be dispatched, so that so great a synod might appear abundantly to supply the things that are lacking—both correction and confirmation, in canonical as in other ecclesiastical matters—it was a care to those who govern all things, and to the most magnificent and most glorious princes, and to the illustrious and celebrated senate, and to the whole clergy and people, that the most holy See which is in this royal city of Constantinople should feel an increase of honour....» But that this increase of honour might the more easily be granted to it, he appealed to that canon of the First Council of Constantinople under the emperor Theodosius: