Ad Beatum Faustum Senatorem Contra Joannem Scytham Monachum

LETTER OF TRIFOLIUS THE PRESBYTER TO THE BLESSED FAUSTUS THE SENATOR AGAINST JOHN THE SCYTHIAN MONK, A NOTE BY PHILIPPE LABBE, S.J. Whoever has carefully considered the missive of the deacon Dioscorus sent from the city of Constantinople to the Roman Pope Hormisdas concerning the Scythian monks who affirmed that one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified, and likewise the subsequent suggestion of the bishops Germanus and John, and then the letters of Pope Hormisdas and many others thereafter on the same matter, he will doubtless not unwillingly read the hitherto unpublished letter of Trifolius the presbyter on the same subject to Faustus the senator, which I found lying hidden among the papers of our Sirmondus, and now present to you, reader, so that you may form a more certain judgment concerning this entire controversy. You have deigned to command me that the Scythian monks have arrived from Constantinople, who preach that one of the Trinity was crucified, hoping from my insignificance that I might have found something of this sort in the teaching of the Fathers. This doctrine flowed from the source of Arius, and is agreeable to all heresies. Avoid whatever the four synods did not place in the definition of the faith, that is, Nicaea, Constantinople, the first Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and whatever the holy Fathers did not place in the letters which the four holy synods wished to have authority in the faith, that is, those of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria to Epictetus bishop, of Cyril to Nestorius one, and to John of Antioch another, and the letters of Pope Leo.

If anyone should wish to add, subtract, or interpret otherwise than the Fathers in the above-written [councils] or in their definition have set down, whoever that person may be who adds to it, he is a heretic. For Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, one God; voice and word and breath. Voice is the Father, word is the Son, breath is the Holy Spirit. The person of the Father and the person of the Holy Spirit are without flesh; but the person of the Son, which was always with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is in the Trinity, that is, the Word of God. God, entering into the womb of the Virgin Mary, assumed from her the nature of flesh, not the person. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is two natures, one person, the Word, that is, the Son of God, God immortal, invisible, impassible. The flesh of this Word is mortal, visible, passible. The Father is not the Father of the Trinity, but of the Son; and the Son is not of the Trinity, but of the Father; and the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Trinity, but from the Father and the Son. There are not three Gods, nor three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three Holy Spirits. Those who say that one of the Trinity suffered, if they are not Arians, let them say of which three the one suffered. Of three Fathers, or of three Sons, or of three Holy Spirits, or certainly of three Gods, as Arius says. One God is creator, impassible, immortal; another God, however, is created, passible, and mortal; or as Sabellius says, because he denies that there are three persons, but thinks they are only spoken of.

Therefore they say that one of the Trinity, the Father, was incarnate and suffered. Apollinaris, however, denies that Christ had a soul and intellect, and says that God served him in place of soul and intellect. Therefore he says that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh. If one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh, the flesh remained impassible. Those who say that the Son, one of the Trinity, suffered worship two or three Sons, of whom one suffered, two remain impassible. But if the Son is of the Trinity, he is not from the Father according to divinity, nor from the mother according to the flesh, but the Trinity is from the Trinity, and one of the Trinity becomes four, as Nestorius says: the Son of Mary was associated with the Son of God, and he became common to the Trinity, and one of the Trinity suffered. Arius divides one God into two Gods. Nestorius, by adding another Son according to the flesh to the Trinity, makes four persons. Eutyches mixes the two natures of the only Son of God, as a baker mixes flour and water; then it is neither flour nor water, but a third thing, that is, bread. Just as Eutyches mixes the natures of God and man, and then it is neither God nor man, neither Father nor Son nor Holy Spirit, but that one of the Trinity. How do they claim to follow the Council of Chalcedon, and preach what they did not receive? For in the fourth session of the Council of Chalcedon, at the end, Carosus and [the others] were asked by the judges.

Dorotheus the archimandrite spoke thus: “Eutyches said that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not of our substance; how do you confess this?” Dorotheus the archimandrite said: “We are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, confessing our Savior Jesus Christ, who descended and was incarnate from the holy Virgin Mary and was clothed in man, and was crucified, that one of the Trinity suffered.” Saying such things, the aforementioned archimandrites received condemnation along with Eutyches, and all heretics. They say: “In the letter of Proclus it is written, ‘One of the Trinity suffered.’” If heretics have falsified the letters of the Fathers Athanasius, Cyril, and Leo, which were read and confirmed in the universal holy councils, how much more the letters of Proclus, which have not been placed in the definition of any council? Heretics always try to confirm their heresies by interpreting the sayings of the Fathers badly, as Saint Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says to John of Antioch, among other things: “But when certain of those who are accustomed to pervert right things change my words into a meaning pleasing to themselves, let not your sanctity marvel at this, knowing that all heretics gather occasions for their error from the divinely inspired Scriptures.” And after a little: “Since, however, we add that some have published, corrupting the letter of our renowned father Athanasius, sent to the most blessed Epictetus, which is correct, so that through this many might be harmed.

Pope Leo to the Emperor Marcian (Epistle 75), among other things: “But because the crafty wickedness of certain heretics is said to have falsified my letter, which I gave to Flavianus of blessed memory, in order to disturb the simplicity of our people, so that by changing certain words or syllables they might assert that I am a supporter of the Nestorian error. If anything of this kind is found in the sayings of the holy Fathers which does not agree with the holy epistles or with the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, it is evident that it has been fraudulently altered by heretics. Iniquity is always spoken of, and never yields. What does it mean to say that one of the Trinity suffered, except to show that another of the Trinity is impassible, like Arius? Or what does it mean to say that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh, except to show that another is impassible, like Nestorius? But the apostolic see of Rome has never permitted a single syllable or a single letter to be added to or taken away from the faith of the Council of Chalcedon. See that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty fallacy. The above-written faith of the synod is that which agrees with the Gospel and the apostles, as the Savior says: ‘Thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise again according to the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:46). The Apostle Peter says: ‘Christ having suffered in the flesh, therefore arm yourselves with this thought’ (1 Peter 4:1). The Apostle Paul says: ‘We preach Christ, and this crucified’ (1 Corinthians 1:19).

And again he says: “Whoever preaches to you anything other than what has been preached by us, let him be anathema.” The rest appears to be missing in the manuscript. OBSERVATION OF FATHER ANTONIUS PAGI ON THE YEAR OF CHRIST 533, NUMBER 4. Since this proposition, “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh,” can be drawn into various senses—concerning which Lupus treats in his notes on the Council of Ephesus—hence so many tragedies were stirred up by it. Trifolius the presbyter, in his letter to Faustus the senator, received it with a distorted interpretation and says: “This doctrine flowed from the source of Arius and is suitable to all heresies,” etc. But this error is to be forgiven to that presbyter, who, having been questioned by letter by Faustus the senator about this proposition, and not having been informed of the faith and doctrine of the Scythian monks—but only of the disturbances stirred up by them at Constantinople and Rome—easily persuaded himself that they were asserting that proposition in a heretical sense, especially since they had the legates of Pope Hormisdas as adversaries, and the pope himself. Moreover, the proposition of the Scythians itself was not faithfully reported to Trifolius, as is clear from the beginning of his letter. For Faustus the senator asked him what he thought about this proposition: “One of the Trinity was crucified”; and yet the proposition of the Scythian monks was this: “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.” All of Trifolius’s doubts are resolved by Natalis Alexander in his Dissertation on the Sixth Century of the Church, Dissertation 1.

who, having been asked by the senator Faustus about this proposition by letter, and not having been informed about the faith and doctrine of the Scythian monks, but only about the disturbances stirred up by them at Constantinople and Rome, easily persuaded himself that they were asserting that proposition in a heretical sense, especially since they had as opponents both the legates of the Roman pontiff Hormisdas and the pontiff himself. Moreover, the proposition of the Scythians itself was not faithfully reported to Trifolius, as is clear from the beginning of his letter. For the senator Faustus asked him what he thought about this proposition: “One of the Trinity was crucified,” and yet the proposition of the Scythian monks was this: “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.” All of Trifolius’s doubts are resolved by Natalis Alexander in his Dissertation on the Sixth Century of the Church, dissertation i.