Epistolae Et Decreta

IN THE YEAR OF THE LORD 590. POPE PELAGIUS II.

THE LETTERS AND DECREES OF POPE PELAGIUS II.

LETTER ONE [formerly III],

TO GREGORY THE DEACON

That he obtain help from the emperor against the Lombards for him.

Pelagius, bishop, to his beloved son Gregory, deacon. Indeed, all the matters that were necessary I have taken care to make known to you through Honoratus the notary, whom I have sent with my brother and fellow bishop Sebastian to your belovedness, so that, since he has been in those parts as far as Ravenna until now with the glorious man lord Decius the Patrician, he himself may strive to inform you of everything by his report; or, if you judge anything necessary, you may be able to suggest it to the lord emperor. For such great calamities and tribulations have been brought upon us by the perfidy of the Lombards, contrary to their own oath, that no one could suffice to report them. But how we received the aforesaid brother Sebastian, or in what charity he was with us, as you may suggest, you will be able to learn from his own report; who also promised us that he would suggest the necessities and dangers of all Italy to the most pious lord emperor.

Speak, then, and deliberate together as to how you may be able to bring swift help to our perils, because the state here has been so straitened that, unless God inspires the heart of the most pious prince to bestow the mercy implanted in him upon his servants, and he deigns to grant over that diacoposis either one master of the soldiers or one duke, we are left destitute in every distress, since the Roman districts especially appear to be stripped of all protection. And the Exarch writes that he can offer you no remedy, inasmuch as he declares that he cannot even suffice to guard those districts. Let God therefore command him to come swiftly to the aid of our perils, before the army of that most abominable race, with God opposed to them—which may it not happen—prevails to occupy the places that are still held by the state. But hasten, with God's help, to send back to us the priest, since it is known that he is altogether necessary both in your monastery and in the work to which we have appointed him. Given on the fourth day before the Nones of October, in the third indiction.

EPISTLE II [formerly IV],

TO AUNACHARIUS, BISHOP OF AUTISSIODORUM

He commends the orthodox faith of the Frankish kings, and urges him to persuade them not to have a treaty with the Lombards, and concerning the relics which he sends. To his most beloved brother Aunarius, Pelagius, bishop of the city of Rome.

We have read the praiseworthy vows of your charity, in which you indicate that you wished to come to us, had not a heathen uprising stood in the way. For although we are always one in the Lord spiritually and at the same time, nevertheless we find that even the more ancient fathers, and the apostles themselves, sought bodily presence as well. But while you were setting forth your desires and the reasons by which you were hindered, we wondered that you paid less attention to that which stood in the way of those very excuses. For if you judge this city venerable to the world, if you proclaim that the government of all churches is directed to the peace of the apostolic see; why do you not also groan with the compassion of charity over our tribulations and temporal straits? Knowing that it is commanded us by the divine mouth through the Apostle (Rom. 13, Gal. 6), that we love one another, that we bear one another's burdens, that whenever any of the brethren is burned, we are burned: while almost in your sight so great blood of the innocent has been shed, the sacred altars are so violated, the catholic faith is so insulted by idolaters.

We know also that these temporal scourges are for testing, and, as we trust in heavenly mercy, they will profit; and our Lord will soon give joy out of tribulation, as is written by you, because those who act wickedly will be destroyed, and the enemies of God, as soon as they are exalted, will fail like smoke (Psalm 36), and generally the nations will perish from his land. For this reason it would have befitted you, who are there members of the catholic Church, joined to one body under the governance of one head, to hasten with all the strength you could to our peace and quiet for the sake of the very unity of the Holy Spirit. For we do not believe it is idle, nor arranged without great admiration of divine providence, that your kings are like the Roman empire in the confession of the orthodox faith; unless it were so that it might provide neighbors and helpers to this city, from which it had its origin, or to all Italy. Take care, therefore, dearest brother, lest, while the strength of aid has been given to us divinely for your kings, the levity of your charity toward us be reproved: you who, with your priesthood so devoted to them both in faith and in counsels, either neglect or delay to persuade them of such things. But the sacred relics, which both your charity and our most glorious son asked to be sent, we have transmitted with the sanctification that belongs to them. Wherefore we nonetheless admonish you that, as much as lies in your power, you should free from the pollution of the nations the temples of those whose power you seek.

...hasten: and most urgently give your attention to your kings, so that they hasten to separate themselves by salutary provision from the friendships and alliance of that most wicked enemy, the Lombards; lest, when the time of their vengeance comes, as we trust will quickly come to pass by divine mercy, those kings too be found to be partakers with them: because it is written: Not only those who do such things, but also those who consent with those who do them are to be punished (Rom. 1). May God keep you safe, dearest brother. Given on the third day before the Nones of October, in the reign of our lord Tiberius Augustus at Constantinople, in the seventh year.

LETTER III [formerly V].

WHICH IS THE FIRST TO ELIAS AND THE BISHOPS OF ISTRIA.

To his most beloved brothers Elias and the other bishops, to all the sons established in the regions of the Church of Istria, Bishop Pelagius of the holy catholic Church of the city of Rome.

That we send our writings to your beloved selves, brothers and dearest sons, somewhat late, should not be believed to have been due to ill will, or pretense, or negligence, but, as you know, the condition of the times and the pressure of the enemy have hindered us until now. For as the Lord says through the prophet: Does a woman forget the son of her womb (Isa. 49)? Let it not therefore be believed that we have not grieved over the division of our own flesh and blood with heavy weeping and groaning: but would that, dearest ones, the Lord might enlighten the eyes of your heart, so that you may be able to see the groaning of our heart on your behalf. For who, as the blessed apostle says (2 Cor.

XXI), is weak, and I am not weak? who is scandalized, and I am not burned? And elsewhere (1 Cor. XII): Because one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. Afterward, therefore, that God Almighty, for the felicity of the Christian princes, through the labors and solicitude of our son the most excellent Smaragdus, exarch and chartulary of the sacred palace, has deigned to grant us peace for the time being and quiet, with all solicitude we hasten to direct our present writings to you, exhorting and beseeching that no one strive to remain any longer in the division of the church. For we, according to the evangelical voice, strive humbly to exhibit to your brotherhood and love, as far as our frailty suffices, the things that have been commanded us, with sincerity of heart. For we read in the Gospel the Lord proclaiming (Luke XXII): Simon, Simon, behold Satan has sought for you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you to the Father, that your faith may not fail, and you, being converted, confirm your brothers.

Consider, most beloved, that the truth could not lie, nor could the faith of Peter be shaken or changed for eternity: for when the devil had demanded all the disciples to sift them, the Lord testifies that he prayed for Peter alone, and willed that the others be strengthened by him; to whom also, because of the greater love which he showed to the Lord beyond the others, the care of feeding the sheep was entrusted; to whom he handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and upon whom he promised that he would build his Church, and testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16). But because the enemy of the human race does not rest even to the end of the age from sowing weeds over the good seed in the Lord's Church, and therefore lest perhaps anyone, by malignant zeal, should presume to invent and argue something against the integrity of our faith at the devil's instigation, and from this your minds perhaps might seem to be disturbed, we have judged it necessary, through this present letter of ours, with tears to exhort you to return to the bowels of Mother Church, and to send you our satisfaction concerning the integrity of our faith; so that no suspicion concerning us may be able to remain in your hearts, in order that on the day of the divine and dreadful judgment I may not be found guilty of my silence.

For we hold that faith just mentioned, and with all purity of conscience we defend it even to the shedding of blood—the faith handed down by the apostles and kept inviolably through their successors, which the venerable Council of Nicaea of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers received and set down in a creed; and also the Council of Constantinople of the one hundred and fifty Fathers, held under the prince Theodosius the elder of pious memory; and likewise the first Council of Ephesus, which was presided over by our predecessor of blessed memory, Celestine, bishop of the city of Rome, and by Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; and also the Council of Chalcedon of the six hundred and thirty Fathers, which convened under the emperor Marcian of pious memory, and over which Pope Leo of holy memory presided through his legates and vicars; and, as the condemned opposition of the various heresies demanded, they proclaimed that same faith more fully, crying out with one and the same mind. But also the letter of the aforesaid Leo of blessed memory, sent to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, which is also called the Tome, we venerate in all things, we hold, we read, and according to its tenor, with the Lord's help, we preach. And just as our predecessor, the often-mentioned Pope Leo of blessed memory, received and confirmed the Council of Chalcedon, so we too, by the working of divine grace, venerate, keep, and defend it in all things.

But if anyone should think, or believe, or presume to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that, according to the judgment of those same Fathers, he is condemned and anathematized. Do not therefore allow yourselves to be stirred up again by false suspicions or rumors, and (may the Lord avert it) to remain in the division of the Church through the persuasions of wicked men. For why do you divide yourselves from the unity of the holy Church, when you know that nothing new, nothing contrary (which be far from us) is preached or held in the said Church? But it is proved in every way that one and the same faith, which is known to have been handed down by the apostles and expounded and confirmed by the holy Fathers and the four synods aforesaid, is most sincerely held and defended. Since, therefore, no question or suspicion concerning the firmness of the faith can arise among you, remain in the unity of the faith and in the bosom of the holy, catholic, and apostolic mother Church. If perchance there is any matter on account of which your minds appear to be scandalized, remaining in the charity of unity, choose from among our brothers and sons those whom you ought to send to us to inquire concerning the matters by which you are moved; and we are ready, according to the apostolic precept (1 Peter 3), both to receive them with charity and to give an account with humility for a satisfactory answer; and, when they wish to return, to send them back without any hindrance, with all love and most sincere goodwill.

Let us hear the Teacher of the Gentiles crying out: As you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as you have learned, abounding in thanksgiving. See that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty deceit, and let your studies be no longer turned to contention or superfluous questions (Colossians 2). Attend with humility of heart to the voice of the same apostle; for writing thus to Timothy he says: But avoid foolish and undisciplined questions, knowing that they generate strifes; but the servant of the Lord must not strive (2 Timothy 2); and again to the Corinthians: But if anyone among you seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor does the Church of God (1 Corinthians 11); and again after other things: God is not a God of dissension, but of peace.

Consider therefore that whoever is not in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. Likewise, writing to the Galatians he says: Those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham (Galatians 3). But the Scripture, foreseeing that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, announced beforehand to Abraham: In you all the nations shall be blessed (Genesis 22). Therefore those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham. What excuse, then, before the Lord after this present satisfaction of ours can you have any longer, when no suspicion contrary to the sincerity and purity of our faith remains in you?

Hear the power and warning of the same apostle: Do not be deceived; evil communications corrupt good morals (1 Cor. 15). Let us not, therefore, be circumvented by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs. With brotherly love, then, and humility pleasing to God, if anyone's mind seems to be scandalized in some matter, let him, remaining in the charity of unity, inquire and find out. For as the blessed James the apostle says: Where there is envy and contention, there is also instability and every evil work (Jas. 3); and again the Teacher of the Gentiles: Who has hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who called you; a little leaven corrupts the whole lump (Gal. 5); and elsewhere: I trust in the Lord that you will think nothing else; but he who disturbs you will bear the judgment, whoever he is (Ibid.); and in what follows he says: Would that those who disturb you were cut off (Ibid.)! And again he warns, saying: But if you bite and devour one another, see that you are not consumed by one another (Ibid.); and again: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not become desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Let us bear one another's burdens, and so we will fulfill the law of Christ (Ibid.); and elsewhere the same apostle says: I bow my knees to the Lord, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named, that he may grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts, rooted and grounded in love, that you may be able to comprehend with all the saints (Eph. 3). And after other things: I therefore beseech you, I, a prisoner in the Lord, that you walk worthily of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience bearing with one another in love, careful to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit, as you have been called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all (Eph. 4). And since we have such apostolic exhortations, who shall separate us from the love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord? For if with humility and weeping we diligently attend, consider, and understand that he is our deceiver, of whom it is said: Because your adversary the devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet.

to whom, according to the exhortation of the same apostle, we must with all concord and unity resist and oppose in the strength of faith. For by example we have all learned, dearest brothers and sons, how many evils and how many scourges have followed the division of the Church. Therefore we trust in his mercy, though unworthy, that if he grants to unite and pacify his Church, all the scourges which we have received for our sins will be removed from us more swiftly, and the unity and firmness of the peace of the Church will obtain for us both temporal and eternal peace.

Only this we ask, and beseech, and adjure you by the divine and terrible judgment of God, where no man will be able to help himself with arguments or excuses; that the Church of God may no longer be divided by you, but let us possess and hold the inheritance of the Lord with common zeal. And what his inheritance is, let us hear his own words which were spoken to the disciples: Peace I give you, my peace I leave you (John XIV); and again: By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John XIII). And let us all say the same thing, as the vessel of election says, and let there be no schisms among you, but let us be perfect in the same mind and in the same knowledge (I Cor.

so that, gathered into the bosom of our mother the Church, we may become one flock, and by the protection and defense of the one shepherd Christ be kept unharmed by all the snares of enemies both outside and within. These things, moreover, we have sent to you through our brother and fellow bishop Redemptus and Quodvultdeus, abbot of the greater monastery of the basilica of the blessed apostle Peter, whom may your love receive with the charity that is pleasing to God, and send back to us without delay with the joy of your unity, so that, recognizing the love and obedience of your charity, we may deserve to say together with the holy angels, truly and in common: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will (Luke 2).

EPISTLE IV [formerly VI]

WHICH IS THE SECOND TO THE BISHOPS OF ISTRIA.

Pelagius, bishop, to his most beloved brothers Elias and the other bishops of Istria.

We have received the writings of your love through those whom you sent, and having read them over, we were grieved, struck by sorrow and pain, since you have neither responded to what we wrote to you, nor, as brotherly charity required, once satisfaction for our faith had been received, have you granted obedience to return to the unity of the Church; po[st]

Finally, you did not permit those who came to be directed otherwise, so that they might allow themselves to receive a most open and most clear satisfaction; but they showed us, as it were, a written capitulary, or rather an interdict, asserting that nothing other had been enjoined upon them by you except that they should be merely bearers of your letter. Yet in it you are read to have sought no rational satisfaction, but as if you had expressed to us something already judged; how perverse this is, how unjust, and hostile to the rules of the Fathers, if you are willing to approach the knowledge of the truth, you can most splendidly learn with divine aid. Therefore it befits us to exclaim tearfully with the prophet: I was dumb, and was humbled, and kept silence from good things, and my sorrow of heart was renewed (Ps. 38). The sorrow of our heart has been renewed, when the scandal of long-lasting division is by no means overcome by such great splendor of faith, especially because, deceived by the persuasion of wicked men, you sent us writings infected with various contagions; and in the letters of the Fathers you attempted to insert certain testimonies not only incongruous, but not even pertinent to the case; so that you did not even preserve the order of the testimonies which is in those same letters of the Fathers, since what had been written under the name of one was presented under the title of another's name. In this the apostolic saying is evidently shown to apply to you: Not knowing neither what they say nor of what they affirm (1 Tim. 1).

We do not believe this should be ascribed to your malice or cunning, but we perceive it to have been sought out by the poison of the most malignant enemy, who does not rest from sowing tares through vessels of wrath in God's Church even to the end of the age. From this we understand that your brotherhood has not read the letters about which you set forth testimonies; for if the writing of them were established for you, you would not pretend that those things which were set down most openly for the sake of the faith alone apply to other matters. For this reason I exhort and desire that you be recalled more swiftly from the error of division, into which you have fallen through false opinions, and that you not (as it is written) bear the yoke with unbelievers (2 Cor 6), but rather submit gentle necks again to that yoke of which the Lord himself says: For my yoke is sweet, and my burden light (Matt 11). No one can either bear or learn this yoke in any way unless he has been subjected to that same yoke by the bonds of charity, and has submitted minds, shoulders, and strength to that burden through love, as to a spiritual load. For just as the fierceness of separation causes the understanding to be bound together through pride, so the humility of recovered charity persistently illuminates minds in the unity of the faith to the knowledge of the truth.

For this reason, by the bearers of the present letters whom your Fraternity sent, certain passages have been reread both from the Codices and from the ancient registers of the archive of the holy apostolic see, from which it appears evident that none of the matters which you set down in your letter on account of the three chapters agrees in any way, or can plausibly be fitted, with them. And therefore it is necessary that you carefully and vigilantly run through all the synodal letters, so that you may recognize more clearly that the holy Fathers confirmed nothing else concerning the synod of Chalcedon in their letters, except that the definition of the inviolable faith be preserved.

For, writing to confirm that same synod, our predecessor of blessed memory Pope Leo said among other things: "Therefore, lest it seem doubtful to malicious interpreters whether I have approved what was unanimously established concerning the faith by your assembly in the Council of Chalcedon, I have sent these writings to all my brothers and fellow bishops who took part in the aforesaid council; and the most glorious and most clement prince, as I requested, will deign to bring them to your notice out of love for the catholic faith, so that both the brotherhood universally and the hearts of all the faithful may know that I have fortified my own judgment with you not only through the brothers who acted in my stead, but also through the examination of the synodal proceedings: namely, in the matter of faith alone (which must often be said), for which it pleased that a general council be convened, both by the command of the most Christian princes and by the consent of the apostolic see." [Thus far the words of Saint Leo.]

But lest perhaps some question or doubt still seem to remain in your minds, we have likewise taken care to indicate more openly what he wrote to Maximus, bishop of the Church of Antioch. After many things, then, he says thus: "If indeed anything is reported to have been done by those brothers whom I sent in my place to the holy synod beyond what pertained to the cause of the faith, it shall have no validity: for they were sent by the apostolic see only for this purpose, that with heresies cut off, they might be defenders of the catholic faith. For whatever is brought before episcopal examination beyond the special causes of synodal councils can have the capacity of being judged," etc. Behold, as was said above, you recognize, dearest brothers, that our often-mentioned predecessor confirmed nothing other than those things which were defined concerning the firmness of the faith, which you can more fully recognize in almost all his letters, if you wish. For the private causes which were handled there after the definition of the faith, he not only did not confirm in the least, but even granted that they be reconsidered and judged.

In the encyclical letters, however (which is the collection of episcopal letters, from which you have likewise incongruously placed certain testimonies in your writings), you will be able to be more fully informed by reading them—even while we remain silent—as to where the matter arose from, or what the emperor Leo of pious memory wrote to the priests throughout all the provinces by way of consultation, or how he received their responses: so that hereafter no evil device of depravity may find in your hearts a place for stealthy intrusion. For we, on account of the length of this letter, have declined to set forth the order of the case itself. For if with the zeal of charity you carefully and vigilantly read the things written by us with the fear of the Lord, you will easily perceive how great is the danger of being separated for so long from the universal Church on account of superfluous questions and the defense of heretical chapters.

Do not, therefore, out of love of boasting, which is always very close to pride, remain in the vice of obstinacy, since on the day of judgment none of you will be able to excuse himself, and neither Theodore of Mopsuestia nor the letter of Ibas, which has been brought forward by the adversaries, will be able to come to your aid before the tribunal of so great a judge. Let us therefore obey the teacher of the Gentiles, who says in the first epistle to the Corinthians: "Desire the better gifts, and yet I show you a more excellent way" (1 Cor. 12).

Since, then, he promises that these things are greater and must be demonstrated by himself, let us hear him more attentively from his own words: If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, and if I distribute all my goods as food for the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not charity, it profits me nothing (Ibid. XIII); and again: Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greater of these is charity (Ibid.). What confidence, then, will you be able to have before the Lord, when you see that no scandal is generated for you concerning the integrity of our faith, yet for so long a time, through superfluous questions, you endure to be divided from the Church of God, which is one, and from brotherly charity. For where the Church is established, although it is clear by the voice of the Lord himself in the holy Gospel, let us nevertheless hear what the blessed Augustine, mindful of that same dominical sentence, defined. For in those, he says, the Church of God is established who are known to preside over the apostolic sees by succession of bishops. And whoever withdraws himself from the communion or authority of those same sees is shown to be in schism. And after other things: Placed outside, even if you die for the name of Christ, you will not be numbered among the members of Christ. Endure for Christ, clinging to the body; fight for the head.

But also the blessed Cyprian, that distinguished martyr, in the book which he changed to the title On Unity, says among other things: The beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, so that one Church of Christ and one chair may be shown; and all are shepherds, but one flock is shown, which is fed by the apostles in unanimous consent. And after a few words: Whoever does not hold this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the faith? Whoever deserts the chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, and resists it, does he trust that he is in the Church? Likewise after other words: They cannot come to the reward of peace, because they have broken the peace of the Lord by the fury of discord.

Likewise from the same book he says thus: He calls back from the altar those who come to the sacrifice with dissension, and commands them first to be at peace with their brother, then, returning with peace, to offer the gift to the Lord (Matt. 5); because God did not look upon Cain's gifts either (Gen. 4); for he could not have the Lord at peace with him, who did not have peace with his brother through the discord of jealousy. What peace, then, do the enemies of brothers promise to themselves? What sacrifices do they believe they celebrate, these rivals of the priests? Do they think that Christ is with them when they have gathered, these who are gathered outside the Church? Even if such men are killed in the confession of the name, that stain is not washed away even by blood. The inexpiable and grave guilt of discord is not purged even by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he cannot come to the kingdom who has abandoned her who is to reign.

And after other things: Since they cannot remain with God who have refused to be of one mind in the Church of God, even though they burn, handed over to flames and fires, or cast to beasts and lay down their lives, that will not be the crown of faith but the punishment of treachery; nor will the end be a glorious one of religious virtue, but a destruction of despair. Such a one can be killed, but cannot be crowned.

Likewise of the same: Does he seem to himself to be with Christ who acts against the priests of Christ? Who separates himself from the company of His clergy and people? He bears arms against God, he fights against God's ordinance; an enemy of the altar, a rebel against the sacrifice of Christ, faithless for faith, sacrilegious for religion, a disobedient servant, an impious son, an enemy brother, despising the bishops and forsaking the priests of God, he dares to set up another altar. Likewise the same as above: The crime of schism is worse than that of those who have sacrificed, who nevertheless, established in penitence for their crime, entreat the Lord with the intercessions of the people. Here the Church is sought and entreated, there the Church is resisted. Here necessity could have existed, there the will is held in crime. Here he who fell harmed only himself, there he who attempts to make heresy or schism has deceived many by drawing them with him. Here is the loss of one soul, there the danger of many.

Surely here he understands that he has sinned and laments it, while that other, swelling in his sin and pleasing himself with his very pleasures, separates sons from their mother, unsettles the sheep from the shepherd, disturbs the sacraments of God; and whereas the fallen one sinned once, that one sins daily. Finally, the fallen one, having afterward obtained martyrdom, can receive the promises of the kingdom; that one, if he is killed outside the Church, cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.

Likewise he who is above: But if discipline is frequently and everywhere commanded in the Holy Scriptures, and the foundation of religion proceeds from the observance and fear of the faith, what should we more eagerly desire, what more wish and hold fast, than that, with our roots more firmly fixed and our dwellings solidified upon the mass of a strong rock, we stand unshaken against the storms and whirlwinds of the world, so that through the divine precepts we may be able to come to the gifts of God?

And therefore we exhort your love and beseech you, that, recognizing such terrible testimonies of the Fathers, you by no means allow yourselves to persist any longer in the division of the Church; but hasten with the whole intent of your mind to return into the bosom of the holy mother, catholic and apostolic, so that, rooted in the charity of unity and founded, we may deserve to say: Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity (Ps. 132); truly exclaiming: Our mouth is filled with joy, and our tongue with exultation (Ps. 125).

To these, indeed in a shorter style but with abundant charity in our replies, we trust, both from the minds of your fraternity and from the power of divine mercy, that you will without doubt be restored more swiftly to the holy Church. If, however, on account of our own sins still, the enemy of souls has brought upon you something of obstinacy (which be far from us) or of doubt, according as the concluding part of our record of the proceedings held before us contains, and as we have taken care to entreat our most excellent lord and son Smaragdus, exarch of Italy, hasten to send to us here persons instructed, to whom the account may more easily be rendered and received, so that thereafter no doubt or delay concerning your consent may remain, if full satisfaction be rendered to them. Or if, on account of the distance of places or the condition of the times, you are afraid, let a gathering of priests be held there at Ravenna, to which we also, with divine favor, will direct those who are to be present in our place, from whom you may receive most full satisfaction; so that simple souls, divided from the holy Church on account of superfluous questions, may not remain in such long obstinacy, nor through you, whom it befits to be the guardians of the Lord's flock, may the sheep wandering from the ecclesiastical folds be trampled by the teeth of the rapacious wolf.

LETTER V [formerly VII],

WHICH IS THE THIRD TO ELIAS AND THE BISHOPS OF ISTRIA.

Blessed Gregory mentions this letter in book II, epistle 36, to the bishops of Ireland, which he calls a book. Paul Warnefrid testifies in book III of the Deeds of the Lombards, chapter 10, at 20, that it was written by the same blessed Gregory, while he was still a deacon, in the name of Pope Pelagius.

To his most beloved brothers, Elias and all the bishops established in the regions of Istria, Bishop Pelagius.

I. Charity, the mother of virtues (1 Cor 13), which serves the gains of its Redeemer, which never seeks the things that are its own, has impelled me with eager desire long since to send to your fraternity writings full of sweetness, which might join to its body the members of Christ that have long been separated. In these, speaking more by prayers than by admonitions, I took care to exhort, with such affection as I could, that your Belovedness should direct here those whom it foresaw to be fit for the discussion of the matter, so that in the business of the Three Chapters they might learn whatever is clear, or whatever might perhaps seem obscure, the conference of a peaceable intention would open to them. At length I received the writings of your Belovedness, which did not seek the grounds of reason, but imposed a judgment already deliberated among you. But this that I see you dare on the basis of your own wisdom, I confess I wonder at with grief; and indeed through letters I have shown, as I think, examples of humility, and offered a model of love.

But when I found that the words of my admonition profited nothing among you, weeping and groaning with the prophet I am compelled to cry out: We have healed Babylon, and she is not healed (Jer. LI). I kindled the fire of charity as much as I could, and I wished to burn away the rust of so great a schism; but I found the prophet's sentence fulfilled because of your sins, who says: In vain has the refiner refined, his dross is not consumed (Jer. VI). No flame of charity is seen in your replies, they breathe no sweetness even after the example, in all their words, nothing that leads to peace resounds. Consider, I beg you, this thing (which I cannot say except with sobbing breaking in) — by how much coldness of mind your brotherhood has grown numb through the long practice of division, which does not grow warm even when rubbed. What then shall I do amid these things, except turn to tears for you? For since the roaring lion has gone about seeking whom he may devour (I Petr. V), I know that you also are standing outside the folds of the sheep [to be devoured]. I see branches not cut off from the fruits by use, but severed from the root of the vine. And I behold you as laborers sweating, but nevertheless I do not ignore that you labor outside the vineyard. Behold, with the end pressing on, all things are being laid waste, the earth is being reduced to solitude, and (so to speak) the storm of the flood is overthrowing the world, and your brotherhood flees the ark. With Jeremiah I say: Who will give water to my head and a fountain of tears to my eyes (Jer.

and again: Let our eyes shed tears, and let our eyelids flow with waters (ibid.); I will say with him again: I will weep and take my rest. For since I find no rest of concord in your heart, I spread tears before my weary mind. For what rest can my spirit have, if it cannot heal the wound inflicted by the hidden enemy? Behold, in all parts of the world the holy and universal Church shines with the rays of her unity, yet still she endures the shadow of your division. Everywhere she persists in the state of the faith; but the wound which she bears from your cutting off prevents her from rejoicing in her own salvation. For neither does the sound part rejoice over mourning arms; nor does the breast rejoice as though it were unharmed, when it is touched by the pains of the members beneath it; for the whole framework of the body is affected, if even its outermost part is torn. Whatever it is, then, that it perceives another to suffer, the harmony of charity draws into itself, as Paul attests, who says: And if one member suffers, the other members suffer with it (1 Cor. XI). We, then, are they who are pierced through by your grief, we who are wounded by your divisions. By how much, therefore, we are compelled by charity to feel your losses as our own, by so much ought we to hasten to succor them with consolation. For even if perchance we wish to delay, we are terrified by the voice of the heavenly rebuke, which, rebuking slothful shepherds, says: That which was broken you have not bound up, and that which was cast away you have not brought back, and that which was lost you have not sought.

If we wish to defer, we are rebuked as men of indiscreet invention, concerning which the Lord says through the prophet: Is there no balm in Gilead, or is there no physician there? Why then is not the wound of the daughter of my people healed (Ezek. 34)? For what is signified by the balm, which is a fomentation for fire and which also joins scattered marbles into the ornament of a house, if not charity? It both kindles hearts in love and, so that it may compose the holy Church with the ornament of unity, binds together discordant minds of men through the zeal of peace within itself. What is signified by Gilead, which is interpreted as a heap of testimony, if not the depth of sacred Scripture, where the countless density of meanings speaks? What is signified by the word physician, if not each individual preacher? What is signified by the unhealed wound of the daughter, if not that the guilt of the people is shown naked before the eyes of God? Therefore the balm is proven to have been absent in Gilead if, for the sake of showing the truth, when so many testimonies of sacred Scripture are present, by associating you with the holy Church, the fire of charity is by no means worthily exhibited; and, as if with the physician absent, the wound is not healed if, with exhortation ceasing, the guilt of so great a division is covered by no veil of the peace that follows. But now it is time for us to touch the very wounds of your reception, and, with God as author, to apply to them the remedies of revealed truth.

II. From what was done in the times of the prince Justinian, of pious memory, your fraternity suspects that the holy synod of Chalcedon was convulsed. But far be this from a Christian work, from a Christian thought. For in it indeed the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, and the first synod of Ephesus are confirmed; and whoever strives to tear down that part by any means, is attempting, without doubt, to destroy utterly those which were confirmed through it. To this suspicion, in your writings, you add testimonies from the letters and encyclicals of our holy predecessor Leo, so that it may be shown that the aforesaid holy synod of Chalcedon ought to be observed inviolate. These indeed, dearest brothers, taken from a few letters, you have set down in a mixed and confused order, so that while another letter is inserted in between, and there is a return to other words of the earlier letter, they might seem to have been brought forth from many letters. And we wonder greatly why your fraternity has taken not a few things from so (as we said) few letters, when it is evident that both the assertion of our predecessors and the consensus of many Fathers in encyclicals concerning the inviolate veneration of the holy synod of Chalcedon, as a kind of light, has poured itself into the world for us.

But because the order of dictation is always joined to itself with such connection that both the preceding serve the following and the following depend from the preceding, we disclose the meaning of what has been set forth better if, reading below and above, we show either whither they tend or whence they hang.

III. Therefore, first from your belovedness the testimony of our holy predecessor Leo is set forth, which is contained in his last letter, where he says: Concerning the matters defined at Nicaea and at Chalcedon as it pleased God, we dare to enter into no discussion, as if those things were doubtful or weak which have such great authority through the Holy Spirit of the Son. To which a second testimony from that letter is joined by you, which is had a little above in that place, where it is said: Because, as you have said holily and truly, perfection does not receive increase and addition, nor does fullness receive addition. But with two testimonies taken from the encyclicals interposed, the words of our aforementioned predecessor Leo, again written to the prince Leo, are repeated by your writing, by which it is said: To wish to move legitimate constitutions inspired by God is not the part of a peaceful man, but of a rebel, since the apostle says: To contend in words is useful for nothing, except for the subversion of the hearers. For if it were always free to dispute by human persuasions, there could never be lacking those who dare to resist the truth.

And again his words to him: Do not allow the contests that have been extinguished to rise again in revived conflicts against the triumphs of the right hand of almighty God. You have added after a few words his testimony to this: nothing at all is to be reconsidered concerning things well settled. But the last testimony is set forth by you, which is contained in his earlier letter, from which many testimonies had already been brought forward, and it is stated first: To seek what has already been made manifest, to reconsider what has been perfected, and to tear down what has been defined—what else is this than to show no gratitude for the things attained, and to stretch wicked appetites of deadly desire toward the food of the forbidden tree? These, most beloved brothers, are the words of blessed Leo to the emperor Leo which you have set forth; words which, namely, are brought forward by him for the safeguarding of unblemished faith, and not for the special causes of bishops which were conducted at Chalcedon. For since he said this for the undefiled observance of faith alone, it must be weighed what he set down beforehand in the same letter; for he says, speaking to the same emperor: Beyond the care of temporal affairs, you continually devote the service of religious providence to divine and eternal arrangements, so that namely the catholic faith, which alone gives life to the human race, which alone sanctifies, may remain in one confession; and the dissensions which arise from the variety of earthly opinions may be driven away from the solidity of that rock upon which the city of God is built.

If therefore, dearest brothers, you did not see the faith flourishing in one solid state throughout all parts of the world, you would rightly say that something had been torn away from the holy Synod of Chalcedon. But since nothing else is now at issue except concerning persons, you seek nothing concerning the faith of the holy Synod of Chalcedon, and you decline the authority of the fathers as though by following them. For indeed, so that the blessed Leo might show them that what has been perfected ought not to be reopened, he immediately added, to show with what intention he had said this (Ibid.): Because for the peace of the universal Church and for the guardianship of the catholic faith, deign to be solicitous with more careful attention. What then, when he forbade that things defined be overturned, did he immediately add an admonition concerning the guardianship of the catholic faith, and show that he had said this not about reopening particular cases, but about the confession alone? For those things are now turned about in your question which he himself, our predecessor the blessed Leo, also judges; since he confirms nothing except those things which were established concerning the faith at Chalcedon. For he himself, writing to Anatolius, bishop of the city of Constantinople, while reproving him for a certain new presumption, says (Epist. 58): That you drag the holy synod, gathered by the zeal of the most Christian prince solely to extinguish heresy and to confirm the catholic faith, into an occasion of ambition.

(And again (Ibid.): he wished so to abuse the synodal council that the brothers, convened only for the business of the faith and engaged in the matter of its definition, which was to be handled [having discharged the matter of its definition], he might either by corrupting draw them over to consent to him, or by terrifying compel them.) So that he might show that he in no way received anything from the Council of Chalcedon except what had been done concerning the faith alone, writing to the same council, he says (Epist. 61): That both the whole brotherhood of brothers and the hearts of all the faithful may know that not only through the brothers who carried out my office, but also through the approval of the synodal acts, my own judgment has entered with you, namely in the matter of faith alone, as must often be said. (He therefore who, with the Council of Chalcedon convened in the matter of faith alone, shows himself to be a stranger beyond doubt to all the things that were specifically enacted there. Hence it is again that, when writing to the aforementioned Anatolius concerning receiving the presbyter Atticus, he says (Epist. 77): So that he professes that he will in all things observe the definition of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the faith, to which your beloved also consented by subscribing, and which the authority of the apostolic see confirmed.) He who, in saying the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, did not also add "concerning the faith," would not have done so vigilantly, unless he had rejected the causes that were specifically raised there (he would nevertheless except only those) which singularly displeased him.

But after the synod received nothing other than the definition of faith, what is this other than that it refuted the remaining matters which were specially raised there? For neither, if he wished, would he fear to censure only the one cause of the aforesaid Anatolius, who did not approve this by his judgment, and did not fear to indicate it by letters running about to the most serene princes and to its author, the same Anatolius. But since he speaks privately both concerning that same Anatolius and again, writing to the synod, confesses that he receives what had been done concerning faith alone, it is clear that he both rebuked Anatolius concerning the special cause of the crime and conceded that all private business which had been raised in the synod be reconsidered.

IV. Again in your writing a testimony and example from the encyclicals is put forward, that many bishops say at once: Nor can we move or change one iota or letter of those things which were decreed at Chalcedon.

(To this you also appended another testimony, as if from the same epistle, which is undoubtedly that of Anatolius, bishop of the city of Constantinople, in which he says: But concerning the holy synod of Chalcedon I say that to seek it again, or to overturn any of the things which were determined by it, belongs to men who are merely lying in wait for the Churches and for the universal peace of Christ.) In this matter, let him who forbids it to be overturned and convulsed add his own words; for he says: Since the apostolic and paternal dogmas once handed down to us have been strengthened and confirmed in this. (If, therefore, it belongs to men who lie in wait to convulse the apostolic and paternal dogmas, it is beyond doubt that those who receive the same paternal and apostolic dogmas unimpaired are not men who lie in wait. For we retain the faith of the same synod undefiled, with God as author, and so we pass over the private matters which were conducted there, together with our holy predecessor Leo, as to reserve the definition of faith there set forth, even at the risk of death. But in the preceding testimony, whether the speaker or the writer erred in the case of many bishops at once, we do not know; for it is not contained in the encyclical letters, as you yourselves have placed it in your writings. For we cannot move or violate one iota or one letter of those things which were rightly and inviolably defined by it.) But it is far different that those things which have been decreed cannot be moved, and that those things which have been rightly and blamelessly decreed cannot be moved.

For those most learned men knew that the things which had been done there concerning special causes had by no means been received by our predecessor Leo; and therefore they write most cautiously that those things which were rightly and blamelessly defined by it ought not to be disturbed or violated, lest, if they said they confirmed all things, they should often oppose the sentence of our aforesaid predecessor Leo. Hence also they immediately add there: Let us always be wise in this way, as the Church of the apostolic Roman see is wise.

V. After these examples also of our same predecessor Leo, you have set forth a testimony to Bishop Basilius, in which he says: I beseech your Belovedness that you in no way relax your mind from the definitions of the synod of Chalcedon; and suffer not those things which have been composed by divine inspiration to be rashly violated by any novelty (and again: But so that this exhortation may be able to come to the knowledge of all the brethren and fellow bishops, let the care of your Fraternity diligently observe, because (as must often be said) the whole Christian religion is thrown into confusion, if anything of those things which were established at Chalcedon is torn down.) But whether he asserts this concerning the special causes of certain persons, or concerning the definition of the holy faith, let it be inquired what he himself says above; for he says: I have sent these writings, by which I believed your Belovedness should be admonished, that with holy constancy you resist wicked daring, lest in anyone our common faith be found either fearful or lukewarm.

He therefore who first gave the admonition to keep the faith, showed where he wished the synod to be observed. But if we are uncertain about the words of this letter, let us inquire from his other letters in what sense he said these things. For when he directed his writings to the Emperor Marcian on behalf of the same synod, he says (Epist. 59): I have sent writings to Your Glory and to the bishop of Constantinople, which would clearly show that I approve the things which were defined concerning the catholic faith in the aforesaid synod. If, then, he received all the special causes of that same synod, why does he specifically assert that he approves the things which were defined concerning the catholic faith in the aforesaid synod? Again, also writing to the aforesaid prince (Ibid.): Since in every way obedience must be given to your power and your most religious will, I have freely added my sentence to the synodal constitutions which pleased me concerning the confirmation of the catholic faith. If, therefore, he asserts that the confirmation of the catholic faith pleased him and that he added his sentence to it, it is clear that he did not add his sentence in those matters in which there was no confirmation of the faith.

VI. Moreover, you insert into your writings a testimony from a letter of the same blessed Leo, which says to Basil: We must act piously and constantly—lest, while disputation about such matters is admitted, derogation be made from the authority of those things which have been divinely defined. And below: For fully defined matters are not to be recalled to any dispute, lest we ourselves seem, at the whim of the condemned, to be in doubt about those things which it is manifest agree in all respects with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities. (But what things he asserts were either divinely defined above or fully defined below, let your Fraternity consider from that letter or from his others, in which he never commemorates specific acts, but confirms only those things which have been brought forward concerning the faith. Whence in these words too it is vigilantly impressed, and attention is paid to what he said were fully defined, when he says: Lest we seem to be in doubt about those very things which it is manifest agree in all respects with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities.) Consider, I ask, dearest brothers, whether the writings of Theodore agree with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities—writings which with wicked daring deny our Redeemer to be Lord.

Consider whether that letter seems to be in harmony with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities, in which both Nestorius, the enemy of the Church, is defended, and Cyril, the defender of the Church, is accused. Consider whether those writings of Theodoret are in harmony with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities, which, having been published earlier against the right faith, he himself, after his conversion, later condemns. You also set forth the testimony of the often-mentioned blessed Leo to the presbyter Aetius, in which he says: Let not the contest over matters that have been laid to rest be allowed to be brought forward, since the one who reopens them is found to be not a player but a sacrilegious person. (What matters he asserts this about, he himself makes clear in writing to the same Aetius, saying: I will never be able to hold anything different from the apostolic teachings, nor will I myself deviate from my own judgment; and what I confessed with the Holy Spirit revealing it, and what I set forth publicly with the whole synod proclaiming it in confession with me, let me not change by any variation: since it would be easier for me to be taken from this world by any punishments whatsoever, than to be changed from the confession which I believed universally.) If, therefore, the only thing that ought not to be reopened is the confession of faith, then that person will be a sacrilegious reopener of matters who is found to be at variance with that confession. For that the same blessed Leo, with the greatest ardor, guarded the confession of faith alone in the synod, he shows in countless letters, from which we briefly touch on a few, so that your Fraternity, being made more certain by them, may gather how many we pass over in silence.

For this is why he addresses the Emperor Marcian in his writing, saying: "But let Your Clemency know that I have specifically delegated to my brother Julian the bishop this task: that whatever he shall have judged there to pertain to the guarding of the faith, he should confidently suggest in my name to your authority." This is why, writing to the Empress Pulcheria, he says: "But that the most pious emperor wished me to direct letters to all the bishops who were present at the Council of Chalcedon, by which I might confirm what was defined there concerning the rule of faith, I have gladly fulfilled." This is why, writing to Julian the bishop, he says: "What the most merciful emperor deemed necessary, I have gladly fulfilled, so that I might direct letters to all the brethren who were present at the Council of Chalcedon, by which I might show that what was confirmed by our holy brethren concerning the rule of faith has pleased me." This is why, writing again to the Empress Pulcheria, he says: "But as to my brother Julian, your venerator, how far your Dignity ought to trust him, judge by the judgment of the apostolic see, since in the cause of the faith, to which your glorious Piety is devoted, I have to that extent delegated my own role to him, so that, not departing from the observance owed to you, he does not cease to present matters to your Piety." For in mentioning the cause of the faith, he would by no means say "to that extent," unless he had wished whatever was done outside the faith to be excluded from the council.

VII. Again, it is said through your letter that you have been taught by the apostolic see and confirmed by the archive of the holy Church, which by God's authority we preside over, so that you ought not to consent to this matter which was carried out under the prince of pious memory Justinian; and you add this assistance to your excuse, saying that at the beginning of the case both the apostolic see through Pope Vigilius and all the leaders of the Latin provinces bravely resisted the condemnation of the Three Chapters. In these words we note that the very matter which ought to have provoked you to consent, draws you away from consent. For the Latin men, ignorant of Greek learning, since they did not know the language, came to recognize the error late; and they ought to have been believed all the more quickly, the more their constancy did not rest from the struggle until they knew the truth; and certainly your Fraternity would rightly despise their consent, if with rash presumption they had consented before they knew the truth. But after they had labored long and contended for a long time even to the point of insults, let your Fraternity consider from this that they would not suddenly abandon so many labors unless they had recognized what is true.

For what do we believe, brothers, was the purpose of the divine counsel in this, that almighty God for a long time permitted Saul to be a resister of his faith, and then made him a preacher of his faith, except to show to all those to whom he was to preach through him that the Gospel of God is utterly true, since he preached it even when such hardness had been bent, so that when his hearers recalled the things done by him against the faithful, they would suddenly perceive that he had been turned to the faith not without evident reason? Hence he himself also, when he told the Lord that his preaching ought readily to be received by unbelievers, said: Lord, they themselves know that I was shutting them up in prison and believing through the synagogues those who believed in you. And when he saw that the Galatians, having abandoned the rule of the Gospel, had turned aside into the error of Judaism, he recounted to them his former hardness against the Gospel, and turned their minds back from the intention of their perfidy, saying: You have heard of my manner of life at one time in Judaism, that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God and was assaulting it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more abundantly a zealot for my ancestral traditions. But when it pleased him who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I did not acquiesce in flesh and blood.

Behold, dearest brothers, because the distinguished teacher Paul resisted the truth for a long time, from that very resistance he drew support for strengthening the hearts of his hearers in the preaching of the same truth, showing beyond doubt that the faith which he had earlier resisted with such great effort he afterward did not hold without the certainty of great reasoning.

VIII. Therefore your Belovedness ought to consider that the consensus of our predecessors in this matter was not in vain afterward, inasmuch as it first labored long in the hard toils of contradiction. But beyond these things, let your Brotherhood recall to memory the deed of Peter, which surpasses Paul. For he resisted for a long time, so that the holy Church should not receive the nations into the faith without circumcision; for a long time he withdrew himself from communion with converted nations, as Paul testifies, who says: When he had come to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he was to be blamed. For before certain ones came from James, he was eating with the nations; but when they had come, he withdrew himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision (Galatians 1). And a little later: And when I had seen that he was not walking rightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all: If you, being a Jew, live in a Gentile manner and not in a Jewish manner, how do you compel the nations to judaize?

Nevertheless, when he had afterward taken up the matter with the same Paul, seeing certain people who were burdening the Gentiles coming to the Church with the weight of observing circumcision, he says: "Why do you test God by imposing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15). Surely, most chosen brothers, should Peter, the prince of the apostles, who was teaching things different from himself, have been answered with these words: "These things you say, we cannot listen to, because you preached otherwise before"? If, therefore, in the matter of the Three Chapters, one thing was said when the truth was being sought, and another when the truth had been found, why is a change of opinion charged as a crime against this see, which the whole Church humbly venerates in its author? For it is not a change of opinion but inconstancy of mind that is at fault. When, then, the intention remains unchangeable in the pursuit of what is right, what does it hinder if, abandoning its ignorance, it changes its words? Concerning the very author of all things, God, we also know from the testimony of Scripture that when his counsel does not remain [perhaps he changes, he often changes his sentence; for no unforeseen outcome had come to him, when concerning him whom he himself had commanded to be anointed, he said: "I repent that I have anointed Saul king over Israel" (1 Kings 15).

He surely foreknew that he would do this even then, when he set him forward as if approving him; nor did sorrow come upon him for repentance as if unforeseen, but nevertheless he indicates that he repented, because, without changing his plan, he altered the words he had previously spoken about him.

IX. But in those testimonies which you have set forth from the letters of Leo our predecessor, you prefaced them by saying: It is the doctrine of your revered see, through blessed Leo and his successors, of which we have presumed to recall a few points, that a dead man ought by no means to be condemned by men; and yet you have appended none of his testimonies by which you would confirm this sentence. For the things subjoined by you forbid a retractation of the faith to be made, but they do not contradict the claim that unbelievers who are dead are condemned. But neither do we remember that blessed Leo our predecessor said this in any place. For who does not know that in nothing does the preaching of the same Leo contradict blessed Augustine? For he himself, writing to Count Boniface, says: If the things which were objected against Caecilian by them were true, and could at some time be shown to us, we would already anathematize him, now dead. But nevertheless we ought not to abandon the Church of Christ, which is not fashioned by contentious opinions, but is approved by divine testimonies, on account of any man.

Behold, the wondrous preacher both forbids the tearing of the Church on account of a man, and, if he detects any perverse things, he does not refuse even to anathematize after death that Caecilian whom he publicly defended, because, namely, provision is truly made for the living only when a fault committed in the faith is loosed without any admonition intervening. But if we perhaps presume to say that this ought to be done, we undoubtedly do what we forbid to be done. Indeed, the holy first synod of Ephesus condemned the dead Theodore (Act. VI). For when the symbol dictated by him had been brought forward by his disciples at that same synod, it was immediately condemned there by the holy Fathers together with its author. And indeed those same holy Fathers presiding at that same synod were received by the Lord after they had condemned Theodore; and if we say that a dead man ought not to have been condemned, we undoubtedly accuse the dead, and we begin to commit what we strive to forbid. But why do we speak at length and of things you know? Let us repeat the sayings of the same Theodore from his books. And if Theodore condemned Jesus our Lord and God, who lives after death—indeed, because he is believed to live—after death without hesitation; for our faith does not suffer that he who by so many blasphemies has shown himself an enemy to our Redeemer should be defended by you any further. For he himself, speaking against Apollinaris in the third book, says (Sup. coll. 4):

X. How, then, do you, who above all others are most fittingly charged with the governance of minds, say that he who was born of the Virgin is God, and is to be considered consubstantial with the Father from God, unless perhaps you do not command that his creation be imputed to the Holy Spirit? But who is God, and from God, and consubstantial with the Father? Is it the same one who was born of the Virgin—O wonder!—and who according to the divine Scriptures was formed through the Holy Spirit, and received his fashioning in a woman's womb? Perhaps it was present, because as soon as he was formed, he received it that he might be a temple of God; yet we must not think that God was born of the Virgin. And after a few words: Nor according to your voice is it to be proclaimed that God was altogether born of the Virgin, and from God, consubstantial with the Father. And after a few words: If, therefore, they say that he was born in the flesh, but that what was born is God, and from God, and consubstantial with the Father, it is necessary to call this also flesh; but if this is not flesh, since neither is it God, nor from God, nor consubstantial with the Father, but from the seed of David, and consubstantial with him whose seed it is, then what was born of the Virgin is not God, and from God, and consubstantial with the Father.

And shortly after: “The Word is not God who was born of Mary, but he who is of the seed of David was born of Mary; the Word is not God who was born of a woman.” And again: “For that which was said, ‘He was led by the Spirit’ (Matt. 4), clearly signifies this: that he was governed by him, strengthened by him for the will of the things set before him, led by him to those things which were fitting, taught by him what was becoming, strengthened by him in his thoughts, so that he might suffice for so great a contest, just as the blessed Paul also says: ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God’ (Rom. 8).”

The same author as above: “Let them therefore tell us, the wisest of all, if, according to the understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ who is according to the flesh, the divinity had been made, as they say, why did Christ need the cooperation of the Holy Spirit for these things? For the divinity of the Only-begotten did not need the Spirit for justification; he needed the Spirit for conquering the devil, he needed the Spirit for working miracles; he needed the Spirit that he might be taught the things which it was fitting to accomplish; he needed the Spirit that he might appear spotless.

And after a few things: As if Jesus were saying: I indeed, whom you see, can do nothing according to my own nature, since I am a man, but I work, because the Father abiding in me does all things (John XIV). For since I also am in the Father, and the Father in me (Ibid.), and the only-begotten Word of God is God in me, it is certain that the Father also abides with him in me, and does the works. And it is not to be wondered at that these things are thought concerning Christ, since he himself plainly says concerning other men: He who loves me will keep my word: and the Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our dwelling with him (Ibid.). And again: He knew subtly, so as to make known piety to the nations, yet to suffer the infirmities of those who labor, and thus to bring his will to effect: and he was justified from this, and shown immaculate, whether by the reparation of worse things, or by the guarding of better things, or even by gradual advances toward better things.

And after a few things, from the same Theodore's commentary on John: He says to Thomas: Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and stretch out your hand, and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believing (John 20). Because, he says, you do not believe, and you think that touch alone is sufficient for you to believe (for in saying these things I did not lie hidden from you), touch with your hand, and take proof, and learn to believe, and not to distrust. Indeed when Thomas had thus believed, he says, My Lord and my God, not calling him Lord and God (for the knowledge of the resurrection did not teach that he who rose was also God), but as if for a miracle done, he praises God as God. From the same Theodore's commentary which is on the book of the Acts of the Apostles, chapter one: But he said that it was necessary for them, repenting of the iniquity of the cross, and recognizing the Savior and Lord and author of all good things, Jesus Christ, since through these things the divine nature came and was taken up, to receive the faith in the Spirit, and to become his disciples, first of all approaching baptism, which he himself also handed down to us, having indeed a reformation of inspiration, a preformation of things to come, but to be celebrated in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For this which is: And let each one be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts

He does not say this to mean that, abandoning the calling which is in no one of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one should call upon Jesus Christ in baptism; but as it is with this, that they were baptized in Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10), so that he might say that under the cloud and in the sea they were separated from the Egyptians and freed from their slavery, that they might attend to the laws of Moses; such also is it that each one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: that when they had come to him as to the Savior and author of all good things and teacher of truth, they might be called by him as by the author of good things and teacher of truth, just as it is the custom for all men following any sect whatever to be called after the very founder of the doctrine, as Platonists, and Epicureans, and Manichaeans, and Marcionites, and indeed such are so called. For in the same way the apostles judged that we also should be named Christians.

From the same Theodore, in the books On the Incarnation: The Lord was more troubled, and had a greater struggle against the passions of the soul than of the body; and with a better mind he conquered desires, through the mediation of the Godhead unto perfection. Hence also the Lord seems chiefly to have established this struggle.

Likewise, in his book against the Synusiasts, or Apollinarians, he says: But if it was flesh that was crucified, how did the sun turn away its rays, and darkness cover the whole earth, and there be an earthquake, and the rocks be split, and the dead rise (Matt. 27)? What then shall they say also of the darkness made in Egypt in the times of Moses, not for three hours but for three days (Exod. 10)? What of the other miracles done through Moses, and those done through Joshua the son of Nun, who made the sun stand still (Josh. 10), which sun in the times of King Hezekiah turned backward against nature (4 Kings 20); and of the relics of Elisha, which raised the dead (4 Kings 13)? From his eighth book On the Incarnation: But it is manifest that unity is fitting; for through it the natures, gathered together, have made one person according to unity. For just as it is said of a man and a woman that they are no longer two, but one flesh (Gen. 2; Matt. 19), so let us also reasonably say, according to the principle of unity, that they are not two persons but one, namely with the natures kept distinct.

And after a few things: How then can man and God be one through unity? He who gives life, and he who is given life; he who saves, and he who is saved; he who is before the ages, and he who appeared from Mary? From the same author's exposition of the creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers: But Christ indeed according to the assumed form of a servant, but him who assumed it, naming God over all things; yet he brought this in according to conjunction, so that through the signification of the names he makes a manifest division of the natures. Let no one, therefore, call him who is according to the flesh from the Jews God; nor again God—or, Lord, nor again Lord—who is over all things, according to the flesh from the Jews.

Likewise from the commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews: For he says Jesus from Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10): but he who has been anointed by the Spirit has in every way assumed something from it. But who, being mad, would say that the divine nature has assumed something from the Spirit? And again: He himself indeed being certain, calling himself the Son of God not according to the nativity of the divinity, but according to that whereby he was a household servant of God: through which they were called sons of God, through the will—or power—of men established as household servants of God, for a time.

11. We have set forth these few points out of countless many, so that, as it were through a narrow opening, we might show how vast an abyss lay hidden within. Behold, of what sort are the more than ten thousand books which Theodore is reported to have written. Consider, I ask, whether he did not deserve torments so much sharper, the more numerous the works he wrote. But as to these sayings of his that have been brought forward, whether they are truly his, perhaps it is doubted. Let us, if you please, bring forth the writings of the Fathers; thus, with the witnesses we have adduced, and with further witnesses added besides, we shall affirm among you his books, which we have produced as witnesses of his perfidy. For the bishops of Armenia, presenting little books against Theodore to Proclus, bishop of the city of Constantinople, say: There was once a certain pestilent man, or rather a wild beast, having the form of a man but a diabolical nature, falsely named Theodore, who held the appearance and name of a bishop, lurking in a corner and an ignoble place of the world, in the town of Mopsuestia in Cilicia Secunda, truly and principally descending from Paul of Samosata, although in the book concerning the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ he is found to have used the very words of Photinus and the other heresiarchs throughout his whole argument, and if anything worse. This man, through the contrivance and audacity and error of the devil, wished all men to perish by his sting like the tongue of a serpent, and by the poison that is under the tongue of the asp. And in.

For a time, indeed, he was kept in his hiding place, fearing the power of those who received power from our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to tread upon serpents and scorpions and all the powers of the enemy (Luke 10)—I mean the holy apostles, and those who after them received it in succession, martyrs and confessors and bishops and the other saints. But when an opportunity was found, I know not how, he began to creep and to go beyond his own boundaries, bearing confidence even into a parish not belonging to him, as though he were a learned discourser, and speaking in the church at Antioch in Syria, he said thus: "The man Jesus—for what is man that you are mindful of him? (Psalm 8)." But the Apostle said that this was spoken of Jesus: "For we see," he says, "Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2). What then? The man Jesus is like all men, having no difference from men of the same kind, except for those things which grace gave him. In reply to these things, Proclus, bishop of the city of Constantinople, says (as above, col. 5, council...

Let us flee the turbulent and muddy streams of deceit, the enclosures of God that fight against God—I mean the frenzy of Arius, which divides the indivisible Trinity; the audacity of Eunomius, which would enclose in knowledge the nature that cannot be comprehended; the rage of Macedonius, which separates from the Godhead the Spirit who proceeds inseparably; and this new blasphemy, which surpasses the blasphemy of Judaism by far—for they, when they deny the Son, rob the branch of its root; but these, denying him who is, introduce another, and detract from the sincere nature. Again, concerning his error, John also, the bishop of the church of Antioch, says: But Theodore, persisting for a long time, persuaded many, and Nestorius too, that Christ, the Son of the living God, who was born of the holy virgin Mary, is not the God Word consubstantial with the Father, who was born from the Father, but a man who, according to the quality of his own will, received cooperation from the God Word. Again, concerning his error, Cyril, writing to the presbyter Lampon, says: When I was staying at Aelia, a certain man from among those who serve nobly in the palace brought me a letter of many lines and great size, sealed, which he said he had received from the orthodox of Antioch; and the subscriptions in it were of very many clerics and monks and laymen.

But they accused the eastern bishops of keeping silent about the name of Nestorius, as it were, and of pretending not to oppose him, while passing over to the Codices of Theodore on the incarnation, in which far worse blasphemies were set down than the blasphemies of Nestorius; for he was the father of the perfidious Nestorius, who also spoke his evils and became impious in these things as well. Again, concerning his error, the same Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, writing to Acacius, bishop of the city of Melitene, says: It ought not to have been hidden from Your Holiness, or perhaps it has come to your knowledge, that all the most religious bishops of the East assembled at Antioch, when my lord, the most holy Proclus, had sent them a tome full of good understandings and right doctrines. For he had a lengthy and abundant account concerning the dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He appended certain chapters collected from the Codices of Theodore, which have an understanding consonant with the perfidies of Nestorius, and he exhorted them to anathematize those as well.

XII. Again, concerning the error of that man, the bishop of the church of Edessa, writing to blessed Cyril, says: Now indeed certain men reject in every way the unity according to subsistence. For a certain disease, creeping in, has grown inveterate in the East, devouring the body of the Church with an incurable wound, secretly honored among some who are, as it were, learned and who raise their eyebrows in erudition. For a certain bishop of the province of Cilicia, Theodore, a man plausible in speech and powerful to persuade, used to say some things from the tribunal about the state of the Church for the pleasing of the people, but he placed other snares of perdition in his writings, who in the beginnings of certain of his Codices enclosed with an anathema the one inspecting them, so as not to reveal the writings to others. He was the first to expound that the holy Virgin is not truly the Mother of God, as though the Word of God did not receive nativity according to us. (And after a few things: For they do not say that the man was united to God the Word according to substance, or according to subsistence, but by a certain good will, as though the divine nature did not receive the other mode of unity because of its being uncircumscribable. He said that our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be adored as Lord, but by relation to God to be honored as a certain image: but more manifestly, according to them, to speak as it were after the likeness of some demon sitting beside him by relation.

This man also declared that the flesh of the Lord profits nothing at all, thereby scattering the Lord's voice, which is: The flesh profits nothing (John 6). This man also says that the apostles did not know that Christ was God, but that the Church was built upon the faith that is in man (Matthew 16).

XIII. Again, concerning the error of that man, Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem and writer of Ecclesiastical History, says: Thus a certain Theodore, many ages before them, especially imitated Photinus, a malicious speaker and most ready of tongue, and yet himself of unstable will, who was borne along inclining hither and thither. For having been enrolled among the clergy of Antioch from his earliest age, and having promised to conduct himself well, he returned to secular pleasures and again took delight in them. But in all good things the imitable and blessed man John, bishop of Constantinople, wrote a letter which is read in manuscripts even to this day, and prevailed to transfer him from the worse to a better repentance; and again he began to conduct himself well, and again to be among the clergy. And having left Antioch, he migrated to Tarsus, from which he passed over to Mopsuestia, and was ordained bishop in it, God not yet willing that the manifest preaching of his impiety should be made.

But beginning the first elements of his teaching from Jewish idle talk, he composed a Codex on the prophecy of the psalms, denying all the declarations about the Lord; but when blamed and in danger, he said things contrary to himself, not from his own will but compelled by the complaints of all; and though he promised to destroy that same Codex, he secretly kept it as provisions for Jewish impiety. And after a few things: For the foolish man wrote in all his mystical discourses that Christ Jesus, the Savior and Lord of our race (whom Paul calls the splendor of the Father's glory and the image of his substance [Heb. 1], saying that he bears all things by the word of his power, who made purification of our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Father's majesty; of whom he wrote in the epistle to the Colossians: That in him all things were created, which are in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, because all things were created through him [Col. 1])—this one, he wrote, was not the incarnate Word, as we have been taught by the voices of the Gospels, but a man joined to God the Word through the advancement of his life and the perfection of his sufferings. And these things he dared to say in his mystical sermons.

XIV. Against the errors of the same Theodore, Theodosius and Valentinian, of pious memory, promulgating a law, say: Rendering the veneration due to the most pious doctrine, we have judged it right to subject to the condemnation they deserve those who have dared to write impiously against God, and that they ought to be called by worthy names. Just, therefore, is it that they be surrounded by the confusion of their own sins, and remain in such a name forever, so that they may neither be freed while alive, nor after death pass away unpunished in their contempt. Therefore the doctrine of the impious and pestilent Theodore and Nestorius has seemed to us abominable; likewise also all who follow their error and consent to their impiety, it is just that they themselves deserve the same designation and be clothed in confusion, so that they are called not Christians but Nestorians; lest, while they are called Christians, they be found adorned by that very name, though they are far removed from the purpose of Christians and alienated from the right and immaculate faith. And after a few words: If anyone shall transgress this present sanction of ours, so as to assent to Theodore and Nestorius and imitate their associates, after the vengeance of the sword all his substance shall be assigned to the fisc.

(Again against the errors of that man, Theodosius and Valentinian of pious memory, promulgating a law, say: Let no one have, or read, or copy Nestorius, or his books, or codices altogether useless, whether of Nestorius himself or of another, and especially those written by Nestorius against the Christians alone, or those of Theodore: but let each one who has such codices bring them forth publicly and hand them over to the fire in the sight of all.)

XV. And if perhaps even after so many sentences of the Fathers brought forth against him your Fraternity still doubts, let it read the books of Theodoret, in which, while he strives to defend him against Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, he rather accuses him, saying: Cyril accuses the interpretation of the eighth psalm, and censures these words of the divine Theodore: Let us consider, therefore, who is the man at whom he is astonished and marvels that the Only-begotten deigned to make mention of him and visitation. But that this was not said of every man has been shown in the preceding; but that it was said of one particular man, this too is certain. These blasphemies, then, drawn from so many witnesses—who doubts that they are his? And when such great blasphemies of his are known, who would deny that he was justly condemned?

XVI. Having therefore first discussed the chapter concerning the condemnation of Theodore, let us now pass on to examining the statements of the letter of Theodoret [of Ibas], whose whole tenor, if it is carefully considered, is judged to be at variance with the holy Council of Chalcedon. For in the acts of that same council and in the writings of Leo, Cyril is proclaimed; but in that letter of Theodoret, Cyril is reproved as falling into the doctrine of Apollinaris; for it is written in it: "But Cyril, wishing to destroy the books of Nestorius, slipped and was found falling into the doctrine of Apollinaris." In the acts, Nestorius is shown to have been justly condemned as an adversary of our Redeemer; but in the words of the letter he is mentioned as unjustly condemned. For thus it is said in it: "Before the most reverend and most holy archbishop John arrived at the council, they deposed Nestorius from the episcopate, without judgment or inquiry having been made." In the acts of the council, Cyril is shown to have confessed two natures in the one person of God and our Lord; in the words of the letter, he is said to hand down one nature, and is narrated to have scarcely recovered, corrected from this view. In the acts of the council, Nestorius is said to be anathematized even after death; but in the words of the letter, even after his deposition, it is asserted that he did not return to his city merely because of the hatred of his fellow citizens. For thus it is written there: "But Nestorius, because he was hated by his city and by the greatest men who were in it, could not return there.

i. In the acts and definitions of the synod, one Son, Jesus Christ, is proclaimed; but according to the doctrine of Theodore and Nestorius, God is passed over in silence. And in the acts of the synod, Theodore is nowhere called a teacher of truth; but in the words of the letter, the same man whose blasphemies we have set forth above is proclaimed a teacher of truth—who, surely, if he spoke true things, then the things which the synod brought forth concerning the truth will be false. Whoever, therefore, attempts to show that the letter which is called that of Ibas is of the synod, what else does he try to do but destroy the acts of that same synod? For if they are at variance with themselves, they will without doubt stand on no authority, because things which destroy themselves by conflicting cannot build up others; if they are at variance with themselves, they gain strength from no firmness, as the Lord attests, who says: A kingdom divided against itself shall not stand (Luke 11). But far be this, far be it from that venerable council, that it should think things contrary to itself; and either prefer the earlier things to the later by discord, or add the later things to the preceding as things to be attacked. For the holy faith, which was received there by one Spirit, believed with one mind, is also preached with one faith [perhaps, voice]. Therefore it has become the form of our profession in all parts of the world, because in the voices of those praying it is not unlike itself.

XVII. But why do we say that only the holy synod of Chalcedon is undermined, if we reject the authority of this letter? For if this letter is believed to be true, then the entire faith and reverence of the holy synod of Ephesus is also dissolved. For it says that in that synod Cyril blinded the eyes of the wise with the medicine of rewards. What, then, is said with certainty about the truth there, where the truth itself is asserted to have been sold by the priests? But who would say this, who would consent to hear it patiently? Let that one lying letter, therefore, be rejected, lest either holy synod bear the charge of such great falsehood. We hold the foundation of your faith, lest, after the first holy synod of Ephesus is accused as though venal, the synod of Chalcedon also (which God forbid) be marked with the fault of inconsistency; and so that it may be clear from its own words how great is its harmony, it is necessary that your Fraternity know where it was completed. For we all know that in a synod the canons are never taken up except after the definitions of faith have been completed, except after the synodal acts have been finished, so that, with order preserved, when the synod has first built up hearts unto faith, it may then, through the rules of the canons, order the customs and acts of the Church. Look, therefore, with vigilant care: in the sixth session of that synod the profession of the holy faith is brought to completion; and immediately in the seventh the rule of the canons is established for the instruction of the faithful already. But in the later sessions nothing concerning the cause of faith is dealt with, but only private matters.

When your representatives were thus in doubt about this matter, it was our care to demonstrate it from many codices that were brought forward. Nevertheless, we have believed that this matter can never be doubted, because the same sequence so commends itself that to believe otherwise is contradicted.

XVIII. First, indeed, because (as has been said) when the defined rule of faith is set forth in the sixth session, the order of the case indicates that the form of the canons should follow in the session that follows. The second reason is that even at the end of the sixth session the norm of the canons is already foretold, when there it is said by the emperor to the venerable bishops: "There are certain chapters which we have reserved for you to the honor of your reverence, judging it just that these be confirmed by you regularly, one by one, or rather be formed by the synod," etc. By this foretelling of the sixth session, therefore, it is shown that the constitutions of the canons are rightly contained only in the seventh. For what remained for the perfect profession of faith to be made, except that the holy synod should judge the actions of certain of the faithful, which had been entangled, by the laying down of rules? Although, if we look carefully, we find that the rules of the canons were not laid down, as is thought, in the seventh session, but were woven into the sixth. For since in the same constitutions to be sanctioned no day is given, no emperor is mentioned, and those who were sitting are not described, it is beyond doubt that they were not begun with the customary preface, because they are shown to have been attached to the preceding session.

But since the matter of the faith was completed in the sixth session, it is declared by the general subscription of all the bishops. For those who subscribed afterwards to the sentence testified that all things which had to be dealt with concerning the faith were finished. Hence also in the special cases afterwards they speak only in bare words, and what they had said in their decrees they confirmed with no subscription attached. These most reverend bishops, however, understood in the sixth session all things that had to be dealt with concerning the faith, so that, as it is written there, they cried out: We beseech you, dismiss us, pious emperor, dismiss us. And that they were detained not for the faith but for special cases is shown by the imperial response, when it is said: Our most sacred and most pious lord Marcian Augustus said to the holy synod: You have labored through a long span and endured fatigue; yet he waits three or four days more, and with our most magnificent judges present, you shall obtain suitable consolation for whatever individual matters you wish to raise. Those, therefore, who were detained to raise individual matters—it is clear that they did not remain beyond the end of the sixth session for the cause of the faith.

But why do we argue at length about these matters, when we are supported by the great authority of our predecessor, the blessed Leo? For he himself, as we have shown above by the testimony of many of his letters, rejecting the multiple records of special cases, confined the authority of the synod to the definition of faith alone. Hence it is that, once the synod was completed, dispelling all the clouds of suspicions from us, he writes openly to Maximus, bishop of the see of Antioch, saying: "If indeed anything is reported to have been done by those brothers whom I sent in my place to the holy synod beyond what pertained to the cause of the faith, let it have no firmness at all, because they were sent by the apostolic see for this purpose only, that with heresies cut off, they might be defenders of the catholic faith." For whatever beyond the special causes of synodal councils is brought to episcopal examination can have some ground for being judged. But some are accustomed to say that he said this on account of the presumption of Anatolius, bishop of the city of Constantinople; but if they consider both the records of what was done and the words which we have now brought forward from his letters, they will immediately cease to suspect false things. For when the aforesaid bishop of the city of Constantinople was attempting to seize something new, it is established that there the legates of the apostolic see resisted him with the utmost freedom of authority. This is read both to have been done in the synod and is approved by the letters of the same synod to the aforementioned predecessor of ours.

But we know that the same predecessor of ours wrote to Maximus, as we said before: "If, indeed, anything is reported to have been done by those brothers whom I sent in my place to the holy synod beyond what pertained to the cause of the faith, it will be of no validity whatsoever, because they were sent by the apostolic see for this purpose only: that, with heresies cut off, they might be defenders of the catholic faith." If, therefore, speaking about the case of Anatolius, he refuted what had been done by his vicars in the synod, he certainly reproved them because they had contradicted. And who, even a fool, would think this? For it is evident that in this matter the blessed Leo, writing back to Anatolius when he complained, praises his vicars greatly because they had contradicted (Epistle 53); but we do not now set out the words of that letter, lest we extend this volume too immoderately. But when it is also added: "For whatever is brought before episcopal examination beyond the special causes of synodal councils can have some ground for being judged," by this the license is openly granted to us that whatever was done there concerning persons beyond the causes of faith may be reconsidered. For the special cause of synodal councils is the faith. Whatever, therefore, is done beyond the faith, with Leo as teacher, is shown to be no obstacle if it is recalled to judgment.

But that even among those same bishops who sat at Chalcedon, the synod was held in veneration only up to the definition of the faith, is shown openly by this: that very many of the older Greek codices are shown to contain the synod only in six sessions, with certain matters appended, such that they do not have at all the other things that had been raised by private zeal. Whence the encyclical letters also testify that this is so. For Alypius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, writing to the Emperor Leo, says: "These things being so, I signify to Your Piety that I have not read those things which were examined in detail, and which were enacted by the holy bishops gathered in the city of Chalcedon; for nothing further was brought here by Thalassius, of holy memory, who was then bishop and who was present at the holy council, from those things which are known to have been enacted, but I have inspected only the definition set forth by that holy council and brought here by him." Therefore, with Bishop Alypius as witness, we are thoroughly taught that, apart from the cause of the faith, Thalassius held nothing of the synod in veneration, though he was present there, even apart from the cause of the faith, in the private affairs of the bishops.

If, therefore, in the sixth session the profession of faith is completed, and immediately the rule of the canons is fixed; if blessed Leo contradicts the matters that were raised there privately; if what was done as concerning the faith, even Thalassius, who did it, did not uphold: why are we reproached for having reconsidered a heretical letter, we who in this matter are strengthened by the authority of all who came before us? And although Ibas replies that he is alien to that same letter; although it is shown either with difficulty or not at all that it was approved, yet anyone might freely censure it, even if the bishops sitting in that same council had approved it by their subscriptions; because, after it is granted by the writing of blessed Leo that there is a right of reconsidering and judging, even whatever authority those who were present might have had in private matters is voided.

XX. Having therefore discussed the second chapter, the third remains, which we ought to compress into brevity to the extent that we do not believe you raise objections to us in this matter. For we do not condemn all the writings of Theodoret, but only those which are shown to have been written against the twelve chapters of Cyril, only those which he is shown to have written at some time against the right faith; which nevertheless he himself is known to have condemned, since in the holy synod of Chalcedon he is found to have confessed the truth. For how he afterward rightly understood after his error, both the things he had written before and the things done by him in the synod of Chalcedon make manifest. For he himself, writing to Nestorius, says (Colat.

In those things which have been unjustly and iniquitously brought forth against Your Veneration, not even if someone should cut off both my hands could I give consent. Also, writing to Aemerius [Himerius], bishop of Nicomedia, he says (Synodal Epistle): "To the condemnation of the venerable and most holy bishop Nestorius, which is said to be made, we ought not to give consent." (Writing also to Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis, he says: "And I foretold to Your Holiness that, as if the doctrine of my lord, the venerable and most holy bishop Nestorius, had been condemned, I will not communicate with those who do this.") But writing to Alexander, the prelate of Syria of the Palestinians, he says: "I think that above all things satisfaction has been made to my lord, the most holy and venerable bishop John, in that I in no way acquiesce in giving consent to the condemnation of my lord, the most holy and venerable bishop Nestorius, which was made at Tarsus and at Ephesus." (He, however, afterward, when the struggle of those resisting had been admitted by the holy Council of Chalcedon, openly pronounced anathema against Nestorius; and by rejecting the heretic himself, he showed himself orthodox. For long before, thinking different things from the holy Church, and writing against the twelve chapters of blessed Cyril, he says (In part. concil. Ephes.

To the Anathemas: "We call her the holy Virgin, that is, the Mother of God, not because she gave birth to God according to nature, but because she brought forth a man united to God, whom He Himself formed." And after a few words: "If a natural conjunction has been made of the form of God and the form of a servant, the lawgiver will be found serving the needs of the law." And again [To the Anathemas 5]: "Relying on the name of communication, we adore as one the Son, both Him who assumed and Him who was assumed; yet we recognize the difference of natures. But to call Him Theophoron, that is, 'bearer of God,' or 'the Lord clothed with man,' Christ—that is, to call Him a God-bearing man, as has indeed been said by many of the fathers—we do not refuse." And after other things [To the Anathemas 10]: "Consider," he says, "the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, faithful to Him who made Him, as also Moses in all his house. But who that thinks rightly would say that He is a creature, the uncreated and coeternal with the Father—and I would add, true God the Word?

but him who is from the seed of David, who was our high priest free from every sin, and who himself offered himself as a victim to God for us, having in himself certainly the Word of God united to himself and inseparably joined. And again, to show, as it were, that he grew toward divinity by increments, he adds in the same work, saying: "The angel said to the Virgin: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and therefore what is born of you, the holy one, will be called the Son of God (Luke 1). Consider here also that all things are said in a humble manner: He will be, he says, great—he did not say, he is; and he will be called the Son of the Most High—he did not say, he is called; and the Lord will give him the seat of David his father—he did not say, he has, but the Lord will give him; and he will reign—he did not say, he reigns; and over whom? over the house of Jacob—he did not say, over the angels and archangels. Again in the same book, the second, he says: But Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan (Luke 4:1). And again: Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee (ibid., 14): do not think that the Word of God needed the cooperation or aid of the Holy Spirit, but the visible temple enjoyed the various gifts of the Holy Spirit." And after other things: Jesus Christ, he says, yesterday and today, himself also forever.

How then, most wise men, ought we to consider how the same one is yesterday and today and forever, both temporal and eternal, both in time and above time? For if he is eternal, he is not temporal; and if he is in time, he is not above time. And again, in our Lord God Jesus Christ, establishing as it were a unity of divinity and humanity, he says: We distinguish the natures of God the Word; we call the nature entire, and the person without doubt perfect; for it is not lawful to assert a substance without a person; we likewise confess the perfect human nature together with its own person. But when we look to the conjunction, then at last we rightly name one person. Who, dearest brothers, does not see that these things are full of all impiety? Yet it is clear from these things that he afterwards corrected himself, since in the holy Synod of Chalcedon he consented to anathematize Nestorius. Who does not see with how great rashness it is full to defend the writings of Theodoret by being proud, when it is clear that the same man, by afterwards bringing forth right things, condemned them? But we receive his God and his person, and we approve those things of the evil writing that had long lain hidden [perhaps: we reprove the evil writings], and we deviate in nothing from the action of the holy synod: because, rejecting only his heretical writings, both with the synod we still pursue Nestorius, and with the synod we venerate Theodoret as he confesses right things. But his other writings we not only receive, but we even use them against adversaries.

For when Theodore wished to expound the Song of Songs, and labored not toward commentaries but rather toward ravings, he declared through this book that the queen of the Ethiopians had been flattered, which Theodoret, refuting it, indeed suppresses the name of the same Theodore, but nevertheless lays bare his madness. For writing commentaries on the same book, he says (In the Preface): I hear many disparaging the Song of Songs, and not believing that the book is spiritual, but weaving together certain old wives' fables through their madness, and presuming to say that the wise Solomon wrote this book about himself and the daughter of Pharaoh. How then do we accept no writings of the same Theodoret, whom we find even against Theodore, the assertor of the truth? These things we answer to your writings.

XXI. But we judge it very opportune to briefly repeat in words those things which we heard without writing from your messengers. For they said that Theodore was praised by John, bishop of the city of Antioch, in a letter with marvelous attestation, which we in no way believe to be true. If however some such thing is perhaps found, we give more credence to the first synod of Ephesus, more to the books of Cyril, more to those of Hesychius, than to other letters which have not been able to grow moldy until now. We ought nevertheless to proceed, and even conceding something, to speak. So then let us hold as your messengers assert.

You know, most beloved brothers, that a matter which is subject to doubt is always to be interpreted in the better part. What then stands in the way, if while concerning his error it was still hidden and doubtful, he was praised by one Father; and after his perfidy became known, he was, by the sentences of almost all the great Fathers, as if a monstrous beast, pierced as though by thickening javelins? Do we not also know that bad men have sometimes been praised by good men, and yet were not defended by those same praises? For what can be found in the heresiarch Origen more delightful, and what in the historians more honorable than Eusebius? And who among us does not know with how many praises Eusebius extols Origen in his books? But because the holy Church weighs the hearts of her faithful more kindly and their words more strictly; and the private sense in heretics could absolve more than the testimony of Eusebius, nor again did the fault of the praised Origen condemn Eusebius. Did not also Gregory, bishop of the city of Nyssa, when he expounds the Song of Songs, set Origen before him with great praises? Did not also Jerome, presbyter of our Church and singular interpreter of the Hebrew tongue, incline toward Origen with such great favor that he seems almost to be his disciple? But because the cause is to be weighed more than the words, neither did their kindness harm them, nor did the favor of another's testimony excuse him from his own guilt.

XXII. After these things, most beloved brothers, I am compelled to say with Paul, grieving: I bear you witness that you have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10). For while I behold the bowels of charity toward the unity of the holy Church, I groan more intolerably that you are at discord. Consider, I ask, with what ardor he yearned for holy unity when he said to the Philippians: If there is any consolation in Christ, if any solace of charity, if any hope of fellowship, if any bowels and mercies, fulfill my joy, that you be of the same mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, thinking the same thing (Phil. 2). He, therefore, who was about to speak of unanimity, premised so many and such great inquiries, showing how great is the merit of this virtue—not by expounding it, but by inquiring into it. But on the other hand, how great an evil discord is, he showed when speaking to the Corinthians. For he says: It has been signified to me concerning you, my brothers, by those who are of Chloe, that there are contentions among you; but this I say, that each one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ (1 Cor. 3). And with how great a rebuke he speaks this, we recognize if we weigh the words of the reproof that follows. For he says: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (Ibid.).

Consider, therefore, my brothers, and while God still waits and we are permitted to live with the end of life wholly uncertain, weigh this with vigilant care: that your Fraternity should not fear to make that schism in the holy Church on account of Theodore, which Paul dreaded even to profess on his own account. Why is not the saying of blessed Augustine brought back to memory for the preserving of unity? For when he was speaking of the one baptism, he declared that Cyprian the martyr, who had written about repeating baptism, died [in peace] because, although he had held a small opinion, he never nevertheless cut himself off from the communion of the whole Church. So therefore it is established that you remain in holiness, most beloved brothers, because while you separate yourselves from the unity of the Church, you have lost every merit of virtue, even if you hold rightly. For it is written: Follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.

XXIII. We have spoken at length, because we have also answered many points by reasoning. And although countless testimonies from the sayings of the fathers were available, we have set down very few: namely, desiring that a brief narration should gird our writings in individual cases, lest perhaps they generate weariness for the reader. Yet there is one thing that we have already said above, and we do not regret repeating it often: that we preserve the faith of the holy Synod of Chalcedon unblemished in all things, with God as author, and its definitions, just as we have held the first Synod of Ephesus, that of Constantinople, and that of Nicaea as not to be retracted even until now, so we keep them not to be retracted even with death set before us. Therefore let your Belovedness not flee the communion of the faithful orthodox brothers, lest, if it neglects to hear the aid of this our voice, it turn it against itself as a testimony. But we return to the Lord after these words, and we beseech him as much as we can with tears, that what is said by us to you for the following of concord, he himself may work in your minds by the hand of inner inspiration.

LETTER VI (formerly VIII),

TO JOHN, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

He reproves him who was claiming for himself the name of universal bishop, and for which reason he had convened a general synod.

Pelagius to all his most beloved brethren the bishops who gathered at Constantinople for a synod by the unlawful summons of John, bishop of Constantinople.

Manifestly, as we have desired, by the grace of God, with the light of the gospel truth having driven the night of most pernicious error from the universal Church, we rejoice in the Lord beyond words; but we are saddened with no little grief, because those things which were once trampled down and utterly condemned, and which ought never to have happened, are sprouting and shooting up again with revived roots. And since many things arise which can produce repentance, it is necessary to annul those things which are known to have been done against order and all authority. Wherefore, brethren, with the audacity utterly rejected which was assumed for disputing against the precepts of the Lord, against the apostolic see and against the very voice of the Lord Savior, by which it was said: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (Matthew XVI), let the vain hearts of those who err be at rest, and let it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to do.

It has therefore been reported to the apostolic see that John, bishop of Constantinople, subscribes himself as universal, and that on the strength of this presumption of his he convokes you to a general synod, although the authority of convoking general synods has been handed down to the apostolic see by the singular privilege of blessed Peter, and no synod is ever read to have been ratified which was not supported by apostolic authority. Wherefore, whatever you have decreed in the aforesaid little gathering (since a synod presumed in such a manner could not be), by the authority of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, and by the voice of the Lord Savior, by which the Savior himself gave to blessed Peter the power of binding and loosing—which power has also passed without doubt to his successors—I command that all things which you have decreed there be both empty and void, so that hereafter they may never appear nor be discussed. For the Savior himself speaks to the blessed Apostle Peter as truth itself, saying: Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matthew 16). We are instructed again by many apostolic, canonical, and ecclesiastical rules that councils ought not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Pontiff. Wherefore (as has already been said) not a council, but your little gathering or conventicle, is annulled; and whatever has been done in it is held invalid and empty.

You also hereafter, if you do not wish to lack communion with the apostolic see, must not presume such things at anyone's urging. But for now vengeance is suspended so that correction may have a place. Indeed, the predecessors of John, and John himself, not once but very often sent letters and libelli subscribed by their own hand to our holy predecessors, in which they protested before God that they would never rashly act against the apostolic see, nor usurp anything of its privileges or those of others; these documents are kept intact to this day in the archive of the holy Roman Church, confirmed by their seals and signatures. For in those very letters and libelli they bound themselves and their successors with the chain of anathema, if they should ever presume anything against them, or in any way attempt anything adverse against the apostolic see or the see of any other bishop. Therefore it is not necessary to excommunicate or anathematize them, because they have bound themselves with the chain of anathema by confirming their professions and their writings with their own hands. Nevertheless let John himself know that, unless he quickly corrects his error, he will be excommunicated by us and will lack communion with the apostolic see and with all the holy bishops.

Do not attend to the name of "universality" either, which he has unlawfully usurped for himself, and never come to a synod at his summons, without the authority of the apostolic see, if you wish to enjoy communion with the apostolic see and the other bishops. For let no one of the patriarchs ever use this so profane a word, because if one patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch is taken away from the rest. But far be it from the mind of any of the faithful that anyone should wish to snatch for himself that whereby he may seem to diminish the honor of his brothers in any part whatever. Wherefore let your charity never name anyone universal in its letters, lest it withdraw what is due to itself when it offers undoubted honor to another. For our adversary the devil, who rages against the humble, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, and now, as we see, he does not merely circle the sheepfolds, but fixes his tooth in certain necessary members of the Church, so that no one may doubt that unless the provident throng of all pastors, with the Lord's favor, comes together unanimously, the whole sheepfold—may it not happen—will quickly be torn apart. You perceive, dearest brothers, what follows close upon this, when such perverse beginnings burst forth even among priests. For he is near of whom it is written: He is the king over all the sons of pride.

XLI) (which I am compelled to say not without grave sorrow, while our brother and fellow bishop John, despising the Lord's commands and the apostolic precepts and the rules of the Fathers, attempts through elation to run ahead of him in the name) may almighty God show to your Blessedness how heavily I am tormented by the groaning of this consideration, because he who was once most known to me, he who was beloved by all, he who seemed occupied with alms, prayers, and fastings, and from that ashes in which he was rolling, from that humility which he was displaying, took up so great a boastfulness that he attempts to ascribe all things to himself, and strives to subject to himself, through the choice of a pompous title, all the members that belong to the one head alone, namely Christ, as though they were Christ's own. Nor is it surprising that that seducer, who knows that pride is the beginning of every sin, both then used it in the first man before all things, and now places it in certain men at the end of the virtues; and those who seemed in some measure by the good pursuits of life to escape his most cruel hands, in the very goals of good work, and, as it were, at the very conclusion of perfection, he applies a little snare to them. Wherefore it must be greatly prayed, and almighty God must be implored with unceasing prayers, that he may turn this man away from his mind.

error, may he purge this evil of pride and confusion from the unity and humility of the Church, and, with God's favor, we must all strive together with all our strength and take care, lest by the poison of one man's word the living members in the body of Christ die. For if this is permitted to be said with impunity, the honor of all the patriarchs is denied; and perhaps he who is called [bishop] of the whole world seeks [it] in error, and no bishop is now found to have remained in the state of truth. It is necessary, therefore, that you constantly and without prejudice preserve the churches, as you have received them, and that this temptation of diabolical usurpation ascribe nothing to itself in you. Stand strong, stand secure; the writings which have been condemned by the falsehood of the universal name, do not presume ever to give or to receive. Forbid all bishops subject to your care from the defilement of this flattery, so that the whole Church may recognize you as patriarchs not only in good works but also in the authority of truth. But if perhaps some adversities follow, persisting unanimously, we ought to show even by dying that in the loss of the generality we do not love anything specially our own. Let us say with Paul: To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1). Let us hear what the first of all the apostles says: If you suffer anything for righteousness' sake, blessed shall you be (2 Peter 3).

For believe me, because the honor which we have undertaken for the preaching of the truth, if the cause of necessity demands it, we more safely relinquish for the sake of that same truth than hold on to it. Pray, brothers, that the honor of the Church may not be emptied out in our days, and that the Roman see, which by the institution of the Lord is the head of all the Churches, may never at any time lack or be stripped of its privileges. But we are confident concerning you, most beloved, of better things and things nearer to salvation, because neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor power, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature (as the teacher of the Gentiles instructs) will be able to separate us from the love of our Lord Jesus Christ and from the right faith which is in him. Therefore do not lose your confidence, which has a great reward.

For patience is necessary for us in the struggles against adversaries, so that preserving the faith undefiled even to the end, we may receive the promise which he promised to those who hasten to strive lawfully. For yet a little while, and he who is to come will come, and will not delay (Habakkuk 2, according to the Septuagint). For behold, the judge stands before the door (James 5), joyfully promising crowns to those who submit to sufferings for his sake. But if anyone withdraws himself, he will not please my soul, and he will fall from the promise because of denial. But we are not sons of withdrawal, to the destruction of the soul. Therefore take up the armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day against all the enemies of the holy Church of God and your own, and put on the breastplate of righteousness, your feet shod in preparation for the gospel of peace, in all things taking up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, through all prayer and supplication, rooted and grounded in the consolation of brothers for Christ Jesus our Lord (Hebrews 10; Ephesians 6).

But even now, brothers, we commend you all to the Lord, and to the word of his grace, who is able to perfect and to make firm the inheritance for you with all the saints. May the God of peace and consolation himself grant you to be of the same mind one toward another, so that you may help one another and not be divided, so that with one mind, one mouth, and one heart we may honor him in concord and consolation of the brethren, who is able to strengthen you according to his gospel, and according to the revelation of the mystery kept silent through eternal ages

(Art. XX; Rom. xv, XVI), to whom the gifts of future joys are to be bestowed upon you. You ought also especially to consider that those who envy their brethren and desire to condemn and destroy them are destroyed by themselves and their own teachings. For the Lord says: Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand; and every knowledge and law divided against itself shall not stand (Matt. xii). And therefore it is necessary that you receive salutary exhortations in concord [S. LAc, epist.

and doing nothing through contention, but being of one mind in every zeal of devotion, obey the divine and apostolic constitutions, and in no way suffer the most provident decrees of the canons to be violated, so that both the ordinances of the Nicene canons and those things which have been providently and wholesomely decreed by us or by our predecessors may remain unblemished in the future; and in the Apocalypse the Lord speaks through John, saying: Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one, and I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever. And: I have the keys of death and of hell. And a little later: To him who overcomes I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God. And likewise: Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. And again: He who overcomes, and keeps my works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and they shall be broken like a vessel of clay. Likewise the same: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door to me, I will come in to him, and I will dine with him, and he with me. He who overcomes, I will give him to sit with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat with my Father on his throne. You, brothers, if you do not wish to be condemned with him (because not only those who do these things, but those who consent to those doing them are guilty

i) Exhort him and admonish him to withdraw from the aforesaid unlawful acts, and let him remember from whence he has fallen, and do penance, and do the first works. But if not, I will not speak my own words, but those of the Lord Savior himself, which he spoke through the foretold John in the book already mentioned, repeating them and saying: I will come and I will move your lampstand from its place, unless you do penance (Rev. 2). For he rather holds the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, just as this man teaches you to cause scandal to the holy mother Church, and against all the heaven of priests as well as of religious Christians and of the faithful. Hence it is also contained in the aforementioned book as follows (for I always desire rather that you be struck and instructed by the words of the Lord Savior than by my own, although these too are full of the weight of apostolic authority): I know your works, the last more numerous than the first. But I have a few things against you, because you permit the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants, to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to do penance, and she does not wish to repent of her fornication. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into the greatest tribulation, unless they do penance for their works, and I will kill her children with death. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches hearts and reins, and I will give to each of you according to your works (Rev. 2).

These things, brothers, must be greatly guarded against, and the commandments of the Lord and the admonitions of the holy apostolic see, which performs the office of legation in the place of the Lord Savior, must be faithfully embraced and carried out. Furthermore, brothers, concerning the matter of the province about which you long ago wished to consult the apostolic see, it seems to us to have been sufficiently treated by our holy predecessors. But since you have deemed it worthy again to question our mediocrity concerning the same matter, know that there is a certain province which has ten or eleven cities, and one king, and as many lesser powers under him, and one bishop, and other suffragans, namely ten or eleven bishops as judges, to whose judgment all the cases of bishops and of the remaining priests, and the cases of cities, are to be referred, so that by all of them they may be decided justly with harmonious voice, unless appeal has been made to a greater authority by those who are to be judged. Wherefore it is not fitting that any province be degraded or dishonored, but let it have judges and priests within itself, and individual bishops, each indeed according to their own orders. And whoever has a case, let him be judged by his own judges, and not by outsiders, that is, by the just judges of his own province, and not by external ones, unless (as has already been mentioned) appeal has been made by those who have been judged.

If, however, questions arise in any province, and the reasoning among the bishops of that same province begins to differ, and those who disagree do not come to agreement, let them then be referred to the greater see. And if those matters are not easily and justly discerned there, let them be judged canonically and justly where a synod has been regularly assembled. But greater and difficult questions (as the holy synod decreed and blessed custom requires) must always be referred to the apostolic see. Furthermore, following the statutes of the holy Fathers, by synodal authority we decree that all who arm themselves against the Fathers, as invaders and slaughterers of the Fathers, are infamous; since those wounds which are not healed by fomentations must necessarily be cut away with the sword or cured. Hence, brothers, let unjust rivalries cease, let plots cease, let false accusations cease, lest any weak one, for whom Christ died, be torn by such snares; lest the sheep, redeemed by the price of Christ, be wounded by a brother's wolf-like bites. Therefore the cause rightly concerns us, if we begin to favor such things. Such things must always be reproved, nor is it to be granted to those who attempt to practice these things, or who plot against fathers or brothers, to speak freely, nor is their speech to be allowed to proceed according to their will. It is altogether clear that those who permit them to speak such things are conniving with them; since the truth would confront them, if falsehood and calumny, or hatred, were displeasing.

Let falsehood therefore cease to assail the truth; let suspicion, which is rightly repelled, cease to lie in wait; let hatred and enmity cease to persecute fathers or brothers; let conspiracy, which must be rejected by all, cease to harass teachers. Therefore the authors or perpetrators of these vices are not to be received in accusations of pontiffs, but wholly repelled: since the canonical decrees of the Fathers command that the accusation or testimony of those who pursue anyone out of hatred, or who are held as enemies or suspects, be in no way received. Confirming their statutes, we also decree that the same be held inviolably by all in future times. But whatever our fathers judged worthy to be determined in this cause, as is fitting, it is necessary that, when it begins to be weakened or undermined, it be confirmed and renewed once more by apostolic authority, and given to the brothers. Given on the Kalends of March in the year of the Lord 587, in the fifth indiction.

OBSERVATION OF PHILIP LABBE, S.J.

In the first volume of our New Library of Manuscript Books we have presented a history of the bishops of Auxerre never before published, whose chapters concerning Aunarius, or Annacharius, are found among other things: "There also exist letters of Pope Pelagius to the same most blessed pontiff, one of which, darkened by excessive age, we have by no means wished to extract fully from the authentic books (this is perhaps the one we published above in the fourth place [Sup., col. 705]); the other, however, we have deemed worthy to insert into this work." He then recites many things most holily instituted by the same Aunarius concerning rogations, litanies, and vigils; then concerning the synod, which we shall later present in full, he adds these words: "Finally he gathered a venerable synod in the city of Auxerre, where, treating very many matters concerning the salvation of the people committed to him, he set down in 44 chapters all things necessary and very useful," etc.

LETTER VII.

COPY OF THE LETTER OF PELAGIUS, BISHOP OF THE CITY OF ROME, TO AUNARIUS, BISHOP OF AUXERRE.

Pelagius to his most beloved brother Aunarius.

By how much you render yourselves pleasing to God through veneration of the apostolic see, by so much does the confidence of your charity become more fittingly disposed toward him whose see it is; nor do we confess the one and only Church of God in any other way, unless we are all built upon the rock upon which the catholic faith is founded; for which reason the fulfillment has followed the desires of your Belovedness, and the swiftness has been easy, because those men's sanctuaries are sought from whom the preaching of truth took its beginning from the foremost. But that you indicate new churches abound in your regions, we receive with rejoicing; yet if, knowing it, you embrace the zeal of the prophetic voice in seeking, "Seek his face always." For by how much the truth of the incarnation of our Lord is opened to human understanding, by so much more is it honored and worshiped. But just as you desire to be commended to God by our prayers, so also do you bring continuous solace of intercession to our necessities and straits, with which we are unceasingly burdened, praying and working with whatever strength you can, so that just as you are in harmony with the preaching of the apostolic see, so may your entreaty rejoice together with its peace and quiet. May God keep you safe, dearest brother. Given the day before the Kalends of November, in the reign of our lord Maurice Tiberius, emperor Augustus, year 5, indiction 5.

DECREES OF PELAGIUS.

FROM GRATIAN, THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE SECOND [COUNCIL?]. VIII.

Pope Pelagius to Antonina, patrician, and to Decia.

Concerning the bearer of these presents, let there be no distress of mind on your part because he was not made a defensor, since I truly hold it to be quite the bitterest thing that men are led from this purpose to that office in which in no way can the things promised to God by monks be fulfilled. For the entire manner of that habit and of this office is different. For there [in the monastery] there is quiet, prayer, the labor of hands; but here [in the office] there is the hearing of cases, meetings, proceedings, public litigation, and whatever either ecclesiastical institutions or the necessity of petitioners may require. But may God grant that those who are either nourished by us in this habit, or grow up in monasteries, may be such that, when advanced in age and with a proven life, they may be able to be promoted not to the offices of litigation, but to the priesthood.

IX.

Pope Pelagius to Florentinus, bishop. Who after death, etc.

Having received the report of your Fraternity, we have learned that the bearer of it was indeed not without a second marriage, but you have indicated that he did not preserve chastity before his first marriage. And although the authority of the exalted see commands many things to be observed canonically in cases of this kind, nevertheless, because the weakness of our times, in which not only the merits but even the very bodies of men have failed, does not allow the censure of that strictness to remain in all things, and the age of this man, about whom the matter concerns, is recognized to remove suspicion of future incontinence, you should know that we, condescending to the weakness of the times, as has been said, have granted that he may be advanced to the diaconate. And below. But his maidservant Miscena, concerning whom he has confessed that he had sons after the passing of his wife, we command that by your arrangement she be handed over to some monastery of the continent, to make profession there.

Pope Pelagius to the clergy of Catina. Whoever is chosen as bishop, etc.

We have indeed already long since sent writings to our brother and fellow bishop Eucarpus concerning the visitation of the church of Carme, so that in them you might be able to recognize our judgment. However, since we have learned also from your report that certain persons there are stirring up dissensions, not with a sound intention but with depraved zeal—persons who, knowing that they cannot be advanced to the episcopate by age, nor by knowledge, nor by the merits of their life, wish only to disturb the church for this purpose, that the future bishop may promise them impunity for those things which have been presumed from it, and so that there may be security for rapine and ambition for the episcopate—we have thought that you also should be admonished, that you make haste, with God's favor, to bring to us the decree made against Elpidius the deacon, and subscribed by all those whom your report has designated, together with the letter of the aforesaid visitor and with the same deacon. And after a few words. Since, therefore, our son the magnificent man Leo the praetor had come hither, he reported to us concerning each of the matters that were stirred up there, and how the wishes of nearly the whole city were in agreement for Elpidius the deacon. Wherefore, since we cannot at all doubt the testimony of the aforementioned man, for that reason, as has been said, cause Elpidius the deacon to make haste to us, and do not expect further that our admonition must be sent to him. Nevertheless, we specially admonish him through your love in the present command, that he give nothing to anyone, or that he is to give for.