Letters 23
23 To Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople PL 54, 589
To his well-beloved brother Flavian the bishop, Leo the bishop.
I. He complains that Flavian has not sent him a full account of Eutyches’ case.
Seeing that our most Christian and merciful Emperor, in his holy and praiseworthy faith and anxiety for the peace of the Catholic Church, has sent us a letter upon the matters which have roused the din of disturbance among you, we wonder, brother, that you have been able to keep silence to us upon the scandal that has been caused, and that you did not rather take measures for our being at once informed by your own report, that we might not have any doubt about the truth of the case. For we have received a document from the presbyter Eutyches, who complains that on the accusation of bishop Eusebius he has been wrongfully deprived of communion, notwithstanding that he says he attended your summons and did not refuse his presence: and moreover asserts that he presented a deed of appeal in the very court, which was however not accepted: whereupon he was forced to put forth letters of defence in the city of Constantinople. Pending which matter we do not yet know with what justice he has been separated from the communion of the Church. But having regard to the importance of the matter, we wish to know the reason of your action and to have the whole thing brought to our knowledge: for we, who desire the judgments of the Lord’s priests to be deliberate, cannot without information decide one way or another, until we have all the proceedings accurately before us.
II. And now demands it.
And therefore, brother, signify to us in a full account by the hand of the most fit and competent person, what innovation has arisen against the ancient faith, which needed to be corrected by so severe a sentence. For both the moderation of the Church and the devout faith of our most godly prince insist upon our showing much anxiety for the peace of Christendom: that dissensions may be cleared away and the Catholic Faith kept unimpaired, and that those whose faith has been proved may be fortified by our authority, when those who maintain what is wrong have been recalled from their error. And no difficulty can arise on this side, since the said presbyter has professed himself by his own statement, ready to be corrected if anything be found in him worthy of rebuke. For it beseems us in such matters to take every precaution that charity be kept and the Truth defended without the din of strife. And therefore because you see, beloved, that we are anxious about so great a matter, hasten to inform us of everything in as full and clear a manner as possible (for this ought to have been done before), lest in the cross-statements of both sides we be misled by some uncertainty, and the dissension, which ought to be stifled in its infancy, be fostered: for our heart is impressed by God’s inspiration with the need of saving from violation by anyone’s misinterpretation those constitutions of the venerable fathers which have received Divine ratification and belong to the groundwork of the Faith. God keep thee safe, dear brother. Dated 18 February (449), in the consulship of the illustrious Asturius and Protogenes.
Traditam vero fuisse ad aliquem Januarii praecessorem et in ipso quidem pontificatus Leonis exordio, aliunde colligere licet. Photius in Bibliotheca vetustum codicem referens, qui sub saeculi VI initia lucubratus, exactissimam Pelagianarum rerum historiam ex peculiaribus documentis derivatam continebat, haec de Pelagianorum gestis sub Leonis pontificatu tradit cod. 54: Cum temporis deinde progressu sectae hujus homines per haeresis suae abjurationem Ecclesiae restituti essent; iterum malum ab illis renovatum est. At Septimus episcopus pestis renascentis cursum repressit, datis ad Leonem Romae tum sedem apostolicam tenentem litteris, qui Leo ferventi zelo contra impios depugnavit. Post non multum autem rursum tamquam repullulare amara radice non erubescente, Romae quidam pro haeresi libere loquebantur. Sed Prosper quidam vir vere Dei libellis contra ipsos traditis eos evanescere fecit, praedicto Leone adhuc Romanam sedem gubernante. Duo Pelagianorum gesta sub Leone indicantur: alterum, in quo Septimus et Leo operam posuere, cui sane congruunt duae epistolae sequentes: alterum et posterius tempore, in quo S. Prosper libellos accusationum Romae obtulit, uti pluribus explicabimus in observationibus ad diss. 2 Quesnelli cap. 1, § ultimo. Auctor operis de Promissionibus Leoni coaevus scribit part. IV c. 6: In Italia quoque nobis apud Campaniam constitutis, dum venerabilis et apostolico honore nominandus papa Leo Manichaeos subverteret, et contereret Pelagianos, et maxime Julianum, ambiens tum quidam Florus nomine, etc. Hic contextus utrumque Leonis opus in Manichaeos et Pelagianos eidem tempori adjudicat. Manichaeorum subversionem Prosper in Chronico assignat an. 443; idque huic anno exeunti tribuendum colligitur ex Leonis epist. 4, data die 10 Octobris, qua ad episcopos Campaniae scribens, nihil de vitandis Manichaeis indicavit, uti monuit epist. 7, scripta die 30 Januarii anni sequentis 444. Ex sermone autem quinto de Jejunio decimi mensis habito die Dominica 12 Decembris an. 443, quatuor temporum jejunium indicaturus, gesta in Manichaeos populo denuntiat; quod pariter repetit serm. 4 de Nativitate Domini, quem in Natali ejusdem anni habitum liquet. Hoc igitur eodem tempore, quo S. pontifex subvertit Manichaeos, Pelagianos etiam contrivit. Ex duobus autem gestis adversus Pelagianos, qui indicantur in antiquo codice Photii, primum, in quo Leo cum Septimo Altinate operam posuisse traditur, minus convenire videtur cum verbis libri de Promissionibus contereret Pelagianos, et maxime Julianum. In casu enim Septimi de Pelagianis agitur Aquileiensis provinciae, ad quos nihil Julianus aut alii Campani haeretici pertinebant; neque satis congrue illos Leo contrivisse dici potest ob epistolam, qua cautam eorumdem recipiendorum rationem praescripserat. Igitur verbis conterebat Pelagianos et maxime Julianum aptius congruit alterum factum, ex quo cognoscimus Pelagianorum audaciam eo processisse, ut in ipsa Roma non deessent qui libere loquebantur. Julianus in haec Pelagianorum molimina aliquid conferre potuit. Oblatis autem a Prospero accusationum libellis, Pelagianisque mox evanescentibus, Leonem pontificem, quem sane iisdem infensissimum, ut aliunde liquet, omnem operam adversus ipsos exercuisse indubium est, eos contrivisse intelligimus. Hoc itaque factum una cum facto Manichaeorum in libro de Promissionibus copulatum pertinet ad finem an. 443. Factum autem Aquileiensis provinciae, in quo Septimus et Leo adversus Pelagianos simul egere, aliquanto ante contigerat, ut indicant illa verba Photii secundo facto praemissa: Post non multum autem rursum, etc., μεν' ού πολὺ δὲ πάλιν. Igitur hoc factum Aquileiensis provinciae affigi debet citius ineunti an. 443, aut an. 442. Hinc epistola 1 ad Aquileiensem, quae hoc factum respicit, attribui nequit cuipiam successori Januarii, sed Adelpho, quem laudari credimus a S. Petro Chrysologo serm. 136, aut potius Maximo, qui post Adelphum immediatus Januarii praedecessor ex Catalogis et Chronicis Aquileiensibus traditur: idque eo probabilius affirmandum erit, si Januarii initia in annum 443 collocanda sint, ut Dandulus in chronico notavit.