To Eulogius and Anastasius, on Cyriacus’s Envoys and the Soul of Adam

Gregory to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of Antioch. [a]

The love by which I am closely bound to you will by no means let me keep silent. I want your holiness to know everything that is going on among us, so that no false rumors may deceive you, and so that you may keep all the more perfectly to the way of justice and uprightness on which you have so perfectly set out. Now the representatives of our brother and fellow bishop Cyriacus came to me, bringing me his synodical letter. Between him and us, as your blessedness knows, there is indeed a serious difference over his use of a profane name. Even so, I thought that his representatives, sent on a matter of the faith, ought to be received, so that the sin of pride that has arisen in the church of Constantinople, against almost all priests, might not shake the faith and break the unity of the church. Since they asked it very humbly, I also had these same representatives celebrate the solemnities of mass with me. For, as I have taken care to inform our most serene lord the emperor, it was right that the representatives of our brother and fellow priest Cyriacus should share communion with me, since by God’s help I have not fallen into the error of pride. But my deacon ought not to celebrate the solemnities of mass with our brother Cyriacus, since by a profane title he has either committed the sin of pride or goes along with it. For if my deacon were to go up to the altar with one who stands in such pride, we might seem, which God forbid, to confirm the vanity of that foolish name. But I have taken care to warn our brother to correct himself of this pride, since, if he does not correct it, he will in no way have peace with us. [b]

Further, in his synodical letter our brother has, by the grace of God, expressed himself in every respect as a catholic. But he has condemned a certain Eudoxius, whom we find neither condemned in synods nor rejected by his predecessors in their synodical letters. It is true that the canons of the Council of Constantinople condemn the Eudoxians, but they say nothing about who their founder Eudoxius was. The Roman church, however, does not so far have these canons or the acts of that council, and has not accepted them, though it has accepted that same synod in what it defined against Macedonius. It certainly rejects the other heresies named there, which had already been condemned by other Fathers; but so far it knows nothing about the Eudoxians. Some things are indeed told in Sozomen’s history about a certain Eudoxius, who is said to have usurped the bishopric of the church of Constantinople. But the Apostolic See refuses to accept that history itself, since it contains many false statements, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia too much, saying that he was a great teacher of the church to the very day of his death. It follows, then, that anyone who accepts that history contradicts the synod held in the time of Justinian, of pious memory, concerning the Three Chapters. But one who cannot contradict this synod must reject that history. Moreover, in the Latin language we have so far found nothing about this Eudoxius, either in Philaster or in the blessed Augustine, who wrote much about heresies. So let your love tell me in your letters whether any of the approved Fathers among the Greeks has mentioned him. [d]

Further, three years ago, in the case of the monks of Isauria who were accused of being heretics, my brother and fellow bishop the lord John once sent me a letter to satisfy me on the matter. In it he tried to show that they had contradicted the definitions of the Synod of Ephesus, and he sent me certain chapters, said to be those of that same synod, which they were said to oppose. Among other things, these chapters asserted about the soul of Adam that it did not die by sin, on the ground that the devil does not enter into the human heart; and that anyone who said it did was anathema. When this was read to me, I was much grieved. For if the soul of Adam, who was the first to sin, did not die by sin, how was it said to him about the forbidden tree, “On the day you eat of it, you will surely die”? Adam and Eve certainly did eat of the forbidden tree, and yet they lived on in the flesh afterward for more than nine hundred years. So it is evident that he did not die in his flesh. If, then, he did not die in his soul either, the impious conclusion follows that God pronounced a false sentence on him when he said that on the day he ate he would die. But far be this error, far be it from the true faith. For what we say is that the first man died in soul on the day he sinned, and that through him the whole human race is condemned to this penalty of death and corruption. But through the second man we trust that we can be set free, both now from the death of the soul and hereafter from all corruption of the flesh in the eternal resurrection. This, moreover, is what we said to the representatives I mentioned: “We say that the soul of Adam died by sin, not as to the substance of living, but as to the quality of living. For since substance is one thing and quality another, his soul did not so die as to cease to be, but so died as to cease to be blessed. Yet this same Adam afterward returned to life through repentance.” [f]

But that the devil enters into the human heart cannot be denied, if the gospel is believed. For it is written there, “And after the piece of bread, Satan entered into him.” And again it says there, “When the devil had now put himself into the heart of Judas, so that Judas should betray him.” Whoever denies this falls into the Pelagian heresy. So, having examined the Synod of Ephesus and found nothing of the kind in it, we also had a very old manuscript of that same synod brought to us from the church of Ravenna. We found that it agreed with the record of the synod that we have, differing in no respect, and that in its decree of anathema and rejection it contained nothing else except that they reject the twelve chapters of Cyril, of blessed memory. But we set out this whole argument much more fully and in detail to his representatives when they were with us, and satisfied them completely. So, lest these or any similar things should creep in over there and cause offense to holy church, we must point them out to your holiness. And although we know our brother and fellow bishop Cyriacus to be orthodox, yet on account of others we ought to be cautious, so that the seeds of error may be trampled down before they spring up into public view. [h]

I received your holiness’s letter when our common son, the deacon Sabinianus, arrived here. But since its bearer is already prepared to leave and cannot be kept waiting, I will reply when the deacon who is my representative comes.