of the ancients in Latin concerning the one Person and two natures of the Lord, Zurich 1571, folio, and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Paris 1575, vol. V, and 1589, vol. IV, and 1644–1654, vol. III, and Cologne 1618, vol. VI, and Lyons 1672, vol. IX. Most consider him to be the same person as John of Scythopolis. Photius, in codex 95, praises his style and, in codex 231, attests that he wrote well in defense of the Council of Chalcedon.
533 TESTIMONIA CONCERNING JOHN MAXENTIUS AND HIS WORKS
That John Maxentius and his companions, the Scythian monks (whose names, as Justinian testifies in his epistle to Pope Hormisdas, are Achilles, John, Leontius, and Maxentius), were manifestly perfidious Eutychians, condemned by the Roman Church, and that they stirred up huge disturbances in the Catholic Church, both in Constantinople and in Rome, is most clearly understood from the many reports and letters of the legates of Pope Hormisdas which are contained in vol. I of the *Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum*, and from various letters of the same Saint Hormisdas, especially that to Bishop Possessor: for they professed themselves, in appearance, to be supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, as may be seen throughout this work, and most especially in the preceding profession of faith, while in reality they strove with subtle artifice—and with the cunning inherent in heretics—to undermine the faith of the Council of Chalcedon... (Cf. Baron., vol. VII *Annal. eccles.* to the year 519, ch. 81 through 89, and ch. 97 through 126, and to the year 520, ch. 12 through 28.)
Therefore, all the works of Maxentius placed here are to be read with the greatest caution, and no trust should be placed in them, since the poison of the Eutychian heresy lies hidden within. Cocleus, who first published the works of Maxentius under the name of an orthodox Father, is to be excused if, as an upright and sincere man, he did not discern the tricks and impostures of the cunning Eutychian, since he did not have at hand the letters exchanged during the time of Pope Hormisdas, in which the deceits and frauds of Maxentius and his companions were uncovered. See the same vol. VII of the *Annales*, to the year of Christ 519, ch. 103, and the year 520, ch. 27.
From Bellarmine, *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*: John Maxentius, a monk and, as it is believed, an Antiochene presbyter, lived in the time of Pope Hormisdas, against whose letter he wrote. His works exist in the fourth volume of the *Bibliotheca SS. Patrum*. He wrote a *Profession of the Catholic Faith*, also a *Libellus against the Acephali*, also two books of *Dialogues against the Nestorians*, also a *Response to the Epistle of Pope Hormisdas*, in which he disputes against the Nestorians and against Faustus of Riez, the Semipelagian. And indeed he refutes Faustus and the Pelagians admirably, using the books of St. Augustine; but he refutes the Nestorians, writing against Possessor, an African bishop, in such a way that he appears to incline toward the Eutychians. Certainly, Pope St. Hormisdas defended Possessor and bitterly attacked John and his monks. Maxentius wrote against the 534 letter of Hormisdas, denying that it was by Hormisdas, lest he seem to write against the Supreme Pontiff; but in actual fact it cannot be denied that the letter is truly from Hormisdas.
LETTER OF JOANNES MAXENTIUS TO THE LEGATES OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE
To the most blessed lords, Germanus and John, bishops, Felix and Dioscorus, deacons, Blando, presbyter, and the entire legation of the Apostolic See, from the lowly Maxentius, and all those who are with me, greeting.
Since some, seeing us bring forth the judgments of the Fathers against those who, with hostile intention, strive to overturn the faith of the venerable Council of Chalcedon, and seeing us oppose the new arguments of the wicked with Catholic words, judge that we are making some addition to the faith, or at any rate acting against the statutes of the council, we deem it necessary to remove this improper opinion from their minds by means of probable proofs.
teaching that it is in no way contrary, if we show the opinion of the heretics to be false, by which they attempt to prove that the things that were before them are contrary and inconvenient A to the council, according to the opinions of those Fathers which the synod itself receives. And first, indeed, it is improper to believe that the Catholic faith can receive any addition, because, since it is perfect and full in all things, it cannot receive an increase. For that, without doubt, receives an increase which is imperfect. But if the matter is not about the understanding of the faith, but about words, this is not always contrary, because sometimes the addition of words makes for an explanation of the faith, and sometimes for a corruption, which is not an increase, but rather a detriment to the faith. Therefore, the addition of words is to be avoided when it works not for the explanation, but for the corruption or contrariety of the faith. But if every addition of words is believed to be harmful to the Catholic faith, why is the blessed Cyril, for the destruction of Nestorius's impious interpretation of the holy Symbol, in the Council of Ephesus, bringing forward so many opinions of the holy Fathers, not believed to receive any addition worthy of reprehension? But if it is not believed to receive an increase for this reason, because he did not insert B the opinions of the holy Fathers themselves into the very text of the holy Symbol, but bringing them forward extrinsically made the most sincere sense of that same holy Symbol manifest: therefore it is equally fitting to judge concerning our insignificance, who do not insert the opinions of the Fathers into the very document of the venerable Council of Chalcedon, but bring them forward extrinsically against its enemies for its defense. So, finally, the blessed Pope Leo also, after the defense of that same council, was compelled, by the opinions of various Fathers, through those things which are called Encyclicals, to obstruct the mouths of those who contradict, and to dissipate the new inventions and calumnies of the wicked. Following whose examples, and compelled by those who strive to confirm the error of their own impiety by the authority of the synod, and attempt to twist the words simply and integrally edited by the holy Fathers to their own depravity, we have been forced, armed with the opinions of holy and most approved doctors, to meet them and, through the grace of God, to refute their impious assertions: evidently proving that they are entirely alien from the faith of the holy Fathers and of that same council. For what is against the synod, and not rather for the synod, if we—against the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon who calumniate it as having come against the faith of the holy Fathers—bring forward the opinions of those holy men who flourished in the Church before it, and teach that nothing new, or contrary to the faith of the holy Fathers, was established by the aforementioned council? Especially when the blessed Fathers who C gathered in that very synod, beginning to explain their own faith, testify of themselves in a manifest voice, saying: "Therefore, we too, following the most holy Fathers, confess," etc. But those who judge it to be a retractation of the council to bring forward anything in their books from the saints, or that which had been collected by convenient reason, let them first argue against the blessed Cyril, who (as we have shown above) while the Symbol of the holy Fathers remained perfect and first, brought forward the opinions of various Fathers to destroy the impious interpretation of Nestorius; and against the blessed Leo, who similarly taught that the statutes of the venerable Synod of Chalcedon agreed with the faith of the Fathers by the testimonies of the holy Fathers. And only then will they be able to argue against us as retractors of the council, we who, through the well-presented opinions of the holy Fathers, repel the fallacy of the heretics. For no one is rightly reprehended for retracting a synod, unless he, judging of its statutes, attempts to bring forward opinions of the Fathers not for it, but against it, as the heretics do. But those who bring forward the opinions of the Fathers not against it, but for it, are defenders, not retractors, of the council. In vain, therefore, do they argue that we are retracting the synod, they who see that we bring forward the opinions of the Fathers not against it, but for it. Because the synod prohibited one from handing down another faith or texts besides the holy Fathers to those who flee to the Catholic faith: but it did not prohibit one from wishing to oppose with reasonable documents the depravity of the heretics, or those who labor to corrupt its sense. Whence that which is objected to us is also superfluous: that what the synod does not say, it must by no means be said. For there are many things which are not said by the synod, nor in any canonical scripture, and yet when reason requires it, we do not hesitate in any way to bring them forward: as is the Trinity, or when we say concerning the Father that He is unbegotten, and many other things. For it is not to be considered in matters (as the most blessed Augustine says) what the usage of our speech allows or does not allow to be said, but what sense of the things themselves may shine forth. These things being so, most blessed ones, to expel and remove suspicion from the minds of all, as we have already said above, now we deem it necessary to make manifest to you how we feel concerning the incarnation of the Lord uniquely, or what we hold concerning the grace of God, not that by which we are created, but that by which we are recreated. For we have no doubt now concerning the divinity of the Son of God, by which He is established and is united to the Father and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, your holiness shall judge anything in this satisfaction of our faith to be contrary to the Catholic faith or to the traditions of the holy Fathers, may you deign to instruct and amend us: but if you judge it agreeable, may you deign to confirm it by your own authority.