Sermons & Letters 233

1. In vindicating the legitimate rights of the Apostolic See we have thus far set forth many things, having first considered the manner of acting of Flavian, bishop of Constantinople: who, after the sentence of condemnation and deposition against Eutyches, sent his letters to St. Leo together with the entire series of the synodal proceedings, and made him certain of all that had occurred. We have therefore understood that a cause of this kind, being among the graver and more difficult ones—on account of which scandals and enmities had arisen between the judges and the Eutychian faction—ought by ancient and apostolic custom rightly to have been reserved to the judgment of the Roman pontiff.

There came at length the fact that the Acts of the Council of Constantinople had not in every respect been drawn up according to the rules of the canons; since, namely, the judges, hearing Eutyches in the course of interlocution, had admitted, or at least dissembled, a single blasphemy—the source of many heresies—which they ought to have proscribed, and under ecclesiastical penalties to have compelled the heretic to execrate. Since, therefore, we have in the foregoing furnished these three things toward proving the judiciary power of the Roman pontiffs, it remains for the present that we speak concerning appeals to the Apostolic See; the occasion, namely, being taken from our adversary, who strives mightily, turning all things upside down, against whatever occurs in the Works of St. Leo the Great.

...in support of asserting those very appeals. 2. And first, to pass over the innumerable passages in which he affirms that Eutyches never appealed to the Apostolic See, I have cast my eyes upon his seventh dissertation, which he entitled: 「On the cause of Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople, condemned by Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, in synod」; to which title he subjoined the following as containing the argument of the dissertation: 「On the letters of St. Leo the pope, the 20th to the same Flavian, and the 21st to Theodosius Augustus.」 I was led into the hope that Quesnel had wished specifically to run through these two letters, and to object to himself, first, what St. Leo the pontiff confesses in those two letters concerning the Eutychian appeal;

...then, by his replies, to dissolve what he had objected to himself. But my expectation deceived me. He indeed begins his dissertation by affirming that many things are taken by certain persons from these letters, to persuade of this right of appealing to the Roman See; he asserts that he does not begrudge the rights and prerogatives of this first see, and confesses that he wishes to guard and defend its authority and eminence, established by the sacred canons.

「But,」 he adds, 「just as the true foundations upon which the mass of the apostolic primacy rests remain unmoved and unshaken, so of themselves must those infirm and counterfeit arguments collapse, by which, through the preposterous zeal of certain men, it is wont to be propped up; and whoever shall labor to unmask their emptiness will surely gain no small favor from the Apostolic See.」 He closes the exordium of this dissertation by declaring the purpose he has set for himself: to leave untouched none of those things which in Leo stand in need of light; and therefore he says he is 「compelled by necessity to note the counterfeit appeal of Eutyches.」 3. Having thus prefaced so splendid and so specious an apparatus of words, he infers the following conclusion:

「This, therefore, I judge: that from neither of these two letters of Leo is anything to be gathered whereby it may validly be proved that the Roman pontiff was appealed to by Eutyches apart from and separately from the other patriarchs and the bishops of the greater dioceses.」 From a man who was wholly given to fabricating frauds and lies nothing more solemn could have been devised; since here he chiefly wishes gradually to persuade that appeals prevailed among the Easterners only to a future general council—as the innovators, fighting as it were for their altars and hearths, have dared to affirm, to the contempt of the Apostolic See.

But in order to gloss over this uttered lie with the color of truth, he first contends to demonstrate, from chapter 3 of Flavian's letter, that Eutyches appealed not to the Apostolic See alone, but to the synods of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica, subjoining these words: 「Whence the truth of Flavian's words shines forth, by which he thus replied to Leo, who was complaining of Eutyches' appeal to the Apostolic See being set aside.」 Behold Flavian's words: 「Eutyches has sent to you documents full of all deceit and craftiness, saying that at the time of the judgment he had given documents of appeal, and had appealed to your Holiness both before us and before the holy council here assembled. This was by no means done by him, but even in this point he has lied,」

「...thinking, as it were, to creep upon your holy ears through the deceit of a lie.」 But that Quesnel's falsity acquires no support or strength from the preceding words, men of sound mind will judge along with me. Nay rather, they will deduce that the holy Flavian truly approved the right of appealing to the Apostolic See, without any account being had of the other patriarchal sees—the Alexandrian, the Jerusalemite, and the Thessalonican. For indeed the bishop of Constantinople denies only the fact of the appeal, not the right, which he approves as most certain, nor did he wish to call it into question. Moreover, Flavian's reply had to correspond entirely to Leo's proposition. Leo had written that Eutyches had appealed to the Apostolic See;

and Flavian replies that in this point Eutyches had lied in saying that he had appealed to your Holiness. Where, I ask, is there any mention of the other patriarchal sees and their bishops? Or, since St. Leo had named only himself and his own see, to which Eutyches, by lying, had said he had appealed at the time of the judgment, why does Flavian not object to Leo that it was not received by custom to appeal apart and separately from the other patriarchs to the Roman pontiff, since rather he ought to have directed his documents of appeal to all the other patriarchs? Therefore the preceding words of Flavian not only do not conflict with the right of appeal, but establish it, and add force and strength to it.

They nevertheless repudiate, and pass over in silence as an unknown thing, that custom which certain interpreters of pseudo-ecclesiastical laws have newly fabricated—namely, that appeals must necessarily be had to a general synod. 4. And indeed Leo's letter 20—the very one which Quesnel proposed as the argument of the present dissertation, and with which Flavian's replies must accord, and indeed do accord—makes the matter more perspicuous. But what follows from this letter? That Eutyches, condemned by the synod of Constantinople, appealed to all the other patriarchal sees? Away with the fiction! In the first place, the holy pope Leo complains that Flavian could keep silent to the Roman See concerning things that had stirred up the uproar of disturbance and scandals, and had not rather taken care that (he says) 「the intimation of your report should first instruct us.」

These words, as we have said, indicate in what manner, in similar contentious causes in which matters of the articles of faith were treated, the Roman pontiff had at once to be instructed and consulted, lest he should be able to be in doubt concerning the credibility of the things done. He then immediately added:

「For we have received the document of Eutyches the presbyter, who complains that, upon the accusation of Bishop Eusebius, he was undeservedly deprived of communion, especially since he attests that he was summoned to a judgment and had not denied his own presence, so much so that he asserts that in the very judgment he offered the document of his appeal, and yet that it was not received.」 That St. Leo here speaks of an appeal made to himself—such as those undergoing an ecclesiastical judgment were ordinarily accustomed to make—is doubtful to none. But whether he actually made it, or did not make it, at the opportune time, namely when the judgment was being pronounced, this lay hidden from Leo. He had not yet been fully instructed concerning the things that had happened. But he had to believe that Eutyches had interposed his appeal at the opportune time.

For he says: 「Eutyches, seeing that his appeal was not received, was compelled to post attestatory documents in the city of Constantinople.」 For what did he understand by the name of 「attestatory documents」? Nothing but a public testimony consigned to writing, by which he professed that the sentence of judgment pronounced against himself was null and void, and that he had appealed from it to the Roman pontiff. But, Quesnel will reply, if he had interposed an appeal, he would also have appealed to all the other patriarchs and the bishops of the greater dioceses, and their councils. But whence did he draw this new doctrine? Let him bring forth into the midst those hidden monuments of antiquity from which he derived it.

We, insisting upon the testimonies of Flavian and Leo, demonstrate that he did not appeal to a Roman council. Flavian indeed denies that the appeal to your Holiness was made at the time of the judgment; he does not deny the right; nor did he add that this man had appealed, or ought to have appealed, to the other patriarchs and the more distinguished bishops and their councils; he adds only: 「But in this point he deceived, like the father of lies, thinking that he would creep upon your ears.」 Therefore nowhere was Eutyches' right of interposing his appeal to the Apostolic See called into question by Flavian; but he denied that this had been done by Eutyches at the opportune time.

Moreover, if that supposition of Quesnel stood, then, with Eutyches now appealing to the Apostolic See while the other patriarchs were passed over, those others would have cried out, perceiving that the right of taking cognizance of similar contentious causes had been snatched from them—since nothing is more effective for stirring up grave enmities than to despise, violate, and abolish the rights of others. But whence is it gathered that they cried out?

On the contrary, if Eutyches, as Quesnel prefers, had appealed to all the other patriarchs and the prelates of the most celebrated Churches, these would not have deferred to pronounce their judgment—and especially the presiding prelates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who scarcely, indeed hardly at all, would have delayed to fulfill the duties of their office, when it was a matter of vindicating their own right, to whom Eutyches had appealed. Yet no other of the bishops of the greater Churches put his hand to this business, none wrote to Flavian, none endeavored to render void the decree of the Council of Constantinople, or to confirm it, although in the meantime...

...a space of six or seven months had elapsed from the condemnation and appeal of Eutyches down to the time when St. Leo obtained cognizance of all that had been done. I truly judge that the prelates of the East and of the Greeks, who presided over the more distinguished Churches, would not for so long have deferred to use their right. Since therefore they did not do so, it is an argument that neither did Eutyches appeal to them, nor did the usage prevail that those condemned in provincial synods should appeal their councils to those of the patriarchal Churches. At length that appeal of Eutyches had to be regarded in that sense in which both Flavian and Leo the Great interpreted it.

But the manner of writing of both indicates that the appeal was made to one single bishop, namely to the Roman, who was venerated as the head and support of the whole Church, and from whom, through the deceits of a lie, Eutyches—as Flavian seems to hint—hoped to filch an absolution, the facts being unknown. Therefore that new form of judging devised by Quesnel totters and falls, since it has no way in which it can stand; especially since the deacon Liberatus asserts only that Eutyches, writing to pope Leo about his condemnation, 「attested by edicts posted at Constantinople, and to the people, that he had suffered injury.」 5.

There are, however, two things from which Quesnel supposed that a contrivance of this kind could stand. One is the testimony of Constantine the monk, the other is the letter of Eutyches to the bishop of Alexandria. As to the first, it ought to be hidden from no one who this monk Constantine was, who was not only held and condemned as a heretic, but also, wishing in the second synod of Constantinople to play the part of Eutyches, was never consistent with himself in his statements, and, with the color of a disturbed mind, denied what he had affirmed, and freely granted what he had lately denied; so that his testimony ought to have absolutely no weight and no credit.

That Constantine was a heretic even Quesnel freely grants, in refuting John David who had harassed Peter de Marca, by saying that the testimony of that monk (which we shall subjoin in what follows) is that of a heretical man, liable to many difficulties, whom Florentius the Patrician himself contradicted, nay, whom the Fathers of Constantinople themselves reprobated. Behold Constantine's saying: 「Eutyches, while the condemnation was being read, appealed to the holy council of the most holy bishop of Rome, of Alexandria, of Jerusalem, and of Thessalonica, and these things were not inserted in the Acts.」 Upon this, as upon a most firm stone—though a counterfeit one—Quesnel has attempted to construct his whole new edifice concerning appeals.

But nevertheless, if he had scrutinized carefully—not cursorily—all that was done and said in that second synod of Constantinople, or had not dissembled it altogether, he could have known how much such a testimony is to be valued. Nor would he have affirmed that anything true could be elicited from that man's lie. 「For (he says) too rank is a lie which is not shadowed with the appearance of truth; and hence we learn that it was not the custom of the Easterners down to those times to appeal to a single one of the bishops, but to all those who had not been participants in the judgment from which appeal was being made; nor to the council of the Roman Pontiff alone, which was that of the whole West, but also to the synod of the other patriarchs, who were not suspect in the cause.」

「And in truth, at the same time when Eutyches was writing to St. Leo that he had appealed to him, he wrote also to Dioscorus of Alexandria, that he should convoke an ecumenical council in which Flavian's judgment might be discussed, as Liberatus teaches us, chapter 12—where, however, he is to be corrected, when he says that Eutyches had not thought of such a council except after the Council of Constantinople was concluded, in which the Acts of Flavian's synod were re-read; for below we shall show from the Acts of this assembly that the Council of Ephesus had already then been indicted.」 But to build an edifice upon a lie is the same as to deceive, and to sell a rash fable for solid history—who does not understand this?

He affirms that it was the custom of the Easterners not to appeal to one of the bishops, but to all those who had not been participants in the judgment from which appeal was being made. But what examples of this fabricated custom does Quesnel have? And—to pass over the Africans, whom Quesnel and Peter de Marca knew very well appealed to the Apostolic See without any contention whatsoever—what will he say of Athanasius, and what of John Chrysostom, who appealed to the Apostolic See, both under pope Julius and under Innocent, the predecessors of Leo?

We consider it superfluous to weigh out here the causes of these things or the reasons for proceeding. Since Quesnel, in order to vindicate to himself their reliability, has neither adduced nor been able to adduce a single instance from among the Easterns of men who appealed to all those who had not taken part in the judgment from which they were appealing — 6. Setting aside for the present the cases of Athanasius and John Chrysostom, concerning which we promise to treat later, what does he think ought to be said about the letters of Eutyches to Dioscorus, that an ecumenical council might be held? A fresh deception of Quesnel himself.

Eutyches indeed knew that rivalries could easily arise between Flavian and Dioscorus, since the patronage of his cause had been taken up by Chrysaphius, the enemy of Flavian, who was bound to Dioscorus by a tight alliance. Therefore, since Dioscorus was bishop of the city of Alexandria, he wished to claim for himself not only the primacy after the Roman Pontiff on the basis of the Nicene canons, but also strove to exercise supreme authority over the Church of Constantinople, as though he were the foremost patriarch of the East, taking no account of the third canon of the first Council of Constantinople, by which it had been established that the bishop of that city should hold the first seats after the Roman. This canon the Roman Church not only did not admit, but abolished;

as we shall say in its proper place; and moreover the Alexandrian bishops themselves rejected that canon as injurious to themselves, both when councils were to be held and also when the ordinations of other bishops were being dealt with. What wonder, then, if Eutyches, under the pretext of preserving the metropolitan's right, wrote to Dioscorus, being fully persuaded also that he could commend himself to that man's good faith through the recommendations of Chrysaphius? Yet nowhere will one find that he wrote to Juvenal of Jerusalem or to Anastasius of Thessalonica, which Quesnel ought to have proved, lest we call that novel mode of appeal of his — which he seeks to sell only to smatterers and the unlearned — feigned and utterly frivolous.

Furthermore, it is one thing to call upon someone as an arbiter and mediator, and quite another to appeal to someone with the proper order of law preserved. I will grant that he wrote to Dioscorus and also sent him the document of his profession. What follows from that? Yet nowhere is it established that he appealed to him. Just as it is not to be inferred that he appealed to the bishop of Ravenna, although he had written to St. Peter Chrysologus, the prelate of that Church. But granting freely that he had also written to Anastasius of Thessalonica, could that man have examined the case of Eutyches by his own proper right? For he exercised the apostolic office there, being that see's vicar. But on that very account he would have acted only in the person of the Roman Pontiff, by no means judging;

but rather by writing to holy Leo, as we have already demonstrated abundantly enough in the preceding chapter. Let us then proceed to other matters. 7. After this, Quesnel taunts John David, as though forgetful of his own cause, for having adduced in his own behalf the words of the bishops who testify that no voice of appeal was heard by them during the judgment — thus cutting his own throat with his own sword. 'When the council was in session, and the interrogation arose (says Bishop Seleucus), we knew of no such thing said by the archimandrite Eutyches concerning an appeal.' By the most reverend bishops it was said, 'We confess the same' — certainly (Quesnel adds after these words), if an appeal had been made even to a single Roman prelate, with the bishops listening,

those bishops would have known it to have been said — the very thing they utterly deny having heard from him. Nor at all should the complaint of Constantine the monk have been reproved, protesting about the mention of the appeal omitted in the synodal Acts. Indeed he would have had as a supporter of his complaint Julian, bishop of Cos, who was present both at the synod and at the later assembly. But that we might snatch away this new cavil of Quesnel — even though we have the testimonies of St. Leo in his letters to Flavian, to the Emperor Theodosius, and to Julian of Cos, in which this appeal to the Apostolic See is indicated; to which the very document of Eutyches lends support, together with the profession of faith which he gave to the Roman Pontiff to be examined;

nevertheless, that the frauds and trifles of Quesnel might appear more abundantly, we have judged it worth unfolding those Constantinopolitan Acts in which, at the instance of Eutyches and by the emperor's mandate, the proceedings of the first Council of Constantinople were reread and examined. 8. That it was Constantine the monk who acted the part of Eutyches is fully clear to all, even Quesnel supporting this. And in the first place, since the question was being dealt with whether Acts of this kind had been corrupted, falsified, and interpolated, it had already been decided, at the emperor's demand, that a general synod should be held. For Bishop Meliphthongus, after he had said that the presence of him who is accused is necessary, especially because accusations of this kind are not made without danger, added:

'How then has the most pious emperor... above all commanded that a universal synod be held, and it is necessary to reserve the greater causes to that council.' Secondly, notwithstanding this, they came to the examination of the documents. And when the petitionary document of Eutyches had been read, in which he affirmed: 'For the proceedings which were composed by the most reverend Flavian against me were read to me yesterday, and I found them to contain things contrary to what was done in the documents.' Thirdly, Constantine, following the manner of heretics, openly confessed that he admitted the Scriptures alone, but not the teaching and writings of the Fathers, offering the following reason: 'Since the Fathers have spoken in diverse ways, and I receive all things; but in the rule of faith I do not receive them.'

But perceiving that a murmur had been stirred up and that a commotion had arisen among the bishops and the others who were present at the council, on account of such rash and blasphemous an assertion, he began to repent, because perhaps he had recalled to his mind that the writings of the Fathers against the Arian and Nestorian heresies had been received as a rule of faith in the Nicene and Ephesine synods. Therefore, wishing to correct what he had wrongly said, he ordered those words to be deleted from the rule of faith, because (he said) 'in my perturbation I spoke unknowingly.' The cunning and inconstancy of this man all the bishops noted. Among them Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra, saying:

'It likewise pleases me that, for one who assumes the person of the religious archimandrite, all things stand firm which have been uttered from his mouth; and that it should not be wished that they be held partly, while partly those things which have been said should be wished to be disapproved.' So great, then, was the perturbation that arose in that assembly, that, with the bishops both marveling and as it were disputing among themselves, one asked what ought to be done in this criminal case? For, in the absence of him whose cause was being tried, who ought to undergo this man's role, there was no consistency in him either in speech or in his responses to the questions; whence also two others, namely Andrew and Athanasius, were sent to speak, that the reading of the Constantinopolitan proceedings might be brought to a conclusion. 9.

Behold, then, the character and manner of acting of that Constantine the monk, upon whose false testimony Quesnel relied in order to draw out the truth of that appeal of which we are treating. Fourthly, in that assembly of bishops mention was made of the document of Eutyches to St. Leo, and of his complaint and appeal; likewise of Leo's letter to Flavian, which was read before all; nor do we come upon a single word about any other letters of Eutyches, whether to Dioscorus, or to Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem, or to Anastasius of Thessalonica. For if he had appealed to the synods of these men, as Quesnel invents, are we to believe that mention would have been made of Leo, the Roman Pontiff, alone?

Are we to believe that, in so great a crisis of the Eutychian affairs, at least one of the bishops, or clerics, or monks, who stood for defending the rights of the Easterns, would have omitted to say that the vote of at least one of the chief patriarchs or bishops of the East ought to be heard or awaited — to whose councils Quesnel, by fabricating, asserts that Eutyches appealed according to ancient custom? And lest anyone suspect me of lying, I will bring forward the words of Eleusinus the deacon, who spoke thus concerning St. Leo's letters and the appeal of Eutyches: 'Since indeed a few days ago the letters of the most holy archbishop of the Romans, Leo, were brought

to us, containing that the most reverend archimandrite Eutyches accused (read: declined) and appealed at the time of the examination to your hearing, through the giving of a document (and therefore after the condemnation they again named him archimandrite), how does he now, urging and saying that the document concerning the faith is with the most holy bishop of the Romans, name the recusation before the synod an appeal?' The most illustrious Stephen Baluze, noting this, cleverly observed that those words enclosed in brackets are missing in the Corbie codex through the copyist's error: 'For the note of Rusticus (he himself says), which is placed in the margin, cannot be referred to any place. Now it reads thus: An evident falsification of Eutyches.'

'And it is to be noted that already the letters of Pope Leo, which he wrote in the absolution of Eutyches — yet only until a fuller hearing — had reached them, and therefore they renamed him archimandrite after the condemnation.' If then, on the authority of Rusticus, the letters of Pope Leo had such force that they could suspend the sentence passed against Eutyches by the Constantinopolitan synod until a fuller hearing; if likewise, by the force of these letters, even after the condemnation, the Constantinopolitan Fathers restored to Eutyches his name and the honor of archimandrite;

what need is there to labor so greatly for defending the rights of the Roman See, and for protecting that sacred and ancient custom of the Easterns, by which they either referred causes of faith to the Roman Pontiffs, or proposed graver matters to them to be discussed, without recoiling from their judgment, decisions, and mandates? Moreover, Eutyches himself was persuaded that it sufficed for him to have declined the sentence passed against him, so that he might be believed to have appealed from it, in the manner in which he stood, saying that the document of faith was with the most holy Roman bishop. Lord Peter de Marca lends support, who, speaking of Flavian's appeal, pronounces in general these words, which fit marvelously the question with which we are dealing.

'Since, however, throughout those troubled times recusation was made even by way of appeal, still after the definitive sentence, but not in the manner which was afterwards introduced by Justinian.' 10. Wherefore it is to be noted that Eutyches here did not say that the document of his faith was with other patriarchs or more distinguished bishops of the East, but with the bishop of the Romans. Therefore he believed that only this could support him, that he had written to the one holy Roman Pontiff. Nor, finally, did Rusticus assert that the sentence of condemnation passed against Eutyches remained suspended on account of the letters of other Eastern bishops. He affirmed only that the letters of Leo had this energy and force.

All of which things, if they be compared with one another and with what precedes, utterly overturn that Quesnellian edifice. For that fabulous custom is not to be gathered from some falsely alleged fact, on behalf of which this recent writer has hitherto contended too boldly, by divining, by fabricating, by turning everything upside down. 11. Yet even if we were to grant that the lie of Constantine the monk could in no way be excused and defended, what follows? Now other things would present themselves to us which prove that, after the sentence of the Constantinopolitan synod had been declined by Eutyches, the cause had already been devolved to the supreme tribunal of the Roman Pontiff; since we have it for certain from those two Leonine letters, that the holy

Pontiff ordered that, under a report of the proceedings, everything should be brought to his notice, so that he might judge fittingly of things well ascertained. For to whom it is given to take cognizance of causes, to decree and to judge, there ought to belong a true and not an arbitrary jurisdiction. Especially if we are dealing with matters of faith, the cognizance of which — even according to that most illustrious man Peter de Marca — was reserved to the Roman and Apostolic See. Although he himself, however, led by I know not what spirit, has in part played into Quesnel's hands, as we shall see a little later, by asserting, against Cardinal du Perron, that that appeal of Eutyches cannot be proved from the Leonine letters;

and that on the other hand he appealed to the Roman, Alexandrian, Jerusalem, and Thessalonian synods, but secretly, and in the ear of the patrician Florentius, after the judgment had been made and after the synod had been dissolved; which things indeed neither cohere with what has been said hitherto, nor with the proceedings of the second Constantinopolitan synod. But meanwhile let us pass on to other matters, observing that Quesnel can by no means be supported by the things which in the course of his lauded dissertation he adduced — namely by showing that some mention was made by Eutyches of the Alexandrian bishop. For this reason he judged that the words of Bishop Basil should be transcribed, who, first failing in memory, then recollecting, testified: 'Now in truth I say (he says), while that very assembly was still in session, and this being proposed to the holy synod,

so that he should say two natures inseparable and unconfused in the one Lord, and that after the union, I know that the religious archimandrite Eutyches said: If the Fathers, the Roman and the Alexandrian, should command me, I say this very thing; but he did not say it as one appealing, but saying: not daring to say it as his own, on account of the Fathers.' From these, then, and similar words — some of which he had poured out to some, others to others, partly on one occasion, partly on another, now publicly, now silently, sometimes as one appealing, yet sometimes as one explaining his own mind (says Quesnel) — Eutyches took occasion to impose both on St. Leo through letters and on the Eastern Fathers in the Constantinopolitan assembly through Constantine;

thence he lied about the appeal. But now the present question cannot turn upon whether Eutyches wished to submit himself to the judgment of the Alexandrian bishop, since already, as we have seen, he was led by a sure hope that he could have this man favorable to himself — both because he was hostile to Flavian, and because he was contending with Flavian under the pretext of the prerogative of primacy, and finally because, relying on the protection of the eunuch Chrysaphius, he had easily drawn Dioscorus over to his own party. Whose good faith indeed could not be proved more than sufficiently, as is clear from his manner of acting both before and after. Nor likewise does our question turn merely upon whether Eutyches lied to St. Leo;

for from the monuments which we have we do not sincerely gather whether at the time of the judgment, and with the Fathers still sitting in council, he openly and publicly appealed. Although it is most certain that he declined the sentence passed against him, and that he persisted in the office of archimandrite until a new inquiry and a new judgment should be instituted. If therefore he declined the sentence passed against him, if likewise he called upon another judge through his document, submitting himself to that judge, what else ought he to have done that we might say he truly appealed? 12.

Hence we could not easily be moved by those things which in what follows Quesnel wrote, rather to parade his own erudition than to harass John David — as one opposing Peter de Marca, whose part, by entering upon a rather strange and rough path, he pretended to take up — although the archbishop of Paris did not so confidently dare to deny to the Apostolic See this right, on behalf of which we now put forth our words. For that same learned and most erudite prelate of the Church of Paris asserted to the Roman Pontiffs the right of judging the causes of the Easterns pertaining to the faith and also to the rigor of universal discipline;

and he believed that this right was owed to the Apostolic See, either by the force of the Sardican canons, or even of the Nicene, in which it had been established that in holding judgments the ancient custom should be preserved. He also spoke sufficiently honorably concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs in the universal Church. And that he might persuade of this, he appeals to the testimonies of the ancient Fathers: namely of Cyprian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Augustine, led by this reasoning, that the center of unity and the principle of headship might be preserved in the Catholic body. Nor likewise does he deny this right of appeals of which we are treating;

indeed he brings forward various examples of Easterns, namely of those who by the force of this kind of right appealed to the Apostolic See, and submitted themselves to its judgment with the parties to the disputes set aside. Nevertheless, discoursing on the appeal of Eutyches, he says: 'I do not grant a place among appeals to the Roman bishop to that which is circulated under the name of Eutyches the archimandrite, after his condemnation carried out by Bishop Flavian, even if it be thrust forward by the common crowd, whenever controversies concerning matters of religion are agitated. I would not, however, wish to deny that he appealed to the Roman Pontiff. But yet I contend that he appealed not only to the Roman Pontiff.'

Hence, as it were with a gentle arm, he chides the most eminent Cardinal du Perron, because the latter believed he could prove this appeal by the authority of St. Leo's letter to Flavian. He contends that from those same words it is not gathered that an appeal to the Apostolic See was made; but that he gave a document of appeal, and that he was compelled to propose witnesses to the document in the city of Constantinople. But who will believe that we have fallen into a difficult knot? Does that most learned man deny that an appeal was made to the Apostolic See? And Leo himself assumed the parts of a judge; and Leo himself, under the notification of the synodal proceedings, wished to be more certainly informed about all things;

and Flavian himself, who affirmed that Eutyches had lied, transmitted the synodal Acts? Or did that most learned prelate recall that the ancients accepted recusation for appeal? Or did he not observe Rusticus's note, in which it was confessed that the sentence passed by the Constantinopolitan synod against Eutyches was suspended by the force of St. Leo's letters? Nor does it accomplish anything that he objects that Eutyches appealed to other sees, because he appealed to the Roman, Alexandrian, Jerusalem, and Thessalonian synods; but secretly, and in the ear of the patrician Florentius, after the judgment had been made and after the synod had been dissolved.

But these things are repugnant to those which Bishop Basil testified, who, reflecting upon those things which had happened many months before, testified that, while the assembly was still in session, and perhaps when he declined the sentence passed against him, he committed himself wholly to the judgment of the Roman and Alexandrian prelate. Certainly the testimony of Basil is to be esteemed more than that of Constantine the monk, a man inconstant with himself, a heretic and a turncoat, who strove with all the sinews of his art to show that those Acts of the Constantinopolitan synod were corrupted and falsified. But why Eutyches also named the Alexandrian bishop, there is no reason for us to say, lest we cook over again what has already been said. 13.

But because that same most illustrious man Peter de Marca adheres rather firmly to the testimony of Constantine the monk, in order to show that the appeal of Eutyches cannot have a place among those which are asserted to the Roman See, he laid down two rules, and calls them 'notable,' which Quesnel afterwards amplified with excessive exaggeration. The first (he says): that a cause of faith, since it is common and general, is to be judged by the synods of the universal Church, but especially by the Roman, which is the first of all; then that the deposition of a heretic, which follows from the decision concerning the faith, is to be judged by a definitive decree of all, if it be a new heresy, and has not hitherto been condemned by the Church.

But from what law — divine, ecclesiastical, or imperial — he draws this rule, lest we at least suspect that it has issued from some suspect workshop, is utterly unknown, and this secret the author has not indicated. We indeed, if we attend to the manner of acting of the Roman Pontiffs — nay even if we depart from the very sayings of the same author, namely of Peter de Marca — are persuaded that Nestorius and his heresy were justly proscribed, and that the author of the heresy was deprived of the episcopate even before a general synod was convened. Especially since we have it that a commission was given only to Cyril, that he should faithfully carry out the pontifical sentence in execution,

and propose it to the Ephesine synod, with a delay of ten days reserved to Nestorius, in which he might deliberate whether he wished to depart from his depraved dogma and abjure it. The assertion needs no explanation, since Peter de Marca himself interpreted the letter of St. Celestine the pope to Cyril, saying: 'And Celestine gives it in mandate to Cyril that, the authority of the Roman See being taken up, and using the pontifical office both in place and stead and power, he should carry out that sentence, and provide for that Church' (namely the Constantinopolitan). Now Leo the Great had as his immediate predecessor in the pontificate Celestine.

But under his governance that lauded first rule was utterly unknown to the Fathers of the Church, and yet it was a matter of deposing a bishop from his rank, of a cause of faith common and general to all. And notwithstanding this, the Roman Pontiff Celestine decrees, establishes, judges, grants a delay for repentance, without awaiting the judgment or vote of the other patriarchs; but only commends to Cyril the execution of the decrees passed by himself. Therefore, insisting even upon the sayings of Peter de Marca, I do not see from what law, canon, or imperial constitution a rule of this kind could be drawn.

It must therefore be reckoned altogether arbitrary, derived from a system and a will to limit the pontifical authority and to confine it within narrow bounds. Concerning which system we would indeed say more, if the purpose of our undertaking permitted it. Meanwhile it is helpful to have seen that this is no distinguished rule, as Marca sings, because we have found it confirmed by no law or custom. 14. This prerogative, perhaps, the other rule will attain, which the same author subjoined. Namely, that appeals made to patriarchs are to be reckoned as made also to their synods, as is clear from the formula of appeal of Eutyches.

But he did not appeal to the synods of the East, because the patriarch of Antioch had subscribed to the sentence of Flavian, and because many metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses were present in the Constantinopolitan council. And that the lauded prelate might at last vindicate for these sayings full credit, he confesses that he drew them out from the Acts of that Constantinopolitan assembly, in which Constantine the monk, acting as the proctor of Eutyches, contended that the Acts published by Flavian were corrupted and even interpolated, since Eutyches had appealed to the aforesaid synods, and the appeal was not now described in the Acts. 15.

Quesnel, having entered upon the footsteps of Peter de Marca and having used exaggerations, explained more broadly the preceding doctrine with a great apparatus of words; then having subjoined the letter of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, which he calls synodical, transcribed from the books of Facundus of Hermiane. But this manner of acting of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, since it cannot be explained in few words, will be called to the balance in the following disputations. For we have received great aids from the Vatican codices for adorning its history. For the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, described around the seventh century, contain that celebrated Session which Quesnel judged, as fictitious, must be rejected.

Meanwhile, however, I will not deny that Domnus of Antioch strenuously opposed himself to the Eutychian errors. Yet I shall contend that from the formula of the appeal it is to be conjectured that Eutyches did not appeal to all the patriarchs and their synods. And that we may not seem to trifle with words, in the first place I judge that it must be inquired of the most wise archbishop which formula he reckons genuine as employed by Eutyches. If he calls genuine the one which Constantine subjoined, then Constantine did not lie, as Quesnel with the others affirmed; therefore all the Fathers who in the second Constantinopolitan assembly opposed themselves to the sayings of that proctor did an injury to the truth.

For one of two things must be said: either that Constantine lied in this fact of the appeal, or that the Fathers of the synod lied. But who will affirm this with such great injury and disgrace to the episcopal body? Not Quesnel, indeed, who protests that in all things he wished to have regard for the honor and dignity of the bishops. Not Peter de Marca, who affirmed that causes of faith are to be treated by the whole body of bishops for the common good and safety of the whole Church. We must not therefore insist upon the formula suggested by Constantine the monk, lest we judge preposterously and boldly concerning the order of bishops and presbyters and their hierarchy.

The genuine formula of the Eutychian appeal must therefore be taken rather from elsewhere, and from no other sources than either from the words of Basil, diligently reflecting with himself upon the truth of past events; or from the testimony of Eleusinus the deacon, which coheres with the sayings of St. Leo the Great. And because in the former formula there is mention also of Dioscorus of Alexandria, while in the latter there is mention of the supreme pontiff Leo alone, as we have already seen in what precedes, therefore we will not linger longer in weighing them, lest we do again what has been done. For we have discoursed abundantly on both formulas in what precedes. I think, moreover, that it must be added that what the same de Marca subjoined can scarcely be understood:

'But he did not appeal (he says) to the synods of the East, because the patriarch of Antioch had subscribed to the sentence of Flavian, and because many metropolitans,' etc. But what then? Was a general synod already being dealt with, and did Eutyches contend that the Easterns ought to be excluded? Therefore did he wish to be judged by the Westerns alone together with the Roman Pontiff? And a general council, which Marca asserted to be necessary in a common cause of faith, how could it have been composed of Western bishops alone? This system has indeed seemed to me to contain a secret. And therefore from other

sources the genuine formula of the Eutychian appeal must be dug out by me, as we shall openly demonstrate in the subsequent chapters that follow.