Sermons & Letters 246

Among the Quesnellian dissertations we come upon that one placed in the ninth position, in which the author undertook to examine the cause of Domnus, the former bishop of Antioch; in which, treating of his condemnation and of the ordination of Maximus his successor, and then proposing to himself to illustrate various epistles of St. Leo and the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, he at length flatters himself that he can demonstrate, or has demonstrated, that the action concerning Domnus inserted in these Acts may be fabricated. Indeed the author promised this to himself from the title or heading of that same dissertation, but wrongly to be sure.

For all the points which, scattered here and there, he gathered for the patronage of his cause, either yield as being weak, or the series of events makes manifest that they are wholly irrelevant to the question with which we deal. He begins his dissertation, then, by inquiring why the ordination of Maximus was confirmed, while the deposition of Domnus was not rejected. He adds: nearly all catholic writers who treat this question bring forward this one thing: that Maximus, although elected by suspect men and consecrated by the bishop of Constantinople against the canonical rule, and ordained over Domnus while he was still living, was nonetheless received by the synod for this reason, because he had been confirmed in the episcopate by St. Leo.

He notes the deposition of this man and of other bishops, carried out at the Robber Council of Ephesus through the greatest impiety; but Domnus alone, though the others were reinstated, was not restored to his see; which manner of acting is the cause of a graver difficulty. He adds that the Acts of the Robber Council of Ephesus were rendered void by the Westerners before the Council of Chalcedon, and that Leo the pontiff testified that he should order all things to be in that state in which they were before the unhappy synod, until all things should be reformed by an ecumenical synod. The consequence was that the deposition of Domnus and the ordination of Maximus should be void, and that Domnus should recover his place. He sets forth Baronius' opinion more affirmatively, namely that St. Leo, the case being known, understood Domnus to have been justly condemned.

After these things he reports the conjecture of those who affirmed that Domnus voluntarily lent his hand to his own deposition, enticed by the delights of the solitary life in which he had once been nurtured by Euthymius the abbot; and when, against the will of the holy Father, he was planning to leave them in order to bring aid to John his uncle, who was deviating from the catholic faith, he heard from him these words foretelling the future: 'If, neglecting these things and the thoughts content with endurance, you attempt to depart from the Laura, you will indeed obtain the administration which your uncle holds, but evil men and impostors will take it from you again, when you have first been seduced by them through ignorance.' These things, and others of this kind concerning the deeds done by Euthymius, he reports from Cyril the monk.

Thirdly Quesnel concludes: those, moreover, who think that Leo's authority effected this, that Maximus should remain placed in the see of Antioch under such evil auspices, and that Domnus should be compelled to yield his place, say that this is manifest from the Acts of Chalcedon. Indeed, in the action which is entitled 'concerning Domnus of Antioch,' it is read in express words that Maximus was confirmed by the authority of Leo. Quesnel finally transferred that whole action into his dissertation, in order to investigate the truth of ecclesiastical history; so that, with it placed before his eyes, the reader might more easily interpose his judgment concerning it.

Having therefore prefaced such and so great an apparatus of questions and words, Quesnel, having transcribed that action concerning Domnus of Antioch reported among the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, confessed that he most earnestly wished with all his heart that it were by no means fabricated, but genuine: 'For if this were so (he says), we would have in hand a testimony of the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff both over synods and over the Eastern bishops, the bishops, I say, of the greater and principal sees. For indeed how great is the power, that the consecration, or at least the confirmation, of the bishop of Antioch, and consequently of Alexandria and of the other bishops, should reside with the Roman bishop, as Cardinal Bellarmine and his apologist James Gretser argue from this passage.'

What a prerogative, that when several bishops had been deposed by the unhappy synod through force and crime, their condemnation and deposition should be ordered to be valid which the Roman pontiff should judge ought to be valid, and only the substitution of another bishop into his place should hold good which that same one had confirmed! Whence at length there would evidently shine forth from this his supreme power over synods, whose Acts have force in that part to which he has added force, and those things are null and void which he willed to be void!

'But just as it belongs to a learned and wise theologian to vindicate with his whole heart and from solid and genuine proofs the true and genuine privileges of the primary see against the innovators, so it is the mark of a mind little sincere and generous either to extend the same beyond the prescribed limits, or to prop them up with uncertain, perishing, and false supports and buttresses.' He concludes at last: 'For truth has no need of a lie, but rather, from association with a lie, even the most attested truth is wont to be called into suspicion of falsity.' Who, however, persuades himself that Quesnel made that protestation sincerely and with all his might?

Indeed, if he had wished from his heart that the action concerning Domnus of Antioch were not fabricated but genuine, he would have sung a recantation and palinode, and would have destroyed the ninth dissertation written for this cause, and burned it up in flames and fires. For while he was still alive, the most illustrious Stephen Baluze, applying the greatest zeal and with the highest expenditure of labors, procured for himself new information from here and there from men devoted to the study of ancient literature, so that at length Quesnel himself might most fully have been able to judge, without any hesitation of mind, that he had erred, deceived in his studies, and that the action with which we deal cannot be called fictitious.

Wherefore the same Baluze, both for the utility of literary matters and for the increase and good of ecclesiastical history, in adorning a new collection of the Councils, met and resolved all and each of the Quesnellian arguments, and rejected from each one's mind those suspicions of falsity which readers might imbibe. And so Quesnel gathers his first argument from the Greek codices of the Council of Chalcedon, in which an action of this kind is lacking. 'This,' he says, 'is certainly no slight indication of a forgery made by some Latin impostor. For if it had truly been done in the council, it would surely have been in Greek, and, inserted into the Greek Acts of this synod, would be read along with the other actions.'

'For why this one alone should have been torn away from the body of the rest of the Greek actions plainly does not appear.' But who will not judge this first conjecture of Quesnel to be too fallacious? Shall it be permitted to Quesnel to suspect that that action was fabricated by a Latin impostor, because it does not appear in the Greek codices that survive, and will he not rather suspect that the Greeks sought to abolish it, and strove to tear it away from the body of the rest, so that they might more easily contend with the Roman bishop concerning the primacy? Did not the Easterners, in the fifth, sixth, seventh and following centuries, strive to arrogate to themselves the honors and prerogatives of the primacy, on account of the Church of Antioch having first been founded by the Lord Peter?

Did not the Acephali and the Eutychians, immediately after the Council of Chalcedon, move every stone to abolish that same synod? And since they could never obtain this, they wished at least to blot out the memory of the fact that the Eastern bishops, the Antiochene and the Alexandrian, were held to be canonically elected only by the consent of the Roman pontiff, or his confirmation. This indeed Quesnel ought to have pondered with himself;

especially since in the see of Antioch, after Maximus and Basil, catholic bishops, there sat several bishops who were heretics, schismatics, and most wicked men, whose catalogue we could set forth from the Acts of subsequent councils, if we were having an engagement with a man in no way versed in ecclesiastical history.

Meanwhile, however, passing over what might be said concerning Peter the Fuller, Severus, Macarius the Monothelite, and other men of wicked sects, who could have lent their efforts so that that action might be utterly stolen away from the ancient Greek exemplars, lest there should exist a certain monument of indubitable credibility concerning the full power of the Roman pontiff in confirming at least the elections and consecrations of the Eastern patriarchs, let us consider whether the preceding argument wavers or collapses.

Certainly, in order that it might be invalidated by the Quesnellian suspicions alone, the adversary ought to have set before us some Greek autograph of those same Acts of Chalcedon, so far as a defense for his conjectures could thus far be made from the Greek sources; therefore we now make our step to wresting away another argument of Quesnel. Secondly, then, he contends that this action came forth from a single codex which no authority, no antiquity commended, since it was only on paper, and is reported to have been received from two unknown German scholars. Those devoted to ancient matters owe much to the most illustrious Stephen Baluze.

For he judged that, in refuting this difficulty of our adversary, one ought to act more advisedly and prudently, lest he intrude fables into his collection of the Councils. He therefore, hanging in suspense about giving credence to Quesnel, began partly to survey with his own eyes the Latin versions of the Council of Chalcedon; then he inquired of friends whether in other libraries outside Gaul manuscript exemplars were preserved in which that action concerning Domnus was written. Among the others who indulged his wishes was the most illustrious and most eminent Jerome Cardinal Casanata, most skilled in ancient matters, whose memory, on account of the more notable goods and increase conferred upon the literary commonwealth, will never perish.

He, I say, consulted by Baluze, ordered many codices of the Vatican Library (over which he presided) to be surveyed by most skilled men; in which, since the action with which we deal was found, he not only purged those imaginary scholars of Germany, suspected by Quesnel, from the mark of impostors and ignorance, but also demonstrated by very many arguments that Quesnel himself had most grievously erred. For in the first place the action with which we deal was contained in Greek in the codex of Patricia Julia, of which Rusticus makes mention, although it was lacking in other codices examined by the same man. For Rusticus himself, after the sixth action of the Council of Chalcedon, appended that note which the Bohierian codex displays: 'Here ends action 6.'

'Here begins action 7 concerning Domnus of Antioch, formerly patriarch, translated from Greek into Latin.' But to this note of Rusticus, in the course of time, this other was added: 'But other codices display it at the end of the tenth action.' Two things, then, Quesnel ought to have noticed: the one, that codices not on paper, but made of parchment, not more recent but of the highest antiquity, make mention of this action as translated from Greek into Latin; and therefore that it was not permitted to him to affirm that the Greek collection of the Acts of Chalcedon could never have been separated from the rest, since the most ancient interpreters of that synod affirmed that they had found it placed in the seventh position:

the other is that that action did not come forth from a single codex which no authority, no antiquity commended, since it was only on paper and is reported to have been received from two unknown German scholars. For what forbids that some paper exemplar of ancient monuments was copied from more ancient archetypes? For innumerable are the manuscript exemplars, even written in more recent characters, which were copied from the most ancient parchments, as is plain to the blear-eyed and to barbers, that is, to everyone.

Therefore it was necessary for him, before he should define the matter as if from the tripod, to inquire more diligently whether in libraries and archives older exemplars of this action, written on parchment, were to be found. He ought at least to have given some credence to the most eminent Baronius, who wrote: 'This very action, in an old Latin Vatican codex which is said to have belonged to Proculus and Albinus, is placed under the ninth action, and under the same day; namely, on the sixth before the kalends of the same month of November.' Of which codex he made so much that, wishing to refute the argument drawn from the constitution of the emperor Justinian, addressed to John the supreme pontiff, in which one reads: 'The holy Council of Chalcedon

synod condemned after his death Domnus, made bishop of Antioch, who dared to write that the twelve chapters of Cyril alone ought to be done away with' — wishing, I say, the same Baronius to wrest away this argument, he adds that the emperor Justinian was ignorant of this action. Which saying indeed of Baronius lends great strength to our preceding conjectures, namely that the Eastern Acephali and Eutychians applied all the sinews of their effort to destroy this Greek action with which we deal. But divine providence, which has always provided for the ecclesiastical government, willed that at least in the most ancient Latin exemplars that action should be preserved.

Now the praised Cardinal Casanata communicated three codices of more notable distinction, from the Vatican Library alone, to the most illustrious Baluze, with the various readings which occur in them noted by the zeal of most skilled men.

'Among them (he says) one is most ancient, inasmuch as it was written, in the judgment of experts, at least a thousand years ago.' Wherefore, lest Baluze should defraud the same Cardinal Casanata of his due praise, he committed to print the words of his letter: 'The action concerning Domnus of Antioch is thus displayed by the most ancient Vatican codex no. 1322, in majuscule character of the second age, written, it seems, at least a thousand years ago, corroded at the beginning and mutilated, yet supplied by a hand of eight hundred years and more. But the various readings noted in the margin had been drawn from two other codices, 1321 and 1323, of the same Vatican Library.' That these codices are not on paper but written on parchment, no one will be permitted to doubt. But besides those three praised exemplars, the same Casanata affirms that others more recent were discovered in the Vatican repositories, writing:

'Two other Vatican codices, numbers 5405 and 4166, are most recent and contain nothing worthy of notice.' Nor indeed ought the other codices, which the preceding editors used, to have escaped Quesnel — namely the Corbie and the Dijon ones, which, although they do not agree among themselves in the order of the actions, nevertheless in them the action of Domnus is not lacking — so that he should rely on the authority of merely a single paper codex displaying no antiquity. For in the Bohierian codex this action is placed at the beginning of the seventh action, as we have said.

But in Crabbe's edition it is subjoined to the same seventh action, with this prefixed as a note to the reader: transcribed from an old paper codex, and it is said to have belonged to Proculus and Albinus, German scholastics. Nevertheless the diversity of order supplies no foundation for us to reject this as spurious. For Crabbe in his edition subjoined these words to the tenth action of that council: 'At Constantinople, on the sixth before the kalends of April, in the 13th indiction, on the sixth weekday' — these are to be referred to Rusticus, deacon of the Holy Roman Church, which things Crabbe, by the help of the Bohierian codex, assigned to the same interpreter; which, since they had long since created very much trouble for readers, the Roman and other editors believed must be overcome.

But come, let us investigate from Baluze the reason why in manuscript codices we sometimes find the action concerning Domnus of Antioch placed immediately after the sixth, and at the beginning of the seventh action, before the meeting of Juvenal of Jerusalem and of Maximus, the successor of Domnus; or set in the ninth, as it now stands in the ninth section, or in the tenth, as it now stands in the Labbean collection of the Councils; and it must be believed that the cause of such great discrepancies is to be adjudged to the discretion and negligence of the notaries. But lest this learned man should seem to use divination, he wisely noted: that bishops, when they set out to synods, were accustomed to bring their notaries with them, who would take down the synodal acts in shorthand;

so that, when the synod was finished, each one might carry the codex of the Acts back to his homeland. He proves this custom first from the observations of Henri de Valois on Evagrius. But we confirm it the more from the epistles of St. Leo the Great, who, about to send legates to the Second Council of Ephesus, joined to his legates — namely Julius, Renatus, and Hilary — Dulcitius the notary, whose fidelity he held sufficiently proven, as he testified both in epistle 24 to Flavian and in the other, 29, to the same Council of Ephesus. But Baluze, passing over this observation, reported another drawn from the Council of Chalcedon itself, which he was adorning with learned notes.

'In the first action (he says), when part of the acts of the Robber Council of Ephesus had been recited, and certain bishops cried out that they were false, Theodosius, bishop of Claudiopolis, said concerning Dioscorus: "Let him bring forth his notaries; for, casting out the notaries of all, he made his own write." And when the judges and the senate asked by whose hand the records of the proceedings had been written, Dioscorus said: "Each one wrote through his own notaries — mine wrote mine, those of the most religious bishop Juvenal wrote his, those of the most religious bishop Thalassius wrote his." And there were also many notaries of the other most reverend bishops taking it down. If it is not the writing of my notaries, that is because each one has his own.'

Hence, then, Baluze gathers that, since they published the codices of the records page by page, each one arranged them according to his own grasp and pleasure, and thus it came about that they referred the beginning of the cause, e.g., of Ibas, to the sixth action, others to the seventh, others even to the ninth, others finally to the tenth, and so in the other actions. In setting forth these things, however, we have digressed a little from the order which Quesnel kept in vainly trying to show that this action of Domnus is wholly spurious.

For although it had by no means escaped him that it is found either in the Bohierian codex praised above, or that it is indicated after the sixth action as turned from Greek into Latin, nevertheless he preferred to accuse the bad faith of Rusticus the deacon, as a schismatic and one struck with anathema by Vigilius, rather than to persuade himself that it is the genuine offspring of the Fathers of Chalcedon. What? He falsely believed that the translation of this action could be assigned to Rusticus, although the latter subjoined his name to the first action alone, in this manner, from the Bohierian manuscript codex: 'Here ends the first session of the Council of Chalcedon…. Amending and collating the manuscripts on the day before the kalends … the 13th indiction' (that is, on the fourth weekday of December, in the 13th indiction, on the fifteenth before the kalends

of April), 'I, Rusticus, by the grace of God deacon of the Holy Roman Church, collated, annotated, and divided it. Thanks be to God.' He adds besides the things which are to be read in the edition of Peter Crabbe, of the Order of Minorites, namely: 'The end of the first session of the Council of Chalcedon, which was finished and amended in the year of the Lord 417 (it is corrected in the margin to either 454 or 457; in all of them very badly, says Labbe), on the fourth weekday, in the 13th indiction, on the twelfth before the kalends of April. I, Rusticus, by the grace of God deacon of the holy Roman Church, collated, annotated, and divided it.'

'Thanks be to God.' 'The same (Quesnel finally concludes), almost, in the Roman edition, with few variants.' Wherefore he flatters himself that certainly nothing can be established from annotations of this kind, which do not cohere among themselves, and that therefore that mention in the Bohierian codex is not of Rusticus alone, but of several annotators. He will gather various things here and there, in order at length to persuade his readers that Rusticus re-read the Council of Chalcedon against the codex of the Acoemetae, which the earlier correctors had already collated and amended; and that he likewise appended his own attestation, just as they had appended theirs; but whereas they reviewed the remaining actions, he does not seem to have progressed beyond the first.

He adds that the years which the prior annotation designates cannot pertain to the age of Rusticus, and that that prior annotation is rendered suspect by this word 'manuscripta.' That word was wholly superfluous before God had bestowed upon men the art of emending codices. He subjoins: 'And even if we grant that all the Chalcedonian actions were re-read and amended by Rusticus, deacon of the holy Roman Church, it is clear that the action with which we deal was not found by him.'

These and similar conjectures, therefore, Quesnel exaggerated in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of his dissertation, with that zeal which is his wont, but in vain indeed. For, as the same Stephen Baluze noted, he neither attained a correct view of the time of the edition made by Rusticus, and, moreover, laboring vehemently under the vice of inconstancy, Paschasius Quesnel denied what he had been obliged to affirm both in his notes on the 24th epistle of St. Leo and in the cause of Theodoret. As regards the time of the edition, Baluze notes that Rusticus came to Constantinople in the year of the Lord 547, with the Roman pontiff his uncle, from whom he afterward defected at the beginning of the year 549, and was cast down from the honor and ministry of his rank in the following year.

But before his deposition he undertook the emendation of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, on the tenth before the kalends of March in the year 549, and completed it in the following year, on the third before the kalends of April, devoting a whole year and somewhat more to this work. It is doubtful, however, whether he did this at Constantinople or at Chalcedon. To make me incline toward Chalcedon, there are the most corrupt notes appended at the end of the first action, from which I seem to have detected the ancient and true reading, as I state in that place. To this conjecture, however (he subjoins), there seems to stand in the way the mention of the codex of the Acoemetae, which all know was situated at Constantinople.

But this must be explained, so that we say that Rusticus does not speak of the codex of the Acoemetae of Constantinople, but of those who were under the bishop of Chalcedon, whose archimandrite John subscribed to the petition of the monks given to Menas the patriarch and to the whole synod in the fifth session of the Council of Constantinople under Menas. And lest anyone could doubt the truth of this matter, we willingly resolved to consult the passage praised by Baluze, and we came upon the name of the archimandrite John written, as we subjoin in a note appended at the foot. There remains, then, the difficulty whether Rusticus the deacon amended the remaining actions besides that first Chalcedonian one.

Quesnel's arguments are that nowhere in the acts does mention occur of an emendation made by Rusticus except in the first action. Afterward he adds that he does not wish these things to be taken as certain. Rightly, writes Baluze. For he himself above — namely, on the 24th epistle of St. Leo, which was written to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, and which was re-read in the second action of the Council of Chalcedon — seems to acknowledge that this action too was amended by Rusticus the deacon; and in the dissertation on the cause of Theodoret, he likewise acknowledges that Rusticus accurately examined the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon against the codices of the monastery of the Acoemetae.

I add, moreover, these words placed at the end of the fifth session in the manuscripts of Rusticus: 'the same man collated.' They must necessarily be referred to him who had collated the earlier sessions with the ancient manuscripts, that is, to Rustica, of whom mention is made in the manuscripts anciently emended.

For as to what that same most distinguished man surmises—that the manuscript of the Acoemetae, which Rusticus had begun to examine, was first emended in the East by men older than Rusticus, who had appended their attestations to it, then was carried over to us in the West, and was copied by many, so that the emendations noted in the margins were not those of Rusticus alone but of several different annotators—this, with his leave I would say, is mere conjecture, which is not supported by reason; since in the remaining sessions we expressly meet with marks that indicate there was one and the same annotator and interpreter. Nor does it stand in the way that the session of which we are treating is missing in Greek.

For there are many writings of the ancient Greeks which today survive only in Latin, and are not on that account thought any less genuine, as is established by very many examples adduced by the same distinguished Stephen Baluze, which he himself gathered from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus and from the Council of Chalcedon itself, in which the session concerning Domnus was also held. Finally, Rusticus testifies that this session was translated from the Greek, and it has been at least obscurely indicated that it survived even into his age. Baluze also chides Quesnel with a gentle hand, as it were for drowsiness, because he had wrongly interpreted the note of Rusticus, in which he wrote:

'The session concerning Domnus of Antioch, which I found in the parchment codex of Patricia Julia, transcribed anew from an old paper codex, which she said had belonged to Proculus and Albinus, German scholars.' All understand that this session was copied not from the new codex, but from the one that was old in the age of Rusticus, which had belonged to Proculus and Albinus, brothers and most eloquent men. That this, however, did not come from a single paper codex is proved by the copies which Crabbe, Surius, and Jerome Casanata used; and the codices of Corbie and of Divion indicate the same.

Since, then, the antiquity and agreement of the manuscripts bears witness, it can scarcely be understood why Quesnel strove so vehemently to lessen and utterly destroy the authority of this session. He contends besides that this same session was not known to Facundus of Hermiane, a bishop in Africa, who composed his work in defense of the Three Chapters. On the contrary, Facundus, when speaking of Domnus, numbers him among the holy Fathers and venerable doctors of the Church, with John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen, as may be seen in book II, chapter 1. It displeases Baluze more gravely that Quesnel called the trustworthiness of Rusticus into suspicion of falsehood;

seeing that the whole Church owes very much to that same man, on account of the outstanding labor he expended on the Latin translation of the Acts of Chalcedon. For Quesnel unjustly surmises that Rusticus fabricated this session in order to show that Domnus had not been condemned after his death. For so it had been falsely persuaded to certain men in the age of Rusticus, as Baluze explained when at once proceeding to refute the other arguments of Quesnel. One of these arguments is the one which we adduced above, also from Baronius, drawn from the emperor Justinian and the bishops of the fifth synod.

But Baluze asserts that an argument of this kind wavers and altogether collapses, owing to the historical errors which are found here and there in the Constitutions of the emperor Justinian, and to other matters by no means true which were inserted into the Acts of the fifth synod. And although all these things ought not to have escaped Quesnel himself, Baluze was unwilling to abuse them for proving his points, especially since nothing about the death or condemnation of Domnus occurs in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon—a thing which ought to be diligently inquired into by anyone who wished to rely on the testimonies of Justinian and the fifth synod.

10. But now Quesnel contends that Domnus had departed from this light when the Council of Chalcedon was held, on the testimony of the deacon Liberatus and other sayings of the ancients, which are nevertheless violently interpreted. First of all the deacon Liberatus relates how Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, at the Robber-Council of Ephesus, deposed Ibas bishop of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Flavian of Constantinople, and other orthodox men, with the consent of Domnus of Antioch, whose authority he was abusing; and after all these: 'And Domnus of Antioch remaining behind from the deposition of the orthodox, because he had become a sharer with Dioscorus in the deposition of the orthodox and in the absolution of Eutyches. But he was deposed by the guile of Dioscorus thus.'

'After he had consented to Dioscorus in all things, the letters were produced in the midst—the letters which Domnus of Antioch had written to Dioscorus himself against the Twelve Chapters of Cyril—and he condemned him, sick and absent, on that day.' But Nicephorus reported another cause for the deposition of Domnus, writing: 'With whom Domnus also, the successor of John of Antioch, confirmed these things by his own subscription. But he, restored to his own authority, retracted his having yielded to them, resisting Dioscorus and the magnates from the imperial court, and crying out against the decrees as having been made against the ecclesiastical sanctions, calling the synod impious, and finally demanding that his subscription be given back to him.'

'But the synod for that very reason stripped this man too of his priestly dignity.' Quesnel adds: 'These two authors are easily reconciled if you say that Nicephorus brought forward the true reason why Dioscorus had thought of deposing Domnus, but that the text of Liberatus has been corrupted by the drowsiness and hallucination of the scribes or printers'; and he asserts that beneath those words lies a battology, and that it must be corrected according to the sense of Augustine, so that instead of 'remaining behind' one should read 'leaping back,' or rather 'returning from the deposition of the orthodox.' He therefore cites a similar passage of Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists, book II: 'whom we desire to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church'; and another from letter 172 to Crispinus:

'unless they had returned to your communion.' This paraphrase of Quesnel, however, Baluze does not approve, and to the best of his ability he explains a passage long vexed by the learned. For he judged that the true and genuine sense of the words of Liberatus is this: namely, that Dioscorus at the Robber-Council of Ephesus deposed the orthodox bishops; but Domnus, although he himself was orthodox, he did not depose, because he had already consented in the deposition of the orthodox and in the absolution of Eutyches. But this man too, who remained uncondemned, he afterward condemned—namely, after all the others had been condemned—because he had written a letter to Dioscorus against the Twelve Chapters of Cyril. And so he was not deposed by the synod, because he was publicly repenting of having given his consent to the deposition of the orthodox. 11.

Nor does the praised Baluze approve the other conjecture of Quesnel, which he contends is to be inferred from the testimony of Liberatus: namely, that Domnus, sick and absent, was condemned; and that therefore he did not long survive his deposition, nor prolong his life until the Council of Chalcedon. To this Baluze adds: 'He could have aided this conjecture by the testimony of Eutychius, who writes in his Annals that Domnus died in the year following that synod of Ephesus. But he refrained, for this reason, as I think: because that author is full of historical and chronological errors, so that he can give nothing certain about the life and death of Domnus.'

But he opposes Liberatus himself to Liberatus, who a little later described the death of Flavian, and relates how Anatolius had been ordained in his place; and in the same tenor he says that Maximus was ordained in place of Domnus, yet does not add that Domnus had died. Indeed, the following words demonstrate that he spoke of him as living. For after recounting the death of Flavian and the ordination of Anatolius, he adds concerning the ordination of Maximus in the place of Domnus, of Nonnus in the place of Ibas, and of Athanasius in the place of Sabinianus, with no mention made of the death of these men or of any one of them.

As, therefore, Ibas and Sabinianus had not died before the Council of Chalcedon, since they took part in this synod, so neither ought it to be inferred that Domnus had died before this council, because at the time of the Council of Ephesus he was sick. The argument equally negative, drawn from the silence of Liberatus, who, recounting the individual sessions of the Council of Chalcedon, makes no mention of the cause of Domnus—and would doubtless have done so if the things narrated in that session had truly befallen him—easily deceived;

as did also another conjecture drawn from the words of Evagrius Scholasticus, who, writing that Domnus had been deposed in the synod of Ephesus, could not find out what afterward became of him, and, recounting the Acts of Chalcedon, is entirely silent about Domnus. But what does the silence of either writer, or the very ignorance of Evagrius, prove for Quesnel's system? Both these writers used manuscripts in which the session concerning Domnus did not exist, just as (says Baluze) it does not exist even now in the codex which we call the Parisian. Nor is it on that account false.

For just as, if the art of printing had not yet been invented, and someone using that codex omitted that session, he would seem to prejudice nothing against the authority of those codices in which it is found, so the silence of the deacons Liberatus or Evagrius cannot prejudice against those codices which are established to have contained that aforesaid session in their age. 12. But Baluze, with that very great erudition in which he excelled, entirely solves and explains this and similar arguments, clearly demonstrating whence so great a diversity of the Greek manuscripts arose. We think it necessary to subjoin his very words, that we may utterly do away with any suspicion of forgery.

The learned man therefore observes that the end of the Council of Chalcedon is in reality at the sixth session, so that it also embraces the canons. But the sessions which follow, although enacted in the council, nevertheless—because they did not pertain to the cause of the faith but to private affairs—therefore many bishops, the decree of faith having been drawn up, set out upon the road and returned to their own sees. This he gathers from the Life of St. Euthymius the abbot, and from the letter of Pelagius to the bishops of Istria. For it is read in the Life of Euthymius that Stephen of Jamnia and John bishop of the Saracens, who were present at the Council of Chalcedon, after the decree of faith had been published, departing most swiftly, reported it to Euthymius, thinking the synod already concluded.

Whence afterward their names nowhere appear in the sessions which follow after the sixth. But the pontiff Pelagius teaches this more openly. It is shown that most of the more ancient Greek codices contain the synod in only six sessions, with the canons subjoined, so that they do not at all have the rest of the things which had been set in motion by private interest. And a little above: 'Therefore regard the matter with vigilant care, because in its sixth session the profession of the holy faith is completed, and presently in the seventh the rule of the canons is fixed for the instruction of the now faithful, while in the further sessions nothing concerning the cause of the faith, but private affairs alone, are dealt with.' To his predecessor, or rather to himself, if any faith is to be placed in the deacon Paul, St. Gregory writes the same in his letter to Secundinus:

'The holy Council of Chalcedon spoke, as far as the definition of the faith and the promulgation of the canons, concerning general causes. For after the promulgation of the canons it took care to put to rest the special contentions of the bishops.' What wonder, then, if most Greek codices, and indeed the more ancient ones, did not once have the sessions that follow after the sixth? Hence it came about that afterward they added them, and inserted them into the Acts in different ways, with the order of times by no means preserved, inserting now this one, now another, or omitting them, according as each was led by his own inclination. Baluze concludes: 'The old collector omitted the session concerning Domnus, but the old exemplar from which the codex of Julia Patricia was copied did have it.'

13. Besides, that Baluze may press his adversary Quesnel more forcibly, he adduces the example of a session of Chalcedon, in which the case between Photius bishop of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus was conducted and decided. This indeed the old collators of the Synod of Chalcedon did not have. But it came forth from a Greek Vatican codex, by the zeal of Cardinal Baronius, who found it placed at the end of the fourth session; although Balsamon, in his scholia on the 29th canon of Chalcedon, testifies that it was placed at the end of the Acts in the codex which he used. On this matter we spoke more fully in the dissertation of the Pontifical Academy of Councils in the year 1746, which we have already described in the preceding chapter.

Therefore, discussing nothing about it at present, we turn our discourse to the silence of Evagrius, who was a citizen and advocate of Antioch, as the distinguished Henri de Valois clearly proves. It seems indeed difficult to suppose that he was ignorant of what became of Domnus, if Domnus really survived his deposition, and if expenses were decreed for him at the Council of Chalcedon out of the resources of the Church of Antioch for the sustenance of his life. Baluze admits that it presents a great difficulty, but affirms that it in no way aids Quesnel's opinion.

For the words of Evagrius seem to be confirmed by the author who wrote the Life of Euthymius, in saying that Euthymius had foretold to him an unhappy life in the episcopate, and that he would afterward have to undergo deposition by the zeal and arts of evil men and conjurers, so that, led by repentance because he had not obeyed the saving admonitions of the abbot, he returned to the same Euthymius in Palestine.

'Hence therefore (says Baluze) it came about that the man who passed his life far from Antioch and in silence fell into the oblivion of the Antiochenes, so that it is true that Domnus withdrew into the desert after his deposition; and that Theophanes the chronographer also, and Anastasius the Librarian who received it from him, committed this to written memory, although they bring forward a different cause of his withdrawal than that which the author of the Life of St. Euthymius offers.' 14. But if anyone should contend that greater credit is to be given to Evagrius, who was writing his history at the close of the sixth century, than to Theophanes and Anastasius, who were far removed from the time at which these things are narrated to have happened, I will not gainsay it.

But Quesnel ought to have paid attention to the words of this man, which cannot indicate that Domnus, absent and sick, condemned by Dioscorus, did not long survive, but rather that he departed from the living. For how could his death have lain hidden, if his infirmity did not lie hidden? Therefore it must be said that Domnus fully recovered from that infirmity; but, afflicted with the weariness of his troubles and overwhelmed with confusion, because he had obeyed the impious arts and nods of Dioscorus, he wished to withdraw himself from the throng of men, betaking himself far from the patriarchate of Antioch into the secret desert of Palestine, that he might finish out the remaining course of his life.

Besides, Baluze well noted that the testimony of Evagrius does not contradict the writings of Theophanes and Anastasius, although they wrote differently. For the words of Evagrius teach that Domnus so wished to lie hidden, that, had not Cyril of Scythopolis alone—who was an inhabitant of the same desert which Domnus dwelt in—uncovered that secret, even now we should doubtless, along with Evagrius, be ignorant of what became of him. 15. Less solid are the arguments which Quesnel adduces to confirm his opinion about the death of Domnus: namely, that his condition was worse than that of Juvenal of Jerusalem and of the others to whom the synod, in the fourth session, granted indulgence, and about the reciting of whose names at the altar Anatolius wrote to St. Leo.

But whence is it established that Domnus sought indulgence with the foregoing signs of true repentance? St. Leo ordered some who had fallen in the Ephesine synod of Dioscorus to be received back; but under those conditions which he himself had prescribed in letter 64, of which we treated above: two legations he instituted to the Easterns, one of Abundius and his companions, the other of Lucentius and Basil, for the receiving back of certain penitent fallen ones who were exhibiting due satisfaction; yet concerning the more grievously fallen he reserves judgment to himself, as is established from the commonitory given to Lucentius and Basil, the last legates sent from the City to Constantinople for the receiving back of penitent fallen ones.

But that Domnus was in the number of those whose case seemed harsher, who does not understand? Therefore the judgment and examination of this case was reserved solely to the great Leo, which the most distinguished Baluze by no means observed; nor was the case of Domnus one of those about which either the papal legates, or Anatolius, or any other could judge. Yet another reason adduced by Baluze himself holds good: namely, that Domnus after his deposition withdrew into Palestine to the abbot Euthymius, and ceased to be among the bishops, and therefore there could be no question of reciting his name with the names of the other bishops at the altar. Another argument, which Baluze subjoins, also presses Quesnel very greatly.

For (he says) if Domnus is to be reckoned dead for this reason, that Anatolius makes no mention of him in his letters to St. Leo the Great, then at that time there were also dead Thalassius bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil of Seleucia. For Leo, in replying to Anatolius, made no express mention of those who, with Dioscorus, Juvenal, and also Eustathius, had been partakers of the Ephesine robbery. 16. Nor, further, are many other arguments to be deemed any stronger, which, running too laboriously this way and that in defense of his cause, he strove to gather, in order to show that the session of which we are treating is spurious.

Indeed, if we bring them to the balance, as the praised Baluze has already done, we shall understand that they present nothing but words, fallacies, and violent interpretations. Of this kind is that which he believed he could borrow from the letter of Gelasius to the bishops of Dardania, in which the pontiff, bringing forward very many examples of judgments to explain the authority of his see, enumerates the bishops condemned by a synod whom the Apostolic See absolved; he says that pardon was granted to those who had fallen in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, while he made it void, yet makes no mention of Domnus of Antioch. Therefore (he infers) Domnus had died before the ordination of his successor Maximus.

But what would have to be said about Ibas of Edessa and Sabinianus of Perrha, in whose place Nonnus and Athanasius had been ordained? These likewise had fallen in the Robber-Council of Ephesus; Gelasius in his letter makes no mention of them. Therefore had these too departed from this light before the Council of Chalcedon? But that this consequence is altogether false, both the ancient histories and the Acts of Chalcedon make plain. Nor does the other conjecture obtain any greater weight, which he gathers from Leo's manner of acting, who, having rescinded the Acts of the Ephesine robbery, did not think to except the deposition of Domnus, but asked of the emperor Theodosius that he order all things to remain in that state in which they had been before any judgment.

Hence he persuades himself that the sentence passed against Domnus could have had no effect, if he had been alive. A new fallacy. The deposition of Domnus would indeed have had no effect, if, taught by the fear of punishments, or deceived by ignorance, he had consented to the deposition of the orthodox and the absolution of Eutyches at the prompting of others. But because he had played the leading parts in that Ephesine synod with Dioscorus, he was regarded as a chief of the Eutychian faction, and therefore, since his case, as we have said, was among the harsher, St. Leo, while he was yet surviving, rightly ratified the ordination of Maximus and his own deposition as a punishment for his past wickedness. Indeed, we judge that the Fathers of Chalcedon

so greatly abhorred the previous conduct of Domnus—on account of which he had given himself over, vanquished, into the hands and will of Dioscorus—that they themselves would already have passed a sentence of deposition against him, just as they did against Dioscorus. We gather the argument from the words of Maximus, by which he entreated the judges and the universal synod. 'Maximus, the most reverend bishop of Antioch, said: I beseech the most magnificent and most glorious judges, and this holy and universal synod, that you may deign to exercise humanity toward Domnus, who was bishop of Antioch, and to determine and assign certain expenses from the Church which is under me.'

Whoever is not deceived by hallucination, and is unwilling violently to interpret the words of Maximus, will already fully understand that Domnus had created for himself such canonical prejudices, that Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon by no means ought to have made void his deposition, on account of which he had been wholly deprived both of the episcopate and of its fruits. Wherefore Maximus, the successor, desiring in part to have pity on Domnus, suppliantly entreats the council to be willing to deal more mildly and humanely with him, and to permit him to receive a portion of the ecclesiastical fruits as long as he should remain among the living. The council therefore assenting to Maximus's petition, the legates, or vicars, of the Apostolic See, through Paschasinus, interposed the following decree:

'The holy and most blessed pope, who confirmed the episcopate of the holy and venerable bishop Maximus of the Antiochene Church, seems by a sufficiently just judgment to have approved his merit; since the aforesaid Maximus has of his own will wished to make provision for Domnus, that from his own Church he may, out of regard for mercy, bestow expenses as he shall judge fit, so that, content with sustenance, he may rest for the future.' Therefore Maximus was led by mercy alone to grant such a portion of the ecclesiastical fruits to the surviving Domnus, although by no right could Domnus be placed again in his episcopal see. Anatolius too, bishop of Constantinople, praised this indulgence and mercy of Maximus, saying:

'I too praise the fellow-suffering (or compassion) of the most blessed bishop of Antioch, Maximus, in that of his own spontaneous will he himself offered such prayers, that he might furnish expenses to Domnus, who was bishop of the holy Church which is under him, the aforesaid Domnus requiring nothing beyond this.' 17. But that St. Leo the Great ought not to have made void this man's deposition—besides the things which we adduced in the preceding pages, and which we also sufficiently explained in expounding the holy pontiff's letter 64—Quesnel and Baluze could still have understood from the letter which he wrote to Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem, since Baluze especially, under number 45, affirmed that it was difficult to ascertain.

Juvenal had indeed consented to Dioscorus in the Robber-Council of Ephesus, but he was neither deposed, nor did he persist in his obstinacy. Yet he would afterward have been deposed by St. Leo and by the Council of Chalcedon, because he had created for himself the matter of a deposition, on account of which he had rendered himself not only hateful to all the orthodox, but also unworthy of the episcopate for the future; for which reasons it behooved him to be absent from his see for some time, far away, until through the due satisfaction of repentance, in the time of indulgence, he chose the part of those returning to their senses.

But in the fourth session of Chalcedon the case was proposed of the bishops who, with Dioscorus, had presided over the Robber-Council of Ephesus, and it was inquired whether they ought to undergo, equally with Dioscorus, the censure of condemnation, and to be deprived of their Churches. The judges and all the bishops were in suspense. To whom, since the question seemed sufficiently difficult, they demanded for themselves a respite of five days, in order to bring forth a more mature judgment according to the rules of the Nicene canons. Meanwhile, however, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius of Cappadocia, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia were denied a place in the synod, but, as men doing penance, they had to wait.

'Let the hearing be deferred (we read) until five days, that meanwhile your Holinesses may be gathered to the most holy archbishop Anatolius, and may deliberate in common concerning the faith.' Again, in the same session, after all had cried out that Dioscorus had been justly deposed and condemned by Christ, a few hours having passed, the judges, awaiting the emperor's mandate, said: 'The most pious emperor, learning your prayers, has permitted deliberation concerning Juvenal, and concerning Thalassius, and Eusebius, and Basil, and Eustathius, the most reverend bishops, as has seemed good to you.' Anatolius said: 'We ask that they enter'; and the other bishops cried out: 'We beg that they enter.'

Nor did they obtain a place in the synod by any other means than that their faith was first recognized, by which they had approved the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed, holding ratified the decrees of the Ephesine ecumenical council, by subscribing nevertheless with the other bishops to the letter of St. Leo to Flavian, and by condemning those who thought the contrary. Among these, at all events, Domnus was not found; both because he had withdrawn into the desert of Palestine, and because he had not given the signs of returning to his senses at a suitable time, when, namely, St. Leo did not refuse to grant indulgence to the fallen by the clemency of the Apostolic See. St. Leo's letter to Juvenal himself agrees entirely, in which, reproaching him for his past excesses, he says:

'I grieved that you yourself were the cause of your own adversities, and that you lost the constancy of resisting the heretics, because they reckon it not to be free for you to dare to refute those to whom you have professed yourself to have been pleasing in their error.' He then assigns the reason on account of which, after so very grave a fall, it had been permitted him to return to the see of his episcopate, subjoining thus: 'Wherefore, because in the time of indulgence you chose a return to your senses rather than obstinacy, I so rejoice that you have sought the heavenly medicine, that you may at last be able to be a defender of the faith assailed by the heretics.'

Who, meanwhile, does not see that Quesnel devised a grave fabrication when he maintained that Leo, by the decree whereby the Acts of the Robber Council of Ephesus were rendered void, granted indulgence to all who had lapsed, and that he gave no thought to excepting the deposition of Domnus? What then? Was Leo, by rescinding the brigand Acts, perhaps intending that indulgence ought to be given to the ringleaders of that synod even if they had not come to their senses, even if they had not most humbly begged that pardon be granted them, once all the conditions had been fulfilled which the holy pontiff had prescribed for Anatolius, Juvenal, Thalassius, and the rest who had communicated with Dioscorus and Eutyches, having formed a conspiracy against Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and the other orthodox?

It was therefore not necessary that, once the brigand proceedings had been rendered void, he should except the deposition of Domnus, since to Domnus himself and to the other leaders of the Eutychian faction no further right could any longer accrue of persisting in the episcopate, which they could thereafter have retained from the indulgence of St. Leo alone, had they done penance.

Hence I judge that Quesnel's deceit ought above all to be noted: for, while discussing the brigand Acts and the letter of St. Leo written to Theodosius Augustus—in which he asked that he command everything to be restored to the state in which it had been before that ill-fated synod—he flatters himself that he believes the holy pontiff to have shown such indulgence to the lapsed that the offences of those men should remain entirely unpunished, who had filled all the Churches of the East with scandals, slaughters, enmities, and hatreds, by fair means and foul, to the ruin of the faith. That Leo by no means held such a mind his subsequent words demonstrate. For he reserves to himself the right of holding full judgment concerning all these matters and their authors, until the greater part of the priests from the whole world could be gathered together.

That is to say, so that when the bishops assembled for a synod in Italy, judgment might be passed solemnly and according to the rigor of the canons concerning the faith and crimes of the lapsed. It could not therefore be lawful, after the Robber Council of Ephesus, for the lapsed bishops, the authors of schisms, bound by ecclesiastical censures, to retain their sees; nor were the canonical penalties which they had incurred relaxed for them by Leo through the abolition of the brigand acts. Attending diligently perhaps to these things, Domnus, moved by modesty and shame, preferred to pass the private life of a penitent far from the throng of men and of his own fellow citizens, rather than to come forward in public assemblies and synods, there to give the due proofs of his faith, penitence, and satisfaction.

What Quesnel adduces from the constitution of the emperor Theodosius to prove the death of Domnus is plainly judged to be childish; for in that constitution the Acts of the pseudo-synod are confirmed, and concerning Domnus one reads: "who was bishop of Antioch." He adds that in the fourteenth session of Chalcedon it was said by Athanasius, bishop of Perrhe, ordained in the place of Sabinianus, who, giving the reason why he had declined the judgment of Domnus: "My enemy was the very man of Antioch who was judging." From these things he contends one can infer that Domnus had already departed this life. For first, if it held good, it would already prove that Domnus, once that brigand synod was concluded, had put off the man (i.e., died); since the constitution of Theodosius was issued and promulgated immediately at the instigation of Chrysaphius and Dioscorus.

Therefore his death could not have escaped anyone's notice, nor would it have been allowable for Evagrius to write truthfully that he was wholly ignorant of what had become of Domnus. Nor does Athanasius of Perrhe there speak of Domnus as a dead man, but of him who was at that time conducting the council of Antioch. Wherefore (says Baluze) those modes of speaking are indeed of past time, but of the past imperfect, as the grammarians say, in expounding which it is shameful to linger any longer. But truly, that Domnus was not dead when the Council of Chalcedon was being held, and that St.

…that St. Leo had rendered void all the brigand Acts, excepting the deposition of Domnus and the ordination of Maximus—Quesnel at length came to recognize this; for, in scrutinizing the tenth session of Chalcedon, he stumbled upon the intervention of Stephen, bishop of Ephesus, who contended that all the things done against the canons by the rapacious synod had been abolished, excepting those things which had been carried out against Domnus, for this reason (namely): "because the ordination of the most God-beloved bishop Maximus, made in his place canonically in the metropolis of Antioch by the most holy archbishop Leo, this also being present, was received by the holy and universal council."

For the adversary, perceiving the weight of these words, lest the falsely constructed edifice raised by him should utterly collapse, seeking props here and there, flattered himself that it ought not at once to fall to ruin, by writing that it should not be greatly esteemed, because it is the only such testimony, and because it proceeded from one whom in the following session we read to have been deprived of office on account of the crimes by which he had made for himself a step to the see of Ephesus; and that it is therefore probable that out of hatred of Domnus he wished his condemnation to be ratified. But by what reasoning does Quesnel suppose that an evasion of this kind can profit him? I will grant that those guilty of most grievous misdeeds are not admitted to give testimony.

But since the crimes laid to Stephen's charge were at that time not yet proved, and since his case had not yet been brought to trial, nor had he been convicted of the alleged crimes, what can they prove? Nothing. Otherwise the Fathers of Chalcedon would have admitted among the bishops and judges of the first sees a man whom the canons declared to be utterly deprived of office. And indeed that Stephen of Ephesus discharged the true role of judge in the Council of Chalcedon is made known from what follows. In the third session he condemned Dioscorus with the other bishops. In the fourth he praised the letter of Leo to Flavian and accepted it. In the sixth he subscribed to the definition of faith before the emperor. In the seventh he confirmed the agreement of Juvenal and Maximus.

Whence then does Quesnel gather that Stephen was driven by hatred to confirm the deposition of Domnus, except from sheer divination? Wherefore it should rather be thought that Stephen ought rather to have favored Domnus, whom Dioscorus had deposed by guile. Hence the most distinguished Baluze, reflecting on the manner in which Stephen of Ephesus acted, judged that he had so spoken led by no hatred or malevolence, but because he knew that Domnus, once deposed, had returned to the monastery to give himself to quiet and solitude, and had perhaps presented a libellus of resignation according to the custom of those times, so that the canonical ordination of Maximus might take place. 19. But now, the praised prop being added, the whole edifice of Quesnel is undermined.

For Stephen's testimony is neither the only one, nor did any of the Fathers contradict it. In the first place, when in the tenth session the question was raised whether all the brigand Acts ought to be read again, "so that nothing be lacking" (said Theophilus the deacon) "to those who must judge justly," at once all the vicars of the Apostolic See, through Paschasinus, said: "It cannot be called a synod in which those wicked crimes were perpetrated." And a little later he affirms that those Acts were declared void and null by St. Leo; from which it is clear, "because the most holy bishop of the city of Antioch also is outside these" (Rusticus added the following note: "Concerning Maximus ordained at Ephesus") "whom after these things the most blessed bishop received into his own communion";

to which last words the same Rusticus added this further annotation: "Once the deeds of Leo are confirmed, the things that follow are confirmed." Assuredly, had Quesnel attended to this—he who glories that he labored, in surveying both manuscript and printed copies, to adorn the Works of the divine Leo—I do not know whether he would freely have pronounced that the testimony of Stephen is the only one, to which none of those Fathers gave their suffrage. But let him still attend to those things which followed: for after the definition of the synod, none of those things availed which had been done in the synod of Ephesus, except that one concerning the most holy bishop of the great city of Antioch, since the most holy Leo, the Roman archbishop, receiving him into communion, judged him to preside over the Church of the Antiochenes.

Finally, that the rest of the Fathers assented to those three, with absolutely no one contradicting, has been established from those very Acts. For let the readers run through them, and they will clearly understand that the ordination of Maximus and the deposition of Domnus were judged ratified for no other reason than because the pontiff Leo had confirmed them. 20. Quesnel foresaw, and was not unaware, that he was being gravely pressed by those three testimonies. And therefore, thinking that by his words he had sufficiently weakened Stephen's intervention, he turned his pen to two others, those of Paschasinus and Anatolius, which we have already brought into the open. The same Stephen Baluze, well recognizing the grave contention concerning this, under number 52, says:

"It remains for us now to re-examine the intervention of Paschasinus, which we described a little before, both that we may defend the truth of the proceedings, and that we may show that the things truly said by that most learned and excellent man, Pierre de Marca, archbishop of Paris, are true. He treated of the case of Maximus of Antioch in his book On Concord, in order to teach also by a clear example that the authority of the Roman See, in tempering the execution of the canons and in granting dispensation, was extended to the Churches of the East as well. Maximus had been ordained by Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, in the place of Domnus condemned by Dioscorus. Two very great defects were inherent in this ordination: one, that Domnus had been condemned by an impious synod;