Now at last it is time that, these words being left behind, we make our step toward the matters themselves, weighing one by one the remaining arguments of both critics, which—unless my opinion deceives me—are so devoid of strength that they have neither sinews nor stings by which they could graze or press Baronius. As regards the first, nothing weaker than it can be devised, inasmuch as it is drawn from Prosper's silence. 'He indeed does not mention a council,' says Quesnel. What then? Does he not mention that anything was held by St. Leo in the cause of the Manichaeans? Yet he recounted, just as of this St. [...]
...by the diligence of the pontiff he detected the Manichaeans lurking within the City, exposed them to the eyes of the whole Church, and caused all the abominations of that wicked doctrine both to be condemned and to be disclosed, their books being burned. Quesnel passed over all these things in complete silence. But Prosper wrote thus in the public records of his Chronicle, in his very words: 'In the consulship of Maximus (for the second time) and Paterius (or Paternus), at this time very many Manichaeans within the City were made known through the diligence of Pope Leo, who, dragging them forth from their hiding places and exposing them to the eyes of the whole Church, caused all the abominations of their doctrine both to be condemned and to be disclosed, their books being burned.'
There is therefore no room to doubt concerning the public and solemn condemnation of the Manichaeans; and if both critics contend that this was carried out by holy Leo outside of a council, they at once run upon the very rock which they everywhere and always strive with the utmost care and art to avoid. For they concede to us who maintain that heresies and heretics can be condemned by the sole authority of the Roman pontiffs, and that they have at times been condemned, without any support of councils being employed at all. For a council is needed only then, when the Roman pontiffs judge it expedient; and they were ordinarily accustomed to convoke them then, when by common consent decrees of faith already defined by the Apostolic See were to be solemnly received by the whole assembly of the Church;
when, in order to repress the audacity of heretics, a more numerous gathering of bishops was deemed very useful, so that a more solemn judgment might be rendered; when finally it was fitting to settle more easily and more peacefully ecclesiastical affairs that had been thrown into disorder in the churches, whether by the perversity of schismatics or by the power of princes and other ministers of the age. There is therefore no law that commands councils are to be held as necessary to the Church. On the contrary, it is decreed by the very laws that general councils are not to be held unless the Roman pontiff has judged that they ought to be held. But if, moreover, new heresies and new schisms should arise in the Church, these assuredly, according to the divine and apostolic mandates, must at once and of necessity both be repressed and rooted out;
lest, either by the propagation of the seed of malice, or by its striking roots to the detriment of the catholic faith, the tares of the demons be day by day the more nourished and grow greater. Yet not on that account is there prepared by the Founder of the Church only one remedy for these evils, namely councils, but many. The Roman pontiffs can, by letters filled with the sacred doctrines; they can, by frequent admonitions; or finally they can, by their legates bearing most weighty warnings, meet and cure all those evils, without convoking general synods.
For the solemnity of such judgments is not absolutely necessary, but only when ecclesiastical affairs are altogether thrown into disorder, or when the questions raised are so doubtful and obscure, so wavering and entangled in intricacies, that for the common peace and the salvation of many the Apostolic See has judged a council to be expedient. Wherefore we can by no means endure what both critics have asserted in the case of which we treat, namely that there was no need of a council, since it was not a matter of proscribing a new heresy or of asserting the faith, but of sanctioning a penalty according to the canon of the Church;
as though, when either one of these cases intervenes, councils must of necessity be convened, or, when no other cause occurs, provincial or general synods may be proclaimed and held. Whence, pray, did they draw such a doctrine? Let them bring forward into public view the canons, the monuments of the Fathers, the customs of the churches, so that to us too may be made known the sources from which proceeds this singular and hitherto unheard-of hidden discipline. We indeed, if we consult the Fathers, the councils, and the usage of the Church, are bound to maintain and believe altogether the opposite.
因為在第二世紀，當宗徒之後會議在教會中開始較頻繁地舉行時，眾主教在亞細亞與巴勒斯坦多處聚為一堂，商議關於慶祝逾越節（復活節）的問題。此事的見證者乃偉大的依勒內（Irenaeus），高盧諸教會的宗徒與最燦爛的明燈；古今眾學者皆信服他，其中有該撒利亞的優西比烏（Eusebius of Caesarea），見其《教會史》第五卷第廿四、廿五章。然則誰能斷言在那些會議中曾處理過判處某新異端或確立信德之事呢？
For in the second century, when after the apostles councils began to be more frequently held in the Church, the bishops came together into one, in many places both in Asia and in Palestine, over the question concerning the celebration of Easter. Witness of this is the great Irenaeus, apostle of the churches of Gaul and their most splendid luminary, to whom all doctors, both ancient and more recent, have given their trust—among whom Eusebius of Caesarea, in Book V of his Ecclesiastical History, chapters 24 and 25. But who will affirm that in those same synods anything was done concerning the proscribing of a new heresy or the asserting of the faith?
同樣，在教會的第三世紀，無論在羅馬與非洲，抑或在弗呂家（Phrygia）及本都（Pontus）的新該撒利亞（Neocaesarea），眾教父召集了多次集會：或為在迫害時期背教者施行有益的補贖，或為修復教會的規制，或最後為澄清並懲處諸主教的罪過；然而各處皆未曾論及任何新異端或信德條款之事，正如同一位優西比烏、居普良（Cyprian）、亞歷山大的丟尼修（Dionysius of Alexandria）以及那時代其他興盛的教父之著作所顯示——這些著作至少有若干殘篇流傳至今。何須贅言？
Likewise in the third century of the Church, both at Rome and in Africa, and also in Phrygia, and at Neocaesarea in Pontus, the Fathers of the Church gathered many assemblies, whether for imposing a salutary penance on those who had lapsed in the time of the persecutions, or for restoring ecclesiastical discipline, or finally for clearing away the crimes of bishops and for punishing the same; and yet nowhere was there any discourse concerning a new heresy or concerning the articles of faith, as the writings of the same Eusebius, of Cyprian, of Dionysius of Alexandria, and of the other Fathers who flourished in that age reveal—of whose writings at least some fragments have come down to us. What need of more?
In the fourth, fifth, and the other following centuries, innumerable councils were held, whether for pronouncing anathema on heresies already condemned elsewhere, or for establishing in the Church the various grades of penitents, or for deposing bishops from their sees, or for restoring to their own those who had already been unjustly deposed, or finally that matters might be dealt with concerning appeals, concerning the dedications of churches, concerning immunities, concerning the indulgences to be granted to the lapsed and penitent, and other things of that kind. Wrongly, therefore, is it fabricated that the holy pontiff did not hold a council in the case of the Manichaeans, on the ground that it was not a matter of condemning a new heresy or of asserting the faith. It suffices that anathema was to be pronounced upon the Manichaeans found in the City;
已足夠的是：羅馬教會的規制要求將摩尼教徒逐出義大利一切疆界之外。因此，儘管在摩尼教徒的審判中所處理的確是依教會法典所當裁定的刑罰，然而，因為聖良將該教義的一切醜行暴露於全教會眼前，並使之既受譴責又被揭露——如我們所見，此乃據阿奎丹的聖普洛斯培（St. Prosper of Aquitaine）之見證——則毫無阻礙可使這一切不曾在一場會議中付諸執行。尤其因為教宗欲確立某種新安排的方案。
it suffices that the discipline of the Roman Church required that the Manichaeans be banished far from all the borders of Italy. Wherefore, although in the judgment of the Manichaeans a penalty was indeed dealt with, to be sanctioned according to the canon of the Church, nevertheless, because St. Leo exposed to the eyes of the whole Church all the abominations of the doctrine, and caused them both to be condemned and to be disclosed—on the authority of St. Prosper of Aquitaine, as we have seen—nothing can prevent all these things from having been carried into execution in a council. Especially since the pontiff wished to establish the plan of a certain new arrangement.
The pontiff wished to establish this both for the exposing and denouncing of heretics, and for the making and receiving of accusations against them—the burden of which he willed to be laid upon all catholics under the indignation of Almighty God. What wonder, then, if, before he imposed such obligations both upon the people and upon the presbyters, he wished to frame a new canon to be perpetually observed in similar cases? For he himself sought nothing else than the safety of religion and of all catholics; and therefore, having convoked an assembly and rendered a judgment, he also brought in a part of the senate and a part of the common people, framing a general rule of conduct, by whose bond the conscience of all would be bound, and from which no one could withdraw without the mark of a crime.
But now both critics might applaud themselves, since I have fallen upon a rather difficult knot, which perhaps they reckon a Herculean labor, since they have said, as though from the tripod: 'Neither is it a council, where together with priests there is a part of the senate and a part of the common people.' 5. This last observation, moreover, would press hard upon Baronius, if it were true, if firm, and if finally—against the sanctions of the sacred synods and the rules of divine law—the case of the Manichaeans had been judged and defined by priests and presbyters together with a part of the senate and a part of the common people coming together. But in the first place, that assertion is of altogether doubtful credit, that a part of the common people was summoned and brought in when the question was being held concerning the doctrines and crimes of the Manichaeans.
For neither Valentinian, nor holy Leo, nor anyone else asserted this. Valentinian indeed, in his novella (edict), testifies that their crimes were laid bare before the most august senate by their own confession. Leo likewise, discoursing about the assembly convened by him, wrote: 'When therefore the bishops and presbyters were seated with me, and Christian and noble men had gathered into the same session, we ordered their elect men and elect women to be brought forward.' But if they contend that by those two words of Leo, 'Christian men,' a part of the common people was at least obscurely indicated, I will not refuse freely to concede it. But what follows from that?
Is it unusual in the Church that princes, royal ministers, the senate itself, and some from the people should be brought in to councils as witnesses? Was this not the practice and custom of many councils? But, to pass over the councils of the apostles, in which together with the apostles and the rest of the Lord's disciples all the faithful and the whole multitude of believers were gathered—did there not come also to the Council of Nicaea, the first general council, besides the bishops and the Emperor Constantine, laymen also thoroughly versed in the studies of philosophy, who held disputations with ours in the presence of the whole people?
We indeed hold most abundant witnesses, and not only all catholic writers, but even the heterodox themselves—namely Calvin, Illyricus, Luther, the Magdeburgians, and others—who in this most thoroughly proven matter agree with us; although afterwards, abusing the praised examples, they endeavor to construct new engines against the Church, teaching altogether wrongly that laymen are to be brought into the sacred synods not as witnesses but as judges, and that they cannot be deprived of the (as they call it) decisive vote except by the greatest injustice. But what have I to do now with those heretics, who corrupt everything, or at least turn it to the opposite side?
I will rather return to Quesnel and Pagi, and ask whether they have ever run through copies of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Now this synod was convened and confirmed seven years after the condemnation of the Manichaeans, by the authority of the same Pope Leo, as we shall relate in due course. Did only the bishops, presbyters, and the rest—merely the clerics and ministers of the churches—have a place in it, or also the senate together with some others from the people? We indeed, if we give credit to the authentic Acts, read that there were gathered at Chalcedon senators and magistrates, consuls, prefects, and the rest of the emperors' ministers;
nay more, we understand that into so numerous an assembly there came the Emperor Marcian himself, attended by a great retinue of nobles and commoners, who, following the examples of Constantine the Great, showed himself the defender of the faith: 'For we, following the example of the religious prince Constantine, wished to be present at the synod for the confirming of the faith, not for the exercising of any power.' Thus did Marcian address the Fathers of Chalcedon. Will not even this be a council, in which together with the priests there were the emperor, the senate, the prefects of provinces and of affairs, and a part of the people? Mere trifles! Away with the fiction!
For the gathering even of lay men can by no means stand in the way of the true nature of councils, if only the bishops, and their legates, or others—ministers and more cultivated men of the religious families—handle the ecclesiastical causes and define the matters of faith; if finally these alone, as judges, subscribe to the synodal sanctions. Nor on that account would princes, magistrates, the common people itself, be devoid of every function in councils, if they be admitted and called in as suitable witnesses and defenders of the truth, as is wont to be done. But lest anyone suspect that this distinction between laymen and the ministers of the churches was by no means observed in Leo's assembly concerning the Manichaeans, I would wish, I pray, that he give heed to the pontiff's
—the pontiff's manner of speaking, by which he first describes the bishops and presbyters seated with him as though on the tribunal of judges, and then goes on to say that, 'the Christian and noble men having been gathered together,' he ordered their elect men and elect women to be brought forward. And so the noble men did not sit down together with Leo and the rest of the bishops or presbyters; but they were merely gathered when there was action concerning the attestation of the crimes of the Manichaeans and the execration of the same—when finally there was action concerning the receiving of those Manichaeans whom the holy pontiff had led to penance. This is what those words of St. Prosper sound forth, which we have also adduced above.
Namely, that the Manichaeans lurking in the City, being exposed to the eyes of the whole Church, he caused all the abominations of the doctrine to be condemned and disclosed. If therefore this was Leo's manner of acting—that the Manichaeans should not be received into the Church as penitents unless the errors of that most base sect had first been publicly detested—why contend so strenuously that the holy pontiff's assembly can be called a council because in it there was a part of the senate and a part of the common people? To what end, at last, these things? For my part indeed, having set aside all partisan zeal and having followed the truth alone—which alone ought to be sought out in writing and disputing—I understand absolutely nothing in that Roman inquisition of the Manichaeans that is repugnant to the marks and characteristics of a true council;
especially since we may easily overturn all the arguments that are brought forward by Quesnel and Pagi. Nay, I understand one thing most agreeable to all catholics, and more suited to preserving the purity of the faith in the Church, which I fear may be displeasing to many: namely, that the arrangement of the general inquisition of the present day, a certain manner of proceeding, drew its origin not altogether unlike that inquisition of Leo against the Manichaeans. 6. But if it should be brought against us, and indeed by learned and erudite men, who ask whether it can be proved with sufficient constancy that such a form of judgments was never varied or interrupted from Leo's age down to our own times, I would wish it to be well enough known what counsel we have had in view.
For we are not of those whose mind wanders beyond the goal set for itself. For we have had it in our wishes only to correct Leo's Works, to adorn them, and to draw from his writings certain Dissertations, and to vindicate the deeds of the holy pontiff himself from the censures of other critics. Therefore we have so applied to this our care, thought, and study, that—in order to avoid superfluity and arrogance, to flee rashness and prolixity—we ought by no means to have mingled the deeds of others with the deeds of the holy pontiff, except when, in order to overturn the false opinions of others, we have come upon such things from which we could not withdraw without the blemish of ignorance.
But if finally the same manner and mode of proceeding against those tainted with heresy or suspected of the heretical stain was at some time interrupted, what of that?
For our Leo had not yet closed his last day, when the barbarians, setting out both from the North and from Africa, having brought the Roman Empire to its ruin, so disturbed also the affairs of the catholic Church that—an alliance having been struck with the powers of the demons—wickedness, tyranny, and the errors of many heresies were spread far and wide; and the supreme pontiffs and others of lower rank could scarcely give their labor to recall catholics from vices, to restrain princes from the slaughter of citizens and the burning of cities, and to bring heretical men (the Arians especially), of whom there was so great a multitude, to abjure their errors and profess the doctrines of the true faith.
For in so great a disturbance of affairs, encircled by so many and so savage enemies, there was nothing that was not to be feared. And therefore, with the rigor of the ecclesiastical laws to some extent tempered by leniency, they most sufficiently fulfilled the true offices of a pastor in extirpating the errors that were day by day swelling, and in driving off the vices that could corrupt and undermine the piety of the faithful. Yet not on that account, amid these straits of times, wars, and vicissitudes, can that ancient discipline of the Roman Church be said to have been either abolished or changed, even though, for reasons of the arrangement, it was not perpetually carried into execution.
For it was altogether impossible that under barbarian princes and barbarian peoples, who had been transferred hither and who were liable to countless errors, they should preserve that form and rigor of inquisition which holy Leo, under most pious and catholic princes, had defined as to be observed. Wherefore let no one be moved with astonishment if, in these times of the Christian commonwealth so grievously afflicted, the pastors of the churches had to comply, lest together with the sincere faith of Christ all catholics should be endangered under the yoke and persecutions of the barbarians.
But we could explain this arrangement of the Roman pontiffs more and more by the examples of the apostles, who, announcing to the Jews and to the gentiles the gospel of the cross, were compelled in those things which were not repugnant to the Christian faith to comply with the time, so that little by little they might gain for Christ all men of whatever order and condition. Let no one, then, be angry with me that I have been excessive in refuting the little reasonings of Pagi and Paschasius Quesnel; nor let anyone further complain that, for the vindicating of Baronius, I have brought into public view many things that could have been either passed over or explained more briefly. In both, necessity alone compelled me.
Namely, the zeal of Quesnel and of others like him, who—never sufficiently indulgent to their own party—very often dissemble those things in the Works of the holy Fathers that ought to be brought to light; the things that ought to be defended, they labor to overturn; and the things, finally, that pertain to the authority and dignity of the Apostolic See, they strive either altogether to diminish or at least to conceal. But that the ancient writers too followed this same manner of acting is indicated, among other monuments, by the Greek letter of Theodoret to our holy pontiff Leo;
in which, having sincerely recounted the honors, prerogatives, and offices of the Apostolic See—on account of which all nations have been accustomed to hasten to this see, that, as he says, 'we may receive from you a remedy for the ulcers of the churches, for it befits us to hold the first place in all things'—in another section he makes a step toward praising some deeds of the holy pontiff, among which he recounted (as a most sufficient argument) that contest against the infamous Manichaeans, 'which your Holiness,' he says, 'lately carried out, and by which you have made manifest your love toward God with zeal for divine things.' With which words it was by no means unwelcome to us to close the present Dissertation.