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;
那麼，何必如此費力去捍衛羅馬座的權利，並保護東方那神聖而古老的慣例——藉此慣例他們或將信仰的案件呈交羅馬教宗，或將較重大的事務提交給他們討論，而不從其判決、規章與命令中退縮呢？此外，歐迪奇自己也深信，他只要拒絕了對他所下的判決便已足夠，好使人相信他已從此判決上訴——就照他所處的方式，說那信仰的文書在羅馬至聖的主教那裡。伯多祿·德·馬爾卡（Peter de Marca）閣下也支持此點，他論及弗拉維安的上訴時，籠統地說出以下這些話，這些話奇妙地切合我們所論的問題。
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.