'Since, however, throughout those troubled times recusation was made even by way of appeal, still after the definitive sentence, but not in the manner which was afterwards introduced by Justinian.' 10. Wherefore it is to be noted that Eutyches here did not say that the document of his faith was with other patriarchs or more distinguished bishops of the East, but with the bishop of the Romans. Therefore he believed that only this could support him, that he had written to the one holy Roman Pontiff. Nor, finally, did Rusticus assert that the sentence of condemnation passed against Eutyches remained suspended on account of the letters of other Eastern bishops. He affirmed only that the letters of Leo had this energy and force.
All of which things, if they be compared with one another and with what precedes, utterly overturn that Quesnellian edifice. For that fabulous custom is not to be gathered from some falsely alleged fact, on behalf of which this recent writer has hitherto contended too boldly, by divining, by fabricating, by turning everything upside down. 11. Yet even if we were to grant that the lie of Constantine the monk could in no way be excused and defended, what follows? Now other things would present themselves to us which prove that, after the sentence of the Constantinopolitan synod had been declined by Eutyches, the cause had already been devolved to the supreme tribunal of the Roman Pontiff; since we have it for certain from those two Leonine letters, that the holy
Pontiff ordered that, under a report of the proceedings, everything should be brought to his notice, so that he might judge fittingly of things well ascertained. For to whom it is given to take cognizance of causes, to decree and to judge, there ought to belong a true and not an arbitrary jurisdiction. Especially if we are dealing with matters of faith, the cognizance of which — even according to that most illustrious man Peter de Marca — was reserved to the Roman and Apostolic See. Although he himself, however, led by I know not what spirit, has in part played into Quesnel's hands, as we shall see a little later, by asserting, against Cardinal du Perron, that that appeal of Eutyches cannot be proved from the Leonine letters;
and that on the other hand he appealed to the Roman, Alexandrian, Jerusalem, and Thessalonian synods, but secretly, and in the ear of the patrician Florentius, after the judgment had been made and after the synod had been dissolved; which things indeed neither cohere with what has been said hitherto, nor with the proceedings of the second Constantinopolitan synod. But meanwhile let us pass on to other matters, observing that Quesnel can by no means be supported by the things which in the course of his lauded dissertation he adduced — namely by showing that some mention was made by Eutyches of the Alexandrian bishop. For this reason he judged that the words of Bishop Basil should be transcribed, who, first failing in memory, then recollecting, testified: 'Now in truth I say (he says), while that very assembly was still in session, and this being proposed to the holy synod,
so that he should say two natures inseparable and unconfused in the one Lord, and that after the union, I know that the religious archimandrite Eutyches said: If the Fathers, the Roman and the Alexandrian, should command me, I say this very thing; but he did not say it as one appealing, but saying: not daring to say it as his own, on account of the Fathers.' From these, then, and similar words — some of which he had poured out to some, others to others, partly on one occasion, partly on another, now publicly, now silently, sometimes as one appealing, yet sometimes as one explaining his own mind (says Quesnel) — Eutyches took occasion to impose both on St. Leo through letters and on the Eastern Fathers in the Constantinopolitan assembly through Constantine;
thence he lied about the appeal. But now the present question cannot turn upon whether Eutyches wished to submit himself to the judgment of the Alexandrian bishop, since already, as we have seen, he was led by a sure hope that he could have this man favorable to himself — both because he was hostile to Flavian, and because he was contending with Flavian under the pretext of the prerogative of primacy, and finally because, relying on the protection of the eunuch Chrysaphius, he had easily drawn Dioscorus over to his own party. Whose good faith indeed could not be proved more than sufficiently, as is clear from his manner of acting both before and after. Nor likewise does our question turn merely upon whether Eutyches lied to St. Leo;
for from the monuments which we have we do not sincerely gather whether at the time of the judgment, and with the Fathers still sitting in council, he openly and publicly appealed. Although it is most certain that he declined the sentence passed against him, and that he persisted in the office of archimandrite until a new inquiry and a new judgment should be instituted. If therefore he declined the sentence passed against him, if likewise he called upon another judge through his document, submitting himself to that judge, what else ought he to have done that we might say he truly appealed? 12.
Hence we could not easily be moved by those things which in what follows Quesnel wrote, rather to parade his own erudition than to harass John David — as one opposing Peter de Marca, whose part, by entering upon a rather strange and rough path, he pretended to take up — although the archbishop of Paris did not so confidently dare to deny to the Apostolic See this right, on behalf of which we now put forth our words. For that same learned and most erudite prelate of the Church of Paris asserted to the Roman Pontiffs the right of judging the causes of the Easterns pertaining to the faith and also to the rigor of universal discipline;
and he believed that this right was owed to the Apostolic See, either by the force of the Sardican canons, or even of the Nicene, in which it had been established that in holding judgments the ancient custom should be preserved. He also spoke sufficiently honorably concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs in the universal Church. And that he might persuade of this, he appeals to the testimonies of the ancient Fathers: namely of Cyprian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Augustine, led by this reasoning, that the center of unity and the principle of headship might be preserved in the Catholic body. Nor likewise does he deny this right of appeals of which we are treating;
indeed he brings forward various examples of Easterns, namely of those who by the force of this kind of right appealed to the Apostolic See, and submitted themselves to its judgment with the parties to the disputes set aside. Nevertheless, discoursing on the appeal of Eutyches, he says: 'I do not grant a place among appeals to the Roman bishop to that which is circulated under the name of Eutyches the archimandrite, after his condemnation carried out by Bishop Flavian, even if it be thrust forward by the common crowd, whenever controversies concerning matters of religion are agitated. I would not, however, wish to deny that he appealed to the Roman Pontiff. But yet I contend that he appealed not only to the Roman Pontiff.'
Hence, as it were with a gentle arm, he chides the most eminent Cardinal du Perron, because the latter believed he could prove this appeal by the authority of St. Leo's letter to Flavian. He contends that from those same words it is not gathered that an appeal to the Apostolic See was made; but that he gave a document of appeal, and that he was compelled to propose witnesses to the document in the city of Constantinople. But who will believe that we have fallen into a difficult knot? Does that most learned man deny that an appeal was made to the Apostolic See? And Leo himself assumed the parts of a judge; and Leo himself, under the notification of the synodal proceedings, wished to be more certainly informed about all things;
and Flavian himself, who affirmed that Eutyches had lied, transmitted the synodal Acts? Or did that most learned prelate recall that the ancients accepted recusation for appeal? Or did he not observe Rusticus's note, in which it was confessed that the sentence passed by the Constantinopolitan synod against Eutyches was suspended by the force of St. Leo's letters? Nor does it accomplish anything that he objects that Eutyches appealed to other sees, because he appealed to the Roman, Alexandrian, Jerusalem, and Thessalonian synods; but secretly, and in the ear of the patrician Florentius, after the judgment had been made and after the synod had been dissolved.
But these things are repugnant to those which Bishop Basil testified, who, reflecting upon those things which had happened many months before, testified that, while the assembly was still in session, and perhaps when he declined the sentence passed against him, he committed himself wholly to the judgment of the Roman and Alexandrian prelate. Certainly the testimony of Basil is to be esteemed more than that of Constantine the monk, a man inconstant with himself, a heretic and a turncoat, who strove with all the sinews of his art to show that those Acts of the Constantinopolitan synod were corrupted and falsified. But why Eutyches also named the Alexandrian bishop, there is no reason for us to say, lest we cook over again what has already been said. 13.
But because that same most illustrious man Peter de Marca adheres rather firmly to the testimony of Constantine the monk, in order to show that the appeal of Eutyches cannot have a place among those which are asserted to the Roman See, he laid down two rules, and calls them 'notable,' which Quesnel afterwards amplified with excessive exaggeration. The first (he says): that a cause of faith, since it is common and general, is to be judged by the synods of the universal Church, but especially by the Roman, which is the first of all; then that the deposition of a heretic, which follows from the decision concerning the faith, is to be judged by a definitive decree of all, if it be a new heresy, and has not hitherto been condemned by the Church.
But from what law — divine, ecclesiastical, or imperial — he draws this rule, lest we at least suspect that it has issued from some suspect workshop, is utterly unknown, and this secret the author has not indicated. We indeed, if we attend to the manner of acting of the Roman Pontiffs — nay even if we depart from the very sayings of the same author, namely of Peter de Marca — are persuaded that Nestorius and his heresy were justly proscribed, and that the author of the heresy was deprived of the episcopate even before a general synod was convened. Especially since we have it that a commission was given only to Cyril, that he should faithfully carry out the pontifical sentence in execution,
and propose it to the Ephesine synod, with a delay of ten days reserved to Nestorius, in which he might deliberate whether he wished to depart from his depraved dogma and abjure it. The assertion needs no explanation, since Peter de Marca himself interpreted the letter of St. Celestine the pope to Cyril, saying: 'And Celestine gives it in mandate to Cyril that, the authority of the Roman See being taken up, and using the pontifical office both in place and stead and power, he should carry out that sentence, and provide for that Church' (namely the Constantinopolitan). Now Leo the Great had as his immediate predecessor in the pontificate Celestine.
But under his governance that lauded first rule was utterly unknown to the Fathers of the Church, and yet it was a matter of deposing a bishop from his rank, of a cause of faith common and general to all. And notwithstanding this, the Roman Pontiff Celestine decrees, establishes, judges, grants a delay for repentance, without awaiting the judgment or vote of the other patriarchs; but only commends to Cyril the execution of the decrees passed by himself. Therefore, insisting even upon the sayings of Peter de Marca, I do not see from what law, canon, or imperial constitution a rule of this kind could be drawn.
It must therefore be reckoned altogether arbitrary, derived from a system and a will to limit the pontifical authority and to confine it within narrow bounds. Concerning which system we would indeed say more, if the purpose of our undertaking permitted it. Meanwhile it is helpful to have seen that this is no distinguished rule, as Marca sings, because we have found it confirmed by no law or custom. 14. This prerogative, perhaps, the other rule will attain, which the same author subjoined. Namely, that appeals made to patriarchs are to be reckoned as made also to their synods, as is clear from the formula of appeal of Eutyches.
But he did not appeal to the synods of the East, because the patriarch of Antioch had subscribed to the sentence of Flavian, and because many metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses were present in the Constantinopolitan council. And that the lauded prelate might at last vindicate for these sayings full credit, he confesses that he drew them out from the Acts of that Constantinopolitan assembly, in which Constantine the monk, acting as the proctor of Eutyches, contended that the Acts published by Flavian were corrupted and even interpolated, since Eutyches had appealed to the aforesaid synods, and the appeal was not now described in the Acts. 15.
凱奈爾踏上伯多祿·德·馬爾卡的足跡，並運用種種誇張，以一大套言辭更廣泛地闡述了前述的學說；隨後附上安提阿主教多姆努（Domnus）的書信——他稱之為會議性的書信——是從赫米安的法昆度（Facundus of Hermiane）的著作中抄錄的。但安提阿主教多姆努這行事方式，因無法以三言兩語說明，將在下面的辯論中被拿來衡量。因為我們從梵蒂岡諸抄本中得到了極大的幫助，用以充實其歷史。因為約在第七世紀所記載的加采東（Chalcedon）會議記錄，含有那著名的會次——凱奈爾判定它為虛構、必須予以拒斥。
Quesnel, having entered upon the footsteps of Peter de Marca and having used exaggerations, explained more broadly the preceding doctrine with a great apparatus of words; then having subjoined the letter of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, which he calls synodical, transcribed from the books of Facundus of Hermiane. But this manner of acting of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, since it cannot be explained in few words, will be called to the balance in the following disputations. For we have received great aids from the Vatican codices for adorning its history. For the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, described around the seventh century, contain that celebrated Session which Quesnel judged, as fictitious, must be rejected.
Meanwhile, however, I will not deny that Domnus of Antioch strenuously opposed himself to the Eutychian errors. Yet I shall contend that from the formula of the appeal it is to be conjectured that Eutyches did not appeal to all the patriarchs and their synods. And that we may not seem to trifle with words, in the first place I judge that it must be inquired of the most wise archbishop which formula he reckons genuine as employed by Eutyches. If he calls genuine the one which Constantine subjoined, then Constantine did not lie, as Quesnel with the others affirmed; therefore all the Fathers who in the second Constantinopolitan assembly opposed themselves to the sayings of that proctor did an injury to the truth.
For one of two things must be said: either that Constantine lied in this fact of the appeal, or that the Fathers of the synod lied. But who will affirm this with such great injury and disgrace to the episcopal body? Not Quesnel, indeed, who protests that in all things he wished to have regard for the honor and dignity of the bishops. Not Peter de Marca, who affirmed that causes of faith are to be treated by the whole body of bishops for the common good and safety of the whole Church. We must not therefore insist upon the formula suggested by Constantine the monk, lest we judge preposterously and boldly concerning the order of bishops and presbyters and their hierarchy.
The genuine formula of the Eutychian appeal must therefore be taken rather from elsewhere, and from no other sources than either from the words of Basil, diligently reflecting with himself upon the truth of past events; or from the testimony of Eleusinus the deacon, which coheres with the sayings of St. Leo the Great. And because in the former formula there is mention also of Dioscorus of Alexandria, while in the latter there is mention of the supreme pontiff Leo alone, as we have already seen in what precedes, therefore we will not linger longer in weighing them, lest we do again what has been done. For we have discoursed abundantly on both formulas in what precedes. I think, moreover, that it must be added that what the same de Marca subjoined can scarcely be understood:
'But he did not appeal (he says) to the synods of the East, because the patriarch of Antioch had subscribed to the sentence of Flavian, and because many metropolitans,' etc. But what then? Was a general synod already being dealt with, and did Eutyches contend that the Easterns ought to be excluded? Therefore did he wish to be judged by the Westerns alone together with the Roman Pontiff? And a general council, which Marca asserted to be necessary in a common cause of faith, how could it have been composed of Western bishops alone? This system has indeed seemed to me to contain a secret. And therefore from other