講道與書信 第 245 章

1. The case of Photius of Tyre, in the cognizance of which the Chalcedonian Fathers were engaged in the fourth session of this synod, I am bidden to weigh at present, intending to speak only of those three points which were this year prescribed for discussion to the men of this Academy, and which, under the eighth number, are expressed as regards the canons in the following order and words. First, whether the ancient custom alleged by Anatolius, in the fourth session, in the case of Photius bishop of Tyre—that the bishops residing at Constantinople together with the patriarch defined the cases of whatsoever persons had recourse to them—was legitimate; and, this being laid down, why the sentence in the case of Photius was revoked.

Secondly, whether in ecclesiastical cases judgment ought to be made according to the canons, or also according to the pragmatic sanction; concerning which matter it was dealt with in the fourth session in the same case of Photius. Thirdly, at last, whether a bishop, if he were unworthy of the episcopate, could be placed in a lower order—which the legates of the pope seem to deny, in the fourth session. In investigating all which, it would behoove me to deliver a long discourse, if I could freely range over the very wide field of such an argument. But since I ought by no means to abuse the kindness of the supreme, most clement, and most wise prince, therefore I shall not be able to review all the things that occur to be said; but I shall set forth at greater length some things not yet sufficiently explored;

I shall touch only on the better-known matters, and those which at length—being entangled by the more recent regalists with many cavils, in order to cast down or utterly overturn ecclesiastical government and above all the rights of the Apostolic See, when similar cases occur—are brought forward into the open, I shall not pass over in silence, but, treading in the footsteps of the Chalcedonian Fathers, I shall endeavor to refute them in a few words. 2. Before we set about resolving the heads of the present disputation, we must inquire what, and what manner of, cause it was, on account of which so many and so great dissensions arose between Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus.

That the city of Tyre was, first of all, the metropolis of all First Phoenicia, to which twelve other cities and bishops were subject from the beginnings of the Church up to the year four hundred and fifty—one of whom was the bishop of Berytus—has been ascertained from the ecclesiastical records. The first of all, then, who had attempted to violate the rights of this metropolitan, was Eustathius.

He, having set aside the rules of the Nicene Fathers, driven by the greatest zeal for enlarging his own see, obtained from the emperor Theodosius a pragmatic type or rescript, by which, the province of First Phoenicia being cut into two parts, and metropolitan rank and honor being attributed to the Church of the Berytians, he reduced into his own power the administration and ordinations also of the Churches of Tripolis, Byblos, Botrys, Orthosias, Arca, and Antaradus, which were subject to Photius of Tyre, their lawful metropolitan. So grave a misdeed Eustathius did not shudder at, since, accustomed to turn all the affairs of the Church upside down, he had been the author of many schisms and contentions;

since, namely, unable to control his wrath and hatred, in the robber-synod of Ephesus he did not shrink from playing the part of standard-bearer against the holy Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius' predecessor, and against Eusebius of Dorylaeum, on behalf of the faction of Dioscorus and Eutyches, so that the catholic faith might be brought fully to ruin. And for this cause we read that the name of Eustathius, bishop of the Berytians, was entered in the sacred records only with the utmost ignominy.

For when the Chalcedonian Fathers, in the prior session, undertaking to rescind and abolish the Acts of the preceding robber-synod, decreed that the authors of all the tumults and crimes should be smitten with the very same penalty which they themselves, by the greatest injustice, had branded upon the bishops praised above, namely Flavian and Eusebius. 2. But although in that predatory synod Eustathius, with five other bishops, the authors of the whole schism, had possessed power and command; although moreover he had procured for himself the favor of Dioscorus of Alexandria, and then of Chrysaphius and the other imperial ministers who patronized Eutyches;

yet he dared to employ no attempt either against Photius of Tyre or against his Church, deeming it enough for himself that he had then obtained such and so great supports, by which he might more easily, at a more opportune time, indulge his designs and his cravings for honor and authority. Wherefore, when in the year four hundred and nine, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of August, the robber-synod being concluded, Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, afflicted with blows, beatings, and insults, driven from his see, had been forced to go into exile, Eustathius nevertheless persuaded himself that he could more easily attain the longed-for honor if he held peace and friendship with the new bishop at length substituted in Flavian's place, for the more felicitous accomplishment of his business.

Hence it is by no means to be said that, the affairs of the East being placed in such peril, the Fathers of the pseudo-synod perpetrated that other most grievous misdeed, namely, that, Flavian being still alive, they substituted Anatolius in his place and ordained him bishop of Constantinople. For the contrary opinion, although very many writers, both catholic and heterodox, at some time approved it, yet that it savors of nothing but a pure and sheer fabrication, has been clearly made manifest both from the letters of Theodosius and from those of Anatolius himself to Saint Leo. For Flavian indeed departed from this light as a martyr only in the following year.

His death following, the emperor Theodosius charged the Constantinopolitan clergy to decree and approve those more fit to undertake that office, reserving to himself the election of the chief of all. But when, day by day, most grievous dissensions grew up among the Constantinopolitan clergy, chiefly by the action of Dioscorus' faction and of the emperor's ministers, Theodosius ordered (these are the words of Anatolius) that clergymen be sought out in the royal city, even from other cities, residing there for certain affairs (so it is put), so that from among them a more eminent man might be promoted to the episcopal dignity, as we have already observed in the preceding book in regard to this very matter. 4.

Many true things, and well worth knowing, would indeed present themselves to be said now, if the constraints of time and the present purpose of our discussion did not hinder it. That one matter alone, which seems to bear upon our affairs, I shall touch upon only lightly. Namely, that the elevation of Anatolius to the throne of Constantinople was exceedingly favored by the efforts of Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, but was beyond measure fatal to Photius, bishop of the Tyrians. For the closest bond of intimacy had existed between this Eustathius and Anatolius.

For when he was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria and the apocrisiarius of Bishop Dioscorus—by the zeal of whose schismatic faction he had been raised to the bishopric of Constantinople—he already had his mind made ready to indulge the wishes and petitions of those who had contended against the most holy Flavian on behalf of the Eutychian dogma. 5. In the meantime, then, various assemblies of bishops were held at Constantinople. In one of these, at the command of the Emperor Theodosius, and without awaiting the letters and the verdict of the Roman pontiff, the bishops consecrated Anatolius. Anatolius himself makes mention of this same council in his letter to Saint Leo.

"Hence this task fell upon the holy synod of bishops then residing at Constantinople, that they should proceed without delay to ordain me." The same holy pontiff then commanded that a second council be held; for, as the month of July of the year four hundred and fifty was drawing to a close, having received letters both from Anatolius and from the Emperor Theodosius concerning the death of Flavian and the election of the new prelate, and reflecting within himself upon the dreadful schism which had torn apart the Catholic communion in the East, he remained in suspense and hesitation, and was unwilling to declare the Acts of the election and consecration either valid or void; but he deferred communion with Anatolius until such time as the four legates of the Apostolic See.

the legates sent from the pontiff's own side, having set out for Constantinople, should receive from the new bishop a sincere profession of faith, uttered in the presence of all the clergy and people, signed with his own hand, and exactly conforming to the pontiff's wishes and mandates. There still survive several letters of the holy pontiff: to Theodosius, to the Augusta Pulcheria, to the clergy of Constantinople, to the archimandrites of that same city, and finally to the presbyter Martin; from which we not only thoroughly understand the sequence of events that took place, but also the holy pontiff's manner of acting, his zeal for religion, his strength of soul, and his supreme administration over all parts of the whole world shine forth more clearly than light. 6.

But in this last synod of Anatolius—which must be assigned at least to the ninth or tenth month of that same year—that nothing was transacted concerning the case of Photius of Tyre, becomes clearly evident from the weightiest conjectures. First of all, Theodosius the Younger, from whom Eustathius had obtained the pragmatic rescript, had ended his life on the eighteenth day of July, at which time his letters had scarcely been delivered to Saint Leo, and the pontifical legates who were to convoke this council had either not yet set out on their journey, or, if they had begun it, were still lingering in the suburbs of Rome. Indeed Leo's letters suggest this, since they were issued at Rome on the sixteenth of the Kalends of August, three days before Theodosius died at Constantinople.

It must then be believed that the pontifical legates, on account of the labors of the journey and the distance of the place, did not arrive at that city until the eighth or ninth month. Moreover these legates, desiring to discharge their office faithfully, would by no means have permitted Anatolius—brought under suspicion of a wounded faith—in the synod which they themselves, at the command of the Roman pontiff, were convoking, to play the leading roles, to arrange everything according to his own pleasure, and to abolish the ecclesiastical laws, when rather he himself, suspect of bad faith, ought to have presented himself before the legates and the other bishops as a defendant on trial. 7. Therefore the case of Photius must be referred entirely to another, preceding synod, which came before the death of Theodosius.

To this synod, when Eustathius, bishop of the Berytians, had presented the surreptitiously obtained pragmatic decree which he had received from the emperor, all the bishops who had assembled at Constantinople—whether to gratify Anatolius, or deterred by threats of penalties, even against the prohibition of the ecclesiastical rules—gave their assent. Then accordingly, at the instigation of Chrysaphius and the other imperial ministers, who lavishly favored Eustathius, not only was the Theodosian rescript confirmed; but they took pains that Maximus, patriarch of Antioch—who was absent from such a synod, although he was sojourning at Constantinople—should be willing to hold as ratified and firm what had more recently been decreed for enlarging the dignity, honor, and prerogatives of the Church of the Berytians.

For under the administration and ordination of the patriarch of Antioch lay the province of First Phoenicia, with its Tyrian metropolitan and the other bishops. How these matters had truly come about, the same Maximus relates, being afterward questioned by the Fathers of Chalcedon: "I was at Constantinople. But when the council was being held concerning this matter, I was not present, but a document was brought to me, and I subscribed." What more? In this council of Anatolius, when everything was being done to the hatred of the most holy bishop Photius of Tyre and to the contempt of the ecclesiastical laws, by threats and terrors they more grievously shook the mind of Photius the metropolitan himself, and threatened the penalty of deposition, unless he should subscribe to the synodal decree.

To this (says Photius in the petition presented to the Emperor Marcian, the successor of the Augustus Theodosius) "to which, when I had subscribed, not of my own purpose, but out of fear of the threats that pressed upon me, I made known by my subscription the necessity imposed upon me. For I wrote that, being commanded, I subscribed, since I knew that this in no way prejudiced me, because the sacred and divine laws define that those things which are done not by deliberate purpose, but by necessity, have no force." 8. Whoever, then, shall diligently consider the Acts of such a synod of Anatolius—which we find scattered here and there among various ancient writers—will by no means deny that it was little unlike the rapacious Council of Ephesus, or that it can be called an appendix of it. Wherefore, since to the Fathers of Chalcedon

had been given the task of judging concerning matters of faith and concerning the violated rights of bishops, and of restoring and repairing everything that had been turned upside down to its former state, just as Saint Leo had instructed the legates of the Apostolic See, therefore, being about to judge the case of Photius, they laid chiefly three charges against Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. These three the imperial judges of civil causes indicated in few words, thus addressing the general Council of Chalcedon: "Let the holy synod declare whether it was lawful for the most holy archbishop Anatolius to send excommunication to the most reverend bishop Photius, who was absent, and to command that certain Churches in the province be taken away from him; and whether the assembly of bishops who reside in the royal city ought to be called a synod."

As to this last question, Tryphon, bishop of Chios, seriously affirmed that the assembly of bishops sojourning in the city could be called a synod. He perhaps, desiring to flatter both Anatolius and the imperial ministers, having first regarded the dignity and grandeur of the royal city, and then having reviewed the frequent influx of the bishops of the East—who, on account of the administration of civil affairs, whenever they labored under some oppression, had to gather at Constantinople to vindicate their rights—openly said: "It is called a synod, and they convene, and those who labor under some oppression obtain their rights."

To Tryphon's response neither the holy general synod nor any other of the bishops gave support, lest perchance the rights of the other patriarchs—namely the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Jerusalemite—should be injured. For it is ascertained from the ecclesiastical records that the boundaries of the bishop of Constantinople were at that time very much contracted. For besides that part of Asia which extended toward the regions of Pontus, at first he could administer only the dioceses of Thrace, whose rights were afterward extended even to Illyricum by a rescript of Theodosius the Younger. On the contrary, the dioceses of First Phoenicia belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch, as we have said.

And therefore, to forestall all the disturbances which could arise, the whole synod judged that Tryphon's opinion and verdict were to be held neither valid nor void. 9. But it did not so happen when the other question—concerning the excommunication brought by the synod of Anatolius against the absent Photius of Tyre—was subjected to examination. For this, as a horrendous crime contrary to divine and human laws, the whole Council of Chalcedon execrated. For in that session we read that Atticus, bishop of Zela, said that no one should condemn a man who is absent. All the most reverend bishops acclaimed: "No one condemns an absent man." By this unanimous acclamation of the Fathers of Chalcedon, therefore, the synodal decrees of Anatolius were utterly abolished.

And when the mind of Anatolius, intemperate in its desire for honor and ambition, bore this indignantly, in order to clear himself of every mark of injustice and to consult the grandeur of his own see, he appealed to that custom about which we are presently disputing. But that this custom was utterly illegitimate, and that Anatolius appealed to it only that he might employ a studied evasion, whom could it escape? For a custom cannot be reckoned legitimate which is repugnant to divine and human laws.

And therefore both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Photius of Tyre, together with the whole synod, lest they should fall into contention concerning a custom which could pass for an abuse, most steadfastly rejected all of Anatolius's excuses as the fabrications of unjust ambition, by which he strove to conceal the truth of the matter. And indeed Eunomius of Nicomedia, turning to the judges, addressed them thus confidently: "Your Magnificence has inquired of us whether it is permitted to condemn an absent man. I give my answer with the voice of Rome, and using the words of the Apostle Paul (Acts 25:16), he spoke thus: 'Because it is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man before the accused has his accusers present, and is given a place to clear himself of the charges.'"

Photius, afterward agreeing with him, earnestly entreated the synod and the imperial judges that, every unjust custom being set aside and abolished, only the canonical laws should be committed to execution. "I ask nothing else (said Photius) and I beseech your just judgment, except that you cause the rules to stand, and that those who were lawfully ordained by me, but afterward expelled and made presbyters, be restored, and that I receive back my Churches." Then at last the whole synod, with no delay interposed, acclaimed: "This is a just demand. Let the rules hold. Just is the petition of the most reverend bishop Photius." 10.

By the words of this decree, the mind of Anatolius—panting after the grandeur of honor and power, since he desired that the dignity and authority of the see of Constantinople should be made equal in all the functions of the apostolic see of the divine Peter—was most grievously tormented. But not on this account, that he might request the case of Photius and Eustathius to be reserved for him to judge again; but because he understood that, once the judgment of his own synod had been declared void, the prelates of Constantinople, now greatly exalted, were being deprived of that power which, through injury to the canons, they were gradually attempting to usurp for themselves, to the loss of others' rights.

Now so great a pride had been kindled in the mind of the Constantinopolitans by the grandeur of the imperial city, the authority of the royal power, and the favor and protection of the imperial ministers—in which they took such great delight—that they contended that the ecclesiastical power of bishops was to be measured by the administration of civil affairs.

Moreover, since the emperors themselves wished to call Constantinople the New Rome, and adorned it after the likeness of old Rome with most noble buildings both sacred and profane, and since Constantine the Great and his sons, Arcadius and both the Theodosii, enriched it with the greatest resources, riches, honors, and privileges—therefore the bishops themselves, persisting in injurious customs, with evident contempt for the sacred canons, were attempting to draw to themselves the cognizance of all the ecclesiastical causes of the East. The pride and ambition of these same prelates was further increased by the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople. By which, namely, the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers of the East, under Theodosius the Elder, decreed:

"Let the bishop of Constantinople have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome." But what follows from that canon? For it could induce no legitimate custom, both because the apostolic see never ratified it, and because the rights of the Alexandrian and Antiochene patriarchs were thereby more grievously wounded. But even if we should freely grant that that canon, from the year 381 in which it was issued, held force down to the times of Anatolius, what then? Could the prelates of Constantinople have been made equal to the Roman pontiffs, and have taken cognizance of the causes of all the Easterners, and have responded to the consultations of all? Away with the fiction!

Only an honorary dignity of patriarchate was conferred upon them in favor of the Emperor Theodosius, not an enlargement of their power. For, in the preceding second canon, the same Fathers, adhering to the Nicene laws, asserted and confirmed their rights first to the Alexandrian and then to the Antiochene, enumerating for this purpose the individual regions and dioceses which were to depend upon their administrations and synods. Which we understand to have been done by them precisely so that the patriarch of Constantinople, content with honor alone, should not dare to meddle with the administration of all the Churches of the East. 11. But in the course of time the patriarchs of Constantinople threw everything into confusion;

and, wishing to add power to honor and an empty name, they usurped to themselves the ordinations of many bishops not due to them—namely of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace—so that, namely, they might make themselves equal to the patriarchs of old Rome. For this reason indeed Anatolius himself, in the general Council of Chalcedon, made many attempts to preserve the rights thus unjustly usurped, and to have privileges equal to the prerogatives of the Roman pontiffs decreed for himself and his see. And in order to accomplish this business more successfully and without contradiction, throughout the whole time of the council he strove to flatter the legates of the apostolic see with services, gifts, and other means;

affecting the utmost reverence toward the apostolic see itself, feigning that all honor and all the privileges of the Constantinopolitan prelates redounded to the glory, defense, and ornament of the Roman see; and finally affirming that the new canon, which he was swearing should be issued concerning the confirmation of the rights of his see, would be injurious to no one—led on by that vain pretext, that the long prescription of sixty years' time favored his cupidities.

All these things, however, although they were set forth by Anatolius in words and writings with much flattering entreaty, could in no way move the mind of the Roman pontiff and of his legates—as indeed I could demonstrate more fully from the most certain documents, without that partisan zeal, if either the constraint of time allowed it, or the mandates of others did not forbid me to wander beyond the questions proposed. This one thing alone I shall add: namely, that it is most thoroughly proven that the custom alleged by Anatolius must be referred both to the third canon of Constantinople of the second general council;

and then also to the most grievous abuses which, in the course of time, had crept into the Church in administering affairs and in carrying out the ordinations of metropolitans and bishops—as is most evidently proven from the letters of the divine Leo to the Emperor Marcian, to the Augusta Pulcheria, to Anatolius himself, and likewise to Julian, bishop of Cos. 12. It now remains for us to speak of the pragmatic sanction which Eustathius, bishop of the Berytians, had obtained by surreptitious means from the most pious Emperor Theodosius, as the reward of his preceding misdeeds. And first of all, the term "pragmatic sanction" has the meaning of a cause ventilated in the consistory of the prince in the presence of the nobles of the sacred palace.

Wherefore Gratian, who described it in these words, also added: "The prince's constitution, issued from the cognizance of a cause, was called a pragmatic sanction." Jacobus Gutherius, however—although he does not contradict Gratian—described the idea of the pragmatic sanction more clearly, saying: "A pragmatic order, or sanction, is not issued upon the petition of individuals concerning private affairs, but only upon the petitions of some body, college, city, or province." Moreover, it is established among the jurisconsults that these pragmatic orders are reckoned among the general laws. But the same praiseworthy Gutherius sets up some distinction between pragmatic orders and pragmatic sanctions, adding: "Pragmatic orders, which command something..."

Whether, then, we ought to reckon the pragmatic rescript concerning the metropolitan right of the Church of the Berytians among the imperial orders or sanctions, or whether it was issued upon the petitions of some body or city, it is not necessary to define. But if we had to speak of this latter point, we could at least surmise that it issued upon the petitions of the eunuch Chrysaphius and of the whole faction of Dioscorus, since Eustathius most especially, once and again, attested before the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, in order to clear himself of the accusations, that he had not supplicated the emperor concerning this matter. And the very Theodosian law, inserted into the Justinianic code, has seemed to make manifest to us that this attestation rests upon truth. For the Emperor Theodosius himself asserts:

"On account of many and just causes, we decree that the city of Berytus, already crowned with its own virtues, be adorned with the name and dignity of a metropolis." Therefore he there makes no mention either of Eustathius's petitions or of his own merits. He merely praises the city of Berytus as crowned with many virtues. Besides this, we find other things in that rescript which lay bare the very great ambition of Anatolius and of Eustathius. For the emperor did not command that the rights of the Church of the Tyrians be diminished and torn apart into two equal metropolitans of the same province, but he decreed that Tyre should remain in its ancient right. Led by this reasoning, lest he render the decrees of his ancestors void, or lest the pragmatic rescript abolish the sacred canons.

"Let nothing (he says) be derogated from Tyre of its right. Let it be the mother of the province by the benefit of our ancestors; let this one (Berytus) enjoy by our benefit, and let both enjoy a similar dignity." If we, with the most learned Christianus Lupus, are willing to attend a little to the words of the Theodosian law, we shall understand that the emperor decreed to Berytus nothing other than the name and honor of a metropolis; but that he by no means adjudged to this new metropolitan either suffragan bishops, nor wished, through injury and alteration of the Tyrian metropolis, to enlarge its power in administering ecclesiastical affairs. 13. Why, then, did the synod of Anatolius interpret the Theodosian law otherwise;

why, without hearing Photius, the ancient metropolitan, were six suffragan Churches torn away from his subjection; why, finally, was the sentence of excommunication brought against the same absent Photius—from which he was not absolved until after one hundred and twenty-two days—has already been sufficiently and abundantly explained in the foregoing. In order that the Council of Chalcedon might snatch away all these evils, and at the same time heal the wounds of the Church of Tyre, it commanded that everything be restored to its former state.

And although that pragmatic order of Theodosius had, in the preceding year, already passed into a matter adjudged—both on account of the decrees of the Anatolian council and on account of the consent of Maximus, patriarch of Antioch—nevertheless it was decreed that the causes of the Church should be determined not according to the sacred pragmatics of emperors and kings, but according to the norm of the sacred canons. From which manner of acting the mind of the Emperor Marcian, to whom Photius appealed by his petition, could by no means be averse:

not indeed, as the royalists allege, that he himself should pass judgment by the law of a dead emperor, wounding and overthrowing the rights of the Church of Tyre, or that he should remove the pragmatic sanction from their midst, and take action against Eustathius and his ambition—which indeed in ecclesiastical affairs is by no means given to the princes of the world, lest the administration of civil affairs, which pertains to them alone, be mixed with spiritual matters: but Photius appealed by his petition to the Emperor Marcian for this reason, that he might show himself a vindicator of the sacred canons, and might afford the necessary protection, lest he be overwhelmed by envious men, intemperate in their ambition, on account of fabricated charges.

"For it is established by nature (says Photius) that the rights of sacred things should never be diminished by the vanity of prefects." Then also this saying was on everyone's lips: that neither the royal ministers, nor the emperors themselves—to whom the administration of temporal affairs has been given—were able by their own laws to diminish, or pervert, or alter the rights of the priesthood. Which indeed, without any contradiction whatever, the judges of the Emperor Marcian himself sincerely attested, saying: "It has pleased the most holy lord of the City that the affairs of the most holy bishops proceed not according to sacred or pragmatic decrees, but according to the rules laid down by the holy Fathers."

But lest any of the bishops, clinging too zealously to the royal power and majesty, should come into doubt concerning the will of the prince Marcian, the imperial judges themselves at once absolutely pronounced: "Therefore, every definition by the sacred pragmatics ceasing, let the canons issued concerning this chapter be read." As if the judges themselves had wished to intimate that no force and no wound should be inflicted upon the canons of the Church by the pragmatic sanctions. 14. It is no wonder, then, if, when the fifth canon of the Nicene Council had been read, the whole synod said concerning there being only one metropolitan in each single province: "We wish there to be one Metropolitan, according to the rules of the holy Fathers; we ask that the rules of the holy Fathers hold."

From which form of discussing and judging in particular we are clearly taught that ecclesiastical causes are to be treated according to the canons; but that the laws of princes are by no means to be despised, but ought to be regarded if they were given for the execution, protection, defense, and safeguard of the canons, and either do not wound, or do not overwhelm and abolish the vigor of the sacred canons. For in such circumstances the rights of the hierarchical order are not wounded: but the powers of the priesthood and of the empire combine for the safeguarding of one another. Which I could explain with six hundred examples borrowed from the laws of Constantine, of Theodosius the Elder, and of the Valentinians, and others, if the constraint of time did not hinder it.

But one must reason otherwise when the pragmatic laws are repugnant to the canons, when they overwhelm and subvert them. For then to insist upon the pragmatics and to borrow from them the form and methods of judging, is utterly alien to the usage, privileges, and rights of the Church; and if we were to follow them, we would lead the ecclesiastical order to ruin.

Of which matter indeed, since Anticus, bishop of the city of Nicopolis in Epirus, was by no means ignorant, having ratified the decree of the Council of Chalcedon—by which, with the fullest consent of all, Photius was restored to his former honor and administration as metropolitan, and Eustathius was forbidden to dare claim anything further for himself from the pragmatic decree—in order then to forestall all the abuses which could creep in at any time, he earnestly entreated the imperial judges in the name of the assembly, addressing them in these words: "We beseech that even now the force of the rules may hold in all things and in all the provinces;

all the pragmatics ceasing, which are made from intrigue and ambition, and which overturn those things that have been sanctioned spiritually and according to God by the holy Fathers." Furthermore, we have transcribed and recited these words in order to refute the opinions of those royalists who say that the Theodosian pragmatic law was annulled and abolished not by the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, but by the sanction of Marcian and the imperial judges; who contend that that rule of the council holds place only in the proposed species, namely in those things which regard the ordinations of the Churches. But if anyone wishes to extend it to other cases, he ought to extend it only to those in which the merely ecclesiastical discipline of the canons is contained.

But the authors of these opinions plainly fabricate these things. For that the pragmatic sanctions issued against the truth and piety of the canons are utterly void of all authority and force—generally, without any exception—was even in the constitution of the emperors Valentinian and Marcian, issued in the year 454, expressly declared in these words: "We command, indeed, that all pragmatic sanctions which, with favor and ambition intervening, have been elicited against the ecclesiastical canons, be emptied of their force and firmness and cease." 15. By a like reasoning also, in the praised synod of Chalcedon, judgment was passed concerning the bishops ordained by Photius.

Whom—after they had attained the order and see of the episcopate—Eustathius and Anatolius, by the utmost injustice, commanded to be merely presbyters. But who is ignorant that it is utterly a sacrilege to reduce a bishop to the place of a presbyter? For if he was removing them from the exercise of the episcopate for a just cause, neither ought they to have retained the place of a presbyter. And so, matters being thus disposed—even as regards those bishops who had been unjustly reduced to the place and rank of a presbyter—the case of Photius of Tyre was prudently, justly, and most holily brought to a happy conclusion, with the legates of the apostolic see acting in that council.

Since this latter judgment concerning bishops who descend to a lower rank was held, both by Anatolius and by Maximus himself, patriarch of Antioch, to be valid and firm without any distinction, there is no reason for us to linger any longer in weighing this controversy; especially since the consent and practice of the universal Church, the decrees of councils, and the constitutions of the Apostolic See teach us that those removed for just cause from the order of the episcopate cannot continue in the rank and place of a presbyter — as I could most clearly prove from the very beginnings of ecclesiastical affairs down to our own times.

But it was not my intention to abuse further the clemency of that most lofty and wise father and prince, to whom all ecclesiastical affairs owe their greater splendor, the republic of letters its increase, the happiness of all its protection, and this illustrious institution its origin, nor to detain those most distinguished scholars. 1. Paschasius Quesnel, wishing to bring the cause of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, to examination, began his dissertation from these words of Letter 93 of Saint Leo written to that same Theodoret, namely: «Blessed be our God, whose invincible truth has shown you, according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, to be pure from every stain of heresy.»

«To whom you will render worthy thanks for so many labors, if you preserve yourself such as we have hoped, for the defense of the universal Church.» From such an opening, then, I promised myself that Quesnel had at last meant to vindicate for the Apostolic See and for the Roman pontiffs themselves those rights which, up to now, he has striven on the occasion of preceding dissertations either to deny, or to belittle, or finally to abolish altogether. But my opinion deceived me. For at once, pretending to inquire what that judgment of the Apostolic See was, he says: «It has been asked by many up to now, and people have gone off into various opinions.» Wherefore he first affirms that it is the opinion of some who hold that something was decreed by Saint

concerning the restitution of Theodoret — they suppose that some decree was framed after Theodoret had brought his cause before him by a written petition of appeal. Nevertheless, when he perceived that an inconvenience was brought upon himself by this opinion, he rejected it by the following negative argument, writing:

«Since not even the slightest trace of any such decree appears, either in the Acts of Chalcedon or in the other records of affairs transacted at that time, it is as easily refuted as it is asserted.» He subjoins the opinion of others who say «that Theodoret was restored by the same synodal and judicial sentence by which the pseudo-synod of Ephesus was rendered void.» And again he appeals to that synod from which Valentinian and the Augusta wrote to Theodosius concerning the rescinding of the Acts of that conventicle. Finally Quesnel asserts that he is certain that in Theodoret's cause no sentence intervened, whether one issued by Leo alone, or one sent forth by a synod.

But that only that judgment is recalled by Leo which was contained in his letters of communion. For when the pontiff voluntarily took up Theodoret's complaints and granted him his communion, it followed that he judged him pure from every stain of heresy. These and other things not unlike them Quesnel wrote in the vestibule of his tenth dissertation, with the design of setting forth the whole matter compendiously before the reader's eyes. 2.

Yet I cannot pass over what has thus far been set down without first considering whether this doctor's new opinion, and its derivation from the preceding premises, can cohere with the ordinary form of judicial proceedings, with Leo's manner of acting, and with the remaining records in which mention is made of Theodoret's cause. The form of the judgment in the first place utterly overturns the Quesnellian system. For since Theodoret was suspected of bad faith, was accused by his adversaries, and had already been condemned by a synodal decree, Saint Leo would never have granted him communion and declared him pure from every taint of heresy — unless the cause had been examined. For what then?

Leo himself, who a little before — having received Eutyches's appeal and complaints, together with the letters of Theodosius Augustus by which Eutyches was being protected — acted with such great circumspection that he would not define anything without full knowledge of the whole cause, wrote at once to Flavian, saying: «We, who wish the judgments of the Lord's priests to be mature, can define nothing, in matters unknown, to the prejudice of any party, before we truly hear what has been done.» If therefore

the pontiff prescribes to other bishops a form of judging, and used such great circumspection lest he judge prematurely or rashly, could he, with the cause unknown, or without having weighed the complaints of the accusers, or without having reviewed the acts of the inquiry, declare Theodoret a bishop pure from every stain of heresy according to the judgment of his See?

But what kind of judgment would that have been, seeing that afterward — laboring under the mere suspicion that Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, was either a man of injured faith or had had too much connivance with heretics — he could be induced neither by any entreaties of the man himself nor by the offices of the emperor Theodosius to communicate with him, unless it had first been established for him with certainty, by a public confession of faith made before the legates of the Apostolic See (sent from the West to Constantinople for this very cause) to the whole clergy and the people of Constantinople, that this man was stained by no taint of heresy? This

manner of Leo's acting we gather from other letters which we note at the end, of which we have already spoken more fully in the preceding Exercises. We cannot, therefore, give credence to Quesnel, who writes that Theodoret was shown by the judgment of the Apostolic See to be pure from every taint of heresy, merely because Leo communicated with him. 3. But to show still more the falsity of this Quesnellian opinion, it will be helpful to ask Quesnel himself whether the supreme pontiff, after the Robbery of Ephesus, communicated with Theodoret only by right or out of indulgence, by receiving the letters of his appeal.

Not by right, indeed, since the adversary himself affirms that Leo issued no decree, neither in a synod nor outside a synod, after he had received Theodoret's appeal. Nor did Leo himself, out of any indulgence, permit that Theodoret should be restored to the see of Cyrus, since Theodoret had never adhered to Eutyches's faction. And besides, he stands in no need of indulgence who is shown by a lawful judge to be pure from every taint of heresy. But indeed both Quesnel and others have thought that the judgment of Theodoret's cause must be traced from higher up:

namely, from Dioscorus himself, already beforehand Theodoret's enemy on account of his singular erudition and the holiness of his life — by which Dioscorus, a man most eager for praise, thought himself overshadowed — and on account of the anathematisms of Saint Cyril his predecessor, which Theodoret had once impugned. For this reason the Alexandrian then set about to brand Theodoret with heresy, to assail him with calumnies, and to harass him in every way. Quesnel then describes whatever was done by Dioscorus before the emperor and in the robber-synod of Ephesus against Theodoret himself — things which we have recounted above, and which there is no further need to describe again.

And finally he concludes that the emperor took precaution that Theodoret should not be present at the synod of Ephesus which was being prepared — Dioscorus rather fearing lest Theodoret, that most fierce assailant of heretics, should with all his might oppose himself to Eutyches. Wherefore, with all things in that synod turned upside down, he cast Theodoret out of the episcopal order, hurling against him the sentence of deposition no otherwise than against the other bishops who were defenders of the catholic faith. 4. Theodoret therefore, when he had learned this, lamenting his lot, and unable to obtain support from the Eastern bishops (almost all of whom were either fleeing or oppressed), turned himself to the Westerners and solicited their faith — so the same Quesnel affirms.

Wherefore he wrote letters to the patriarch of the Westerners, the head of all bishops and father of the communion of the whole Church, imploring the help of him and of all the bishops of the West alike. «Concerning the appeal,» (he says) «Liberatus has nothing, who in chapter 12 writes only this: ‹Bishop Theodoret represented to the pope how many evils he had suffered from the snares of Dioscorus, asking that such a cause be quickly relieved through another assembly of bishops.›» Then Quesnel proceeds, gradually and with much artifice, to explain his system, which he had drawn from Launoy. And there is a certain distinction: he affirms that Theodoret sought a refuge, but did not appeal to Saint Leo.

This manner of speaking — as quite new and repugnant to the decrees of councils and to the other records of the Church — was, among other writers, rejected and refuted by Jean David, in his work on the canonical judgments of bishops written in French. But lest for the present we seem to wander hither and thither, it is helpful first of all to transcribe Theodoret's own words, from which the Cardinals Baronius and Perron judged that his appeal must be gathered. «I» (he says) «await the sentence of your Apostolic See, and I beseech and implore your Holiness that you bring help to me, appealing, with your just judgment, and that you command me to hasten to you and to display my doctrine, which follows the apostolic footsteps.»

That this is the genuine reading of the preceding text of Theodoret, the very first to be its author is Baronius himself. He, finding the Greek codex of Theodoret's letters in the archives of the Vatican Library, took care to have them rendered into Latin by the diligence of Frederic Mezio, most skilled in both languages; to which reading, if we adhere, it must be confessed that nothing more solemn can be given for confirming Theodoret's appeal. Since that man, deposed and cast down from his episcopate, demands and implores that help be given him from the sentence and judgment of the Apostolic See, and — following the order of appeal — declares himself ready to come to Rome, that he might prove himself pure from any stain of heresy.

Nevertheless, since this primitive interpretation pleased neither Launoy nor Quesnel, they introduced new words into that text. And, following another interpretation, that of Gentian Hervet, both of them, removing the word «appealing» (appellanti), substituted another, namely «invoking» (invocanti), so as more easily to make trouble for Baronius and Perron. Moreover, Quesnel and Launoy do not agree with each other in the rest. For Launoy, instead of «judgment» (judicio), puts «tribunal.» Indeed, Quesnel even differs from himself, now using, in the dissertation we are dealing with, the word «judgment,» but now, in the earlier volume, in publishing Theodoret's whole letter complete in Greek and Latin type, retaining «tribunal.»

To this diversity of reading the most studious Jean David did not advert — perhaps because he was wholly and anxiously occupied in refuting the trifles and sophisms of his adversary. And therefore, granting freely the reading on which Launoy insisted, he set about to inquire more diligently into the distinction between «refuge» (confugium) and «appeal» (appellatio). Wherefore, lest he play with words, as did the adversary whom he was harassing, he appeals to the words of the Council of Sardica, in order to cut off his escape. «When some bishop (it is read in the fourth canon) shall have been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who dwell in neighboring places, and shall have proclaimed that his business must be transacted in the city of Rome.» «The seventh canon (says David) has:»

«If he who has been cast down shall appeal, and shall take refuge with the bishop of the Roman Church, and shall wish to be heard.» Behold, then, the statutes of the canons of Sardica on behalf of those who appeal from the sentence of their own judges. These Theodoret followed most religiously, recounting the unjust condemnation inflicted upon him by Dioscorus; for which cause he asks to await the sentence of «your Apostolic See» and entreats Saint Leo to take up the cognizance of his cause, that he may be able to experience the effects both of its authority and of its protection. Finally he asks for an express mandate from the Apostolic See, that he may be able to present himself before it, ready to render an account of the apostolic doctrine which he alone pursued.

These conditions defined by the councils for appeals no one can deny that Theodoret fulfilled. But that he had advanced still further, his subsequent words indicate, by which he asks to be instructed whether he ought to acquiesce in the deposition unjustly or not. He asserts that he awaits the determination of this question, so that, once the pontifical mandate has been heard, he may henceforth wish to seek no other judgment from any men whatsoever, but to await the right judgment of God the Savior. «Before all things, I pray (he says) that I may be taught by you whether I ought to acquiesce in this unjust deposition, or not.»

«For I await your sentence: and if you command me to remain in what has been judged, I will remain, and I will henceforth be troublesome to no man, but I will await the right judgment of God and of our Savior.» 5. Yet let us attend to Quesnel's witty interpretation, who proposes these same words to himself as a support for his collapsing cause. For with much effort he strove to prove that these are the words of a man seeking counsel and asking for help.

As though to await a sentence and command whether he ought to remain in what has been judged were the words of a most prudent prelate (such as he affirms Theodoret to have been), merely of one awaiting counsel, who wishes to be instructed whether he ought to abide by Dioscorus's judgment for the peace of the Church — when, had he thought in his mind to knock at another tribunal, it might perhaps have been an occasion for a new judgment and new matters. Then, to strengthen these weak conjectures of his interpretation, he adduces other words of Theodoret from the letter to Renatus, presbyter of the Roman Church. Namely:

«For this cause, therefore, I beseech your Holiness, that you persuade the most holy and most blessed archbishop to use his apostolic authority, and to command me to hasten to your council.» Theodoret therefore was asking Saint Leo to give him help, so that he might be judged by a new council of the Westerners. Which the adversaries contend can be evinced more clearly from other words of the same bishop of Cyrus, writing to Anatolius the Patrician: «I beseech (he says) your Magnificence to obtain this favor from the triumphant emperor, that I may go to the West, and be judged by those bishops most beloved of God and most holy; and if I should be found to have transgressed even in the slightest the rule of faith, let me be cast into the very depths of the sea.»

Now Quesnel flatters himself far too much that he has grasped the genuine sense of Theodoret's words — that he obtained help and support from Leo — and that he has therefore won his cause. But falsely indeed. For first of all I might answer that those words to Renatus, in which there is talk of a council, are not at all to be understood of an assembly of bishops compelled by the necessity of that appeal, but of the tribunal of the Apostolic See, to which he longed to hasten in order to be judged. That Theodoret therefore used those three words — tribunal, judgment, and council — interchangeably, is made known from those three letters thus far cited.

But that he wished merely to refer his appeal to a council to be examined, and to restrict Leo's pontifical authority to this kind of judgment, neither Launoy nor Quesnel, nor anyone else, will be able to affirm with truth. Then the testimony of the deacon Liberatus, on which the adversaries insist, if it be brought forward whole and not mutilated (as perhaps Quesnel studiously did), will indicate no necessity of holding a council, and that it was demanded by Theodoret through an interposed appeal.

For Liberatus there narrates how the orthodox bishops contradicted the Robbery of Ephesus, and that Bishop Theodoret, following them, represented to the pope how many evils he had suffered from the snares of Dioscorus, asking that such a cause be relieved more quickly through another assembly of bishops, lest the heretical dogmas of Eutyches should remain confirmed by Dioscorus. Theodoret therefore suggested to Leo the necessity of holding a new council, in order utterly to abolish the Eutychian dogmas which Dioscorus with his faction had sacrilegiously confirmed; but by no means did he ask and long for it to be done as a support for his own cause, since he had already sincerely confessed in his letter that he wished wholly to obey the pontifical commands.

Nor do Theodoret's words from the letters to the presbyter Renatus or to Anatolius the Patrician prove anything, since no one is unaware that causes solemnly examined and dealt with in the tribunal of the Apostolic See are brought to examination conciliarly — either in consistories, or in assemblies of bishops, which have long since obtained the name of congregations. If therefore Theodoret was suppliantly praying that he might be able to hasten to the council or Roman tribunal; if likewise he desired to be judged by the Western bishops, his appeal had by no right devolved upon a council, since he had appealed to Leo alone, with this intent: that he might wholly adhere to his disposition, and to the form and quality of judgments to be prescribed by him. 6. Otherwise, however, concerning this cause the illustrious

Pierre de Marca reasoned. He, attentively considering what was done by Leo, freely concedes, without any contention or ambiguity of words, that the oppressed Theodoret appealed to Pope Leo, by whom he was received into communion, and on that account received his episcopate. Nevertheless, that most learned archbishop of Paris believed that that decree of Leo was not absolute, but clothed with these conditions: that he should be present at the synod as accuser of Dioscorus, so that at length he might receive from the synod itself a decree concerning his restitution. He therefore subjoins: «Then, having been admitted to the Council of Chalcedon, he was the occasion of a grave controversy, which the judges, in order to settle, said that he had come only as an accuser.»

Therefore Theodoret's restitution was not absolute. When I first turned to these assertions of Pierre de Marca, I perceived that he differs very greatly from the preceding writers, yet I did not altogether grasp his mind. For he believed either that, from some coercive law, Leo had made a conditional decree concerning Theodoret's restitution to the episcopate; or that Leo had used a faculty which he possessed, namely to remit the outcome of that cause to the determination of the Council of Chalcedon. Neither of these, indeed, becomes known from ecclesiastical records. Nay, if we unroll the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon in Theodoret's own cause, we shall affirm with certainty that nothing at all is established concerning a conditional kind of absolution and restitution.

For first of all we have that, when the robber-Acts were being read in the Synod of Chalcedon, and Constantine came forward with the imperial rescript of Theodosius the Younger, by which it was commanded to Theodoret that he be content with the communion of his own Church alone, without being present at the Synod of Ephesus, the judges said: «Let the most reverend Bishop Theodoret enter, that he may be a partaker of the synod, because the most holy archbishop Leo restored to him his episcopate, and the most pious emperor (namely Marcian) sanctioned that he be present at the holy synod.» That no mention is here made of a conditional restitution, and that no formula was employed — «if it please,» «if it seem good to the synod» — the transcribed words make plain.

Moreover, even though some, condemning Theodoret's previous manner of acting, and wishing to flatter Dioscorus, cried out: «Cast this man out; cast out the master of Nestorius»; yet no one dared to deny that this right could belong to Leo. There is added too that the aforesaid clamors and complaints of the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops, stirred up that Theodoret be cast out, were ineffectual — as they would have been, had his cause been similarly transacted in the synod. For it would rather have been necessary first to deal with that man's faith, and rigorously to scrutinize whether he was pure from every note of heresy, and to compel him to clear himself from the calumnies with which he had been assailed;

and to hear, on this side and that, the arguments of both parties, so that his restitution might be completed. Since, then, none of these things was done, I do not see on what foundation that restitution made by Leo ought not to be called absolute. For the clamors and complaints of the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops the Oriental Asians, Pontics, and Thracians tempered with sure reason; for, wishing to provide for Theodoret's innocence, and to excuse themselves as oppressed and deceived by the arts and violence of Dioscorus, they openly answered, complaining: «We subscribed Theodoret's condemnation at the Robbery of Ephesus on blank paper; we were beaten, and so we subscribed.»

When Dioscorus had heard them speaking thus, as though wishing to render an account of the decree he had issued against Theodoret, he interjected: «Why is Cyril cast out, who has been anathematized by this man?» And, wishing to recall to the judges' mind the old quarrels which had passed between Cyril and Theodoret in former times — no mention being then made of the subsequent peace between them — he thought he could obtain some patronage or excuse for himself. Nevertheless all the Orientals, who already favored Theodoret, cried out: «Cast out Dioscorus the murderer; who does not know the deeds of Dioscorus?»

And after some contention, the judges themselves, having no respect to one party or the other, interjected: «The most reverend Bishop Theodoret, receiving back his own place from the most holy bishop of the city of Rome, has now entered in the place of an accuser.» And although these same judges, in order to restrain the now-excited clamors of the faction of Dioscorus and Eutyches, used a certain mode of acting, replying at once: «Whence let it be granted that the things which have been begun may be finished, lest any confusion be made in the auditory»; and added: «For no prejudice will be generated from the person of the most reverend Bishop Theodoret — every accusation being, namely, reserved after these things, both for you,»

«and for him, and whatever things you shall wish to exercise against one another, because he holds the right faith — especially since the most reverend bishop of Antioch, the great city, is present even without writings and bears witness to the catholic faith.» Although, I say, I ought not to dissemble these things, nevertheless I can scarcely grant that Theodoret was declared pure by the Apostolic See under condition in that sense — namely, that the decree of the Roman pontiff should be subject to the judgment of the council. Rather, therefore, with the illustrious

Christian Lupus I am compelled to confess that the whole controversy, then stirred up by the Eutychian faction against Theodoret, must have turned on this alone: that the adversaries contended merely that Theodoret's restitution was surreptitious — as though he had deceived the pontiff's mind by certain false representations, so as to obtain his former rank and honor in the synod. For by the sixth canon of Constantinople it had been provided that a degraded bishop should lack the right of accusing another bishop. Wherefore, even though the cause was one requiring much examination, yet the judges, faithfully adhering to Saint Leo's decree, granted him for the time the freedom of accusing, reserving to themselves afterward, in another session, diligently to examine the charges proposed against Theodoret.

For by employing this prudent mode of acting, they neither did any violence to the Leonine decree, by which it was enjoined that Theodoret should become a partaker of the synod because he had been restored to the episcopate; nor, on the opposite side, did they shut off access to Theodoret's accusers, to inquire whether he had been restored by surreptitious means, or was infected with the Nestorian taint — as the Egyptians, shouting, kept clamoring: «Do not call him a bishop. He is not a bishop. Cast out the impugner of God. Cast out the Jew. Theodoret accused Cyril. We cast out Cyril, if we receive Theodoret. The canons cast this man out. God is against this man.» Behold, then, the crimes which were objected to Theodoret by the Egyptians.

This man had already condemned Cyril's chapters, and for this cause they had condemned him as a heretic — taking no account at all that, with all ambiguities removed, he had obeyed the decrees of the general ecumenical council, and ever afterward maintained the fullest concord with Cyril himself. What wonder, then, if the judges, attending to these clandestine machinations of Dioscorus, and to the fact that the synod was split into two opposing factions (for the Orientals proclaimed Theodoret as orthodox, saying: «Cast out the orthodox man to the synod, the seditious out» — i.e. bring in the orthodox, cast out the seditious), fearing yet graver things, interjected with vexation, saying: «These popular acclamations neither befit bishops nor help the parties.»

«Will you allow the reading of all things to be made?» What wonder, I say, if — since the Egyptians still refused to desist from the clamors they had begun — the judges themselves, in earnest and with the authority in which they were strong, imposed silence upon all, and ordered that the reading of all the Acts of the Robbery of Ephesus be made through Constantine? In these circumstances of affairs, moreover, who does not see that the judges would have acted less circumspectly, and more precipitately than prudently, had they deliberated to give Bishop Theodoret a place among the judges? For first it had to be inquired, from the whole reading of the Acts, whether Dioscorus had had at least some colored title for deposing and degrading, along with the other orthodox bishops, Theodoret too.

In this question that man certainly could not play the part of a judge according to all the laws, but only that of an accuser. If therefore he entered the council as a true bishop, even by the sentence of the judges, I do not see by what reasoning it can be said that Leo's decree concerning the restoration of Theodoret to his own see and episcopal honor was not absolute; especially since afterward he was also admitted to the synodal vote and to the full communion of all the most holy bishops. 7. Yet the difficulties hitherto unraveled, derived from the opinions of other writers, would profit the present cause but little, unless our discourse should once again turn to Quesnel. For not only does he himself deny Theodoret's appeal,

but also the very judgment of the Apostolic See. Wherefore, in order to embellish a new history of the events, he has mixed everything together and brings forward very many things which present merely the appearance of truth. With what brevity I can, therefore, I shall strive to gather together the many things he has added. First, then, he freely grants that no council was convoked by St. Leo in Theodoret's case. Concerning Theodoret's letters to the Supreme Pontiff it is established; but what the Roman Pontiff wrote is not made known. Secondly, he affirms that Leo held no tribunal to examine Theodoret's case, but that Theodoret was joined to him in unbroken communion; this, he says, can be drawn from Leo's letter 40, in which he treats of a general synod that necessarily had to be summoned;

or from letter 47, from which it is gathered that he held all the acts of the Robber Synod of Ephesus as void, and that he begged the emperor Theodosius to order that everything should be in the state it had been in before any judgment, until a greater number of bishops from the whole world should be gathered. Thirdly: that it was lawful for Theodoret to return to his own see, because the sentence pronounced against him by Dioscorus was held to be null; moreover the pontiff had received testimony from the East, from the recently ordained Anatolius, that Theodoret had already subscribed to the encyclical letter to Flavian, and had not only condemned the Nestorian and Eutychian doctrines, but had even pronounced anathema upon Nestorius and Eutyches themselves. On this account Quesnel adduces the testimony of St.