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.»
對於這讀法的歧異，最勤勉的讓·大衛卻未加留意——或許因為他全神貫注、憂心忡忡地忙於駁斥對手的瑣談與詭辯。因此，他乾脆採納勞諾瓦所堅持的讀法，著手更勤勉地查考「避難」（confugium）與「上訴」（appellatio）之間的區別。為免像他所抨擊的對手那樣玩弄字眼，他訴諸撒爾迪迦會議（Council of Sardica）的條文，以斷其退路。「當某主教（第四條教規如此記載）被居於鄰近地方的那些主教之判斷所罷黜，並聲明他的案件必須在羅馬城審理時。」大衛說：「第七條教規載有：」
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:
「因此，為這緣故，我懇求你的聖德：說服那至聖至福的總主教運用他的使徒權柄，並命我趕赴你們的會議。」因此狄奧多勒是求聖良給他援助，使他能被西方人的新會議所審斷。對手主張，這一點可從同一位居魯城主教致大臣安那托利烏斯（Anatolius the Patrician）的另一些話中更清楚地證明出來。他說：「我懇求你的尊貴：從那得勝的皇帝那裡求得這恩，使我得往西方去，受那些蒙神至愛、至為聖潔的主教審斷；我若被查出哪怕在最微小的事上違犯了信仰的準則，就讓我被投入大海的深處。」
«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
皮埃爾·德·馬卡（Pierre de Marca）如此推論。他細察良所行之事，毫無爭辯、不帶含糊地坦承：受壓制的狄奧多勒向教宗良提出上訴，被良接納入共融，並因此領受了他的主教職。然而，這位最博學的巴黎總主教卻認為，良的那道法令並非絕對的，而是附帶了這些條件：他須以狄奧斯科魯斯的控告人身分出席會議，好使他終能從會議本身領受關於他復職的法令。因此他附加說：「隨後，他被准許進入迦克墩會議，成了一場嚴重爭論的緣由；眾審判者為平息此事，便說他只是以控告人的身分前來。」
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.