Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092369598 T. and T. Clark's Publications. In Twenty-four Handsome Zvo Volumes, Subscription Price £fi, ds. od., ^nte=TSr(cEne (Christian Eiftratg. A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A. BDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. MESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series. It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult task. The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the Subscription price. The Works are arranged as follow : — FIRST YEAR. APOSTOLIC FATHERS, oompriBing Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians ; Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr- dom of Polyoarp ; Epistle of Barnabas ; Epistles of Ignatius (longerand shorter, and also the Syriao version) ; Martyr- dom of Ignatius; EpistletoDiognetus; Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious Epistles of Ipcnatius. In One Volume. JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS. In One Volume. TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE- mentine Recognitions. In One Volume. CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA, Volume First, comprising Exhortation to Hea- then ; The Instructor; and a, portion of the Miscellanies. SECOND YEAR. HIPPOLTTUS, Volume First; Refutation of all Heresies, and Fragments from his Commentaries. IREN.ffiUS, Volume First. TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION. CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, and some of the Treatises. THIRD YEAR. IREN.a;US (completion) ; HIPPOLYTUS (completion); Fragments of Third Century. In One Volume. OEIGEN: De Prinoipiis; Letters; and portion of Treatise against Celsus. CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA, Volume Second ; Completion of Miscellanies. TERTULLIAN, Volume First; To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, etc. FOURTH YEAR. CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion) ; Novatian; Minucius Felix; Fragments. METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY- copolis ; Peter of Alexandria ; Anato- lius; Clement on Virginity; and Fragments. TERTULLIAN, Volume Second. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, ACTS, AND Revelations ; comprising all the very curious Apocryphal Writings of the first three Centuries. FIFTH YEAR. TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple- tion). CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- lical Constitutions. In One Volume, ARNOBIUS. DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA- turgus; Syrian Fragments. In One Volume. SIXTH YEAR. LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes. OEIGEN, Volume Second (completion). 128. to Non-Subscribers. EARLY LITURGIES & REMAINING Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscribers. Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets ; but any Volume may be had separately, price lOs. 6d., — with the exception of Origen, Vol. II., 12s. ; and the Eablt Litukgies, 9s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. In Two Volumes, demy Suo, price Vis. each, A HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH To A.D. 429. Jrom tf)c ©rigtnal documents. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF C. J. HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Eottenburg. 'This careful translation of Hefele'a Councils.' — Dr. Puset. • A work of profound erudition, and written in a most candid spirit. ... The book will be a standard authority on the subject' — Spectator. ' A thorough and fair compendium, put in the most accessible and intelligent form.' — Gwirdian. ' The most learned historian of the Councils.' — Pfere Gkatet.1 ' We cordially commend Hefele's Councils to the English student,' — John Bull. 'The period embraced is of the highest interest; and the work, which is very care- fully translated, cannot be dispensed with by any students who do not already possess the original.' — Union Review. 'A book of the most accurate learning, careful and judicious criticism, and great theological fairness and honesty.' — Church Opinion. 'Dr. Hefele is well known to be the greatest living authority on the subject of which he here treats ; and he has given us in no sparing measure, throughout these pages, the result of bis well-digested learning.' — Church Times. 'We are rejoiced to see in the hands of our fellow-countrymen a standard Catholic work, to which we may for the future appeal, as admitted by themselves to be a trust- worthy authority.' — Tablet. ' Bishop Hefele's great work. . . . We know nothing like it among works of this cen- tury. Not one of his many and able predecessors has displayed vaster learning or more persevering industry in mastering the literature of the subject. Those who need a strong and steady guide from canon to canon, and Council to Council, may be sure of finding one in Bishop Hefele.' — Literal^ Churchman. ' Dr. Hefele'a important work is an admirable piece of scholarship, and a clear, full, and dispassionate treatment of the minute details of Church History and the tortuous movements of controversy.' — Scots-man. ' Of the original work we need only say that it is the standard authority on the subject and is almost all that could be desired. The translation is excellently done. ... It would be a national loss to our theological students to be deprived of a means so thoroughly satisfactory of studying the literature and history of the great Councils of the Church.' — Church Bells, ' A great boon to students of Church History. Bishop Hefele possesses the condensing faculty in h very high degree, and brings into a brief space the results of extensive research.' — Watchman. ' This volume has all the elaborateness, thoroughness, and completeness of the former. It has a strong charm, as well as a high value, for all who are eager to know all that can now be known of some of the most momentous controversies which have ever agitated Christendom.'— ^PFes^eyan Methodist Magazine. HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHUECH. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . • nAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, • GEORGE HERBERT. NEW YORK, . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. A HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, PEGM THE OEIGINAL DOCUMENTS. BY THE RIGHT EEV. CHAELES JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D., BISHOP OF EOTTENBITEG, FOKMEELY PKOFESSOK OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVEKSITY OF TUBINGEN. VOLUME III. A.D. 431 TO A.D. 451. STransIatJti from tl)e ffimnan, Snttf) tijt ^titj^nr's apprnfaatiDn, anS GiittS tig tf|t 3E6itot of J§ag0nbaci)'s f^istorg of Soctiiius. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET. 1883. EDITOR'S PKEFAGE. rriHE Author's Preface to this portion of his work has already J- appeared in the second volume of the English Transla- tion. He there remarks that this History " becomes in many ways very like a history of the Church and of dogmas, which will be no prejudice to it." This is, of course, the exact truth of the matter, and it is the chief interest of the work. The History of the Councils differs from that of Doctrines in dealing only with those questions which come formally before the Church in her Synods. Both are of inestimable value, and of absolute necessity, to all who aspire to the name of theologian. In the present volume this view of the subject is made more prominent than in any other ; as the whole of its con- tents, with some slight exceptions, refer to the controversy respecting the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the two great conflicts of the Church with Nestorianism and Eutychianism. It begins with an account of the rise of the former, and ends with the condemnation of the latter at the great Synod of Chalcedon. Consequently, this volume possesses an interest which attaches to hardly any other, and is marked by an unity which is seldom attainable in historical narrative. The Author has felt throughout that the subject was vital to the Church of Christ then and now, and he has spared no pains to bring the resources of his vast learning to bear upon the elucidation of his theme. As a result, we know nearly everything that can be known respecting the heresies of Kestorius and Eutyches, and the reason of their rejection by the Catholic Church. Considerable light is thrown by this volume upon two subjects which have been much debated of late — the Athanasian Creed and the relation of the Pope of Eome to the Christian Church. It will be quite clear to the reader that the Quicunque Vult could not have been written by viii editor's preface. S. Athanasius ; but it will be equally clear that it does little more than embody the phrases respecting the Person of Christ which were sanctioned in the Creed that was drawn up at Chalcedon. To theological students who really grapple with the essential elements of the question, it will also be plain that the theological or Christological phrases in the " Athanasian Creed" to which the greatest exception has been taken, are simple and necessary contradictions of Nestorianism and Eutychianism, either of which heresies would have under- mined the Nicene faith. With regard to the Papacy, it is inevitable that a non- Eoman Editor should take exception to some of Bishop Hefele's remarks in the 28 th canon of Chalcedon. We, of course, believe that the Council in that canon stated the exact truth respecting the position assigned to the Bishop of Eome. This, however, is a matter of opinion, and we only caution the reader that he may form a judgment for himself. Of the other points on which differences of opinion will exist, we need refer only to the character of Cyril of Alex- andria, who presided at the Council of Ephesus. Many will think that Bishop Hefele has dealt partially with this great and powerful man. It will probably seem to most that he behaved with unnecessary haste in opening the Synod before the arrival of the Antiochenes. On the other hand, there seems no reason to doubt that his antagonists purposely delayed their arrival, and g^ve him to understand that the proceedings might begin. At any rate, the Author appears to have stated the case with all possible accuracy. It is inevitable that errata should occur in this volume. The Editor has already discovered the word " Dyophysite " spelt " Diophysite " in two places. Great care has been taken to secure accuracy, and it is hoped that no serious error may remain. The Editor has been indebted to several friends, and especially to one accomplished friend whose assistance has been invaluable. He will welcome any suggestions which may be offered for the improvement of his work ; and he is bound, in conclusion, to acknowledge the great pains taken by the experienced publishers and printers in order that every possibility of error might be guarded against. HISTOET OF THE COUNCILS. BOOK IX. THE THIRD CECUMENICAL SYNOD AT EPHESUS, A.D. 431. CHAPTER L PKELIMINAET HISTOET. Sec. 127. The Pre-Nestorian Doctrine on the Union of the Two Natures in Christ. IN opposition to the Docetse, the Church had maintained the true manhood of Christ; in opposition to the Ebionites, Arians, and others, His true Godhead. The development of doctrine and of science now led necessarily to the special christological question: In what manner the divine and human natures in Christ were united. The fact that they were closely united was an established portion of the faith of the Church, but the manner of the union had not yet become the subject of exact consideration ; and as often as the ancient Fathers touched this point, they employed vague formulae and expressions. Thus Ignatius calls our Lord a crapKovcnKrj or Kara t^vaiv remains liable to be misunderstood, as though he intended thereby to teach monophysitism, while in reality he uses 4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. <^v<7i9, as in the other case he uses viroaraai'i, not in our exactly defined sense, which belongs to a later period, but ■with a more general meaning, and intends to say nothing else than that the two natures are united into one, or into one Person.! jj ^.j^g Confession of Faith attributed to Athanasius, irepl Ttj'i aapKclicreci}^ tov @eov Aoyov {0pp. t. ii. p. 1, ed. Patav.), is genuine, Athanasius would have taught ov hvo (j}vcreK, and would have used the expression fiiav (jjva-iv tov Qeov Aoyov aea-apKcofievriv. But this writing is not genuine, and belongs rather to ApoUinaris than to S. Athanasius, as is acknowledged not only by Montfaucon of S. Maur in his edition of the works of S. Athanasius, and after him by Mohler, but also by Miinscher in his Textbook of the History of Doctrines (i. p. 273), although in his earlier Manual of the History of Doctrines (iv. p. 15) he maintained the Athanasian authorshi_p. From what has been said, however, it does not follow that Athanasius never used the expression /xta ^vo-i? TOV Qeov Aoyov aeaapKcofjiivrj, which besides could be employed with a perfectly orthodox meaning: the phrase seems in fact to have met with general acceptance in Egypt, and was by Cyril and Dioscurus referred to Athanasius, and held as an acknowledged watchword of orthodoxy. When, later, the two Gregories, of Nazianzus and of Nyssa, took part in the battle against ApoUinarianism, they put forth definitely and expressly the duality of the natures, particularly Gregory Nazianzen (eia, moreover, which he selected here, instead of the term evcocri(;, which he else- where employs, being derived from avvaTrra) [to join together*], expresses only an external connection, a fixing together, and is therefore expressly rejected in later times by the doctors of the Church. And again, Theodore designates a merely external connection also in the phrase already quoted, to the effect that " the Logos dwells in the man assumed as in a temple." As a temple and the statue set up within it are one whole merely in outward appearance, so the Godhead and manhood in Christ appear only from without in their actuality as one Person, while they remain essentially two Persons. To be consistent, Theodore was forced to regard also as 1 Dorner, l.c. S. 52, and § 19 in Hardouin and Mansi, U. cc. * Hardouin and Mansi, II. cc. § 29 ; Dorner, l.c. p. 52. 5 [It is used of dancers joining hand in hand.] 8 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. inadmissible the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum which had practically found acceptance in the Church. This doctrine, as is well known, is predicating the same properties of the two natures in Christ, not in abstracto (Godhead and man- hood), but in concreto (God and man). Christ Himself had declared in S. John iii. 16: "God . . . gave His only begotten Son" (namely, to death), and similarly S. Peter declared (Acts iii. 15): "Ye . . . killed the Prince of Life," when in fact the being given up and being killed is a property {IhCw^ia = Predicate) of 7nan, not of God (the only begotten, the Prince of Life).^ In the same way Clement of Eome, for example, spoke of -iraOrnxaTa Seov (1 Ad Cor. 2), Ignatius of Antioch (Ad Ephes. c. 1, and Ad Bom. 6) of an alfia and irdOo^ 0eov, Tatian of a 0eo? ireirovda)'; (Ad (xrcecos, 0. 13); Barnabas teaches (c. 7) that "the Son of God could not suffer except on our behalf . . . and on our behalf He has brought the vessel of His Spirit as a sacrifice." Similarly Irenseus (iii. 16, 6) says, "The Logos unigenitus impassibilis has become passibilis ; " and Athanasius, iaTavpcofjLevov elvai Oeov (Up. ad Epidet. n. 10, t. i. P. ii. p. 726, ed Patav.). Specially cherished was the expression " God-bearer " (^eoro/cos = Deipara), and we find it more than a hundred years before the outbreak of the christological conflict in the writings of Origen, of Alexander of Alexandria, and of Athanasius.^ It is, however, to be remarked that the properties of the one nature were never transferred to the other nature in itself, but always to the Person, who is at the same time both man and God. Human attributes were not ascribed to the Godhead, but to God, and vice versa. They did not say, " the Godhead suffered," but " God suffered," and so forth. The ground of this communicatio idiomatum lies in the unio hypostatica of the two natures, whereby the Godhead and manhood in Christ are united in the one divine Person of the Logos ; and long before the introduction of the expression unio hypostatica, the ' Origen expressed himself with remarkable beauty in his Commentary ore the £!pistU to the Romans on the Communicatio idiomatum: Per indissolvbUem. tinitatem Verbi et camis, omnia quai carnis mint, adscribiintur et Verbo, et quca Verii sunt, prasdicamtur de came. ' Compare above, vol. i. p. 252. Also Munscher, Lehrb. i. S. 286 ; Socrates, vii. 32. NESTOEIUS. 9 ancient fathers felt the truth set forth in it, when they endea- voured, although still inadequately, to give the ground of the commimicatio. Thus Gregory of Nyssa remarks : " So long as the divine and human in Christ are regarded, each by itself, the properties (ISico/xaTb.) of both remain unmixed, but after the union (mixing, avaKpadelaa) the flesh (the human nature) participates in the glory of the Logos, in the power of the Godhead."^ Still better Epiphanius writes : "If God suffered in the flesh, it was not His Godhead (in itself) which suffered ; but what He suffered in the flesh which was borne by the Godhead, has relation also to the Godhead. It is just as when one has on a garment. If this garment is spotted with a drop of blood, we then say that the man is spotted with blood, although the spot has fallen only on the garment, and not on the man."^ Even Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his time, considered himself bound especially to oppose the expression " God- bearer." " Mary," he says, " bare Jesus, not the Logos, for the Logos was and remained omnipresent, although from the beginning He dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar manner. Thus Mary is properly the Christ-bearer, not the God-bearer. Only figuratively, per anaphoram, can she be called God-bearer also, because God was in Christ in a remarkable manner. Properly she bare a man, in whom the union with the Logos was begun, but was still so little completed, that He was not' yet (but only from the time of His baptism) called the Son of God." And in another passage he remarks : " It is madness to say that God is born of the Virgin, . . . not God, but the temple in which God dwelt, is born of Mary."^ Sec. 128. Nestorius. Erom the school of Theodore came Nestorius, with whose name the first period of the great christological controversy is ' Gregor. Nyss. Contra Eunomium, i. iv. t. ii. p. 161, ed. Paris, 1615 ; Miinseher, Lehrb. der Dogmmg. i. 276. 2 Epiph. Ancorat. c. 36 and 95, t. ii. pp. 42 and 96, ed. Patav. Similarly Hceres. 69, n. 24 and 42 ; and Hceres. ?2, n. 23. " Hardouin and Mansi, II. cc. § i; Dorner, I.e. S. 60. 10 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. connected.^ Born at Germanicia, a city of Syria, Nestorius came to Antioch at an early age, chiefly for the purpose of obtaining a more liberal secular education. He soon dis- tinguished himself by great facility in extempore speaking in union with a beautiful and powerful voice, and shortly after- wards entered the monastery of Euprepius at Antioch, and was thence appointed as deacon and afterwards as priest in the Cathedral of Antioch. As priest he preached very frequently and with remarkable acceptance, while he also enjoyed the reputation of being a rigid Ascetic, and repeatedly showed great zeal for orthodoxy, so that he was the first who publicly impugned an erroneous statement which Theodore of Mopsuestia had brought forward in the pulpit. But with all his activity he showed, as TheodoreLand others affirm, great vanity and a desire for the applause of the multitude, particularly in his sermons.^ In consequence of the fame which he acquired, after the death of Bishop Sisinnius of Constantinople (Dec. 24, 427), he was raised to this famous throne ; and his people hoped that in him they had obtained a second Chrysostom from Antioch. From the time of his ordination (April 10, 428) he showed great fondness for the vork of preaching, and much zeal against heretics. In his very first sermon he addressed the Emperor Theodosius the younger with the words : " Give me, Emperor, the earth cleansed from heretics, and I will for that give thee heaven ; help me to make war against heretics, and I will help thee in the war against the Persians."' A few days afterwards he determined to deprive the Arians of the chapel which they still possessed in Constantinople, so that they were led them- selves to set fire to it, on which account Nestorius received from the heretics and from many of the orthodox the nick- name of the Incendiar}^ Besides this he also attacked the Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Macedonians, and obtained 1 It is not absolutely certain that Theodore of Mopsuestia was the teacher of Kestorius, bnt it is highly probahle, as Petavius (Dogm. Theolog. t. iv. lib. i. c. 7) and "Walch {Ketzerhist. Thl. v. S. 315 ff.) have shown. - Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 29 ; Theodoret, Hcsret. Fabul. lib. iv. c. 12 ; Evagrius, Hist. Med. i. 7 ; Gennad. De Scrip, eccl. c. 63 ; Vincent I/irin. c. 16. • " Socrat. Hist. Eccl vii. 29. NESTORIUS. 1 1 from the Emperor several stringent laws against the heretics (ibid. c. 31). The Pelagians alone found favour with him, since he seems to have regarded as correct their doctrine of the sufficiency of man's free will for the accomplishment of what is good : but not their view on original sin. He received Julile, Bishop of Eclanum, Coelestius, and other exiled leaders of the Pelagians, and interceded for them, in the year 429, with the Emperor and also with Pope Coelestine.-' The "Western layman, Marius Mercator, however, who at that time resided in Constantinople, made the Emperor acquainted, through a memorial {Commonitorium) still extant, with the true state of affairs, and with the fact that the Pelagians had already been condemned by Western Synods and Popes ;^ whereupon Theodosius commanded them to leave the capital.* The sympathy which Nestorius had with them is shown by his letter to Coelestius, the well-known friend of Pelagius, in which he bestows upon him the highest titles of honour, and compares him with John the Baptist, with Peter, and with Paul, as the object of iinrighteous per- secution.* It was during these transactions in connection with the Pela^ gians that the other controversy began through which Nestorius has so sadly immortalized his name, and he refers to it in the first letter which he wrote to Pope Coelestine on the Pelagian question.^ In another letter to John, Bishop of Antioch, Nestorius asserts that at the time of his arrival in Constanti- nople he had found a controversy already existing, in which one party designated the holy Virgin by the name of " God-bearer," the other as only " man-bearer." In order to mediate between them, he said, he had suggested the expression " Christ-bearer," in the conviction that both parties would be contented with it, since Christ was at the same time God and man.® On the other hand, Socrates relates (vii. 32) that "the priest Anas- tasius, a friend of Nestorius, whom he brought to Constanti- ^ Marius Mercator, ed Gamier, republ. by Migne, Paris, 1846, pp. 61, 174, 179, 181, 185, 187, 203 (note). ^ In his Works, ed. Garnier-Migne, p. 63 sqq. ' This is clear from the title of the memorial. * In Marius Merc. Ic. p. 182. * Ihid. I.e. p. 176. 6 In Mansi, t. v. p. 573 ; Hardouin, t. i. p, 1331. 12 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. nople with him, one day warned his hearers, iu a sermon, that no one should call Mary the God-hearer {OeoroKO'i), for Mary was a human being, and God could not be born of a human being.^ This attack on a hitherto accepted ecclesiastical term and ancient belief caused great excitement and disturbance among clergy and laity, and Nestorius himself came forward and defended the discourse of his friend in several sermons. One party agreed with him, another opposed him, and many went so far as to accuse him, but evidently with injustice, of the error of Paul of Samosata, as if he acknowledged in Christ only a man."^ According to this account of the matter, Xestorius did not find the controversy already existing in Constantinople, but, along with his friend Anastasius, was the first to excite it. The sermons, however, which, as we have stated, he delivered on this subject, are still partially preserved for us, and are fully sufiicient to disprove the inaccurate assertion of many, that Nestorius in fact taught nothing of a heterodox character. In his very first discourse he exclaims pathetically : " They ask whether Mary may be called God-iearer. But has God, then, a mother ? In that case we must excuse heathenism, which spoke of mothers of the gods ; but Paul is no liar when he said of the Godhead of Christ (Heb. vii. 3) that it is without father, without mother, and without genealogy. No, my friends, Mary did not bear God ; . . . the creature did not bear the Creator, but the Man, who is the Instrument of the Godhead. The Holy Ghost did not place the Logos, but He provided for Him, from the blessed Virgin, a temple which He might inhabit. . . . This garment of which He makes use I honour for the sake of Him who is hidden within it, and is inseparable from it. ... I separate the natures and unite the reverence. Consider what this means. He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not God Himself, but God ' According to Cyril of Alexandria {Ep. vi. p. 30, £!p. ix. p. 37, 0pp. t. v. ed. Autert. ; and in Mansi, t. iv. p. 1014), the first attack on hoTixo; was made by Bishop Dorotheus (apparently of Marcianople), a friend of Nestorius. ^ Several Protestants lay stress upon the fact that Luther, in his time, had ' remarked upon the injustice of the last reproach. Quite true : but more than a thousand years before, Socrates (vii. 32), in the very place where he mentions the accusation, asserts its groundlessness. NESTOKIUS. 1 3 assumed Him {assuinsit, that is, clothed Himself with humanity) and, because of Him who assumes. He who is assumed is also named God." ' The second homily opens with a bitter reproach against his predecessors, as though they had not had time to lead the people to the deeper knowledge of God. Thereupon he turns again to his main theme, that Christ is double in nature and single in dignity. " When," he says, " the Holy Scripture speaks of the birth of Christ, or of His death, then it never calls Him God, but Christ, or Jesus, or Lord, designations which apply to both natures. . . . Mary may then be called Xpta-TOTOKO'?, and she bore the Son of God inasmuch as she bore the man who, by reason of his union with the Son of God (in the proper sense), may also be called Son of God (in the wider sense). In the same way, it may be said that the Son of God died, but not that God died. . . . We will, then, hold fast the union of the natures without confusion, and in the man we will acknowledge God, and will reverence the man who, by a kind of divine union with God, is at the same time to be worshipped."^ In the third discourse ' he says : " The Arians place the Logos only below the Father, but these people (who teach the OeoTOKo^ and speak of a hirth of God) place Him below even Mary, assert that He is more recent than she, and give to the Godhead which created all a temporal mother as origin. If He whom she bore was not man, but God the Logos, then she was not the mother of Him who was born, for how could she be the mother of Him who is of a different nature from her- self ? But if she is to be called His mother, then He who is born is not of divine nature, but a man, since every mother can bear only that which is of like substance with herself. God the Logos, then, was not born of Mary, but He dwelt in Him who was born of Mary." It is easy to see that N'estorius occupied the point of view of his teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia, and was even less inclined than he to set aside the duality of the persons in Christ otherwise than in appearance. Several of his priests gave him 1 In Marius Mercat. ed. Garnier-Migne, p. 757 sqq. - Marius Merc. I.e. 763 sqq. 14 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. notice of withdrawal from his communion, and preached against him. The people cried out, " We have an Emperor, but not a Bishop." Some, and among them laymen, spoke against him even in public when he preached, and particularly a certain Eusebius, undoubtedly the same who was subsequently Bishop of Dorylaeum, who, although at the time still a layman, was among the first who saw through and opposed the new heresy. Nestorius applied to him and others, for this reason, the epithet of " miserable men,"^ called in the police against them, and had them flogged and imprisoned, particularly several monks, whose accusation addressed to the Emperor against him has come down to our times.^ It was in a more careful way that Proclus, Bishop of Cyzicus, stepped into the lists. He had formerly been a priest of Constantinople, and was appointed by the late Patriarch Sisinnius as Bishop of Cyzicus. But the inhabitants of that city would not accept him, and therefore he continued to live in Constantinople. Invited by Nestorius to preach at one of the festivals of the Virgin (429), he made use of the oppor- tunity to describe, in his presence, the honour and dignity of Mary as God-hearer in many rhetorical phrases drawn from the Bible, and to defend the expression which had been called in question in a clever but, at the same time, rather a pompous manner.' Nestorius thus found it necessary at once to deliver a second sermon, in order, as he said, to warn those who were present against an excessive veneration of Mary, and against the opinion that the Word of God (the Logos) could be born twice (once eternally from the Father, and a second time of Mary). He who says simply that God is born of Mary makes the Christian dogma ridiculous to the heathen ... for the heathen will reply, " I cannot worship a God who is born, dies, and is buried." It is evident that what is born is the human nature, but the Godhead is united with it. . . . He entirely agreed, therefore, with the previous speaker, when he said that "He who 1 Marius Mere. I.e. p. 770 ; Cyrill. 0pp. t. iv. p. 20 ; Tillemont, t. xiv. p. 313. ^ In Hardouin, t. i. p. 1336 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1102. ' His discourse is given in a Latin translation by Marius Mercator, I.e. p. 775 sqq. ; in Greek by Mansi, t. iv. p. 578 sqij. Hardouin has not given it. On Proclus, cf. Assemani, Biblioih. jur. orient, t. iii. p. 42 sqq^. NESTOEIUS. 1 5 was born of woman is not pure God and not mere man, for the manhood which is born is united with the Godhead." ... Is the Logos risen from the dead ? And if the life-giver (Logos) died, who then could give life ? The mystery of godliness must, however, be expressed in this manner : " One thing is the Logos who dwelt in the temple formed by the Holy Ghost, and another is this temple itself, different from the God who dwells within it." He acknowledged, then, the unity of the combination, but the duality of the natures and substances. ... In short, it was an absurd accusation to charge him with teaching the error of Photinus ; on the contrary, that which he asserted overthrew the doctrine of Photinus.^ In a second discourse, delivered afterwards against Proclus, he explained that he could allow the expression 6eoT6Ko<; if it were rightly understood, but that he was forced to oppose it because both the Arians and the Apollinarians sheltered themselves be- hind it. If they did not sufficiently distinguish the two natures, an Arian might take all these scripture texts which referred to the Taij-eivwat'; of Christ as man, e.ff. His not knowing and the like, and transfer them to the divine nature, so as to prove from them the theory of subordinationism. Nestorius further attributes to those who make use of the deoTOKO's the view that, in their opinion, the Godhead first had its beginning through Mary, which certainly none had asserted ; and in order to avoid- this notion, he proposes, instead of the expression "God was born of Mary," to allow this, "God passed (transiit) through Mary."^ The fragment of another sermon' is directed entirely against the communicatio idiomatum, particiilarly against the expres- sion, "the Logos suffered;" but still more important is the fourth discourse against Proclus, containing these words : — " The life-giving Godhead they call mortal, and dare to draw down the Logos to the level of the fables of the theatre, as though He (as a child) was wrapped in swaddling-clothes and afterwards died. . . . Pilate did not kill the Godhead, but the garment of the Godhead; and it was not the Logos whicb was wrapped in a linen cloth by Joseph of Arimathea and buried. . . . He did not die who gives life, for wbo would then 1 In Marius Mercator, I.e. p. 782. = lUd. p. 785. ' Ibid, p, 787. 16 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. raise Him who died ? . . . God was not altered through His union or communion with man, but, united with human nature and claspmg it in His embrace (complexibus stringens), He' raised it up to heaven, while He Himself remained unchanged. ... In order to make satisfaction for men, Christ assumed the person of the guilty nature (of humanity) (dehentis suscepit personam naturce). . . . Christ is not mere man, but God and man at the same time. . . . And this man I worship along with the Godhead as the cooperarius divinm auctm'itatis, as the instrumentum of the goodness of the Lord, ... as the living purple garment of the King, . . . separo naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam. That which was formed in the womb of Mary is not God Himself . . . but because God dwells in Him whom He has assumed, therefore also He who is assumed is called God because of Him who assumes Him. And it is not God who has suffered, but God was united with the crucified flesh. . . . We wiU. therefore caU the holy Virgin 6eoZ6'XP<;, but not 6eoT6Ko<;, for only God the Father is deoTOKo?; but we will honour that nature which is the garment of God along with Him who makes use of this garment, we will separate the natures and unite the honour, we will acknowledge a doulle person and worship it as one."^ We can see from all this, that Nestorius (a) Properly determined to hold fast the duality of the two natures and the integrity of each ; that he (/8) Was in a position, with his teaching, to reject the theories alike of the Arians and ApoUinarians ; that he (7) Says, with perfect right, that the Godhead in itself can neither be born nor suffer ; also, (8) That the notion of the OeoTOKoi, which he persistently opposes, which would assume that the Godhead in itself had been born, and could have its beginning of Mary, was cer- tainly worse than heretical. (e) Further, we see that in a certain sense he would allow even the expression 6eoT6Ko6po<;), who has assumed humanity as an instrument, but He must be called "God truly made man" (c. 19). The body of Christ is not the body of any other, but of the Word (c. 20); i.e., the human nature of Christ does not belong to any human person, but the personality to which it belongs is the Logos. (In this way Nestorianism was struck on the head.) Were the humanity of Christ, he proceeded, a mere instrumentum of the Godhead, then Christ would not be essentially different from Moses, for he, too, was an instrument of God (c. 21). At the close he further compares the death of Christ with our death. In our case, he says, it is properly only the body which dies, and yet we say " the man dies " (that is, the soul in itself does not die, but it participates in the suffering and death of the body). So it is with Christ. The Godhead in itself did not die, but the Logos has what in the first place belonged to His human nature, velut proprium in se transtulit ; and thus we can say, "He suffered death" (c. 24). As man He suffered death, ^ 0pp. I.e. Epiat. i. pp. 1-19 ; also in Mansi, t. iv. pp. 587-618. It is not given by Hardonin. ^ Ibid. c. 12, p. 599 ; in Mansi, l.c. THE CONFUCT BETWEEN CYRIL AND NESTORIUS BEGINS. 19 as God He again abolished death; and He could not have wrought out our salvation by His divine nature if He had not endured death for our sake in His human nature (c. 25). This treatise of Cyril was also brought to Constantinople, and excited Nestorius to employ violent expressions respecting his Alexandrian colleague. The latter therefore directed a short letter to Nestorius, in which he said, " that it was not he (Cyril) and his treatise, but Nestorius or his friend who was the cause of the present prevailing ecclesiastical disorder. It had even gone so far already, that some would no longer call Christ God, but only instrument of God and a God- bearing man. At such a violation of the faith, it had not been possible for him to keep silence, and Nestorius could himself say what he would have to answer the Eoman bishop Ccelestine and other bishops, who asked him whether Nestorius had really written and said the things which were currently reported of him. Besides, there came from all the provinces of the East unfavourable reports concerning Nestorius, and he should therefore pacify again all who had taken offence from the use of the expression deoroKo^." ^ Nestorius answered this in a few lines, which contained hardly anything but self-praise and insolence, to the effect that " Christian love and the urgency of the Alexandrian priest Lampo alone had induced him to give an answer to Cyril, whose letter contained much that was at variance with brotherly love. He greeted all the brethren who were with CjTil." ' About the same time Nestorius availed himself of an oppor- tunity of endeavouring, if possible, to gain over Pope Ccelestine to himself and his teaching. He wrote to him that some Western bishops — namely, the Pelagian Julian, Florus, Oron- tius, and Fabius — had complained to the Emperor and to him that, although orthodox, they were persecuted. They had been several times sent away, but they had always renewed their complaints, and he would now ask for more exact information respecting their case. Moreover, he said, 1 In Mansi, t. iv. p. 883 sq. ; and in the Works of Cyril, I.e. Epist. u. p, 19 sq. It is wanting in Hardouin. 2 Cyrill, 0pp. I.e. Ep. iii. p. 21 ; and in Mansi, I.e. p. 886. 20 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. lie had wished to destroy a heretical disease which prevailed in his diocese, and even among the clergj'-, which was akin to the corruption of Apollinarianism and Arianism. These heretics mingled the Godhead and manhood in Christ, and blasphemously alleged that the Word of God had, as it were, taken a beginning from the Christ-bearer; that He was built up along with His temple (the humanity), and was buried along with the flesh (humanity); and that, after the resurrection, the flesh (humanity) had passed over into the Godhead. . They ventured, therefore, to call the Virgin God- hearer, whilst neither the Fathers at Nicaea nor the Holy Scriptures had employed this expression. Such an expression was not in fact admissible, and could be tolerated only with a certain explanation (that Mary had borne only a man. but that with this the Godhead was inseparably united). Coeles- tine had probably already heard what struggles he (Nestorius) had to maintain against these false teachers ; but he had not struggled in vain, for many had been happily converted.^ A second and somewhat later epistle explains to the Pope, that Nestorius had long waited for an answer with reference to those Western (Pelagian) bishops, and requests that Ccelestine would at last let him have more accurate infor- mation concerning them. At the same time he speaks- again of the new heresy, which renews Apollinarianism and Arianism.^ The state of tension v/hich had arisen between Cyril and Nestorius had induced some Alexandrians, who had been punished by Cyril on account of gross moral excesses, now to go to Constantinople, and there to bring forward complaints against their archbishop. One of these complainants had been guilty of dishonesty as a reliever of the poor, the second had shockingly ill-treated his mother, the third had stolen; and Nestorius had granted these people a hearing. Cyril now complains of this in a fresh letter to Nestorius, and joins with it, as the principal thing, a request that Nestorius will ^ Given in Latin by Marius Merc. I.e. p. 174 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1307 ; Mansi, ?.povi]'"'^ i"^ '"^f^ •""> haipiXurTiTeu fix(TiXiais n^r» a,yyi\XiTcti, where hfih is to be connected with i.yyi\).ira,i (it is told us). The Latin translation has altered the sense : Imperator mdiora de nobis cogitare dicUur. Mansi, t. iv. p. 1450 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1603. THE EMPEROR SUMMONS DEPUTIES FROM BOTH SIDES. 97 have regarded a misfortune as a punishment from God ; and that, on the other side, that unfortunate battle did not take place before the end of August 431, and therefore the result could not have been known so early in Constantinople.^ The decree by which the Emperor summoned before him eight representatives of each of the two parties is no longer extant, and we are acquainted with it only from its results, and from the writings to which it gave occasion on both sides. Count John made it known to the one side as well as to the other, and each party made haste to elect and send its commissioners. On the Catholic side the Eoman priest and papal legate Philip, and the Bishop Arcadius (also a papal legate), Juvenal (of Jerusalem), Flavian (of Philippi), Firmus (of Ctesarea in Cappadocia), Theodotus (of Ancyra), Acacius (of Melitene), and Euoptius (of Ptolemais, in Africa) were selected.^ Cyril, too, would gladly have been among the number of these deputies, but he was obliged, as was Memnon also, to remain in prison. From the Antiochene side, John of Antioch, John of Damascus, Himerius of Mcomedia, Paulus of Emisa, Macarius of Laodicea, Apringius of Chalcis, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Helladius of Ptolemais (in Phoenicia) were entrusted with the office of deputies.^ The mandate which the orthodox Synod committed to their deputies, given in a somewhat free translation, is as follows : " Since the God-loving Emperors have given us permission, in the name of the whole world, which, represented by the Synod, contends for the right faith, to send an embassy to Constantinople in the interest of orthodoxy and of the holy Bishops Cyril and Memnon, we have selected you for this ' Baron, ad ann. 431, n. 137 sqq. ; Tillemont, M(moires, t. xiy. note 61, Sur St. Gyrille. 8 It is remarkable that in the synodal documents relating to this subject (in Mansi, t. iv. p. 1458 ; Hardoiiin, t. i. p. 1610) the Roman priest Philip is named primo loco, before the other papal legate Arcadius, although he was » bishop, and before Juvenal, etc. Peter de Marca (De concordia, etc., lib. v. c. 4, § 8) would explain this as merely an error of the transcriber ; but Tillemont long ago saw (Mim: t. xiv. p. 471) the weakness of this argument, without, however, supplanting it by another. It may suffice to remember that on several former occasions, as we saw above (p. 64), Philip stood primo loco among the papal legates. In the next document, however, he appears again ultimo loco. ' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1399 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1562. III. G 98 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. purpose, and give you the following instructions. Before all, you must consent to no communion with John of Antioch and his apostate Council, because they have refused in common with us to depose Nestorius, because they have been his patrons up to the time of your departure, because they have ventured, in opposition to aU the canons, to condemn Cyril and Memnon ; but especially because to this day they defend the doctrines of Nestorius, and besides, many of them are Coelestians (Pelagians), and for this reason are deposed ; finally, because they have not shrunk from slandering the Synod of the whole world as hereticaL If, however, the Emperor urgently requires it (for we must always obey him, when possible), you shall grant the Antiochenes communion on the condition that they subscribe the deposition of Ifestorius, ask the forgiveness of the Synod in writing, with reference to Cyril and Memnon, principally, anathematize the heresies of Nestorius, reject his adherents, and take common action with the Synod for the restitution of Cyril and Memnon. Moreover, you must communicate on every point with the Synod, since the complete restoration of peace with the Antiochenes needs their approval; and you must not allow communion to the Antiochenes until the Synod have received back their heads (Cyril and Memnon).'' This document is signed by Bishop Berinianus of Pergse, who now probably, as the oldest of the metropolitans (as Juvenal was among the deputies), occupied the presidency of the Council.^ The Synod entrusted their delegates with the following letter to the Emperors. They said " they had at last responded to the prayers of the Synod, and had allowed the command to be conveyed to them by Count John, that they should send a deputation. The Synod thanked them for this, and sent Arcadius, etc. (the Eoman priest Philip is here named ultimo loco) as their representatives, and prayed the Emperors, on their behalf, for a benevolent reception and a favourable hearing. At the same time they would mention in this letter that which weighed so heavily on them. They then relate how Nestorius was summoned sixteen days after the expiry of the appointed period, and had not appeared ; how John of Antioch and his ' JUansi, t. iv. p. 1457 sqq. ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1609 sqq. THE DEPUTIES SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON. 99 adherents had comported themselves, had deposed Cyril and Memnon, and had also deceived the Emperor by false intelli- gence, and what had then been done on the part of the Synod. They now, by their letter and their deputies, embraced the knees of the Emperors, and prayed that they would annul the sentence obtained by deception against Cyril and Memnon, and give back to the assembly their heads. For these were altogether sound in faith, and the whole Synod shared their faith, as they had declared in writing. In these their heads the whole bishops regarded themselves as prisoners, and the Emperors were therefore requested to release them all from bonds." ^ The Antiochenes, too, did not fail to commit to their deputies, whom we have already mentioned, a written mandate, which, however, only indulges in general expressions on the rights and duties of those elected, and stipulates for the ratifi- cation of all the proceedings of the Conciliabulum. This would, however, satisfy everything, if only the heretical propositions of Cyril were rejected. All the Antiochenes, with Alexander of Hierapolis and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis at their head, signed this commission.^ Sec. 147. The Dejputies of both Parties are summoned to Chalcedon. From a short letter of the Antiochene deputies to their Conciliabulum, dated the 11th Gorpiseus, that is, the lltli of September 431,^ we learn that the Emperor Theodosius had in the meantime altered his plan, and did not allow either of the parties to enter Constantinople, but ordered them to go to Chalcedon {vis-d,-vis to Constantinople, and separated from it only by the Bosporus), and to await him there. Disturbances among the monks, according to the Antiochenes, induced him to take this decision. At the same time we learn from this letter that Nestorius, about eight days before, had received ^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1462, t. v. p. 651 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1611. - In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1399, t. v. p. 791 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1562. ' The Syrian month Gorpiseus is exactly the same as the Roman month Sep- tember. Cf. Ideler, Lehrbuch der Chronol. 1831, S. 180 f. Petavius maintained the same. Usher, on the contrary, and others, think that Gorpiaus began with the 25th of August, and that the 11th Gorp. is therefore = September 4. Cf. Tillemont, I.e. note 63, Sur St. Cyrille. 100 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. notice to quit Ephesus, and to return to the monastery in which he was formerly a monk. The deputies of the Antiochenes complained of this, because it must have appeared like a confirmation of the unjust judgment pronounced against Nestorius. They then declare their readiness to contend for the faith even to blood, and remark that on that day, the 11th of the month Gorpiaeus, they expect the Emperor, who is on his way to Eufinianum, a suburb of Chalcedon. Finally, they commend themselves to the prayers of their friends, to whom they wish stedfastness in the faith, and conclude with the intelligence that Himerius (Bishop of Nicomedia, one of the Antiochene deputies, who had been taken ill on the way) had not yet arrived.* "We have just heard that Nestorius had received notice, during the interval between the departure of the deputies of the two parties and their arrival in Chalcedon, to leave Ephesus. The edict in which this was announced to him we still possess, if not quite in its entirety, and it probably pro- ceeded from the prefect of the Praetorians, Antiochus, but according to the ordinary custom it was drawn up in the name of all the prefects. It is short and courteous, but definite, and states that, as Nestorius himself had wished^ to depart from Ephesus and to return into his previous monastery, a con- voy had been provided for him, which would attend upon him during his journey. He was allowed himself to choose the route, whether by land or by water, but these attendants had to accompany him to his monastery (that of S. Euprepius at Antioch). In conclusion, all good is wished him for his future life ; and it is added that he, with his wisdom, cannot lack for comfort.^ Nestorius answered : * " He had received the letter of the prefect, and from that had learnt the command of the Emperor that he should henceforth live in the monastery. He 1 Hardouin, t. i. p. 1568 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1400 ; still better, t. v. p. 794, witli the notes of Baluzius ibid.' ' He had asked for this permission when the Emperor summoned the deputies and he now regarded his cause as lost. Evagrius, i. 7. ' Mansi, t. v. p. 792 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 163a. * Epistola Mestorii ad eundem Prcefectum prcBtorium Antiochennm (prohahly Antiochium), in Mansi, t. v. p. 793 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1631. THE DEPUTIES SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON. 101 accepted this thankfully, for nothiug was more honourable in his view than to be exiled for the sake of religion. He only- requested that the prefect would use his endeavours with the Emperor, that imperial edicts might be published in all churches in order to the rejection of the false doctrines of Cyril, so as to prevent an offence to the simple." If we turn our attention again to the deputies of the two parties and their efforts, we must chiefly lament the great dearth of original sources of information, especially that there is not a single original document from the orthodox deputies, and from this whole side generally only a single contemporaneous brief account of what was done (see p. 108, note 1, and p. 110) has come down to us. But even the documents which pro- ceed from the Antiochenes and the Emperor are too defective to enable us to understand in sufficient detail the proceedings at Chalcedon. We believe we may venture to place the little that is known in the following chronological order. In the first place stands the short account just mentioned of the Antiochene deputies to those whom they represented, in which they announce the arrival of the Emperor on the 11th of Gorpiasus (September 11) 431. A few days afterwards they despatched again a short letter to their friends at Ephesus, in which they gave them an account of the first proceedings which took place at Chfilcedon in the presence of the Emperor. They are full of joy, for the Emperor has received their proposals very favourably, and they have triumphed over their opponents. That which these had brought forward had made a bad impression. Ever and anon these had put forward the name of their Cyril, and had entreated that he might himself be allowed to appear and undertake his own cause. They had not, however, attained to this, but it had been insisted upon that the faith should be considered and the doctrine of the holy Fathers affirmed. Further, they (the Antiochenes) had opposed Acacius of Melitene, a friend of Cyril's, because he maintained that the Godhead was capable of suffering (cf. p. 122). At this blasphemy the Emperor had been so much annoyed that he shook his purple mantle. The whole Senate, too, agreed with him. At last the Emperor had commanded that each side should hand in to him a written 102 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. account of their faith. They had replied that they conld give no other declaration of faith than the Nicene, and this also had greatly pleased the Emperor. All Constantinople had come out to them, and entreated them to contend bravely for the faith. In conclusion, they adjoined two copies of the Nicene declaration of faith, designed for the Emperor, so that the Conciliabulum might sign them with their own hands.^ The Antiochenes at Ephesus were highly delighted at this, and immediately sent the two documents back with their signatures, assuring their deputies in their answer that they would rather die than accept one of the heretical propositions of Cyril. But if these propositions were heretical, so also were the sentences of deposition which the adherents of these proposi- tions had pronounced (they referred particularly to those against Nestorius, as is clear from the letter which follows), and entirely null and void. They confided in the envoys that they would obtain from the Emperor the rejection both of the chapters (of the anathematisms) of Cyril and of those sentences of deposition, and they transmitted to them a copy of the explanation of his anathematisms, recently drawn up by Cyril, so that they might the more easily demonstrate his impiety.^ This document was signed by forty-two adherents of the Antiochene party, Tranquillinus of Antioch, in Pisidia, at their head ; ' at the same time they transmitted a letter to the Emperor, in which they thank him for the friendly recep- tion of their deputies, glory in the zeal of the Emperor for the faith, and make intercession for Nestorius, without directly naming him, as his deposition by the heretical party of Cyril was invalid.* At an earlier period, when the Emperor pro- nounced a sentence of deposition on Nestorius at the same time as upon Cyril and Memnon, they had preserved a cowardly ' We no longer possess the original Greek text of this letter, but two Latin translations, in no considerable degree divergent from each other, in Mansi, t. w. p. 1411, and t. v. p. 795. The former is also in Hardouin, t. i. p. 1572. = In Hardouin, t. i. p. 1577, and Mansi, t. iv. p. 1417 ; and in the Synodkon, ibid. t. V. p. 795-797. ^ These signatures are given in only one of the two translations in Mansi, t. v. p. 797, and Hardouin, t. i. p. 1578. ■♦ In Hardouin, t. i. p. 1579, and Mansi, t. iv. p. 1419 ; and in the Synodkon, ibid. t. V. p. 797. THE DEPUTIES SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON-. 103 silence, and had even commended the imperial wisdom, and sepa- rated themselves entirely from Nestorius, as even one of their own friends, Alexander of Hierapolis, reproached them with having done (p. 94). Now, on the contrary, the moment seemed to have come to throw off the mask, and again to take the side of Nestorius. They deceived themselves, however, and their sanguine hopes did not in the least progress towards fulfilment. There were, in fact, at Chalcedon, after the first session just mentioned, four other sessions, or series of proceedings, held in the presence of the Emperor ; but no record of the details has been preserved. At the most we have a few small frag- ments of Theodoret,^ containing a polemic against the adher- ents of Cyril, belonging to the speeches which he may have delivered at these proceedings. The other existing documents are all drawn up after that session, and in particular a letter of the Antiochene deputies to Eufus, Archbishop of Thessa- lonica, who had in writing exhorted Julian, Bishop of Sardica, a member of the Conciliabulum,^ to allow nothing to be added to the Mcene Creed, and nothing to be taken from it. The deputies commend him for this, speak again of the ApoUinarian- ism of Cyril, of their own contending for the Mcene faith, of the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, of the impossibility of their restitution (because they had continued the exercise of their spiritual functions), and of the obstinacy of Cyril's party. The Emperor had already admonished the envoys of this party in five sessions, either to reject the chapters of Cj^ril, as contrary to the faith, or to prove their conformity with the doctrine of the holy Fathers in a disputation. They them- selves (the Antiochenes) had collected complete proofs against these doctrines, together with evidences from Basil of Csesarea, Athanasius, Damasus of Eome, and Ambrose of Milan, and they gave some of them (but no patristic passages) for the benefit of Eufus, in order to prove that Cyril was an Arian 1 In Schulze's edition of the works of Theodoret, t. v. p. 104 f. ; and in Har- douin, t. iii. p. 136 ; and Mansi, t. vs.. p. 292 sci. Among the Acts of the fifth CEcumenical Synod, CoUat. v. ^ Julian signed the letter to the deputies, mentioned at p. 101 f. (Mansi, t. r. p. 797 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1578) ; and also, at the beginning of the Ephesine Synod, the protest against their opening hefore the arriyal of John of Antioch. See above, p. 45. 104 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. and a Eunomian. Of entirely similar views with their own ■were many Eastern and even Latin bishops. To this effect Bishop Martin of Milan had written to them, and sent them the work of S. Ambrose, Be Dominica Incarvxitione, which taught the opposite of those heretical chapters.^ Besides, they said, Cyril and Memnon had not only falsified the faith, but had also violated all the canonical laws, and had received heretics. Pelagians and Euchites, into their communion, in order to multiply their number. They had thought that, by means of men and by the expenditure of much money, they could overthrow the faith of the Fathers. Eufus should beware of holding communion with them, and declare far and near that their chapters were Apollinarian. Finally, a copy of the letter sent by them to the Emperor lay before him, in which they had given utterance to the Nicene faith, and had opposed the chapters of CyriL'' Sec. 148. The Emperor decides in favour of the Orthodox, and summons their Deputies to Constantinople. The prospects of the Antiochenes had already become more troubled when Theodoret wrote from Chalcedon to Alexander of Hierapolis as follows : " No kind of friendKness, no kind of urgency, no kind of exhortation, no kind of eloquence had been by them left untried with the Emperor and his Senate in order that the Nicene Creed alone should be received, and the newly-introduced heresy should be rejected. But to the present day they had produced no effect, although they had even sworn to the Emperor that it was impossible for them to agree with Cyril and Memnon. As often as they had endeavoured to speak of Nestorius to the Emperor or the Senate, they were accused of departing from their previous resolutions, so great was the enmity against him, and the ' In opposition to this, cf. the remark of Baluzlus in Mansi, t. T. p. 807, note a. He suggests that Bishop Martin of Milan could as yet have known nothing of a division in the Synod of Ephesus, but might have written to the Synod generally, and his letter, during the oppression of the orthodox, might have come into the hands of the Antiochenes. Apart from this, it is stated generally, even by Theodoret, that the Latins were on the anti-Nestorian side. ■ ' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1411-1418 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1571. THE EMPEEOR DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF THE ORTHODOX. 105 Emperor had declared with decision that no one should venture again to speak to him of that man. Yet, as long as they were here, they would concern themselves about this father, Nestorius, convinced that wrong had been done him. In other respects they wished generally to be set free from this place, for there was no further hope of any success, as the judges (the imperial officials, who had to decide between the two parties) were accessible to gold, and maintained that the Godhead and manhood make only one nature. The people (of Constantinople), on the contrary, behaved admirably, and often came out to the Antiochene deputies. They had there- lore begun to deliver discourses to them, and to have meetings for public worship with them in the great imperial Aula at Eufinianum. The clergy and the monks, however, were hostile to them, and once on their return from the meeting they had been stoned, and several had been wounded.^ The Emperor had learnt it, and had said to Theodoret, when he met him : You assemble unlawfully ; but Theodoret had frankly declared how unfair it was that the excommunicated (Cyril's party) should be allowed to hold their services in the churches, while all the churches were shut against them. (The people, clergy, and Bishop of Chalcedon were orthodox.) The Emperor, he said, should do as Count John did at Ephesns, and forbid divine service to both parties alike. The Emperor replied : I cannot give such an order to the Bishop of Chalce- don, but for the future I have not forbidden the meetings of the Antiochenes (without the Eucharist). The meetings were up to this time very much frequented ; but they were themselves always in danger on account of the monks and clergy, and had, on the one side, to endure acts of violence, and on the other, (the Emperor's) indifference." ^ It was not long before they experienced worse. Despair- ing of the possibility of a compromise, the Emperor suddenly ' The passage, "et milnerarentur multi ex laicis et falsis monachis, qui nobis- cum erant," according to the corresponding passage in the second memorial of ■the Antiochene deputies to the Emperor (see helow, p. 108 ; and Mansi, t. iv. p. 1404 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1566), must be corrected to " et vulnerarentur ■multi qui nobiscum erant, a laicis et falsis monachis." In the second memorial it is "A seroia, mona/:horum haiitu indulis." 2 Mansi, t. iv. p. 1407, t. v. p. 799 ; Hardouin, t. i. j<. 1568. 106 IIISTOEY OF TUE COUNCILS. returned from Chalcedon to Constantinople, without the deputies of the Antiochenes venturing to follow him, whilst he ordered those of the orthodox party to come after him, and to ordain another Bishop of Constantinople in the place of the deposed Nestorius.^ The Antiochenes, who had expected further ses- sions, were greatly troubled at this, but would not yet give up the hope of triumphing over their opponents in discussions, and therefore directly sent after the Emperor a memorial,^ of which we no longer possess the Greek original, but of which we have two ancient Latin translations, diverging considerably from each other, and in many places evidently corrupt. On the whole, that text which is given by the Synodicon of Irenseus' is less corrupt than the other,* so that for the most part we adhere to the former. The document begins with a violent attack upon Cyril and his adherents, accuses him even of heresy, and ascribes to him (as Nestorius had done before) the intention of giving occasion for the whole confusion, and the misleading of the others by all kinds of promises, in order to escape punishment for his own offences (see above, pp. 27 and 56). To this the assurance was added how willingly the Antiochenes would be silent, but how their conscience, because it was a qiiestion of the overthrow of the faith, imperatively required of them that they should come and make their petition to the Emperor, who, next to God, was the protector of the world. They adjure him then, by God, who sees all, by Christ, who will judge all, by the Holy Ghost, through whose grace he governs, and by the angels who pro- tect him, to avenge the religion which is now attacked, to order the abolition of the heretical chapters of Cyril, and to give instructions that every one who has subscribed them, and who, in spite of the pardon offered by the Antiochenes, perseveres in his contentiousness, shall come here (to a new disputation on the theological controversy in the presence of the Emperor), and be punished, after the sentence of the " See below, pp. 108, 110, and 116. " That it was sent to the Emperor after his departure from Constantinople is declared by the superscription, in Hardouin, t. i. p. 1563 ; and Mansi, t. v. p. 802. Cf. ibid. t. iv. p. 1401, note 1. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 802 sqq. * In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1401 ; and Hardouin, t. i. p. 1563. THE EMPEROE DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF THE ORTHODOX. 107 Emperor, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws. The Emperor could do nothing better to express his thankfulness that Christ had granted him so many victories over the Per- sians and other barbarians. Moreover, it was necessary that the proceedings (the disputations of the deputies on both sides) should be produced in writing in presence of the Em- peror. He could then decide whether those who suppressed the true faith, and yet would not stand to their new doctrines nor discuss them, were henceforth worthy to be called teachers. They had conspired among themselves, and intended to grant ecclesiastical privileges as the wages of impiety (to their adherents), and. in various ways to destroy canonical order, if the Emperor did not prevent it.* Nay, the Emperor would see how, when they had overthrown the faith of Christ, they would soon distribute the spoils of victory as the wages of treachery. In many ways Juvenal of Jerusalem had been guUty of presumption (they had previously, however, been silent on the subject), and his plans on both Phoenicia and Arabia were well known to them. In opposing these efforts they put their hope in the judgment of God and in the piety of the Emperor ; at the present moment, however, they, before everything and exclusively, presented a petition on behalf of the purity of the faith, that this which has had such glory since Constantine, and even under the present Emperor has been extended to Persia, should not be oppressed in the very palace of the Emperor himself. If any one should ever venture to become indifferent in regard to religion, they hoped that might be any one rather than the Emperor, to whom God had entrusted the power over the whole world. They were ready to follow his decision, for God would enlighten him so that he might perfectly apprehend the subject to be handled (in the proposed dis- putation). Should, however, such a new disputation be impossible, then let the Emperor allow them to return home to their dioceses. ^ As is shown by what follows, this refers chiefly to Jerusalem. The Antioch- enes accused the party of Cyril of having promised Juvenal of Jerusalem, in reward for his assistance, their support in his endeavour to obtain a higher hierarchical position. In fact, however, as we saw above, p. 77, Cyril did the reverse. 108 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. A short time afterwards they addressed a second memorial to the Emperor, and there give an account, from their own point of view, of the whole course of the Synod of Ephesus, and the summoning of the deputies to Chalcedon. They say further, that the opposite party had entered into no conferences with them on the subject of Cyril's propositions, and to this party, although persisting in heresy, permission had been given at Chalcedon to attend church and to hold divine service, while they (the Antiochenes), for a long time at Ephesus, and here also, had been forced to be without holy communion. They had endured much besides, and had even been pelted with stones by servants who were attired as monks. The Emperor had promised them one more session, but had de- parted for Constantinople, and had commanded the opposition party, although excommunicated, to follow him to celebrate divine service and even to ordain (a new bishop for Constanti- nople).^ They, the Antiochene deputies, on the other hand, did not dare either to go to Constantinople or to return home. Of one mind with them were the bishops of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, Illyricum, and even of Italy, who would never approve of the teaching of Cyril, and had transmitted to the Emperor a writing of S. Ambrose which contradicted the new heresy (cf. p. 104). In conclusion, they pray that no bishop may be allowed to be ordained for Constantinople before a decision is arrived at as to the true faith.'' The Emperor answered by a short decree addressed to the whole Synod of Ephesus, — that is, to both parties in common, — in which he laments that the discord still lasts, and com- mands all the members of the Synod to return home from Ephesus, and again to fill their episcopal sees. Only Cyril and Memnon are to remain deposed.' ' The same thing is asserted in the only notice which we possess from the orthodox side, in Mansi, t. v. pp. 255 and 659 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1667. ^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1403, t. v. p. 805 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1565. ° Mansi, t. v. p. 798. According to a letter of Acacias of Beroea, to he men- tioned hereafter, the Emperor had confirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon anew, because it was shown that the eunuch Scholaaticus had received presents from CyriL See below, p. 112. Tillemont {Mimoires etc., t. xiv. p. 448) sup- poses that this new edict was speedily recalled, because the Antiochene deputies never boasted of it. THE EPHESINE SYNOD IS DISSOLVED. 109 The Antiochene deputies now addressed their third memo- rial to the Emperor. " Such a result they had not expected, but their modesty had injured them. They had been so long detained at Chalcedon, and now they were sent home, while those who had thrown everything into confusion and divided the Church, exercised spiritual functions, celebrated divine service, held ordinations, and spent the property of the poor upon soldiers. And yet Tlieodosius was Emperor not for these only, but also for the Antiochenes, and the East was no small part of his kingdom. He should not despise the faith into which he had been baptized, for which so many martyrs had bled, through which he had overcome the barbarians, and of which he had now great need in the African war. God would protect him if he protected the faith, and did not allow the body of the Church to be rent. They further assure the Emperor that the party of Cyril repeat the errors of ApoUinaris, Arius, and Eunomius, and discharge spiritual functions in a manner not permitted. The greatest part of the people, on the other hand, were still sound, and very anxious for the faith. If the Emperor, in spite of their adjuration, would not receive the true faith, then they shook the dust off their feet, crying, with Paul, ' we are guiltless of your blood.'" ^ Sec. 149. The Ephesine Synod is dissolved. This, however, made no more impression than their pre- vious efforts. On the contrary, the Emperor now placed him- self still more decidedly than before upon the side of the orthodox; and after these had, in accordance with his command, ordained a new bishop for Constantinople in the person of Maximian, a priest of that Church,^ he put forth a new decree to the Synod of Ephesus, under which title he understands here no longer, as before, both parties, but only the assembly of the orthodox ; but he does not treat even this in a quite friendly manner, and he does not conceal his displeasure at ' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1405 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1566. " We learn this from the single document, already noticed, which we pos- sess from the orthodox side, in Mansi, t. v. pp. 255 and 659 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1667. 110 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. the miscarriage of his plans for unity. He says: "As you could not be induced to unite with the Antiochenes, and, moreover, would not join in any discussion of the points of ditference, I command that the Oriental bishops return to their churches, and that the Ephesine Synod dissolve. Cyril, too, is to return to Alexandria (to his diocese), and Memnon shall remain bishop of Ephesus. At the same time we also give it to be known that, as long as we live, we shall not condemn the Orientals, for they have not been confuted in our presence, and no one would dispute with them. More- over, if you wish for the peace of the . Church (with the Orientals = Antiochenes), that is, if you will still come to an understanding with them at Ephesus, let me know this imme- diately ; if not, then think of your return home. We are not to blame (that no unity was accomplished), but God knows who must share the blame."^ An addition to this imperial edict in the Synodicon'^ notifies that Cyril, even hefore the arrival of this decree, had been released from his imprisonment, and had set out on his return to Alexandria. From the previously quoted sole communica- tion from the orthodox side we learn further, that Cyril arrived at Alexandria on the 3d of Athyr, that is, October 30, 431, and was received with great rejoicing. He was, besides, soon gladdened by a very friendly letter from the new bishop of Constantinople.' The Antiochene deputies do not seem to have been as quick as Cyril in returning home from Chalcedon. At least, after Cyril and Memnon had already been set at liberty, and the imperial edict of dissolution had appeared, they prepared a new statement — their third and last — to their friends, in which they refer to all that has taken place, and promise to make further efforts on behalf of Nestorius, if that be still in any way possible. Until now, however, they say, all their attempts have remained without result, for all here had been 1 Formerly this edict was known only in Latin in the Synodicon, in Mansi, t. V. p. 805. Cotelerius was the iirst to publish it in Greek, in his Monim. eccl. Grmcoe, t. i. p. 41, from which it was taken by Hardouin, t. i. p. 1615, and Mansi, t. iv. p. 1465. * Mansi, t. v. p. 805. ' Mansi, t. v. p. 25S and 659 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1667. THE EPHESINE SYNOD IS DISSOLVED. Ill unfavourably affected by the very mention of tie name of Nestorius. At the same time they mention how, in view of the fact that the party of Cyril had endeavoured to ensnare all by violence, flattery, and bribery, they had repeatedly petitioned the Emperor to dismiss them and the Synod from Ephesus. For a longer sojourn there was now entirely use- less, since Cyril (the party of Cyril) steadily refused all con- ference. The Emperor had at last, after repeated admonitions, formed the resolution that all should return to their homes, but that Cyril and Memnon shoiild retain their dignities. Now Cyril would be able to ensnare all by his presents, so that the guilty would return to his diocese, but the innocent would be shut up in the cloister.-^ Immediately before their actual departure from Chalcedon the Antiochenes again delivered discourses to the Nestorians who came over to them from Constantinople. Of two of these we still possess considerable fragments. In the iirst discourse, delivered by Theodoret of Cyrus, he complained that they, the Antiochenes, were prevented from going to Constantinople on account of their stedfastness to Christ, but that, instead, the heavenly Jerusalem was waiting for them. His hearers had crossed from Constantinople over the fearful waves of the Propontis (at Chalcedon the Bosporus opens into the Pro- pontis) in order to hear his voice, because they believed that in it they could see a reflection of the voice of their pastor (Nestorius.). He then went on to praise Nestorius, and in- voked woes upon his persecutors. No less pathetically did he proceed to speak on the expression of the orthodox, " God has suffered" (cf. § 153), for which he placed them far down below the heathen.^ After Theodoret, the Patriarch John of Antioch took up the word, and of his discourse also we possess a fragment, in which 1 Mansi, t. iv. p. 1420, t. v. p. 801 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1579. " In Mansi, t. iy. p. 1408, t. v. p. 810 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1569. In several copies this discourse of Theodoret has the superscription : ' ' Dicta in Chalcedone, dum essent abituri. " That this indication of time is correct, is clear from the subsequent discourse of John of Antioch.— Entirely without foundation was the doubt of Lupus whether this discourse really belonged to Theodoret. Cf. on the other side Gamier in his edition of the works of Theodoret (re-edited by Schulze), t. V. p. 106. 112 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. he greets his hearers, and at the same time takes farewell of' them, exhorts them to stedfastness in the faith, and assures them that from mere believers they have now become Confes- sores. For the rest they must not allow themselves to be mis- led into the notion that God was capable of suffering, for the natures (in Christ) were only united, not mingled. To that they must hold fast, and God would be with them.^ Sec. 150. Slanders on Cyril and S. Pulcheria. "We saw how the Antiochenes repeatedly accused Cyril and his friends of having brought about by bribery the remarkable revolution in the views and conduct of the court. The most important document on this subject is a letter from the centenarian Bishop Acacius of Beroea, of whom we have already heard, to Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, who declares that he had heard from John of Antioch, Theodoret, and others, that the Emperor had at first been entirely on the side of the Antiochenes, but that Cyril had bribed the influential eunuch Scholasticus, of whom we have already heard (pp. 8 1 and 108, note 3), and many others. When he died the Emperor had discovered written proof among his effects that he had re- ceived many pounds of gold from Cyril. Paul, a brother's son of Cyril's,^ and an official at Constantinople, had arranged for these payments. The Emperor had therefore confirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, but Cyril had escaped from prison at Ephesus, and the monks at Constantinople had, so to speak, compelled the Emperor to dissolve the Synod, and to fulfil their wishes (and among them the liberation of Cyril).' This report, which Acacius, as he declares himself, had only from hearsay, and which those who communicated it to him again could only have heard from others (they certainly did not venture to come to Constantinople), arouses at the very first glance certain doubts. We know that Scholasticus ' Mansi, t, iv. p. 1410, t. v. p. 812 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1571 ; Theodoret, 0pp. ed. Schulze, t. v. p. 110. 2 He was not a brother's son, but the son of a sister of Cyril's named Isidora. Of. the paper which his brother Athanasius, a priest of Alexandria, presented to the Council of Chalcedon. Hardouin, t. ii. p. 331 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 1022 sqq. 3 Mansi, t. v. p. 819. SLANDERS ON CYRIL AND S. PULCIIERIA. 113 had, at an earlier period, been a patron of Nestorius, but that afterwards he inclined to the other side, and in consequence was very likely to become the spokesman of this side with the Emperor. It is also correct to say that, after the conclusion of the conferences at Chalcedon, Theodosius at first reaffirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon ; but it is scarcely credible that, if he had discovered the bribery, and therefore had renewed the edict against Cyril and Memnon, he would so soon afterwards have again given to both complete liberty, and restored them to their dioceses. To this we must add, that the deputies of the Antiochenes, so long as they were at Chalcedon, and so in the immediate neighbourhood of Constantinople, had not said a single syllable respecting this discovery made at the death of Scholasticus, and yet the thing must have occurred before their departure from Chalcedon (cf. p. 111). And how gladly would they have rejoiced over such a thing if they had known it ! Besides, it is not probable that Cyril would have been able and willing to escape from his imprisonment at Ephesus, or if he had actually done so, that the Emperor, instead of inflicting punishment, would have sent after him a decree granting him perfect liberty. Finally, it was not Scholasticus, but the Emperor's sister, S. Pulcheria, as she relates, who was principally active against Nestorius,^ for which reason she was horribly slandered by his adherents. Nestorius, they said, had once accused her of an unlawful connection with her own brother, and therefore she had hated him so bitterly.^ We will not directly deny that Cyril may &t that time have offered gifts to Scholasticus and others, for that he afterwards made presents to the Empress Pulcheria, and to many other high personages, we are told by his own archdeacon and Syncellus Epiphanius, as we shall see more fully further on at sec. 156. But this must be judged of not by our customs and circumstances, but by those of the East, according to which no one is allowed to approach a superior without bringing a present with him, however just his cause may be. 1 S. Leonis, ep. 79 (59), ed. Bailer, t. i. p. 1035. ^ Suidas, Lexic. i.v. "Pulcheria;" Baron, ad ami. 431, n. 162; Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. v. S. 551. IIL H 114 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. The making of preseuta is absolutely universal in the East, but these presents are not aU Iribes ; very many are simply customary recommendations of a cause which, in itself, is thoroughly just. In reference to this custom of the East, the Protestant theologians, who in the 16th and l7th centuries laboured to bring about a union of the Greeks with the Protestants, had not the slightest hesitation in pleasing and conciliating the Greek prelates and dignitaries by presents.^ And the matter may be stated even more advantageously for Cyril. In any case, he only sought to gain friends and protectors for the ancient faith to which those who were the objects of his gifts entirely belonged, whereas those Protestant theologians endeavoured to draw away the Greek clergy from duties which they had sworn to observe. ^ Cf. my treatise on Cyril Lucar etc., in the Tubing, theol. Quartalschrifl, 1843, 553 f., and 563, and in the Beitrage zur Kirchengesch. etc., Tubing. 1864, Bd. i. S. 452 and 458. CHAPTEE III. PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO UNION BETWEEN CYEIL AND THE ANTIOCHENES. OVERTHROW OF NESTORIANISM. Sec. 151. The Bupture still continues. Synods at Constantinople, Tarsus, and Antioch. THE rupture which had taken place during the Ephesine Synod unfortunately lasted on after its dissolution for several years, as the Antiochenes persevered in their peculiarly perverse attitude. In the first place, they would not de- cidedly defend the doctrine of ISTestorius, but came forward occasionally as its advocates, and endeavoured to protect and cover their own doctrinal indecision by the formally Catholic bulwark : Nil innovetur (on the Mcene Creed). In a similar way, the point of view which they occupied in reference to the person of Nestorius was purely formal. That trmterially he had been deposed with justice they would neither concede nor deny ; but they persistently declared the sentence against him to be formally invalid, because it was pronounced by the Synod too early, hefore the arrival of the Antiochenes. Thence it resulted that they in like manner disapproved the election of the new Bishop Maximian for Constantinople, which had taken place on the 25th of October 431,^ and were compelled decisively to reject it, as the chair was, in their opinion, not vacant. Positively and dogmatically they pronounced only upon one point, — namely, the teaching of Cyril, — since they took single expressions of his, which were inadequate to convey his meaning, and liable to be misunderstood, disregarding all the explanations which he had given, and by arbitrary inference charged them with ApoUinarianism, Arianism, Eunomiauism, and all other ' Socrates, H'wt. Eccl. vii. 37. lis 116 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. possible heresies. It is peculiar that Walch and other historians have not the slightest word of disapprobation to utter over this imputation of heresy in the gross, while no phrase is strong enough, in their view, to scourge Cyril with for his attitude towards Nestorius. Finally, the Antiochenes persisted in the assertion : Cyril and Memnon were deposed by us, and can no longer hold their sees. As we have already seen, the appointment of a new bishop for Constantinople was accomplished by the deputies of the orthodox majority of Ephesus, whom the Emperor had summoned to the metropolis for that purpose. At first they thought of the learned priest, Philippus Sidetes, and of Bishop Proclus, who had been unjustly refused possession of his diocese of Cyzicus, and had always distinguished himself by his anti-Nestorian zeal (see p. 14). At last they came to an agreement in the person of the monk and priest Maximian, who, according to the Greek Menologies, was born at Eome, had served long among the clergy at Constantinople, and had gained a very good name by his piety and unpretentiousness. Socrates says of him that he was not exactly learned, and that he was addicted to the quiet and contemplative life.^ A nature thus peaceful and free from ambition was a real benefit to Constantinople, and well adapted to reconcile parties, so that only one small Nestorian congregation con- tinued for a short time to exist there. In union with the orthodox deputies of the Synod, and forming with them a kind of Synod (at Constantinople), Maximian communicated immediately to the rest of the bishops intelligence of the election which had taken place, and transmitted to them the decrees of Ephesus, as we learn from his letter to the Bishops of Epirus." A second letter he addressed to Cyril, in which he congratulated him on his final victory, and his unchangeable, martyr-like stedfastness for the good cause. In his answer Cyril explained to his new colleague in all brevity the orthodox doctrine on the union of the two ^ Socrates, I.e. vii. 35. The Bollandists give a complete account of him, Acta S3, t. ii. April, p. 847 sq. (Commentar. de S. Maxim.). Cf. Tillemont, Mimoires etc., t. xiv. p. 488. » In Mansi, t. v. p. 257 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1669. THE RUPTURE STILL CONTINUES. 117 natures (without mixture), and indeed this letter alone' would suffice to prove the groundlessness of the charges of the Antiochenes, that Cyril mingled the two natures, and thus impaired both. At the same time, Cyril expressed his joy at the election of Maximian in a short letter to the orthodox synodal deputies who had co-operated in securing it.* Similar sentiments were expressed by Pope Coelestine in his letters to Maximian, to the Church of Constantinople, and to the Emperor Theodosius li.' They are aU. dated on the 15 th of March 432, and on the same day Ccelestine despatched a fourth letter, full of praise and appreciation, to the Synod of Ephesus, which he regarded as stiU existing in the deputies present at Constantinople, and which he commended for the election of Maximianus. In the meantime the Antiochenes had, on their return from the Council, gone as far as Ancyra in Galatia, and were here, to their great annoyance, already treated practically as excommunicated men. Bishop Theodotus of Ancyra, who belonged to the orthodox party of Ephesus and to the synodal deputies, had, in union with his colleague Eirmus of Caesarea, despatched a letter from Constantinople to Ancyra, in which he gave instructions to this effect.* John of Antioch complained of this to the Prefect Antiochus, and apparently about the same time addressed in writing to the Emperor the request that he would suppress the heretical teaching of Cyril.® On their way home the Antiochenes held a Conciliabulum at Tarsus in Cilicia, where they pronounced anew a sentence of anathema on Cyril and at the same time on the seven orthodox synodal deputies, and published this decision in a circular letter. We learn this from two letters of Bishop Meletius of Mopsueste (who belonged to the Antiochene party) to Count Neotherius and the Vicar Titus,® and Theo- doret of Cyrus also refers repeatedly to the same.^ A second ^ In Mansi, t. v. pp. 258 and 259 sqq. 2 Mansi, t. v. p. 265 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1671. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 269 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1674 aqq. * In Mausi, t. v. p. 266 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1671. » In Mansi, t. v. pp. 813, 814; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1632 aq. « In Mansi, t. v. p. 920, c. 141, and p. 953, c. 174. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 843, c. 66, and p. 917, o. 136. 118 HISTORY OP THE COUNCILS. similar Conciliabulum took place somewhat later at Antioch, and after excommunication had here too been repeatedly pro- nounced upon Cyril and his adherents,^ John of Antioch and some of his party proceeded to Beroea, in order to give the aged Bishop Acacius information of what had been done by word of mouth, and to obtain his assent, in which they suc- ceeded." At the same time Theodoret of Cyrus, Andrew of Samosata, and Eutherius of Tyana took all pains in writings and in learned letters to represent the views and statements of Cyril as heretical,' and to defend those bishops who, on account of their open leaning to heresy, had been recently deposed by Archbishop Maximian of Constantinople and Archbishop Firmus of Caesarea, namely, Helladius of Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis.* Bishop Eabulas of Edessa, on the contrary, who was so celebrated afterwards, now seceded from the Antiochene party and joined that of Cyril." Sec. 152. The Pope and the Emperor attempt to mediate. Synods at Constantinople and Antioch. On the 26th of July 432, Pope Coelestine i. died, and Sixtus III. was his successor. Gennadius relates, that in the year 430, when he was still a priest at Eome, he had required of Nestorius to yield to Cyril ;* but this statement has been pronounced to be inaccurate by later scholars.' It is certain, on the other hand, that Sixtus, soon after his entrance upon office, by circular writings and separate letters, particularly to Cyril, solemnly approved the decisions of the 1 Soorat. lib. vii. c. 34 ; Liberat. Breviar. c. 6 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 986. " Cf. the letter of Bishop Acacius in Mansi, t. v. p. 819. ' Cf. Tillemont, I.e. p. 507 sqq. ' Cf. the letters on the subject in Mansi, t. v. c. 45, p. 822 ; c. 48 and 49, p. 825 sq. ; c. 70, p. 846, and c. 71, p. 847. On the difficulties which may be raised on this incidental point, especially the question of competence, cf. Tillemont, l.c. p. 496 sq. ' Mansi, t. v. p. 821 sq., c. 43, 44 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1633 sq. Cf. Tille- mont, l.c. p. 504 sqq. • Gennadius, De Script, eccl. in Vita Ccdestini, c. 54 in Fabric. Biblioth. eccl. p. 26. ' Constant, Epustolae Pontificum, p. 1231 ; Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. v. S. 678. THE POPE AND THE EMPEKOR ATTEMPT TO MEDIATE. 119 Synod of Ephesus, and at the same time endeavoured again to restore the peace of the Church, on the basis that John of Antioch and his adherents should, without further difficulties, be received into communion, if they rejected all which had been rejected by the holy Synod of Ephesus.^ This mildness and placableness brought him indeed, in some quarters, an ill report, as though he had even regarded the deposition of N'estorius with dissatisfaction; but his letters show the reverse, and Cyril defended him with decision against this accusation.* The Emperor Theodosius ii. also took part in the attempt to mediate, and for that purpose, about the middle of the year 432, held a consultation with Maximian of Constantinople and the other bishops and clergy who were present there (in a kind of Synod), on the ways which might lead to peace. By their advice he wrote to John of Antioch, saying, " It was sad that bishops who are one in faith should fall into such discord, and very sad that the teachers of peace themselves should need an exhortation to peace. John and Cyril should therefore be reconciled, and the holy bishops assembled at Constanti- nople had declared that, if John would subscribe the deposition of NestoriiTs, and anathematize his doctrine, then all cause for strife would be removed. Cyril and Pope Ccelestine (who is thus shown to have been then alive, or, at least, whose death was not yet known at Constantinople) and all the other bishops would then immediately return into Church com- munion with him, and all further smaller scruples could easily be set aside. John should now come to Nicomedia as soon as possible for the conclusion of peace, whither also Cyril was ordered to go by an imperial letter ; but neither of them was to bring with him other bishops (who might perhaps destroy the good understanding), but only a few confidential clerics as attendants ; nor would either be received by the Emperor until they were reconciled. Finally, until then no new bishop ' Compare the two letters of Sixtus in Mansi, t. v. p. 374 sq., and Coustant, Epist. Pontif. p. 1231 sq. The one of them is directed to Cyril ; the other, on the contrary, is a circular letter, which was intended also for the Orientals, although the superscription here also names Cyril as the person to whom it is addressed. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 326. 120 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. was to be appointed and none was to be deposed." This letter was sent to Antioch by the hand of the tribune and notary Aristolaus, so that he might personally urge on the affair. In a second letter, the Emperor requested S. Simeon Stylites, afterwards so highly honoured, that he would by powerful prayer and exhortation co-operate for the peace of the Church.^ A similar letter, also asking for intercession with God, he addressed to the aged Bishop Acacius of Bercea and others.^ The imperial letter to CyrU, on the contrary, is lost, and its exact contents unknown. We know only that it required of him a forgetting and a forgiving of the ill-treatment which he had endured at Ephesus.* Tillemont {I.e. p. 516) supposes, further, that the Emperor had in it suggested to Cyril tliat he should repudiate his own anathematisms in the same way as he had required of John the repudiation of the counter-anathematisms of Nestorius (of his teaching generally). But Walch (I.e. S. 581 f.) has already declared this to be improbable, because the Emperor certainly regarded Nestorius, but not Cyril, as heretical. And this comes out still more clearly from what follows. John of Antioch was placed in great embarrassment by the arrival of the imperial letter, and wrote to Alexander of Hierapolis, that he was too weak and infirm to travel to Constantinople (properly to Nicomedia, and thence, after peace was concluded, to the Emperor at Constan- tinople). Besides, he had been told that his enemies might easily do him an injury upon the journey. Alexander, how- ever, with Theodoret and other bishops, after they had held their conference at Cyrus, should come as quickly as possible to him and advise him as to what was to be done, for he did not know what he should answer to the Emperor. His propositions were aperte impice, since the chapters of Cyril in an indirect manner contained that which was wrong (the Emperor then had not demanded their repudiation of Cyril), and he was required to pronounce anathema on those who recognize two natures in Christ (no one had required this, 1 In Mansi, t. v. p. 278 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1683. " In Mansi, t. v. pp. 281 and 828 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1685. ' In Mansi, t. v. pp. 283 and 828 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1687. * Of. Cyrilli Fpist. ad Acac. Melit. in Mansi, t. v. p. 310. AKISTOLAUS TRAVELS TO ALEXANDRIA. 121 and John misrepresents the matter). He adds that the Magister Militum (Plinthas) urged him greatly to accept the imperial propositions.^ John, however, sought to gain time, and held a Synod, first at Antioch and then in a city of Syria which is unknown to us, with the Bishops Alexander of Hierapolis, Acacius of Bercea, Macarius of Laodicea, Andrew of Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrus.^ They here drew up six propositions, probably framed by Theodoret, with the condition that they would receive into Church communion whoever would accept one of them, without, however, on their side recognizing the deposition of Nestorius. They themselves describe, as the first and most important, the proposition : " That the creed of Nicsea must be maintained without any additions, and with the rejection of all other explanations, which were given in letters and chapters (of Cyril), and only that explanation of it must be accepted which S. Athauasius had drawn up in his letter to Epictetus of Corinth (against the ApoUinarians)."' This first proposition alone is still preserved, and it was placed before Cyril and his friends, together with the epistle of Atha- nasius in question, as we learn from a letter of the Antiochenes to Bishop Helladius of Tarsus.* Sec. 153. Aristolaus travels to Alexandria. The Mopes of Peace increase. With this first proposition and a letter of the aged Acacius to Cyril the State official, Aristolaus, who has already been named, travelled to Alexandria in order the better to advance the work of peace in this place by carrying on negotiations with Cyril.® Cyril speaks of his arrival in his letters to ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 827. ' On these Synods compare the treatise of Mansi, t. v. p. 1155 sqq. ' In Hardouin, t. i. p. 1634 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 829, c. 53 ; p. 830, c. 54, and p. 840, c. 60. John of Antioch speaks often propositions, in Mansi, I.e. c. 77, p. 855. * In Mansi, t. v. p. 830, c. 54 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1635. German in Fuchs, l.c. S. 204. ' Cf. the heading of c. 53, in Mansi, t. t. p. 829, and Hardouin, t. i. p. 1643 ; Propositiones etc. 122 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Bishop Acacius of Melitene, to Bishop Ponatus of Nicopolis in Epirus, and to Bishop Eabulas of Edessa/ to the effect that " the friends of ISTestorius Tiad abused the venerable Acacius of Beroea by writing to him that which was unfitting, and requiring of him that he should withdraw and repudiate all that he had written against Nestorius, and should hold merely to the Nicene Creed. But that he had answered them, We hold firmly by all that is in the Nicene Creed ; but what I have rightly written against Nestorius it is impossible that I should declare to be false, and it is, on the contrary, necessary that you should, in accordance with the imperial command and the decree of Ephesus, repudiate Nestorius, anathematize his teaching, and recognize the election of Maximian." He gives here in brief the substance of that which in fact he explained more fully^ in his answer to Acacius of Beroea (for this letter, too, we still possess), with the remark that from love to God and the Emperor he willingly forgave all the injuries inflicted upon him by the Antiochenes. In pro- ceeding further, he asserts that he is unjustly accused of ApoUinarianism or Arianism, etc. ; on the contrary, he anathematizes Arianism and all other heresies, confesses (in opposition to ApoUinaris) that Christ had a reasonable human soul (TTvevfia), further, that no mixing and mingling and no confusion of the natures in Christ had taken place ; but, on the contrary, that the Logos of God is ui its own nature unchangeable and incapable of suffering. But in the flesh one and the same Christ and only-begotten Son of God suffered for us. — Further, that his (Cyril's) chapters had their strength and power only in opposition to the errors of Nestorius, were intended only to overthrow his false state- ments, and that he who condemned the latter should certainly cease to find fault with the chapters. If Church communion were again restored, he would by letters pacify all, and explain all the misunderstood passages of his writings to their satisfaction ; but repudiate them he could not, for they were doctrinally accurate, and in accordance with truth, and approved by the whole of the rest of the Church. In ' In Mansi, t. v. pp. 309, 347, and 887. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 831 sqq. ARISTOLAUS TEAVELS TO ALEXANDRIA. 123 conclusion, he speaks of the earnest efforts for peace of Aristolaus, and greets the receiver of his letter, together with all the bishops assembled around him. Cyril had consented to give the more exact explanations which were sent, in consequence of the urgent wish of Aristolaus, as his archdeacon, Epiphanius, informs the bishop of Constantinople,^ and these were in fact very well adapted to rebut the false reproaches and accusations of his opponents. Besides, Cyril could give them without in the least departing from his original teaching, as is clear from a comparison with what was said before (pp. 2 1 and 2 9 ff.), and only ignorance or prejudice can accuse him of a departure from his original principles. Aristolaus sent his companion and assistant Maximus to the East with this letter of Cyril's, along with the request that the Antiochenes would now collectively anathematize Nestorius and his teaching.^ At the same time, the Pope also and some other bishops addressed letters to Acacius' for the promotion of peace. Acacius handed the documents which he received over to his Oriental colleagues, and at the same time, in his letter to Alexander of Hierapolis, expressed his present satisfaction with Cyril without the least reserve.* As was to be foreseen, this decided friend of Nestorius was of a quite different view, and maintained in his answer to Acacius that Cyril, notwithstanding the explanation which he had given, was still an Apollinarian, and that Nestorius should not be anathematized before it was proved that he had taught that which was contrary to Scripture. He wrote in a still more violent style to his feUow-partisan, Andrew of Samosata,* fuU of astonishment at the changeableness of Acacius, and de- claring that " he would rather give up his office, yes, rather lose a hand, than have communion with Cyril, unless he anathematized his errors, and acknowledged that Christ is God and man, and that He suffered in His manhood " (it is well known that Cyril did not deny this). ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 988. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 830, c. 65 ; p. 840, c. 61, and p. 988, c. 203. ^ Acacius refers to this in Mansi, t. t. p. 830, c. 55. * In Mansi, t. T. p. 831, c. 56. » In Mansi, t. v. p. 835, 837 sjs -iri&pSivov Xttra T91V aV^^ftlSTOTJJTfl!' CfCSOUmV T* 'JTBCTp) TOV XVTOV KKTa TVIV ^tOTtJTCi, KV.'l Of£O0VfflOi flfioTv xctTct Ttlv otvSpoi'ff'oTvjTa^' ^vo yotp' ^vffiuv 'ivM/ri; yiyovz' oto £va XpiffTov, sva vtov, 'iveo Kuptov ofioy^ayoufciv' Ketra Toovrnv Tnv Tns ooffvy^VTOV ivaia'ius svvojav o^oXoyavfiiv tyiv ecymv •jfoopS'tvov hoToxoVf ^IK to tov &iOv \'oyov ffxpxuSnvo^t xat Ivoiv&patTtjffiii, koc) i| auT«5 Tns ffvX\yi'>^ici3S ivuffut iavTM tov i^ ttVTns }^7i(pSivTac vaov' Tcct OS ivayyiXtxxs xai aVOtTTOXlKOLS f^tpt TOV XVpiOV ^UVOig IfffUlV TOVS HoXoyOVg oivdpitS TXg fxXv KOtVOTOtaUVTOtS, as 1^* Ivos •jepoifoi'jeov, tccs Sg ijottpovvTecs, ue l^i ouo tputfisiv' xat txs fLlv vioVpS'TUs xara T«« hoTtiTx TOV XpttrroVj tks "Si Tx^uvas xaTX rhv avSpuvoTviTtt. xvtov Tafxoioovras, 3 Mansi, t. v. p. 988 and 311. 132 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. since it sought to justify all that had been done at Ephesus as having proceeded from a dutiful zeal for pure doctrine. Cyril therefore refused to receive this document, and was at last induced to do so only by the apologetic explanations of Bishop Paul, who made oath that it was not so intended.^ Paul then declared that he was ready to anathematize the heresies of Nestorius, and that this should suffice as though all the Oriental bishops had done the same. Cyril replied with justice that Paul could act for himself, and that then he could be, without delay, received into communion, but that this could not possibly suffice for the rest of the Oriental bishops, particularly for their patriarch, since there needed an express commission from him for that purpose, and there- fore he must be asked to give a written declaration on the subject.^ Paul of Emisa then in his own behalf presented a written document to the effect that he acknowledged Maxi- mian as bishop of Constantinople, and Nestorius as deposed, and that he excommunicated his heresy,^ and was then not only solemnly received into Church communion by Cyril, but was also repeatedly invited to preach in Alexandria. We have still (parts of) three homilies of his, which he preached there at that time.* When, however, Paul abandoned Xestorius, he requested in return that the deposition pronounced upon Helladius, Eutherius, Himerius, and Dorotheus (four Nestorians) by Cyril and Maximian (see above, p. 1 1 8) should be removed. With- out this concession, he maintained, peace could not possibly take place. Cyril, however, replied that this could never be, and that on his part he would not agree to it, so that Paul let this point drop.* All this, especially on account of Cyril's illness, had taken up a good deal of time, and the Orientals were complaining already that it was so long since they had any intelligence from Alexandria, and that the whole transaction seemed to ' Cf. his 3pist. ad Acac. Melet. in Mansi, t. v. p. 311, and his Epist. ad Donat. ibid. p. 350. ^ Mansi, I.e. pp. 313, 350. ^ This document in Mansi, t. v. p. 287 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1689. * In Mansi, t. v. p. 293 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1693 sqq. " In Mansi, t. v. p. 350. SYNOD OF THE ANTIOCHBNES : OYKIL's PRESENTS. 133 have no result. We see this from a letter of Bishop Andrew of Samosata to Alexander of Hierapolis.^ Now, however, the imperial commissioner Aristolaus sent a letter to the Antiochenes, in which he urgently demanded of them the wished-for declaration respecting Nestorius. Sec. 156. Synod of the Antiochenes : Cyril's Presents. The Orientals upon this held a new Synod at Antioch, and drew up new resolutions of which we have no very definite knowledge, and made Aristolaus acquainted with them through Verius (the Antiochene deputy at Constantinople), adding that soon Bishop Alexander (probably of Apamea) would appear with the new resolutions at Alexandria.^ That these were not favourable is shown by that which followed; but even Cyril's own friends at Constantinople sent him, about this time, highly disagreeable information, and they had become very languid in their zeal for the good cause, as we learn from the frequently quoted letter of Cyril's archdeacon, Epiphanius.' It is certain that the latter, with Cyril's knowledge and consent, wrote now to Bishop Maximian of Constantinople, informing him that Cyril had fallen ill again in consequence of this bad news, blamed the lukewarmness of Maximian and other friends, and exhorted them to new zeal. In particular, he urged that they should bring it about that Aristolaus should once more go in person to Antioch (that the obscure words, hinc exire faciatis Aristolaum, are to be taken in this sense, is shown by the course of the history). At the same time he mentions that Cyril has written to Pulcheria, the Prsepositus Paulus, the Chamberlain Eomanus, and the two court ladies Marcella and Droseria, and has sent them valuable henedictiones (presents). To the Prsepositus Chrysoretes, who was unfavourable to the Church, Aristolaus was ready to write, and to him also were eulogia (presents) sent. Further, Cyril had entreated Scholasticus and Arthebas, at the same time sending them presents, to influence Chrysoretes at last to abstain from his persecution of the Church. Bishop Maximian himself was asked to pray the Empress Pulcheria ^ In Mansi, t. v. p. 859. ^ In Mansi, t. v. p. 938. ^ In Mansi, I.e. 134 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. agaia to show zeal for Christ, for she and all the persons at court at present had but little care for Cyril, perhaps because the presents, although not of trifling value, were yet insuffi- cient to satisfy the covetousness of the courtiers. Pulcheria should write to the Antiochene, ordering him to submit ; but Aristolaus must be required to be urgent with John. Further, Maximian should entreat the Archimandrites Dalmatius and Eutyches (afterwards the heretic), to adjure the Emperor and the court officials in reference to Nestorius, and to support Cyril with all their might. The little note which accompanied this mentioned the presents which had been given to each, so that Maximian might see how much the Alexandrian Church had sacrificed. They had even been compelled to obtain a loan for the purpose. Now the Church of Constantinople should also do its duty and satisfy the cupidity of certain persons. Finally, Pulcheria should use her influence to have Lausus made prsepositus soon, so rthat the power of Chrysoretes might be weakened.' That Cyril put every engine in motion, so as to obtain a victory for the cause of orthodoxy, will hardly be imputed to ,him as a fault by the unprejudiced. That he also had ^recourse to presents is a circumstance which we will defend p,s little as did Tillemont (I.e. p. 541); while, at the same 'jtime, we must explain it and excuse it, as we have said /already (p. 113 f), by the peculiar customs of the East. Sec. 157. Tlie Union takes place. Cyril now in fact attained his end. Aristolaus allowed himself to be induced to go again with Paul of Emisa to Antioch, and two of Cyril's clergy, Cassius and Anmon, had to accompany them and present for his subscription to the Patriarch John a document on the deposition of Nestorius and the anathematizing of his teaching, and in case of his subscribing, to hand him the document of his restoration to Church communion.'' This way appeared to Cyril to lead ' In Mausi, t. v. p. 987 sqq. '^ Cyrilli Eidst. ad Theoynoatum, etc., in Cyrilli 0pp. t. v. P. ii. p. 163, and his Epist. ad Donat. in Mansi, t. v. p. 360. THE UNION TAKES PLACE. 135 much more quickly to tlie goal, especially as .Paul of Emisa and Aristolaus of Alexandria carried on the affair too slowly. Besides, this way seemed safe enough, since Aristolaus declared on oath that the document of union should certainly not be given up before the signature of the other document, and if John of Antioch refused to sign, he would immediately travel to Constantinople and explain that it was not the Church of Alexandria, but the Bishop of Antioch, that was the disturber of the peace. ^ The proceedings at Antioch came to a happy termination. John on his part wished still for a few slight and insignificant alterations in the document which he had to sign, and as, according to his own statement, and as his subsequent letters show, the sense was not thereby altered, the two delegates of Cyril, with the concurrence of Aristolaus and Paul of Emisa, consented to them.^ Thereupon the Patriarch John, together with the bishops assembled around him, addressed friendly letters to Cyril, to Pope Sixtus, and to Bishop Maximian of Constantinople, which are still extant, and are interesting evidences of the restored unity. The most important of them is directed to the three heads of the Church just named, and says : " In the year which has just passed, at the command of the pious Emperors, the holy Synod of the God-beloved bishops came together at Ephesus in order to oppose the Nestorian heresy, and, in accord with the legates of the blessed Pope Ccelestine, deposed the aforenamed Nestorius, because he used unholy doctrine {^e^rfKa BcSaaKoXia •^pco/Mevov), scanda- lized many (aKavhoKiaavTa ttoXXoi;?), and in regard to the faith did not stand upright {ovk opdoTroB^aavra).^ We arrived subsequently at Ephesus, found that the matter had been already settled, and were dissatisfied therewith. For this reason there arose a difference between us and the holy Synod, and after much had been done and spoken backwards and forwards, we returned to our Churches and cities without ^ Cyrilli Epist. ad Theognostum, I. c. ' Compare the letter of John to Cyril among the letters of the latter, in Cyrilli 0pp. t. V. P. ii. div. 2, p. 153. ' Probably these terms proceed from the Antiochenes, and belong to the alterations in the text of Cyril of which we have spoken. 136 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. having subscribed the sentence of the holy Synod on Nestorius, and the Churches were disunited by a difference of opinion. As, however, all must really have had it in view to seek restoration of union by the removal of differences of opinion, and the God-fearing Emperors required this, and in order to bring it about sent the tribune and notary Aristolaus, we also determined to agree to the judgment pronounced against ISTestorius, to recognize him as deposed, and to anathe- matize his infamous doctrines {Bva-v(7iv a-eaapK03fj,ivriv). Something similar may be said in reference to every man. Every human being consists of two different parts, body and soul, and the intelligence and the ' Mansi, t. v. pp. 317 and 323, in the same letter. ' How Cyril understood this, see below, p. 142 f. ' Mansi, t. t. p. 319, in the same letter, and p. 345 in the letter to Eulogius. 142 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. perception (BecopLo) separate the two ; but uniting them we make only one nature of man {iroiov/iev /Mcav av0pa>Trov (pva-iv). To recognize the difference of natures, then, is not to divide the one Christ into two."^ In another place he says: " The opd). If the question is asked as to the manner of the Incarnation, the human intelligence sees two things unutterably united with each other, but unmingled; yet it in nowise separates that which is united (orav tolvvv 6 tt}? GapK(i}(Te(ova>va<; as to attribute the one merely to the Logos, and the other merely to the man ; but he had certainly not denied the difference of the Q}val ((f>a>v(bv Sia(f>opa'i).^ The Orientals accept (in thought iv ivvoiai,';) a difference (Biacjjopav) of natures, but allow no separation of them (Sialpecriv ^vaiicr^v), like Nestorius, and only allow a division of the ^coval which are used with reference to our Lord. They do not say : " The one class of these (f)a)val refer only to the Logos of God, the other ouly to the Son of man " (for the Son of God and the Son of man are one), but : " The one refer only to the Godhead, the other to the man- hood." Other (fxoval, however, they say again, are common and apply to both natures. And in all this they are right, for some (poDval refer principally to the Godhead, others more to the manhood, others are of an intermediate kind ; but both those which refer to the Godhead and those which refer to the manhood are ascribed only to one Son.' (5) John of Antioch had written in . a letter to some acquaintances that " Cyril now recognizes the difference of the natures, and divides {Bcaipelv) the cpcoval between the natures." Former ^ E.g. Mansi, I.e. p. 320 : ^iifj>i(plii von ft,a,Kfa,i Tfo'xm 'wxo-^ia., and the Vvam; is ■raiwrixZi luriyxvTii!. So at p. 345 in the letter to Eulogius, where he declares it to be a lie to ascribe to him the Apollinarian doctrine 'in ruyxpxins iyinro » irvy^uirii. * Mansi, t. v. p. 319, in the letter to Acacius of Melitene. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 322, in the same letter, and p. 345 in the letter to Eulogius. 144 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. friends of Cyril took offence at this, on which account he declared as follows, that his opponents had suspected him as though, like Apollinaris, he had denied to the manhood of Christ a reasonable soul, and asserted a mingling or trans- mutation of the Logos into flesh. In the same way they had said that he agreed with Arius, because he would not recognize the Sia4>opa of the ^oovai} He had defended himseK against these accusations, and had written to John that he maintained neither a transmutation of the Logos into flesh nor of the flesh into the divine nature, nor had he denied the Bia^opal of the cj}o)vaL The words quoted, however, hiaipeiv, etc., were not his, but proceeded from the Antiochenes.^ The apology for his Eirenicon was put forth by Cyril principally in his letters to Bishop Acacius of Melitene,' and to his own envoy at Constantinople, the priest Eulogius,* in the letter already quoted to Valerian of Iconium, and also in two letters to Bishop Successus or Succensus of Diocsesarea in Isauria.* The latter appears to have partially occupied the ApoUinarian point of view, and from this to have addressed reproaches to Cyril, in two admonitions which he sent to him. Cyril, in answer to the first, defends the Antiochene expression, " two natures," clearly explains his own doctrinal position, and in conclusion opposes the ApoUi- narian or Eutychian proposition advanced by Succensus, that after the resurrection the body of Christ was transformed into the Godhead.* In his second letter, on the contrary, which at the conclusion con'esponds with that addressed to Acacius of Melitene, he shows that his words : fiia vaea)v evaxriv 6/jLo\ovaiv ofioXoySi)} The Synod finally demanded of Eutyches a public declara- tion and an anathema on every view which was in opposition ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 742 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 163 sq. SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 203 to the doctrine which had been expressed. He answered again equivocally : " He would now indeed, since the Synod so required, accept the manner of speech in question (that Christ was of one substance with us, and of two natures), but he found it neither in Holy Scripture nor in the Fathers col- lectively, and therefore could not pronounce an anathema (on the non-acceptance of that expression), because in that case he would be anathematizing his Fathers." Upon this the Synod arose and cried : " To him be anathema ;'' and the Arch- bishop asked : " "What does this man deserve who does not confess the right faith, but persists in his perverseness ?" Eutyches endeavoured once more to evade the condemnation by the distinction which he had already brought forward : " That he would now indeed accept the required manner of speaking in accordance with the will of the Synod, but he could not pronounce the anathema." The Patrician Florentius, however, shut him up within narrower limits by the question : " Dost thou confess two natures in Christ, and His unity of substance with us?" And when Eutyches replied : " I read the writings of S. Cyril and S. Athanasius : hefore the union they speak of two natures, but after the union only of one ; " he asked still more precisely : " Dost thou confess two natures even after the union ? if not, then wilt thou be condemned." Eutyches then requested that the books of Cyril and Athanasius should be read ; but Basil of Seleucia remarked that the Acts say (he himself disallowed it in some measure at the Eobber-Synod) : " If thou dost not acknowledge two natures after the union also, then thou acceptest a mingling and con- fusion (of the natures)."^ Florentius cried out: "He who does not say of two natures, and who does not acknowledge two natures, has not the right faith." And the Synod replied : " And he who accepts anything only by compulsion (as Eutyches), does not believe in it. Many years to the Emperors ! " At last the Archbishop announced the sentence : " Eutyches, a priest and archimandrite, has, by previous state- ments, and even now by his own confessions, shown himself to be entangled in the perversity of Valentinus and Apollinaris, ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 746 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 167. 204 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. without allowing himself to be won back to the genuine dogmas by our exhortation and instruction. Therefore we, bewailing his complete perversity, haVe decreed, for the sake of Christ whom he has reviled, that he be deposed from every priestly office, expelled from our communion, and deprived of his headship over the convent. And all who henceforth hold communion with him, and have recourse to him, must know that they too are liable to the penalty of excommuni- cation." This sentence was subscribed by Flavian and the rest of the bishops (according to the Greek text 28, accord- ing to the old Latin version 31) with the formula opiaa'; vTriypayIra, that is, JUDICANS subscripd, while the twenty-three archimandrites who likewise, but somewhat later, subscribed, used only the expression vTreypayjra, since they had a right not to pronounce jiidgment, but only to give their assent.^ Sec. 173. Eutyches and Flavian both endeavour to gain over public opinion to their side. It was to be foreseen that Eutyches and his friends would bring forward many complaints and accusations against this Synod. We shall see, however, that some of these were quite futile, others incapable of proof, and that the few which could be proved were of no importance. After the close of the Synod, and when its sentence was known, there arose great excitement among the people, and Eutyches, as he complains, was on his return home publicly insulted by the populace.^ He brought this forward again as so far a reproach to Archbishop Flavian that he had not hindered it. He speaks even of having come into danger of his life,' from which, as he flatteringly writes to Leo the Great, he had only been saved by the intercession of this Pope (whose protection he had invoked) with the imperial soldiers.* For fhe rest he did not fail to have put up at various public 1 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 746-754 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 167-172. ^ Eutyches, Ep. ad S. Leonem, among the letters of S. Leo the Great in the edition of the Ballerini, t. i. No. xxi. p. 739 ; Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1323 and 1014. ' In Mansi, t. vi. p. 629 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 98. ' Epist. ad Leonem, see above, note 2, and below, p. 205 f. EUTYCHES AND FLAVIAN ENDEAVOUR TO GAIN PUBLIC OPINION. 205 places in Constanstinople placards (contestatorios libcllos), in which he complained abusively of what had been done, and sought to justify his teaching.^ He also made his complaint to the Emperor, and here he met with no unfavourable hearing, so that Flavian from this time fell into still greater disfavour.^ In order, however, to gain to his side the most distinguished bishops of remote provinces, he addressed to several of them cautiously composed letters ; and one of these, which was sent to Pope Leo, we have already noted. He says in it, that at the suggestion of Satan, Bishop Eusebius of Doryleeum had sent an accusation against him to Bishop Flavian of Constan- tinople, and to a number of bishops accidentally assembled for other causes, and had charged him with heresy, not in the interest of truth, but in order to ruin him and to embroil the Church. Invited to the Synod, he had been unable to appear in consequence of serious illness, but had been willing to transmit to them his confession of faith in writing. Flavian had not accepted this writing, nor would he allow it to be read, but required that Eutyches should confess two natures and anathematize all the opponents of this doctrine. He had not been able to do this, since even Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and Felix had rejected the expression "two natures ;" and, besides, he had wished to add nothing to the confession of faith of Nicaea (and Ephesus), and had not ventured to undertake inquiries into the nature of God the Word. He had therefore prayed that the Synod would acquaint the Pope with the matter, that he might pronounce a judgment, to which he would then entirely submit (he thus maintains that he had appealed to Pbome, and speaks of it ad captandam henevolentiam, in a manner which must have been very pleasing at Eome). But they had not listened to him, but had suddenly broken off the Synod and published the sen- tence -against him, so that he would have come in danger of 1 Cf. Leonis Epist. xxiii. in Bailer, t. i. p. 763 ; in Mansi, t. v. p. 1338 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1 ; Liberat. Breviar. c. 11, in Galland. Biblioth. t. xii. 2 Cf. the letter of Flavian to Pope Leo among the letters of the latter, No. xxvi. in Bailer, t. i. p. 786 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1351 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. i sq. ; and the autor anonym, of the Brevkulus historice Eutychianistarum, published by Sirmond in the Appendix codkU Theodos. p. 112, where it is said : OffendUur imperator. 206 HISTOltY OF THE COUNCILS. his life, if the military had not, at the intercession of the Pope, delivered him. Then they had also compelled the heads of other convents to suhscribe his deposition, which had not been done in the case of Nestorius, and had prevented him from circulating writings in his own justification (the placards) among the people, and having them read. He now appealed to Leo, the defender of religion, and adjured him, impartially and without being affected by the previous in- trigues, to pronounce a sentence in reference to the faith, and henceforth to protect him (Eutyches), especially as he had spent seventy years in all continence and chastity. Finally, he presented two writings, the accusation of Eusebius and his new paper which had not been received (according to the sup- position of the Ballerini, the document of appeal); besides (thirdly), his declaration of faith (probably a copy of the placard); and (fourthly) the declarations of the Fathers on the two natures.^ To this letter the Ballerini, in their edition of the letters of Leo, have added another fragment, which, in their view, contains the beginning of Eutyches' placard. He there asserts his orthodoxy. In the remaining part, now lost, the contestatio ad populum, that is, the complaint of the wrong which he had suffered, and the like, may have been contained.^ A second letter to the same effect was sent by Eutyches to the then highly renowned Bishop of Eavenna, Peter Chrysologus, but we have now only the answers to it. Peter Chrysologus there laments the contentiousness of the theo- logians of his day, but prudently does not enter further upon the subject itself, but only remarks : " He would have answered more fully if his brother Flavian had, on his side, also made him acquainted with the whole subject. Upon a one-sided statement he would form no judgment. For the rest, Eutyches must acquiesce in that which the Pope had written,^ since the holy Peter, who still lives in his see, ' Eutyches, Epist. ad Leonem among the letters of the latter. No. xxi. in Bailer, t. i. p. 739 sqq. ; Mansi, t. v. pp. 1323 and 1014. Quesuel supposes that this letter to Leo was a circular letter, and that identical copies were sent to other bishops. Cf. "Waloh, Ketzergesch. Bd. vi. S. 161. * Cf. note 12 of the Ballerini on Epiat. xxiii., and notes 13-16 on Epist. xxi. ' Whether tlie now lost answer of Leo to the previously mentioned letter of EUTYCHES AND FLAVIAN ENDEAVOUK TO GAIN PUBLIC OPINION. 2 7 imparts the truth to those who seek it. We, however, cannot decide, upon matters of faith without the assent of the Eoman bishop." 1 It is not without doubt, but it is very probable, that Eutyches now appealed also to Dioscurus of Alexandria and other great bishops, although no documents on the subject are extant.^ On the other side, Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, only did his duty when he caused the sentence which had been pronounced against Eutyches to be published in his churches, and when he required of the various convents and heads of convents that they should subscribe and thus accept the sentence.* In this way were added the already mentioned (p. 204) subscriptions of twenty-three archimandrites, which we still possess. In particular, Flavian sent deputies into the convent of Eutyches himself, with the command that the monks should no longer recognize him as abbot, that they should no longer speak with him, that they should no longer attend divine service with him, and that they should not leave the administration of their property any longer in his hands.* It was further natural that Flavian should acquaint the, bishops of other provinces with what had been done. That he should do so, and also transmit the Acts of the Synod (the To/ios) to the Oriental bishops, had been requested in the second session by Bishop Sabbas of Paltus in Syria.* That this was actually done is testified by the Patriarch Domnus of Antioch, who declared at the Eobber-Synod that the decree of deposition on Eutyches had been sent to him from Constantinople, and had been subscribed by him.^ Besides, Eutyches is meant, or the celebrated Epist. dogmatica Leonis, is doubtful. Cf. Walch, l.c. S. 163. 1 Among the letters of Leo, No. xxv. p. 775 sqq. in the ed. of the Ballerini ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1347 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 21. Cf. "Walch, l.c. S. 161 f. 2 Cf. V7alch, l.c. S. 161 and 163. ' Cf. the complaint of Eutyches in Mansi, t. vi. p. 641 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p, 103 sq. * Cf. the complaint of the monks in Mansi, t. vi. p. 864 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 234. * In Mansi, t. vi. p. 693 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 138. 6 In Mansi, t. vi. p. 836 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 218. 208 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, in regard to this matter, we possess a correspondence between Flavian, Pope Leo, and the Emperor Theodosius the younger.. The first of these letters, according to the investigations of the Ballerini, was written by Flavian to Leo a short time after the close of the Synod at Constantinople, towards the end of the year 448, or early in 449, and begins with the lamenta- tion that the Archbishop has not been able to save one of his clergy, and snatch him from ruin. There were people, he said, who, while they wore sheep's clothing, were inwardly ravening wolves. So it was with Eutyches ; ■ he had appeared to maintain orthodoxy against Nestorius, and yet he had him- self endeavoured to destroy the orthodox faith, and to renew the old heresies of Valentinus and ApoUinaris. He had undauntedly declared before the holy Synod that we should not believe that after the incarnation Christ consisted of two natures in one person, and that His flesh was of the same substance as ours. The Virgin who bare Him was of the same flesh with us, but the Lord had not assumed from her a body of the same substance as ours, and the body of the Lord was not the body of a man, although the body which came from the Virgin was a human one. For the sake of brevity Flavian further appeals to the proceedings which had taken place some time ago (TrdXai) in this matter (Synod at Constantinople), the Acts of which he sent to the Pope (in the epistolary style : " I have sent "), according to which Eutyches was deposed. The Pope should make the bishops who were subject to him acquamted with it, so that they might have no communion with the heretic' Before this letter reached Eome the Pope received a letter from the Emperor and one from Eutyches himself, from which we have given an extract above (p. 205). Leo now wrote on the 18th of February 449, as the subscription shows, to Flavian as follows : " The Emperor had made him acquainted with the ecclesiastical troubles in Constantinople, and Leo only wondered that Flavian had told him nothing of them, and had not taken care that the matter should be communicated to him first. He had also received a letter 1 S. Leonis Ep. xxii. in Bailer, t. i. p. 745 aqq. ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1330; Hardouin, t. li. p. 8. Cf. Waloh, I.e. S. 165. EUTYCHES AND FLAVIAN ENDEAVOUE TO GAIN PUBLIC OPINION. 209 from Eutyches, who complained that, although innocent, he had been excommunicated on the accusation of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and that his appeal to Eome had not been regarded. Flavian should inform him of all, for until he knew everything accurately he could not judge in favour of either. Flavian should also send him an able envoy, who might give him complete information respecting the novelty which had arisen. He thoroughly desired the restoration of peace, that those who maintained error might be turned away from their error, and that the orthodox might be confirmed by the papal approval. And this could not be difficult, as Eutyches had declared in his letter that he was ready to correct what should be found blameworthy in him. In such a matter," Leo says towards the end, " above all an effort must be made ut sine strepitu concertationum et custodiatur earitas, et Veritas defendatur." ^ Leo's letter of the same date to the Emperor is shorter. He rejoices that Theodosius has not only the heart of an emperor, but also that of a priest, and is rightly anxious that no discord should arise. For then is the empire best established when the Holy Trinity is served in . unity. Further on he comes to speak of the letter of Eutyches, and of the accusa- tion of Eusebius of Dorylseum which Eutyches had trans- mitted to him, and remarks that these two documents do not represent the matter with sufficient completeness. He had therefore written to Flavian, and had censured him for his silence.^ To this Flavian replied in his second letter to Leo (No. 26), in which he explains somewhat more fully the heresy of Eutyches, and shows how his doctrine of one nature is in opposition to a clear utterance of the Synod of Ephesus.' Eutyches had therefore been deposed by the Synod, as the Pope would perceive from the Acts attached to this letter. The Pope should know that Eutyches, after his righteous deposition, instead of repenting and amending, was, on the • In Bailer. I.e. pp. 761-765 ; Mansi, t. t. p. 1338 sqq. ' In Bailer. I.e. p. 767 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1341 sqq. ' Peculiarly to an utterance of Cyril's, which had heen approved by the Synod of Ephesus (p. 48). "We gave it above (p. 21) in italics. III. 210 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. contrary, endeavouring to embarrass the Church of Constan- tinople, was putting up placards full of insults and calumnies, was importuning the Emperor with petitions, and treading the holy canons under foot. He (Flavian) had received the letter of Leo through the Count Pansophius, and had learned from that how Eutyches had lied ; for it was not true that during the Synod he had pat in an appeal to Eome. The Pope should certainly confirm the canonical deposition of Eutyches in a special brief, and strengthen the faith of the Emperor. In that way all would be made peaceful, and the future Synod, of which they were already talking, would be rendered superfluous.'' It is evident that this letter was composed hefore the official convocation of the new Synod (Ptobber-Synod), which was published on the 30th of March 449. The letter probably belongs to the same month.^ The Pope used the first opportunity, the 21st of May 449, in order to acquaint Archbishop Flavian briefly that he had received his letter. He already acknowledges that Eutyches had erred from the right faith, and promises to send a complete letter on the subject by Flavian's messenger on his return, in order to show how the whole matter must be judged.* He refers to his Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum, which afterwards became so famous, and of which we shall presently have to speak. The Emperor's letter to the Pope, which was mentioned above, is a proof to us that Eutyches had gained the favour of the court, and that Theodosius had endeavoured to save him. He therefore, as he says himself,* frequently got Archbishop Flavian to come to him, in order to induce him to be contented with the Mcene Creed as confirmed at Ephesus, which Eutyches had naturally accepted without hesitation. As Flavian did not and would not agree to this, the Emperor became very angry ; and as Eutyches continued to accuse the Archbishop himself of heresy, Theodosius went ^ In Bailer. I.e. p. 782 sqq. ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1351 sqq. * In Bailer. l.c. p. 781, Nota a ; and in Mansi, I.e. p. 1351, Nota a. 3 S. Leonis Epiit. No. xxvii. p. 792, ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t. v. p. 1359. * In Mansi, t. yi. p. 597 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 78. Cf. 'Waloh, l.c. S. 171. PEBTENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYKODAL ACTS. 211 SO far as to require a confession of faith from Flavian, which he presented, and which has come down to us.^ Sec. 174. The Examination on account of the pretended falsification of the Synodal Acts. Making use of the favourable disposition of the Emperor, Eutyches brought a new complaint in the early part of the year 449, that the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, which Flavian had had prepared, were in many places falsified, and that therefore the notaries of Flavian, together with the deacon Athanasius of Seleucia, and the clerics whom the Synod had sent to Eutyches, should be examined in the presence of Thalassius (Archbishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia) and other bishops.^ The Emperor acceded to this request on the 8th of April 449,* and on the same day the imperial tribune, notary, and referendar Macedonius acquainted the bishops who were assembled under the presidency. of Thalas- sius in the baptistery of the church of Constantinople with the Emperor's command. Flavian is not included in the list of bishops, but many others are there who had co-operated in the deposition of Eutyches.* In consequence of this a second and greater synodal as- sembly of thirty-four bishops took place on the 13 th of April in the greater portico of the church at Constantinople under the presidency of Flavian. Fifteen of them had also been, in the previous year, members of that Synod which had pro- nounced the condemnation of Eutyches. Besides these, the Patrician Florentius was also present again on this occasion, and with him two other imperial officials, the Count Mamas and the tribune Macedonius, already mentioned. After the short minutes of the assembly of April 8 were 1 In Liberat. Breviar. c. xi. ; in Galland. t. xii. p. 139 ; and in Mansi, t. vi. p. 539, and viii. p. 824 ; in Hardouin, t. ii. p. 7. Cf. "Walch, I.e. S. 171. ' The letter of Eutyches to the Emperor, in Mansi, t. vi. p. 764 ; and Hardouin, t. ii. p. 177. ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 757 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 173. * Mansi, t. vi. pp. 757-761 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 173-176. A translation of the Acts of this and the following commission (abridged) is given by Fuohs, Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. iv. S. 385 ff. 212 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. read, Florentius asked -whether representatives of Eutyches were present. When this question was answered in the affirmative, Eusebius of Dorylasum and Meliphthongus, Bishop of Juliopolis, raised a question as to their admission, as they thought that Eutyches himself ought personally to appear. When, however, the tribune explained that, as Eutyches, being excommunicated, would not venture personally to be present, the Emperor had ordered him to send representatives, they acquiesced, and the spokesmen for Eutyches were admitted. They were the three monks Constantine, Eleusinius, and Constantius. Thereupon the tribune requested that the bishops who had been present at the deposition of Eutyches should swear an oath that they would say the truth ; but Basil of Seleucia, one of the most distinguished among those present, rejected this requirement as inadmissible, and as some- thing which had never been done before ; but, on the other hand, promised that all should speak with the same conscien- tiousness as though they stood before the holy altar. Whether Macedonius upon this gave up his demand the Acts do not say, but they inform us that the petition which Eutyches had addressed to the Emperor, and which we have already mentioned, was now read. Then the notaries of Flavian, who had drawn up the criminated acts, were required to stand forth in the midst of the assembly, namely, the deacons Asterius, Aetius, Nonnus, Asclepiades, and Procopius. Aetius desired at first to be more accurately informed of what they were accused, and that they should be allowed time to reply. But Florentius refused this as an evasion of the question, and declared that the Acts should be read and their genuineness examined, but that no definite accusation should be brought forward against the notaries. To this Archbishop Flavian also agreed, remarking that the Acts had been drawn up by his notaries. If they were genuine, they must now maintain this without hesitation ; but if anything in them were false, they must speak the truth as before the judgment-seat of God, and not conceal the falsifier. Florentius acknowledged that the Archbishop thus spoke from a sense of his innocence, and after another objection of Aetius had been put aside, they proceeded to the actual examination of the Acts, in such wise PEETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 213 that the authentic copy of the notaries of Flavian was read from section to section, and the representatives of Eutyches were required to compare that which was read with their own copy which they had brought with them, and at once to bring forward their remarks in opposition.^ No objection was made to the Acts of the first and second sessions of Constantinople (pp. 190,191); but after the reading of the minutes of the third session one of the representatives of Eutyches, the deacon and monk Constantine, remarked that an expression of Eutyches had not been correctly repro- duced. He had not said to those whom the Synod then sent to him : " If the Fathers of the Church erred in some expres- sions, I do not blame them for this, but only inquire in Holy Scripture" (p. 1 9 2). Instead, however, of stating how Eutyches did then actually express himself, he only explained his own view, " that the Fathers had spoken diversely, and I accept all from them, but not as a rule of faith (et? Kavova he iricrreco^ ov Se^o/JMi)." As, however, he noticed that this expression was also very offensive, he requested that it should not be used to the prejudice of Eutyches. He was answered pro- perly that the representatives of Eutyches at their entrance had themselves given the assurance that they possessed full instructions and unrestricted authority from him, so that he would acknowledge all their explanations as his own words, and for that reason the request just made was quite inadmis- sible. Embarrassed by this answer, Constantine requested that the words, " but not as a rule of faith," might be struck out, for he had uttered them only inconsiderately, being con- fused by the great noise in the assembly. Bishop Seleucus remarked that this had not been so, for, on the contrary, he had made use of this expression while perfect silence prevailed, and before the noise (caused by his utter- ance) had arisen. Asked by Florentius to state their opinion, the two bishops, Thalassius of Cajsarea and Eusebius of Ancyra (neither of whom had been present at the Synod of the year 448), declared that the representatives of Eutyches could not confirm one part of what he had deposed and not the other ; but all that he said must be confirmed and regarded as 1 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 753-771 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 171-182. 214 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Entyches' own explanation. Constantino replied that lie had not claimed to have received such extensive authority from Eutyehes; but Florentius pointed out that it had been so stated by himself in the Acts. Bishop Meliphthongus of Juliopolis interposed the remark that it was now clear that they ought to have accepted his proposal, that Eutyehes should again be heard in person. But again he found no response, and at the request of the Patrician the two earlier S3Tiodal deputies, the priest John and the deacon Andrew, declared most solemnly that Eutyehes had certainly spoken the words in question to them. Upon the further remark' of the monk Constantino, that the earlier report of the presbyter John had not yet been read from the minutes, the latter him- self requested that this should now be done, and that he should put off taking the oath until the reading was completed. After this the whole of the testimony which had been borne by John in the third session at Constantinople (see p. 191 f.) was now read from beginning to end, and after this was done, John remarked that, as they knew, it was not quite possible to repeat the very words which one had heard ; but the deacon Andrew and the deacon Athanasius (of Seleucia) had also been present at the interview with Eutyehes. Besides, he had immediately at the time made a note in writing of what he had heard, and still possessed this memorandum. At the request of Elorentius it was read,^ and it agreed in every essential with the minute (of the Synod of Constantinople). For this reason Constantino, the friend of Eutyehes, made no criticism ; but his colleague Eleusinius called attention to the fact that the supposed expression of Eutyehes which stood in the minutes of the Synod : " Christ's body is not of one sub- stance with ours," was not found in the memorandum of John. John replied that he would swear that Eutyehes had actually spoken these words, but to him alone, and not also to the others who were present, for which reason he had not put them in his memorandum. Then the short testimony which the deacon Andrew had given in the third session at Constantinople (p. 192) was read, and he added to this that the priest John had then asked ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 782 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 187. PRETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 215 Eutyches whether he acknowledged that Christ, in His God- head, was of one substance with the Father, but in His man- hood of one substance with us. Eutyches had replied that the Creed (of Nicsea) spoke only of one consubstantiality, namely that of the Godhead, and we ought to be satisfied with that. Moreover, Eutyches had spoken something with John alone, which he had not heard. The same was deposed by the deacon Athanasius of Seleucia, only he knew nothing of the separate conversation between Eutyches and John. The monk Eleusinius, one of the agents of Eutyches, laid great stress upon the fact that John in his later testimony had added something to his first memorandum in his note- book, and both reports were then read again and compared. Athanasius explained that when in the third session of Constantinople the words of Eutyches, "not of one substance with us after the flesh," were read, he had remarked that this was new to him ; but the priest John had then again asseve- rated that Eutyches had uttered this in his presence alone, John now said the others, however, must have heard how he addressed the question to Eutyches : " Dost thou believe that the Son, as touching the Godhead, is of one substance with the Father, and as touching the . manhood of one substance with us ? " and they testified to this.^ Then this point was left, and they proceeded with the reading of the Acts of Constantinople. At those of the fifth session the monk Constantino at the beginning tried to create a doubt as to whether Eutyches had really said to the Archi- mandrite Martin, that "if they (the other archimandrites) did not make common cause with him, the Archbishop would ruin them all, like him" (p. 196). He and his colleague Eleusinius, however, immediately gave up the demand for further examination of this point, which they themselves acknowledged to be unimportant. After the reading of the minutes of the sixth session, at the request of Constantino, the synodal deputy Theophilus, who had previously been sent to Eutyches, was examined anew on the words which Eutyches had then spoken to him (p. 198). In his new testimony he added that Eutyches had then also ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 771-791 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 181-193. 216 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. said : " I follow the explanations of the Fathers," and the agents of Eutyches laid great stress upon this. Then Mamas, who had formerly been sent with Theophilus to Eutyches, repeated what he had said then, and, after a brief interposition from Constantine, they passed on to the minutes of the seventh session.-^ The first doubt on this occasion was raised by Flor- entius, who remarked: " he had indeed said that they should ask Eutyches how he believed and taught ; " but the words further ascribed to him, " why he expressed himself differently at differ- ent times (p. 2 l),he had not added." Archbishop Flavian asked who had made this (otherwise very unimportant) addition; but the notary Aetius thought it was not yet shown that it really was a foreign addition, and Florentius allowed the point to drop. On the further reading Eleusinius maintained that everything was not set forth in its proper order, particularly that Eutyches had at the very beginning offered to hand in the paper mentioned in the minutes, which had contained the Creed of Mcsea, but which had not been accepted by Flavian. The latter asked, in reply, how it was certain that the Nicene Creed had really formed part of that paper ; and Eusebius of Dorylseum wished to remove this whole point with the pro- posal that the chief question, whether Eutyches were reaUy a heretic or not, should be left to the (Ecumenical Council which was already summoned. . But Bishop Seleucus of Amasia remarked, with great force, that Eutyches, in his letter to Pope Leo, said that the paper which he proffered to the Synod had contained an appeal to Eome: how could he then maintain that its contents was a confession of faith ? he contradicted himself After the further remark of Florentius, that Eutyches had, after the conclusion of the Synod of Constantinople, handed in that paper to him, they continued the reading of the minutes of the seventh session, and after a little Eleusinius maintained that the words of Eutyches were omitted, in which he said that " he thought exactly as the Synods of Nicaea and Ephesus had taught." But the bishops testified in great numbers that Eutyches had not then, at least, spoken these words. On further reading, Eleusinius raised a doubt as to whether, at the point at which it stood in the Acts, "the ■ Mansi, t. vi pp. 791-798 ; Hardouiu, t. ii. p. 195. PRETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 217 Synod rose up and cried," etc. (p. 203), the first anathema had been pronounced upon Eutyches. Florentius and several bishops could no longer remember this ; others affirmed that they had so exclaimed ; but the notary Aetius remarked that it might easily happen, and without any bad intention, that if several bishops cried out the same thing (and no one contra- dicted), this should be taken for the utterance of the Synod. And so it might have happened here. This point also was then passed over ; but at the next section of the minutes riorentius remarked that he had spoken to Eutyches the words : " Dost thou acknowledge two natures, etc., and if not, thou wilt be condemned" (p. 203), not as a threat, but as an exhortation, in order to induce him to submit to the Synod. A further expression, however, attributed to him : " He who does not say ' of two natures,' has not the right faith " (p. 203), was not his, and he should not have been justified, as a layman, in thiis speaking.^ The notary Aetius appealed, however, to the testimony of the bishops and officers of state, in whose presence the Acts had been examined and approved after they were drawn up. Florentius might, perhaps, object that he at least had not read these Acts all through ; but it was incom- parably more probable that Florentius had learnt in the interval that the expression which he now wished to disavow was not in accordance with court-orthodoxy, than that the Acts should have been falsified at this place. At the conclusion of the minutes of the Synod, Con- stantine had several points to represent, and first of all that the cause of the condemnation of Eutyches was not expressed with sufficient exactness, for this had followed when, in answer to the demand of Flavian that he should pronounce an anathema on all who did not acknowledge two natures, he had replied : " Woe is me if I should anathematize the holy Fathers."^ This was wanting in the Acts. (Certainly ; but it appears in them somewhat earlier, and was objected to by the agents of Eutyches at that earlier place. The whole error then, if there was one, consists in a transposition which was made without the least purpose of deception.) ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 810 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 203. * Mansi, I.e. p. 811 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 203. 218 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Constantine further noted the omission of several insignificant details at the close of the seventh session, particularly several expressions of some of the bishops, and the notice that Arch- bishop Flavian had wished to have another passage read from S. Athanasius on the question of one or two natures, but that his notary Asterius, without regarding this, had immediately published the sentence against Eutyches. On this Aetius and several bishops remarked that there had been such loud speaking at the close of that session that they might easily have failed to hear the one expression or the other. Besides, several of them said they could no longer remember particular details.^ During the proceedings on this subject Constantine asserted that the judgment on Eutyches which stood in the Acts had not been conceived first at the session, but had been previously dictated by the Archbishop. Aetius demanded that Constantine should tell them how he knew this ; but Bishop Seleucus put the point aside as not belonging to the question, since the matter now before them was the alleged falsification of the Acts, and not the time at which the Arch- bishop had conceived the idea of the sentence on Eutyches.^ Finally, the monk Constantine again made the assertion that during the reading of the judgment pronounced upon him, Eutyches had appealed to a council of the Bishops of Eome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica (the primatial see of Illyria Orientalis), but that the minutes were silent on this subject. That this assertion was scarcely correct is clear from that which the imperial commissioner Florentius was able to say on the subject, namely, that Eutyche?, after the Council was already dissolved, had said to him quietly that he appealed to a Eoman, Egyptian, and Jerusalemite Council.' He (Florentius) had immediately made Archbishop Flavian acquainted with this. Bishop Basil of Seleucia asserted that Eutyches had said, during the proceedings of the Synod, that he would acknowledge the two natures if the Bishops of Eome and Alexandria required this of him; but he had heard nothing of an appeal Flavian, too, testified that he had not ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 811-814 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 203 sq^q. ' Mansi, l.c. p. 814 sqq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 206. ' Mansi, l.c. p. 817 ; Hardouin, l.c, p. 208. PRETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 219 heard a word from Eutyches himself on the suhjcct of an appeal, and that it was only after the close of the Synod that Florentius had given the intimation referred to. The same testimony, that they had heard nothing of an appeal, was given by all the other bishops. At the close, Florentius recLuested that these new proceedings should also be laid before the Emperor. He promised, in like manner, to bring to the knowledge of the Emperor the declarations of the notaries of Flavian that they had justified themselves, and that no one raised any complaint against them, so that in the future, when they no longer had the Acts at hand, they should not again be called to account.^ As we have already seen, the monk Constantine had maintained in the assembly just described, of the 13th of April, that the sentence of deposition on Eutyches was not first drawn up at the seventh session of the Synod, but had been previously dictated by Flavian. This point had not then been entered upon. E"otwithstanding, Eutyches did not allow this to pass, and at his request the Emperor appointed a new small commission of inquiry, which met on the 27th of April 449. The imperial Count Martial was its president, the Count Castorius his assistant, the tribune Macedonius and the Silentiar Magnus, of whom we have already spoken, had to be examined. First the petition was read which Eutyches had addressed to the Emperor on this subject, and as he appealed in it also to the Silentiar Magnus, who had conducted him into the presence of the Synod, and had then seen and heard something in reference to the sentence in question, the Silentiar was now required by Martial to give evidence of the truth. He deposed that, when he had come to Archbishop Flavian to announce to him that the Patrician Florentius would be present at the Synod by the Emperor's commission, the Arch- bishop had said to him that it was unnecessary to trouble so distinguished a personage on this occasion, for the pattern in this matter [i.e. the sentence) was already given, and Eutyches was already condemned, because he had not appeared at the second invitation. He had ialso been shown a paper containing this condemnation, and this had been done before the Synod • Mansi, t. vi. pp. 817-822 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 208 sq. 220 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. had pronounced its judgment.^ — This testimony was entered in the minutes, and then, at the request of the monk Con- stantine, Macedonius was desired to give an account of what he had heard from the priest Asterius, Flavian's notary. He declared that after the close of the previously mentioned session for the confirmation of the Acts, Asterius had informed him that the Archimandrite Abraham and the notaries had falsified the Acts. This also was entered in the minutes,^ but no inquiry was made into the accuracy of this testimony, as it must have appeared, a priori, improbable that Asterius, one of the notaries of Flavian, who was thoroughly devoted to him, and who was himself implicated, should have betrayed himself and his colleagues. ^ Fuchs, in his Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. iv. S. 398, says on this point : "That Flavian was interrogated on the subject is not said. Probably he would not have found it difficult to defend himself, for the whole circumstance could ■pvove nothing against the legality of the proceedings against Eutyches. ... As Eutyches had not appeared after two citations, it could hardly have been hoped that he would appear at the third. In this case he must have been condemned ; and why should not Flavian in that case have prepared the judgment before- hand ? " ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 821-828 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 209-213. CHAPTER III. THE ROBBER-SYNOD. Sec. 175. Convocation of the Synod. A FEW weeks before those two commissions of inquiry met, the Emperor Theodosius ii. had summoned an (Ecu- menical Council to Ephesus. He did this at the united request of Eutyches and the Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria/ supported probably by the minister Chrysaphius. Dioscurus stood on the same doctrinal ground as Eutyches, understanding the teaching of Cyril in the same sense as he did, and dis- covered Nestorianism in every other view. He was perhaps also drawn on by envy against the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose see began to obtain precedence over that of Alexandria, a circumstance which, half a century before, had occasioned the irreconcilable hatred of Theophilus of Alexandria against S. Chrysostom. Dioscurus now went so far that, in opposition to aU. canonical laws, he received back Eutyches into the communion of the Church, and declared him to be restored to his dignities as priest and archimandrite even before the greater Synod of Ephesus, which had been called for the examination of the subject, had given a decision upon it; and this although Eutyches had been excommunicated by a competent tribunal, and although Dioscurus had not the least jurisdiction over him.^ Of the convocation of this Synod, as imminent, Flavian had spoken in his second letter to Pope Leo, and frequently de- ' Liberal. Breviar. Bist. Eutych. c. 12, in Galland. SibliotA. PP. t. xii. p. 140 ; and Theophanes, Chronographia, ad ann. 5940, t. i. p. 154, ed. Bonn, {alias, p. 86). Pagi contends that the Empress Eudocia had also interceded for Eutyches, Crit. ad ann. 449 n. 7 (on account of the absence of the Empress at the time), and after him, Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 200, Anm. ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1045 and 1099 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 345 and 379. , 222 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Glared that he expected no good of it (see above, p. 210). Bishop Eusebius of Dorylseum, on the contrary, seems to have regarded the prospect as more favourable, as we may infer from his expressions already mentioned (p. 216). The imperial brief of convocation itself, v^hich, as was usual, was sent forth in the name of the two Emperors, Theodosius ii. and Valentinian in., is dated from Constantinople on the 30 th of March 449. It was addressed in identical terms to the great metropolitans, and stUl exists in the copy sent to Dioscurus. The Emperors declare in it their zeal for ortho- doxy, and explain that, as doubts and controversies have arisen respecting the right faith, the holding of an CEcumenical Synod has become necessary. Dioscurus must therefore, with ten of the metropolitans subject to him and ten other holy bishops distinguished for knowledge and character, present themselves at Ephesus, on the approaching first of August. The same invitations were sent also to the other bishops, and they were warned that none of those who were summoned could, without great responsibility, decline or delay their arrival. Theodoret of Cyrus, on the contrary (the strenuous opponent of Monophysitism), was not to appear unless the Synod itself should summon him.^ In a second letter to Dioscurus, dated the 15th of May of the same year, the Emperor says he has learned that many Oriental archimandrites were with great zeal opposing some Nestorianizing bishops ; he had therefore given command that the Priest and Archimandrite Barsumas (of Syria) should also appear as representative of aU his colleagues at the Council of Ephesus with a seat and a vote, and Dioscurus i? required to receive him in a friendly manner as a member of the Synod.* 1 In Mansi, t. vi. p. 588 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 71. Gennan in Fuchs, Bihlioth. der Kirchenvers. Bd. iv. S. 335. That Ibas had heen exiled by the minister Chrysaphius, at the request of Eutyohes, in order to keep him at a distance from the Synod, is asserted by Liberatus in his Breviar. c. 12, in Galland. Bibl. PP. t. xii. p. 140. It appears, however, that this banishment really took place after the ' Eobber-Synod. Cf. Waloh, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 204. 2 Mansi, t. vi. p. 593 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 76. This Monophysite abbot, Bar- sumas (a Saint of the Jacobites), must not be confounded with the contempo- raneous Nestorian bishop, Barsumas of Nisibis. Cf. on both, the Kirclienlezicon of Wetzer.and Welte, under the article " Barsumas." CONVOCATION OF THE SYNOD. 223 With this agrees the letter of the Emperor to Barsumas himself, dated on the 14th of May, which has also come down to us;^ and therefore we may suppose that in fact some Nestorianizing bishops in the East had been raising controversies at the same time with Entyches, only in a directly opposite manner, and that this was, in the Emperor's view, a second reason for the convocation of the Synod. About the same time the Emperor appointed two high officers of state, Elpidius {Comes sacri con- sistorii, as he is called in the letter to the proconsul Proclus) and the tribune and praetorian notary Eulogius, as his com- missioners at the approaching Synod, and gave them written instructions (comvionitormm) which still exist in the copy addressed to Elpidius, and run as follows : " But lately the holy Synod of Ephesus had been engaged with the affair of the impious Nestorius, and had pronounced a righteous sentence on him. Because, however, new controversies of faith had arisen, he had summoned a second Synod to Ephesus, in order to destroy the evil to the roots. He had therefore selected Elpidius and Eulogius for the service of the faith in order to fulfil his commands in reference to the Synod of Ephesus. In particular, they must allow no disturbances, and they must arrest every one who aroused such, and inform the Emperor of him ; they must take care that everything is done in order, must be present at the decisions (Kpla-ec), and take care that the Synod examine the matter quickly and carefully, and give information of the same to the Emperor. Those bishops who previously sat in judgment on Entyches (at Constantinople) are to be present at the proceedings at Ephesus, but are not to vote, since their own previous sen- tence must be examined anew. Further, no other question is to be brought forward at the Synod, and especially no question of money, before the settlement of the question of faith. By a letter to the proconsul he had required support for the commissioners from the civil and military authorities, so that they might be able to fulfil his commissions, which were as far above other business as divine above human things." ^ A short decree to the proconsul Proclus of Asia acquainted 1 Mansi and Hardouin, U.cc. 2 Mansi, t. vi. p. 596 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 75. 224 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. him -with the imperial resolution thus expressed, and ordered him to support the commissioners as well as possible, other- wise he would expose himself to great responsibility.^ We possess, besides, two other imperial decrees which pre- ceded the actual opening of the Ephesine or Eobber-Synod. The first of them is an edict to Dioscurus, to the effect that "the Emperor has already forbidden Theodoret of Cyrus, on account of his writings against Cyril, to take part in the Synod, unless he is expressly summoned by the Synod itself. Because, however, it was to be feared that some Nestorianizing bishops would use every means in order to bring him with them, the Emperor, following the rule of the holy Fathers, would nominate Dioscurus to be president of the Synod.^ Archbishop Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea, and all zealous friends of the orthodox faith, would support Dioscurus. In conclusion, the Emperor expresses the wish that all who should desire to add anything to the Mcene Confession of Faith (Symbolum), or take anything from it, should not be regarded in the Synod ; but on this point Dioscurus should give judgment, since it was for this very purpose that the Synod was convoked.'" The second rescript, addressed to the Synod itself, says : " The Emperor had indeed wished that all had remained at rest, and that he had not found it necessary to trouble the bishops ; but Flavian had brought into question some points respecting the faith, in opposition to the Archimandrite Eutyches, and on that account had assembled a council. The Emperor had several times entreated him to allay again the storm which had been raised, so that the confusion might not become universal; but Flavian had not allowed the con- troversy to drop, and therefore the Emperor had judged necessary the opening of a holy Synod of the bishops of all parts, so that they might learn what had already been done in this matter, that they might cut off this controversy and 1 Mansi, t. vi. p. 597 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 77. ^ On the presidency at Ephesus, cf. vol. i. p. 43. Dioscurus said afterwards, at the Council of Chalcedon, that Juvenal and Thalassius had presided in common with him, which Natalis Alexander calls a falsehood. It is also contradicted by the contents of the imperial edict quoted above. 3 Mansi, t. vi. p. 600; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 80 ; Fuchs, I.e. S. 341. THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 225 all its diabolical roots, exclude the adherents of Nestorius from the Church, and preserve the orthodox faith firm and unshaken, since the whole hope of the Emperor and the power of the empire depended upon the right faith in God and the holy prayers of the Synod."* An invitation to take part in the Synod of Ephesus was also despatched to Pope Leo i., and reached Eome, ]\Iay 13, 449.^ The Pope, however, was unable to respond to the wish of the Emperor that he should appear personally, on account of disquieting conjunctures,' and therefore he ap- pointed three legates, Bishop Julius of Puzzuolo, the priest Eenatus (Cardinal of S. Clement), and the deacon HUarus, to take his place at the Sjoiod, and to convey his letters to Arch- bishop Flavian, to the Emperor, to the Synod, to Pulcheria, etc. Sec. 176. The celebrated Epistola Dogmatica of Leo to Flavian. The first of these letters, to Flavian, contains that complete doctrinal treatise on the doctrine of the person of Christ which Leo had already (p. 210) promised to the bishop of Constantinople, and which afterwards, as approved by the fourth (Ecumenical Synod, received symbolical importance.* This letter, the original text of which we append in the note,^ with the omission of a few unimportant sentences, runs as follows : — " Chap. L Thy letter, at the late despatch of ' Mansi, I.e. p. 589 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 77 ; Fuchs, I.e. S. 340. * Cf. Leonis Epist. 31 ad Pvlcheriam, c. 4, p. 856, ed. Bailer. In Mansi, t. v. p. 1401. ' L.e., and Ep. 37, p. 886, ed. Bailer, in Mansi, t. v. p. 1424. * This letter of Leo's, No. 28 in the collection of Ballerini, is printed in Leonis 0pp. ed. BaUer. t. i. pp. 801-838 ; in Mansi, t. v. p. 1366 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 290 sqq. ; German in Fnchs, I.e. Bd. iv. S. 312 ff. ; partially also in Arendt, Leo d. G. u. seine Zeit, Mainz 1835, S. 232 ff. The original text is Latin ; the Greek translation printed with it was probahly made immediately after its arrival in Constantinople, and read at the Synod of Chalcedon. Cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 182 ff. Numerous notes to this letter are given hy Quesnel and the Ballerini, and all printed together in the second volume of the ed. of the Ballerini, p. 1407 sqq. We remark that Gennadius, De Viris illustr. c. 84, says that many regard Prosper of Aquitaine as having conceived this letter ; but he vindicates the authorship of Pope Leo himself. * Leo epiecopas dilectissimo fratri Flavimio constantinopolitano episeopo. Cap. I. Lectis dilectionis tuse litteris, quas miramur fuisse tarn seras, et lU. ? 226 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. which I am astonished, and the synodal Acts which were appended, have at last made me acquainted with the offence which has arisen among you in opposition to the true faith. What has hitherto been dark has now become quite clear, Eutyches there shows himself as in a high degree ignorant and lacking in intelligence. . . . What knowledge of the Old and New Testament can he have who does not even understand the beginning of the creed ? And that which the catechumens throughout the whole world confess, the heart of this old man cannot comprehend. — Chap. II. If He did not know what he ought to believe respecting the incarnation of the divine Word, and would not search throughout the whole Scriptures on the subject, then he ought to have adhered to the creed, which all know and confess : To believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. By these three propositions almost every heresy is overthrown. For, if one believes in God the Father Almighty, then is the Son declared to be co-eternal with Him, differing in nothing from the Father, because He is God of God, Almighty of the Almighty, Co-eternal of the Eternal, not later in time, not gestorum opiecopalium ordine reconsito, tandem quid apud vos soandali contra integritatem fidei exortum fuisset, agnovimus : et quoe prius videbantur occulta, nunc nobis reserata patuerunt. Quibus Eutyches, qui presbyterii nomine honorabilis videbatur, multum imprudons et nimis imporitus ostonditur, ut etiam de ipso dictum sit a prophota : Noluit intelUgere, ut bene ageret ; in- iquitatem meditaius eat in cuhili suo (Ps. xxxv. 4). Quid autem iniquius, quam impia sapere, et sapientioribus doctioribusque non codi'rc 1 Sed in banc insipientiam cadunt, qui cum ad cognosoendam veritatem aliquo impodiuntur obscuro, non ad proplieticas voces, non ad apostolicas litteras, neo ad ovangolicas auctoritates, sed ad eometipsos recuiTunt ; etideo magistri crroris oxistunt, quia veritatis discipuli non fuere. Quam enim eruditionom de sacris aovi ot veteris testament! paginis acquisivit, qui ne ipsius quidem symboli initia comprehondit ? Et quod per totum mundum omnium regenerandorum voce depromitur, istiiis adhuo senis corde non capitur. C. II. Neaoiens igitur quid deberet de Vcrbi Dei incarnationo scntire, noo volens ad promerendum intelligentiie lumen in sanctarum Scripturarum lati- tudine laborare, illam saltern communem ot indiacretam confcssionem sollioito recepiaset auditu, qua fidelium universitas profitetur credere nc in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui natus eat de Spiritu sancto et [ex ?] Maria Virgino. Quibus tribus sontontiis omnium fere hsereticorum maohinaj destruuntur. Cum enim Deus et omnipotens et [aetcrnus] Pater creditur, conaempiternua eidem Filius demonstratur, in nullo a Patre differena, quia de Deo Deua, de omnipotente omnipotens, de njterno natua THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 227 inferior in power, not unequal in glory, not divided in essence. And this only-begotten eternal Son of the eternal Father was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. This birth in time has taken nothing from, and added nothing to, the eternal birth (from the Father), and its only end is the redemption of men. For we could not overcome sin and the author of death, unless our nature had been assumed and made His own by Him whom neither sin could stain nor death could hold. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin, and she bare Him without injury to her virginity, even as she conceived Him without loss of the same. If Eutyches in his own blindness cannot comprehend this, then he ought to have submitted to the utterances of Holy Scripture which treat of the incarnation of the Logos. He could not then have asserted that the Word had only so far become flesh, that Christ who was born of the womb of the Virgin had received ^b'- est coaeternus ; non posterior tempore, non inferior potestate, non dissimilis gloria, non divisus essentia : idem vero sempiterni genitoris unigenitus sempiternus natus est de Spiritu sancto et [ex ?] Maria Virgine. Quae nativitas temporalis illi nativitati divinae et sempiternas nihil minuit, nihil contulit, sed totam se reparando homini, quierat deceptus, impendit ; ut et mortem vinceret, et diabolum, qui mortis habebat imperium, sua virtute destrueret. Non enim superare possemus peocati et mortis auctorem, nisi naturam nostram iUe susciperet, et suam faceret, quem nee peccatum contaminare, nee mors potuit detinere. Conceptus quippe est de Spiritu sancto intra uterum matris virginis, quK ilium ita salya virginitate edidit, quemadmodum salva virginitate concepit. Sed si de hoc Christianse fidei fonte purissimo sincerum intellectum haurire non poterat, quia splendorem perspicuae veritatis obcacatione sibi propria tenebrarat, doctrinae se evangelicae subdidisset. Et dicente Matthaeo : Liher generationis Jesu Chrislifilii David, filii Abraham QAaXt. i. 1): apostolicffi quoque prsedicationis expetisset instructum. Et legens in epistola ad Romanes : Paulus serous Jesu Ghristi, vocatus apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium Dei, quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis Sanctis de Filio suo, qui f actus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Eom. i. 1) : ad propheticas [quoque], paginas piam soDioitudinem contulisset. Et inveniens promissionem Dei ad Abraham dicentis : In semine tuo henedieentur omnes gentes (Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 18) : ne de hujus seminis proprietate dubitaret, seoutus fuisset apostolum dicentem : AbraAce dictce sunt promissiones, et semini ejus. Non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, sed quasi in uno, et semini tuo, quod est Christus (Gal. iii. 16). Isaiae quoque praedioationem interiore apprehendisset auditu dicentis : Ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et parietfilium et vocabunt ncmien ejus Emm.anuel (Isa. vii. 14), quod est interpretatum, nobiscum Deu^ (Matt. i. 23). Ejusdemque prophetae fideliter verba legisset, Puer natus est nobis, filius datus est nobis, cujus potestas, super humerum ejus, et vocabunt nomen ejus magni consiUi angelus, admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus fortis, Princeps pacis, Pater futuri seculi (ix. 6). Nee frustratorie loquens, ita Verbum 228 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. the form of a man, but not a true body like His mother's. Perhaps Eutyches believed that Christ was not of the same nature with us, because the fingel said to Mary : ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore also the holy thing which is to be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' He believed perhaps, because the conception of the Virgin was a divine work, that therefore the flesh of Him who was conceived was not of the nature of her who had conceived. But this is not so. The proper nature of the (human) race is not removed by the new mode of creation. The Holy Ghost gave fruitfulness to the Virgin, the truth of the body, however, comes from the body (of the mother:). Therefore the evangelist says : ' The Word was made flesh,' that is, the wisdom of God has builded for Himself a house in that flesh which He assumed of a human being (Mary), and which He animated by the spiritus animce \yitce .?] rationalis (by a reasonable soul). — Chap. III. Since, then, the properties of both natures and substances remained uninjured, and united in one person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. In order to pay our debt, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that, as our salvation required, the one Mediator between God and man on the one side could die, on the other could (licoret caniem factum, vit editus utero virginis Christus habcret foniiiiiu hominis, et non haberet materni corporis veritatem. An forte ideo putavit Doniiniim nostrum Jesum Christum non nostrie t-sse naturre, quia missus ad beatam Mariam semper virginem angelus ait : Spiritus sanctus superveniet in tn, et virluK AUiasimi obumbrabit tibi: ideoque ft quod nascetur ex le sanctum, vocahilnr Filius Dei? {Ixta. i. 35) ut quia conoeptus Virginis divini fuitoperis, non denatura concipientis fuerit caro concepti. Sed non ita [nobis] intelligenda est ilia generatio singulariter mirabilis et mirabiliter singularis, ut per novitatem creationis pro- prietas remota sit generis. Fecunditatora enim virgini Spiritus sauctus dedit, vuritas autem corporis sumpta de corpore est ; et ajdificante sibi sapiontia domum (Prov. ix. 1): Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. i. 14) : hoc est, in ea came, quam assumsit ex homine, et quam spiritu vitoe rationalis animavit. C. III. Salva igitur proprietate utriusquo naturie et substantioe, et in unam coeunte personam, susoepta est a mojestate huniilitas, a virtute iniirmitas, ab ffiternitate mortalitas : et ad resolvendum conditionis nostroe debitum, natura inviolabilis naturra est unita passibili : ut, quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem mediator Dei et hominuni, homo Jesus Christu.s, et mori posset ex uno, et mori non posset ex altero. In Integra ergo veri liominis perfoctaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris. Nostra autem THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 229 not die. In the inviolate and perfect nature (in integra 2)erfectaque natura) of a true man, true God is born, com- plete in His own (in His Godhead) and complete in ours (in the manhood). I say, 'in ours,' and I mean, as the Creator formed our nature, and as Christ wills to restore it (that is, Christ's manhood is the integra, not cor- rupted by sin). For of that which the tempter has brought into us there was in the Eedeemer no trace. He participated in our infirmities, but not in our sins. He took upon Him the form of a servant without the stain of sin, and He raised the human without impairing the divine. The emptying of Himself (Phil. ii. 7), by which the Invisible showed Himself visible, and the Lord and Creator of the world willed to become one of the mortals, this emptying of Himself was no loss of power, but a working of compassion. He who in the form of God had made man, became man in the form of a servant. Each nature preserves its property inviolate, and as the ' form of God ' did not annihilate the ' form of a servant,' so the form of a servant in nothing impairs the form of God {forma Dei). — Chap. IV. The Son of God, then, enters into this lower world, descending from His heavenly throne, and not receding from the glory of the Father, coming dicimus, quse in nobis ab intitio Creator condidit, et qua reparanda suscepit. Nam ilia, quno. deceptor intulit, e thomo deceptus admisit, nullum habuerunt in Salvatore vestigium. Nee quia communionem humanarum subiit infirmitatum, ideo nostrorum fuit particeps delictorum. Assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, huraana augens, divina non minuens : quia exinanitio ilia, qua se invisi- bilis visibilem prfebuit, et Creator ac Dominus omnium rerum nnus voluit esse mortaliura, inolinatio fuit miseratiouis, non defeotio potestatis. Proinde qui manens in forma Dei fecit hominem, idem in forma servi faotus est homo. Tenet enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura : et sicut formam serW Dei forma non adimit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit. Nam quia gloriabatur diabolus, hominem sua fraude deoeptum divinis caruisse muneribus, et immor- talitatis dote nudatum duram mortis subiisse sententiam, seque in malis suis quoddam de prjevaricatoris consortio invenisse solatium ; Deum quoque, justitise axigente ratione, erga hominem, quem in tanto honore condiderat, propriam mutasse sententiam ; opus fuit seoreti dispensatione consilii, ut incommutabilis Deus, cujus voluntas non potest sua benignitate privari, primam erga nos pietatis su£e dispositionem saoramento oocultiore compleret ; et homo diabolicse iniqui- tatis versutia actus in culpam, contra Dei propositum non periret. G. IV. Ingreditur ergo haec mundi infima Filius Dei, de coelesti sede descen- dens, et a paterna gloria non reoedens, novo ordine, nova nativitate generatus. Novo ordine, quia invisibilis in suis, visibilis factus est in nostris ; inoompre- 230 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. to the world ia a new order of things, and in a new kind of birth. In a new order of things, since He who is in His own invisible, in ours (in our nature) has become visible, the incomprehensible willed to be comprehended. He who existed before all time began to be in time, the Lord of all veiling His majesty took upon Him the form of a servant, the impassible God does not disdain to be a suffering man, and the Immortal has subjected Himself to the laws of death. But it was by a new kind of birth that He came into the world, since the inviolate virginity, without experiencing concupiscence, furnished the matter of flesh. He assumed from His mother nature not guilt, and, as His birth is wonderful, so is His nature not unlike ours. For He who is true God is at the same time true man, and in this unity there is no lie, for the lowliness of man and the loftiness of God have penetrated each other (inviceon sunt). As God is not changed by His compassion (i.e. since He became man out of compassion), so neither is man (the manhood) consumed (absorbed) by His dignity. Each of the two forms (natures) does in communion with the other that which is proper to it, since the Word (of God) performs that which is of the Word, and the flesh performs that which is of the flesh. The one of them shines forth in miracles, the other submits to insults. And as the Word does not recede from the equality of the Father's glory, so does the flesh not abandon the nature of our race. For He who is one and the same, as must be often repeated, is truly Son of God and truly Son hensibilis voluit comprehendi, ante tempora manens esse ccepit ex tempore ; universitatis Dominus servilein formam, obumbrata majestatis suje immensitate, suscepit ; impassibilia Deus non dedignatus est homo esse passibilis, et im- mortalis mortis legibus subjaoere. Nova autem nativitate generatus, quia inviolata virginitas concupisoentiam nesoivit, camis materiam ministravit. Assumpta est de matre Domini natura, non culpa ; nee in Domino Jesu Christo, ex utero virginis genito, quia nativitas est mirabilis, ideo nostri est natura dis- similis. Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo ; et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et humilitas hominis, et altitudo Deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita homo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est ; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et came exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aUud succimibit injuriis. Et sicut Verbum ab sequalitate paternse gloriae non recedit, ita caro naturam nostri generis non relinquit. Unus enim idemque est, quod ssepe dicendum est, vere Dei Filius, THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 231 of man. God in this, that 'in the beginning was the "Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ; ' man in this, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ; ' God in this, that all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made ; man in this, that He was made of a woman, and under the law. The birth of the flesh is the revelation of human nature ; the being born of a virgin is the sign of divine power. The weakness of the child is shown by the lowliness of the cradle ; the glory of the Highest is proclaimed by the voice of the angels. He is like to the beginnings of men (rudimentis hominum — that is, children) whom Herod wishes cruelly to slay ; but He is Lord of all, whom the wise men rejoice humbly to adore. And that it might not be concealed that the Godhead is covered by the veil of the flesh, the voice of the Father called from heaven: 'This is my beloved Son,' etc. He who as man is tempted by the cunning of the devil. He, as God, is ministered to by angels. Hunger, thirst, weari- ness, and sleep are evidently human ; but to feed five thousand men with five loaves, etc., to walk on the sea, to command the storms, is without doubt divine. As it does not belong to one and the same nature to bewail a dead friend with deep compassion, and to call him back to life et vere hominis Filius. Deus per id, quod in principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud JDeum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. i. 1) ; homo per id, quod Verbum euro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (ib. i. 14). Deus per id, quod omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil (ib. i. 3) ; homo per id, quod/dciits est ex muliere, factum sub lege (Gal. iv. 4). Nativitas carnis mani- festatio est humane naturae ; partus virginis divinae est virtutis indicium. Infautia parvuli ostenditur humilitate cunarum ; magnitudo Altissimi decla- ratur vocibus angelorum. Similis est rudimentis hominum, quern Herodes impie molitur occidere; sed Dominus est omnium, quern magi gaudent sup- pliciter adorare. Jam cum ad prseoursoris sui Joannis baptismum venit, ne lateret, quod carnis velamine divinitas tegeretur, vox Patris de coelo intonans dixit : Hie est Filius mens dilectus, in quo mild bene complacui (Matt. iii. 17). Quem itaque sicut hominem diabolica tentat astutia, eidem sicut Deo angelica famulantur officia (Matt. iv. 1). Esurire, sitire, lassescere atque dormire, evidenter humanum est. Sed quinque panibus quinque millia hominum satiare (Joan. vi. 5), et largiri Samaritanae aquam vivam, cujus haustus bibenti praestet, ne ultra jam sitiat (Joan. iv. 10) ; supra dorsum maris plantis nou desidentibus ambulare, et elationes fluctuum increpata tempestate consternere (Luc. vlii. 24), sine ambiguitate divinum est. Sicut ergo, ut multa praeteream, non ejusdem naturae est, flere miserationis affectu amicum mortuum (Joan. xi. 232 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. when he has been four days dead by the mere command of His word, or to hang upon the cross and to make the elements tremble, etc. ; so it does not belong to one and the same nature to say : ' I and the Father are one,' and ' the Father is greater than I.' For although in Jesus Christ there is only one person of God and man, yet the common glory and the common lowliness of the two natures have a different source. From us he has the manhood, which is inferior to the Father ; from the Father He has the Godhead, which is equal to the Father. — Chap. V. For this reason that the two natures constitute only one person, we read that the Son of man came down from heaven (John iii. 13), while the Son of God took flesh of the "Virgin ; and also, that the Son of God was crucified and buried, while He suffered not in the Godhead, according to which He is the only- begotten, co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of the human nature. For this reason we say in the creed that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried, in accordance with the words of the apostle : ' Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory ' (1 Cor. ii. 8). But when the Lord wished to instruct His disciples in the faith by questions. He said : ' Who do men say that I the Son of man am ? ' and on receiving diverse answers from them. He said : ' But who say 35), et eundem remoto quatriduante aggere sepulturse, ad vocis imperium excitare redivivum (ib. v. 43), aut in ligno pendere, et in noctem luce conversa, omnia elementa tremefaoere (Matt, xxyii. 45, 51) ; aut olavis transfixum esse, et paradisi portas fidei latronis aperire ; ita non ejusdem naturae est, dicere : Ego et Pater unwm aumus (Joan. x. 30) ; et dicere : Pater major me est (Joan. xiv. 28). Quamvis enim in Domino Jesu Christo Dei et hominis una persona sit ; aliud tamen est, unde in utroque communis est contumelia, aliud unde com- munis est gloria. De nostro enim illi est minor Patre humanitas ; de Patre illi est asqualis cum Patre Divinitas. C. V. Propter hanc ergo unitatem personae in utraque natura intelligendam, et Filius hominis legitur descendisse de cceIo, cum Filius Dei carnem de ea virgine, de qua est natus, assumpserit. Et rursus, Filius Dei crucifixus dicitur ac sepultus, cum hsec non in divinitate ipsa, qua Unigenitus consempiteruus et consubstantialis est Patri, sed in naturae humanse sit infirmitate perpessus. Unde unigenitum Filium Dei crucifixum et sepultum omnes etiam in symbolo confitemur, secundum illud Apostoli : Si enim cognovissent, nunquam Domirmm majestatis crucijixissent (1 Cor. ii. 8). Cum autem ipse Dominus noster atque Salvator fidem discipulorum suis interrogationibus erudiret. Quern me, inquit, dicunt homines esse Filium hominis ? Cumque Uli diversas aliorum opiniones THE CELEBKATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 233 ye that I am/ that is, I, the Son of man ? Peter, divinely inspired, and anticipating all nations with his confession, replied : ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and thus confessed the Son of man as at the same time Son of God, because the one without the other could not have brought us salvation. . . . And after the resurrection of the true body (for it is no other which was raised than that which was crucified), what else happened in those forty days, but that our faith was cleared from all darkness ? . . . He ate with His disciples, came through closed doors, imparted the Holy Ghost, and allowed them to touch His hands, etc., so that they might know that He possessed the properties of the divine and human natures undivided, and that we, without identifying the Word and the Flesh, should yet confess that the Word and the Flesh are one Son of God. This mystery of the faith was quite strange to Eutyches, who acknowledged our nature in the only-begotten Son of God, neither in the humiliation of mortality nor in the glory of the resurrection, and was not afraid of the saying of the retexuissent, Voa autem, ait, quern me esse dicitis ? Me utique, qui sum Filins horainis, et quem in forma servi atque in veritate carnis aspicitis, quem me esse dicitis ? Ubi B. Petrus divinitus inspiratus, et confessione sua omnibus gentibus profuturus : Tu es, inquit, Christus Fillus Dei vivi (Matt. xvi. 16). Nee immerito beatus est pronunciatus a Domino, et a principali petra soliditatem et virtutis traxit et nominis, qui per revelationem Patris eundem et Dei Filium est confessus et Christum : quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad salutem, et sequalis erat periculi, Dominum Jesum Christum aut Deum tantummodo sine homine, aut sine Deo solum hominem credidisse. Post resurrectionem vero Domini (quse utique veri corporis fuit, quia non alter est resuscitatus, qnam qui fuerat crucifixus et mortuus), quid aliud quadraginta dierum mora gestum est, quam ut fidei nostrse integritas ab omni caligine mundaretur ? CoUoquens enim cum discipulis suis, et cohabitans atque convescens, et pertractari se diligenti curiosoque contactu ab eis, quos dubietas perstringebat, admittens, ideo et clausis ad disoipulos januis introibat, et flatu suo dabat Spiritum sanctum, et donato intelligentise lumine, sanctarum Soripturarum occulta pandebat ; et rursus idem vulnus lateris, fixuras claTorum, et omnia recentissimse passionis signa monstrabat, dicens : Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego sum. Palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis haiere (Luc. xxiv. 39) ; ut agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinse humanaeque naturae individua permanere ; et ita sciremus Verbum non hoc esse quod carnem, ut unum Dei Filium et Verbum confiteremur et carnem. Que lidei Sacramento Eutyches iste nimium aestimandus est vacuus, qui naturam nostram in Unigenito Dei, nee per humilitatem mortalitatis, nee per gloriam resurrectionis agnorit. Nee sententiam beati Apostoli et evangelistae Joannis 234: HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. apostle : ' Every Spirit which looses (parts) Jesus is not of God, is Antichrist ' (1 John iv. 3). [According to the Vulgate : Oinnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est; et hie est antiehristus : derived from the reading of the original, placed in the margin by the revisers and by Westcott and Hort, which substitutes Xvet for /mt) ofioXoyetl But what is the meaning of ' loosing ' Jesus but separating the human nature from Him ? But he who is thus in darkness as to the nature of the body of Christ must also, in like blindness, teach foolishly in reference to His sufferings. For he who does not regard the cross of Christ as false, but holds that His death was real, must also acknowledge the flesh (the true man- hood) of Him in whose death he believes. He cannot deny that the man whom he acknowledges as passible was of our body (that is, had a body of the same substance with ours) ; for the denial of the true flesh is also a denial of the bodily suffering. If he then confesses the Christian faith, he can also see what nature, pierced by nails, hung upon the wood of the cross ; he may know whence (from what nature) blood and water flowed when the side of the crucified One was expavit dicentis : Omnia spiritus, qui confitetur Jesum Christum in came venisse, ex Deo est ; et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est ; et hie est anti- ehristus (1 Joan. iv. 2, 3). Quid autem est solvere Jesum, nisi humanam ab eo separare natnram, et sacramentum [fidei], per quod unum salvati sumus, impudentissimis evacuare figmentis? Caligans vero circa naturam corporis Christi, necesse est ut etiam in passione ejus eadem obcsecatione desipiat. Nam si crucem Domini non putat falsam, et susceptum pro mundi salute supplicium veram fuisse non dubitat, cujus credit mortem, agnoscat et carnem ; nee diffiteatur nostri corporis hominem, quem cognoseit fuisse passibUem ; quoniam negatio verse carnis, negatio est etiam coi-poreae passionis. Si ergo cbristianam suscepit fidem, et a praedicatione Evangelii suum non avertit auditum, videat, quae natura transfixa clavis pependerit in crucis liguo, et aperto per militis lanceam latere cruciflxi, intelligat, unde sanguis et aqua fluxerit, ut Ecclesia Dei et lavaoro rigaretur et poculo. Audiat et beatum Petrum apostolum prsedicantem, quod aanctificatio Spiritus per aspersionem fiat sanguinis Christi. Nee transitorie legat ejusdem apostoli verba dicentis : Scientes, quod non corruptibilibus argento et auro redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternce traditionis, sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni incontaminati et im- maculati Jesu Christi (1 Pet. i. 18). Beati quoque Joannis apostoli testimonio non resistat dicentis : Et sanguis Jesu Filii Dei emundat nos ab omni peccato (1 Joan. i. 7). Et iterum : Jlcec est victoria, quce vincit mundum, fides nostra (1 Joan. V. 4). Et : Quia est qui vincit mundum, nisi qui credit, quoniam Jesus est Filius Dei ? Hie est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus ; non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam THE CELEBEATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 235 pierced. . . . The Catholic Church lives and grows in the faith that in Christ Jesus there was neither manhood without true Godhead, nor the Godhead without true manhood. — Chap. VI. When Eutyches answered to your question : ' I confess that our Lord hefore the union consisted of two natures, but after the union I confess only one nature,' I wonder that such a foolish and blasphemous confession was allowed to pass, as though nothing offensive had been heard. The first proposition, that the only-begotten Son of God lefore the union had two natures, is as impious^ as the other, that after the incarnation there was only one nature. In order that Eutyches may not suppose from your silence that his explana- tion was right, or at least tolerable, we exhort thee, beloved brother, that when through God's mercy he comes to give satisfaction, the folly of the ignorant man may be cleansed from this pestilential opinion. As the acts show, he began in a praiseworthy manner to abandon his view, and under thine in- fluence declared that he would confess what he had not hitherto confessed, and believe what he had not hitherto believed. spiritus est Veritas. Quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et [hi] tres unum sunt (ib. v. 5 ss. ). Spiritus utique sanctificationis, et sanguis redemptionis, et aqua baptismatis ; quae tria unum sunt et individua manent, nihilque eorum a sui connexione sejungitur ; quia oatholica Eeclesia hac fide vivit, hac proficit, ut in Christo Jesu neo sine vera divinitate liumanitas, neo sine vera credatur humanitate divinitas. C. TI. Cum autem ad interlocutionem examinis vestri Eutyches responderit, dicens ; "Coniiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse Dominum nostrum ante aduna- tionem ; post adunationem vero unam naturam confiteor ;" miror tarn absurdam tamque perversam ejus professionem nulla judicantium increpatione reprehen- sam, et sermonem nimis insipientem nimisque blasphemum ita omissum, quasi nihil quod offenderet esset auditum, cum tarn impie duarum naturarum ante incarnationem unigenitus Dei Filius fuisse dicatur, quam nefarie, postquam Verbum caro factum est, natura in eo singularis asseritur. Quod ne Eutyches ideo vel recte vel tolerabiliter sestimet dictum, quia nulla vestra est sententia confutatum, soUicitudinis tuse diligentiam commonemus, frater carissime, ut si per inspirationem misericordiae Dei ad satisfactionem causa perducitur, im- pradentia hominis imperiti etiam ab hac sensus sui peste purgetur. Qui quidem, sicut gestorum ordo patefecit, bene coeperat a sua persuasione discedere, cum vestra sententia coarctatus profiteretur se dicere, quod ante non dixerat, et ei ^ Cf. the 35th letter of Leo, where he says quite correctly : He who teaches this must assume that the human soul which Christ took was hefore the birth of Mary in heaven, which would be as eiToneous as the teaching of Origeu concerning the pre-existence of the soul. 236 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. As, however, he refused to anathematize the impious doctrine, your Fraternity perceived that he was persisting in his error, and was deserving of condemnation. If, however, he again manifests genuine penitence, and acknowledges the righteous- ness of the episcopal sentence, and condemns orally, and in writing, his false statements, then he should be treated gently. ... In order, however, to bring this whole matter to the end desired, I send in my stead my brethren, the Bishop Julius and the priest Eenatus, with my son, the deacon Hilarus, with whom I associate the notary Dulcitius, hoping that by God's assistance he who had erred may abjure his false opinion, and so may find salvation. May God preserve thee, dearest brother. — Given on the 13 th of June, under the consuls Asturius and Protogenes'' (a.d. 449).^ fidei acquiescere, cujus prius fuisset alienus. Sed cum anathematizando impio dogmati noluisset praebere consensum, intellexit eum fraternitas vestia in sua manere perfidia, dignumque esse, qui judicium condemnationis exciperet. De quo si fideliter atque utiliter dolet, et quam recte mota sit episcopalis auctoritas vel sero cognoscit, vel si ad satisfactionis pleuitudinem omnia, quae ab eo male sunt sensa, viva voce et prsesenti subscriptione damnaverit, non erit repre- hensibilis erga correctum quantacunque miseratio, quia Dominus noster verus et bonus pastor, qui animam suam posuit pro ovibus suis (Joan. x. 15), et qui venit animas hominum salvare, non perdere (Luc. ix. 56), imitatores nos suje vult esse pietatis ; ut peccantes quidem justitia coerceat, conversos autem misericordia non repellat. Tunc enim demum fructuosissime fides vera defenditur, quando etiam a sectatoribus suis opinio falsa damnatur. Ad omnem vero causam pie ac fideliter exsequendam, fratres nostros Julium Episcopum et Renatum Presbyterum Tituli sancti dementis, sed et filium meum Hilarum Diaconum vice nostra direximus. Quibus Dulcitium Notarium nostram, cujus fides nobis est [ssepe] probata, sociavimus ; confidentes adfuturum Divinitatis auxilium, ut is, qui erraverat, damnata sensus sui pravitate, salvetur. Deus te incolumem custodiat, frater carissime. — Data Idibus Junii, Asturio et Protogene viris clarissimis Consulibus. ' To this letter the Pope subsequently (after the Robber-Synod) added a number of patristic testimonies, Latin and Greek, for the confirmation of his teaching, and sent them by his legates. Bishops Abundius and Asterius, and the priests Basil and Senator, to Constantinople (cf. JUpist. 71). This appendix was produced there be/ore the Synod of Chalcedon {Epist. 88) ; but in the second session of Chalcedon itself, only Leo's letter was read, without the appendix. Cf. Ballerini edit. 0pp. 3. Leonis, t. i. p. 798 sq., and t. ii. p. 1425. SUBSEQUENT LETTERS OF LEO ON ACCOUNT OF EUTYCHES. 237 Sec. 177. Subsequent Letters of Pope Leo the Great on account of Eutyches. On the same day Leo signed a series of other letters, which stand in still nearer relation to the council which had been summoned. This is especially the case with the letter to the Emperor Theodosius IL (dated June 13, 449). The Pope, in this letter, commends the Emperor's zeal for the faith, and asserts that the heresy of Eutyches is made quite clear by the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople. The foolish old man ought, therefore, without further delay, to abandon his view ; as, however, the Emperor had invited a synodal judgment {Synodale judicium) at Ephesus, in order that the blind might see, he had commissioned his three legates to take his place there. If Eutyches should again come to a right judgment, and keep the promise which he had given in his letter to the Pope, — namely, to correct what he had erroneously asserted (p. 205), — then he ought again to be received with goodwill. As regarded the belief of the Catholic Church concerning the incarnation of Christ, Leo had completely explained this in his letter to Flavian, which he appended.^ Another letter of the same date is addressed to the Empress Pulcheria, the sister (and co-regent) of the Emperor, and, together with a short commendation of this Princess, con- tains an explanation of the fact that Eutyches had certainly fallen into the error directly opposed to Nestorianism, and had obstinately adhered to it more from ignorance than from wickedness. Pulcheria should use her influence for the extirpation of this heresy. If Eutyches should repent, then he ought to be forgiven, on which point Leo had already written to Flavian, and had given his legates commission. For the rest, it would be better if Eutyches should again correct his error in the place in which he had taught erron- eously," and therefore in Constantinople, and not in Ephesus. A second letter of Leo's to Pulcheria, the thirty-first in the collection of the BaUerini, bears in some of the manuscripts ^ Epist. 29, in Bailer, p. 839 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 15 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1391. * Epist. 30, p. 847, ed. Bailer. ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1398 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 18. 238 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. the date, " June 13, 449 ; " it seems, however, improbable that the Pope should have committed to his legates two letters for Pulcheria of the same date and with the same contents, and the Ballerini are therefore of opinion that this second and longer one was never despatched.^ Walch even regards it as spurious.'' The contrary is maintained by Arendt in his monograph on Leo the Great,^ namely, that the longer copy of the letter {Epist. 31) is the genuine, and the shorter {Epist. 3 0) is only an extract from it. However this may be, both the letters to Pulcheria have quite the same leading thoughts, the commendation of the Princess, and the assertion that Eutyches had through ignorance fallen into the opposite extreme from Nestorianism. The only difference is that, in the second letter, this point and the doctrinal element are brought out at greater length ; besides, that in this there is a complaint that the interval before the time fixed for the opening of the Synod of Ephesus is so short that the necessary preparations can hardly be made, and that it is not possible for the Pope to appear in person.* Leo further entrusted to his legates a letter to all the archimandrites of Constantinople, also dated June 13, saying that he is convinced that they do not agree with the error of Eutyches. If Eutyches did not recant, then he would be properly expelled from the Church. If, on the contrary, he should acknowledge and condemn his error, then their mercy should not be withheld. The true doctrine of the Church on the existing controversy might be seen from the papal letter to Flavian.' For the approaching Synod, Leo had prepared the following letter : " The Emperor had wished from zeal for the orthodox faith that the influence of the apostolic see should second the effect of his edict (in regard to the convoking of the Synod),* ' S. Leonis 0pp. ed. Bailer, t. i. p. 846, n. 5 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1395, n. 5. 2 Walch, Keizerhist. Bd. vi. S. 189 f. s S. 483, n. 4. * Mpist. 31, in Bailer, p. 853 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1401. ' Epist. 32, in Bailer, p. 859 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 15 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1406. ' The imperial edict calls Leo, in accordance with the official style of the period, a dispositio sancta, cf. the fourth note of the BaUerini on the text of our letter. "We must not translate the words dispositio sancta "divine order," as in the KatholiJc, 1872, S. 132. SUBSEQUENT LETTERS OF LEO ON ACCOUNT OF EUTYCHES. 239 and that Peter himself, as it were, should declare what he meant by the words : ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' If Eutyches had rightly understood this utter- ance, he would not have gone aside from the way of truth. On account of this answer of Peter, Christ had replied to him : ' I say unto thee. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' etc. As, however, the Emperor wished to have a Synod, an episcopale concilium, that the error might be dispersed by a fuller judgment {pleniori judicio), Leo had sent the Bishop Julius, the priest Eenatus, and the deacon Hilarus, together with the notary Dulcitius, who should be present as his representatives at the holy assembly, and in common with the bishops should draw up a decree which should be pleasing to God. First, the pestilential error should be anathematized, and then they should consider the restitiition of Eutyches, in case he recanted. As to the dogma, Leo had thoroughly explained himself in the letter to Flavian. " ^ The last of these letters, dated on the 1 3th of June, are the two to Bishop Julian of Cos, of which the one appears to have been entrusted to the papal legates, the other to Julian's own emissary, the deacon Basil.^ Bishop Julian had been a member of the Synod of Constantinople which condemned Eutyches, and had on this occasion written a letter to Leo, which is now lost. The Pope commends his orthodoxy, and remarks that since the transmission of the Acts of the Synod he is convinced of the heresy of Eutyches. To the approaching Synod he has appointed three legates, and in the letter to Flavian he has expressed himself at large on the dogma. In case Eutyches should repent, they ought to be merciful to him.'' In the other letter to Julian, Leo explains briefly the orthodox doctrine, and refers to the more complete exposition of this matter in his letter to Flavian.* A few days after Leo's legates had departed with this 1 Epist. 33, in Bailer, p. 863 sqq^. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 19 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1410. " Cf. the AdmonUio of the Ballerini, p. 874, n. 4. 3 Epist. 34, in Bailer, p. 869 sq. ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1413. « Epist. 36, in Bailer, p. 875; Mansi, I.e. p. 1415 ; Arendt holds (I.e.) that these two letters (Epp. 34, 35) are only one, the contents of which have (by the copyist) been improperly separated. 240 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. letter/ a new opportunity of sending letters to the East presented itself to the Pope, and therefore, on the 20 th of June 449, he addressed a few lines to Flavian, with the intelli- gence that the legates had now departed; adding that the Synod appointed by the Emperor was evidently not necessary.* He made the same statement in the letter which he despatched to the Emperor himself on the same day, and at the same time excused his own non-appearance by saying that the troublous times forbade him to leave the city of Eome, and, besides, Eoman bishops had never been present in person at any of the earlier Synods.' More than a month afterwards, on the 23d of July, Leo again addressed a short letter to Flavian in answer to a letter in the meantime received from him, commending his attitude, and exhorting him to gentle- ness towards Eutyches, if he should abandon his error.* This was the last letter written by Leo on this subject before the opening of the Synod. Like Flavian (p. 221 f.) and Pope Leo, Theodoret expected no good from the Synod which had been convoked. He expresses this in his letters to Bishop Irenaeus of Tyre and to his patri- arch, Domnus of Antioch, and recommends to the latter great caution in the selection of the bishops and clerics whom he should take with him to the Synod. We can see from the last letter that Theodoret recognized the peace concluded between Cyril and the Orientals, and was willing to maintain it uprightly, but he had not yet given up his doubts as to the anathematisms of Cjrril, but still suspected them of Monophy- sitism, and lamented that all the bishops did not see the poison in them. Now he was afraid that Dioscurus would attempt to have these anathematisms, and therewith Monophy- sitism, sanctioned at the Synod.^ • In regard to the time, of. note 3 of the Ballerini on Ep. 36, p. 385 ; in Mansi, t. v. p. 1423, note 3. ^ Epist. 36, in Bailer, p. 885 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1423. Quesnel would maintain that Leo had wished for the Synod to be held in Italy, so that his influence in it might be increased. But this theory is quite fanciful. Cf. Walch, I.e. S. 210. 3 Epist. 37, in Bailer. I.e. p. 886 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1424. * Epist. 38, in Bailer. I.e. p. 887 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1425. ' Theodoret, Epist. 16 and 112, 0pp. t. iv. p. 1076 sqq. and p. 1183 sqq., ed. Schulze. THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE EOBBER-SYNOD. 241 Sec. 178. The Proceedings at the Rohher- Synod, according to their own Acts. In accordance with the imperial command, a numerous body of bishops actually assembled in Ephesus at the beginning of the month of August 449, and that Synod began which, under the name of the Eobber-Synod, latrocinium Ephesinum, or a-vvoho'i Xria-TpiKr), has attained to such a melancholy celebrity. Its Acts are preserved by their having been read over at the (Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon, and having thus been embodied in the minutes of that Synod.^ According to this document, the Synod, often caUed Ephesina ii., was opened August 8, 449, in the church of S. Mary at Ephesus. Whether it lasted only one day, or several, is not indicated in the Acts. The principal proceedings, together with the deposition of Flavian, seem to have been completed in one day, a fact which is also asserted by the anonymous author of the Breviculus Historice Eutychianistarum (see below, p. 258); whilst on three subsequent days, and perhaps at three sub- sequent sessions, those depositions of several bishops, e.g. of Theodoret and Domnus, were pronounced, of which the Acts say nothing, but which we learn from other sources (see below, p. 256). Among the members of the Synod, Dioscurus is first men- tioned in the Acts ; after him the papal legate Bishop Julius (here called Julianus),^ next Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and only quinto loco Flavian of Constantinople, although the second (Ecumenical Synod had assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople the rank next after the Bishop of Eome. The author of the Brevicidus Historice Eutychianistctrum gives the number of the bishops present at this council as ^ A special dissertation iu Latin on the Synodus XK/rTfixi was put forth by SchuTzfleisch, at Leipzig 1699 ; but it is of no great value. We shall draw attention to the labours of Tillemont and Walch at the proper places. ' Further on him and the papal legates generally, see below, pp. 255 ff. and 257 ff. Quesnel considered that the legates whom the Pope sent to the Oriental councils, represented not the Pope merely, but the whole Western Church. Cf. on the other side, the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. ii. p. 1175. III. Q 242 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. about three hundred and sixty ;^ the synodal Acts, however, give a far smaller number, and, in fact, at the beginning of the Synod they mention only a hundred and twenty-seven bishops and eight representatives of eight others, altogether one hundred and thirty-five, to whom ultimo loco are added the two Eoman clerics, the deacon Hilarus and the notary Dulcitius.^ So at the close of the Eobber-Synod one hundred and thirty-five bishops subscribed, in part personally and in part by their representatives ; upon which, however, it is to be remarked that here thirteen names appear which are wanting at the beginning of the Synod ; and on the other hand, nine are wanting which are present at the beginning. Two of the bishops present had it added to their subscriptions that, as they could not write, they had been obliged to let others subscribe for them. These were Bishop Elias of Adrianople and Cajumas of Phtenus in Palestine.^ Of those, however, who had also been members of the Synod of Constantinople, and therefore had no right of voting at Ephesus, there were, so far as the subscriptions testify, besides Flavian of Constan- tinople, the following, Basil of Seleucia, Seleucus of Amasia, ^thericus of Smyrna, Longinus of Chersonesus, Meliphthongus of Juliopolis, Timotheus of Primopolis, and Dorotheiis of JSTeocsesarea, the last represented by the priest Longinus. The proceedings of the Eobber-Synod were opened by their first secretary (Primicerius Notariorum), the priest John, probably one of the clergy of Dioscurus, with the announce- ment: "The God-fearing Emperors have, from zeal for religion, convoked this assembly."* Thereupon he read, at the com- mand of Dioscurus, the imperial brief of convocation (see p. 222), and the two Eoman legates, Julius and Hilarus, explained through their interpreter. Bishop Florentius of Sardis in Lydia, that Pope Leo had also been invited by the Emperor, but did not personally appear, because this had not happened at the Synod of Nicsea or the first of Ephesus ; therefore he had sent his legates, and had given them charge of a letter to the Synod. ' In Sirmond. Appendix Codicis Theodos. p. 11.3. ' In Mansi, t. vi. p. 606 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 83 sqq. ' In Mansi, t. vi. p. 927 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 269 sqq. * Mansi, t. vi. p. 612 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 85. THE PEOCEEDINGS AT THE EOBBER-SYNOD. 243 This papal brief" was, at the command of Dioscurus, received by the secretary John, but instead of reading it, he published the second letter which the Emperor had sent to Dioscurus in reference to Barsumas (see above, p. 222).^ Invited by Dioscurus, Elpidius, the first of the imperial commissioners, delivered a short discourse, saying : " The Nes- torian heresy was now properly condemned, but new religious doubts had soon arisen, for the removal of which the present Synod had been arranged. He would immediately com- municate what the Emperor had in this respect commissioned himself (and his colleagues) to perform ; he would only first speak on one point. The Logos had on that day per- mitted the assembled bishops to give judgment upon Him (on His person and nature). If they confessed Him rightly, then He also would confess them before His heavenly Father. But those who should pervert the true doctrine would have to undergo a severe twofold judgment, that of God and that of the Emperor." ^ Then Elpidius read the imperial Commoni- toriuvi addressed to him and Eulogius (p. 223), and the secretary John read the edict of the Emperor addressed to the Synod (p. 224). Thalassius of Caesarea, the legate of Julius, and the Count Elpidius now declared that, in accordance with the command of the Emxperor, they should first consider the faith. Dios- curus interpreted this to mean, not that the faith itself should first be declared, for this the former holy Synods had already ' Arendt, in his Monograph on Leo (S. 242 and 483), and others speak quite unhesitatingly of the fact that the legate required the reading of two papal hriefs (the letter to the Synod and the Epistola dogmalica to Flavian). The Greek text of the Acts, however, has with ypaii/iiiTx also the word e'riiTToxJi in the singular, and thus speaks in the first place only of Leo's letter to the Synod. But in this Leo had appealed to his Epistola dogmatica to Flavian, and the reading of this was the chief wish of Leo and his legates. Schrbckh (Kirchen- gesch. Thl. xviii. S. 461) asserts erroneously that the letter of Leo to the Synod, hut not the Epistola dogmatica, was read. Neither of these writings was read. 2 Mansi, t. vi. p. 614 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 88. The injustice involved in this is also recognised hy Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 254 f. In other respects the latter (I.e. S. 218) has misunderstood the text of our Acts. By ali(x divinm litterai ad Dioscurum, which John read out, must not he understood a second letter of Leo's, hut an Imperial letter termed in law language diviruB. The correct view was seen already by Tillemont, Mdmoires, etc., t. xv. p. 656. ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 620 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 90 sq. 244 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. done, but rather that they -were now to consider whether the newly-introduced statements agreed with the declarations of the Fathers or not. " Or will you," he cried, " alter the faith of the holy Fathers ? " The assembled bishops are said to have answered : " Anathema to him who makes alterations in it : Anathema to him who ventures to discuss the faith ; " but this cry (the latter part of it) was denied at the Synod of Chalcedon. Dioscurus proceeded : " At Nictea and at Ephesus the true faith has already been proclaimed, but although there have been two Synods, the faith is but one^' and he invited the bishops to declare that men must simply abide by the definitions of faith of Nicsea and Ephesus. The assembled bishops are said again to have shouted approvingly : " No one dare add anything or take anything away ... a great guardian of the faith is Dioscurus ! . . . Anathema to him who still discusses the faith. . . . The Holy Ghost speaks by Dioscurus," etc.'' All these exclamations were afterwards disavowed at Chalcedon, and it is very probable that only some bishops thus exclaimed, and that the notaries put these words into the mouth of the whole Synod. They were all simply in the service of Dioscurus and his friends, while the other bishops were not allowed to have any notaries, and the memoranda which their clerics nevertheless made were violently taken from them and destroyed.^ On the proposal of the Count Elpidius, Eutyches was now introduced into the Synod, that he might himself give testi- mony concerning his faith. He began by commending himself to the Holy Trinity, after which he uttered a short censure on the Synod of Constantinople (a.d. 448), and handed in a confession which the secretary John immediately read. In the introduction Eutyches says that even in his youth he had formed the intention of living in complete silence and retire- ment, but he had not attained to this good fortune, for he had been surrounded by the greatest dangers and plots, because, in accordance with the definitions of the former Synod at Ephesus, he had tolerated no innovation in the faith. Then ^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 625 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 96. 2 Mansi, t. vi. p. 624 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 93; cf. below, § 179, p. 252. THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE UOBBEE-SYNOD. 245 he repeats the ISTicene Creed, together with the annexed anathemas against Arius, and asserts that he had alwaxjs thus believed. That to this faith, under penalty of excommuni- cation, nothing should be added and nothing should be taken away from it, had been solemnly declared by the former Synod of Ephesus under the presidency of the holy Father Cyril, as might be seen from the copy of the Acts which Cyril himself had sent to him.^ He had always regarded the holy Fathers as orthodox, and had anathematized all heresies, Manes, Valentinus, Apollinaris, ISTestorius, all back to Simon Magus, and also those who say that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ came down from heaven.^ Living in this faith he had been accused as a heretic by Eusebius of Dorylseum before Flavian and the other bishops. Flavian, the inseparable friend of Eusebius, had summoned him to answer to the accusation, but had assumed that Eutyches would not appear, and that he might then condemn him for disobedience. When, notwithstanding, he did appear before the Synod, Flavian had declared his presence to be super- fluous, as he had already been condemned in consequence of his previous non-appearance. Neither had he received the confession which Eutyches wished to hand in, or allowed it to be read. Eutyches had at his request then orally given testimony to his faith, declaring that he held fast to the decrees of Mcsea and Ephesus. When they had further questioned him, he had asked for the holding of the present Synod, and had promised to obey it. Then they had suddenly published the judgment condemning him. When he left the assembly at Constantinople, he went in danger of his life, and Flavian had everywhere published the sentence against him ; but he had prayed the Emperor to convoke a Synod, and now entreated the assembled fathers to declare how great wrong had been done him, and to punish his opponents.' After the reading of this writing of Eutyches, Flavian demanded that his accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, should also be heard. But Elpidius replied that the Emperor 1 Mansi, t. vi. p. 630 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 97 sq. « Mansi, I.e. p. 633; Hardouin, Z.c. p. 100. 3 Mansi, I.e. p. 640 sqq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 102 sqq. 246 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. had commanded that they who had sat in judgment upon Eutyches at Constantinople should now themselves be judged. Eusebius of Dorylseum had already brought forward his accusation at Constantinople, and there had conquered; he must not now for the second time appear as accuser,^ but it must be judged whether that first judgment was just. They must now pass on to that which had occurred in connection with the matter in question (that of Eutyches). Dioscurus and many other bishops immediately expressed their agreement with this; but the papal legates demanded that Leo's letter should first be read. Eutyches objected that the legates were suspected by him, because they had stayed some time with Elavian, and had supped with him ; he therefore requested that any unfairness on their part should not be allowed to turn to his disadvantage. Dioscurus decided, as president, in accordance with the opinions expressed by many bishops, that the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople must iirst be read, and not till then the letter of the Pope. The reading of the first was undertaken by the secretary John, and he received for this purpose one copy from Flavian and another from Eutyches.^ The documents relating to the first session of Constantinople (see above, p. 190 f.) were listened to without interruption ; * at those of the second session, Bishop Eustathius of Berytus declared, after the read- ing of two letters of Cyril,* that this holy father, on account of the misunderstanding of his words, had expressed himself more clearly in subsequent letters to Acacius of Melitene, ^ Here there was obvious injustice. If one party, Eutyches, was allowed to speak, his opponent ought to have been heard also. 2 Mansi, I.e. pp. 643-650 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 105-110. ' In Mansi, I.e. p. 654 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 111. Mansi and Hardouin have here not always rightly indicated ad marginem to which Synod the particular sentences and exclamations belong, whether to that of Constantinople, to the Robber-Synod, or to that of Chalcedon, at which last, as we know, the Acts of the first two were read, so that now the minutes of the former Synods are con- tained in that of Chalcedon. The sentence on p. 654 in Mansi, and p. Ill in Hardouin : Saneta Synodus dixit ; Et hcec universalis Synodus sic sapit. Et post has voees sequentia libelli Eusebii, evidently belongs to the Robber-Synod, while Hardouin ascribes it to the Council of Chalcedon. So Mansi attributes to the Council of Chalcedon the somewhat lengthy section : Et magnus Athanasius etc., whilst it belongs to that of Constantinople. ' Mansi, I.e. pp. 658-674; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 114-126. THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE EOBBER- SYNOD. 247 Valerian of Iconium, and Succensus of Dioctesavea (see pp. 140-144), and not on the side of belief in two natures, but in one- nature of the incarnate God.^ He wished also to remark that Cyril was more favourable to Eutyches than they had supposed at Constantinople ; but he did not take the words of Cyril in their connection and in their true sense, and thereby gave occasion for subsequent discussions at the Synod of Chalcedon. When, at the continuation of the reading of the Acts, the expression of Bishop Seleucus of Amasia was brought forward : " We confess two natures also after the incarnation," the Eobber-Synod declared this to be Nestorian, and exclaimed : " There are many Nestoriuses," and " It was not the Bishop of Amasia, but he of Sinope." ^ The secretary John added, that it was clear from what had been read that the bishops at Constantinople had substituted another doctrine in the place of the Niceiie faith which had been confirmed at Ephesus, and Bishop Olympius of Evazte pronounced an anathema on such an innovation. Immediately upon this Bishop ^Ethericus of Smyrna declared that he had not said that which was entered in the Acts of Constantinople as his expression : the point was, however, unimportant, and Dioscurus therefore passed quickly over it ; but JEthericus himself endeavoured afterwards to represent the matter differently at Chalcedon, and thereby showed himself to be both an ignorant and a fickle man.' The remaining part of the Acts of the second ^ Mansi, I.e. p. 675 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 126. 2 Mansi, I.e. p. 686 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 13i. Tillemout could not understand (I.e. 560) what tlie Eobber-Synod meant by this interruption. "We may suppose that they meant to say: "It was not the Bishop of Amasia (Seleucus) who said this at Constantinople, but the Bishop of Sinope," who was then called Antiochus, as we learn from the Acts of Chalcedon (Hardouin, I.e. pp. 369 and 474 ; Mansi, I.e. pp. 571, 1085). But this Antiochas was certainly not present at the Synod of Constantinople, a.d. 448 (Hardouin, I.e. p. 167 sqq. ; Mansi, I.e. p. 760 sqq.). Perhaps Basil was at an earlier period Bishop of Sinope, and had uncanonically exchanged this for the see of Amasia, which was now brought against him as a reproach by his opponents, as though they said : " He was never Bishop of Amasia, he is Bishop of Sinope. " 3 Mansi, t. vi. p. 687 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 133 sq. Here, too, both in Mansi and in Hardouin, the indications as to the Synod to which each particular part belongs are often inaccurate. It should be : The words i hofiX'urTxrus IvrlnKo^ros 'S.a-Tcufnvas to tov fLiX^ovTo. xluM (in Mansi, I.e. p. 688 ; Hardouin, I.e. 248 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. session gave occasion for no remark, and in the same way those of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions (see p. 191 ff.) were read without interruption. At those of the seventh session, on the contrary, after the reading of the questions which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had put to Eutyches (p. 199), the ill-will of the Eobber-Synod found vent in the words: " Burn Eusebius," and " Anathema to every one who speaks of two natures aft&r the Incarnation." " He who cannot shout this loud enough," added Dioscurus, " let him hold up his hand in token of his assent ; " and the Synod shouted : " Let him who teaches two natures be anathema ! " ^ That, however, it was only the Egyptians, and not the whole Synod, that thus exclaimed, came out in the first session at Chalcedon (see below, sec. 189). Soon afterwards Bishop John of Hephaestus remarked : " As long as Eutyches hesitated to appear before the Synpd of Constantinople, they promised him every kindness, but afterwards they treated him in a very un- friendly manner." Dioscurus, however, induced the assembled bishops to give their solemn approval to the declaration of faith which Eutyches had made at Constantinople (see p. 1 9 8).^ Again, this was done by the Egyptians alone, as was shown at Chalcedon. At the last Bishop Basil of Seleucia objected to the expression ascribed to him (p. 203) in the Acts : " If thou, Eutyches, dost not accept two natures even after the union, then thou teachest a mingling." He had said : " If thou speakest of only one nature after the union, and dost not add, a-e<7apKwn,evr]v koI ev avOposirrfaaaav (that is, one incarnate nature of the Logos ; see above, pp. 4, 1 44, and 192), then thou teachest a mingling."* Subsequently he explained at Chalcedon that it was only from excitement and anxiety that he had at Ephesus denied and altered his former words (see p. 253). p. 133) belong to the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople. The further words : AUifi^ss to SimytrntTciirta ra e|ij, to the Robber-Synod. That which follows : Kai iy T4» avccytvcuirKSir^ai to iTo rati al/TOU irvi^ttp'iou otviyyu (in Mansi, l.C, p. 689 J Hardouin, I.e. p. 136), to the Council of Chalcedon. In this manner alone is the matter intelligible. ' Mansi, l.C. p. 738 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 162. 2 Mansi, I.e. pp. 739 and 743 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 163 and 166. '" Mansi, I.e. p. 746 sq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 767. THE PKOCEEDINGS AT THE EOBBEE-SYNOD. 249 After the whole of the Acts of Constantinople had been read, Eutyches declared that they were in several parts falsified, and demanded that the minutes of that commission should be read, which, at his complaint, had been summoned to examine the synodal Acts. The secretary John immediately read them through in their whole extent (p. 211 ff.) without any interruption/ The same was done with the Acts of that second commission which had to examine the complaint of Eutyches, that " Flavian had drawn up the sentence upon him beforehand" (p. 219). In order to justify his charge of a falsification of the Acts, Eutyches wished them to read a statement of the Silentiar Magnus bearing upon it (p. 219). Flavian replied that the charge was false, and when Dioscurus demanded that he should prove it, he replied : " They would not allow him to speak ; the Acts of the second session of Constantinople were quite unfalsified, as Thalassius (p. 211) and others who were present knew, and had been examined in the presence of the Silentiar and others, and no falsification had been proved. Before God he had nothing to fear on account of these Acts, and he had never altered his faith (an allusion to ^thericus, Basil, and Seleucus)." Dioscurus and the bishops under his influence asserted, on the contrary, that Flavian had full liberty of speech ; but the whole history of the Eobber-Synod gives him the lie.^ Thereupon Dioscurus requested that they should individually declare their view as to whether Eutyches was orthodox, and what was to be decreed concerning him ; and there were now no fewer than 114 votes given, declaring the doctrine of Eutyches to be orthodox, and demanding his restitution as abbot and priest.^ The beginning was made by Juvenal of Jerusalem and Domnus of Antioch, the close by Abbot Barsumas and Dioscurus, when the latter confirmed the votes of the others and added his own. Although the Emperor had forbidden those bishops to vote this time who had co-operated in the deposition of Eutyches, yet the votes of ^thericus, 1 Mansi, I.e. pp. 753-822 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 171-210. ^ Cf. Tillemont, I.e. p. 562 ; Mansi, I.e. p. 831 sq. ' In Mansi, i.e. pp. 833-862; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 217-232. The old Latin translation of these votes is more complete than the present Greek text. 250 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Seleuciis of Amasia, and Basil of Seleucia were received, because they were for Eutyches.'' Of the papal legates, on the contrary, no vote is found. Upon this the secretary John informed them that the monks of the convent over which Eutyches presided had sent in a document. He read it, and it is that accusation against Flavian and his Synod from which we have already (see p. 207, note 4) made some extracts. They say: "They had left all earthly goods and taken refuge in the cloister, three hundred in number, and many of them had led the ascetic life for thirty years. Then Archbishop Flavian had laid hold on their archimandrite, and had condemned him, because he would not violate the Nicene faith, like Flavian, but, on the contrary, had held fast by the decrees of the first Synod of Ephesus. The Archbishop had then denied them all com- munion with their abbot, and forbidden that the affairs of the monastery should be administered by him, and even had gone so far as to deny them the celebration of the holy mysteries. In consequence of this they had now, for almost nine months, had no holy sacrifice upon their altars, and several had already died in this state of schism. They therefore prayed the Synod to restore to them Church communion, and to inflict a just punishment upon him who had so unjustly con- demned them." ^ Only thirty-five monks had signed, the priest and monk Narses at their head, although the context speaks of the number of three hundred. "Why the other two hundred and sixty-five did not also subscribe, the monks did not think good to explain. Instead of entering upon the assertions of these monks, Dioscurus contented himself with questioning them on their faith ; and as they declared that they were in full agreement with Eutyches, they were also absolved by the Synod, restored to their dignities (the priests among them), and brought back to the communion of the Church.' Thereupon Dioscurus, for the instruction of his colleagues, gave order to read, from the Acts of the first Synod of Ephesus (a.d. 1 Mansi, I.e. pp. 839, 845, 851 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 220, 223, 227. ^ Mansi, I.e. pp. 861-867 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 233 sqq. ^ Mansi, I.e. p. 867 w^. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 236 sqq. THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 251 431), what had been there established concerning the true faith, and the secretary John read the Acts of the sixth session of Ephesus,^ which contain the Nicene Creed and a quantity of patristic and other passages, as well as many extracts from the writings of ISTestorius, in proof that he was a heretic.^ After the reading was finished, Dioscurns said : " You have now heard that the first Synod of Ephesus threatens every one who teaches otherwise than the Nicene Creed, or makes alterations in it, and raises new or further questions. Every one must now give his opinion in writing as to whether those who, in their theological inquiries, go beyond the Mcene Creed, are to be punished or not." It is clear that he wanted to use this to make an attack upon Flavian and the Synod of Constantinople, since they, going beyond the Synod of Mcsea, had wished to introduce the expression " two natures." Several bishops, Thalassius of Csesarea first, declared immediately that whoever went beyond the Nicene Creed was not to be received as a Catholic. Others simply affirmed their assent to the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, without any addition in regard to overstepping it, and this was done by the Eoman legate, the deacon Hilarus, who at the same time again demanded the reading of the papal letter. But Dioscurus went on as though he had not heard this, saying, " As, then, the first Synod of Ephesus threatens every one who alters anything in the Nicene faith, it follows that Plavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylseum must be deposed from their ecclesiastical dignity. I pro- nounce, therefore, their deposition, and every one of those present shall communicate his view of this matter. More- over, he added, as a means of intimidation, eveiything will be brought to the knowledge of the Emperor." Flavian now found it necessary to enter an appeal.^ That two papal ^ Not the fourth, as is erroneously stated by Mansi, I.e. p. 871. 2 Mansi, l.c. pp. 871-902 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 237-254 ; cf. above, p. 70 f. ' On this appeal, and the canonistic controversy connected with it, and its literature, cf. Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 257 ff. It is asked here whether Flavian appealed to another (Ecumenical Council, or to Pope Leo, or to both. 252 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. legates were still present at that time, and both protested against the proceedings of Dioscurus, and accepted the appeal of Flavian, is stated by Pope Leo in his 44th letter ; the other members of the Synod, on the contrary, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and Thalassius at their head, declared Flavian and Eusebius guilty, a hundred of them voting under influence, among them again those who had been present at the Synod of Constantinople, ^thericus, Basil, and Seleucus. At the close, the 135 bishops who were present subscribed, some personally, some by repre- sentatives, with the abbot Barsuraas.^ So far the minutes of the Eobber-Synod take us, thus giving us the testimony of the Synod concerning themselves. In order, however, to gain a complete and true picture of this assembly, we must also consider and compare the other testimonies of antiquity on the subject. Sec. 179. Testimonies of Antiquity respecting the Rohher-Synod. In a communication addressed to the Emperor Valentinian III. and Marcian (the successor of Theodosius li.), and also read at the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop Eusebius of Pope Leo speaks in his letters on the subject [Epp. 43, 44) only of an appeal in general, in consequence of which a Synod, was to be summoned. The Emperor Valentinian III., on the contrary, says : Flavian had appealed to the Roman bishop {Ejp. 55 among those of Leo), and the same is asserted by the Empress Placidia [Ep. 56 among those of Leo), and Liberatus in his history {Breviarium) of the Eutyohian sects (see p. 257). Quesnel expressed the opinion, in a separate dissertation {De causa Flaviani, printed in the Ballerini edition of the works of Leo, t. ii. p. 1133 sqq.), that Flavian had only appealed to the council, and had handed over his appeal to the Roman legates, so that the Pope might see to the convoking of a new Synod. The Ballerini, on the other hand, think {I.e. p. 1163 sqq.) that the appeal was addressed to the Pope and to a Synod (but a Roman, not an (Ecumenical). 1 Mansi, t. vi. p. 927 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 268 sqq. Besides jEthericus, Basil, and Seleucus, the priest Longinus also subscribed as representative of Bishop Dorotheus of Neocsesarea, although this last had been a member of the Synod of Constantinople. Of Bishops Longinus, Meliphthongus, and Timo- theus, on the contrary (see above, p. 242), there is as little any signature to be found as of Flavian. They appear to have been of firmer character. TESTIMONIES OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 253 DorylEeum complains that Dioscurus, at the second Synod of Ephesus, by money and by the hrute force of his troo'jps, oppressed the orthodox faith, and confirmed the heresy of Eutyches.^ Besides, at the Synod of Chalcedon it came out that Dioscnrus had given permission only to his own notaries, and to those of some friends, the Bishops Thalassius of Csesarea and Juvenal of Jerusalem, to draw up the pro- ceedings of the Synod ; whilst the notaries of the other bishops were not once allowed to write anything for their masters. "When, however, two notaries of Bishop Stephen of Ephesiis did so, Dioscurus' notaries came up to them, erased what they had written, and almost broke their fingers iu taking away their writing materials. In the same manner it appeared that Dioscurus, at the close of the Synod, after the judgment had been pronounced upon Flavian and Eusebius, immediately compelled the bishops at the same time to append their names to a paper which was not yet filled up, so that they might not have the opportunity of further considering the matter, and that those who refused to sign had much to suffer. They were shut up in the church until night, and even those who were ill were not allowed to go out for a moment to refresh themselves. For companions they had soldiers and monks, with swords and sticks, and thus they were taught to subscribe. Bishop Stephen of Ephesus became security for a few who did not subscribe until the next day.^ To the same effect Bishop BasU of Seleucia deposed at the Synod of Chalcedon, that he had certainly altered at Ephesus the vote which he had given at Constantinople (p. 248), but he had done this from dread of Dioscurus. The latter had exercised great constraint over those who were present, both by his words and by the people whom he had placed outside and inside the church. Armed soldiers had even been in- troduced into the church, the monks of Barsumas too, and the Parabolani,^ and a great crowd of people stood around. In this way Dioscurus had frightened them aU. When some 1 Mansi, t. vi. p. 583 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 70. ^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 623 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 93. 5 [A kind of inferior deacons. See art. in Dicty. of Christian Antiquities.] 254 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. would not agree to the condemnation of Flavian, and others tried to get away, he had stood up in an elevated position, and cried out, " Those who do not subscribe wiU. have to settle it with me." As a completion of these statements of Basil, Bishop Onesiphorus of Iconium declared, that, after reading the fundamental proposition or rule, that nothing should be altered in the Nicene faith, he had immediately suspected that this would be turned against Flavian, and had said this quietly to those who sat near him. One of these, Bishop Epiphanius of Perga, had given his opinion that this was impossible, as Flavian had in no way offended ; but Dioscurus had suddenly got up and proclaimed the con- demnation of Flavian, as involved in that rule. Then he had risen with some other bishops, had embraced the knees of Dioscurus, and urged upon hini that " Flavian had done nothing worthy of condemnation, but if he had done anything worthy of Mame, they should be satisfied with blaming him." But Dioscurus had risen from his throne, and cried : " Will you rebel ? The Counts shall come." Thus, he continued, we were intimidated, and subscribed. When Dioscurus would have denied that he called for the Counts, Bishop Marinian of Synnada stood up and declared that he, with Onesiphorus and Xunnechius of Laodicea, had embraced the knees of Dioscurus, and said : " Thou hast also priests under thee, and a hisJiop ought not to be deposed for the sake of a priest." But Dioscurus had replied : " I will pronounce no other judgment, even if my tongue should be cut out for it." As, however, the bishops already named continued to clasp his knees, he had called for the Counts, and they had entered with the Proconsul, who brought with him many attendants and chains. In consequence of tliis, he said, they had all subscribed. — Dioscurus denied this, and proposed to appeal to witnesses, whom, how- ever, he would not present until another time, as the bishops were then too much fatigued. He never presented them.^ In the third session at Chalcedon, Eusebius of Dorylaeum presented a second complaint in writing, in which he repeated ^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 827 sqq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 214 sqq. the contents of his first, and added that he and Flavian had not ventured to bring forward their proof at Ephesus, and Dioscurus had constrained the bishops to sign a blank paper.' It was further asserted at the fourth session of the same Council, by Bishop Diogenes of Cyzicus, that the Abbot Bar- sumas had killed Flavian. He had exclaimed : " Strike him dead." When the bishops heard this, they all exclaimed : " Barsumas is a murderer, cast him out, out with him to the arena, let him be anathema."^ Important testimonies respecting the Eobber-Sj'nod are contained in the contemporary letters of Pope Leo. In the forty-fourth to the Emperor Theodosius, dated October 13, 44y, he says (a) that Dioscurus had not allowed the two letters of the Pope to the Synod and to Flavian (the Epistola dogmatica) to be read at Ephesus ; (6) that his deacon Hilarus had fled from the Synod that he might not be forced to subscribe ; (c) that Dioscurus had not allowed all the bishops who were present to take part in the judgment, but only those of whose subserviency he was assured ; (d) that the papal legates had protested against the heterodox declarations of the Synod, and had not allowed themselves to be forced by violence to assent to them ; and (c) that Flavian had consigned to the papal legates a copy of his appeal. The Emperor should therefore be pleased to leave everything as it was before this Synod, and arrange for the holding of a new and greater Synod in Italy.' In the next letter addressed to the Empress Pulcheria, and also dated October 13, Leo complains that it had not been possible for his legates to deliver the letter which he had given them for this princess. Only one of them, the deacon. Hilarus, had succeeded in escaping and returning to Eome. He therefore again sent the letter destined for Pulcheria as an appendix to the present. His legates had protested at Ephesus that everything had been decided by the violence, or even by the rage of one single man (Dioscurus), and he had requested 1 Mansi, I.e. p. 986 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 311. * Mansi, t. vii. p. 68 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 423. ^' Leonis Epist. 44,.in Bailer, pp. 909-917 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 14 sqq. ; Har- douin, t. ii. p. 23. 256 HISTORY OF THE COUXCILS. the Emperor not to confirm what had been done there, but rather to appoint the time and place for a Synod in Italy ; and be entreated her to intercede with the Emperor and support this petition.' A remarkable letter, undated, probably appended to the one just mentioned, is one from the papal legate Hilarus to the same princess, saying that, " as he had not agreed to the unrighteous condemnation of Flavian, but on the contrary had appealed to another Council, he had no longer been per- mitted to go either to Constantinople or to Eome. Therefore he had not been able to convey the Pope's letter to the Princess. He had, however, succeeded, by leaving all his property behind him, in escaping by unknown ways to Eome, and informing the Pope."^ In his forty-seventh letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, also of the 13th of October, Pope Leo congratulates this bishop that he had been prevented from taking part in the Synod of Ephesus ; in consequence of which he had not been forced by armed violence and insolence to subscribe. Dios- curus had given vent to his ancient personal hatred and jealousy of Elavian. Anastasius, however, must not accept the decrees of that Synod.^ At the same time Pope Leo also expressed his sorrow at what had been done in his letters to Bishop Julian of Cos, to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, to the archimandrites there, and to Arch- bishop Flavian, as the death of the latter was not yet known to him.* Many other of his letters no less contain numerous complaints of the outrages of Dioscurus ; and the ninety-fifth, to Pulcheria, dated July 20, 451, for the first time designates the Ephesine assembly by the name which afterwards was universally applied to it, the latrocinium.^ That Dioscurus also deposed the (absent) Theodoret of Cyrus at the Eobber-Synod, without having heard him at all, or having interrogated him with respect to his faith on the ' Epist. 45, p. 919 sqq.; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 19 sqq. ; Hardonin, I.e. p. 29. ' Epist. 46, p. 925 sqq.; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 23 sqq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 34. 3 Epist. 47, p. 929 sq. ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 27. * Epp. 48, 49, 50, 51, p. 930 sqq. ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 28 sqq. " Epist. 95, p. 1077 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 138. TESTIMONIES OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING THE EOBBER-SYNOD. 257 point in question, Theodoret himself mentions in a letter to Pope Leo.^ In another to the monks of Constantinople, he says that his enemies had spent a great deal of money in order to procure this judgment.^ In a third letter to Bishop John of Germanicia, Theodoret mentions that Domnus of Antioch had also been deposed at the Eobber-Synod, because he would not agree to the twelve anathematisms of Cyril, whilst Bishop Candidian of Antioch in Pisidia had remained unpunished, although often accused of adultery. They had also at Ephesus restored Bishops Athenius and Athanasius, who had been deposed by the Eastern Synod.^ Noteworthy testimonies as to the outrages of Dioscurus and the intimidation of the bishops by military are also found in the letters of the Western Emperor, Valentinian m., of his wife Eudoxia, and of his mother Galla Placidia, to Theodosius and Pulcheria.* In particular, the Empress Eudoxia calls the Synod of Ephesus a tumultuous and unhappy one, and Valen- tinian, too, speaks of its tumultuous character. To these epistolary communications on the Synod of Ephesus may be added several testimonies of ancient his- torians, from which we learn some things which we could not obtain from other sources. We naturally place first among these the contemporary of the Eobber-Synod, Prosper of Aquitaine, to whom in particular we owe three statements — (a) that Pope Leo had sent two legates, Bishop Julius of Puteoli and the deacon Hilarus, to Ephesus ; (&) that Hilarus, because he opposed Dioscurus, when they were using the military to enforce subscription, went in great danger of his life, and only by leaving all his property behind, had been 1 Theodoret, Epist. 113, 0pp. iv. p. 1187, ed. Schulze. Also among the letters of Leo in the Ballerini Collection, No. 52, p. 941. In Mansi, t- vi. p. 35. A special treatise on the deposition of Theodoret and his restoration by the Synod of Chalcedon, by Quesnel, is reprinted with the criticisms of the Ballerini, in their edition of the "Works of Leo, t. ii. p. 1237 sq., 1257 sq. 2 Theodoret, Epist. 145, t. iv. p. 1244 sq., ed. Schulze. ' Theodoret, Epist. 147, ed. Schulze, t. iv. p. .1275 sqq. ' Nos. 55-58 among the letters of Leo, in Ballerini, t. i. p. 961 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 50 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 35 sqq. Eudoxia was a daughter of Theo- dosius II., Galla Placidia, a sister of Arcadius and Honorius ; but Valentinian III. was sister's child of Theodosius ii., a son of that Galla Placidia and of the Patrician, afterwards Csesar, Constantius. III. K 258 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. able to escape home ; and (c) that the holy Flavian had gone to Christ by a glorious death, at the hands of those who were appointed to convey him to the place of his banishment.^ The somewhat later anonymous author of the Breviculus Historim EutycManistarum says : " At this Synod there were also present the representatives sent by the Apostolic See, Bishop Julius of Puteoli and the Archdeacon Hilarus. The Presbyter Renatus, however, died during the journey to Ephesus in the island of Delos. The Eoman notary Dulcitius was also present. The dogmatic letter of Leo to Flavian was not allowed to be read, and they spent the whole of the first day, the 8 th of August, in reading the Acts of the first Synod of Ephesus and the judgment of Flavian on Eutyches {i.e. the Acts of Constantinople). In spite of the opposition of the Eoman legates, Flavian was deposed, and Eusebius of Dory- Iseum was condemned as a Nestorian, although he, when yet a layman, had stood up as an accuser of Nestorius. These Euty- chianists would not allow that between them and Nestorius there was a third party, and held every one who was not an Eutychian for a thorough Nestorian (a very good remark !) . . . Three days after the deposition of Flavian, Domnus of Antioch was also deposed, after which Dioscurus departed in haste, and the assembly was dissolved. Flavian was carried into exile, and died at Epipa, a city of Lydia, whether by a natural or a violent death, and Anatolius, an adherent of Dioscurus, became Bishop of Constantinople." ^ Something more we learn from Liberatus (sixth century) in his Breviarium. (a) Dioscurus had the bravest soldiers and the monks of Barsumas around him. (&) The legates of the Pope were not allowed to sit with the bishops, as the presidency had not been conceded to the Eoman see ; that is, because the legates were not allowed to preside, they took no seat at all, 1 Prosperi Chronic, in Basnage, Thesaur. t. i. p. 304. ^ In the appendix of Sirmond ad Codicem Theodos. p. 113 sqq. The account here given of the death of Flavian, with which that of Prosper (see above) also agrees, is the more probable ; and when Barsumas was called his murderer at the Synod of Chalcedon, this must be understood to mean that, by his iU- treatraent of Flavian, he was indirectly the cause of his death. Nicephorus, lib. xiv. u. 47, says that Flavian died on the third day after the Synod, in con- sec[uence of the ill-treatment which he received. TESTIMONIES OF ANTIQUITY EBSPECTING THE EOBBER-SYNOD. 259 but stood extra ordinem. (c) At the command of Dioscurus the Synod condemned Bishop Ibas of Edessa in his absence as having, by not appearing at the Synod, shown his contempt for it. He was summoned three times, and his enemies accused him of having said : " I do not envy Christ for having become God, for I too can become this, if I like." His letter to Maris was also brought against him. (d) In the same way, at the suggestion of Dioscurus, the Synod condemned Theodoret in his absence, on account of his writings against the twelve anathematisms of Cyril, and on account of his letter to the clergy, monks, and laity, which he had written against the first Synod of Ephesus, before the establishment of peace. («) Bishop Sabinianus of Per rh a was also deposed; and (/) last of all, Domnus of Antioch, although he had agreed in every- thing with Dioscurus. When on one occasion Domnus, by reason of sickness, was not present at a session of the Synod (some time back we saw that this was on the third day after the deposition of Flavian), Dioscurus brought out letters which Domnus had some time before addressed to him privatim against the twelve chapters of Cyril, and now condemned him on account of them.'^ {g) Flavian appealed by the legates to the apostolic see (see above, p. 251, note 2). (/i) Flavian, beaten and seriously injured, died in consequence of the blows which he had received. {i) In the place of Flavian, the deacon Anatolius, hitherto the secretary of Dioscurus, was appointed Bishop of Constantinople ; in the place of Domnus of Antioch, Maximus ; in the place of Ibas, Nonnus ; and in the place of Sabinianus, Athanasius. No others were chosen in the places of Theodoret and Eusebius of Dorylseum. {k) Fleeing from Ephesus, the legates of the Pope came to Eome and reported what had taken place.^ Evagrius relates that, besides those already named. Bishops Daniel of Carrse, Irenasus of Tyre, and Aquilinus of Byblus were also deposed at the Eobber-Synod ; and, on the other hand, resolutions were drawn up in favour of Bishop Sophro- 1 On the proceedings against Domnus, Quesnel composed a special dissertation, reprinted, with the criticisms of the Ballerini, in the edition of Leo's Works, t. ii. p. 1183 sqq. and 1215 sqq. " Liberati Breviar. o. 12, in Galland. t. xii. p. 140. 260 HISTORY OF THE CO UN OILS. nius of Constantina (in Phoenicia).' In another place (ii. 2) Evagrius also adduces the testimony of Eusebius of Dorylseum, to the effect that Flavian, beaten and kicked by Dioscurus, had miserably perished. Finally, the Byzantine Theophanes, although belonging only to the eighth century, contributes something which is worthy of notice, (a) Agreeing with the expression of Leo : Latro- einium Ephssinum, he calls this Synod a avvoZo's XfjaTpiKrj, and says (&) that Flavian before his deposition was struck by Dioscurus both with hands and feet, and on the third day after died ; '^ (c) that the papal legates, being always ridiculed, had taken flight and returned to Eome.^ Sec. 180. Fortunes of the Papal Legates who had been deputed to the Bohher- Synod. This last statement leads us to some remarks on the legates of Leo. We know that he had named three of these — Bishop Julius, the priest Eenatus, and the deacon Hilarus. In all the documents of the Synod, however, there is nowhere the very slightest mention of Eenatus ; even at the beginning of the Synod only Julius and Hilarus, with the notary Dulcitius, are mentioned as being present. Accordingly Eenatus does not appear to have been at Ephesus, and therefore that is credible which is said by the author of the Breviculus Hist. Eutych. (see above, p. 258), that he died during the journey on the island of Delos. In direct contradiction to this, however, stands the hundred and sixteenth letter of Theodoret, which is addressed to this very Eenatus, and is written after the dose of the Roller- Synod. Theodoret praises him on account of his liberality and the zeal with which he had blamed the violence practised at the Eobber-Synod. The whole world was, on this account, fuU of his fame. The legate had been present up to ^ Evagrii Hist. Eccl. lib. i. u. 10. ' According to the testimony of the Breviculxia already adduced, Flavian died considerably later in exile. 2 Theoph. Ohronographia, ad ann. 5941, p. 145 sq. of the Bonn edition of Classen, a. 1839. FORTUNES OF PAPAL LEGATES DEPUTED TO ROBBER-SYNOD. 261 the deposition of Plavian, but he had then departed, and thus had not remained to witness the unjust condemnation of Theo- doret.^ Various attempts have been made to reconcile this contra- diction, and to set some other points right. Quesnel gives it as his opinion, in his remarks on the twenty-eighth letter of Leo,^ (a) that " the author of the Breviculus made a mistake ; (b) that not Eenatus, but Bishop Julius of Puteoli, died at Delos during the journey, and then that Bishop Julian of Cos had taken his place at Ephesus as papal legate, and therefore the reading, Julianus instead of Julius, which occurs in most manuscripts, is the correct one ; (c) that the fact of Eenatus not being mentioned in the Acts is a consequence of their incompleteness (!) ; (d) that after the close of the Synod, Hilary and Eenatus had travelled back to Eome (Julian of Cos naturally had no reason for going there), but the former had arrived the earlier, on which account Leo, in his forty-fourth and forty-fifth letters (see above, p. 255), says that Hilary alone had returned to Eome ; («) and that Theoderet had written the letter in question to Eenatus, who also returned there, but at a later period." Against this hypothesis Baluzius^ and the Ballerini* pro- tested, and, as it appears to me, with full right, (a) In the first place, there are two quite arbitrary fictions, that the legate Julius died, and that Bishop Julian of Cos became his substi- tute, (b) In the next place, the silence of the Acts of Ephesus not only makes it probable that Eenatus was not present at the Synod, but also the contemporaneous Prosper knows of only two papal legates, Julius and Hilarus, and this confirms the statement of the Breviculus. (c) If, however, Theodoret nevertheless writes to Eenatus, either the superscrip- tion of the letter is false (for the name of Eenatus never occurs in the text), or Theodoret has made a mistake and confounded ■ Theodoret, Epist. 116, p. 1196 aq., ed. Schulze. ^ Printed in the Ballerini edition of Leo's Worhs, t. ii. p. 1410 sqq. 3 In the Prcefat. to his edition of the Antiqua Versio Concilii Ghalced. n. XXX. sq. in Mansi, t. vii. p. 665. < Leonis 0pp., ed. Bailer, t. ii. p. 1411 sqq., in their annotations to the treatise of Qaesnel referred to above. With them agreed also Waloh, Ketzer- Imtorie, Bd. vi. S. 250 ff. 262 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. Eenatus with Hilarus, with respect to whom the statement in the letter is quite accurate. To this we add only that we know nothing more of the legate Julius. Before the end of the first session at Ephesus, we meet only with Hilarus ; he alone, and not also Julius with him, protests against the deposition of Flavian, and it is of Hilarus alone that Pope Leo says that he was able to escape and save himself Of Julius, however, just as little as of Eenatus, is there any word in the later epistles of the Pope. Theophanes (see above, p. 260) professes to know that Julius also had returned to Eome ; and Liberatus also (p. 258 f.) speaks of the return of the legates in the plural. On this state- ment TiUemont makes the remark that Julius must necessarily have returned later than Hilarus, as Leo says nothing of him in his forty-fourth and forty-fifth letters.^ ^ Tillemont, Mimoires, t. xv. p. 577. CHAPTEE IV. THE ROBBER-SYNOD IS TO BE CONFRONTED BY A NEW AND GREATER COUNCIL. Sec. 181. Theodosius II. for. Pope Leo I. against, the Rohher- Synod. Synods at Rome and Milan. AFTER all that we know and have ah-eady brought for- ward respecting the disposition of the Byzantine Court at that time, it could not be doubted that the Emperor Theo- dosius II., in spite of all the counter-representations of the Pope and the Latin Court (see above, p. 255 ff.), would con- firm the decrees of the Robber-Synod ; and he actually did so in a decree which is still extant in Latin, as follows : " When Nestorius endeavoured to violate the old faith, he had been condemned at the Synod of Ephesus. This Synod had also confirmed the Nicene Confession of Faith, and he (the Emperor) had, in accordance with these synodal decrees, published a law condemning Nestorius. More recently, however, Flavian of Constantinople, and another bishop named Eusebius, fol- lowing the errors of Nestorius, had raised a new controversy, and therefore the Emperor had convoked a great Council of Bishops of all places to Ephesus, which had deposed Flavian, Eusebius, Domnus, Theodoret, and some others on account of their being entangled in the Nestorian heresy. The decrees of this Synod he commended and confirmed, and. he gave command that all the bishops of his empire should immediately subscribe the Mcene Creed, and that no adherent of Nestorius or Flavian should ever be raised to a bishopric. If, however, such a thing should be done, he should be deposed. Nothing whatever was to be added to the Nicene word of faith, and nothing should be taken away from it. No one was to read the writings of Nestorius and Theodoret ; on the contrary, every 264 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. one was to give them up to be burnt. The Nestorians were to be tolerated neither in the cities nor in the country, and whoever tolerated them should be punished with confiscation of goods and perpetual exile." ^ It was clear that this edict had the force of law only in the Byzantine Empire, and not also in the West ; but even in the former, on account of its stringency, it could not obtain uni- versal authority; on the contrary, there now arose a great ecclesiastical schism in the East. Egypt, Thrace, and Pales- tine held with Dioscurus and the Emperor; the bishops of Syria, Pontus, and Asia, on the contrary, with Flavian.^ That Theodoret of Cyrus turned to Eome we have already noted, and we may now add that in three letters to the Pope, to Eenatus, and to the Archdeacon (Hilarus), he appealed (eiriKaXelcrdai,) to the judgment of Eome, of whose Primate he speaks in the strongest terms, asking that a new Synod may be held. To this he requests the Pope to summon him and there to try and examine his teaching, and generally to take an interest in the Oriental Church. At the same time he expresses his complete agreement with the Epistola dogmatica of Leo, upon which he bestows great praise.^ — Whether Theodoret presented an appeal to Eome in the full sense of the word, or not, is a disputed question which does not concern us very nearly here, and which has been decided in the negative by Quesnel, Dupin, and others, and in the affirmative by the Ballerini and others.* In a second letter Theodoret asked the Patrician Anatolius of Constantinople to intercede for him, that he might have permission to travel to the wished-for Eoman Council.' In fact. Pope Leo immediately held a considerable Western Synod (occidentale concilium it is called by his deacon Hilarus ' Printed in Mansi, t. vii. p. 495, and by Hardouin, t. ii. p. 673, among the Acts of- the Synod of Chalcedon. A second ancient Latin version of this imperial edict is found among the Acts of the fifth CEcumenical Synod in Mansi, t. ix. p. 250, and Hardouin, t. iii. p. 105, with the variation that here the books of Diodorus of Tarsus and of Theodore of Mopsuestia are mentioned among those which are forbidden. ' Liberat. Breviar. c. 12, in Galland. t. xii. p. 140. ' Theodoret, Epp. 113, 116, 118, p. 1187 sqq. t. iv., ed. Schulze. * Cf. Leonis 0pp. ed. Bailer, t. ii. p. 1237 sqq. and p. 1257 sqq., and "Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 272 ff. * Theodoret, Mp. 119, p. 1200, I.e. SYNODS AT EOME AND MILAN. 265 in his letter to Pulcheria), and in agreement with this Synod rejected all that had been done at the Eobber-Synod.^ The libellus synodicus also speaks of this Eoman Council/ with the addition which is certainly not quite warranted, that Leo had here pronounced an anathema upon Dioscnrus and Eutyches, and had sent a solemn announcement of it to the Clergy, Senate, and Laity of Constantinople.^ More certain is it that Dioscurus, about that time, took upon him to pronounce a sentence of excommunication on Leo, as is clear from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.* In agreement with this Eoman Synod,' Pope Leo immedi- ately wrote, on the 13th October 449, to the Emperor Theo- dosius II., saying, that until a greater Synod of Bishops from all parts of the world could be held, he should be pleased to allow everything to remain in the status which existed before the recently-held Synod at Ephesus, and to give orders for the holding of an QEcumenical Synod in Italy, especially as Flavian had appealed. As to what must be done after an appeal had been presented, that had already been declared in the Nicene (properly, Sardican) Canons, which he appended.' Leo wrote in similar terms to Pulcheria, and asked for her support with her brother, and his archdeacon Hilarus also appealed in this matter to the influential princess.^ — We have already seen (see p. 256) that the Pope had also written to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica (Upist. 47), and to the Clergy, Laity, and Archimandrites of Constantinople, in order to warn them not to acknowledge the Ephesine Synod {JEpp. ^ So the deacon Hilarus says in the letter referred to above to Pulclieria, No. 46 among the letters of Leo, ed. Bailer, t. i. p. 926 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 2i sqq. 2 Cf. on the Libelliis, vol. i. p. 78. ' In Mansi, t. vi. p. 509 ; Hardouin, t. v. p. 1523. * Mansi, t. vi. p. 1009 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 323. Cf. "Walch, I.e. S. 290 ; TiUeraont, I.e. p. 603. 5 This agreement is clear from Leonis Ep. 61, p. 984, and Ep. 69, p. 1008, ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 65 and 83. « Leonis Epp. 43, 44, in Ballerin. t. i. pp. 901-918 ; Mansi, t. vi. p.' 7 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 23, 27. Cf. above, p. 255 f. The 44th letter was probably written a ferw days later than the 43d. Cf. Ballerin. Ic. p. 898, n. 7 ; and Mansi, I.e. p. 6, n. 7. On the interchange of the Nicene and Sardican canons, see vol. i. pp. 356 and 369. 7 Leonis Epp. 45, 46, in Ballerini, t. i. p. 919 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 19 sqq. Of. above, p. 256. 266 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 5 and 51). — Somewhat later, at Christmas in the same year (449), he appealed again to the Emperor Theodosius, assured him of his stedfastness in the Nicene faith, and repeated the request for the holding of a great Council in Italy.^ Before he received an answer to this, in the early part of the year 450, the Latin Emperor Valentinian iii. came with his wife Eudoxia (a daughter of Theodosius ii.), and his mother Galla Placidia (aunt of Theodosius), to Eome, in order to pay his devotions there on the Festival of the holy Apostle Peter (at the Festival of the See of Peter, S. Peter's Day, February 22, 450). "While they were praying in S. Peter's Church, Pope Leo came to them in company with many bishops out of various provinces, and earnestly entreated them for their kind intercessions with the Emperor Theodosius. And not only Valentinian but the two exalted ladies responded to his wish, and towards the end of February 450 addressed three letters to the Emperor of the East, and a fourth to his sister Pulcheria, in which, while maintaining the high dignity of the Eoman see, they entreat him to commit the existing controversy to the sentence of the Pope, to whom Flavian had appealed, and to a new Council to be held in Italy .^ The Emperor Theodosius answered, about Easter 450, with a refusal, saying that everything had been settled at Ephesus with complete liberty and entirely in accordance with the truth, and that Flavian had been justly deposed on account of inno- vations in the faith.' — Before Leo could receive this distressing intelligence, he had already learnt to his joy, that the clergy, the aristocracy, and the people of Constantinople had for the most part remained loyal to the orthodox faith, and were asking for his help and support. He commended them for this in a letter written in March 450, and brieily expounded to them the orthodox doctrine on the person of Christ.* Per- ' Epist. 54. On the date of this letter of the Ballerini, I.e. p. 957, note 8 ; and Walch, l.c. S. 210. ^ Among the letters of Leo, Kos. 55, 56, 57, 58, in Bailer, t. i. p. 961 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 35 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 50 sqq. Cf. above, p. 257. ' Epist. 62, 63, 64 among those of Leo, in Bailer, t. i. p. 985 sqq. ; in Har- douin, t. ii. p. 39 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 67 sqq. ^ Epist. 59, in Bailer, p. 975 sqq. ; in Hardonin, t. ii. p. 31 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 58 sqq. SYKODS AT EOME AND MILAN. 267 haps he was still more rejoiced at a letter from Pulcheria, in which (for the first time) she clearly declared that she saw and abhorred what was erroneous in the teaching of Eutyches. Leo therefore wrote a short letter to her on the l7th of March 450, in which he commended her, saying, that, after the receipt of her letter, he asked her anew for her support, and now with still greater urgency and confidence.^ On the same day he also exhorted anew the Archimandrites and Priests, Martin and Faustiis of Constantinople, to stedfastness in the orthodox faith.^ Directly after this, in May 450, Leo endeavoured to interest the Gallican bishops in the dominant doctrinal ques- tion, having at the same time to meet with them in order to settle the contest for the primacy between Aries and Vienne ; and he succeeded in this with the best results, as is testified by his letter to the Archbishop Eavennius of Aries, and the answer of several Gallican bishops.^ With equal decision, a year later, the bishops of Upper Italy, at a Synod at Milan, declared in favour of the orthodox faith, and accepted Leo's Epistola dogmatica, as we see from the letter of Archbishop Eusebius of Milan to the Pope, in the summer of 451.* With equal tact and courtesy as decision Leo further resisted, in his letter of July 16, 450 (Up. 69), the request of the Emperor Theodosius to recognize Anatolius, the suc- cessor of Flavian, as Bishop of Constantinople. Anatolius had, in a special letter, of which only a fragment yet remains,* requested this confirmation from Eome, and the Emperor, as well as the consecrators of the new bishop, had supported his request. Leo therefore wrote to Theodosius : Before he could decide on this matter, the elected person must first of all testify to his orthodoxy, a thing which was required of every Catholic. Anatolius should therefore read the writings of the Fathers of the Church on the doctrine of the Incarnation, particularly those of S. Cyril and of the Synod of Ephesus, 1 MpUt. 60, in Bailer, p. 982 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 64. 2 Mpist. 61, in Bailer, p. 983 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 65. ^ Epist. 67, 68, in BaUer. p. 1000 sqq. ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 78 sqq. Epistles 6,5 and 66 refer to the controversy respecting the Gallican primacy. * Among the letters of Leo, No. 97, ed. Bailer, p. 1080 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 141. ' Epist. 53, among the letters of Leo, p. 953, in Bailer. 268 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. also the letter of the Pope to Flavian, and then publicly subscribe an orthodox confession of faith, and send it to the apostolic see and to all the churches. At the same time, he said he was sending two bishops, Abundius and Asterius, and two priests, Basil and Senator, as legates, to Constantinople, in order to speak more confidentially with the Emperor, and to explain to him the creed of the Pope. If the Bishop of Constantinople should honestly agree with this creed, he would rejoice at having secured the peace of the Church, and lay aside all other doubts (respecting Anatolius) ; in case, how- ever, some should still fail to agree with the true faith of the Pope and the Fathers, then an (Ecumenical Council in Italy would be necessary, to the holding of which the Emperor would, he hoped, consent.^ We see that, even during the life of Theodosius ii., Leo regarded the holding of a new great Synod as superfluous, in case all the bishops should, without any such Synod, make an orthodox confession of the faith — a circumstance which casts a necessary light, which has not been sufficiently regarded, upon his conduct after the death of Theodosius. The same is contained in a letter of Leo's to Pulcheria, of the same date (Epist. VO). A third, addressed a day later, to the Archimandrites of Constantinople, says that Anatolius and his consecrators (among them Dioscurus, whose excommunica- tion of the Pope followed afterwards) had informed him of the election and ordination of the new Bishop of Constanti- nople, but not of his orthodoxy, and of the suppression of heresy in his neighbourhood. He had therefore sent four legates to the Emperor, and asked the Archimandrites to support them according to their ability.^ Sec. 182. Pulcheria and Marcian come to the Throne. It is probable that Theodosius was already dead when those papal legates arrived at Constantinople, for he died in conse- quence of a fall from his horse, July 28, 450. As he left no male succession, and as his sister Pulcheria, in the year 415, ^ Epist. 69, in Bailer, p. 1005 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 83 sqq. * Epist. 71, in Bailer, p. 1011 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 88. PULCHEKIA AND MAECIAN COME TO THE THRONE. 269 ■when he was still a boy, had been raised to be Atigusta and Co-regent, the crown now fell to her, and not to Eudoxia, the daughter of the late Emperor, who was married to Valentinian III., the Emperor of the "West. As, however, a woman had never governed the Eoman Empire alone, either in the East or in the West, Pulcheria offered her hand and her throne to Marcian,^ one of the most distinguished generals and states- men of the time, a man very highly esteemed for piety and ability, on condition that she should not be disturbed in her vow of perpetual virginity. On Marciau's consenting, she presented him to her assembled council as her husband and as the future Emperor. The selection met with universal approval in the army, among the officers of state, and among the people, and Marcian was solemnly crowned on the 24th of August 450. The Emperor Valentinian gave his assent to that which had been done, and the new Emperor gained for himself such renown, that all writers number him among the best, the most pious, and the most virtuous of princes that ever sat upon a throne, and many exalt him even above Constantino and Theodosius the Great. Upon this the position of ecclesiastical affairs suddenly changed, since Marcian, like Pulcheria, was devoted to the orthodox faith, and, moreover, the previous chief protector of Eutychianism, the minister Chrysaphius, was executed on account of his numerous acts of injustice (whether shortly before or after the death of Theodosius is doubtful). Dios- curus rightly foresaw what he had to fear from the new Emperor, and therefore endeavoured to prevent his recognition in Egypt ; ^ but the attempt miscarried, and could only strengthen the dislike entertained for the Alexandrian, who was now doubly deserving of punishment. With Pope Leo, on the other hand, Marcian entered into friendly correspond- ence soon after he ascended the throne, and informed him at once, in his first letter (at the end of August or the beginning of September 450), that by God's providence, and the election 1 He was a widower. After his elevation to the throne, he married Euphemia, his daughter by his iirst marriage, to Anthimus, afterwards Emperor of the West. 2 Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 307. 270 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. of the Senate and the army, he had become Emperor. He adds that he now, above all things, in the cause of the orthodox faith, for the sake of which he had obtained his power, appealed to Leo, who had the oversight and the first place in the faith (rrjv re arjv ayiaavvrjv eincrKOTTevovaav Kai ap')(pvaav Tri<; ^et'a? iria-reai), and requested him to intercede with God for the security of his government. Finally, he declares that he is favourable to the holding of the Synod suggested by Leo (croO avdevTovvTo<;), for the extirpation of heresy and the restoration of peace.-"^ Somewhat later, on the 2 2d of November 450, the Emperor Marcian addressed a second letter to Leo, and assured him anew of his zeal for the true religion, remarking that he had received the papal legates with pleasure and in a friendly manner (the four named above, who had been sent to Theodosius). It now only remained that the Pope should be pleased to come in person to the East, and there to celebrate the Synod. If this, however, was too great a burden to lay upon him, Leo would inform him of it, so that by a circular letter he might summon all the bishops of the East, of Thrace, and of Illyricum, to a place that might suit him (the Emperor) to a Synod. There they should establish what might be advantageous to the Catholic faith, in accordance with the manner stated by the Pope (in his letter to Flavian).^ At the same time there arrived in Eome a third letter, one from Pulcheria, with the important intelligence that Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople had come over to the orthodox side, had acknowledged the confession of faith contained in the papal letter (to Flavian), and had rejected the (Eutychian) heresy which had recently found acceptance with some, as Leo might perceive from Anatolius' own letter. The latter had sub- scribed the doctrinal letter (Ujpistola dogmatica) of Leo with- out any hesitation. The Pope would be pleased to grant the expression required by the Emperor (as to whether he would come to the Council in person or not), so that all the bishops ^ Leonis Epist. 73, p. 1017 sqq. t. i. ed. Bailer. ; in Hardouin, t. ii. p. 41 ; Mansi, t. vl. p. 94. ' Epist. 76, p. 1023, I.e. ; in Hardouin, t. ii. p. 41 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 98. SYNODS AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 271 of the East, of Thrace, and lUyricum might be summoned to a Synod. At this a resolution should be taken respecting the Catholic confession, and respecting the bishops who had been for some time in a state of separation (the adherents of the Eobber-Synod), at Leo's suggestion (aov av6evTovvTo<;). At the command of the Emperor the body of Flavian had been brought to Constantinople, and solemnly laid in the basilica of the apostles, where the former bishops lay buried. The Emperor had further ordered the recall of those bishops who had been exiled with Flavian on account of the faith. Their episcopal sees should, however, not be restored to them until the close of the Synod about to be held.^ That Theodoret of Cyrus was included among the bishops recalled we learn from his letters 138 to 140,^ in which he declares the convocation of a new Synod to be very necessary. This was as strongly insisted upon and asked for by Eusebius of Dorylteum, who, as it appears, had not yet been recalled from exile, and was still in Eome, under the protection of the Pope.^ Sec. 183. Synods at Constantinople. The information which Pulcheria gave, as we have seen, respecting Bishop Anatolius, is connected with a Synod which the latter had held, a short time before, at Constantinople. That at this Synod the whole clergy of that city, the monks, and many bishops who were present, had accepted Leo's letter to Flavian, we learn from Leo himself in his 88 th letter, dated June 24, 451 ; and besides, there is a reference to it, as well as to a still earlier Synod at Constantinople under Anatolius, in the Acts of the fourth session of Chal- cedon.* The Metropolitan Photius of Tyre then complained that Eustathius of Berytus had taken from him some towns belonging to his province, and that this had been confirmed 1 Among the letters of Leo, No. 77, p. 1027, t. i. ed. BaUer. ; in Hardouin, t. ii. p. 43 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 99 sqq. " 0pp. t. iv. ed. Schulze, p. 1229 sqq. ' Cf. ETagrius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 2 ; and Leonis Epp. 79 and 80. ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 85 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 435 sqq. 272 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. by a Synod at Constantinople under Anatolius. In the reply to this, Eustathius related, " that very recently the letter of Leo had been sent for subscription by the Synod at Con- stantinople (under Anatolius) to the absent metropolitans, and in like manner at the (somewhat earlier) Synod held during the life of Theodosius ii. those who were absent had been allowed to add their subscriptions, and it was of this that Photius was complaining." We see from this that Anatolius held two Synods hefore the Council of Chalcedon, or, more exactly, as is clear from the further contents of the Acts, that Anatolius had twice collected around him those bishops who were then present in Constantinople at what is called a cruf 080? ivBrjfiovaa, the first time under Theodosius ll., in reference to the matter of Photius,^ the second time under Marcian, for the acknowledgment of the orthodox faith and the Epistola dogmatica of Leo. Hardouin and Walch, on the other hand, have erroneously fused the two Synods into one, and Eemi Ceillier, too, has spoken only of one.^ We obtain a more complete account of the second Synod under Anatolius in the history of the life of S. Abundius, who, as we saw above (p. 268), was then Pope's legate at Constantinople. This biography certainly is not written by a contemporary, and is not very ancient ; but the fragment from the Acts of the Synod which it embodies (which is also distinguished by a different style from the rest, from the word mox) has a good claim to credibility, as has been shown by the Ballerini and by Walch.' It says that Anatolius had held a Council of all the bishops (that is, then present at Constantinople), archi- mandrites, priests, and deacons. The letter of Leo, which his legate Abundius delivered, had been publicly read. Anatolius had agreed to it suinma devotione, and had subscribed it, and at the same time had pronounced an anathema upon Eutyches, Nestorius, and the adherents of their heresies. The same had ^ See further on this subject below, in the history of the Council of Chalcedon. " Walch, Ketzerh. Bd. vi. S. 306 ; Historie der Kirchenvers. S. 305 ; Eemi Ceillier, Hisloire des auteurs aacris, t. xiv. p. 649 ; Hardouin, t. i. in the Index ad arm. 450. ' Walch, Keizerhist. Bd. vi. S. 316 ; Leonis 0pp. ed. BaUer. t. i. p. 1487, where also the fragment in question is printed. It is also given twice in Mansi, t. vi. p. 513, and t. vii. p. 775. POPE LEO "WISHES TO RESTOKE ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY. 273 been done by all the bishops, priests, archimandrites, and deacons. For this Abundius and the other legates of the Pope had immediately given thanks to God, and on their part had pronounced an anathema upon Eutyches and his adherents, as well as upon Nestorius. — The time of the holding of this Synod at Constantinople cannot now be exactly ascertained ; but it may be inferred from the letter of Pulcheria, noticed above, that it took place shortly before that letter was composed (probably in November 450). Sec. 184. Pope Leo toishes to restore Ecclesiastical Unity without a new Council. Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople had also, on his side, sent envoys to the Pope, the priest Casterius, and the two deacons Patricius and Asclepiades,^ in order to inform him of all that had taken place. When they returned, Leo gave them letters to Anatolius, to the Emperor, to Pulcheria, and to Bishop Julian of Cos, which are all dated April 13, 451, and are still preserved.^ The letter to the Emperor {Ep. 78) is only a letter of courtesy; in that to Pidcheria {Ep. 79), however, the Pope says that it was especially by her influence that first the Nestorian and now the Eutychian heresy had been subdued. He thanks her for the benefits she has conferred upon the Church, for the kind support of the Eoman legates, for the recall of the banished Catholic bishops, and for the honourable burial of the body of Flavian. He further adds, that he has learned from his legates, and from the envoys of Anatolius, that many of those bishops who had given ear to the impiety now wished for reconcilia- tion and restoration to the communion of the Catholics ; and this should be granted to them by the papal legates and by Anatolius in common, if they had corrected their error, and by their own signatures condemned the heresy. He also mentions that Eusebius of Dorylaeum still remained with him, and had been received into his communion. The Empress ' They are mentioned in the letter of Leo (Ep. 80) to Anatolius. ' Leonis Epist. 78, 79, 80, 81, p. 1033 sqc^. t. i. ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 103 sqq. IIL S 274 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. should be pleased to take under her protection the Church of this man, which, as was reported, had been devastated by the intruded bishop. Finally, he recommends to her also Bishop Julian of Cos, and the clergy of Constantinople, who had remained faithful to Flavian. The letter to Anatolius {Ep. 80) begins with the expression of joy that this bishop and his whole church had taken the side of evangelical truth. He received him therefore with affection into the one chaste communion (of the Bride of Christ), and approved of the documents furnished with the sub- scriptions (of the Synod of Constantinople). In regard to the bishops who had allowed themselves to be led astray by the violence of the Robber-Synod to side with foreign injustice, he confirmed the decree established in the presence and with the co-operation of his legates (at the Synod of Constanti- nople), that these must for the present be satisfied to be again received into communion with their churches;^ Anatolius might, however, in conjunction with the papal legates, con- sider which of them should again be taken into full Church communion with the Pope. First, however, they must be required to anathematize the heresies. The names of Dioscurus,' Juvenal, and Eustathius of Berytus must be struck out of the diptychs, and must no longer be read at the altar in Constan- tinople.^ In regard to Eusebius of Dorylseum, Julian of Cos, and the clergy of Constantinople, who had remained faithful to Flavian, Leo repeats what he had already said in his letter to Pulcheria, and closes with the request that this letter of his should be generally made known. The fourth letter, which Leo signed on the 13th April 451, and gave to the envoys of Anatolius, was addressed to Julian ^ That is, they received again their sees and ministered again in their churches, but they were still excluded from intercourse with the other bishops, and from participation in Synods and the like. Cf. Quesnel's note 1 in this place (printed in Bailer, t. ii. p. 1462 sq., and Morin. Exercit. Eccles. lib. ii. Exercit. 17, 18, 19). - Dioscurus, Juvenal, Thalassius of Cassarea in Cappadocia, Eustathius of Berytus, etc., were the heads of the Eobber-Synod. The latter distinguished himself at it by misunderstanding the words of Cyril and expressly declaring, that " after the Incarnation there was only one nature to be acknowledged." Cf. above, p. 246 POPE LEO WISHES TO RESTORE ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY. 275 of Cos (Epist. 81j, and speaks first of the great dangers to which Julian had been exposed on account of his adherence to orthodoxy. For this reason, he had been forced to flee to Eome, and it had been pleasant to the Pope to be able to speak with him. But it was still better that now the times had changed in favour of orthodoxy and of Julian, and that he could livQ in the East again in freedom and without danger. He heard with pleasure that most of the misguided bishops now wished to return again to Church communion ; some, however, were obstinate, and must be treated with severity. His legates, whom he would send to the East, would in this matter arrange what was proper with Julian. — For some reason unknown to us, the sending of these new legates was delayed until June, and the envoys of Anatolius returned alone with the four letters which have just been mentioned.^ About the same time Leo received a new letter from the Emperor, which was brought to him by Tatian, the prefect of the city, but which is now lost. The Pope answered this on the 23d of April 451, and first of all bestowed gi-eat com- mendation upon the zeal of the Emperor, and then adds : " It would not be right to respond to the demand of a few fools, and give occasion for new disputations and allow a new in- quiry to be made as to whether the doctrine of Eutyches were heretical or not, and whether Dioscurus had rightly judged or not (at the Synod which was to be held). The most of those who had gone astray had already found their way back, and had asked for pardon. Therefore they must not now consider the question as to what was the true faith, but which of those who had erred should have favour shown to them, and in what way it should be shown. Therefore he would more fully communi- cate to the Emperor, who was so anxious for a Synod, his view on this subject by the new legates who would soon arrive." ^ These new legates were sent by Leo after the former ones, Abundius and the others, had returned, and had brought with them another letter from the Emperor, which is now lost.' To the new legates he gave four letters, dated June 9 1 Cf. note 7 of the Ballerini on Epist. 78, and their note 5 on Ep. 81. » ^ Epist. 82, p. 1043 sqq., in Mansi, t. vi. p. 112. 5 We see this from the beginning of his Epist. 83. P nl<4iiqri«, Anatoiias, and JiEiIka o£ CStKc iriudb, Hke tlie ssifier lefi&gzs, xre m^ iril^uiai si^EiSeaiice for l&e ^elnoiiarjr liin4iMj of tbe CcKzneO. <£ ChaleedaiL.^ In Ins lecta: to Ae Eaipexa^ Lea ^rcs a bdrf leriev of witsfe he Q^ 'Emgeam^ iaA alieafy doess for die :^3od of tiee Onneii, and thsn. he adds : Jn order to ^aose aQ n&e piofiaees of dte empire firom tbe heresjTx ss had lieeeE. Sssss ia &s e^ital, he sraife the Ixdiap Laeendos, aid the peiest Ba^ as legate in zhe £ask, in taedex to eoeapieie the lestnfafckn of the penitent Bemliess of the £00 cer-Svnod. to eoEsznsBMSi. -with 4i»gfrinlm g^ and tjii^e legife^ he axBmesded to the Empcioc. H^ had hizBsd£ dgstred the 1»«Miiiig dE a, Sj^od of -wMEh the Empexor spc^ ; bst the aeeessi£y (£ the pEeseo^ time did not aHov the meting of hishops, ssraee thffie Tfsy pnmnees whose faisiH^ ■wae moa; necesary for &e Synod itte Western'' -were at pseseBt greaij :i.rT-'jai hf -viz (bf AttOa), and eoold not dispense wiik tftgfr ^a^ihesds. Xlie £mpex(K' ™igl»t thezelsKe pot gS the fctJfimg of die STnod to a moie p^u^il time. On dds SBli]ecfc Ms l^aies vmM :^eak farthec' Xeo vrofee nnA die same to PidcJKxi^ cth in addition he sitzeaced hsc to haxe EaT^cces isooived &«& the neigM?oTiriio>od o£ Constaratinci^e ij&om. his raonasterf) to a moze iraoote place, s ^tuaoonee an anathrana upon EntyiJies, his doctnne, and his adheioits. "With lespeet to those vho had been most s^HKi^^ implieated, the Apogtolic see xeserred the deoMcm, and AnacoIiiLs ^loald no<^ vithoot this, aDov the Ttamps d sodi pasoBS to he read in the efamdi.'^ — FinallT, the Pope leqae^s Bishop Julian vi Cos in all vajs to soppoit his Ifg a t es, as thej ako had leemed a commisaon to ad steadily in aHmmmign with Julian.' ^Sir. IS -5. I?'ie Empiror Mamav. swrnvums an (EsMmatiail CmtmdL The Pepe assents^ amd turmimafes Z^ates. Whai Leo wrote these last l^teE^ the 'Emfaac had aiteady, ea the I7th c£ May 431, in his own name and in that of his co- Empoor, sammaned an CELeomenicaL Council to ISrcsat, which was to open on the 1st of Sepbesaber of the carreat jeat? Ibe edict is addressed to the mefn^olifans, and is as follows : "^That whidi comceiins die tzne fioth and the oiUiodax rd^iom is to he pxe&ned to erezjthii^ else;. For if God is gnMaous to 1^ then oxrr Empire wiH be firmly established. Since now -mitaihw^ d^asA Jsae Id^ ^Sl, n i uiii i umif t t two jg^'^fa to l^m, but esutcibcifes ^ SfikL m^ BaSkx, Lc p. 1052 ; M^aa^ t. t1 fL lid. ^ *^WieB. SfaeiiB ^a& &k& dns sammjosSf Ik kad B0t jc£ r^CQ^ed ^le £&• ^cssas^stSsoa oe Leo ^ a a t»i E aey ^ee£^ lor ^e eu^vo^iA «^ bad liesi eoatmB- acned. tn &xkv^ jjrg Hw . 1087 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 147 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 655. 2 Among the letters of Leo, Nos. 98, 100, 110, and 132, in Bailer. I.e. pp. 1097, 1100, 1114, 1120, 1182, and 1263. ' kp. 103, in Bailer. I.e. p. 1141 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 185. * Mansi, t. vi. p. 579 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 66. ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 665 sqq., and t. vii. p. 429 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 53 sqq. and 627 sqq. 298 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 520 bishops have been present.^ Pope Leo, however, speaks of about 600 brethren {Epist. 102); and generally the number of all who were present, the representatives included, is reckoned at 630. In any case, none of the previous Synods had been nearly so numerous, and even among all that were subsequently held, but very few can in this respect be placed beside the Council of Chalcedon. Yet all these many bishops who were present, with the exception of the Eoman legates and two Africans (Aurelius of Adrumetum and Eusticianus), were purely Greeks and Orientals, and even the two Africans seem not to have been properly representatives of their ecclesiastical provinces, but rather to have been present at the Synod as fugitives (expelled by the Vandals).^ Sec. 189. First Session, October 8, 451. As already remarked, the first session took place on the 8th of October 451.^ The first to rise was the papaj legate Paschasinus, with his colleagues, who stepped forward and said : " We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic Bishop of Eome, who is the head of all the Churches, to see that Dioscurus shall have no seat (or vote) in the CouncU, and if he shall venture upon this, that he be expelled. This commission we must fulfil. If it seems well to your high- nesses (the imperial commissioners), either he must retire or we depart." The secretary of the holy (that is, the imperial) consistory, Beronicianus, translated into Greek these words which had been spoken in Latin. To the question of the commissioners and senators as to what accusation in specie was brought against Dioscurus, Paschasinus gave at first no satisfactory answer, therefore the question was repeated, and now the second papal legate Lucentius explained that Dioscurus had assumed to himself a jurisdiction which did not ^ Among the letters of Leo, No. 98, in Bailer, t. i. pp. 1089 and 1100 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 148 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 655. Only in the Greek text, not in all the Latin translations, of the synodal letter is the number 520 given. ^ Tillemont, Mimoires etc., t. xv. p. 641. ' Its Acts are found in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 563-938 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 54-274 ; abridged in German, Fuchs, Bibliothek de Kirchenvers. Bd. iv. S. 331 ff., and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 334 ff. FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451. 299 belong to him, and had ventured to hold an ((Ecumenical) Synod without the consent of the apostolic see, which had never been done before, and ought never to be done.^ His colleague Paschasinus added that they, the legates, did not dare to depart from the commission of the apostolic bishop, from the ecclesiastical canons, and the traditions of the Fathers. The commissioners and the senators asked anew what was brought against Dioscurus, and when Lucentius remarked that " it would be an offence for them to see him whose case had to be inquired into sitting near them," they replied: " If you wish to sit as judge, you must not at the same time be accuser.'' Still they ordered Dioscurus to leave his place, and to sit in the middle (so that he was not absolutely to go out, but only to leave the ranks of those entitled to vote), by which means the papal legates were pacified. Upon this Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum came forward and declared that Dioscurus had ill-treated him and the faith, and had kDled Bishop Flavian, and he requested that a petition should be read which he had addressed to the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian iii. The commissioners and senators gave their consent, and Beronicianus now read the memorial, to the effect " that at the last Synod at Ephesus, which had better not have been held, Dioscurus had injured the true religion and con- firmed the heresy of Eutyches by a mob of unruly people and by bribery. The Emperors should therefore command him to answer the accusations of Eusebius, and that the Acts of the Ephesine Synod (Eobber-Synod) should again be read in the present Synod. From these he could bring proof that Dioscurus was opposed to the orthodox faith, that he had confirmed an impious heresy, and had unjustly condemned and ill-treated him the accuser." ^ ' Arendt {Leo d. Gr. u. s. Zeit. S. 270) says ; " liMslo)! iriX/m^i •xmrKra.i l^iTfoTvs Vixx Tcv a^cimXixiiv Ifmu meant only that he had, without the permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the Synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it. " A similar view was taken by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. ii. p. 460, note 15. Cf. vol. i. of this History, p. 7. [It should be remarked that there is no trustworthy evidence whatever that the Pope either joined in convoking the Synod of Nicaea, or was represented by the president.] " Mansi, t. vi. p. 584 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 69. 300 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Required to reply to this by the imperial commissioners and senators, Dioscurus first demanded that they should read the Acts of the Council at Constantinople under Flavian. When his opponents also presented this petition, he changed his plan and wished first to introduce a doctrinal discussion on the question, what was the true Christological faith ; but the imperial commissioners and senators persisted in the reading of all the previous Acts, and at their command the imperial consistorial secretary, Constantine, read first the letter despatched to Dioscurus on the 30th March 449, by the deceased Emperor Theodosius ii., respecting the summoning of the Eobber-Synod.^ When the secretary had further remarked that similar decrees had been despatched to other bishops, the commissioners and senators gave command that Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus should be introduced into the Synod, because Archbishop Leo (of Eome) had reinstated him in his bishopric, and the Emperor had commanded his presence. The actual introduction of Theodoret caused a frightful storm. The party of Dioscurus, that is, the bishops of Egypt, lUyricum, and Palestine, cried out : " The faith is destroyed ; the canons do not tolerate Theodoret ; cast him out, this teacher (?) of Nestorius." The opposite party, the Orientals, those from Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, replied : " We were com- pelled by-blows (at the Eobber-Synod) to subscribe; we were forced to subscribe a blank paper ; cast them out, the Mani- chseans, the enemies of Flavian, the opponents of the faith." Then Dioscurus cried again : " Theodoret anathematized the holy Cyril ; shall Cyril now be cast out ? " The other party immediately answered again: "Cast out the murderer Dioscurus: who is ignorant of his crimes?" The party of Dioscurus then drew in the name of the Empress Pulcheria, and cried out : " Prosperity to the Empress, she drove out Nestorius, therefore the orthodox Synod cannot receive Theodoret." Taking advan- tage of a momentary interruption, Theodoret himself stepped forward, and requested that his petition to the Emperors, wMch was at the same time a complaint against Dioscurus, should be read, upon which the commissioners and senators, in order to quiet men's minds, declared they would now proceed with the ^ JInnsi, t. vi. p. 586 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 70 sq. FIRST SESSION, OCTOBEK 8, 451. 301 presentation of the previous Acts, and that no one should draw the presence of Theodoret into a prejudice. From himself and his opponents, until later, the right of speech and of reply- should be expressly withheld. Besides, the bishop of Antioch had testified to Theodore t's orthodoxy. But the tumult was renewed. The Orientals cried : " Theodoret is worthy to sit here ; " the Egyptains replied : " Cast out the Jew, the enemy of God, and call him not bishop." Then the Orientals shouted: " Cast out the disturbers of the peace, cast out the murderers ; the orthodox man belongs to the Synod." And thus it went on for some time, until at last the commissioners and senators declared : " Such vulgar shouts (e'/c/Sojjcret? BrjfjLOTtKoi) were not becoming in bishops, and could do no good to either party ; they should therefore quietly listen to the continuation of the reading of the Acts." Still the Egyptians shouted : " Cast only one (Theodoret) out ; " but they were brought to silence,^ and the secretary Constantino now read a series of other documents: (a) A second letter of the deceased Emperor Theodosius li. to Dioscurus, dated the 15th of May 449; (6) one to the same effect to Juvenal of Jerusalem ; (c) a third to Abbot Barsumas ; (d) the instructions which Theodosius had given to Elpidius and Eulogius, his commissioners at the Eobber- Synod; (e) a decree to Proclus the resident proconsul at Ephesus ; (/) a third imperial letter to Dioscurus ; and ((/) one to the Eobber-Synod, merely consisting of docu- ments, the contents of which have already been given above, p. 223.^ Dioscurus then spoke and asked why he alone should be held responsible for the deposition of Flavian, of Eusebius of Dorylseum, and others, since, according to the Acts which had been read. Bishops Juvenal and Thalassius had been nominated by the Emperor as judges at the same time with him, and the whole Synod had consented to the decrees, and had subscribed them ? The Orientals (= those from the patriarchate of Antioch) and their friends, however, denied the liberty of their assent, and complained that they had been forced by violence to subscribe a paper on which nothing was yet written. In 1 Mansi, t. vi. p. 590 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 71 eqq. 2 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 593-600 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 75-80. 302 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. particular, they had been threatened with deposition and exile, and soldiers with sticks and swords had surrounded them until they subscribed. They concluded their relation with the cry: "Out then with the murderer" (Dioscurus). The Egyptians replied : " They subscribed before us, why then do their clerics (whom they brought with them) now raise a cry 1 Clerics do not belong to the Synod, out with them ! " Upon this Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, to show the character of the Eobber-Synod, related the following incident. Because he had received some of Flavian's clergy and Eusebius of Dory- Iseum into communion, the imperial commissioners at that Synod, Elpidius and Eulogius, with about three hundred soldiers and monks of Eutyches, had come into his episcopal residence, and had threatened him with death, because he had received the enemies of the Emperor. But the adherents of Dioscurus had' not allowed him to leave the Secretarium of the Church until he had subscribed. After him Thalassius spoke : He had certainly been entered in the Emperor's letter as judge (and president of the Eobber- Synod),^ he knew not why; but when he saw that things which were unbecoming were taking place, he had earnestly endeavoured to prevent this, and he could bring witnesses to prove it. — Bishop Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria afBrmed that he and others had understood little of the whole Synod, and had been imposed upon by Dioscurus and Juvenal. Besides, they had been alarmed by the exclamation : " They are neighbours of the Nestorian heresy," and, " He who rends Christ (into two natures) shall himself be rent. Eend them, kill them, cast them out ! " Thus they had been alarmed for themselves and on account of those whom they had baptized, and therefore had been forced to hold their peace. He added further, that the Emperor had commanded that the Synod should judge respecting Flavian, but Dioscurus and his friends had held many private meetings, and communicated their decisions to no one ; but, on the contrary, a blank paper had been brought, and they had been surrounded by rough, ■^ The old Latin translation has here misunderstood the original, giving : in secretario fueram posiius. FIRST SESSION, OCTOBEK 8, 451. 303 tumultuous mobs, and required to subscribe. Altogether one hundred and thirty-five bishops had been present, forty-two had been commanded to be silent, the rest had belonged to the party of Dioscurus and Juvenal, with the exception of him (Theodore) and fourteen others. " What," he said, " could we now have done ? They played with our life and abused us as heretics," etc. The Orientals and their friends testified to the truth of this statement ; the Egyptians, on the other hand, remarked scornfully, " A true Christian does not allow himself to be frightened ! " and Dioscurus said he thought " if they did not agree, they ought not to have signed, for it concerned the faith in which nothing should be surrendered." In order to weaken their statement with respect to the blank paper, he begged further to ask them: "How in that case their re- monstrances could appear in the minutes ?"^ The imperial commissioners and the senators wished for the present to leave all special questions aside until the whole of the previous Acts should have been read, and at their com- mand the secretary Constantine now began with the minutes of the Eobber-Synod (compare above, p. 241 ff.). Immediately on the reading of the first words of these, it came out that Pope Leo — that is, his letters — had not been received at Ephesus, and that only the fifth place (see above, p. 241) had been accorded to the bishop of Constantinople.^ As a cry again arose at this, Dioscurus demanded anew that all who were not bishops should be required to leave, as the noise proceeded from them ; but Theodore of Claudiopolis said he thought that it was the notaries of Dioscurus himself who so cried, upon which he gave assurance that he had only two notaries with him.^ Constantine then proceeded with the reading of the Acts of Ephesus up to the place where the papal legates stated that 1 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 601-606 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 79-83. ' ^ The papal legate Paschasinus expressed himself on this subject in such a, manner that Quesnel concluded from it that he had recognized the precedence of the see of Constantinople over those of Alexandria and Antioch (in contra. diction to other declarations of Rome). Compare on this subject our commentary on canon 28 of Chalcedon, below, § 200. 3 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 606, 607 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 83. 304 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. they had with them a letter of Leo's (see above, p. 242).^ Upon this archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople remarked that Leo's letter had not been read at the Eobber-Synod, and all the Oriental bishops and their friends agreed with him. He further maintained that Dioscurus had seven times pro- mised on oath to have the letter read, but had not kept his oath, and Theodore of Claudiopolis confirmed this statement. On being interrogated by the commissioners, Dioscurus asserted that he had himself twice called out that this letter should be read ; but Juvenal and Thalassius must have known why it was not done, and they ought to be asked. When the commissioners replied that he above all should defend himself, he merely repeated his former statement, upon which Eusebius of Dorylaeum gave him the lie. Juvenal, on the other side, maintained that it took place in this manner, namely, that John, the primicerius of Dioscurus, instead of reading Leo's letter, had hastily taken in his hand a letter of the Emperor's (naturally by understanding with Dioscurus), and had read this with his (Juvenal's) permission (p. 243). When the commissioners asked Thalassius for an explanation, he contented himself with the statement that he had ordered neither the communicating nor the withholding of the papal letter, and, in fact, he had not been of sufficient importance to do so.^ The secretary Constantine then proceeded with the reading of the Ephesine minutes up to the place where they speak of the applause which Dioscurus had gained by his speech (see above, p. 244).' The Orientals and their friends now denied that they had taken part in those acclamations, etc. ; and Theodore of Claudiopolis asserted, besides, that at this point Dioscurus had driven away the notaries of the other bishops, and had everything taken down by his own notaries (who might easily have ascribed the acclamations of individual bishops to the whole Synod). Dioscurus could, indeed, prove that not he alone, but also Juvenal, Thalassius, and the bishop of Corinth had notaries (each of these one) ; but that he ' The documents read are found in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 607-615 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 83-87. '' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 615-618 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 87-90. ^ The Acts read are given in Mansi, I.e. pp. 618-623 ; Hardouin, l.c. pp. 90-94. FIKST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451. 305 allowed no notary at all to those bishops who did not belong to his party, was proved by Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, who testified that their manuscripts had been taken away from his notaries, and their fingers had almost been broken at the same time (see above, p. 253). So Stephen of Ephesus and Acacius of Ariarathia pressed the point with reference to the enforced subscription of a blank paper, the latter adding : " We were kept shut up in the church until night-time, and even the sick were not allowed to refresh themselves or to go out, but soldiers, with sticks and swords, and monks were placed near us, and thus we were compelled to subscribe."^ Of. p. 253. Again, without going into these points, the imperial com- missioners ordered the further reading of the Acts in which mention was made of the introduction of Eutyches into the Eobber-Synod, and of his confession (see above, p. 244). The first two remarks in reply, which were now made, were of no significance ;^ more important was it that Eusebiusof Dorylaeam declared the statement of Eutyches in the minutes to be untrue ; that the third CEcumenical Council had directly forbidden every addition to the JSTioene Creed. Dioscums appealed to four manuscripts, but Diogenes of Cyzicus, on the other hand, remarked that Eutyches had not repeated the creed com- pletely, for even at Constantinople (in the second CEcumenical Synod), on account of Apollinaris and Macedonius, there had been added : " He came down and was made man by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary," and that this was properly an explanation and not an addition. But the Egyptians and their friends cried : " Nothing from it, and nothing to it (the Nicene Creed), the Emperor will thus have it," and the like.' A longer debate was occasioned by the reading of the sub- sequent words of Eutyches: "I anathematize Manes, etc., and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven" (see above, p. 245). Eusebius of Dorylffium remarked that Eutyches had indeed (in his teach- ing) purposely avoided the expression " from heaven ; " but he had not expressed himself on the point as to whence Christ ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 623-626 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 94. ^ Mansi, I.e. pp. 626, 627 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 95. 3 Mansi, I.e. p. 631 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 98. III. U 306 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. had taken His humanity. Diogenes of Cyzicus and Basil of Seleucia in Isauria likewise testified that Eutyches, although interrogated, had not expressed himself on this point and on the manner of the Incarnation before the Synod (of Constantinople). Dioscurus here took the opportunity to assert his own orthodoxy, and to reproach BasU. for having afterwards repre- sented at Ephesus that the words which he addressed to Eutyches on this matter at the Synod of Constantinople had been incorrectly reported (p. 248 £). Basil replied, amidst interruptions of approval and disapproval from the two parties, that his assertion was, and always had been, that he worshipped one Lord Jesus Christ, who was acknowledged in two natures even after the Incarnation, namely, in His perfect manhood and in His perfect Godhead. The one He had from the Father before all eternities, the other from His mother according to the flesh, and He had united this hypostatically (^kuO' vir6<7Tacnv) with Himself. This explanation, which he had first given at the Synod at Constantinople, he had also read at Ephesus, and for that reason he had been rebuked by the Eutychians as a Nestorian. On the further expression of Eutyches (at Constantinople) that he acknowledged two natures before the Incarnation, but only one afterwards, he had replied to him.- " If thou dost not acknow- ledge two undivided and un mingled natures even after the union, then thou dost assert a mingling and confusing." When these words also were read in Ephesus, a more violent tumult had arisen, and in the confusion and distress he had then said, half-unconsciously : " I do not remember to have employed this expression, but my words meant : if thou speakest absolutely only of one nature after the union, then thou teachest a mingling; but if thou speakest of one a-eaapKcofievrj and evav6panrrj!Ta(Ta dvac; in the sense of Cyril, then thou teachest the same as we" (cf. p. 248). To the question of the commissioners, why, then, with his orthodox opinions, he had subscribed the judgment against Flavian, Basil answered, that he had been constrained to do so by the fear of the majority, who could have condemned him also. Dioscurus did not fail to reproach him with this weakness ; and the answer of Basil, " that he had always shown FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451. 307 the courage of martyrdom before secular judges, but that one did not venture to resist the fathers (bishops)," shows that in fact he was unable to justify himself And now the Oriental bishops who were friendly to him exclaimed more openly: " We have all failed (at Ephesus), we all ask for pardon." In this admission the commissioners thought they discovered a contradiction of the earlier statement of the Orientals and their friends, that they had subscribed a blank paper only by constraint ; but certainly with injustice, for that very yielding to constraint was certainly a fault on the part of the bishops. They did not, however, allow themselves to be drawn into a discussion of this point, but renewed the cry : " We have all failed, we all ask for pardon," '^ and Beronicianus again read a portion of the Ephesine Acts, containing the further declara- tion of Eutyches (see above, p. 245).^ Upon this Eusebius of Dorylseum brought forward the complaint that he had not been allowed at Ephesus to proceed with his accusation against Eutyches ; and Dioscirrus, Juvenal, and Thalassius, when questioned by the commissioners on this point, could only excuse themselves by saying that it was not the)'-, but the Emperor and his representative Elpidius, who had ordered this exclusion. The imperial commissioners replied that this excuse was not valid, for it had been a question of judging as to the faith, on which the Emperor's representative had not had to decide. But Dioscurus ex- claimed : " How can you blame me for having violated the canons by yielding to the demand of Elpidius, since you violate them yoiirselves by the admission of Theodoret ?" The com- missioners replied : " Theodoret has entered as an accuser, and sits among the accusers, even as you (Dioscurus, etc.) among the accused."' Constantino then again read a portion of the minutes of Ephesus, together with the Acts of the first session at Constantinople under Flavian, which were embodied in them (see above, pp. 189 and 246).* ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 6.34-639 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 99-102. - The Acts read are given in Mansi, I.e. pp. 639-643 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 102-106. ^ Mansi, I.e. p. 643 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 106. ' Mansi, l.c. pp. 646-655 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. lOil-lli 308 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. At the close of the reading of these minutes, the imperial commissioners and senators renewed the question, so disagree- able to Dioscurus, why at Ephesus Bishop Eusebius of Dory- loeum had not been admitted, since he had been so fair in demanding a hearing for Eutyches at the Synod of Constanti- nople. Dioscurus persisted in silence, and the commissioners therefore allowed the reading to proceed. They now arrived at the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, em- bodied in the Acts of Ephesus, together with the documents belonging to it and the interruptions introduced at Ephesus (see pp. 190 and 246).^ "When the letter of Cyril to John of Antioch was read, a pause took place at Chalcedon, filled up with acclamations of various kinds.^ Both parties simul- taneously entered the conflict with shouts : " Honour to Cyril, we believe as he did." When the Orientals added : " Thus also Flavian believed, and was condemned for it : Eusebius of DorylEeum deposed Nestorius, but Dioscurus falsified the faith," the Egyptians replied : " God deposed Nestorius." In the same way, when the Orientals cried out, "Thus Leo believes, thus Anatolius," they added: "We all believe thus;" and all the bishops, together with the imperial commissioners and senators, shouted together : " Thus the Emperor believes, thus the Empress believes, thus we all believe." There was still, however, another bitter pill for Dioscurus, for the Orientals and their friends again exclaimed : " Cast out the murderer of Flavian ;" and the commissioners, in con- sequence of the Egyptians protesting their orthodoxy, put to them the question : " If you thus believe, why have you then received Eutyches, who teaches the opposite, into communion, and, on the other hand, have deposed Flavian and Eusebius ?" Dioscurus knew of nothing better to do than to point to the Acts, and Beronicianus now read what Eustathius of Berytus had brought forward at Ephesus, in order to show that Cyril too acknowledged only one nature in Christ (see p. 246). The Orientals exclaimed : " That is Eutychian and Dioscurish." ' Mansi,'t. vi. pp. 658-674 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 114-126. ' Hardouin, t. ii. p. 126 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 674, where, at the words : Et cvm letjeretur epistola sancice memorice Cyrilli, it should be noted that that which lullows took place at Chalcedon. FIRST SESSION, OCTOBEK 8, 451. 309 But Dioscurus asserted that he too admitted no mingling of the natures. Upon this Eustathius endeavoured to show that his quotation from Cyril, which he had brought forward at Ephesus, was correct. This was true ; but while he had at Ephesus attributed a Monophysite meaning to the words of Cyril, he now interpreted them in a sense quite orthodox, to this effect : " If any one speaks of only one nature in order thereby to deny that the humanity of Christ is of the same substance with us, and if any one speaks of two natures, in order thereby (like Nestorius) to divide the Son of God, let him be accursed." He added also, that he must say, in defence of Flavian, that he too had made use of the same words, and had thus expressed himself in his letter to the Emperor. This made the commissioners ask : " If this be so, why then did you agree to the condemnation of Flavian ?" And to this Eustathius had no other answer than the confession : " I have been in fault." ^ Beronicianus then read how Flavian at the Synod at Con- stantinople had declared the true faith (on the two natures), aud had required all the bishops who were present to put down their view in the minutes (see above, p. 191). Upon this the commissioners and senators asked if this confession of Flavian was orthodox, and they requested the members of the Synod to make a declaration on this point. The first who declared for the orthodoxy of Flavian was the Eoman legate Paschasinus. To him followed Anatolius of Constantinople, the second legate Lucentius, Bishop Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Berytus. Thereupon aU the Orientals and their friends cried out together : " The martyr Flavian explained the faith cor- rectly."^ Dioscurus, however, demanded that the statement of Flavian should be read completely, and then he would answer the question which had been proposed. This demand was supported by Juvenal and his bishops from Palestine, but they at the same time acknowledged the orthodoxy of Flavian, and now left their places by the side of Dioscurus, so that they finally passed over to the other side amidst a shout of 1 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 674-678 ; Hardoiiin, t. ii. pp. 126, 127. " Mansi, I.e. p. 678 sq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 127. 310 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. applause from the Orientals. The same was done by Peter of Corinth and Irenjeus of Naupactus, who remarked that they had certainly not been members of the Ephesine Synod (as they were not bishops at that time), but what had been read had convinced them that Flavian had agreed with S. Cyril. They were followed by the other bishops of Hellas, and also by those of Macedonia and Crete, and by Nicolas of Stobi in Macedonia ii., Athanasius of Busiris in the Egyptian Tripoli, Ausonius of Sebennytus, ISTestorius of Phlagon, Macarius of Cabassi, Constantine of Demetrias in Thessaly, Eutychius of Adrianople, Cladceus of Anchiasmus, Marcus of Euroia, Pere- grinus of Phoenicia, and Soterichus of Corcyra. These passed over together to the other side. Dioscurus, on the contrary, declared: "Flavian was justly condemned, because he main- tained that there were two natures after the union. I can prove from Athanasius, Gregory,- and Cyril that after the union we should speak only of one incarnate nature of the Logos i^fiia aeaapKcofievT] rov Aoyov (fiviroi). I am rejected with the fathers ; but I defend the doctrine of the fathers, and give way in no point. IMoreover, I must request, like many others, that the reading may go on."^ This was done, and they came now to the particular votes which had been given at the Synod of Constantinople on the point of faith in question (see p. 191), together with the objections and exclamations brought forward on the other side at Ephesus (see p. 247).^ Bishop ^thericus of Smyrna, who had denied at Ephesus the vote which he had given at Constantinople, and had professed to have spoken differently, now endeavoured to present his conduct at Ephesus in another light. For this he was compelled to hear bitter comments, not only from Dioscurus, but also from Thalassius, the latter of whom said : " You made your statement at Ephesus with- out any compulsion whatever, why do you now wish to with- draw it ?"^ After Beronicianus had read some further votes, those of Bishops Valerian and Longinus, Dioscurus interposed with the remark : " I accept the expression, ' Christ is of two "■ Jlaiisi, t. vi. pp. 679-683 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 130 sq, '' Mansi, I.e. p. 686 sq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 131 sij. " Mansi, I.e. p. 690; Hardouin, I.e. p. 135. FIEST SESSION, OCTOBEE R, 451. 311 natures' (e'/c Bvo), but not, 'there are two natures' (to Svo ov Sexo/Mat). I must stand forth boldly, for my life is in ques- tion." Eusebius of Dorylisum retorted, that this was only a just recompense, for he had almost destroyed him, and Flavian actually.^ Dioscurus replied, that he would defend himself before God. " Will you also before the laws 1" asked Eusebius, adding that " it was necessary to defend himself also before these, for he had come forward here not as his encomiast, but as his accuser." The legate Paschasinus again made the remark that at Ephesus Dioscurus had not permitted Flavian to speak so much as he himself spoke here ; but the imperial commissioners turned aside the reproach possibly implied in the words, with the remark that " the present Synod would be a just one;" and the second legate, Lucentius, agreed to this.^ Then Beronicianus read the close of the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, and only two slight interrup- tions occurred here, Dioscurus once exclaiming : " After the union there are no longer two natures ;" whilst Eustathius of Berytus found fault with the expression : " He assumed man," saying that we ought instead to say : " He was made man and assumed our flesh. "^ In perfect quiet, and without any interruption or objection, as at the Eobber-Synod so also at Chalcedon, they proceeded with the reading of the minutes of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions of Constantinople.* Immediately after these came those of the seventh session, together with the speeches occasioned by this reading at Ephesus (see above, pp. 199 ff. and 248). As we have already seen (p. 199), in the seventh session at Constantinople, Eusebius of Doryleeum and Eutyches were opposed to each other as accuser and accused ; and after a protracted discussion, Eusebius had put to Eutyches the decisive question : " Dost thou acknowledge the existence of two natures even after the Incarnation ?" At this question the Eobber- Synod, when the Acts of Constantinople were read, became ' The present Greek text says nothing here of Flavian. * Mansi, t. vi. p. 690 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 135. ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 691-698 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 135-139. * Mansi, I.e. pp. 698-730 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 139-158. Cf. above, pp. 191 and 248. 312 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. SO enraged that they cried out : " Take and bum Eusebius ;" and the whole Synod (according to the minutes) shouted: " Let him who confesses two natures be anathema " (p. 248). At Chalcedon the Oriental and other bishops who had been members of the Eobber-Synod denied this emphatically, and even Dioscurus was forced to confess that only his Egyptians had thus exclaimed.^ The minutes of Ephesus said further that the whole Synod had confirmed by acclamation the confession of faith of Eutyches, that " before the Incarnation our Lord was of two natures, but afterwards He had only one." Against this, too, the Orientals and their friends protested, and declared : " Only the Egyptians thus exclaimed : it is the doctrine of Dioscurus. Prosperity to the Emperor, many years to the Empress, many years to the Senate ! " Bishop Eustathius of Berytus then offered the suggestion that the Synod should at the same time guard itself against the possible rejoinder, that it divided (like Nestorius) the natures in Christ ; and Basil of Seleucia then declared (with the silent acquiescence of all) : " We confess, but do not divide the two natures ; we divide them not (like Nestorius), nor confuse tliem (like the Mono- physites)."^ There now followed long readings without interruption. First came the close of the minutes of the seventh session of Constantinople (see above, p. 203 f.), and then the Acts of that synodal assembly which the Emperor Theodosius ii. had appointed at the request of Eutyches for the verification of the minutes of the Synod of Constantinople (see p. 211 ff.). A second smaller commission of inquiry had, as we know, had to examine the statement of Eutyches, that the sentence of deposition pronounced against him had not been drawn up at the seventh session of the Council at Constantinople, but before- hand (see above, p. 2 1 9 f.), and the Acts of this assembly were again read at Chalcedon, as at Ephesus.' Immediately after this came the explanation given by Basil of Seleucia at the Eobber-Synod, in which he took back again the vote which, ^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 739 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 163. " Manai, I.e. p. 743 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 166. * These Acts read are in Maiisi, I.e. pp. 743-827 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 167-214. FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451. 313 in common with others, he had given at Constantinople : " That two natures were to be confessed."^ Now at Chalcedon he asserted : " It is true that I presented a petition at Ephesus through the sainted Bishop John, that I might alter my state- ment made at Constantinople, but I did it from fear of thee, Dioscurus ; for thou laidest great constraint upon us, as well by thy words as by the troops placed inside and outside the church. Soldiers with weapons were thrust into the church, and the monks of Barsumas stood round us, and the Parabolani,^ and a multitude of people. Bishop Auxanius from Egypt, Athanasius, and all the others, if put upon their oath, must confess that I said to Dioscurus : ' Do not, sir, nullify the judgment of the whole world.'" Then Dioscurus answered with the question : " Did I force you ? " Basil answered : " Yes ; by the threats of your troops you compelled us to such blood-guiltiness (towards Tlavian). Consider yourselves how violent Dioscurus must then have been, when even now, when he no longer has more than six adherents, he insults us all." Dioscurus replied : " My notary Demetrian can certify that you asked him privately (and so not by compulsion) to alter your words." Basil replied : " I pray your highnesses (the commissioners and senators), ask aU the metropolitans to declare upon the gospel whether, when we were sad and refused to vote, Dioscurus did not stand up and cry : Whoever does not subscribe has to do with me. Ask especially Eusebius (probably the bishop of Ancyra) on his oath, whether he was not almost condemned because he delayed his vote only a very short time." Dioscurus replied that Basil had not then for the first time, but at an earlier period, had his words altered ; but without allowing this, Basil now requested that Dioscurus should bring forward every- thing wliich he knew against him, so that he might be able to answer for himself.'' In order to the further clearing up of the acts of violence ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 747, 827 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 167, 214. Cf. above, p. 246 and p. 306. ''["An inferior order of cliurcli-officers who fuelled the duty of hospital attendants and ii arses to the sick poor, whom they relieved from the alms of the faithful." — Dicty. of Chr. Antiq.] " Mansi, t. vi. p. 827 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 214 sq. 314 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. at Ephesus, Bishops Onesiphorus of Iconium and Marinianus of Synnada related what we have mentioned above (p. 254), how they and other bishops had clasped the knees of Dioscurus and had entreated him on their knees not to ill-treat Flavian, and how he had threatened them, and had called in the counts with military and chains, and thus had compelled all to subscribe.' Then were read (a) the vote taken at the Eobber-Synod on the orthodoxy of Eatyches and his restoration ;* (h) the letter of the Eutychian monks to the Eobber-Synod, and the approval of it given at Ephesus ;' and (c) those extracts from the Acts of the third (Ecumenical Council which had also been repeated at the Eobber-Synod.* In the meantime night had come on, and the rest of the Acts of Ephesus, the voting on the condemnation of Flavian and of Eusebius of Dorylfeum, had therefore to be read by candle light.' After this had been done, the imperial com- missioners and senators spoke and said : " The question re- specting the right faith can be more carefully considered in the next session." As, however, it has now been shown by the reading of the Acts and by the avowal of many bishops who confess that they fell into error at Ephesus, that Flavian and others were unjustly deposed, it seems right that, if it so pleases the Emperor, the same punishment should be inflicted upon the heads of the previous Synod, Dioscurus of Alex- andria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of CtBsarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, and that their deposition from the episcopal dignity should be pronounced by the Council." The Orientals and their friends exclaimed : " That is quite right." The lUyrians, on the contrary, cried out : " We have all erred, we all ask for pardon." Upon this the Orientals and others also demanded only the deposition of Dioscurus, and cried out : " Many years to the senate ! holy God, holy ' Mansi and Hardouin, ll.cc. ^Mansi, I.e. pp. 831-862; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 215-234. Cf. above, p. 249. ' Mansi, I.e. pp. 862-870 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 234-238. Cf. above, p. 250. ' Mansi, I.e. pp. 871-902 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 238-254. Cf. above, p. 250 f. ' Mansi, I.e. pp. 902-935 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 254-271. Cf. above, p. 251. " In this they went against the demand of the Pope, that there should be bo more discussion on the faith. Of. Katholik, 1872, Febr. S. 139. SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 10, 451. 315 Almighty, holy Immortal, have mercy upon us ! Many years to the Emperors ! The impious must ever be subdued ! Dioscurus the murderer Christ has deposed ! This is a righteous judgment, a righteous senate, a righteous Council ! " At the close, the commissioners demanded that each indi- vidual bishop should set forth his faith in writing (on the controverted point), without fear, having only God before his eyes. They should at the same time know that the Emperor would stand fast by the declarations of the 318 fathers at Xica3a and the 150 at Constantinople, as well as by the contents of the writings of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Cyril, which had been read and approved at the first Synod at Ephesus. Moreover, it was well known that Archbishop Leo of Eome had also written a letter against the Eutychian heresy to the sainted Flavian. — Many voices cried: "We have read it;" and then Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, as first notary of the Synod, declared the first session ended.^ Sec. 190. Second Session, October 10, 451. At the second session,^ which, like all those which followed, likewise took place in the church of S. Euphemia, there were already absent Dioscurus, Juvenal, and the four other bishops whose deposition had been pronounced by the imperial com- missioners. They opened the new session with the request, that the Synod would now declare what the true faith was, so that the erring might be brought back to the right way. The bishops replied, protesting that no one could venture to draw up a new formulary (eKdeai'i) of the faith, but that which had ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 935 sc[q. ; Hardouiu, t. ii. p. 271 sqq. ' The second and third sessions are in many manuscripts exchanged ; that the ordinary numbering, however, which we follow, is the right one, was shown by Tillemont (t. xv. note 45, Sur S. lAon, p. 916), from the chronological dates connected with each session. The Ballerini, on the contrary, would maintain, supporting themselves upon Facundus (see p. 285, note), that these dates" are also doubtful and of more recent origin ; that our second session is in reality the thkd, and vice versa. Cf. Bailer, ed. 0pp. 8. Leonis, t. ii. p. 502, nota. ^ The Acts of the second session are in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 938-974 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 274-310. Abridged in German, Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers. Bd. iv. S. 411 if., and "Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. vi. S. 341 ff. 316 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. been laid down by the fathers was to be held fast. This must not be departed from. Universal approval was accorded to the words of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopol : " On the Eutychian question a test had already been given by the Eoman archbishop, which they (that is, he and his nearest colleagues) had all signed," and all the bishops exclaimed: "That we also say, the explanation already given by Leo suffices ; another declaration of faith must not be put forth." The imperial commissioners and senators, however, were not contented with this, but, holding to their previous demand, they proposed that all the patriarchs (oi oaiMraroi, -Trarpidp'^ai SioiKija-ewi eKd<7Trj<;) should come together, along with one or two bishops of their province,^ and take common counsel respecting the faith, and communicate the result, so that, by its universal acceptance, every doubt in regard to the faith might be removed, or in case that, contrary to their expecta- tions, those believing otherwise should be present, these would immediately be made manifest. — Again the bishops replied : " A written declaration of faith we do not bring forward. This is contrary to the rule '' (the prescription of the third CEcu- menical Council, Actio vi., see above, p. 7 f ). Bishop Tlorentius of Sardes added by way of mediating : " As those who have been taught to follow the Nicene Synod, and also the regularly and piously assembled Synod at Ephesus.in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Coelestine (the Pope), and also with the letter of the most holy Leo, cannot possibly draw up at once a formula of the faith, we therefore ask for a longer delay ; but I, for my part, believe that the letter of Leo is sufficient." At the suggestion of Cecropius, the older documents, in which the true faith had already been set forth, were publicly read, and (a) before all the Nicene Creed with the anathema against the Arian heresy. The bishops then exclaimed: " That is the orthodox faith, that we all believe, into that we were baptized, into that we also baptize ; thus Cyril taught, thus believes Pope (6 Udira^) Leo." ^ (6) With similar accla- ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 953 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 285. Here the superior metropoli- tans of the great districts (= civil dioceses) are already named patriarchs, cf. vol. i. p. 391. '^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 955 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 286 sq. SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 10, 4ol. 31.7 mations the Creed of Constantinople was received. (c) To this succeeded the reading of that letter from S. Cyril to Nestorius, which had been approved at Ephesiis (see above, pp. 20 f. and 47), and of his subsequent letter (the pacificatory document) to Bishop John of Antioch (see above, p. 1 3 7), both of which documents, besides, had already been read in the first session of our Council, among the Acts of Constantinople (see above, p. 307). After further acclamations (d) it came to the turn of the celebrated letter of Leo to Flavian, the contents of which we have already communicated (see above, p. 2 2 5 ff.), and which was now read in a Greek translation, and without the patristic proofs which had been appended to it (although not at the beginning) by Leo himself.^ After this was done, the bishops exclaimed : " That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles ! We all believe thus, the orthodox believe thus ! Anathema to him who believes otherwise ! Peter has spoken by Leo : thus Cyril taught ! That is the true faith I Why was that not read at Ephesus (at the Eobber- Synod) ? Dioscurus Ifept it hidden." ^ Three passages in the letter of Leo had, however, raised doubts among the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine. In what these doubts consisted, we learn for the first time from the acts of the fourth session. The wording of these passages appeared to imply a certain kind of division of the divine and human in Christ, and thus not to keep sufficiently clear of Nestorianism. These passages are (a) in chap. iii. : " In order to pay our debt, the invisible nature united itself with the passible, so that, as our salvation required, the one Mediator between God and man on the one side could die, on the other could not." In order to pacify them. Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople read a passage from the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, in which it was similarly said, " because the adp^ (manhood) of the Lord died for us, therefore it is said : He died, not as though He could taste death in His proper divine ^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 962 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 299 sqq., have even given these patristic passages, but note that they are wanting in most manuscripts. That they were not read in our second session, is shown by the Ballerini, I.e. t. i. p. 798, n. 8. ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 971 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 306. 318 HISTOliY OF THE COUNCILS. nature, but because His adp^ tasted death." ^ (/3) The same bishops then took exception, in the second place, to the passage in chap. iv. : " Each of the two forms (natures) does in com- munion with the other that which is proper to it, since the ■word (of God) performs that which belongs to the word, and the flesh accomplishes that which belongs to the flesh. The one flashes forth gloriously in miracles, the other submits to insults." As parellels to this, Aetius again read an expression of S. Cyril from the synodal letter to Nestorius, which was connected with the twelve anathematisms, as follows : " Some expressions in the Holy Scriptures apply best to God, others to the manhood, and others again hold a middle position, showing that the Son of God is both God and man."^ (7) Finally, they were struck with anotlier passage in the same chap. iv. : " Although in Christ there is only one person of God and of man, yet the glory and the shame which are common to the two natures have a different source. From us He has the manhood, which is inferior to the Father ; from the Father He has the Godhead, which is equal to the Father." Thereupon Theodoret remarked, that S. Cyril also had similarly expressed himself, and quoted the passage : " He became man, and changed not His properties, but remained what He was. The one, however, is comprehended as thoroughly dwelling in the other, that is, the divine nature in the manhood." ^ The imperial commissioners and the senate now put the question : " Has any one still any doubt ? " They replied with acclamation : " No one doubts." Notwithstanding, the bishops of niyricum were not quite satisfied, for one of them, Atticus of Nicopolis (in Epirus), requested that they would allow a few days' delay, during which the members of the Synod might quietly consider and settle the question. And as the letter of Leo had been read, they should also have a copy of that ^ Mansi, I.e. p. 663, t. vii. p. 971 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1275, t. ii. pp. 118 and 307 ; cf. above, p. 21. '' Mansi, t. vi. p. 971 sqq. ; Hardouin,. t. ii. p. 307. This is the substance of a longer exposition in Cyril, I.e. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1290 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1078 ; see above, p. 30 f. Exactly the same words were used by Cyril in a letter to Acacius of Melitene. See Mansi, t. v. p. 322 ; see above, p. 144. ^ Cyril says the same in the synodal letter quoted above. See Hardouin, t. i. p. 1286 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1071 sqq. SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 10, 451. 319 letter of Cyril to Nestorius, to which the twelve aiiathematisms were appended, so that they might be able to prepare for tire proceedings on the subject. The other bishops exclaimed : " If we are to have delay, we must request that all the bishops in common shall take part in the desired consultation;" and the imperial commissioners and the senators, agreeing to this, declared : " The assembly is put off for five days, and the bishops shall, during that time, meet with Anatolius of Constantinople, and take counsel together concerning the faith, so that the doubting may be instructed." Tliey were in- terrupted by the cry : " ISTone of us doubts, we (but certainly not all) have already subscribed," and then they went on : " It is, however, not necessary that all come together, but Anatolius may choose out of those who Irave already sub- scribed Leo's letter such as he thinks fitted to instriict the doubting." (Cf. below, § 192, p. 330 f.) When the session was about to terminate, some bishops, probably of those from lllyricum, took advantage of this moment in order to intercede for the heads of the Eobber- Synod. They cried : " "We petition for the- fathers, that they may be allowed again to enter the Synod. The Emperor and the Empress should hear of this petition. We have all erred; let all be forgiven ! " Thereupon a great commotion arose, a contest of shouts and counter-shouts between the two parties. The clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: "Only a few cry for this, the Synod itself says not a syllable." Thereupon tlie Orientals and others cried out : '' Exile to the Egyptian ; " and the Illyrians : " We beseech you pardon all ! " The Orientals : " Exile to the Egyptian ; " the Illyrians : " We have all erred ; have mercy on us all. These words to the orthodox Emperor : ' The Churches are rent in pieces ' " (that is, schisms are arising through that deposition). And again the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed : " To exile with Dioscurus ; God has [ rejected him," and, " whoever has communion with him is a I Jew." The Illyrians and Orientals continued their exclama- tions, until at last the commissioners put an end to the subject with the words : " The consultation with Anatolius, which we have already required, must now be taken in hand." ^ 1 Maiisi, t. vi. p. 974 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 307 sqq. 320 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Sec. 191. Third Session, October 13, 451. Before the expiry of the appointed interval of five days, the third general session was held on the 13 th of October in the same church.^ It is nowhere intimated that the imperial com- missioners and the senators were present, and on this occasion their names are found neither in the catalogue of those present which is prefixed to the Acts, nor in the text among those who speak. They said subsequently that the condemnation of Dioscurus (at this session) had taken place without their knowledge ; and from this we might perhaps conclude that the holding of this third session had not been announced to them. But this is not the case ; it appears, on the contrary, more probable that they purposely remained away from this session, in order to avoid the appearance of the imperial authority having brought about the condemnation of Dioscurus and deprived the bishops of their full liberty.^ The number of the bishops who were present at this session was also smaller, as those who were friendly to Dioscurus did not appear. The list, which is, however, imperfect, has the names of only two hundred as being present. This new session was opened by Archdeacon Aetius of Con- stantinople, as first notary of the Synod, with the intelligence that Eusebius of Dorylseum, besides the complaint against Dioscurus, which he had read at the first session, had given in a second which he was ready to communicate. The papal legate, Paschasinus, remarked that, as Leo had given him com- ' The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 975-1102 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 310-382. Arenilt thinks (Papst Leo u. s. Ztit, S. 279) that this session took place in a chapel of the church of S. Euphemia, because the Acts say, l> t* /ixprvpla T?s ciyix! . . . E!iip>i/ilxs. . . . But it is the church itself of the Holy Martyr which is thus designated. " Arendt says (S. 279) : " The ahsence of the senate seems astonishing ; but it is not so in fact, for the chief work of the session was, as is clear from the contents of the Acts, the definite pronouncing of the judgment on Dioscurus. The reasons involved were half ecclesiastical, half political. In regard to the political element, the senate had already given their judgment ; in regard to the other, the ecclesiastical, which lay entirely outside their sphere, the senate had no need to be present, and their absence only shows how fully the State recognized the necessity that the purely ecclesiastical proceedings should be free and independent, and as little as possible influenced, but left to the spiritualty." THIRD SESSION, OCTOBER 13, 451. 321 mission to preside in his place, therefore all that was brought forward at the Synod must go through him, and that he now ordered the reading of this accusation. The principal contents were : " I have brought against Dioscurus the accusation that he holds the same opinions with Eutyches, the condemned and anathematized heretic; but at the recently held Synod at Ephesus he obtained power by the violence of his troops and by money, he violated the true faith, he introduced a heretical leaven into the Church, and robbed me of my spiritual office. As it has already been shown in the previous transactions (first session) that Dioscurus taught heretically, that he excluded me from the Synod at Ephesus (the Eobber-Synod), and prevented both me and Bishop Flavian from defending our just allegations ; as it has further been shown that he had the minutes entered differently from what was spoken, and enforced the subscription of a blank paper: I therefore pray that you will have pity upon me and decree that all which was done against me be declared null, and do me no harm, but that I be again restored to my spiritual dignity. At the same time anathematize his evil doctrine and punish him for his insolence according to his deserts."^ Eusebius added orally the petition that he might be per- sonally confronted with his opponent. Aetius stated that the session had been announced to Dioscurus, as to all the other bishops, by two deacons, and he had answered them that " he would willingly appear, but his guards prevented him." Pas- chasinus immediately sent out first two priests, Epiphanius and Elpidius, from the church, to see whether Dioscurus was in the neighbourhood ; and as this had no result, at the suggestion of Anatolius of Constantinople, three bishops, Constantine, Metropolitan of Bostra, Acacius of Ariarath, and Atticus of Zele, together with the notary Himerius, were sent to Dioscurus at his lodging, to require his appearance. Dioscurus answered them also that he would willingly come, but that he was prevented by his guards, the Magistriani and Scholarii (imperial officers). — The synodal deputies were on their way back with this answer when Eleusinius, the assistant of the Magister sacrorum officiorum, met them, and as he ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 986 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 311. III. X 322 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. asserted that Dioscurus might appear at the Synod if he wished/ they returned to him and renewed their demand. Deprived now of his previous excuse, Dioscurus replied that "it had been decided respecting him in the previous (first) session hy the imperial commissioners, and now they wished to annul this. He demanded that his affair should again be brought forward in the presence of the commissioners and senators." The deputies did not fail to represent to Dioscurus, that, consequently, that was not true which he had at first said to them, and then reported to the Synod the result of their mission.^ Then three bishops, Pergamius of Antioch in Pisidia, Cecropiiis of Sebastopolis, and Eufinus of Samosata, together with the notary Hypatius, were sent with a written invitation to Dioscurus, to the effect, " that it was not in order to annul anything which had been decreed in the first session, but to examine new matters of complaint which Eusebius of Dory- Iseum had brought forward, that the Synod had invited Dio- scurus, and he was bound to appear, in accordance with the canonical rules." Dioscurus now declared that he was ill; and when the deputies met him, he said he had just recovered, but he returned to his former excuse that he would now appear if the imperial commissioners were present, and added, that then the other heads of the Synod of Ephesus — Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eustathius (see above, pp. 224, 301, 314) — would also be forced to appear with him. The deputies replied that the new complaint of the Bishop of Dory- Iseum was directed against Dioscurus alone, and not also against the five others, and that therefore their presence was not necessary ; but Dioscurus adhered to his refusaL^ When the synodal deputies had again returned and given information respecting their mission, Eusebius of Dorylseum proposed to send a third invitation to Dioscurus. Before this was prepared, some clerics and laymen who had come from Alexandria were allowed to appear before the Synod, in order ' This incident is brought forward by the synodal deputies somewhat later. Mansi, t. vi. p. 995 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 315 D. '^ Mansi, t. vi. pp. 987-995 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 314 sqq. 3 Mansi, t. ri. pp. 995-1003 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 315-319. THIRD SESSION, OCTOBER 13, 451. 323 to present complaints against Dioscurus. The papal legate Paschasinus asked these new complainants whether they were ready to prove their accusations against Dioscurus, and when they said they were, their complaints were read. They were four in number, and were all addressed to " the Archbishop and Patriarch of great Eome, Leo, and to the holy and (Ecu- menical Synod," and the first of them, from the Alexandrian deacon Theodore, said that " he (Theodore) had served for two and twenty years among the Magistriani (imperial bodyguard), that then the holy Cyril of Alexandria had taken him into his service about the time of the Synod of Ephesus, and had advanced him to be a cleric. For fifteen years he had been in this position, and then Dioscurus, after entering upon his of&ce (a.d. 444), without any written or oral complaint having been brought against him, had deposed him from his spiritual office, and threatened him with expulsion from the city, and this for no other reason than that he had enjoyed the confi- dence of Cyril. He had persecuted in a similar manner all the relations and servants of Cyril. In Cyril, however, this heretic, this Origenist hated the true faith. He had thrown out insults against the holy Trinity, and had taken part in murder, in cutting down the trees of others, in burning and in destroying houses. Further, he had always lived in a dis- graceful manner, as he was ready to prove. He had done even worse than the things which he had practised against Flavian. He had ventured to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the apostolic see of Eome, and by threats had com- pelled the ten bishops who had come from Egypt with him, for several refused to accompany him, to subscribe this ex- communicatioa They had subscribed weeping and lamenting. In order that the proof of all this might be possible, the Synod should have the following persons brought under guard: Agorast, Dorotheus, Eusebius, and the notary John.'' He himself would bring forward upright witnesses at the proper time." ^ The second complaint was presented by the deacon Ischyrion. ^ That these were friends and assistants of Dioscurus, is clear from the close of the complaint of Ischyrion. See below, p. 32,5. Walch, I.e. S. 360, has erroneously confounded them with the witnesses whom Theodore was ready to hring forward. ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 1006 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 322 sqq. 32-4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. He declared how violently Dioscurus had behaved, how he had destroyed the goods, trees, and dwellings of his opponents, had driven some away, had punished others, and had also been disrespectful towards the holy relics. All this was known in Alexandria by the people, the clergy, and the monks. When the Emperors had granted com to the poor churches of Libya, in order that they might make from it bread for the Eucharist and feed the poor, he had forbidden the bishops of those regions to receive it, and had bought it himself and stored it up, in order to sell it again, in a time of dearth, at huge prices. In the same way, he had not permitted the institutions to be completed, which the pious matron Peristeria had set up for convents, hospitals, and the like, but had squandered the money given for the purpose on persons connected with theatres. His dissolute life was generally known, and women of evil reputation went out and in to the dwelling of the bishop, and his bath, particularly the celebrated Pansophia, surnamed ^Opeivr) (that is, Montana, Montez !), so that a popular song had even been circulated about her and her lover (Dioscurus), as would be shown. Moreover, Dioscurus had also murders on his conscience. Ischyrion further speaks of himself, how Cyril had shown him confidence, and how many troublesome journeys and pieces of business he had accom- plished as his agent, so that, as they could see, his health had been weakened by them. But Dioscurus had immediately expelled him from the holy service, and had allowed his property to be burned, and his trees to be cut down by monks and others, so that he was now a beggar. Nay, he had even given it in charge to the presbyter Mennas, and the deacons Peter and Harpocration, with other officers, to put him to death, and it was only by timely flight that he had then saved his life. Subsequently he had actually been laid hold of by this Harpocration, the most cruel of the assistants of Dio- scurus,^ and imprisoned in a hospital without any charge having ' The complaint adds, "The cruelty of Harpocration had been seen at the Kobber-Synod in his ill-treatment of Flavian and of Proterius, then a priest, now a bishop.'' As Proterius did not become Bishop of Alexandria until after the deposition of Dioscurus, the words, "now a bishop," must be a later addition. Of. Walch, I.e. S. 352. THIRD SESSION, OCTOBER 13, 451. 325 been brought against bim. And even in this prison Dioscurus had made attempts upon his life, and finally had set him at liberty only upon grievous conditions, for example, that he should leave his native city Alexandria. He requested that the Synod would have pity upon him, and admit him to prove his accusations, and after examination, restore him again to his spiritual office. In conclusion, he prayed that they would have Agorast, Dorotheus, Eusebius, Didion, Harpocration, Peter, and the bishop's bathmaster, Gaianus, apprehended, so that they might be heard. At the proper time he would then bring forward upright witnesses.^ The third complaint was preferred by the Alexandrian presbyter Athanasius. Immediately at the beginning he says : " He and his departed brother Paul were sons of Isidora, a sister of CyriL In his testament, Cjo'il had left great legacies to his successor, and had at the same time adjured him to be friendly to his relatives. Dioscurus, however, hating Cyril on account of his orthodoxy, had done the contrary, and had persecuted his relatives. He had immediately threatened him and his brother Paul with death and had driven them from Alexandria, so that they had gone to Constantinople to seek for protection. At the instigation of Dioscurus and his friends Chrysaphius and Nomus, they had, however, been arrested in Constantinople, and had been so long ill-treated that they were at last reduced to purchase their liberty by the sacrifice not only of aU their moveable property, but also by additional sums, which they had to borrow from usurers. In consequence of this, his brother Paul had died, but he himself (Athanasius) and his aunts, and the wife and children of his brother, had fallen into debt to such an extent, that, on account of the demands of the usurers, they had no longer ventured to go out. The very houses of the family (in Alexandria) had been seized by Dioscurus and turned into churches, and even his (the complainant's) own had been taken, although, as being removed four houses from the others, it could not be used for that purpose. Moreover, without any charge having been brought against him, he had deprived him of his priestly office, and had struck him off the church register. For seven years he had ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1011-1019; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 326 sqq. 326 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. wandered about, fleeing sometimes from Dioscurus, sometimes from his creditors. Not once in convents or churches had Dioscurus allowed him to find rest, and he had forbidden that he should have a loaf or a bath, so that he had almost died of hunger and misery. The sum which he had been compelled to give to ISTomus amounted to about 1400 pounds of gold; and as he had also been robbed of his other property, he was forced, with the two or three slaves who still remained to him, to support himself by begging. Moreover, Dioscurus had also extracted great sums of money from Cyril's other relatives. He (the complainant) prayed therefore for assistance, and for the restitution of that which Nomus had taken from him, so that he might be able to repay his creditors. He was ready to prove everything." ^ The fourth complainant from Alexandria was a layman named Sophronius. He had also been plunged into poverty by Dioscurus. The occasion was quite peculiar. Macarius, an official of Alexandria, had robbed Sophronius of his wife Theodota, and this, although no separation or quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife. On this account he had made his complaint before the Emperor and the chief ministers, and the chief judge Theodore had been sent from Constantinople to examine the matter. Dioscurus had declared that this whole trial belonged to him and not to the Emperor, and sent the deacon Isidore to him with officers to require the departure of the judge Theodore. Not contented with that, this deacon, at the command of Dioscurus, had taken everything away from Sophronius, who had fled. He now asked for assistance, and was ready to prove that Dioscurus had insulted the' holy Trinity, had been guilty of adultery, and even of treason ; and when the Emperor Marcian was at Alexandria, he had, by Agorast and Timothy, distributed money among the people, to induce them to drive the Emperor away. This could be proved by the tribune and notary John, and if Theodore had not then been administering the province of Egypt, the city of Alexandria would have been plunged into great misfortune through the fault of Dioscurus. Finally, Sophronius affirmed that many others had to complain of ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 1022 S(iq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 331 sqq. THIKD SESSION, OCTOBER 13, 451. 327 Dioscurus, but were too poor to appear personally, and he asked that Agorast might be arrested.^ The Synod resolved to embody all these complaints in the minutes, and then caused Dioscurus to be invited a third time by Bishops Francion of Philippopolis in Thrace, Lucian of Byzia in Thrace, and John of Germanicia in Syria. The deacon Palladius accompanied them as notary. They were entrusted with a letter to Dioscurus, in which his previous excuses were represented as false, and he was required to defend himself against the accusations brought forward by Eusebius of Dorylseum, and by the clerics and laymen from Alexandria. If he still refused to appear after this third invitation, he would be subject to the punishments which were pronounced by the canons against the despisers of the Synods.^ This third citation also remained without result, for Dio- scurus simply declared that " he adhered to that which he had previously said, and he could add nothing more," and all the efforts of the deputies to induce him to yield, and to touch his conscience, were in vain. — After they had again informed the Synod of this, the papal legate Paschasinus put the question, what was now to be done, and whether they should proceed with the canonical punishments against Dioscurus. After several bishops had given their views, and had specially asked the legates to pronounce judgment, these summed up the accusations which had been presented against Dioscurus : " It had been shown," they said, " by to-day's and the previous (first) session, what Dioscurus had dared to do against holy order and Church discipline. To pass over much else, he had received back into communion Eutyches, as being of the same opinions as himself, although he had been justly deposed by his Bishop Flavian, and this he had done in an irregular manner, before he united with the other bishops at the Ephesine Synod. These other bishops and members of the (Eobber) Synod had received forgiveness from the apostolic see for that which they did there against their will, and they had also shown themselves obedient to the holy Archbishop Leo and to the most holy CEcumenical Synod. Dioscurus, on 1 Mansi, t. vi. p. 1030 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 335 sqq. * Mansi, t. vi. p. 1035 aq;. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 339. 328 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. the contrary, had, up to the present moment, proudly persisted in that for which he ought to have lamented earlier. More- over, he had not allowed the letter of Leo to Flavian to be read at Ephesus, although he had often been requested, and although he had promised upon oath to do so. Instead of repenting afterwards, like the other bishops, he had even ventured to pro- nounce a sentence of excommunication against the holy Arch- bishop Leo. Several complaints against him had been presented to the holy Synod, and as he had not appeared after an invi- tation had been sent to him three times, he had thereby practi- cally pronounced judgment upon himself." To this the legates added their sentence in the following form: "Therefore the most holy Archbishop of Eome, Leo, has, by us and the present most holy Synod, in communion with the most blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church and the foundation-stone of the orthodox faith, declared this Dioscurus to be deprived of his bishopric, and that he shall lose aU spiritual dignity. In accordance herewith, this most holy and great Synod wiU decide respecting the aforesaid Dioscurus, what appears to be agreeable to the canons." ^ All those present, the Patriarchs Anatolius of Constanti- nople and Maximus of Antioch at their head, assented to this judgment,^ and subscribed the deposition of Dioscurus.' The document, which was directly afterwards handed to Dioscurus, is as follows : " The holy and great and CEcumenical Synod ... to Dioscurus. Learn that, on account of despising the divine canons, on account of thy disobedience to the Synod, since, besides thine other offences, thou didst not respond to ' Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1038-1047 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 339-346. * Their votes are given in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1047-1080 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 346-365. The old Latin translation has preserved 186 votes, with reasons assigned. The reasons given vary ; but least frequently is disobedience to the Synod given as a reason for his condemnation. * The subscriptions are given in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1080-1094 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 365-376. The list here given has 294 subscriptions of bishops (or their representatives), among them those of Juvenal, Thalassius, Eustathins of Berytus, and Eusebins of Ancyra (not, however, of Basil of Seleucia). As, however, the four former associates of Dioscurus just named were not present at the third session (see above, p. 322), it appears that they and the other forty- nine bishops (and priests) whose names stand after theirs, did not subscribe until afterwards. FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 329 their threefold invitation, thou wast, on the 13th of October, deposed by the holy (Ecumenical Synod from the episcopal office, and deprived of all spiritual functions." * The clergy of Dioscurus, who were present at Chalcedon, particularly his steward Charmosynus and bis archdeacon Euthalius, were made acquainted with this judgment, and with the requirement of the Synod that all the property of the Church of Alexandria which they had in their hands should be carefully preserved, as they would be required to give an account of it to the future Bishop of Alexandria. — In a sub- sequent document, an official placard, which was destined for the cities of Chalcedon and Constantinople, the Synod contra- dicted the report that Dioscurus would be again reinstated in his office ; to the Emperors Valentinian iii. and Marcian, however, they sent a copy of the minutes with a letter, in which the reasons for the deposition of Dioscurus (that he had suppressed the letter of Leo, had received Eutyches into communion, had ill-treated Eusebius of Dorylseum, had ex- communicated the Pope, and had not obeyed the Synod) were briefly given, and the hope expressed that the Emperors would approve of what had been done. — The synodal letter to Pulcheria is composed in a more flowing style, and in it her great merit in obtaining the triumph of orthodoxy is com- mended, and intelligence given of the deposition of Dioscurus. The bishops in this assume that the Empress will also give her approval, and close with the assurance that one who is so zealous for the cause of God as Pulcheria cannot miss the divine reward.^ Sec. 192. Fourth Session, October 17, 451. At the fourth session, on the l7th of October 451, the imperial commissioners and the senate were again present,' ' Mansi, t. vi. p. 1091 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 378. 2 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1095-1102 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 378 sqq. The two latter documents, the two letters to the Emperors and to Pulcheria, are now extant only in Latin. It is remarkable that, in the letter to Pulcheria, only a single reason is specially assigned for the deposition of Dioscurus, his withholding of the papal letter. ' The Acts of this session are given in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 1-97 ; Hardouin, t. ii. NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN circulating reports that they belonged to what the disciples themselves would call a "way," but the Jews a "faction," or "sect." Paul was sent northward to Damascus "that, if he found any that were of tJte Way" he might bring them bound to Jerusalem^ Thus Luke phrases it. But the Jews, we may be sure, would call the "way" a "heresy," as Justin Martyr says to the Jew Trypho, "After you had crucified Him... you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land saying that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up...^." This is the first mention of " Christian " in the Dialogue with Trypho, and we must note that, according to Justin, the name originated from the Jews, who created what Justin calls in the preceding sentence " the ■wicked prejudice against the Righteous One!' The Gentiles in the North — in Damascus, for example, and Antioch, and Edessa — would probably know very little, and trouble them- selves still less, about the disciples of Jesus, until Jews came to give them a bad name: "You have in Damascus, or Antioch, or Edessa, a mischievous and disaffected party of Jews who are both atheists in the sight of heaven and rebels against Caesar on earth." But by what name would the Jews call these " heretics " ? They could not have called them by the name literally corresponding to " Christianoi" ; for that would have been " Messianoi," and they would never have told the Gentiles that the leader of this detested sect was " Messiah." But they might have said to the Gentiles at Antioch about them something like what Tertullus, the spokesman of the Jews against Paul, said before Felix later on : " We have found this man [i.e. Paul] a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insur- rections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoraeans^." Not till afterwards • Acts ix. 2. ^ Tryph. § 17. ^ Acts xxiv. 5. 33° NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN would it be necessary to explain that the " Nazor " from whom these " Nazoraeans " derived their name was so called by his followers, partly because he happened to be born at a village called Nazara, but mainly because they believed him to be the royal Netzer, or " scion," of the House of David, that is to say the " Messiah," or " Anointed," or, in Greek, " Christos " — though, in fact, he was a mere Pretender, a false " Christos'." It was not likely that Greek-speaking Antiochians would trouble themselves about such outlandish and uncouth terms as " Netzer " and " Messiah." But they would be very likely to seize on the personal and pronounceable name of " Christos," as being the originator of this novel blend of atheism with sedition — stigmatized in very early times as a deadly superstition ^ Then, as an almost inevitable con- sequence, according to the analogy of such terms as the Mariani, the Sullani, and the Pompeiani, the citizens of Antioch would construct the new name, " Christiani." This personal, and Hebrew, and non-geographical origin of the term " Nazoraean " may explain, perhaps, why Luke in the Acts, giving three widely different accounts of Paul's conversion, records, in the first and the third, the description given by Jesus of Himself, without any addition, simply as " I am Jesus, whom thou art persecuting " ; but in the second, as " I am Jesus the Nazoraean, whom thou art persecuting^." In ' For the representation of Netzer in Aramaic as " Messiah," see the Targum on Is. xi. i. For the addition of -aior comp. Josephus Ant. xii. 6, I Mace. ii. 4 — 5 where "Caddis, Thassi, Maccab-^?«, Avaran, and Apphus" are given as the surnames of five brothers, and only the most famous of the names receives the Greek termination -aioj. 2 Tacitus Ann. xv. 44 "Reos...quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianas appellabat. Auctor nominis eius C^r2j-^«j...repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat." Suetonius {Nero 16 — ig) enumerates, among the "blameless or praiseworthy acts" of Nero, his punishment of " Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae." See p. 340, n. i. 8 Acts ix. 5, xxvi. 1 5, xxii. 8. 331 332 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. and human in Christ, and we therefore hesitated to accept them. We learnt, however, from the Eoman legates that neither do they admit any such separation, but confess one and the same Lord and Son of God. We have therefore assented, and have subscribed Leo's letter. It would be well, however, if the legates would now, for the good of the world, publicly repeat that explanation."^ After these explanations of the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine, the individual voting was again continued, until at last the imperial commissioners, after a hundred and sixty-one votes had been given, invited all the rest to give their votes in union. Upon this all the bishops exclaimed : " We are all agreed, we all believe thus ; he who agrees belongs to the Synod ! Many years to the Emperors, many years to the Empress ! Even the five bishops (Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Eusta- thius, and Basil) have subscribed, and believe as Leo does ! They also belong to the Synod !" The imperial commissioners and others replied : " We have written on their account (those five) to the Emperor, and await his commands. You, how- ever, are responsible to God for these five for whom you inter- cede, and for all the proceedings of this Synod." The bishops exclaimed : " God has deposed Dioscurus ; Dioscurus is rightly condemned; Christ has deposed him !"* The Synod now waited for several hours, until a decree arrived from the Emperor, who was close at hand in Constan- tinople, respecting the five bishops. It was to the effect that : " The Synod itself should decide as to their admission ;" and as it now declared strongly for this by acclamations, they were immediately allowed to enter and take their places while their colleagues exclaimed : " God has done this. Many years to the Emperors, to the senate, to the commissioners ! The union is complete, and peace given to the Churches !"' The commissioners then made the communication that yesterday a number of Egyptian bishops had handed in a confession of faith to the Emperor, and the latter wished that it should be read before the Synod. They therefore allowed ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 31 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 402. ' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 34-47 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 403-414. ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 47 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 414. FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 333 the Egyptian bishops, thirteen in number, to enter and to take their place, and the secretary Constantine read their short memorial addressed to the two Emperors in the name of all the bishops of Egypt, but signed only by the thirteen, in which they expressed their agreement with the orthodox faith, and anathematized all heresy, particularly that of Arius, Eunomius, the Manichasans, the Nestorians, and those who maintain that the flesh of Christ, which is like ours, with the exception of sin, came from heaven and not from the Virgin Mary.^ As the heresy of Eutyches was not mentioned here, there immediately arose great discontent in the Synod on this account. Some even accused the Egyptians of dishonesty ; but the papal legates desired from them a declaration as to whether they agreed with the letter of Leo, and would pro- nounce an anathema on Eutyches or not. They replied by their spokesman Hieracus, bishop of Aphnseum : " If any one teaches differently from what we have indicated, whether it be Eutyches or whoever it be, let him be anathema. As to the letter of Leo, however, we cannot express ourselves, for you all know that, in accordance with the prescription of the Nicene Council (canon 6), we are united with the Archbishop of Alexandria, and therefore must await his judgment (that is, of the future archbishop who should be chosen in the place of Dioscurus) in this matter." Those who were present were highly displeased with this evasion, and expressed their feelings in various exclamations, so that the thirteen Egyptians after a short time pronounced an anathema openly and positively at least on Eutyches. But again they were asked to subscribe the letter of Leo, and when the Egyptians again said : " Without the consent of our Arch- bishop we cannot subscribe," Bishop Acacius of Ariarathia replied : " It is inadmissible to allow more weight to one single person who is to hold the bishopric of Alexandria, than to the whole Synod. The Egyptians only wish to throw everything into confusion here as at Ephesus. They must subscribe Leo's letter or be excommunicated." To the same effect spoke Bishop Photius of Tyre, and all the other bishops gave their approval. The Egyptians now explained that " in comparison ^ Mansi, t. vii. p. 50 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 415. 334 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. with the great number of the bishops of Egypt, there were only a few of them present, and they had no right to act in their name (to do what was required of them). They there- fore prayed for mercy, and that they might be allowed to follow their Archbishop. All the provinces of Egypt would otherwise rise up against them." They even cast themselves upon their knees, and repeated their request for forbearance. But Cecropius of Sebastopol again reproached them with heresy, and remarked that it was from themselves alone that assent was demanded to the letter of Leo, and not in the name of the rest of the Egyptian bishops. They replied : " We can no longer live at home if we do this." The papal legate Lucen- tius said : " Ten individual men (the thirteen Egyptians) can occasion no prejudice to a Synod of six hundred bishops and to the Catholic faith." The Egyptians, however, went on crying : " We shall be killed, we shall be kUled, if we do it. We will rather be made away with here by you than there. Let an Archbishop for Egypt be here appointed, and then we will subscribe and assent. Have pity upon our gray hairs ! Anatolius of Constantinople knows that in Egypt all the bishops must obey the Archbishop of Alexandria. Have pity upon us ; we would rather die by the hands of the Emperor and by yours than at home. Take our bishoprics if you will, elect an Archbishop of Alexandria, we do not object ;" and so forth. In the midst of this the cry again broke out : " The Egyptians are heretics ;" and " they must subscribe the con- demnation of Dioscurus;" but the imperial commissioners and the senate suggested that they should remain at Constantinople untU an archbishop was elected for Alexandria, The legate Paschasinus agreed, adding : " They must give security not to leave Constantinople in the meantime ;" and the commis- sioners and senators confirmed this demand.^ Then, after permission obtained, there entered eighteen priests and archimandrites : Faustus, Martin, Peter, Manuel, Abraham, Job, Antiochus, Theodore, Paul, Jacob, Eusebius, Tryphon, Marcellus, Timothy, Pergamius, Peter, Asterius, and John, and were first asked whether Carosus, Dorotheus, and those others of Eutychian opinions who had presented a peti- ^ Mansi, t. vii. pp. 51-62 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 415-422. FOUKTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 335 tion to the Emperor Marcian before the opening of the Synod of Chalcedon, were really archimandrites or not. They affirmed it in reference to some, and denied it with regard to others ; and requested that those should be punished who had falsely given themselves out for archimandrites and had no convents, but lived in martyrs' chapels and tombs (m memoriis et monumentis). These ought all to be driven out of the city, for they were not even monks. The commissioners then gave orders for the introduction of the Eutychian petitioners in question, and these were the Archimandrites Carosus, Dorotheus, Elpidius, Photinus, Eutychius, Theodore, Moses, Maximus, Gerontius, Nemesinus, Theophilus, Thomas, Leontius, Hypsius, Gallinicus, Paul, Gaudentius and Eugnomenes, together with the monk Barsumas and the eunuch Calopodius. They declared them- selves to be the authors of the petition to the Emperor which was produced ; but Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople pointed out among them Gerontius and Calopodius as having been previously condemned for heresy, and required that they should be removed. Whether this was cariied out the Acts do not say; but, on the contrary, we know that the petition of these Eutychian monks was now read. In it they say that " now everything is in confusion through self-seeking and the lack of brotherly love, and the apostolic faith is placed in doubt, while Jews and heathens, however bad they may be, are permitted to hold their position. These have peace, but Christians are in conflict with one another. To improve this state of things was the object of the Emperors ; and they ought to prevent the outbreak of a schism. It was their duty to promulgate that which was right as a law, and to that end they should bring about the meeting of the Synod which had already been ordered. In the meantime, however, all disturbances should cease, particularly the enforcement of subscriptions and persecutions, which clerics were promoting against each other without the knowledge of the Emperor. In particular, the Emperor should not allow that any one should, before the sentence of the Synod, be driven from his convent, or his church, or his martyrs' chapel (avro /j^aprvpcov)."^ ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 66 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 423. 336 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Among the Eutychian monks who had entered was that Barsumas, who had so greatly advanced the Eutychian cause in Syria, and had put himself so prominently forward at the Eobber-Synod. Bishop Diogenes of Cyzicus therefore ex- claimed : " This Barsumas, who is among them, killed Flavian;" and the other bishops added : " He threw all Syria into confusion, and brought a thousand monks against us." The imperial commissioners etc., immediately put the question to Carosus and his companions, " Whether they were inclined to learn the right faith from the Synod." They replied that, first of all, their second letter, addressed to the Synod itself, should be read ; and the commissioners and senators agreed to this, whilst from many sides the cry broke forth : " Out with the murderer Barsumas." In the letter to the Synod the Eutychians first excused themselves for not having appeared earlier in answer to the invitation, saying, "that the Emperor had not wished it, as they had already shown in writing. Now, however, they requested that the holy archbishop Dioscurus and his bishops should be admitted to the council." — Enraged at this boldness, the bishops interrupted the reading of the document, and cried : " Anathema to Dioscurus : Christ has deposed him, cast these out, wipe out the insult which they have offered to the Synod ; their petition should no further be read, for they stiU call the deposed Dioscurus bishop, etc." The commissioners and senators, however, remarked that this would not create the slightest prejudice, and ordered the reading of the memorial to be continued. The archimandrites in question further main- tained in it that " the Emperor had assured them that at the Synod only the faith of Nicsea would be confirmed, and that before this nothing else should be brought forward. With this imperial promise the condemnation of Dioscurus was irrecon- cilable, and therefore he and his bishops should again be summoned to the Synod, that thus the discord among orthodox people might cease. If, however, the Synod would not consent to this, then they would themselves have uo communion with it, no communion with such as opposed the creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers of Nicaea. Finally, in proof of their orthodoxy they had appended to their letter the Mcene FOITRTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 337 Creed, together with the Ephesine decree which confirmed it."i Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, remarked that, according to the ecclesiastical rule, all clergymen and monks were bound to accept guidance in the faith from the bishops, and in proof of this he read from the collection of canons which was then made, the fifth Antiochene ordinance, which punishes with deposition a clergyman who separates from the com- munion of his bishop, without any hope of future restitution.^ The imperial commissioners and the senate hereupon asked whether the archimandrites were now inclined to acquiesce in the doctrine of the present holy Synod. They replied that they would simply hold by the creed of Nicaea and the decree of the Synod of Ephesus. Aetius then stated that all who were present also observed most faithfully the declarations of faith of Nicsea and Ephesus ; but as subsequently controversies had again broken out, and in opposition to these Cyril and Leo had iu their writings explained {epi^qveveiv) that creed, but had not extended (€ktiOt]/jli) the faith and the dogma, but the whole Synod defined this, and imparted their explanation (that is, put it forth as a doctrinal form) to all who were desirous of learning, so they should also now declare whether they would consent to this decree of the Synod or not. Carosus answered evasively, that " it certainly was not necessary for him to pronounce an anathema upon Nestorius, as he had pronounced it so often already ; " but when Aetius requested him to pronounce an anathema on Eutyches, he replied : " Is it not written. Thou shalt not judge ? " and " why do you speak, while the bishops sit silent ? " Aetius then, in the name of the Synod, repeated the question: "Do you agree to their sentence ? " Carosus replied again : " I hold by the creed of Nicaea ; you may condemn me, and drive me into exile, but Paul has said : ' If any man preacheth unto you any other gospel than that which ye received, let him be anathema.'" By way of conciliating the Synod, he added ' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 67-71 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 423 sqq. * See vol. ii. p. 68. On the collection of canons whicli the Sj-nod of Chalcedon had before it, and which they received into their own first canon, cf. Drey, Die Conatit. u. Canones der Apostel, S. 427 if. III. Y 338 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. further : " If Eutyches does not believe ' what the Catiolic Church believes, let him be anathema."^ The commissioners and senators then ordered that the memorial of the anti-Eutychian archimandrites, Faustus, Martinus, and others already mentioned, should also be read. These in their memorial commended the Emperor for having taken measures to suppress the Eutychian heresy, but at the same time complained of those monks who obstinately persisted in this heresy, and asked for permission to treat them in accordance with the rules of their order, and in this way to attempt to correct them. If this did not succeed, then it would be necessary that they should be suitably punished. Finally, they asked that the Emperor would allow them to give orders respecting the holes in which these beast-like men lived, and in which they daily insulted the Saviour. The Archimandrite Dorotheus now took up the word and maintained the orthodoxy of Eutyches. The commissioners and the senate answered him : " Eutyches teaches that the body of the Saviour was not of our substance : what do you confess in this respect ? " Instead of answering definitely, he recited the passage of the creed of Constantinople : aapKO)- Oevra Ik tjJ? irapdevov Kal ivavdpanr'^aavra, and added, in opposition to Nestorianism, " He in whose face they spat is Himself the Lord : we therefore confess that He who suffered is of the Trinity." The demand that he would subscribe the letter of Leo, he decliaed, however, and naturally, because from his point of view he was forced to avoid every more exact definition of the general expressions a-apKcodevra and evavOpooirrjo-avTa (incarnate and made man). So they did not care to avail themselves of the offer of a respite of two days, after the expiry of which they were to decide, and the commissioners and senators therefore invited the Synod to pronounce a judgment upon Carosus and his associates.^ In order to avoid this result, they now maintained that the Emperor had promised them to hold a disputation between them and their opponents, and thus to hear both sides. The commissioners and the Synod therefore sent the priest and ' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 71-75 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 426-130. ^ Mansi, t. vii. pp. 75-79 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 430 sq. FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 339 periodeutes^ Alexander to the Emperor, to learn the truth of the matter, and when he returned, the hishops assembled on the 20th of October for a new session, which, however, is not generally reckoned in the number of the great sessions.^ That the imperial commissioners and the senate were present there is clear from the Acts in the case of Bishop Photius of Tyre, which was considered at the same session. Alexander first gave information respecting the results of his mission, namely, that the Emperor had sent him and the decurion John to those monks, to say to them : " If I had myself wished to decide the controversy, I should not have called a Synod. As this, however, has assembled, and has given me information respecting you, I give command that you be present at it, and that you learn from it what you do not yet know. For what the holy and (Ecumenical Synod decrees, that I follow, with that I am satisfied, that I believe." On hearing these words of the Emperor, the Synod broke forth into acclamations. Then the memorial, already mentioned, of Carosus and his associates (p. 335) to the Emperor was read again as corpus delicti, and also some earlier canons, Nos. 4 and 5 of the Synod of Antioch of 341, which were the 83d and 84th in the collection used at Chalcedon. These were chosen as starting-points for the judgment to be pronounced. The well-known 4th canon of Antioch, for instance, is thus expressed : " If a bishop is deposed by a Synod, or a priest or deacon by his bishop, and he presumes to perform any function whatever in the Church as before, he may no longer hope for reinstatement." And canon 5 of Antioch says : " If a priest or deacon separates himself from his bishop, and holds a private service, and sets up a private altar, he shall be deposed without hope of restitution."^ In accordance with the wish of the imperial commissioners and the senate, the Synod did not immediately pronounce sentence of condemnation, but allowed the incriminated persons a respite of thirty days, reckoning from the 15th of October to the 15 th of November. On the last day of this period, at the latest, they were required to declare their ^ On this ecclesiastical office see vol. ii. p. 321. « See the table given above, p. 287. " Cf. vol. ii. p. 68. 340 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. assent to the faith of the Synod, or they would be deposed from their rank, their dignity, and their office of archimandrites.^ The Synod occupied itself no further with this matter ; but we learn from Leo the Great that Carosus persevered in his Eutychian opposition, and was, by the Pope's advice, together with Dorotheus, expelled by the Emperor Marcian from his convent.^ On the same 20th of October the case of Bishop Photius of Tyre came before the Synod. Photius had at an earlier period appealed to the Emperor, but had by him been directed to the Synod. His memorial was as follows : " That Bishop Eustathius of Berytus had violated the rights of the Church of Tyre, and had procured permission under Theodosius ii., by means of which he had ventured to consecrate bishops in certain cities of the ecclesiastical province of Tyre (subsequently he added that these had been the six following : Biblus, Botrys, Tripolis, Orthosias, Areas, and Antaradon). At the same time, he had compelled him by threats to subscribe a synodal letter with reference to this. He now prayed that this act might be annulled, which had been extorted by violence, and there- fore was void (even when he subscribed he had added that it was only extorted), and that the Church of Tyre might again be restored to the undisturbed enjoyment of her privileges." Eustathius, in opposition to this, would willingly have supported himself upon the decree of the Emperor Theodosius ; as, however, the commissioners and the Synod declared that not a decree, but the canons of the Church were the standard in such a case, he altered his plan of defence, and accused ^ Mansi, t. vii. pp. 79-83 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 431-435. The two series of transactions, that now related concerning Carosus, and the following in regard to Photius of Tyre, are not in the old Latin translation of the synodal Acts (the Latin translation printed in Hardouin, Mansi, etc., is from the editors of the Roman Collection of Councils. Cf. above, p. 290, and Baluz. in Mansi, t. vii. p. 663, n. xxvii.), and therefore their genuineness has been contested by some scholars. Cf. Tillemont, Mimoirts, t. xv. note 47, Sur St. L6on, p. 917 sq. There are no valid grounds for this objection, and the Ballerini are quite right when they (I.e. t. ii. p. 510, nota 23) maintain that the two series of transactions on the 20th of October should properly be reckoned as the fifth (properly the fifth and sixth) session. Cf. above the table, p. 287. * Leonis Ep. 136, n. 4, Up. 141, n. 1, and Ep. 142, n. 2. In Mansi, t. vi. pp. 293, 304, 305. FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451, 341 Photius of slander. It was untrue, he said, that he had endeavoured to infringe the rights of the Church of Tyre ; on the contrary, the Emperor Theodosius had freely raised Berytus to be a metropolis, and a Synod at Constantinople, under Anatolius (see above, p. 271 f.), had assigned those six cities to this new metropolis, and Maximus of Antioch had signed this decree.-' The latter replied, in order as much as possible to diminish his share in the business, that " he himself had not, at that very time, been present in the Synod at Con- stantinople, but that the document referring to this matter had been brought to him in the house, and he, following Anatolius, had subscribed it" (see above, p. 272). Pliotius further complained that from the beginning he had not accepted this new arrangement, and in accordance with ancient right had consecrated three bishops ; but for this he had been ex- communicated, and the bishops consecrated by him had been deposed, and degraded to the priesthood. Anatolius did not deny this, but maintained that Photius had, by his disorderly conduct, caused the Synod (of Constantinople) to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against him. At the same time, he found it necessary to defend against various attacks the custom of Constantinople of holding a o-jji/oSo? evSrjfiovcra (cf. vol. i. p. 4) with the bishops who were at any particular time present in the city. After some further discussions, it was decided, on the ground of the fourth Nicene canon,^ that in the one ecclesiastical province of Phoenicia I. there should be only ' There is no question that the Emperor had the power to raise Berytus, which had previously belonged to the civil and ecclesiastical province of Tyre, to be a special civil metropolis, which might easily have had as its result the founding of an ecclesiastical province of Berytus (cf. vol. i. p. 381 flf., and vol. ii. p. 69, canon 9 ; and below, the remarks on canon 12). But it appears that, in the case before us, the Emperor had by his own authority declared the city of Berytus an ecclesiastical metropolis, without at the same time raising its civil rank. That he had intruded improperly into the ecclesiastical sphere is clear from the expression above : " Not an imperial decree, but the canons of the Church were the standard in such a case," and from the resolution that all imperial decrees which were opposed to the canons should be invalid (p. 342). Moreover, it is also clear from the above that a Synod of Constantinople in true Byzantine fashion had lent a helping hand to. give practical effect to the assumption of the Emperor. 2 The same Nicene canon was read also in the thirteenth session, but from another codex. Cf. Ballerini, I.e. t. iii. p. xxxvi. sq. 342 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. one metropolis, Tyre, and that only the Bishop of Tyre should undertake the ordination of the other bishops. The Bishop of Berytus must not appeal to the rights whicli Theodosius had accorded to him, and those three bishops whom Photius had ordained were to be recognized as bishops, and reinstated. — The papal legates added : " To degrade a bishop to the presbyterate is a sacrilege. If a bishop has committed a crime which deserves his deposition, he ought not to be even a priest." Anatolius wished to excuse what had been done, but the Synod agreed with the papal legates, and declared, on the suggestion of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopolis, that all the imperial pragmatics (decrees) which are in opposition to the canons must be without effect.^ Sec. 193. Fifth Session, October 22, 451. The Decree concerning the Faith. At the fifth session, on the 2 2d of October, there were only three imperial commissioners, Anatolius, Palladius, and Vincomalus, and no senator present.^ Among the bishops who were present, besides the Eoman legates, the Greek Acts mention by name only the three of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem ; while the Latin translation mentions by name forty-seven more. The presence of the rest is expressed by the formula koX ttJ? Xoittt)? dyiai; Kal oiKovfieviKrj'i avvoBov. The object of the proceedings on this occasion was the establishment of the faith, and therefore this session is one of the most important in Christian antiquity. First, the deacon Asclepiades of Constantinople read a doctrinal formula, which had been unanimously approved on the previous day, October 21, in the commission appointed by Anatolius for that purpose (see p. 3 1 8 f.), which Anatolius also seems to have drawn up, as he afterwards defended it most warmly. This formula is not embodied in the Acts, and so has not come down to us ; but Tillemont infers, from the ' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 86-98 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 435-446. ^ The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 97-118 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 446-456. Abridged in German in Fuchs, I.e. S. 452 ff. ; "Walch, I.e. S. 370 S. That the senators were not present at this session is clear and evident from the fact that in the Acts there is mention always made only of the ftiyaXo^pixiiTTaTot xa} u^o\uTctroi Hp^otTis, that is, the Commissioners. FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22, 451. 343 indications found in the Acts, that it contained the orthodox faith, but that, through a certain indefiniteness of expression, it had not sufficiently excluded heresy.^ — As soon as it was read in the fifth session, objections were raised against it, and Bishop John of Germanicia declared that this formula was not good, and that it must be improved. Anatolius replied, asking " whether it had not yesterday given universal satisfaction," which produced the acclamation : " It is excellent, and contains the Catholic faith. Away with the Nestorians ! The expression OeoT6Ko<; must be received into the creed." ^ The Eoman legates judged otherwise. They, too, were dissatisfied with the formula which had been drawn up, and they had probably not been present at the session of the commission held for its confirmation. They now declared : " If the letter of Leo is not agreed to,^ we demand our papers, so that we may return home, and that a Synod may be held in the West." The imperial commissioners saw at once that the departure of the legates would necessarily frustrate the whole object of the Synod, the restoration of unity of faith in the Church, and therefore made the suggestion, for the satisfaction of both sides, that there should meet, in their presence, a commission of six Oriental bishops (from the patriarchate of Antioch), three Asiatic (from the exarchate of Ephesus), three lUyrian, three Pontic, and three Thracian bishops, with Anatolius and the Eoman legates in the oratory of the Church of the Martyr (that is, S. Euphemia's Church, cf p. 286), and communicate their decisions on the faith to the other bishops. The majority, however, wished to retain the doctrinal formula which had been read, and demanded in many acclamations that it should be subscribed by all, and that whoever did not agree to it should be excluded. At the same time, they charged Bishop John of Germanicia with Nestorianism. ' TiUemont, I. c. t. xv. p. 677. ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 99 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 447. 3 As this letter of Leo's had already been approved by the Synod (see pp. 317 and 331), this new demand must be understood to mean, "If they were not satisfied with this letter, and put forth another formula," or "If, in the formula of faith to be put forth, they did not adhere closely enough to the contents and meaning of this letter." According to what follows, the latter is the true meaning. (See below, p. 344.) 344 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. The commissioners remarked : " Dioscurus asserts that he condemned Flavian for having maintained that there are two natures in Christ ; in the new doctrinal formula, however, it stands : Christ is of two natures." They meant by this to say that the very term which had already been used by Flavian for the refutation of Monophysitism ought to have been adopted in the new formula, since the expression selected in it, " of two natures," although certainly orthodox, yet might also be understood in the sense of Dioscurus, and therefore would necessarily give offence. — How correct this criticism was^ is shown by the remark of Anatolius, made directly afterwards, that Dioscurus had been deposed, not on account of false doctrine, but because he had excommunicated the Pope, and had not obeyed the Synod.^ Without going further into this question, the commissioners again endeavoured to bring the Synod into the right path, by the remark that the Synod had already approved of Leo's letter ; and if this had been done, then that which was contained in the letter (that there were actually two natures in Christ unmingled) must be confessed. — As, however, the majority, and even Eusebius of Dorylseum, persisted in their acclamations in favour of the formula of Anatolius, the commissioners immediately acquainted the Emperor with it,^ and the latter speedily sent a decree, saying that " either the proposed commission of bishops must be accepted, or they must individually declare their faith through their metropolitans, so that all doubt might be dispelled, and all discord removed. If they would do neither of these things, then a Synod must be held in the West, since they refused here (at Chalcedon) to give a definite and stable declaration respecting the faith."* Again the majority exclaimed : " We abide by the formula (of Anatolius) or we go ! " Cecropius of Sebastopolis in par- ' Perhaps the imperial commissioners, who here and in what followed united to much practical skill also theological insight, may have been advised by the papal legates. " In the synodal decree despatched to Dioscurus (p. 328 f. ) there is certainly no express reference to his heresy, nor yet in the sentence which the papal legates pronounced against him. (See p. 328.) ^ Mansi, t. vii. pp. 102, 103 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 47 sqq. * Mansi, t. vii. p. 103 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 450. FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22, 451. 345 ticular said : " Whoever will not subscribe it can go (to Eome to the intended Synod)." So the bishops of Illyricum cried out : " Whoever opposes it is a Nestorian ; these can go to Eome ! " Again the commissioners explained : " Dioscurus has rejected the expression, ' there are two natures in Christ,' and, on the contrary, has accepted, ' of two natures ; ' Leo, on the other hand, says : ' In Christ there are two natures united, aa-vyx^^'^i aTpeirTox;, and dStatjoe'ra)?; ' ^ which will you follow, the most holy Leo or Dioscurus ? " At this alternative all the bishops exclaimed : " We believe with Leo, not with Dioscurus ; whoever opposes this is an Eutychian." The commissioners immediately pressed the logical consequence : " Then you must also receive into the creed the doctrine of Leo, which has been stated." ^ Whether anything, and if so what, was here objected by the majority we do not know. It is apparent that there is here a break in the minutes, since, without anything more and without any indication of the reason for the alteration which was introduced, they go on to relate that the whole of the members of the Synod now asked for the meeting of the commission which they had previously opposed. As members of the commission were Anatolius of Constantinople, the three legates, Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, Bishop Julian of Cos also representing the Pope (see p. 296), Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Quintillus, Atticus, and Sozon from lUyria, Diogenes of Cyzicus, Leontius of Magnesia, Florentius of Sardis, Eusebius of Dorylseum, Theodore of Tarsus, Cyrus of Anazarbus, Constantine of Bostra, Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria, Erancion, Sebastian, and Basil of Thrace. It may be seen that there were many among these who formerly had vehemently supported the formula " of two natures," as Anatolius and the lUyrians, and some had even been heads of the Kobber-Synod and ' In Leo's letter this expression does not occur verbally, but the legates had previously (see p. 331) explained this as the chief point of the letter, which at that time had been very readily accepted by those bishops who had still some objections to the letter. ' Mansi, t. vii, p. 106 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 450. 346 , HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. friends of Dioscurus. How long they consulted in the oratory of S. Euphemia the Martyr is unknown ; the Acts only mention that they returned again to the church, and that Aetius then read the formula which they had drawn up. It says : " The holy and great and (Ecumenical Synod, ... at Chalcedon in Bithynia, . . . has defined as follows : Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when confirming the faith in His disciples, declared: 'Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you,' so that no one might be separated from his neighbour in the doctrines of religion, but that the preaching of the truth should be made known to all ahke. As, however, the evil one does not cease by his tares to hinder the seed of religion, and is ever inventing something new in opposition to the truth, therefore has God, in His care for the human race, stirred up zeal in this pious and orthodox Emperor, so that he has convoked the heads of the priesthood in order to remove all the plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and to nourish thera with the tender plants of truth. This we have also done in truth, since we have expelled, by our common judgment, the doctrines of error, and have renewed the right faith of the fathers, have proclaimed the creed of the 318 to all, and have acknowledged the 150 of Constantinople who accepted it, as our own. While we now receive the regulations of the earlier Ephesine Synod, under Ccfilestine and Cyril, and its prescriptions concerning the faith, we decree that the confession of the 318 fathers at Nicsea is a light to the right and unblemished faith, and that that is also valid which was decreed by the 150 fathers at Constantinople for the confirmation of the Catholic and apostolic faith." ^ After a literal insertion of the Creed of Nicsea and Con- stantinople, it goes on : " This wise and wholesome symbol of divine grace would indeed suffice for a complete knowledge and confirmation of religion, for it teaches everything with reference to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and declares the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it in faith ; as, however, those who would do away with the preaching of the truth devised vain expressions through their ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 107 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 451. FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBEK 22, 451. 347 own heresies, and, on the one side, dared to destroy {irapa^- Oeipeiv) the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord (t^? tov Kvpiov obKopoficai; /MvcmjpLov), and rejected the designation of God-bearer, and, on the other side, introduced a avy^vai'; and Kpaa-i'i, that is, a mixture and confusion (of the natures), and, contrary to reason, imagined only one nature of the flesh and of the Godhead {/iiav elvat (pvatv ttj? aapKb<; koI ttj^ ^eoTTjTo? dvoijTft)? avaTj-XaTTovresi), and rashly maintained that the divine nature of the Only-begotten was, by the mixture, become pass- ible (jira6rjTr]v tov ixov(yyevov<; rrjv deiav ^vatv Ty av^yycrei reparevonevoi), therefore the holy, great, and (Ecumenical Synod decrees that the faith of the 318 fathers shall remain inviolate, and that the doctrine afterv?ards promulgated by the 150 fathers at Constantinople on account of the Pneumatomachi (Bia Toil's TO) TTvevfiaTL t&j aiyia) fiw^ofMevov;) shall have equal validity, being put forth by them, not in order to add to the creed of Nicaea anything that was lacking, but in order to make known in writing their consciousness (evvoiav) concern- ing the Holy Ghost against the deniers of His glory. On account of those, however, who endeavoured to destroy the mystery of the Incarnation (olKovoiMia<; fiva-Tijpiov), and who, boldly insulting Hira who was born of the holy Mary, affirmed that He was a mere man, the holy Synod has accepted as valid the synodal letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius and to the Orientals in opposition to Nestorianism, and has added to them the letter of the holy Archbishop Leo of Eome, written to Flavian for the overthrow of the Eutychian errors, as agreeing with the doctrine of S. Peter and as a pillar against all heretics, for the confirmation of the orthodox dogmas.-' The Synod opposes those who seek to rend the mystery of the Incarnation into a duality of Sons, and excludes from holy communion those who venture to declare the Godhead of the Only-begotten as capable of suffering, and opposes those who imagine a mingling and a confusion of the two natures of Christ, and drives away those who foolishly maintain that the servant-form of the Son, assumed from us, is from a heavenly substance (ovcria), or any other (than ours), ' From here to the end, on account of the great importance of this formula, will be added the Greek text (see p. 349). 348 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. and anathematizes those who fable that before the union there were two natures of our Lord, but after the union only one. Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all teach with one accord one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in His Godhead and perfect in His manhood, true God and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and of a body, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, and of one substance with us as touching the manhood, like unto us in everything, sin excepted, according to the Godhead begotten of the Father before all time, but in the last days, for us men and for our salvation, according to the manhood, born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, — only-begotten, confessed in two natures,^ without con- fusion, without change, without rending or separation ; while the difference of the natures is in no way denied by reason of the union, on the other hand, the peculiarity of each nature ^ The present Greek text has t* Sya (putrtaif, while the old Latin translation has, IN duabus naturis (see p. 290). After what had been repeatedly said in this session on the difference between " in two natures" and " of two natures," and in opposition to the latter formula (see p. 343), there can be no doubt whatever that the old Latin translator had the more accurate text before him, and that it was originally U Siio (pitirsv. This, however, is not mere supposition, but is expressly testified by antiquity : (1) by the famous Abbot Euthymius of Pales- tine, a contemporary of the Council of Chaloedon, of whose disciples several were present as bishops at our Council (cf. Baron, ad aim. 451, u. 152 sq.). We stiU have a judgment of his which he gave respecting the decree of Chalcedon con- cerning the faith, and in which he repeats the leading doctrine in the words of the Synod itself. At our passage he remarks ; l» He (piairi yiaifiZ,iirlou S/mXcyiT t« 'itx XfiiTTov K.T. X. The fragment of his writings on the subject is found in the Vita 8. Euthymii Abbatis, written by his pupil Cyril in the Analecta Grceca of the monks of S. Maur, t. i. p. 57, printed in Mansi, t. vii. p. 774 sq. (2) The second ancient witness is Severus, from a.d. 513 Monophysite patriarch of Antioch who represents it as a great reproach and an unpardonable offence in the fathers of Chalcedon that they had declared : h Ho (piin Siio (piimrit i.nuyxi'rat n.T.x. (ed. Mog. p. 294). (4) In the con- ference on religion held between the Severians and the orthodox at Constanti- nople, A.D. 653, the former reproached the Synod of Chalcedon with having put IN duabus naturis, instead of ex dudbiis naturis, as Cyril and the old fathers had taught (Mansi, t. viii. p. 892 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1162). (5) Leontius of Byzantium maintains quite distinctly, in the year 610, in his work De Sectis, that the Synod taught eva Xpiirrev U Sua (pCffurtv atruy^^uTtus x. t. X. It is clear that, if any doubt had then existed as to the con-ect reading, Leontius could not have FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22, 451. 349 is preserved, and both concur in one Person and Hypostasis. We do not confess One separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten and God the Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ ... as the prophets announced of Him, and He Himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. As we have defined this distinction with great and universal exactness and care, the holy and (Ecumenical Synod decreed, that none shall advance or write down or encourage another faith, or teach it to others ; and those who, passing over from heathenism or Judaism, or from any heresy, give another faith or another creed, if they are bishops or clerics, shall be deposed from their bishopric or clerical office, and if they are monks or laymen, shall be ex- communicated." {Tol'i re yap el<; vloiv BvdSa to t^5 otKovofiia^ huKTirav iiri'^eipovcri fiva-rijptov •irapardrTerat,Kal tov? "TraOrjTrjv rov jMOvo'yevov'i Xeyeiv ToXfj,cbvTavo3<; airavTe^ eKhlZaaKOfiev, . TeKeiov tov aiiTov iv $e6Tr)Ti Koi TeXeiov tov avTOv iv avOpw- iroTrjTi, 0eov a\,7j9a)<; kol avOpanrov aXr]6(b<; tov avTOV, eic '^V'^rj^ XoyLKTj'i Kal (TMjJbaTO'i, OflOOValOV tS) TTUTpl KUTa Tr)V OeOTTjTa Kal ofioovaiov tov avTov rjfuv KaTa ttjv avdpanroTijTa, KaTa TrdvTa OfjLOiov rjiMV, ^fopt? dfiapTla^ • irpo aLcovcov fiev eK tov TTizTpo? yevvr]9evTa KaTa ttjv deoTTjTa, iir ia-yaToiv he tSjv fi^epoiv TOV avTOV Si rjfMd^ Kal Slo. ttjv rjfieTepav aa)Tr]pi.av eK M.apiaa)vr]TiK6'; or allocutio; yet Facundus says,* although he also uses the expression allocutio, that it was written to the Emperor; and Tillemont ^ held this to be the more probable. In this allocutio it is said : " God has given the Synod a champion against every error, in the person of the Eoman bishop, who, like the fiery Peter, wishes to lead every one to God. And let no one venture to say, in order to avoid the refutation of his error, that the letter of Leo is contrary to the canons, since it is not allowed to set up a different confession of faith from the Nicene. The latter is certainly sufficient for the faithful, but those who endeavour to destroy the faith must be opposed and their objections must be suitably met, not in order to add anything new to the Nicene faith, but in order to refute the innovations of heretics. Thus, e.g., the orthodox faith in regard to the Holy Ghost is already expressed in the words (of the Mcene Creed) : ' And I believe in the Holy Ghost,' and these are sufficient for the orthodox ; but on account of the Pneu- ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 118 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 455. ' T. vii. p. 455. » T. ii. p. 643. ■* Defensio trium capituhrum, lib. ii. o. 2, in Galland. I.e. t. xi. p. 679. 'T. XV. p. 714 sq. 352 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. matomachi, the fathers (at the second (Ecumenical Synod) added besides : ' The Holy Ghost is Lord and God, proceeding from the Father.' So also, the doctrine of the Incarnation was contained in the Nicene Creed in the words : ' He came down and was made flesh and man' {jcaTcXOovTa koX aapK0)6evTa Kal evavOpwirriaavTa) ; ^ but Satan seduced many, some to deny the birth of God from the Virgin, and to reject the expression deoroKo^, others to declare the Godhead of the Son to be mutable and passible (rpeirTrju koX iradrjTrjv) ; the one to efface the character (ra yva>plcr/ji,aTa = characteristic marks) of the humanity assumed by God ; the other to assert the union of the Godhead merely with the body of a man, but not with the soul, at least not with a reasonable soul ; ^ the one to deny the mystery of the union (of the natures) and to teach that the manifestation (to ^aivofievov) was that of a mere man, like a prophet ; the other to give up the distinction of the natures ; therefore the fathers, Basil the Great, Pope Damasus, etc., and the Synods of Sardica^ and Ephesus have thought new explanations of the old Nicene faith necessary. But it could not be said : At this (the explanation of Ephesus, etc.) we are bound to stop, because the heretics will not stop, and the holy Cyril in his letter to the Orientals, as weU as Proclus of Constantinople and John of Antioch, regarded new definitions as necessary. No one, therefore, must accuse the letter of the admirable Bishop of Eome of innovation. Leo has, in fact, altered nothing in the faith proclaimed by the fathers." In proof of this, the Synod added a series of more ancient patristic passages from Basil the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others.* — Tille- mont and Eemi Ceillier remark that this allocution to the Emperor probably proceeded from the papal legates, being first drawn up in Latin and afterwards translated into Greek by others. This, they think,is clear partly from the fact that it treats simply and solely of the Pope's E-pistola dogmatica, and forms ' Cf. Tol. i. p. 293. = Cf. vol. i. p. 238, and vol. ii. p. 278. ' They cited here the Decretum de fide, which had been projected, but not approved, at Sardica. Cf. vol. ii. p. 106 ff. * Mansi, t. vii. pp. 455-474 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 643-654 ; Fuchs, B'Miotk. der Kirchenvers. Bd. iv. S. 516 ff. SIXTH SESSION, OCTOBER 25, 451. 353 its apology and panegyric, and partly from the fact that the Latin text of this allocution, which has come down to us, does not bear the character of a translation, but is more elegant than the Latin version of the other Acts of Chalcedon.^ Sec. 194. Sixth Session, October 25, 451. Peculiarly solemn was the sixth session,^ since both the Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria, with a large suite, and with all the commissioners and the senate, were present at it.^ The Emperor opened the session with a speech in the first place spoken in Latin, in which he said : " From the beginning of his reign he had had the purity of the faith peculiarly at heart. As now, through the avarice or perversity of some {avaritia vel pravis studiis quorundam), many had been seduced to error, he had summoned the present Synod, so that all error and all obscurity might be dispelled, that religion might shine forth in the power of its light, and that no one should in future venture further to maintain concerning the birth (Incarnation) of our Lord and Saviour, anything else than that wliich the apostolic preaching and the decree, in accordance therewith, of the 3 1 8 holy fathers had handed down to posterity, and which was also testified by the letter of the holy Pope Leo of Eome to Flavian. In order to strengthen the faith, but not at all to exercise violence, he had wished, after the example of Constantine, to be personally present at the Synod, so that the nations might not be still more widely separated by false opinions. His efforts were directed to this, that all, becoming one in the true doctrine, might return to the same religion and honour the true Catholic faith. Might God grant this !"* ' Tillemont, I.e. t. xv. p. 713 ; Remi Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacrds, t. xiv. p. 690 ; Schrookh, Kirchengesch. Bd. xviii. S. 491 ff. 2 The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 118-178 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 458-491. German abridgment in Fuchs, I.e. Thl. iv. S. 459 ff. ; "Walcb, I.e. S. 375 ff. ' Quesnel has thrown doubt upon the presence of the Empress, because only the Latin Acts refer to her ; but the letter of Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, No. 101 among the letters of Leo, confirms the intimation of the Latin Acts. See the edition of the Ballerini, I.e., and Mansi, t. vi. p. 175. ■■ Mansi, t. vii. p. 129 sqc^. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 463 scjii. in. 2 oo4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. All exclaimed : " Many years to the Emperor, many years to the Empress ; he is the only son of Constantine. Prosperity to Marcian, the new Constantine !" Almost the same accla- mation was repeated after the speech of the Emperor had been translated into Greek ; and then Archdeacon Aetius read, from beginning to end, the declaration concerning the faith which had been set forth in the previous session, and which was now subscribed by 355 bishops in their own names and in the names of their absent colleagues (see p. 346 ff.).* The Emperor asked whether the view of all was expressed in the formula which had been read, and the bishops answered with the exclamation : " We aU believe thus, there is one faith, one will ; we are all unanimous, and have unanimously subscribed ; we are all orthodox ! This is the faith of the fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith of the orthodox ; this faith has saved the world. Prosperity to Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David ! You are the peace of the world ! . . . Thou hast strengthened the orthodox faith ! Many years to the Empress ! You are the lights of the orthodox faith, by which peace everywhere prevails ! Marcian is the new Constantine, Palcheria the new Helena," etc. The Emperor thereupon gave thanks to Christ that unity in religion had again been restored, and threatened all, as well private men and soldiers as the clergy, with heavy punishment if they should again stir up controversies respect- ing the faith, and proposed three ordinances on the erection of convents, on the worldly affairs of the clergy and monks, and on the removal of the clergy from one church to another, the publication of which was more suitable for the Synod than for an imperial law, and which he would therefore leave to the Synod, to show his respect for it.^ The Synod received these ordinances into the number of its canons as 4, 3, and 20. Again followed acclamations, such as : " Thou art priest and Emperor together, conqueror iu war and teacher of the faith !" At the close the Emperor declared that, in honour ' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 135-169 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 466-486. ' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 170-175 ; Hardouiii, t. ii. p. 486 sqq. SEVENTH AND EIGHTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 20, 451. 355 of S. Euphemia and of the Council, he would grant the title of metropolis to the city of Chalcedon without prejudice to the dignity of Mcomedia; and again all exclaimed: "This is just; an Easter (= unity) be over the whole world; . . . the holy Trinity will protect thee; we pray dismiss us." Marcian, however, requested that they would remain three or four days longer, and, in communion with his commis- sioners, continue the proceedings, and he forbade all earlier departure.^ With the sixth session ended the principal work of the Synod of Chalcedon. What was further done was only of secondary importance.^ Sec. 195. Seventh and Eighth Sessions, October 26, 451. The occasion for the seventh session' was furnished by certain controversies respecting jurisdiction between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem. Both had in this matter appealed to the Emperor, and he had charged his com- missioners at the Synod to settle the controversy. At their request the two archbishops had had an interview, and had, in fact, discovered a mode of compromise which, without putting it upon paper, they made known to the imperial commissioners. These, at the seventh session, at which, more- over, there were again only three of them present, requested the two archbishops to bring their agreement before the Synod, so that it might be confirmed by the bishops as well as by them (the commissioners). Eesponding to this wish, Maximus of Antioch explained that "after tedious contro- versies with Juvenal, they had agreed that the see of S. Peter at Antioch should (besides its other provinces) have the two Phcenicias and Arabias, and that the see of Jerusalem should have the three Palestines under it. The Synod was requested to confirm this agreement in writing." The same was repeated 1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 178 ; Hardonin, t. ii. p. 490 sq. * Cf. the letter of Pope Pelagius ii. to the Istrian tishops in Mansi, t. ix. p. 448 ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 434 sq. ' Its Acta are in Mansi, t. yii. pp. 178-184 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 491-495 ; defective extract in Fuchs, I.e. S. 463. 356 msTOEY OF the councils. by Juvenal, and all the bishops, the papal legates at their head, confirmed the understanding. So did the imperial commis- sioners. Subsequently the matter again came under discus- sion on the 31st of October, and was confirmed anew.^ As we know, Juvenal, trusting in the friendship of Cyril, had already endeavoured, at the third CEcumenical Synod at Ephesus, to subject the provinces of Palestine, Phoenicia, and Arabia to himself. But Cyril opposed him.^ The Emperor Theodosius ii., however, by an authoritative order had assigned these provinces to the patriarchate of Jerusalem. As Antioch was by this means prejudiced and its jurisdiction diminished, it protested repeatedly against the decision, but in vain, until the compromise described was arranged at Chalcedon.' On the same 26th of October, probably in the afternoon, the eighth session was held, again in the presence of only three imperial commissioners (the same who were present at the seventh and fifth sessions).* Many bishops demanded . that the celebrated Theodoret of Cyrus, formerly the opponent of Cyril and the friend of Nestorius, should now pronounce an anathema upon Nestorius. He stepped forward and said : "I have presented a petition to the Emperor, and a paper to the Eoman legates, and wish it to be read, so that you may know how I think.'' The bishops, however, exclaimed : "We will have no reading; anathematize Nestorius at once!" Theodoret replied : " By God's grace I was brought up by orthodox parents, and received orthodox instruction, and have been orthodox in my teaching, and reject not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but every one who is not of orthodox opinions." When the bishops thereupon demanded that he should explain himself more clearly, and pronounce distinctly an anathema ^ Mansi, t. vii. p. 179 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 491 sqq. A very ancient Latin translation of the minutes of the agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem was edited by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, t. ii. p. 1223. They maintain that the text which lies at the foundation of this ancient version (see below, p. 370, note 2) is the best. Ibid. p. 1231, n. 10, and p. 1233. ^ Cf. vol. i. p. 407 f., and vol. iii. p. 77. ^Cf. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, t. iii. p. 113 sqq. ; Wiltseh, Handh. der Kirchl. Oeographie und Stalistik, 1846, Bd. i. S. 207. * Its Acts are in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 185-194 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 495-502 ; Fuchs, l.c. S. 464 f. SEVENTH AND EIGHTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 26, 451. 357 upon ISTestorius and his adherents, he answered : " In truth I say nothing, unless I know that it is pleasing to God. First of all, I assure you that with me there is no question as to a bishopric or about honour, and I am not come here for that reason, but because I have been slandered. I came to prove that I am orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches, and every one who (like Nestorius) believes in two Sons." The bishops again interrupted, crying : " Pronounce distinctly an anathema upon Nestorius ;" and Theodoret pro- ceeded : " If I have not already explained how I believe, I cannot do so," and would have begun to explain his faith. They then shouted again : " He is a heretic, a Nestorius ; out with him !" And now Theodoret declared : " Anathema to Nestorius, and to every one who does not call the holy Virgin Mary God-bearer, and who divides the one Son, the only-begotten, into two Sons. Moreover, I have subscribed the definition of faith by the Synod and the letter of Leo ; and thus I think." The imperial commissioners now took up the word, and said : " Every doubt in regard to Theodoret is now removed, for he has anathematized Nestorius in your presence, and has been (previously) received again by the holy Archbishop Leo ; it now only remains that by your judgment also he receive again his bishopric, as Leo has already assured him." All cried out : " Theodoret is worthy of the bishopric ; the Church must again receive the orthodox teacher," and the like. And when the special voting, and first the legates and patriarchs, and after them a few of the most distinguished bishops, had pro- nounced for the reinstatement of Theodoret, all the others gave their assent by acclamation, and the commissioners declared that, " accordingly, by the decree of the holy Council, Theodoret shall receive again the church of Cyrus." At the demand of the Synod, Bishops Sophronius of Constantina in Osrhoene, John of Germanicia in Syria, and Amphilochius of Sida in Pamphylia were next required to pronounce an anathema on Nestorius.^ ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 187 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 4,98 sqq. 358 HIoTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. Sec. 196. Ninth and Tenth Sessions, October 27 and 28, 451. According to the Latin Acts, a third session (the ninth general) took place on the same 26th of October; but the Greek Acts, on the contrary, transfer it to the following day, the 27th of October.' Again there were present only the three imperial commissioners whom we have already several times mentioned ; and Ibas, formerly bishop of Edessa, came forward to complain that, at the Eobber-Synod, through the intrigues of Eutyches, he had been ill-treated and, although absent, had been unjustly deposed. The Emperor had now directed him to bring his petition before the Synod, in order to prove his case. They could therefore read the judgment spoken of him by Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus at the assemblies at Berytus and Tyre (see above, p. 179 ff.). Bishop Uranius of Himeria had then, from friendship for Eutyches, had him accused by several clerics, and had brought it about that the sentence should be given by him and the two bishops named, Photius and Eustathius. Never- theless, the accusations had been discovered to be false, and he himself to be orthodox. Therefore he asked that the Synod would declare invalid all that had been done against him at Ephesus (at the Eobber-Synod, of p. 259), and would reinstate him in his bishopric and his church. His orthodoxy was attested by all the clergy of Edessa, and he was free from the alleged heresy. The papal legates recom- mended that, in accordance with his request, the Acts of the earlier proceedings against him should be read ; and those of Tyre were taken first, although (as we have already seen, p. 181) these proceedings were probably the later, and for this very reason — that they contained the later decision respecting Ibas — it was thought sufficient to read the Acts of this assembly. The accusers of Ibas, on the contrary, demanded, as we shall see, at the tenth session, that the Acts of Berytus, which were less favourable for Ibas, should also be read. From the Acts of Tyre, we see that the judges appointed to ' Walch, KetzerJmt. Bd. vi. S. 379, and after him Fuchs, I.e. S. 466, have here interchanged the Greek and Latin Acts in reference to the date. The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 194-203 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 502 sqq. NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 27 AND 28, 461. 359 consider the case of Ibas endeavoured to make peace between Ibas and his accusers, and succeeded in doing so. To this end they wished that Ibas should put forth a confession of his faith, and he did so to their full satisfaction. ' He promised publicly to anathematize Nestorius and his adherents in a sermon in his church, and declared that " he believed entirely the same as that which John of Antioch and Cyril had agreed together upon (see p. 135 &.), and assented to all that which the recent Synod at Constantinople (under Flavian) and the Ephesine (under Cyril) had decreed ; he valued the latter as highly as the Nicene, and believed that there was no difference between them." Upon this the judges (Photius and others) commended him, and requested that Ibas would pardon his accusers and love them again as sons, and that they should honour him as their father. Ibas promised on oath, as far as he was concerned, and added two other points : (a) that the revenues of his church should in future be administered, in the Antiochene manner, by clerical stewards ; and (&) that, in case one of his accusers should afterwards seem to deserve punishment, he would not himself pass judgment upon him, because he might still perhaps have a disinclination to him, but hand the matter over to the judgment of Archbishop Domnus of Antioch.^ After the reading of these older Acts, the papal legates put to Photius and Eustathius the question, whether they would still hold to their former judgment that Ibas was innocent ; and they asserted that it was so, and then the final judgment was deferred to the next session. This, the tenth session, was celebrated, according to the Greek Acts, on the 28th, according to the Latin Acts, on the 27th of October,^ and Ibas again complained of having suffered wrong. He had not only been unjustly deposed, but had been shut up in twenty prisons _or more, and had first learnt, while in prison at Antioch, that he had been deposed. He added the petition that the sentence pronounced against him should ' The Acts referring to this matter are in the minutes of the ninth session of Chalcedon, in Mansi, t. vii. p. 198 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 503 sqq. 2 Its Acts are in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 203-271 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 507-546 ; ef, Fuohs, l.c. S. 470 ff. ; Walch, I.e. S. 380. 360 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. be declared invalid. The imperial commissioners invited the bishops to express their view on this matter, and a great part, particularly the Orientals, and among them especially Patricius of Tyana, immediately exclaimed : " It is unjust to condemn any one in his absence, and we agree with the decree of Tyre, and declare Ibas to be a rightful bishop." Others exclaimed : " We oppose," and " There are accusers of Ibas at the door ; they ought to be heard." The commissioners gave order that these should be admitted, and they were the deacon Theophilus, with Euphrasius, Abraham, and Antiochus (whether laymen or clerics is not said). Theophilus requested that the Acts of Berytus should be read, and it would be seen from them that Ibas had been justly condemned. To the question of the commissioners, whether he had come forward personally as the accuser of Ibas or in the interest of orthodoxy, he answered : " To come forward as personal accuser would be dangerous for him as a deacon, and, besides, the witnesses were wanting to him for this purpose." To the further ques- tion, whether he could appeal to documents, he mentioned the minutes of Berytus and Ephesus (the Eobber-Synod), and appealed, in reference to the latter, to Thalassius and Eusebius of Ancyra. But these two former leaders of thfe Eobber-Synod could now only remember generally that many had then been deposed, but that they had taken no special active part in the matter. The commissioners asked if Ibas had then been present, and when they were forced to say he was not, the cry again broke out : " That is unjust ! " Theophilus replied : " The truth must (first) be ascertained by the Synod ; '' and Eustathius of Berytus now asserted that (at the investigation at Tyre, as is clear from what follows) three, six, and twelve witnesses had come forward, who declared that they had heard the scandalous expression of Ibas : " I do not envy Christ, that He has become God ! " When required to make a statement in accordance with truth on this subject, Photius declared that " certainly priests and monks from Mesopotamia had charged Ibas with having used that expression, but he had denied it ; and we (the judges) assumed the ofiice of mediators, and bid these priests and monks leave Tyre, as the whole city took offence NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBEE 27 AND 28, 451. 361 at that assertion. Since Ibas then declared upon oath that he had said nothing of the kind, and that the witnesses who had come forward against him were friends and inmates of the houses of his accusers (and thus not free from suspicion), we reconciled the two parties, and they again entered into com- munion with one another." ^ The secretary Constantine now read the instructions which the Emperor Theodosius ii. had imparted to his minister (the tribune and notary of the Prjetorians) Damascius, who had been appointed to conduct the business at Berytus (see above, p. 179 f.), and then the Acts of the proceedings at Berytus.^ According to these, Bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius had met at Berytus on the 1st of September 448 or 449 (see above, p. 181), in the new episcopal residence of the new church, as judges of Ibas, in presence of the imperial tribune Damascius and the deacon Eulogius of Constantinople, as the deputy of Flavian. The accused were the Bishops Ibas of Edessa, John of Theodosiople, Daniel of Carrse (a nephew of Ibas) ; as accusers (and witnesses) were present the clerics Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, Maras, Ablavius, John, Anatolius, Caiumas, and Abibus. After the reading of the imperial instructions, which had been given to Damascius, and after Eulogius had remarked that the clerics named had already brought forward their complaints against the three bishops at Constantinople, Ibas was required by the judges to relate what had taken place in the Synod held also on his account under Domnus at Antioch (see above, p. 179). He stated that in Lent the four clerics excommunicated by him, Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulogius, had gone to Antioch to complain of him. As Easter (447 or 448) was near, Domnus for the time released them from the excommunica- tion, but the decision of the dispute itself was put off to the largely-attended Synod which met after Easter at Antioch. At the same time, he had forbidden the four clerics of Edessa, under heavy penalties, again to leave Antioch until judgment should be pronounced. "When the Synod began, the complaint of the four clerics had been read, but only two of them were 1 Mansi, t. vii. pp. 203-210 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 507-510. 2 Mansi, t. vii. p. 210 sqii. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 510 sqq. 362 msTOEY OF the councils. now present ; while the other two, Samuel and Cyrus, had fled from Antioch before Ibas arrived, and had gone to Constanti- nople. At the request of the judges a passage had been read at Berytus from the Antiochene Acts, in which the two accusers who still remained asserted that their colleagues had fled from fear of the malice of Ibas ; but Domnus replied that they had certainly had nothing to fear from Ibas, as the latter had left the whole matter in his hands ; they were manifestly fugitives, and had set at nought the excommunication with which they had been threatened, and had rendered themselves liable to the greater excommunication. This fragment of the Antiochene Acts was subscribed by Domnus and ten other bishops.' At Berytus was next read the paper of the four priests of Edessa, which had been handed in on the previous day, and they were then allowed to bring forward their points of complaint. They were : 1. Although the city had collected 1500 gold pieces for the redemption of prisoners, and although 6000 or somewhat more lay with the treasurer, without the revenues which his brother drew, yet Ibas had sold the silver vessels of the Church, in weight 200 pounds, and had handed over no more than 1000 gold pieces from the sale (for the redemption of the prisoners) ; the rest he had spent for himself. 2. A valuable chalice, set with precious stones, which, eleven years before, a holy man had presented to our Church, he had not put among the other vessels of the Church, and we know not what has become of it. 3. He takes money for ordinations. 4. He wished to consecrate as bishop of Bathene the deacon Abraham, who stood in union with a sorcerer, and deposed the archdeacon who opposed it. As, however, he could not force Abraham upon them as bishop, he made him ^evoB6y(^o'i. He has besides (from him) several charms in his hands, which he ought to have given over to judgment. 5. He consecrated as priest a certain Valentius, who was held to be an adulterer and psederastian, and punished those who offered opposition. 6. He made his brother's son, Daniel, bishop of a city ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 215 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 514 sq. NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 27 ANU 28, 451. 363 (Carrse) where there are still many heathens, and where an able bishop was specially needed. Daniel, however, is an ill-regulated, luxurious young man, who, from love for a married woman, Challoa, very often resides in Antioch, often travels with her, and has improper intercourse with her. 7. All the ecclesiastical revenues, which are very great, he (Ibas) spends upon his brother and his relations. We request that he may give an account to you. 8. In the same way he acts with the estates of the Church, with the gifts in fruits, with the gold and silver crosses, and 9. With the money destined for the redemption of prisoners. 10. When the memory of the holy martyrs was celebrated, he provided only a small quantity of wine, and that bad and quite new, for the holy sacrifice, for consecration and the communion of the people, so that the servants of the Church were under the necessity of buying six pots of wine equally bad from a wineshop. Even this did not suffice, so that he (Ibas) made a sign to those who distributed the holy body {to dyiov (T&fia) to go out (from the church into the sacristy, that is, to cease with the distribution of the holy bread), because there was no more blood {rov ai/jiaTo« to? x^mmj, cf. vol. i. p. 423. ' Van Espen, I.e. p. 234 ; cf. Beveridge, I.e. i. I p. 112 ; t. iL Annotai. p. 103. 388 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. Bishop Ibas of Edessa had been charged with simony, as appears from the Acts of the tenth session (see above, p. 362), and this may have occasioned the drawing up of our canon. This inserted in the Corpiis jur. can. c. 8, C. i. 1-1. _ As the ancient monks were almost without exception lay- men, they were punished as laymen. Cf. Kober, Deposition, etc., S. 341. Can. 3. '*IIX6ev ell ttjv ajiav SvvoBov, on twv iv tw Kkripw xarei- Xejfievcov Ti,vei\apyvpiav. "flpiae Toivvv f] dyia koX fieyaXrj SvvoBo^, /iTjBeva tov \otTrov, p.rj emava)V Kal yrjptbv dirpovorjTwv, Kai tSiv TTpoacoTTwv rmv fidXicrra Trj<; eKKXTjcnaaTiKrjv Beofievcov ^or)9eia<;, Bia tov /3ai' novd^ovra<; ^(eipoToveladai,, firjre Trpea^vrepov lirjTe oiOLKOVov jMrjTe oXo)<; Tiva rSiv iv Ta> eKK\r}cna(TTiKa> Tayfj,aTi, ei fir) lBiKw<; iv eKicKr^aia ttoXco)? fj koo/mtji;, rj fiaprvpUo T] /xovatTTrjpKp o -^^eipoTovov/xevos eiriKTjpvTTOiro. Tov<; Be cltto- \i/T&)? ■^ei.poTOVOVfjievovi, aypicrev r) vwyla XvvoBo<; aKvpov e^eiv Tqv ToiavTTjv 'x^eipodeaiav, Kai fj.rjBafiov BvuacyOai, ivepyelv icj> v0pei Tov j^etpoTovrja'avTO';. " No one shall be absolutely ordained either priest or deacon, or to any other clerical order, unless he is appointed specially to the church of the city or of the village, or to a martyr's chapel or monastery. In regard to those, however, who have been absolutely ordained, the [holy] Synod decrees that such ordination shall be without effect, and that they shall nowhere be allowed to officiate, to the shame of him who ordained." It is clear that our canon forbids the so-called absolute ordinations, and requires that every cleric must at the time of his ordination be designated to a definite church. The only titulus which is here recognized is that which was later known as titulus heneficii. As various kinds of this title we find here (a) the appointment to a church in the city, (5) to a village church, (c) that to the chapel of a martyr, {d) the appointment as chaplain of a monastery. For tlie right understanding of the last point, it must be remembered that the earliest monks were in nowise clerics, but that soon the custom was intro- duced in every larger convent, of having at least one monk ordained presbyter, that he might provide for divine service in the monastery. Similar prohibitions of ordinationes absohdce were also put ^ Cf. Van Espen, Oominentariun etc., p. 238 ; Bevereg. I.e. t. i. p. 118. 392 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. forth in after times. The Corpus jur. can. inserts our canon as c. i. Dist. Ixx., and the Council of Trent renewed (Sess. xxiii. c. 16, Z^e Reform.) the prohibition in question, with express reference to the canon of the Council of Chalcedon. According to existing law, absolute ordinations, as is well known, are still illicitce, but yet validce, and even the Council of Chalcedon has not declared them to be properly invalidce, but only as without effect (by permanent suspension). Cf Kober, Suspension, S. 220, and Hergenrother, Photius etc., Bd. ii. S. 324. Can. 7. Tov'i dira^ eV Kkripcp KaTetK€yfievov iiricTKO'Tra), el fiev elev KKrjpiKol, Tot? Tcbv Kavovcov vTTOKeicOaxrav einTifi.loi,';, el he fiovd^ovTe'; rj 'KaiKol, eaToiaav clkoivcovtjtoi. " The clergy of the poorhouses, monasteries, and martyr chapels shall remain under the jurisdiction of the bishops belonging to the cities, and shall not conduct themselves in a self-willed or disobedient manner towards their own bishops. Those, however, who venture to violate this ordinance in any manner whatever, and do not submit to their bishop, if they are clerics, shall be subject to the canonical penalties, and if they are monks or laymen, they shall be excommunicated." In its first part our canon speaks only of the clergy and of their subordination to the bishop. As, however, the second part of it refers also to monks and laymen, the Greek commen- tators Balsamon and Zonaras inferred that our canon subjects not only all clerics, but all monks and laymen, to the bishop of their diocese, and knows nothing of exemptions.^ — As has already been remarked (see p. 3 9 0), Gratian has woven together our canon with a part of the fourth, as c. 10, C. xviii. q. 2. Can. 9. El Ti ISia iiricrKOTra), 7)yovv yvcofir) avTOV tov eiricTKOwov, Trap oh av TO. dficpoTepa /lepr) BovXeTai to, ttJ? Blkt)^ avyKpoTeiadeo. ' In Bevereg. I.e. t. i. p. 119 sq., t. ii. Annotat. p. 114; Van Espen, I.e. p. 240. ^ Cf. Bevereg. I.e. t. i. p. 120 sq. ; Tan Espen, I.e. p. 241. 394 HISTOKY OF, THE COUNCILS. El Se T/.? irapa ravra iroi^aet, KavovLKotdaa'av ^aiTTLaai rd ef avrav re'X,6evTa irapd rot? aipenKoi<:, Trpoadyeiv avrd ry Koivaivia TJjs Ka6oXi,K7J<: 'EKKXrjaia';' firj ^WTrTiadivra Be, firj BvvaaOai en ^airri^etv avTa Trapd rot? alpeTiKolt' fii^re fir)v avvdirreiv •7rpo<; ydfiov alpercKm rj lovBaia rj ' EXXrjvo, el fir) dpa eirayyeX- XotTO fieraridea-dai eh Tr)v opdoBo^ov irlaTiv to crvva-KTOfievov irpotToairov tc3 ap6oB6^(p. El Be rt? tovtov top opov irapa^alr) Trj<; dyLa<; XvvoBov, KavoviKM^ invoneia-do). "As it is permitted to the readers and singers, in some provinces, to marry, the holy Synod decrees that none of these shall take a heterodox wife ; but those who already have children from such unions (with heretical wives), if they have already allowed them to be baptized by heretics, must bring them to the communion of the Catholic Church. If, however, they are not yet baptized, then they must not allow them to be baptized by heretics, nor to marry heretics or Jews or heathen, unless the person who is to be united with the orthodox party promises to adopt the orthodox faith. If any one transgresses this ordinance of the holy Synod, he shall be punished according to the canons." According to the Latin translation of Dionysius ExItuus, who speaks only of the daughters of the lectors, etc., the meaning may be understood, with Christian Lupus, as being that only their daughters must not be married to heretics or Jews or heathen, but that the sons of readers may take wives who are heretics etc., in respect that men are less FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 401 easily led to fall away from the faith than women. But the Greek text makes here no distinction between sons and daughters.' — The first part of our canon is inserted by Gratian, c. 15, Dist. xxxii. Can. 15. AiaKovicraav fir] ■)(^6ipoToveicrdai jwaiKa Trpo eTcov recraapd- Kovra, Kai ravrrjv fiera a.Kpi^ov'i SoKt/jiacria<;' el he ye Se^a/ievij rfjV ^etpoOecTiav koI -^povov two. Trapa/ieivaaa t§ Xeirovpyca eavTTjv eVtSft) ydfim, vj3pi AeairoTr] @em, axravrax; Se Koi fjLovd^ovTa /J,rj e^elvai ydfiq) Trpoao/iiXetv. El Be ye eiipedelev tovto iroiovvTe^, eo'Tuxrav aKoivcuvrjToi. flpicrafiev 8e eveiv Tr)v avdevrlav tjj? eV ainoi'i (piXavOpairia'; tov kuto, TOTTOV eTricTKOTTOV. " A virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, and 1 Van Espen, I.e. p. 246 ; Bevereg. t. i. p. 129 sq. * Cf. Bevereg. I.e. t. i. p. 131, and t. ii. Annotat. p. 118. ' Cf. Van Espen, I.e. p. 246 sq. 111. 2 402 HlSTOllY OF THE COUNCILS. also a monk, shall not be allowed to marry. If they do so, they shall be excommunicated. But the bishop of the place shall have full power to show them kindness." The last part of the canon gives the bishop authority in certain circumstances not to inflict the e.KCommunication which is threatened in the first part, or again to remove it. Thus all the old Latin translators understood our text ; but Dionysius Exiguus and the Prisca added confitentibus, meaning, " if such a virgin or monk confess and repent their fault, then the bishop may be kind to them." That the marriage of a monk is invalid, as was ruled by later ecclesiastical law, our canon does not say; on the contrary, it assumes its validity,^ as also the marriages contracted by priests until the beginning of the twelfth century were regarded as valid.' Gratian has inserted our canon twice, c. 12 and 22, C. xxvii. q. 1 ; the first time, where he ascribed it falsely to the Concilium Tiburiense, in the translation of Dionysius Exiguus, the second time, under the name of the Synod of Ohalcedon, in the translation of Isidore. Can. 17. Ta<; Kaff eKaarrjv iKKXr^criav aypoiKiKai; -jrapoiKLai rj iJX^' piovi fiiveiv atrapaa-aXevTov; -jrapd rot? Kare-xovcnv avrai iTnaKoiroi^, kol /u.dXio'Ta el rpiMKOvraerrj '^povov Tavraf a^tda- TWf Sta/raTe^j^oj/Te? wKOvofiTjaav. El S^ eVro? t&v rptuKovTa irwv yeyevTjTal tii rj yivrjTat, irepl avrSiv a/j,(pta-^i]T7](7i<;, e^etvai, rot? Xiyovaiv r/Siicrjadai. irepl tovtojv Kweiv nrapa rij SvvoBo) T^9 eirap'x^tai;. El Be rt? Trapd tov ISiov aSiKolro Ix'qTpOTToXiTov irapa rw eirdp-^cp rrj^ Buoncrjaew;, rj tcS Kwyarav- Ti,i>ovTr6Xeo}<; 6p6v(p SiKa^ecr6o), xada Trpoeiprjrai,. El Se rt? eK ^acriXiKfji; efoucr/a? eKaivladr] TToXt? rj aii6i<; Kaiviadeir), Toll TToXcnKoli Kul 8rifj,oartoipaTpla'i eyKKTj/xa Kal irapa tmv e^Q) vofiwv 'TrdvTfj KeKcoKvrai,' TroXXm hrj fiaXXov ev ttj tov @eov 'EKKKricria tovto ylvecrdat aTrayopeveiv -KpoarjKei,. Ei Tcve'! TOivvv rj kXtjplkoI fj fiovd^ovTe<; evpedelev avvo^vviievoi •q pL(Tafj,€i', fiT) i^elvai, et? aXXij? TroXeo)? Td-rrecrOai SKKXrialav, aWa (TTepyeiv eKelvrjv ev § i^ "^PXV^ XsLTOvpyelv -q^iwOrjaav, eKTO<; eKiLvwv OLTivepovvra<; TovTO ryeveaOdi, InroKelcrdai toIi sk twv Kavoi/cov iTTtTifiioi^. " Convents once consecrated by the will of the bishop shall always remain convents, and the goods belonging to them shall be kept for the convent. The convents must not again become secular dwellings. Whoever allows their being again changed into such shall be subject to the canonical penalties." That convents should not be erected without the consent of the bishops, our Synod ordered in its 4th canon. It now forbids the secularization of the already existing convents, and threatens those who do this with the penalties appointed by the canons. — As, however, no older canon is known which specially treats of this kind of offence, we must suppose that the expression " canonical penalties " is identical with " ecclesiastical penalties." — In Gratian, c. 4, C. xix. q. 3. Can. 25. ^ETTuhr) Be Tti/e? tuv p.7]TpoTro\.t,Ta)v, ft)? •jrepi.rj-yT]6rjfiev, d/j,eXoviTi tS)v €yK€'^etpicr/j,evQ>v avT0i<; iroifwiav Ka\ dva^oK- Xovrat, TO,'; ■^eipoTovia'; rcov eTTia-KOTrav, eSo|e rrj dyia Suv6Ba> ei^TO? Tpi&v iitjVMV jLveaBai ra? 'xeipoTovia<; tcjv iiriaKoirav, el p.ri TTore dpa d7rapalT7]Toav (pvXaTTeadaL irapd t(S oIkovo/mo) TTj? eKKXrja la'i. "As, according to what we have heard, certain metro- politans neglect the flocks committed to them, and put off the consecrations of bishops, the Synod decrees that the consecrations of bishops must be celebrated within three months, unless an unavoidable necessity occasions the pro- longation of the time. If a metropolitan acts otherwise, he shall be subject to the canonical penalty. The revenues of FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 409 the endowed Church shall be preserved undiminished by the steward of the Church." Here, too, the expression " canonical penalty " must be taken with the same general meaning as in the former canon, since no older canon specially treats of the manner in which a metropolitan who postpones the consecration of a suffragan is to be punished. — The three months, however, within which the new consecration is to take place, are, according to the meaning of our canon, to be reckoned from the day of the vacancy. Something similar to this regulation of our Synod is that of the Council of Trent, Sess. xxiii. c. 2, De Reform., that the elected bishops shall within three months (of the papal confirmation) present themselves for consecration. If they do not, they must restore the income which they have already enjoyed ; and if they do not have themselves conse- crated within six months, they lose the bishopric. — The Council of Trent, however, threatens only those who are to be consecrated, and not also the metropolitans, because for a long time many of the former had been accustomed to put off the reception of consecration, while the metropolitans did not delay the bestowal of it. Finally, the Tridentine Council made regulations similar to those of the canon before us in reference to the income of a diocese during a vacancy, in Sess. xxiv. c. 16, i)e Reform} — In the Corpus jur. can. the ordinance of Chalcedon appears as c. 2, Dist. Ixxv. Can. 26. 'EireiBrj ev Tiaiv eKKXrja-cac;, m? 'irepir)-)(fi6r]fji,ev, hu-^a oiKo- voficov 01 eTTiaKOTTOC TO, eKKXrjcnacrTLKd -^ecpl^ovat -rrpdyuaTa, eBo^e Trdcrav eKKKTjcriav iirlcTKOTrov ej^uvaav Kau oiKOVOfiov eyeiv etc rov ISiov KKr/pov, olKovofiovvTa Ta eKKXrjcnaaTiKa Kara lyvcofir/v tov ISiov iiricTKOTrov' wtrre p-r] afiapTVfjov elvai TTjv oiKOVOfilav t^9 eKKXTjo-la^, koI eic tovtov Ta t^? eKK\r]aia<; CTKOpiri^eaOai ■jrpdyfj.ara, Kal XotBopiav rfi lepaavvr] irpoaTpi^ea-dar el 8e p,r] tovro -iroirjcrri, viroicda-dai avTOV rots 0eloi<} Kavoa-i. " As, according to what we have heard, in some churches ' Cf. Van Espen, I.e. p. 251 sq.; Bevereg. I.e. t. i. p. 141, and t. ii. Annolat. p. 123. 410 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. the bishops administer the property of the Church without stewards, the Synod decrees, that every church which has a bishop must also have a steward from its own clergy, who shall administer the property of the Church by commission from his bishop ; so that the administration of the Church may not be uncontrolled, and thereby the property of the Church exposed to waste, and the clerical character exposed to evil fame." The subject of ecclesiastical ceconomi of ancient times is fully treated in the remarks of Beveridge and Van Espen upon our canon; further, by Binterim, Thomassin, and Hergenrother.^ — The Corpus jur. can. has our canon twice, c. 21, C. xvi. q. 7, and c. 4, Dist. Ixxix. Can. 27. Tov<; apTrd^ovrav yvvaiKa'i koI eir ovoixaTi ffwoiKeaiov, rj avjjLTrparTovra'i rj (TvvaivovvTa'i Tot? dpTrd^ovaiv, (opiaev rj ayia XvvoBo<;, el /j,ev KXrjpiKol elev, eKTrlirreiv rov OLKeiov ^aOfiov, el Be XaiKol, dvadefiari^eadai avTov<;. " In regard to those who carry off women, even when it is done that they may live with (marry) them, further, in regard to those who assist those who carry them off, and approve of their action, the holy Synod decrees, that, if they are clerics, they shall lose their office, and, if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized." — -Cf. Corpus jur. can. c. 1, C. xxxvi. q. 2. Can. 28. TIavrayov Tots roiv dylcov iraTepcov opoi<; eTro/jLevoi, koI Tov dpTiai'i dvayvmadevra navova rav eKarov irevrijKovTa deo^iXeaTaTOJV eiriffKOTraiv •yvrnpi^ovTe's, to, avrd. Kal rjfie2<; opl^ofiev Kal ■\jr7i(pi^6ij,e6a Trepl twv irpeff^eiasv ttj? dyicoTaTTj'; eKKX-rjcriai; ttj? avTfjt; KcovaravTivovirokeo)';, i/ea? 'Pci>ix7)<;. Kal yap Ta> Qpovm ri]'; -Trpecr^vTepaf 'Pd)fj,r)<:, Bia TO ^aaiKeveiv ttjv ttoKiv eKeivqv, ol Trarepe^ eiKOTCo^ aTTooeocoKacTL Ta "Trpecrpeca, Kai tw avTco (tkottw Kivoviievoi * Bevereg. I.e. t. ii. Annot. p. 123 sq. ; Van Espen, I.e. p. 153; Binterim, Denk-wurdiglceiten, Bd. i. Thl. ii. S. 9-47 ; Thomassin, De nova et veteri ecel. diseipl. P. iii. lib. ii. c. 1, ed. Mog. t. viii. p. 1 sqq. ; Hergenrother, Photius, Bd. i. S. 96 f. [Cf. also art. "CEconomiis" in Dicty. o/Chr. Antiquities.] FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 411 01 eKUTov Trevrr)KovTa 6eocf>i\eaTaToi, e-TricTKOTroi to. laa Trpea^ela aTreveifj,av rw t?}? re'a? 'Pm/J>r]<; dytaTaTO} 6p6v(p, evXor^co^ Kpivavre<; dp'^ieTTiaKOTrov, -^rj^iaiidraiv avfj,(f>a>VQ)V Kara to edo<; yevofieveav, Kal eV ainov dva^epo/ievcov. " As in all things we follow the ordinances of the holy- fathers, and know the recently read canon of the 150 bishops (at the second OEcumenical Synod), so do we decree the same in regard to the privileges of the most holy Cliurch of Constantinople (= New Eome). Eightly have the fathers conceded to the see of Old Eome its privileges on account of its character as the imperial city, and moved by the same considerations the 150 bishops have awarded the like privi- leges to the most holy see of Wew Eome, judging with good reason that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and the senate (that is, where the Emperor and the senate reside), and which (in a civil respect) enjoys the same privileges as the ancient imperial city, should also in its ecclesiastical relations be exalted, and hold the second place after that.' ' According to the Greek text which goes on with ksc) StTi it remains doubt- ful whether that which follows is a decree of the second CEcumenical Synod or was first drawn up by our Council, i. e. whether xx) utn is to be connected with Ytf/.ui opl^o/LtBv, or with a^iviif^av . . . xpivetvTts. But as (a) the canon in question, the third of the second CEcumenical Council, says nothing of the dioceses of Pontus, etc., and also (6) as in that copy of it which our Council used and had read in its next (sixteenth) session nothing of this kind is contained, it is clear that the second half of our canon from xxi Sm onwards contains a new decision of our Council. Cf. Bevereg. I.e. t. ii. Annotat. p. 125. 412 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. And (we decree) that for the dioceses of Pontus, Asia (Proconsularis), and Thrace, only the metropolitans, but in those of the neighbourhoods of the dioceses named which are inhabited by barbarians, also the (ordinary) bishops, shall be consecrated from the holy see of the Church of Constantinople ; while, naturally, each metropolitan in the dioceses named shall, in union with the bishops of the eparchy, consecrate the new bishops of those dioceses, as it is ordered in the holy canons. The metropolitans of the dioceses named shall, how- ever, as has been said, be consecrated by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after their election has been first unani- mously agreed upon in the customary manner, and the election has been made known to the Bishop of Con- stantinople." Since Constantinople had been made the imperial residence and second capital of the empire by the Emperor Constantiue the Great, and had received the title of New Eome, the bishops of that city had begun to make the attempt to elevate their rank, and to obtain an equal position with the Eoman bishop. They gained a foundation for this in the principle which had become a rule with the Greeks, that the ecclesiastical rank of a bishopric should be regulated in accordance with the civil rank of its city (cf. canon 9 of the Synod of Antioch of a.d. 341, vol. ii. p. 69). This principle had in the Greek Church been carried into practice without opposition, and the Synod of Chalcedon had no hesitation in expressing it nakedly in the l7th canon, and in that which is now before us. It also evidently had the same principle as the foundation of a previous regulation (canon 12). Consequently it also says that even Old Eome had received its privileged ecclesiastical position, and the fathers had bestowed this upon it, on account of its character as chief city. The latter is evidently quite unhistorical, for if any one had been able, in the course of time, to grant for the first time its prerogatives to the Eoman see, this would have been possible only to an CEcumenical Synod, as the seei of Constantinople was able to receive its privileges only through two (Ecumenical Synods. But the first CEcumenical Council of Nicsea did not first establish the ecclesiastical rank of Eome, but simply recognized it, as its FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 413 6th canon shows (vol. i. p. 388 ff.), and as the whole of ancient Church history testifies. But the other assertion, too, that the ecclesiastical rank of a city had always been regulated by its civil rank, and must always be regulated in accordance with this, was rightly con- tested and opposed by Pope Leo the Great {Ep. 104, n. 3) : " There is a difference," he says, " between the secular and ecclesiastical order {alia tamen ratio est rerum smcula7'ium, alia divinarum), and it is the apostolical origin of a church, its being founded by an apostle, which gives it a right to a higher hierarchical rank." The apostles had certainly founded the first churches in the greatest and most distinguished cities because those natural centres of intercourse must necessarily serve as a useful substratum for the more rapid extension of Christianity, and thus it came to pass, as a matter of fact, that in ancient times the cities having civil metropolitan rank were also the ecclesiastical capitals. But the real origin of the hierarchical rank was not the civil quality of the city, but the high antiquity and the apostolic origin of its church.' This was strikingly expressed by S. Cyprian. Eome is to him the ecclesia principalis and the centre of unity, unde unitas sacerdotalis exoria est, because it is the Cathedra Petri {Ep. 52, p. 86, ed. Eig.). To the same effect the Council of Sardica says : Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si ad caput, i.e. ad Petri sedem de singulis quibusque provinciis Domini referant sacerdotes.^ The same principle is set forth by S. Augustine : Dominus fundamenta ecclesim in apostolicis sedibus collocavit, and every church must have its position from the radices apostolicarum sedium. So Pope Pelagius i. expresses the principle of Augustine, Ad Episcopos Tuscice, a. 556.^ Further, S. Augustine, in his 43d Epistle (§ 7, alias Ep. 162), speaks of the precedence of the apostolic Churches, and exclaims to Petilian : Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesicB Bomance, in qua Petrus sedit, et in qua hodie Anastasius ' [It is hardly necessary to point out that this statement would not be con- ceded by any but Roman Catholics. See Bishop Lightfoot's note in his edition of the works of S. Clement of Rome, p. 252 ff. ] ^ Ep. ad Julimm Episc. Rom. in Mansi, t. iii. p. 40 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 653 ; cf. vol. ii. p. 163 f. » Mansi, t. ix. p. 716. 414 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. sedd ; vel ecdesim Hierosolymitanoe in qua Jacobus sedit, et in qua hodie Joannes sedet ? ^ In agreement with this Pope Leo the Great, in his letter to the Emperor Marcian, says : " Anatolius of Constantinople must he satisfied to be bishop of the imperial residence city, he cannot make it an apostolic see."^ In another letter {Ep. 106) he derives the rank of Alexandria from the Evangelist Marls, that of Antioch from the Apostle Peter. In the 104th Epistle, already quoted. Pope Leo also acknowledges the other element, namely, that the ■privilegia ccclesiarum are instituta by the canones sanctorum patrum, and specially brings forward the fact that the Synod of NicEea has settled them. The effort of the bishops of Constantinople to reach a higher rank obtained its first successful result by means of the second (Ecumenical Synod (see vol. ii. p. 357 f.). This Council held itself bound to confirm in its 2d canon the privileges of the great superior metropolitans approved at Nicsea, and particularly to the Church of Alexandria the primacy in Egypt, to the Church of Antioch the primacy in the East, to the Church of Ephesus the primacy in Asia proconsular is, to the Church of C^sarea that in Pontus. In the same way this canon speaks of the diocese of Thrace, but tacite already regards Constantinople as the ecclesiastical capital of Thrace, instead of the previous metropolis, Heraclea, and in canon 3 takes the further step of giving to this new exarchal see the rank immediately after that of Eome, and thus violates the rights of precedence belonging to Alexandria and Antioch, which had been guaranteed at Mcaea. Quesnel maintains that the Eoman legates at the Council of Chalcedon had formally recognized these new prerogatives of Constantinople, namely, its rank immediately after Eome.' When, in the first session of Chalcedon, the Acts of the Eobber-Synod were read, it was found that the deceased Arch- bishop Flavian of Constantinople was there mentioned only 1 Contra litteras Petiliani, ii. u. 51, ed. Migne, t. ix. p. 300. ^ Non dedignetur (ATiatolius) regiam civitatem, quam apostolicam non potest /acere sedem'. Epist. lOi, n. 3, in the ed. of the Ballerlui, t. 1. p. 1143 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 191. ' In his Dissert, de vita etc. S. Leonis M. ad arm. 452, n. 4, in Bailer, t. ii. p. 521. FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 415 quinto loco. At this discovery the Oriental bishops exclaimed : " Why did not Flavian receive his position ? " And the papal legate Paschasinus remarked upon this: "We will, please God, recognize the present Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first (after us), but Dioscurus made Flavian the fifth." ' We concede that the words of Paschasinus seem to contain a recognition (although not express) of the 3d canon of Con- stantinople ; but, on the other hand, it is to be observed that the second apostolic legate, Lucentius, in the sixteenth session of Chalcedon, declared most definitely that the regulation on the subject by the 150 bishops at Constantinople, which eighty years before had been put forth in opposition to the Nicene decree, had not been admitted into the collection of canons (received at Eome).^ The like was maintained by Pope Leo the Great in his 106th letter to Anatolius: " That document of certain bishops (i.e. the 3d canon of the Council of the year 381) has never been brought by your predecessors to tlie knowledge of the apostolic see " (cf. vol. ii. p. 371). In another place {Up. 1 5 to Pulcheria) he says ; " To this concession (of the 150 bishops) a long course of years has given no effect," and by this he means that Eome and the West have not recognized it, for that the 3d canon of Constantinople had passed into practice in the East, the Pope was certainly not unaware. Having these important utterances in view, we cannot possibly see, in the words of Paschasinus adduced by Quesnel, a formal recognition of the od canon of Constantinople ; but we may venture to assert that the papal legate was able to concede to Anatolius of Constantinople, without difficulty, the first rank and seat (after Eome) among the voters at Chalcedon, because (a) the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscurus (as well as Juvenal of Jerusalem), was in the position of one accused ; and (6) in regard to Antioch, it was doubtful whether Maximus or Domnus was the legitimate bishop. But although Eome and the West had not acknowledged the 3d canon of the second OEcumenical Synod, the pre- cedence of the Bishop of Constantinople in the East had passed into use, and so early as 394 Nectarius of Constanti- ^ Cf. above, p. 303, and Mansi, t. vi. p. 607 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 83. " Mausi, t. vii. p. 442 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 635 sq. 416 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, nople presided, without any opposition, at a Synod, at which the Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch were present (see vol ii. p. 406). So Sisinnius of Con- stantinople presided at a Council in the year 426, at which Theodotus of Antioch was also present (see vol. ii. p. 482). But the bishops of Constantinople were not yet satisfied with the privilege conceded to them by the second Synod, but, on the contrary, had endeavoured, in the course of time, to enlarge it in various ways. The first opportunity for this was given by the circumstance that, in spite of the prohibition of Sardica (see vol. ii. pp. 135 ff., 157 f.), almost continually bishops came from all parts of the empire to Constantinople, in order to present this, or that concern, or some complaint or other, before the Emperor. Either the Emperor decided the matter himself, but generally after taking counsel with the bishop of his residence, or else he directed the parties to the bishop and his Synod (cf. above, p. 396). This was the often mentioned and specially assembled v), from the most different neighbourhoods, at which the Bishop of Constantinople presided. This Synod, among other things, not unfrequently decided controversies between bishops and metropolitans, which belonged entirely to other patriarchates, as, for example, that Synod of the year 448, at which Flavian of Constantinople punished Eutyches with anathema (see p. 189 f.). This encroachment, although not sanctioned by the canons, had yet, by the consent of the parties, become a kind of privilege or customary right. To this the following was added : The high consideration in which the bishop of the residence stood, and his influence at Court, brought it about that in important cases he was invited to Synods and the like even outside the exarchate of Thrace, when it was sought by his presence to avoid controversies which threatened in connection with the election of a new bishop, or to decide an election which had become contested, and to depose illegiti- mate or unworthy bishops. Such invitations were permitted according to the 2d canon of the second Glcumenical Council. In such cases he naturally had the presidency, and, in particular, the consecration of newly-elected bishops FIFTKENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 417 was willingly left to him, in order by that means to have a powerful assistant against any opponents that might arise.^ Even in the second year after the holding of the second GEcumenical Synod, we see how ISTectarius of Constantinople, in the year 383, pronounced the sentence in the business of a bishop in Cappadocia, who, however, belonged to the exarchate of Caesarea ; and it was to the same Nectarius that S. Ambrose applied, in order to procure the deposition of Gerontius, who had left the Church of Milan and had himself consecrated bishop of Nicomedia.^ That which was already existing in the time of S. Chrysostom was shaped more definitely by him, so that Theodoret says of him that he ruled the three dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, with twenty- eight provinces.^ In particular, he held, in the year 400, at Constantinople a crwoSo? evZrjfiovaa for the deposition of the Exarch Antonine of Ephesus, and presided in the same year over a Synod at Ephesus, which deposed six Asiatic bishops for simony, and raised Heraclides to the bishopric of Ephesus. That he also consecrated as Bishop of Ephesus that Memnon who is so famous in the history of the third (Ecumenical Synod, and also took charge of the filling up of the episcopal sees in Bithynia, we have already seen (see pp. 374, 377, 379). In this way he had practically exercised patriarchal rights over the exarchate of Asia Proconsularis and over Bithynia which lay nearer to him. That Atticus, the second successor of S. Chrysostom, procured a special imperial law, according to which he alone had power to officiate at ordinations even beyond the limits of Thrace, we learn from Socrates (vii. 28), from the occasion of the election of a bishop for the metropolitan see of Cyzicus which belonged to the exarchate of Asia. The same Church historian informs us (vii. 48) that in the. year 439, after the death of Bishop Eirmus of Ctesarea in Cappadocia, the clergy of this city petitioned Archbishop Proclus of Constantinople, the predecessor of Flavian, for the ' Tiffemont, Mimoires etc., t. xv. p. 700 sqq. ; Quesnel, Dissert, de Vita etc. S. Leonis M., ad arm. 452, n. v. sqq. ; in Bailer, t. ii. p. 521 sqq. Van Espen maintains, therefore (i.e. p. 257), that the Synod of Chaloedon accordingly- had quite right and good grounds for drawing up its 28th canon. ^ Cf. Tillemont, I.e. p. 703. ■ ' Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c- 28. j III. 2 D 418 HISTORY OF THE CO UN GILS. appointment of a new bishop, and that he then elected and consecrated Thalassius, hitherto prefect of lUyria. This is the same Thalassius whom we have so often met. So also Proclus of Constantinople consecrated Basil as Bishop of Ephesus (see above, p. 375), Both facts show that the Bishop of Constantinople had now extended his spiritual jurisdiction over the exarchates of Pontus and Asia as well. Some further facts were mentioned in the sixteenth session which followed (see below). These extensions of power on the part of the see of Constanti- nople were certainly to some extent opposed. Particularly it was made a reproach to S. Chrysostom, and it was included among the charges brought against him, that, in opposition to the canons, he had interfered with foreign dioceses. The inhabitants of Cyzicus refused to accept the bishop whom Sisinidus of Constantinople had given to them. (This bishop was the same Proclus who was afterwards Bishop of Con- stantinople, and whom we have often met, see p. 14.) — But these cases were too much isolated to avail in restraining the efforts of Constantinople, and, in particular, the present occupant of the see, Anatolius, had ventured to appoint Maximus as Bishop of Antioch, in the place of Domnus, who had been deposed at the Eobber-Synod, and thus to assume rights of supremacy over this ancient and famous patriarchal see.^ It was only from love of peace. Pope Leo the Great said {Ep. 104), that he had not quashed this illegal election. He knew quite well that Anatolius was bent upon the extension of his power, and therefore, when his legates departed for the East he charged them, in case any of the bishops, taking their ground upon the importance of their episcopal cities, should endeavour to assume new powers to themselves, that they should resist this vehemently (see above, p. 283). At Chalcedon, too, on several occasions, discontent was expressed at the pretensions of Constantinople, thus at the end of the fourth session, when the decree of Anatolius and his 0-1/1/0809 evBrjfiova-a in regard to Bishop Photius of Tyre was rescinded (see above, p. 341 f.). Moreover, in the eleventh session the bishops of the Asiatic exarchate urgently entreated, that, in ^ Cf. what P6pe Leo the Great aaid on this point, below, p. 433 ff. FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 419 future, the Bishop of Ephesus should no longer be consecrated from Constantinople (see above, p. 375); and at the close of the thirteenth session the desire of Constantinople was not complied with (see above, p. 379). Notwithstanding this, Anatolius, at the fifteenth session, urged the passing of the 28th canon with success, inasmuch as most of the Greek and Oriental bishops were practically dependent upon him, or did not venture to offer decided opposition, and also because the Emperor supported the views and the plan of the bishop of the imperial residence. From the bishops of the most distinguished sees, with the exception of Kome, Anatolius had no opposition whatever to apprehend; Alexandria and Ephesus were not occupied, Maximus of Antioch was a creature of Anatolius, and even Juvenal of Jerusalem was under obligations to him, as he had assisted him to gain the three provinces of Palestine (see p. 382). The Primate of Heraclean Thrace was absent, and was represented by Lucian of Byzia, a friend of Anatolius ; Thalassius of Caesarea, on the other hand, did not subscribe the 28th canon, and seems, in the short but unintelligible vote which he gave in the sixteenth session, to have held decidedly neither with Constantinople nor with Eome, but rather to have suggested a compromise.^ A kind of introduction or pioneer to the 28 th canon was formed by canons 9 and 17, which already ascribed extraordinary powers to the Bishop of Constantinople, which, however, find their true explanation in this, that the a-vvoSoepetv, lepoavXta iarlv. El Se alria tl^ hiKaia eKeivov<; diro t^? Trpa^ew? tjj? iiria-- /coTT?}? aTToicivei, ovBe irpea^vrepov tottov Karej(eLV 6^eiXov(rtv el Be iKTOt rtvo<; iyKXi^fiaro^ aireKiv^drjaav rov a^uo/MaTO<;, Trpo? Ti^v Trj<; eVicrKOTT^? a^iav eiravacTTpe^ovaiv. 'AvaToXiof o evka^eaTaro^ dp'^ieTriaKoiro^ KcovaTavrtvov- TToXeca enrev Ovtoi oi Xeyofievoi diro t^? iTria/co'iTiKfj'; d^ia<; eldv7} Kal (^iXdvOpwirov, mare avTol'i /xevovcriv eTrl rov oLKelov d'^rifxaTO'; ev ttj BacriXevovo'y iroXei evoocnv "Trapacr^eOrivai, d'X^pt'i &v ■)(eipoTOV7}dy 6 Ti]^ 'AXe^avBpewv ap'^ieTriaKOTTOf, odev fjievovTei iirl rov oiKelov (T'^rjfiaTO^ rj iyyvwi irape^ovaiv, el tovto avroK hvvaTcv, rj e^cofjLOaia Kara- TTKTTevOrjcrovTai. " As the bishops of Egypt have hitherto deferred subscribing the letter of the holy Archbishop Leo, not as from opposition to the Catholic faith, but because they say it is the custom to do nothing of this kind in the Egyptian diocese without the consent and order of the Archbishop (of Alexandria), and have asked for delay until the election of the future bishop of Alexandria, we hold it reasonable and in accordance with Christian love that they should be allowed to remain in their present position (that is, without any ecclesiastical penalty being suspended over them) at Constantinople, and wait until the Archbishop of Alexandria is consecrated, so as they either give pledges for their remaining, or take an oath that they will not go away." This paragraph, like the previous one, is not a proper canon, but a verbal repetition of a proposal made in the fourth session by the imperial commissioners, improved by the legate Paschasinus, and approved by the Synod.^ Moreover, this so-called canon is not found in the ancient collections, and was probably added to the twenty-eight canons in the same manner and for the same reasons as the preceding.^ Sec. 201. Sixteenth and last Session, November 1, 451. As already remarked, the 28th canon gave occasion for the holding of a new session, the sixteenth, which took place on the 1st of November 451.' The Greek manuscripts, it is true, 1 See above, p. 334, and Mansi, t. vii. p. 59 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 419. ' Cf. the above, and Bevereg. I.e. t. i. p. 148, and t. ii. Annotat. p. 125. ' The Acts are found in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 423-454 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 628- 644. German abridgment in Fuchs, BiUioth. der Kircheiivers. Bd. iv. fi. 610 ff. SIXTEENTH AND LAST SESSION, NOVEMBER 1, 451. 423 •give another date (v. Kal. Xov.), but from the minutes of the session, particularly from the words of the papal legate, it unmistakeably comes out tliat it was solemnized one day later than that (fourteenth) session respecting Bishop Sabinian of Perrha etc., after the close of which the papal legates had departed (p. 383), while the other members remained to draw up the twenty-eight canons.* In the sixteenth session the papal legates first of all asked permission to be allowed to make a statement; and after the imperial commissioners, of whom again only Anatolius, Palladius, and Vincomalus were present, gave their consent, Paschasinus spoke as follows : — "The Emperors have not merely shown anxiety for the faith, they have besides had a care that the controversies among the bishops, the schisms and offences, should cease. Yesterday, however, after your highnesses (the imperial com- missioners) and our insignificance had departed, something was decreed, which in our view is contrary to the canons and to ecclesiastical order. We request that this be now read." The commissioners immediately ordered that this should be done, and Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople remarked that it was customary in Synods that, after the principal subjects were discharged, anything else that was necessary might be discussed and established. Now, the Church of Constantinople had another subject needing to be settled, and the Eoman legates had been requested to take part in the transactions relating to it, but they had refused to do so, declaring that they had no commission for this. The imperial commissioners, on the contrary, had commanded the Synod to take the matter into their consideration. After their departure all the bishops had risen and had demanded this discussion, which had taken place, not secretly or stealthily, but in an orderly and canonical manner. The consistorial secretary, Beronicianus, then read the 28 th canon, which was subscribed by about two hundred bishops, and by some also in the name of several colleagues.^ Of the members of the Synod who had hitherto appeared in the minutes, only about one half had 1 Cf. the marginal note in Mansi, t. vii. p. 423, and also under note 6. 2 Mansi, t. vii. p. 429 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 627 sqq. 424 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. subscribed, and, in particular, the Exarch Thalassius of Csesarea was wanting, although he stood in high favour at Constanti- nople, and had been raised to the episcopate, as we know, by Proclus. Further were wanting Anastasius of Thessalonica, Eusebius of Aucyra, Peter of Corinth, Eunomius of Nicomedia, Julian of Cos, Olympius of Constantia, Onesiphorus of Iconium, and other highly distinguished metropolitans and bishops, particularly the Illyrians. After the reading was finished, the legate Lucentius gave expression to the suspicion that many bishops had been tricked or forced into subscribing the canons which had been men- tioned, and which were hitherto unknown (non conscriptis). As he speaks in the plural of canons, he shows that it was not the 28 th canon alone which was drawn up in the fifteenth session. His expressions, too, are differently given in the Greek text from those in the Latin translation, and Mansi suggests, in a marginal note, that the latter was derived from a better text. It is not quite clear what Lucentius meant by the expression non consckiptis canonibus subscribere. In the Greek text there is nothing corresponding to the non conscriptis. As soon as his expression was interpreted by Beronicianus in Greek, the bishops exclaimed : " No one was forced." But Lucentius continued : " Besides, it is clear that the ordinances of the 318 bishops at Nicsea have been set aside, and that those of the 150 have been followed, which have not been received into the number of the synodal canons (and which were put forth only eighty years ago).^ If the bishops of Constantinople have, since that time, exercised these privileges, why are they now demanded ? They have, however, not possessed them in accord- ance with the canons." Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, wished that the papal legates, if they had any instructions on this point, should communicate them, and the third of them, the presbyter Boniface, now read from a document (see above, p. 283) the words: "The decision of the holy fathers (at Nicsea) you must not allow to be violated, and you must in all ways preserve and defend my prerogative in your person. ' The words in parentheses are only in the Latin translation, which, as we h ave observed, in several places is derived from a better Greek text tljan the present. SIXTEENTH AND LAST SESSION, NOVEMBER 1, 451. 425 And if any, taking their stand on the importance of their cities, should endeavour to arrogate anything to themselves, you must resist this with all decision."^ The imperial commissioners requested both parties to bring forward the ecclesiastical laws upon which they based their position. The legate Paschasimis then read from his copy the 6th Nicene canon in connection with the 7th, in a form which departs from the genuine Greek text (vol. i. p. 388), in one point in a very remarkable manner (since it ascribes the primacy to the bishop of Eome, cf. vol. i. p. 401 f.) ; but in that part with respect to which there is here question, namely, in reference to the rights of Alexandria and Antioch, —in opposition to Constantinople, — it was quite correct. According to the synodal Acts, as we now possess them, the consistorial secretary, Constantine, next read from a Greek manuscript, which Archdeacon Aetius gave him, the same 6 th Nicene canon, and immediately afterwards the first three canons of the second (Ecumenical Synod.^ The Ballerini have, however, made it probable' that a later insertion is here before us, and that a transcriber, when he remarked the difference between the Greek text of the 6 th Nicene canon and the Latin text of the legates, had inserted the former for com- parison, and that at Chalcedon the consistorial secretary, Constantine, had read from the manuscript of Aetius only the first three canons of Constantinople, since only these could be adduced for the object of the Synod, whilst the 6th canon of Nicaea had pronounced against it, that is, against the raising of the rank of the see of Constantinople. This suggestion the Ballerini have further supported by an old Latin version of the passage relating to the sixteenth session, and have also pointed out that the Synod of Constan- tinople could hardly have been designated as SevTepa a-vvoBo<;, as it is called in the contested passages.* We add further : If the Greek text of the 6 th Nicene ^ Mansi, t. vii. p. 442 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 635 sqq. ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 443 ; Hardouin, t. li. p. 638. " In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, t. iii. p. xxxyii. sqq, ' We have already seen (vol. ii. p. 372) that at the Kobber-Synod the Nicene was designated as the iirst, and the Ephesine as iivrifx rmics, passing over that of Constantinople. 426 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. canon had been opposed at Chalcedon to the corrupt Latin text which the legates read, on purpose and in order to prove its corruption, it certainly was very remarkable that not the least remark was made on the relation of the two texts. Without indicating the slightest doubt respecting the Latin text, the imperial commissioners requested the bishops of Pontus and Asia, who had subscribed the 28th canon of Chalcedon, to make a solemn declaration whether they had done so freely, that is, whether they had voluntarily subjected them- selves to the see of Constantinople, and Diogenes of Cyzicus, Florentius of Sardis, Eomanus of Myra, Calogerus of Claudio- polis, Seleucus of Amasia, Eleutherius of Chalcedon, Peter of Gangra, Nunechius of Laodicea, Marinianus of Synnada, Pergamius of Antioch in Pisidia, Critonianus of Aphrodisias, Eusebius of Dorylteum, Antiochus of Sinope, and others asserted, each of those mentioned by name in a short speech, that they had subscribed willingly and freely. Seleucus of Amasia and Peter of Gangra, in particular, declared that three of their jjredecessors had already been ordained from Constantinople ; and Eusebius of Dorylaeum asserted, that " when he had been at Eome (see above, p. 271), he had read to the Pope the canon of Constantinople in question, and he had accepted it." — That his reference here was at least inexact there is no doubt ; for Pope Leo asserts too frequently that he had never assented to that canon, and had never received it among the approved laws of the Church. It is, however, possible, that when Eusebius read it to him he made no unfavourable remark at the moment, and the other may have misinterpreted his silence. Those bishops of Asia and Pontus who had not signed the 28th canon were next called upon to express their opinion. Eusebius of Ancyra replied, and alleged, with reference to facts, that he had never put himself forward to undertake ordina- tions, but that he had been repeatedly requested by the inhabitants of Gangra to undertake one, and that his prede- cessors, too, had ordained several bishops of Gangra. At the same time, he admitted that Proclus of Constantinople had also consecrated a bishop for Gangra, and further, that the present bishop of that city, Peter, had been ordained at Con- SIXTEENTH AND LAST SESSION, NOVEMBEU 1, 451. 427 stantinople, because he (Eusebius) had withdrawn his claim to ordain. By this he had shown that he had no wish to usurp the power of consecrating other bishops. Further, he only wished that every ordination might be gratuitous, for he had himself been obliged, on entering upon his office, to take over a great debt which had come down from the consecration of his predecessor. — On the reply of Philip, a priest of Constan- tinople, that these payments had now been done away with at Constantinople by Anatolius, Eusebius of Ancyra remarked that " Anatolius might die, and then another practice might be again introduced ;" and to a further question, added the avowal that he had himself been ordained by Proclus of Con- stantinople. He said " unfortunately," because he regretted that he had received the episcopal dignity.^ The special question, why he had not subscribed the 28th canon, he did not answer at all; but it is clear from his speech that he did not contest the right of Constantinople to confer ordination so extensively, but would not positively approve of it. Thalassius, Exarch of Pontus, spoke next, but did not explain even by one syllable why he had not subscribed the 28th canon, but spoke only the few words, that "it was best to meet with Anatolius and arrange the matter." He appa- rently meant to say that the relation of the bishops of Pontus and Asia to the see of Constantinople should be arranged by agreement. Without agreeing to this suggestion, the imperial com- missioners summed up : " From all that has been discussed and brought forward from every side, we perceive that the lirst right of all (rpo ttuvtcov to, -Trpcorela) and the chief rank of honour (/cat rrjv i^alperov Tiixriv) is to be accorded to the Archbishop of Old Rome, but that the Archbishop of New Eome must enjoy the same prerogatives of honour (jav avTwv irpea-^eitov tTj's rip-risi), and have the right to ordain the metro- politans in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, in this manner, that each of them should be either unanimously or by a plurality of votes elected by the clergy of the metropolis and the most distinguished men of the city and the bishops of the province, and should be presented to the Archbishop of ' Cf. Tillemont, t. xv. p. 284. 428 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Constantinople, so that he, if he so willed, should summon him to Constantinople and there consecrate him, or at his discretion should leave the consecration to the bishops of the eparchy. The -bishops of the common towns, however, should be consecrated by all the bishops of the eparchy, or at least by the majority of them, since the metropolitan by the old canons has a right to this, without the Archbishop of Constantinople liaving to take part in these ordinations.^ So we understand the matter. The Synod shall now say whether this is its opinion." The bishops exclaimed : " This is the right view ; so say we all ; we all so will it ; that is the right judgment which is decreed ; this shall prevail ; we pray dismiss us. Prosperity to the Emperors ! Dismiss us ; we all abide by this declaration ; we all say this." The papal legate Lucentius, on the contrary, declared : " The apostolic see has ordered that everything (at the Synod) shall be discussed in our presence. If, then, anything contrary to the canons was done yesterday in our absence, we pray your high- nesses (the commissioners) to annul it. If not, yet our protest must be entered in these Acts, so that we may know what we have to inform the apostolic bishop who presides over the whole Church, so that he may take some resolution upon the wrong done to his own see, or upon the violation of the canons." — These words were received into the minutes, and the com- missioners closed the business with the words : " What we previously proposed, the whole Synod has agreed to ;" that is, the prerogative assigned to the Church of Constantinople is, in spite of the opposition of the Eoman legate, decreed by the Synod.2 Thus ended the Council of Chalcedon, after it had lasted three weeks. What was the subsequent attitude of Eome towards it we shall see hereafter. ^ Hitherto the Archbishop of Constantinople had also consecrated ordinary bishops, who were under other metropolitans, as the example of Basilinopolis etc. (see above, p. 379) shows, and as is expressly asserted by Anatolius of Con- stantinople (see below, p. 432). The see of Constantinople had therefore to give np the smaller, in order the more securely to preserve the greater (the consecra- tion of metropolitans to so great an extent). " Mansi, t. vii. pp. 446-454 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 639-643. SYNODAL LETTER TO THE POPE. 429 Sec. 202. The Title: GEcumenical Patriarch. Pope Gregory the Great and Leo ix. refer to the fact that the Synod of Chalcedon offered Pope Leo i. the title of " (Ecumenical Patriarch," but that he, like all his successors, refused this unsuitable designation.^ This statement probably arose in the following manner. The papal legates subscribed : Vicarii aposiolici universalis ecclesicB Pripce. The Greeks trans- lated this by T^s ol/covfieviKrj^ eKKk-qaia'i iiria-KOTrov'^ = Uhiversce ecclesicB cpiscopus. Leo was further, at the third session of Chalcedon, in the superscriptions of the four memorials of the Alexandrians, Theodore, Ischyrion, Sophronius, and Athanasius (against Dioscurus), repeatedly called " (Ecumenical Arch- bishop and Patriarch of Great Eome."^ Similarly, almost a hundred years later, Pope Agapetus was entitled by the Orientals (Ecumenical Patriarch.* There is, however, no trace in the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, or in the letters of Leo, that they offered him in any of their transactions the title in question, or that he declined it. Sec. 203. Synodal Letter to the Pope. He is ashed to confirm, the Decrees. Tn the collections of the Acts of Councils there follows after the minutes of the sixteen sessions a memorial which the Council of Chalcedon presented to the Emperor Marcian. As, however, this evidently belongs to an earlier period, we have already spoken of it (see p. 351 f.). On the other hand, a letter of our Synod to Pope Leo belongs to its close, and is pre- served to us in the Greek original, and in the Latin translation of the deacon Eusticus (see p. 2 9 1).* It begins with the words ' Gregor. M. Lib. iv. Epist. 82 and 36, and Lib. yii. Epist. 30 ; Hardouin, t. Ti. p. 932. * Hardouin, t, i. p. 465 sq. ; Mansi, t. vii. p. 136. » Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 321, 325, 332, 336 ; Mansi, t. vi. pp. 1005, 1012, 1021, 1029. * Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1203 ; Mansi, t. viii. p. 895. * Mansi, t. vi. p. 147 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 655 sqq. Bailer, ed. Operum S. Leonis, t. i. p. 1087 (No. 98 in the collection of Leo's letters). A still older Latin translation of this letter, almost contemporaneous with the Synod of Chalcedon, with the subscription of about seventy bishops, is in Ballerini, I.e. ■p. 1099 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 155. 430 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. of the Psalmist in Ps. cxxv. [cxxvi.] : " Our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with joy." The reason of this joy, they said, was the confirmation of the faith, which had been preserved by Leo, and the blissful contents of which had been transmitted by him as interpreter of the voice of Peter. Him (the Pope) the bishops at Chalcedon had taken as their guide, in order to show to the sons of the Church the inheritance of the truth. His letter had been for them a spiritual, imperial banquet, and they believed they had had the heavenly Bride- groom present at it in the midst of them. As the head over the members, so had Leo by his representatives had the pre- dominance (hegemony) among them. The faithful Emperors, however, had, Trpo? evKoa-fj^iav, i.e. in order that everything might proceed in the most orderly manner, had the presidency (compare above, p. 297), and had wished that the fabric of dogmas should be renovated. The Synod then speaks of the "wild beast Dioscurus" and his crimes, particularly of his having in his madness attacked even him who was hy the Saviour appointed keeper of the divine vineyard (the Pope), and having dared to excommunicate him whose vocation it was to unite the body of the Church. The Synod had inflicted meet punishment upon him because he had not repented and appeared in answer to their exhortation. All their other business had been prosperously conducted by God's grace and through S. Euphemia, who had crowned the assembly held in her bridal chamber, and had transmitted its doctrinal decree as her own to her Bridegroom Christ by the hand of the Emperor and the Empress. Then, passing on to that which was less agreeable, the Synod said : " We also make known to thee that we have decreed something else in the interest of peace and order in Church matters, and for the confirmation of the ecclesiastical statutes, knowing that your holiness will also approve and confirm (^e^aiovp) this. We have, in fact, con- firmed the long-existing custom, by which the Bishop of Con- stantinople ordains the metropolitans of the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, not so much in order to give a prerogative to the see of Constantinople, but rather to secure the peace of the metropolitan cities, because in these at the decease of a bishop factions often broke out, as your holiness yourself SYNODAL LETTER TO THE POPE. 431 knows, and particularly for the sake of Ephesus, which caused us much trouble (by the quarrel between Stephen and Bassian, see above, p. 370 f. and p. 375 f.). We have also confirmed the canon of the Synod of the 150 fathers, by which the second rank is assigned to the see of Constantinople, immediately after thy holy and apostolic see. We have done it with con- fidence, because you have so often allowed the apostolic ray which shines by you to appear to the Church of Constan- tinople, and because you are accustomed ungrudgingly to enrich those who belong to you by allowing them participation in your own possessions. Be pleased, therefore, to embrace {irepiTTTv^aa-dai) this decree as though it were thine own, most holy and most blessed father. Thy legates have strongly opposed it, probably because they thought that this good regulation, like the declaration of the faith, should proceed from thyself. But we were of opinion that it belonged to the OEcumenical Synod to confirm its prerogatives to the imperial city in accordance with the vsrish of the Emperor, assuming that, when thou hadst heard it, thou wouldst regard it as thine own act. For all that the sons have done, which is good, conduces to the honour of the fathers. We pray thee, honour our decree also by thine assent {irapaKaXovfiev toIvvv, TLfiTjaov Kal Tat? crat? ■\}r^(j)oi<; rrjv Kpiaiv) ; and as we have assented to thy good (doctrinal) decree, so may thy loftiness accomplish that which is meet towards the sons. This will also please the Emperors, who have sanctioned thy judgment in the faith as law ; and the see of Constantinople may well receive a reward for the zeal with which it united itself with thee in the matter of religion. In order to show that we have done nothing from favour or dislike towards any one, we have brought the whole contents of what we have done to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee for confirma- tion and assent (^e/Saicocriv re Kal avyKaTdOeaiv)." This synodal letter was probably composed by Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, and the papal legates took it with them along with the synodal Acts, when, soon after the last session, they departed for Eorae.^ About a month later the Emperor Marcian and Archbishop Anatolius thought good 1 Cf. Ballerini, I.e. t. i. p. 1123, nota 4. 432 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. at the same time to address new letters to Pope Leo, and sent Bishop Lucian of Byzia and the deacon Basil with them to Eome. The two letters are numbered in the collection of Leo's Epistles 100 and 101. That of Anatolius bears no date, but in the Emperor's the 18th of December 451 is given. Anatolius explains, with abundant politeness, at the very beginning of his letter, that all that had taken place at the Synod must necessarily have been brought to the knowledge of the Pope, and that therefore he now forwarded by Bishop Lucian and deacon Basil those documents which the papal legates had not taken with them at their departure. The Pope would cer- tainly agree to the sentence which had been pronounced upon Dioscurus, whose condemnation had been the first matter of importance before the Synod. As their second work, they had endeavoured, in accordance with the will of the Emperor, by the assistance of the papal legates, and under the protec- tion of S. Euphemia, to draw up an unanimous declaration of the faith, and had, in fact, succeeded in doing so in accordance with the holy letter of the Pope, and had laid it upon the holy altar. They had, besides, had something else to care for, and it had been the wish of the Emperor and Empress, as well as of the imperial commissioners and the senate, that the see of the residence city of Constantinople should receive an increase in honour by the assent of the Synod to the canon (3) of the 150 fathers at Constantinople. This had been done in the confidence that his holiness regarded the honour of the see of Constantinople as his own, since the apostolic throne had from early times cared for the throne of Constantinople, and had ungrudgingly imparted to it of its own. As there was no doubt that his holiness and his Church possessed still higher precedence {ri^rf), the Synod willingly confirmed the canon of the 150 fathers, that the bishop of Constantinople should have the next rank after the Eoman bishop, since his city is New Eome, and they further decreed that he should have to con- secrate the metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, but not the other bishops of those parts, a decree by which the Bishop of Constantinople had lost again several rights of ordination which he had exercised for sixty or seventy years. The papal legates, not rightly understanding THE POPE EEJECTS THE 28TH CANON. 433 Leo's intention, had unfortunately protested against this decree, although it had been drawn up in accordance with the will of the Emperor, and thus had thrown all into confusion, and had wronged him (Anatolius) and his Church, while he had constantly done all for the honour of Leo and his legates. From reverence for the Pope, the Synod and himself as well had transmitted that decree (tutto?, i.e. the 28 th canon) to him for his approval and confirmation (o-ui/aweo-t? koX /3>;/3ai6Trjv), and he adjured him to give this, for the apostolic throne was the father of that of Constantinople, and so forth.^ The letter was shorter which was addressed to Pope Leo by the Emperor Marcian, also in the name of his Western colleague Valentinian iii. (in official style). He is glad that the true faith has received its expression, and this in accordance with the doctrinal letter of Leo to Flavian, and he asks the Pope to rejoice with them. He hopes that he will also give his assent to the decree in reference to the see of Constantinople.^ Sec. 204. Answer of the Pope. He rejects the 2%th Canon. Pope Leo was not the man to let himself be caught by fine words.^ In his answer to the Emperor, of the 2 2d May 452, ' Among the letters of Leo, No. 101, in Bailer, t. i. p. 1122 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 171 sqq. ' No. 100 among the letters of Leo, in Bailer. I.e. pp. 1112 and 1115 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 166 sqq. Cf. note 1 in Bailer. I.e. p. 1111, and note 1 in Mansi, I.e. p. 166. ^ That Leo rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon not from the fear that the Patriarch of Constantinople might encroach upon his own importance, but from a sense of duty to preserve the regulation of Nicaea, and the old ecclesiastical rights, is shown by the Ballerini, in opposition to Quesnel, in their edition of the works of Leo, t. ii. p. 1529. Arendt (in his monograph on Leo the Great) shows that, on the one hand, the Synod of Chalcedon had reason for elevating the importance of the see of Constantinople ; but, on the other side, that the Pope, from his point of view, had a right and even a duty to oppose this attempt. He says (S. 316-318) : " The bitter experiences of recent times had sufficiently taught how dangerous to the peace of the Church had become the predominating power which the Patriarch of Alexandria possessed in the East. The newly arisen monasticism had attained to great influence in Egypt, was almost entirely dependent upon him, and might easily, as Theophilus and Dioscurus proved, be employed by him for ambitious objects and to the detriment of the general liberty of the Church. The Synod seems now to have proceeded irom the idea that this incongruity would best be remedied by conceding prerogatives to the III. 2 E 434 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. he also expresses his joy at the happy termination of the Synod, particularly at this, that, with the exception of the heretical leaders, all the bishops had been unanimous, and h6 commends the zeal which the Emperor had displayed for this cause. But he is surprised, he says, and sorry that, after accomplishing the special object of the Synod, the newly established peace of the Church should again be invaded by see of Constantinople, such as would put it in a position to form a counterpoise to Alexandria. Besides, Anatolius, as was later shown, was not free from ambitious designs, and it might be ascribed as much to his efforts with the Emperor as to the circumstances just explained, that these prerogatives were allowed to him. From this point of view the proceedings of the Council appear not only justified, but in more than one respect perhaps necessary. But this could not be the point of view from which the Pope was obliged to judge of what had been done. In the consciousness, which was deeply and distinctly founded in Leo, that he was bound by virtue of his office to care for the welfare of the Church in general, he was obliged to find a cause and a duty for consider- ing those decrees not in their local necessity and utility, but in their relation to the whole o'f the Church, and in how far they might advantage or injure these interests and their development for the future. Thus viewed, they must appear in quite a different light. It was clear that by such a prerogative being con- ferred upon the see of Constantinople it must obtain predominance in the East, as had previously been the case with that of Alexandria ; and from the greater political importance of the Bishop of New Rome an abuse of such prerogative might inflict greater injury on the Church at large. It could not be doubted that the prerogative once obtained, from the position of circumstances, would soon extend over the whole of the East, and great danger might easily grow out of this, not only to the liberty and independence of the other greater and small ecclesiastical organisms, but to the Church in its greater divisions of East and West. The possibility of a separation had come much nearer when the leading of the East was placed in the hand of one bishop. It was therefore no selfish or jealous interest, but the care for the whole from a higher point of view, which laid upon him the duty of opposing this canon. Whatever could be said in its favour from a momentary and local utility could not be compared with that. The relation of the Pope to the Christian world imposed upon him the duty to look further, and to include the future of the Church in his cares, and especially then, when even a Council had acted only in accordance with the subordinate necessities of the moment, and had regarded the circumstances of a part more than the interest of the whole. How correct the Pope's view was, is shown, alas ! incontestably by history in the division of the Oriental Church from that of the West, which was in great measure the result of a desire for power founded upon a predominance; the origin of which is perhaps to be sought in these prerogatives now assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople. Besides, by the promulgation of this canon there were evident violations of rights brought about, particularly in reference to the jurisdiction of the metropolitans of Ephesus and Csesarea, whose inde- pendence rested upon very valid ecclesiastical decrees of earlier times." THE POPE REJECTS THE 28TH CANON. 433 ambition. Anatolius had beea right in breaking loose from the error of those who had ordained him (Dioscurus), and in passing over to the Catholic faith. Out of regard for the Emperor, he (the Pope) had from the beginning exercised not justice, but gentleness towards Anatolius, and this should have made him modest rather than proud. But even if he were a highly meritorious man, and had been appointed quite regu- larly, still his violation of the canons could not be excused, and, in truth, AnStolius did as much harm to his position as he endeavoured improperly to add to its importance. " May Constantinople," proceeds Leo, "have the honour which belongs to it, and under God's protection long enjoy thy government. But secular affairs are one thing, and the divine another (i.e. the secular and the ecclesiastical arrangements are distinct from each other, cf. above, p. 412 f.), and there is no other firm foundation but upon the Eock which the Lord laid as a foundation-stone. To the before-named (Anatolius) it ought to suffice that, with .the help of thy piety and by my consent, he has received the bishopric of so great a city. He should not esteem lightly the imperial city ; but he cannot make it an apostolic see ; nor must he hope to increase by injury done to others, for the privileges of the Churches, which are defined by the canons of the holy fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the venerable Synod of Nicsea, nmst be destroyed by no injustice and altered by no innovation. On this point I must, by the help of Christ, persistently discharge my duties, because this care (dispensatio, i.e. the guarding of the canons) is committed to me (by God), and it would involve me in blame if the regulations drawn up, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, at Nicsea (on the rank of the Churches) were violated with my consent, — be that far from me, — and if the wish of one brother (Anatolius) had more weight with me than the common good of the whole house of God. I pray there- fore . . . thy glorious Grace not to confirm the unrighteous ittempts of Anatolius, which are dangerous to Christian unity and peace, and that thou wilt wholesomely restrain his mischievous desire if he persists in it. . . . L»o what seems fitting to thy Christian and imperial piety, that the before- named bishop may obey the ordinances of the fathers, may a 436 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. have regard to peace, and not believe that it is allowed to him, in opposition to all precedents and canons, to consecrate a bishop for Antioch. Only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith, I have abstained from annulling this ordination. Henceforth let him abstain from violating the ecclesiastical rules, so that he may not cut him- self off from the Church."^ On the same day Pope Leo wrote also to the Empress Pulcheria : " It would have been best if the Synod had been contented with that which was its special object, and had added nothing which is contrary to the good result of that object (the peace of the Church). My brother and fellow- bishop Anatolius, not considering that he obtained his bishopric only through your beneficence and through the consent of my favour, has not been contented with what he has obtained, but has allowed himself to be inflamed by the desire for excessive honour, and has thought to satisfy this by extorting from several the required subscription. . . . By this means the regulations of the Nicene Synod are violated, whilst it is only by all the bishops faithfully observing these that peace can continue among the Churches. This was also represented by my legates at the Synod to those who grow up from being little, and wish to pass over from being small to be the greatest." But what does the Bishop of Constantinople wish more than he has already ? Or what will satisfy him, since the glory and the fame of so great a city do not suffice him ? It shows pride and a want of moderation when one wishes to overstep his bounds, and to violate the rights of others which have been confirmed by antiquity. In order that the importance of a single see may increase, the primacies of so many metro- politans {tot metropolUanorum primattos) must be invaded, and provinces which were at peace and regulated by the Nicene laws must be disturbed. In order to do away with the decrees of the fathers (of Nicsea), an appeal is made to the decree of some bishops (the 150 at Constantinople in 381), to which so long a coarse of years has given no effect. It must now be sixty years since this privilege was conceded to the Bishops ' Leonis Ep. 104, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1143 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 187 sqcj. ^ Byzantium was formerly only a suffragan see. THE POPE REJECTS THE 28TH CANON. 437 of Constantinople ; but whether the one or the other attempted to gain it, none succeeded. Anatolius should consider whose successor he is, and imitate Flavian in faith, in modesty, in humility. ... As for the resolution of the bishops, which is con- trary to the Nicene decree {i.e. the 28th canon of Chalcedon, and the resolution of the sixteenth session), in union with the piety of your faith I declare it to be invalid, and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter. You will, how- ever, restrain my brother Bishop Anatolius within the limits which are wholesome for him." ^ The third letter of the same date (May 22, 452) was addressed by Pope Leo to Anatolius himself, and first of all he commends him for having abandoned the error of those who had ordained him, and acceded to the Catholic faith. But the true Christian, he proceeds, must be free not only from heresy, but from craving (for that which is unlawful)', and from pride, which was the cause of the first sin. But Anatolius, although first the beginning of his pontificate, and then his consecrating a Bishop of Antioch had been irregular, had unfortunately gone so far astray that he had endeavoured to abolish the regulations of Nicaea, and thought that the fit time had come to deprive the sees of Alexandria and Antioch of their rank, and in the districts subject to Constantinople to deprive all the metro- politans of their honour. He had abused for the ends of his own ambition the holy Synod which had been assembled by the Emperor only for the extinction of heresy and for the confirmation of the faith, as if that which a number of bishops unrighteously decreed were inviolate, and as if the canons of Nicaea, which had been inspired by the Holy Ghost, could be partially abolished. Even a Synod so numerous must not compare itself with the 318 fathers at Nicaia, and still less prefer itself to them ; on the contrary, everything was invalid which had been established even by so great a Synod in con- tradiction to the Nicene Council. . . . This pride, which had misled the bishops who were assembled only for the question of the faith, partly by corruption, partly by intimidation (into passing the 28th canon), went even to the confusion of the whole Church, for which reason the papal legates had » Leonis Ep. 105, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1154 sqq.; Mansi, t. vi. p. 195 sqq. 438 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. properly entered their protest. He (the Pope) could not possibly give his consent, for the Nicene canons were valid to the end of time, and whatever was in opposition to them must without delay be annulled. Anatolius could- not appeal to the resolution which, as he said, had been drawn up by some bishops sixty years ago, for this had never been sent to the Pope, and had been invalid from the beginning. . . . The rights of the provincial primacies (pi'ovincialium jura primatuum) must not be disturbed,^ nor the metropolitans robbed of their ancient privileges,^ nor the see of Alexandria deprived of the dignity which it received on account of Mark the disciple of Peter, notwithstanding the apostasy of Dioscurus ; nor Antioch, where Peter preached, and where the name of Christian first arose, be lowered from its third rank.'' The episcopal sees were one thing, the (secular) presidents another, and each must preserve his honour inviolate. Anatolius should there- fore lay aside his ambition, apply himself to the spirit of love, and be mindful of the words (Apoc. iii. 1 1) : Tene quod hales, ne alius accipiat coronam tiiam ; for if he aspired after that which was not allowed, he would by the judgment of the Church be deprived of that which he possessed.* Finally, Leo wrote on the same day also to Bishop Julian of Cos, and blamed him for having, in a letter to the Pope, spoken in favour of the assumption of Anatolius, and recom- mended him to confirm it.^ Sec. 205. Imparial Edicts in favour of the Synod of Chalcedon, and against the Monophysites. In the meantime the Emperor Marcian, in his own name ^ That is, the exarchates of Pontus etc., must not he placed under Con- stantinople. 2 By the regulation that they must in future receive their consecration in Constantinople. ' Leo speaks accordingly of a double wrong, contained in the 28th canon : (1) that it withdraws from the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch the rank which belongs to them ; and (2) that it destroys the independence of the exarchates of Pontus etc. Compare the remarks of Quesnel on this letter, in Bailer. l.c. t. ii. p. 1491. ♦ Leonis^p. 106, in Bailer, t. i. p. 1158 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 198 sqq. ' Leonis Ep. 107, in Bailer, l.c. t. i. p. 1171 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 207. THE EMPEEOR CONFIRMS THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON. 439 and in that of his co-Emperor, on the *7th of February 452, had put forth an edict, dated from Constantinople, for the observance of the doctrinal decree of Chalcedon. Its con- tents are as follows : " That which has been so greatly and universally desired is at last accomplished. The controversy respecting orthodoxy is over, and unity of opinion is restored among the nations. The bishops, assembled in Chalcedon at m\' command from various exarchies, have taught with exact- ness in a doctrinal decree what is to be maintained in respect to religion. All unholy controversy must now cease, as he- is certainly impious and sacrilegious who, after the declaration made by so many bishops, thinks that there still remains something for his own judgment to examine. For it is evi- dently a sign of extreme folly when a man seeks for a decep- tive light in broad day. He who, after discovery has been made of the truth, still inquires after something else, seeks for falsehood. No cleric, no soldier, and generally no one, in whatever position he may be, must venture publicly to dispute concerning the faith, seeking to produce confusion, and to find pretexts for false doctrines. For it is an insult to the holy Synod to subject that which it has decreed and fundamentally established to new examinations and public disputes, since that which was recently defined concerning the Christian faith is in accordance with the doctrine of the 318 fathers and the regulation of the 150 fathers. The punishment for the trans- gressors of this law shall not be delayed, since they are not only opponents of the lawfully established faith, but also by their contentions betray the holy mysteries to Jews and heathen. If a cleric ventures openly to dispute respecting religion, he shall be struck out of the catalogue of the clergy, the soldier shall be deprived of his belt, other persons shall be removed from the residence city, and shall have suitable punishments inflicted upon them, according to the pleasure of the courts of justice," and so forth.-^ In a second edict, of the 13th of March 452, the Emperor Marcian set forth with all brevity that the Synod, in agree- ment with the declarations of faith of the Councils of Nicaea, 1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 475 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 659 ; Fuchs, Biblioth. der ^\Kirchenver8. Bd. iv. S. 526. 440 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, Constantinople, and Ephesus, had rejected the heresy of Eutyches, and had confirmed the faith. He had, by his pre- vious edict (that which has just been mentioned), confirmed this venerable Synod, and had forbidden all disputation on the faith for the future. He had, however, learnt that never- theless there were some who in their folly did not cease publicly to contend on the subject of religion before the people. They had deserved to have immediately inflicted upon them the punishments threatened ; but since God had special plea- sure in mercy, he would put off their punishment, and would again send forth a prohibition of such disputations on the sub- ject of religion. If any one should now still transgress this prohibition, he should, without further indulgence, be subjected to punishment.' In a third edict, of the 6th of July 452, the Emperor Marcian annulled the decree which his predecessor, Theodo- sius II., led astray by others, had put forth after the Eobber- Synod against Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and Theodoret of Cyrus.'* Still more important is his fourth decree, of the 28th of July 452, according to which the Eutychians as well as the Apollinarians are forbidden to have any clergy, and if they should nevertheless venture to appoint such, both those who undertook the consecration of them and those who were consecrated were to be punished with confiscation of their goods and banishment for life. Moreover, they were not allowed to hold any assemblies whatever, or to build any monasteries, or to live together in monasteries. The places in which they assembled should be confiscated if the assembly took place with the knowledge of the proprietor ; but if not, then he who had hired the building (at the request of the heretics) should be beaten and punished with confiscation of property and banishment. Further, the Eutychians should be incapable of inheriting anything left by will, or of appointing those who shared in their heresy as their heirs ; nor should they be allowed to be received into the army, except among the auxiliaries (cohortalitia) or the boundary troops. If any of them should already be in the army, or should after entering ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 478 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 662. ' Mansi, t. vii. p. 498 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 676. COEEESPONDENCE BETWEEN EOME AND CONSTANTINOPLE. 441 it fall into this error, he should be expelled, and confined to his home. Those Eutychians, moreover, who had previously been clergy of the orthodox faith, and also the monks who inhabited the stable of Eutyches, which did not deserve the name of a monastery, should be driven entirely from the soil of the Eoman Empire, as had been ordered by older laws in regard to the Manichseans. Further, the writings of the Eutychians were to be burnt, and those who composed and circulated such should be punished with confiscation of goods and banishment, and all instruction in this heresy should be most rigorously punished. Finally, all governors in the provinces, their officials, and the judges in the cities, if they should be negligent in carrying out this law, were threatened, as despisers of religion and the laws, with a penalty of ten pounds of gold.^ At the same time Eutyches and Dioscurus were condemned to banishment. The former, however, who was greatly ad- vanced in years at the outbreak of the controversies, seems to have died at this very time, whilst Dioscurus lived in banish- ment until the year 454 at Gangra in Paphlagonia. Sec. 206. Further Correspondence hetween Rome and Constanti- nvple. Leo confirms the Doctrinal Decree of Chalcedon. But with all this the Monophysite heresy was in no way extinguished ; on the contrary, in some provinces, particularly in Palestine and Egypt, as we shall see later on, it made con- siderable progress ; and as the erroneous and misleading report went abroad in the Greek Empire, about the middle or in the second half of the year 452, that Pope Leo had in his letters already mentioned (N"os. 104—108) repudiated the decrees of Chalcedon, this gave again a powerful impulse to the heresy, and encouraged various acts of violence. The Emperor Marcian therefore, in a letter of the 15th of February 453, earnestly urged upon the Pope not to delay in putting forth his confirmation {^e^aiovaOai) of the Synod of Chalcedon in a letter destined for publication in the churches, so that no one should longer doubt of his agreement, and thereby be able to 1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 502 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 675 sqq. 442 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. excuse his own perversity.^ One thing the Pope had indeed done excellently, namely, his guarding the ecclesiastical canons and tolerating no innovation ; ^ but he might also learn how his letters had been abused by some. He should therefore as soon as possible send a decree of confirmation {^e^aiovv) for the Synod of Chalcedon, so that no one might have any further doubt as to the judgment of his holiness.^ A good while before Marcian thus wrote to the Pope, he, on hearing of the advances of the Monophysites in Palestine, had, in his letter to Julian of Cos, of the 25th November 452,* expressed himself decidedly against them, and in behalf of the Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem, whom they had driven away. Somewhat later, but also before the reception of the last imperial letter, Leo had again appealed to the Emperor and the Empress Pulcheria with complaints against Auatolius, because the Bishop of Constantinople had removed from his post his Archdeacon Aetius, the zealous opponent of the Nes- torians and Eutychians, who is so well known to us, and appointed him to be priest of a cemetery, and in opposition to all the rules had ordained him at the sixth hour of a Satur- day (instead of in the night between Saturday and Sunday), and thus, under the pretext of promoting him, had exiled him, and had in his place promoted an Eutychian to be archdeacon, the deacon Andrew, whom he had himself previously deposed for heresy. At the same time Leo requests the Emperor and the Empress to regard Bishop Julian of Cos as his Nuntius at the court of Constantinople, and to be favourable to him." ' The Ballerini make on this (t. ii. p. 1182) the remark : Litterai ergo aposto- licce sedia, quihua confirmdbantur Synodi generales, legmdm erant in cccleaiia Orientia, hcecque confirmalio in omnium notitiam deducenda erat, ne quia de ea ambigena decretia Synodi reluctari posaet. Ecce ergo neceasarice confirmatimiis PontificiiK manifestieaimum teatimoninm. * Leo himself (see below, p. 444), Pope Geksius l. in his Epiat. ad Dardanoa, and also the Ballerini (t. i. p. 1188, note 3), have attributed too much value to this passage. To me it seems to be a kind of captalio benevolentice, but not an actual commendation on account of his non-recognition of the 28th canon. 'Among the letters of Leo, No. 110, in Ballerini, I.e. t. i. p. 1182; Mansi, t. vi. p. 215,. * Leonis Ep. 109, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1178 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 212. * Of Leonis Ep. 9, c. i. in Mansi, t. v. p. 1241. " Leonis Epp. Ill and 112, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1185 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 218 stiq. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN KOME AND CONSTANTINOPLE. 443 Fro'm the expulsion of Aetius and the appointment of Andrew, as well as from some other occurrences at Constan- tinople, Leo thought himself justified in concluding that Anatolius was again in some measure favouring Eutychianism, to which he had formerly adhered. He therefore wrote, on the 11th of March 453, to Julian of Cos, and requested him on this account to use double care and circumspection that no heresy might find its way into Constantinople. If he remarked anything of the kind, he should only appeal to the orthodoxy of the Emperor, and he (the Pope), whenever he was hesitat- ing or doubtful, would willingly give him directions. And if the Emperor had, at the request of the Pope, found fault with Anatolius on account of the charge brought against him,* Julian should also, on his side, show all zeal to the end that all offences might be removed, and the persecution of Aetius might cease. Subsequently, Leo speaks of the risings of the Eutychian monks in Palestine and Egypt, and requests Julian to collect all the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon into one codex, and to translate them exactly into Latin, since the copies of the Acts already in Eome, on account of the differ- ence of the language (only a few of the principal portions were as yet translated into Latin), could not be perfectly understood.^ Immediately after the despatch of these letters, the above- mentioned letter of the Emperor, in which he requested from the Pope the solemn confirmation of the Synod of Chalcedon, must have arrived in Eome, and Leo without delay sent forth a circular letter, dated March 21, 453, addressed to all the bishops who had been present at the Synod of Chalcedon,' as follows : " I doubt not, brethren, that you all know how ' The Ballerini understand the words : Et cum piissimi principes secundum obsecrationem nieam dignati fuerint, fratrem Anatolium increpare, as if it were said that the Emperor had already found fault with Anatolius, probably in consequence of the 104th letter of Leo. But I believe that Leo did not expect this blame to be imi>uted until after the reception of his 111th letter. ' Leonis Ep. 113, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1189 sqq.; Mansi, t. vi. p. 220. ' In the superscription the letter is addressed to the Synod of Chalcedon itself, which had long been dissolved ; but the context of the letter shows the real state of the case. This has been overlooked by Schrbckh in his Kirchengesch. Bd. xvii. S. 36 and 37. 444 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. willingly I have confirmed the doctrinal decree of the Synod of Chalcedon. You would have been able to learn this not only from the assent of my legates, but also from my letters to Anatolius of Constantinople, if he had brought the answer of the apostolic see to your knowledge. But that no one may doubt my approving of that which was decreed at the Synod of Chalcedon by universal consent in regard to the faith, I have directed this letter to all my brethren and fellow-bishops who were present at the Synod named, and the Emperor will, at my request, send it to you, so that you may all know that, not merely by my legates, but also by my own coniirmation of it, I have agreed with you in what was done at the Synod, but only, as must always be repeated, in regard to the subject of the faith, on account of which the General Council (generale concilium) was assembled at the command of the Emperors, in agreement with the apostolic see.^ But in regard to the regulations of the fathers of Nicsea, I admonish you that the rights of the individual churches must remain unaltered, as they were there established by the inspired fathers. Ko unlawful ambition must covet that which is not its own, and no one must increase by the diminution of others. And that which pride has obtained by enforced assent, and thinks to have confirmed by the name of a Council, is invalid, if it is in opposition to the canons of the aforesaid fathers (of NicEea). How reverentially the apostolic see maintains the rules of these fathers, and that I by God's help shall be a guardian of the Catholic faith and of the ecclesiastical canons, you may see from the letter by which I have resisted the attempts of the Bishop of Constantinople." '^ There is no doubt that Leo in this letter, on the one side, declares canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon as invalid,' and, on the other side, that he formally recognizes as oecumeni- cal this Synod itself, which was assembled as an CEcumenical Synod with his concurrence, and repeatedly called itself by this name (see pp. 265, 278, 328, and 430); but only in 1 Cf. Leonis Epp. 73 and 76, in Bailer. l.c. t. i. pp. 1019 and 1025, and above, see pp. 270, 277 ff. " Leonis Up. 114, in Bailer, l.c. t. 1. p. 1193 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 226. ' Cf. Ballerini, l.c. t. ii. p. 1485, note 1. OORRESPONDENCK BETWEEN ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE. 445 its doctrinal portion (and only the first six sessions treated of doctrine).^ This recognition by Leo is also clear from several of his subsequent letters, as from Ep. 144 to Julian of Cos, in which he says : The decrees of Chalcedon are instruente Spiritu Sando ad totius mundi salutem definita; and in Up. 145 to the succeeding Emperor, Leo, where he writes : " The Synod of Chalcedon was ex divina inspiratione frolata? In the same manner a Eoman Council, under one of his nearest successors, Felix iii., in the year 485,' reckoned our Council with the Nicene and the Ephesine (without mentioning that of Constantinople) ; and Gregory the Great placed it among those four Synods, which, as we know, he compared to the four Gospels (see vol. ii. p. .371). More- over, in the long course of the centuries there has never arisen in the Church the slightest doubt of the oecumenical character of this Sj'nod. The decree of confirmation now described was transmitted by Pope Leo to the Emperor with an accompanying letter of the same date, in which he again declares that there could have been no doubt as to his confirmation of the Synod, unless Anatolius had kept back the letter which had been addressed to him, because it rebuked his ambition. Leo then thanks the Emperor for having commended his zeal in guarding the canons (see p. 441), and experiences a double joy because Marcian, as he sees, is disposed to maintain both the Wicene faith and the rights of the Churches. The formal confirmation of the definition of the faith at Chalcedon, which the Emperor had desired, he had now despatched, and he hoped that this would remove all occasion for discord, and would bring it about that apostolic doctrine and peace would everywhere prevail.* On the same day he wrote in very nearly the same terms to the Empress Pulcheria {Ep. 116), adding: "the present rulers combine princely power with apostolic doctrine ;" and ' Baluze therefore says that with the sixth session the Synod ceases to he oecnmenical. Mansi, t. vii. p. 668, n. 40. ' In Bailer. I.e. t. i. pp. 1300 and 1301 ; Mansi, t. vi. pp. 307 and 308. » Hardouin, t. ii. p. 855 ; Mansi, t. yii. p. 1140. ' Leonis Bp. 11.5, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1199 aqq. ; Mansi, t. yi. p. 230. 44G HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. in a fourth letter of the same date, he charged his Nuntius at Constantinople, Bishop Julian of Cos, to use his influence with the Emperor, so that the papal decree confirming the Synod should be sent to all the bishops of the Empire. To the Empress Eudocia, the widow of the Emperor Theodosius li., who supported the Monophysites in Palestine, he has, he adds, at the wish of Marcian, addressed a hortatory letter ; but in the matter of the deposed Archdeacon Aetius, Julian must take no further steps lest harm should be done. Finally, he says that to Anatolius he writes no longer, since he persists in his presumption, and has induced the lUyrian bishops also to subscribe the 28 th canon.^ He also expressed his displeasure with Anatolius in his 119th letter to Archbishop Maximus of Antioch (June 11, 453), and in the letter to Proterius, the new Bishop of Alex- andria, dated March 10, 454 {Ep. 129), and had the more reason for doing so as undoubtedly Anatolius was in fault, since the papal decree confirming the Synod was not pubhcly read in its entirety in the churches of the Greek Empire, but only its first part, containing the confirmation of the doctrinal decree; while the second, the rejection of canon 28, had not been published. Leo complained of this in his 127th letter, addressed to Julian of Cos (dated January 9, 1154) ; he declared, however, two months later, in a letter to the Emperor {Ep. 128), who had interceded for Anatolius, that he would willingly restore his favour to him, if he would do justice in the matter of the canons, and cease to violate the rights of other bishops. Sec. 207. The Greeks seem to sacrifice the 2Bth Canon. Upon this Anatolius himself appealed again to the Pope in a very courteous letter, written in the month of April 454, and assured him how greatly he was pained by the interrup- tion of correspondence, and how far he was from setting himself against any order contained in Leo's letters. He had therefore restored Archdeacon Aetius and excluded Andrew from the Church. In regard to that which the Synod of Chalcedon ^ Leonis Ep. 117, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1208 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 234 sq. THE GEEEKS SEEM TO SACRIFICE THE 28TH CANON. 447 had decreed in favour of the see of Constantinople, he was not in fanlt, since he had always loved peace and humility. But the clergy of Constantinople and the ,bishops belonging to this province had demanded that decree ; hut the confirmation of it depended upon the Pope (cum et sic gestorum vis omnis et confirmatio auctoritati vestrce Beatitudinis fuerit reservata)} Pope Leo again entered into correspondence with Anatolius, wrote to him on the 29th of May 454 {Ep. 135), and blamed him for wishing to lay all the blame upon the clergy, and not also confessing his own fault. He must now lay aside the desire for privileges which would not be conceded to him, and be contented with the limits which the regulations of the fathers had appointed, and observe and maintain the decrees which the Council of Nicaea had given for the honour and confirmation of the episcopal office. — At the same time Leo wrote also to the Emperor {Ep. 136), that he would again be reconciled to Anatolius on condition that he would increase more by humility than by presumption, and would observe the canons of the fathers which had been given for the peace of the Church. Prom that time Leo continued to exchange letters with Anatolius and his successor Gennadius, but there was nothing more said between them on the subject of the 28th canon, and Leo was able and was bound to assume that, as it had not received the papal sanction, it was now given up by the Greeks.^ Not only the Synod of Chalcedon itself, but in particular Anatolius, and also the Emperor Marcian, had expressly declared that this canon required, in order to its validity, the approbation of the apostolic see (see above, p. 431). Anatolius had at last himself said this most clearly in the Latin words of his Eirenicon quoted above. In fact, the Greeks for a long time made no further appeal to this canon, and even omitted it from their collections, so that they, too, adduced only twenty-seven canons of Chalcedon (see above, p. 420). 1 The letter, with the exception of the subscription, was originally sent to Leo in Latin, and is No. 132 among those of Leo, in Bailer. I.e. t. i. p. 1261 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 277 ; see ibid. n. 1. 2 Cf. Hergenrother, Pliotius, Bd. i. S. 87 f., and Moy, Archiv etc., 1864, Heft 6, S. 471 f. 448 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. On the other hand, Anatolius and his successors practically retained the privileges conceded to their see at Chalcedon, and never gave actual effect to their courteous words and the assurances which they made to the Pope. Indeed, Bishop Acacius of Constantinople set himself with peculiar energy (472) to exercise to the utmost the extended privileges of his see. The consequence was, that several of the successors of Leo, particularly Simplicius and Felix III., also protested against this, and the latter pronounced a sentence of deposition upon Acacius. In the controversy which grew out of this, Pope Gelasius, in his letter. Ad episcopos Dardanice, expressed him- self very strongly, not only on the rights of the Eoman see, but also on the arrogated right of Constantinople, and remarked, in particular, that if the accidental and secular circumstance that the Emperor resided anywhere should make the church of that place a patriarchal church, then must Ptavenna, Milan, Sirmium, and Trier (Treves) be also patriarchates, since these cities had also long been residences.^ As, however, the bishops of Constantinople were protected and supported on this point by the Byzantine Emperors, they remained in possession of the contested prerogatives, and even began to make the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem more and more dependent upon them. The Emperor Justinian also, in his 131st Novel, c. 1, again expressly confirmed the high rank of the see of Con- stantinople, and the TruUan Synod, in its 36th canon, renewed precisely the 28th canon of Chalcedon. At last the loud protest of Eome became silent, although, as the Ballerini maintain,^ an express recognition of that canon has never been given by Rome. This must, however, be limited by the fact that at the time when the Latin Empire and a Latin patriarch was established at Constantinople, the fourth Lateran Synod, under Pope Innocent iii., a.d. 1215, in its ' Mansi, t. viii. p. 58 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 912. ^ T. ii. p. 515, note, and p. 1485, note. Apart from and before them Baronius (ad arm. 451, n. 135, and ad aim. 381, n. 35) had endeavoured to prove the invalidity of the 28th canon. The Gallican Edmund Richer endeavoured (Hist. Goncil. General, t. i. lib. 1. c. 8) to confute him ; but even the learned Le Qaien decided against the validity of this canon (Oriem Ghrktian. t. i. p. 29s(i.). SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MONOPHyslTISM. 449 5th canon, declared that the patriarch of Constantinople should take rank immediately after Eome, and before Alexandria and Antioch.^ Sec. 208. Subsequent History of Monophysitism. Completeness requires that we should briefly relate the further history of the Eutychian or Monophysite heresy, since it was most solemnly rejected at Chalcedon, but for all that was by no means practically suppressed, but, on the contrary, continued for centuries to disturb the Church, and even to some extent contended with it. The first province in which, immediately after the close of our Synod, it attained to great power was Palestine. Hither an Alexandrian monk, named Theodosius, who had been present at Chalcedon, hastened immediately and represented to the monks of Palestine that the Synod of Chalcedon had betrayed the true faith and sanctioned Nestorianism. Misled by him, almost all of the more than 10,000 monks of Palestine were ready indeed to condemn the doctrine of Eutyches, that the human nature [of Christ] was, as it were, absorbed by the divine; but they would not accept the Dyophysitism of the Synod of Chalcedon, on the ground that the confession of two natures must logically lead to the confession of two persons, and thus to Nestorianism. They persisted, therefore, strongly in the assertion of only one nature, without explaining in what manner the Godhead and the manhood could be one nature. This new tendency, which on the one side rejected Eutychi- anism, and on the other the Synod of Chalcedon, is called the Monophysite in specie, in distinction from the Eutychian. As the Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem did not respond to the demand of the monks of Palestine, that he would anathe- matize the decrees of Chalcedon, they, supported by Eudocia, the widow of Theodosius ll.,^ stirred up an insurrection, drove away Juvenal, raised the monk Theodosius, already named, to the patriarchate, even set fire, in the tumult, to some houses, and killed several of the leading Dyophysites. They acted in I Cf. vol. ii. p. 359. ^ Cf. Er- 117 of Pope Leo, and p. 445. III. 2 F 450 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. the same manner in the other cities of Palestine, and every- where deposed the legitimate bishops. The Emperor took measures to instruct and quiet the fanatical rioters, and to punish the most guilty of them, and we still possess edicts belonging to this question.^ Theodosius himself fled, in 453, to the monks of Mount Sinai ; Juvenal and the other expelled Catholic bishops were reinstated, and many of the Monophy- sites, but by no means all, were again united with the Church. The second region in which the Synod of Chalcedon was repudiated and the banner of Monophysitism raised was Egypt. Even at Chalcedon, thirteen Egyptian bishops had refused to subscribe, on the empty pretext that, since the deposition of Dioscurus, they had no patriarch, and that without his per- mission they had no right to take such an important step (see p. 333 f.). In order to appease the monks, the Emperor Marcian wrote to them and assured them that the Synod of Chalcedon had made no innovation in the faith.^ When Proterius, a very upright man, had been chosen patriarch of Alexandria, the very numerous party of Dioscurus came forward in opposition to him, and made use of the same means of riot as in Palestine. The imperial soldiers, who were to have quieted the rising, were driven by the populace into the Serapeum and burnt alive, and it was only a great military force that was able to restore order. But now two distinguished clerics, Timothy, surnamed ^lurus {aiXovpof = Cat), and Peter Mongus (/loyjo'; = Hoarse), fell away from Proterius, and brought the monks and several bishops and others to their side, pronounced an anathema on the Synod of Chalcedon, and availed themselves of the death of the Emperor Marcian (a.d. 457), in order, with the help of the populace of Alexandria, by a sudden attack, to get possession of the cathedral of the city. Timothy then had himself there immediately consecrated bishop, and then again consecrated other bishops and priests. Proterius was murdered in the baptistry, and Timothy raised to the see of Alexandria. He did not neglect, moreover, to depose the Dyophysite bishops ^ Mansi, t. vii. pp. 483, 487, 506, 510, 514, 520. ^ llansi, t. vii. pp. 482, 517 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 663 ; cf. Tillemont, t. xv. p. 774. SUBSEQUEKT HISTORY OF MONOPHYSITISII. -451 and priests in all the other cities of Egypt, and to confer their offices upon his adherents. A Synod held by him also pro- nounced an anathema on Chalcedon, Leo, and Anatolius. Both parties in Egypt, the orthodox and the Monophysite, appealed to the new Emperor, Leo i., for protection and con- firmation, while Pope Leo demanded that severity should be used towards the heretics. The Emperor then required of all the bishops of his Empire an opinion respecting the Synod of Chalcedon and Timothy iElurus ; and almost all the bishops, to the number of 1600, agreed that the decrees of Chalcedon should be maintained, and that ^lurus must be deposed.^ This was done, and ^lurus was at the same time banished to Cherson, and another Timothy, named The White and Salo- phaciolus, was raised to the see of Alexandria, and was able to preserve ecclesiastical peace there until 475. The third patriarchate of which the Monophysites got possession, after the Synod of Chalcedon, was that of Antioch. A monk of Constantinople, Peter, surnamed 6apToXa- Tpai or CorrupticolcB (i.e. worshippers of the corruptible), while those of Julian were entitled dcpdapToSoKfjrai (that is, teachers of the incorruptible) or Phantasiastse (because they could believe only in an apparent body). When, soon after this, Timothy the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria died, each of the two parties, the Phthartolatrai and Aphthartodocetee, chose a patriarch for themselves ; the former Theodosius, the latter Gaianas ; thus came into use the party names of Theodosians (the adherents of Severus) and Gaianites (the Julianists). The latter were also called by their opponents Manichaeans, because any one who regarded the body of Christ as incorruptible could only, like the Manichseans, hold a mere seeming suffering of Christ. In fact, the doctrine of the before-named Philoxenus or Xenaias, who was also an Aphthartodocete, came quite near to Docetism, since he said : " Christ was properiy subject neither to suffering nor to any 460 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. other human necessities, but had voluntarily undertaken them, by a certain condescension, in order to accomplish our salvation." The statement that the body of Christ is incor- ruptible pleased so greatly the Emperor Justinian, now enfeebled by age, and seemed to him so well adapted to the orthodox system of doctrine, that he wanted to compel the bishops of his Empire to adopt it.^ But he died in the year 565, more than eighty years old. The Phthartolatrai as well as Aphthartodocetae fell again into smaller parties, the latter into the KTiaTokdrpai and aKTiaTTjTai, since the former affirmed the question : " Was the incorruptible body of Christ created ? " while the others enthusiastically negatived it. Similarly the Phthartolatrai quarrelled over the question : " Whether, if the body is cor- ruptible, it must not be admitted that there was something which Christ did not know, as He Himself often shows in Holy Scripture ? " ^ This assertion of the defect of knowledge in Christ was first put forward by the Monophysite deacon Themistius of Alexandria, and his adherents received the name of Agnoetae {dyvorjTal) or Themistians. As the Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria and his successor Theodosius (about A.D. 537-539) opposed them and excommunicated them, since the hypothesis of ayvoeiv must logically lead to the acceptance of two natures, they henceforth formed a separate sect, which lasted until the eighth century. It further caused very evil repute to the Monophysites that the Tritheists afterwards proceeded from them.' The founder of this sect was not, as was formerly supposed, the philosopher John Philopouus, but, as is clear from the publications of Assemani,* the Monophysite John Ascusnages, the president of a school of philosophy at Constantinople in the sixth century, who in presence of the Emperor Justinian thus expressed his view : " In Christ I acknowledge only one nature, but in the Trinity I ascribe to each Person a ' Cf. Assemani, Biblioth. juris orient, t. iii. p. 294. '^ Nat. Alex. t. v. p. 483. ^ A full discussion of the Tritheists is given by Schbnfelder, Die Kbchen- gescliichte den Joh. v. Ephesus, Miiuchen, 1862, S. 267-310. * Bibl. orient, t. ii. p. 327. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MONOPHYSITISM. 461 particular nature." The Emperor banished him, the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated him ; but Philoponus and other Monophysites took his side, and developed this view further. In particular, Philoponus brought it into connection with the Aristotelian distinction of genus, species, and indi- viduum, by the proposition : " The three Persons are related to the Godhead as three individuals to their species." In this manner the Persons were certainly made to be Gods, and Tritheism was taught. A leading defender of this tendency was also the monk Athanasius, a grandson of the Empress Theodora, the consort of Justinian, who, like Philoponus, endeavoured to defend this doctrine by his writings. No less does Stephen Gobarus (about a.d. 600) belong to the cele- brated writers of the Tritheistic party.^ For the rest, nearly all the other Monophysites declared against these Tritheists, who, from their place of assembly, the Condobaudos in Constantinople, were named Condobaudites.' These, however, soon petitioned the Emperor Justin ii. (565-578) to have their controversy with the other Monophysites examined. Both parties appointed their representatives, and the decision of the question was left to the Catholic Patriarch John of Constantinople, and it was given against the Tritheists. These now began to have controversies among themselves, since Philoponus maintained in reference to the resurrection of the flesh : " The body of man passes into corruption in matter and form," whilst another leader of the Tritheists, Bishop Conon of Tarsus in Cilicia, declared the matter but not the form to be corruptible. Then arose the parties of the Cononites and the Philoponists, who applied to each other the greatest variety of nicknames which they could invent. It is probable that Philoponus also denied altogether the resur- rection of the flesh, as Photius {Biil. cod. 21) informs us. The contentions among the Monophysites, however, did not yet cease, especially as the Patriarch Damian of Alexandria, in his opposition to the Tritheists, again went close to Sabel- lianism, reduced the divine Persons almost to mere attributes, 1 An extract from his work is given by Photius, BiUioth. cod. 232 ; cf. "Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. viii. S. 877. 2 Cf. Schonfelder, I.e. S. 278 f. and 294. 462 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. and, on the other side, assigned a special virap^i'i to the divine nature (essence) which is common to the three Persons. The patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Callinico, entered the lists against him, and the adherents of the Alexandrian Patriarch received the names of Damianites and Tetradites, because they had taught the doctrine of four Gods, — the three Persons, and the higher Godhead (the divine nature) which is common to them, but which yet has a proper existence. Another controversy was kindled by Stephen Niobes, teacher of sciences (Sophist) at Alexandria, by the assertion " that the previous Monophysitism is a half measure, for if only one nature is admitted, then there could be no longer any distinc- tion between the divine and the human in Christ." Both the Alexandrian and the Antiochene patriarchs, Damian and Peter (of Callinico), declared against him ; but other distinguished Monophysites, particularly the priest Probus of Antioch and the abbot John of Syria, took his side, and thus formed the sect of the Niobites. They were expelled by the other Mono- physites, and many of them afterwards returned into the Catholic Church. The very opposition of the Niobites to the ordinaiy Mono- physites leaves us to suppose that many Monophysites, since they distinguished the divine and the human in Christ, deviated from the doctrine of the Church only in words, and that their Shibboleth, " only one nature," did not quite agree with their own views. As now, besides, on the one hand intellectual superiority, and on the other protection and advancement by the Emperors were distinctly on the side of the orthodox, imminent destruction threatened the Mono- physites under the Emperor Justinian, about the middle of the sixth century. But the indefatigable monk, Jacob Baradai {i.e. " The Bagged ") of Syria, consecrated Bishop of Edessa and general head of all the Monophysites in the East in the year 541, succeeded, by an activity carried on through thirty- three years, in rearranging and strengthening Monophysite Christianity within and without the Eoman Empire, by every- where appointing new bishops and priests for his party. In particular, he revived the Monophysite patriarchate of Antioch, which, to the present day, forms the centre of all the Mono- SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MONOPHYSITISM. 4G3 physite Churches of Syria and of many other provinces in the East. Out of gratitude to him, first the Syrian, and after- wards almost all the other Monophysites called themselves Jacobite Christians. The Monophysites have maintained their position until now — (1) In Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Pales- tine ; and all are subject to the Patriarch of Antioch (without a fixed see), and a Maphrian (a kind of primate), who is dependent upon him, for the provinces lying east from Syria. But as in earlier times, so in later, and especially in the Middle Ages, there have not been wanting divisions and controversies among these Monophysites, so that for a con- siderable time there were three Syrian patriarchates among them. At present their patriarch resides in the monastery of Zapharan, near Mardin (in the neighbourhood of Bagdad), and the Maphrian in the monastery of S. Matthew, near Mosul ; but they have not now many bishops under them.' A portion of the Jacobites united in the year 1646 with Eome, and for these Uniates the patriarchate of the Catholic Syrians was erected at Aleppo. (2) The second centre of the Monophysites is Armenia, where the Patriarch Nerses of Ashtarag is said to have anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 527, at the Synod of Devin. That this was not so will appear later on. Monophysitism, however, about that time was firmly established in that country ; and along with heresy all kinds of superstition, and even half Judaic ceremonies, found their way among the Armenians. Their patriarch bears the title of Catholicus ; but here, as in Syria, party divisions have at times produced several patriarchates. By degrees, however, they reunited, so that the Catholicus of Etshmiadsin became I'ope among them, while the other Armenian patriarchs — at Jerusalem, Sis, and Constantinople — became his suffragans. The patriarch of Constantinople has, however, in later times, succeeded in making himself again independent. Etshmiadsin, which was formerly under the Persian rule, was (in 1827), ' On Jacob Baradai and the Jacobite Church, cf. Silbernagel, Verfassimg und ge'jenwartiyer Bestand sammtticher Kirchm des Orients, Landshut, 1865, S. 253-265. 464 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. with other parts of Armenia, embodied by Paskewitsch in the Eussian Empire.^ So early as the year 1439 a portion of the Armenians, at the Synod of Florence, became again united with the Catholic Church, and these Uniates have their patriarch at Constantinople. To them belong also the Lazarists and the Mechitarists.^ (3) The third centre of the Monophysites is Egypt, where, with the name of Jacobite, they bear also that of Coptic Christians. — As under Justinian and Justin ii. they were persecuted not without violence, they gave their opponents the name of Melchites (^^9)' Royalists, or court party ; while they took the name of Copts, that is, original Egyptian Christians.^ Because they were oppressed by the Byzantine government, the Copts assisted in the conquest of Egypt by the Saracens in the year 640, and were by these reinstated in the possession of the patriarchate of Alexandria, but nevertheless, in the course of centuries, have often been forced to experience the intolerance of the Mahometans. They number now about 100,000 adherents. Their language in divine service is the old Coptic, they having, at the time of the rise of Mono- physitism, out of hatred to the Byzantines, given up the Greek, which was then in universal use. The union concluded with them also at Florence, February 4, 1442, had no effect.* (4) With the Monophysite patriarchate of Alexandria is connected also the Church of Abyssinia, which, by the very circumstance of this hierarchial union, was, in the fifth and sixth centuries, also involved in the Monophysite heresy. It is under a metropolitan or Abbuna, who is nominated by the Patriarch of Alexandria.' — From these four Monophysite centres several branch communities have extended into various provinces of Western and Central Asia, but without possessing any considerable importance. ^ On the Armenian Church, cf. Silbernagel, I.e. S. 169-201. " Cf. Silbernagel, I.e. S. 298, and Friedrich v. Hurter, Am dem Leben dea hoehw. H. Aristaces Azaria, Oeneralahts der Mechitaristen etc., Wien 1855. 3 On the Coptic Church, cf. Silbernagel, I.e. S. 228-245. * Cf. Renaudot, Hisloria Patricircharum Alexandrinorum Jacohitarum 1713, » Cf. Silbernagel, l.c. S. 246-252. INDEX Abraham, Archimandrite, friend of EutTches, 195. Abundias, papal legate, 26?, 273. Abyssinia, Monophysite, 464. Acacius, Bishop of Bercea, 23 ; his letter to the Synod of Ephesus, 84, 93 ; the Antiochenes write to him, 95 ; his testimony coneeming Cyril, 112; he.i'oins the Antiochenes, 118, 121 ; and now worts for the union with Cyril, 123, 127. Acacias, Bishop of Melitene, of Mono- physite tendencies, and opposed to Cyril, 140, 148, 183. Acacias, Patriarch of Constantinople, author of the Henoticon, 452. Acephaloi, a party of Monophysites, 454. Acoimetae, Greek monks, 291, 45s. Actors, excommtmicated as long as they continue such, 170. Administration of property for gain forbidden to the clergy, 3S8. Ado, Bishop of Tienne, 164. Aethericus, Bishop of Smyrna, 242, 247, 249, 252, 310. Aetius, bishop's notary at Constanti- nople, 212 ; archdeacon and first notary at the Synod of Chalcedon, 320, 337, 424, 425 ; is removed from his post on account of his orthodoxy, 442 ; is restored, 446. Agnoetafc, a party of Monophysites, 460. Alban's, St., Synod at, A-d. 447, 178. Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, a Ifestorian, 94 ; is opposed to the union, 123, 125, 145, 147, 148 ; deposed from his see, 152, 153. Alexandria, archbishopric of, rules all other Egyptian sees, 334. Alexandria, Synod at, A.D. 430, 28, 31. Anastasius, Emperor, a zealot for the Henoticon, 454. I ni. AnatoUns, Patriarch of Constantinople after FlaTian, 258 ; requests confir- mation from the Pope, 267 ; unites Avith the orthodox party, 270, 276, 277 ; is present at the fourth CEcu- menical Synod at Chalcedon, 297 ; special conference under him, 319, 342 ; is member of a commission, 345. Anazarbus, Synod at, A.D. 433, 148. Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, a Ifes- torian, 38, US, 123, 124, 125, 127; letter to Alexander of Hierapolis, 133 ; is invited to a Synod by Theodoret, 146 ; goes over to the union, 149. Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 457. Antidicomarianites, 169. Antioch, Patriarch of, claims rights over the island of Cyprus, 71 ; Jemsalem in the patriarchate of, 77 ; cedes somewhat to Jerusalem, 355, 382 ; the deposed Patriarch Domnus of, receives sustentatiou from church property, 370, 382. Antioch, Conciliabulum at, a.d. 432, 118 ; S)-nodat, a.d. 445, 173 ; Synod at, after Easter, A.i). 447 or 448, 178. Antiochene school, their Christology, 4 ; dissatisfied with CjttI and his anathematisms, 37, 53, '93, 97, 101, 104, 116 ; negotiations for union with Cyril, 118 ; union-creed of, accepted by Cyril, 129 ; Synod of, 133 ; union takes place, 134. (Cf. art. "Ephesus," third (Ecumenical Synod.) Aphthartodocetae, 459, 460. ApolUnarianism, opposed by the Anti- ochene school, 4 ; Monophysitism at first caOed, 182, 188, 208. Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, 2 ; his Christology, 2, 3. Apostates, monks, 170. 2 G 4G6 INDEX. Appeal, to Eome, recognized in the Greek State, practised by Eutyches, Theodoret, and others, 206, 209, 210, 216, 218, 251, 264. Aquilinus, Bishop of ByWus, is de- posed by the Robber-Synod, 259. Arauskana i.. Synod, a.d. 441, 159. Arians, their baptism is valid, 169. Aristolaus, tribune and notary, 120 ; has to advance the work of peace between Cyi-il and John of Antioch, 121, 133, 153, 154. Aries, Synod at, A.D. 443 or 452, 167. Aries and Vienna, dispute between, concerning the primacy in Gaul, 267 ; Synods to be summoned by the Bishop of Aries, 169. Armenia, Armenian monks, Mono- physite opponents of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 155 ; Monophysite centre, 463. Armentarius, Archbishop of Embrun, 157, 158. Ascusnages, John, Monophysite, presi- dent of a school of philosophy at Constantinople, 460. Aaterius, papal legate, 263. Astorga, Synod at, a.d. 446, 175. 'Atrvyx^T-e^St etc., 331, 350. Athanasius, S., his Christology, 3, 4 ; creed attributed to, 4. Athanasius of Pcrrha, 174, 257, 380. Athanasius of Thessalonica, 256. Athanasius, Monophysite monk, 461. Athanasius of Doliche, 150. Augustine, S. , is specially invited to the third (Ecumenical Synod, 41. Ban. {See ' ' Excommunication. ") Baptism, whether the dumb and those who have lost their reason may be baptized, 161, 162 ; baptism of pos- sessed persons, 162 ; children may not be baptized by heretics, 400 ; what heretical baptism is valid and which not, 169. (Cf. art. on "Ee-baptism," vol. ii. 393). Baptistery, catechumens are not to enter, 163. Baradai, Jacob, 462. Barsumas, Monophysite Archiman- drite from Syria, at the Robber- Synod, 222, 249 ; murderer of Flavian of Constantinople, 255, 336. Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, 192, 202, 203, 242 ; he recants at the Robber- Synod, 248, 263 ; his vote for Euty- ches and against Flavian, 250, 252 ; his statements at Chalcedon, 253, 306, 312 ; he is to be deposed, 314 ; is pardoned, 332. Basil, papal legate, 268, 278. Bassianus, Archbishop of Ephesus, 173, 370 ff. Benedictio pcenitenticB, 170. Benedictio viatica, 160. Benediction of deaconesses, 163. {See " Deaconesses " and " Virgins.") Bequests, pious, whoever does not make them over to the church, is to be treated as an unbeliever, 165. Berinianus, Archbishop of Pergfe, temporary president of the third (Ecumenical Synod, 98. Berytus, commission of inquiry at, 178, 359 ff. ; the Bishop of Berytus arrogates to himself metropolitan rights, 340, 342. Besani;on, Synod at, A.D. 444, 171. Bishop, consecrated to a diocese must accept the office, 373 ; many were un- justlj' consecrated against their will, 163, 173, 371, 373 ; bishops who are not able to write, 242 ; very criminal bishops, 174, 324, 325, 326, 362, 364 ; no bishop may be elected without the consent of the metro- politan, 168 ; and only consecrated by several bishops, 168 ; he must be consecrated within three months, 408 ; the Archbishops of Constanti- nople took money for dispensing . episcopal ordination, 426 ; preven- tion of uncanonical ordination, 158 ; journeys of bishops, 296 ; the bishop must be presentat Synodsand ordina- tions, 164, 169, 404 ; he may only in peculiar cases accept another bishop- ric, 372, 390 ; rules to be observed in making complaints against bishops, 165, 394, 406 ; appeal may be made from the bishop to the Synod, 165 (cf. "Appeal"); no bishop may lightly accuse a col- league, 165 ; he must first try private exhortation, 166 ; no bishop may set aside ecclesiastical divisions and have recourse to secular, 394 ; a, bishop can only be tried by twelve bishops or by the provincial Synod, he may not be degraded to the priesthood, 342, 420, 421 ; punish- ment of a bishop who consecrates an unworthy pei-son, or a slave, or any one against his will, 158, 163 ; a previously schismatic bishop may become a country bishop, 158 ; exclusion of a bishop ex caritate fratrum, 405 ; and from taking part at a Council or in an ordination, 158 ; when a bishop should with- INDEX. 467 draw from communion with his colleagues, 166 ; deposed bishops, being also in the communio lakalis, receive sustentation from the church property, 370, 376, 381, 382 ; con- spiracies against the bishop are forbidden, 404 ; no one may hold intercourse with the enemies of the bishop, 165 ; no bishop may encroach on another diocese or province, or ordain or receive clergy not his own, 161, 168, 169, 405 ; may not receive or have communion with any one who is excommunicated by his bishop, 161, 168 ; a bishop may only exceptionally have two sees, 77 ; he must have an oeconomus for the administration of the church pro- perty, 409, 410. The authority of a bishop extends over every one in his diocese, also over the monks and monasteries, 389, 390 (cf. art. " Jlonasteries ") ; bishops must 'be unmarried, and those who ate married must abstain from matri- monial intercourse {see " Celibacy"); , helpers of the bishops, 164 ; death and obsequies of a bishop, and pro- perty left by him, 158, 406, 407 ; in the fifth century the bishops num- bered several thousand, 79. Bishopric : the boundaries of a bishop- ric were regulated according to the civU districts, 398, 399, 403, 412. Bonosus, the baptism of the Bonosians is valid, 169. Britain, Synod in, A.D. 447, 178. Callinico, Peter of, 462. Candidian, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, accused of adultery, 257. Candidian, imperial commissioner at the third (Ecumenical Synod, 43, 45, 46, 77, 78. Canons and collections of canons, ancient, 383 ; the earlier canons are cited at Chalcedon, 337, 339, 372, 378, 425 ; there, too, the canons of the earlier Synods are confirmed, 385 ; all imperial decrees which are in opposition to the canons are without effect, 342. Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, writes to the third (Ecumenical Synod, 50 f. Carosus, Monophysite Archimandrite, 335. Catechumens, 163, 168, 169. Catholicus, 463. Celibacy, a person twice married or who has manied a widow cannot become one of the superior clergy. 163 ; vow of chastity must he taken, 168 ; he who is married when he is ordained may not have his wife in his house, iinless she has taken the vow of chastity, nor his grand- mother or mother, or his own daughter or niece, 168 ; no woman, no nun even, may enter the chamber of one of the superior clergy, 108. Celidonius, Bishop of Besanfon, 172. Chalcedon, (Ecumenical Synod there, A.D. 451, its previous history, 265 ff. ; the Emperor Marciau sirm- mons the -Council to Nicsea, 277 ; Pope Leo l. is opposed to the idea, 278 ff. ; sends legates with instruc- tions, 282, 283 ; the Emperor trans- fers the Synod to Chalcedon, 284 ; number and place of the sessions, 287 ; the synodal Acts and the translations of them, 288 ; the Eoman deacon Rusticus improves the old Latin translation, 291 ; edi- tions of the Acts, 293 ; the Codex encydicm, 294 ; the imperial com- raissiojiers and the papal legates, ])residency and number of those present, 295, 315, 320, 384 ; first session, 298 ; the papal legates speak only Latin, 298 ; they explain that an (Ecumenical Synod cannot be held without the consent of Rome, 298 ; Dioscurus accused, 299 ; the Acts of the Synod at Constantinople under Flavian are read, 300 ; Theodoret is introduced, 300 ; cries, 800-303, 319; the minutes of the Robber-Synod are read, 308 ; complaints against the Robber- Synod, 301 f. ; reading of the Acts of the Council under Flavian, 307 f. ; particular bishops wish to excuse their former votes, 308-311 ; further reading of Acts, 311 ; the commissioners require that the bishops should set forth their faith in writing, 315 ; second session, 315 ; no new formulary of the faith is to be drawn up, but the test given by Pope Leo must be universally received, 315, 316 ; the letter of Leo to Flavian is approved, 317, 330 f. ; several bishops have doubts about three passages in it, 317 ; these doubts are removed, 318, 331 ; in- tercession for the heads of the Rohber- Synod, 319 ; third session, 320 ; fresh complaint of Eusehius of Dorylaeum against Dioscurus, 320 ; Dioscurus is summoned, 321 ; four written complaints from Alexandria 468 INDEX. against Dioscurus, 322 ff. ; Dioscurus is deposed, 328, 329 ; fourth session, 329 ; the creed of Nicaea as well as the letters of Cyril and of Leo i. are read and approved, 330 ; the Egyptians would not declare them- selves because they had no arch- bishop, 333 f. ; the Synod should elect an archbishop of Alexandria, 334 ; Carosus, Barsuinas, and other Eutychian monks come in, 335 ; the Eutychian Archimandrite Dorotheus says, " One Person of the Trinity suifered," 338 ; case of Photius of Tyre, 340 f. ; all imperial decrees which are in opposition to the canons are without eifect, 342 ; fifth ses- sion, the declaration of faith pre- pared by a commission is read, 342 ; the legates are dissatisfied with it ; the letter of Leo i. appears to them not to have been properly respected, they threaten to go away, 343 ; new commission for drawing up a declaration of faith, 345 ; their for- mula, 346 ; the Synod approves several letters of Cyril and those of Leo I., 347, 352 ; the allocution of the Synod to the Emperor that it is not possible to stand simply by the Nicene formula, 352 ; sixth session, the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria are present, 353 ; the declaration of faith subscribed by all the bishops is read, 354 ; the Emperor proposes ordinances, 354 ; the bishops would like to depart, 355 ; the principal work of the Synod is ended, 355 ; seventh session, 355 ; the controversy respecting jurisdiction between An- tioch and Jerusalem, 355 f. ; eighth session, 356 ; Theodoret of Cyrus is brought up, 356 ; ninth and tenth sessions, case of Ibas, 358 if. ; eleventh and twelfth sessions, dis- pute between Bassianus of Ephesus and his rival. Bishop Stephen, 370 ff. ; thirteenth session, strife between Nicomedia and Nicsea on the subject of metropolitan rights, 377 ff. ; fourteenth session and its two continuations, 379 ; strife between Sabinian of Perrha and his rival. Bishop Athanasius, 379 ff. ; fifteenth session, the canons, 383 - 422 ; sixteenth session, the legates protest against what was done after their departure, that is, against the elevation of the See of Constan- tinople by the twenty-eighth canon, 410 ff. ; close of the Synod, 428 ; the Pope is asked to confirm the decrees of the Council, 429 ; Pope Leo i. rejects the twenty - eighth canon, 433, 441 f. ; the Pope confirms the doctrinal decree of the Synod, 433, 434 ; the Greeks seem to sacrifice the twenty-eighth canon, 446 ; only in the thirteenth century Rome recog- nizes Constantinople as second in rank, 448, 449 ; imperial edicts in favour of the Synod and against the Monophysites, 438. Chaldsean Christians, 156. Chalice, costly and set with precious stones, 362. Challoa, the sinner, 303, 364. Charisius, at the third CEcumenical Synod, 70. Gharitaa fratrum, exclusion from the same. (/See " Excommunication.") Children, exposed, 166. Chorepiscopus. (See "Country Bishop." Chrism : in Gaul the chrism was conferred only once, either at baptism or at confirmation, 160 ; country clergy should apply before Easter to their bishop for the chrism, 165 ; only priests, deacons, and sub-deacons may bring away the chrism, 165. (See " Confirmation.") Christology, of Nestovius, Iff., 49 ff. ; Christology of Apollinaris, 2 f. ; of Athanasius and of the Gregories, 3, 4, 9 ; of Epiphanius, 3, 9 ; Christology of the Antiochenes and of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 4 f. ; of Nestorius, 12 ff., 44; of S. Cyril of Alexandria, 17 ff., 21, 28 ff., 31 ff., 137, 138, 140 ff. ; of Eutyches, 186, 192, 198, 200 ff., 214, 215, 338 ; the doctrine of the fjLta.